question about the joint chiefs of staff question, i have made an inquiry about a particular question from one of the students, because he was concerned it was counter to our values. the young man that brought it to my attention was absolutely right it is totally objectionable. we are looking into what motivated about individual to be part of the curriculum. we are looking to make sure there is nothing like that out there, which is the injection of all against our values, and it was not sound. this is objectionable,

academically irresponsible. >> how are you to reconcile an apparent contradiction in your remarks? you said they cannot there the responsibility of fiscal reductions. on the floor today they are debating that very point. democrats are complaining about the scope of food stamps in the programs. you seem to agree with opposition, yet they are doing what you said you wanted. it can use where why you are opposed to the legislation gunman -- to the legislation? >> i have said it time and time again, and i will say it one more time. my experience does sherman of the budget committee, there is

only one way to deal with a deficit of this size. these are deficits we have never seen in the history of our country, that is to address every area of spending. everything i was a part of, everyone of those budgets focused on entitlement spending, on discretionary spending, on revenues. those are the pieces of have to be part of the effective learn -- plan to reduce the deficit, and when one decides to go against one, that is the gridlock but prevents unnecessary action.

>> would you recommend it be vetoed because it is one-sided? >> i do not think there is a chance this president is going to follow the priorities of the house is taking by basically going after these programs to provide increases in defense and deal with the defense side. it is not fair, and ultimately they will not except it either, so we are headed for further gridlock. >> this week the family spoke out, calling for a transfer and exchange to be made to taliban prisoners to get their son home. have you reconsidered -- has

there been any change over the transfer of guantanamo detainees? do you think there is a possibility of restarting talks with the taliban on confidence- building measures? >> first and foremost, our heart goes out to the family. we understand the concerns of the family, and we share concerns about him and the importance of getting him and returned, and we are doing everything possible to see that happens, but on the issue relating to guantanamo transfers, my position has not changed. i would only take those steps in accordance with the law, and at

this stage there are no decisions that have been made with regards to that. >> could you respond as a follow-up to the budget issue? the house has added some $100 million to missile defense. do you think the east coast and needs a missile defense system, or is this politically motivated, and the second question is related to the intelligence leaks related to the revelations about the under birnbaum this week -- the underwear on this week. do you think we need an investigation? was it helpful but the information came out about halt?

>> i will answer the last one and let marty speak about the first one. as a former director of the cia, i have to tell you those kinds of leaks are very harmful to the efforts of the intelligence community. our effort is to get individuals who can provide intelligence and work with us, and to be able to do that effectively, you have to protect these people and you have to protect the classification of this kind of work, and when these things take place, i cannot tell you how much they can damage our ability to be able to pursue intelligence, so i am in favor of a pharaoh investigation of this matter, and i understand the director of the dni will do

that. >> in my military budget, the program for ballistic missile defense of the homeland is adequate and sufficient to the task, and that is ground-based interceptors, so i do not see a need beyond what they have submitted. >> anyone will tell you that al qaeda in yemen is stronger. how is it they are experiencing 15 when they seem to be growing ?tronger

why is the president not calling them, and are you doing as much to find him as you did to find osama bin laden? >> yes, i have had them in my office corresponding several times. i understand their concerns, and i assure you we are doing everything in our power using our intelligence to try to locate him. i will give you one thing yet. if you go to the centcom center, there is a 4 foot by 6 foot poster of him by the podium to remind them and us every day that he remains missing in

action. >> with regards to yemen, our efforts have been for the leadership of al qaeda and those involved in trying to plan attacks in the united states. and with regards to our operation, we have been very successful in going after the leadership and those directly involved in trying to make those kinds of plans, and i think the fire but we continue to be successful with regards to these eats is anrus indication of the success we have hired. there is an organization, and the yemenis are dealing with them. i will say they do represent a

threat in yemen, and the yemenis are pursuing that entrain to make efforts to reduce their influence as well, but they are a threat. i do not think anyone underestimates that all of them represent a concern, but i do believe we are making progress at going after those specific targets of represent real threats to the united states. >> you talk about it just now times a try. but i want to make sure i did not misunderstand you. -- you are talking about it as a tribe. >> that is correct. >> how is the current situation in syria.

two suicide bombings took place in damascus. you have any indication if hawkeye the region i-- if al qaeda could be involved. >> the situation in syria who remains of great concern. kofi annan has indicated concern about whether parties are abiding by the cease-fire. we continue to do urge him to step down. there must legitimacy

with a huge number of deaths. again, we are working wythes the international community to try to do what we turn to implement necessary political reforms be . they have lost their and return syria to the syrian people. this is not easy, but we can continue to put pressure on syria to do the right thing here. we do know there have been extremist elements. i am not tying those together. there will be violent, extremist organizations trying to take invented it.

>> today my turkish counterpart is in the building. senator kerry was talking about creating no-fly zones and rebels. have any of your positions changed? the plan does not appear to be working. why should the u.s. need more than diplomacy? >> the most effective way to deal with the situation in syria is not unilaterally, but working with our international parties to bring as much pressure as we can diplomatically, economically to try to get syria to do the right thing.

that is we believe the most effective way to address the situation you're good -- the situation. as far as what we do beyond that, we continue to make all kinds of plans with regard to personal approaches in syria. with regards to the u.s. are asking us to respond, we are happy to do that. >> your turkish counterparts have spoken about this. comexpect those ideas to up? >> absolutely. each area has its own interest. there are 400,000 refugees in damascus, so that is a concern

an individual country may have that may not be ours, but it is important to understand the complexity of the situation. good >> if i may follow-up, can i confirm there is an investigation with the individual lecturer currently in place? does it seem surprising that an officer can speak regarding target population, yet it took and he spokeme out commo several times? >> there is an investigation ongoing. >> the individual is not in a teaching status. you are asking me am i surprised ?ome o i am surprised and thankful the

young man spoke oup. >> should we understand this is not being solved in a more -- anymore? >> that is correct. >> you have said we do not have any indication of that level of exposure, but what kind of assessment you have on all kinda -- al qaeda activity in syria. the you have any indication of how they it is, and is that a concern for you? >> it is a concern for us, and we do have indication of a presence in stereo, but we do not have very good intelligence as to what their activities are,

and that is the reason we cannot indicate what they are or are not doing, but there are a concern, and we need to continue to do everything we can to determine their influence. good >> president obama recently gave his personal opinion on game marriage -- game marriage -- gay marriage? should military personnel be able to get married on military bases in those states where it is is legal? >> have a secretary of defense i am responsible for enforcing the law and giving the best advice for the president of the united states. we arere two laows

enforcing. one is the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell". we just got a report that indicates that is going very well and pursuant of all the planning that was done before that went into a fight. oris not impacting moroale unit cohesion or readiness, so because it was prepared who, as a result of about the effective planning, this is going well, and my view is the military has moved beyond it. it has become part and parcel with what they have been accepted in the military. the other lot is the defense of and that does have

some impact with regards to the benefit provided same-sex couples, so we continue to review the benefits, and until it is either rejected or change, that is the law we abide by. good bikes i've followed the rule of law that governs it. when asked for my military and fight, and rigid military advice -- when asked for military advice, i form it in private. good >> with the idea that everybody is treated equally, does it concern you get some service members are allowed to get married on military bases and others do not?

>> this is under review. there are three bins. one is self-declared, so a young man or woman can declare who is going to get insurance benefits, and the other is policies. those are under review, and then there is the law. we do not controlled by. those are very clear to. >> it is very clear that state's law controls in that situation, so where state law provides, that kind of marriage can take place, and if the law prohibits if it cannot take place on a military base. >> have you discovered any

negative impact as a result of an appeal of "don't ask, don't tell", and if not, what was everyone so afraid of all these years? >> i have not found any effects, and we did not know. we were given a year to educate ourselves, to collaborate, to build a sense of trust, and given that time, i think it worked out well. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the house of representatives passed a bill to replace automatic cuts to defense spending with different cuts. automatic cuts are in the sequester, part of the deal last

year to cut more than one trillion dollars to offset the debt ceiling. when members failed to agree, the sequester went into affect, cutting $98 billion from social programs unless congress passed other cuts. this is two and a half hours. >> i would like to remind how we got here, what is going on. when the president was requesting an increase in the debt limit, he wanted a blank check. just increase the debt limit. happen, he asked for a b tax increase. that didn't occur. and when it recurd out of tha was the budget control act. you got to cut at least $1 worth of spending for every dollar of debt increase that occurs.

thus they passed no spending cuts. half of it were approximately caps on discretionary spending netting about $1 trillion in savings. the other half, $1.2 trillion, was these select committee, people call this the super committee, that committee failed to produce the result and as a result of that a sequester occurs. . and the sequester, according to people on a bipartisan basis, is not good government. the sequester, according to the secretary of defense, the president himself, would hollow out our military when it kicks in on january 2 next year. the sequester will take nondefense discretionary spending down 8% and defense down 10%. we believe the purpose of the sequester was to replace the fact that congress isn't governing. well, let's have congress govern. that's why we're doing this. and what we're doing is we're bringing abill to the floor to cut 405% of the spending cuts

that are in the sequester in the first year. a net deficit reduction of $242.8 billion to set aside to sequester on discretionary for one year of $78 billion. we think that's a good tradeoff. mo to the point, we need to get in thhabit of doing reconciliation. because 61% of the federal budget is off limits. it's auto pilot. it's not touched. congress doesn't deal with it. and so we should look at this part of our government that is not being dealt with, the last time we used reconciliation for the intend purpose, to cut spending, cut deficits, was 2005. and so rather than just having annual discretionary spending bouts an debates, we should look at the other parts of government which are on auto pilot and take a look at what we're doing. we basically are doing five things. we're stopping the abuse by ensuring individuals are actually eligible for the taxpayer benefits they receive.

novel idea, inow. we're eliminating government slush funds to stop bailouts. we're controlling runaway, unchecked spending. we're putting restraints on government spending by bureaucracies and we're getting rid of duplicative spending. i can go through each program and we'll do this in this debate. but what we're simply saying is, people should actually be eligible for the benefits that they receive. whether it's a tax credit, whether it's a snap benefit, whatever it is. and when we take a look at why we're cutting spending, we're doing this with the guise of the fact that we have a spending-driven debt crisis on the horizon. if tes go back to where they've been for the last 40 years which is what they're projected to do, there's no way you can fix this problem by raising taxes. we have a spending-driven debt crisis and the debt crisis is

one in which we have a tidal wave of debt coming to this country. just like europe is experiencing. and if we don't get our spending under control and we don't get our deficit under control, the people who need government the most, the poor, the elderly, they're the ones who get hurt the first and the worst. we need to get spending and therefore deficits under control to prevent a debt crisis. that's what this does. it's a down payment. and instead of saving hundreds of billions of dollars like this bill does, we need to get into the practice of actually saving trillions of dollars which is what our budget does, in order to prevent a debt crisis from ruining the american dream for americans. with that, mr. speaker, i will reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you very much, mr. speaker. there's agreement here on two things. one, we need to reduce our long-term deficits. the question is not whether we need to do that, but how. second, we agree that the

automatic indiscriminant meat axe cuts scheduled to begin next january are the wrong way to reduce the deficit. we need a responsible alternative. now, the house democrats put forward a budget as did the president that deals with this issue over 10 years in a balanced way. building on the more than $1 trillion of cuts we already made on a bipartisan basis last august and including additional cuts but also cutting tax loopholes that benefit special interests and asking people who make more than $1 million per year to help a little bit more toward deficit reduction. that is the kind of bipartisan approach that's been recommended by bipartisan groups like simpson-bowles. unfortunately the republican approach to the budget and now to the sequester issue takes this lopsided approach. now, let's remember, 98% of our

house republican colleagues, while they come down here and talk about how we have this big deficit and debt problem, they have signed a pledge that says, we're not going to ask for one penny of additional contribution from pthan $1 million a year to help reduce our deficit. not one penny. we won't take one penny of taxpayer subsidies away from the big oil companies to help reduce the deficit. and the math is pretty simple after that. if you say from the beginning you're not going to ask people making $1 million a year to help do a little more to reduce our common deself -- deficit, if you sayou're not going to ask companies that have these tax loopholes that actually incentivize them to ship jobs overseas to pay a little bit more, what do you do? your budget has to whack everyone else and that's what it did. that's why their budget ended the medicare guarantee. that's why they cut $800 billion

from medicaid. 2/3 of medicaid spending goes to help seniors and disabled people in nursing homes. that's why they slashed vital investments in education, research, infrastructure, things that had been bipartisan investments to help our economy grow. that's what they did then. now on the sequester proposal what could they do? the chairman talks about eligibility. these are people who are eligible to get food and nutrition assistance because they're struggling and the nonpartisan congressional budget office, which is our referee around here, has told us what the consequences, the real world consequences, of their proposal before us today would be. over 22 million households with kids would see their food and nutrition support reduced. 300,000 kids knocked off the school lunch program. 300,000 kids knocked off the children's health insurance program. those are the kind of choices

they make because they refuse to take a balced approach to this deficit issue. now, i want to say one word about defense spending. last august, as part of the bipartisan budget control act, our republican colleagues deliberately chose to expose defens spendi to deep additional cuts rather than ask millionaires and big corporations to share greater responsibility for paying for our national security. now our republican colleagues are on the floor today saying these defense cuts would devastate our national security, but they still, even today, apparently aren't concerned enough about the impact of those cuts on national security to ask millionaires to pay a little bit more for our common defense. that's the same kind of mentality that led us to put two wars on our national credit card. even as we asked our soldiers to sacrifice, we said, we're just going to put that on our

national credit card. so there's a fundamental question here, fundamental question. if you're so concerned about those cuts to defense, why is it you won't close one special interest tax loophole to help pay for them? we, the democrats, had a substitute amendment that we would have been able to debate and vote on right here today. we took an alternative approach. we also prevented those defense cuts. you know how we did it? we said, we don't need to make thesebig agricultural subsidies and direct payments, we also don't think we should have oil -- taxpayer subsidies for the big oil companies. we did it in a different way. and apparently our republican colleagues are kind of worried about what we were going to proposbecause they broug a closed rule to the floor meaning democrats didn't have an opportunit to get a vote on our alternative. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves his time. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, is recognized. mr. ryan: i yield myself one minute to say, mr. speaker, that

the gentleman's substitute raises taxes $85 billion and raises spending $55 billion on the net to achieve simply $30 billion in deficit reducon. this bill achieves $243 billion in deficit reduction without raising taxes. the ratio of spending increases, of tax increases to spending cuts gross 3-1. that's what they think balance is. let's look at food stamps. food stamps are up 270% over the last decade. if this passes it will have gone up 260%. let's talk about medicaid and schip. this program has gonep 50% over the last 10 years. it's probablied to grow 125% over the next 10 years. if this passes, it will grow 123% over the next 10 years. if we can't have a civil debate about how to slow the growth of spendinground here, then we'll never get this under control. medicaid alone made $15.8 billion in overpayments in 2011

alone. if we can't deal with this waste, if we can't deal with this overspending, we can't x this problem. with that, mr. speaker, i yield -- i ask unanimous consent to yield seven minutes of my time to mr. hensarling of the financial services committee and asunanimous consent that he be allowed to yield time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, will control the time. is recognized for seven minutes. mr. hensarling: i thank th gentleman from wisconsin for yielding and, mr. speaker, i would like to yield one minute to the distinguished chairman of the financial services committee, the gentleman from alabama, mr. bachus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for one minute. mr. bachus: mr. speaker, the financial committee's work on this reconciliation package saves more than $35 billion. but more imptantly it does what 2,300 pages of the dodd-frank, 400 new regulations, over 2,000 new hired federal

regulators, many of them living in my maryland colleague's district, and more than $24 million worth of compliance work required of america's companies, at the cost of $100 billion, it ends the bailouts. a bailout fund doesn't end t bailout, it guarantees them. we're telling the big banks what my democratic colleagues didn't want to tell them. if they make risky bets and make bad decisions, they're on the hook, not the taxpayers. no more privatizing the profits, no more socializing the losses. in short, no more bailouts period. thank you, mr. speaker. hen hen -- mr. bachus: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes mr. hensarling. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i reserve.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: at this time i yield two minutes tohe gentlelady from ohio, ms. kaptur. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for two minutes. ms. kaptur: i thank ranking member van hollen. well, here we are again. america still recovering from the worst economic downturn since the great depression, and the republicans don't seem to understand that we need to focus on job creation. our economy has been producing ivate sector jobs each month r the last two years, in stark contrast to the bush years. but today we're not debating job growth to balance the budget. we aren't considering a transportation bill today. no, that would create the most new jobs. making real investments in america by putting peoplback two, and growing our economy. today we are debating nothing more than the latest political talking points for the republican party. we all know that this strategy is going nowhere in the senate.

so instead of focusing on economic growth and job creation, the republicans decided to protect theirich friends and slash the programs that the most needy in our country depend upon. while protecting the well, here's what the republican bill does to ordinary families. cuts health coverage for the least among us. 300,000 low income children. the republican bill slhes food and nutrition support for the unemployed. and for struggling children and families. the republican bill eliminates social services block grant which is give states and local mmunities flexibility to target funding for essential services like meals on wheel, preventing child abuse and neglect and providing child care for working parents. the republican bill wants to repeal the prevention and public health fund established under the affordable care act. and what does that do? it supports cancer screenings, including for breast and cervical cancer, immunizations, education, research and

prevention, which in the end saves the most money. prevention saves money. if the republicans were serious about putting our fiscal house in order, they would put forward a serious proposal thatrows our economy and creates jobs to balance the budget and involve shared sacrifice. that's how you balance budgets. you grow the economy. i look forward to that day. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time to mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: at this time i yid o minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. neugebauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. neugebauer: thank you, mr. speaker. a lot of discussion here this morning about who we're protecting. really the reason we're here today is to protect the future of america. you know, they're throwing around a lot of large numbers here but what we need to do is put in per spectacular whave we're talking about today. i want to talk -- perspective what we're talking about today. i want to talk about a family,

they're spending $37,000 a year so they're spending $13,000 more a year than they're making. and they just got their credit card statement the other day, mr. speaker, and they found out they owe $157,000 on their credit card and people out there would say, that's a familthat doesn't have a future. unfortunately the family that i'm just talking about here, mr. speaker, is the united states of america because i took the eight zeros off of the front of these numbers that we're kicking around today. so i think the american people ought to be excited that we're here today, you know, making a start, and i want to point out, this is just a start to addressing a very large problem. and so when we go into some of the programs out there like the consumer protection financial bureau, basically that was tucked inside the fed, has no accountability, that was the reason i was pleased to introduce h.r. 1355, to bring accountability to that. the american people deserve accountability and they also deserve for this body to come together and work on this very large problem because as has been pointed out, a lot of the

things that we actually vote on, in fact this $13,000 deficit, if we eliminated the part of spending that we are talking about voting on in the appropriation bills, that only eliminate $11,000 of that deficit. so this family would still have a $2,000 budget deficit even after we eliminate allf the programs that we vote on. . this is the business we are supposed to be about. let's work together and protect the future of our children and grandchildren so they will have a future, they will have an opportunity to have jobs and opportunities in america. with that, mr. speaker, yield ba. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. neugebauer, yields bark. the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling -- mr. hensarling: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, is recognized. mr. van hollen: i'd like to respond to the chairman of the budget committee in terms of the ratio of cuts to revenue. i think the gentleman will recall one of the recommendations that the bipartisan commission made was the trillion dollars in cuts that we made as part of the

budget control act, that was 100% cuts. if you take that into account, the reality is what we have done so far with our proposal is 92% cuts, 8% revenue. with that revenue generated by closing those tax loopholes i talked about earlier. with that i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from florida, ms. wasserman schultz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida, ms. wasserman schultz, is recognized for two minutes. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in opposition to the sequester replacement reconciliation act. the second phase in the republican pathway to poverty plan. this bill once again fails to reach any measure of fairness and shared responsibility. all of us agree that the implementation of sequestration would be a damaging, harmful approach to taking an effort to achoove deficit reduction. -- achieve deficit reduction. the difference between democrats and republicans, instead of taking a balanced approach, the balance would replace sequestration with tax breaks to millionaires and special interests, while ending the medicare guarantee, slashing investments that strength our economy, and shredding the social safety net. not surprisingly important

provisions of the affordable care act are in their sights. the prevention and public health fund was an unprecedented investment in our health and well-being, particular for women and children. by providing funding for vital cancer, and the fight against epidemic, fighting obesity, and diabetes, this fu invests in our nation's health and it will provide savings down the line to help catch afflictions early. by seeking to undermine the affordable care act, this bill would eliminate funding for hundreds of thousands of lifesaving screenings. all to score political points with their extreme base. mr. speaker, just a few years ago when i was1 years old i found a lump in my breast. which was confirmed to be cancer and a series of screenings, including a clinical screening, just like the ones that this fund provides. these screeningsaved my life, but this bill would prevent 326,000 women from having access to the same screenings i did. it will prevent an estimated 10,300 women from being

diagnosed witbreast and cervical cancer in the earl will i stages and may cost them their lives. furthermore, this bill slashes funding for screening for birth defects, developmental disability, and hearing loss in children. how can any of us in good conscience cut investments in children health? frankly as a mom of three young kids i'm stunned. you don't pay down the deficit our children didn't create by compromising their health. our constituents deserve a balanced approach to deficit reduction. the republicans approach would deny women like me access to screenings that save lives and children the screenings they need so we can keep them healthy. it's unacceptable and i ask colleagues with a conscience to te down this terrible bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, it's important for us to remember why we are here. we are here because the president's policies have failed. $1 frill deficit.

a second $1 trillion deficit. a third $1 thrill deficit. and now a fourth $1 trillion ficit. putting the nation on the road to bankruptcy, that's why we have a reconciliation bill before us. i hear my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about deep cuts. the deepest cuts that are happening in america today are to the family budge of breadwinners who are either unemployed or underemployed due to the economic policies of this administration. we just got the news last month, third month in a row, where job growth is down. we are not even keeping pace. we have the lowest labor force participation rate in 30 yea because, mr. speaker, people have given up. on the obama economy. those are the deep cuts that truly count. republicans have a plan for america's job creators. we want to get is economy

going. as we do, as people go back to work, they get off of the wfl checks on to the paychecks. that's what counts. and so republicans have brought forth a reconciliation plan that says you know what? maybe we ought to quit spending money we don't have and maybe this will help provide part of the confidence that job creators need to put america back to work. and i'm very proud of the work that was done on the financial services committee, among other things, to end the perpetual wall street bailout fund that was put in by the democrats in the dodd-frank bill. because if you lose your ability to fail in america, you lose your ability to succeed and the american people are tired of the bailouts. i'll continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr.

speaker. before i turn to one of my colleagues let me just say in response to my friend, mr. hensarling. the american people are well aware of what was happening in the economy the very day the president was sworn in as president of the united states. losing 800,000 jobs every month. the economy in free fall, almost 9% negative economic growth. people's retirement savings had dropped by 1/3 compared to wher they were in 2007. that's the economy the president inherited. as a result of the extraordinary measures taken by the president, by the previous congress, and most importantly with the fortitude of the american people, what we see is this, after the day the president was sworn in, when the economy was in free fall, those are jobs lost, we began to lift ourselves slowly out.

we have now had 25 consecutive months of positive private sector job growth. is it enough? no of course we had no help from our republican colleagues in working on the turn around. the president's jobs bill that he submitted to this house last september, is still sitting here. fortunately we finally did a piece of it with the payroll tax cut. my republican colleagues says the republicans have an answer their answer is back to the old trickle-down economics. another round of tax breaks for the folks at the very top. somew that will trickle down and lift everybody up. you know what? we tried it. it didn't work. it was called eight years of the bush administration. we had two back-to-back tax cuts at the end of eight years. net job loss in the private sector after those eight years, and big deficits. the last time we had a balanced budget here was 2001 before those policies. so it's important for us to get the history of the past right in

order to make sure we know how to move forward properly in t future. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitng me to speakn this as i appreciate his setting the stage turns up why we are here, in terms of what prom inherited when he was elect -- what president obama nharetted when he was elected to office, and the republican leadership doesn't want to work with us in a balanced and reasonable way to redu the deficit and get us on a sustainable path. nothing is of greater illustration of this than the response to an amendment that i ofred in the budget committee. monday when we were dealing with this i offered up to my colleagues instead of throwing -- eliminating food stamp benefits for two million people, for cutting benefits for 20

months, reducing benefits for 44 million people in total, school lunches for 280,000 children. i said, wait a minute, why don't we work together on something that we agree on? i had worked with the chairman of the budget committee in the past to try and reform agriculture subsidies. we got a reconciliation from the ag committee that takes it all out of nutrition for poor people. for children, for struggling families. i said why don't we go to where we agree -- crop insurance wastes billions, direct payments go to farmers who don't need them and don't deserve them. we have an opportunity to put reasonable limits on the amount that goes to the wealthiest business interests. we worked on that together. a majority of the budget committee i'm sure agrees and it would pass on the floor. and we could mt this objective

and more without assaulting the well-being of 44 million struggling americans. i have looked at those people in my community and i can't imagine my colleagues who are proposing this have worked with the food kitchens, have worked with the food amps recipients. may i have 30 additional seconds? mr. van hollen: i yield 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recnized. mr. blumenauer: the answer in part was we can't do that because we do agree on some farm reform, but we have to do it when we reform the farm bill. that's coming up for re-authorization later. you have to do it in the farm bill, that's where we deal with direct payments, that's where we deal with crop insurance. hello? where are food stamps authorsed -- authorized? they are in the exact same farm bill and the republicans have decided ey are going to ignore this opportunity, they are going

to vote a bipartisan compromise that will save more money and protect families and instead they are going to protect agribusiness and avoid an opportunity for everybody to win on the floor. it's shameful and should be rejected. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, is recognized. mr. hensarling: i'd like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. >> mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman from texas for yielding the financial services committee has responsibly contributed roughly $35 billion in deficit reduction measures to this bill. an i'm happy one of these measures that i sponsored, a repeal of the office of financial services, was adopted by voice vote in our committee. mr. canseco: this agency created by dodd frank is a threat to the privacy of every american citizen and no place in the system of checks and balances such as ours. repealing the o.f.r. will save

$270 million over 10 years and americans will be better off for it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i yield myself the remaining minute and a half. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, the american people know that after the nation's first, second, third, and now fourth trillion dollar deficit, the american people know after the worst employment record in 30 years, that the problem is with the president's economic policies and ultimately this debate comes down to this. do we have a debt crisis because washington spends too much or because the american people are undertaxed? myolleagues on the other side of theisle say a nation can

tax its way into economic growthtax its way into economic prosperity. they want to impose taxes from 40% of the income on small businesses and somehow think they will create more jobs. mr. speaker, if you gave them every job harming tax increase that they have asked for, it's roughly 16% of the additional $11 trillion of bt that the president wants to put on this economy, our children, and grandchildren. the american people know we can do better. it is time to quit spending ney w don't have for jobs, the stimulus program never creates. i'm proud to be a part of this reconciliation package which will save the draconian cuts that are aimed at our war fighters and their families and be able to begin the process of assuring that a great nation lives within its means andhat we can give the next generation greater hope, greater oprtunity, greater economic

growth, and i urge all my colleagues to support this reconciliation bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, is recognized. . mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i would just point out that the nonpartisan congressional budget office has stated that as a result of the economic recovery bill, the extraordinary actions that were taken, over four million jobs were created or saved. that means a lot to the people who didn't lose their jobs, the people who were losing their jobs at the rate of 800,000 per month when the president was sworn in. are we where we want to be? of course not. are we a lot better off than we were? we're pulling ourselves up and the last thing we want to do is go back to where we were. nobody on the democrat side has said, we can deal with this on the tax side alone. that's not true. we voted on a biptisan basis in august for $1 trillion in cuts.

what we propose is what every bipartisan group that's looked at ts challenge has said. you have to dohis through a combination of cuts, but you also got to get rid of all that pork barrel stuff in the tax code and use some of that to reduce our deficit. ask the folks who are have -- who have been making over $1 million a year to help pay for our common defense. that is just common sense. and with that i yield two minutes to the gentlemanrom texas, mr. doggett. mrdoggett: mr. speaker, -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes, mr. doggett. mr. doggett: mr. speaker, normally when we think of reconciliation we think of a coming together, of a finding common ground. this is not such reconciliation. whether this is a bill that provides more tax breaks to the few and more pain to the many,

it is in fact a wreck, as in a train or auto wreck, wreckonciliation. there is legitimate concern that we must address our budget difficulties to avoid a long-term budget wreck. but i am concerned about the wreck that this legislation under consideration today poses to the lives of so many amerans. it is a wreck for educational opportunity. the failure of this budget committee to address the needs of our youngest americans with head start and early learning, the failure to extend the education -- more education tax credit that i authored, for more opportunity at the alamo colleges at texas state and institutions across this country. it is a wreck for our most vulnerable neighbors, the texas seniors who rely on one hot meal a day for meals on wheels. their director says, it will be devastating to eliminate the

social services block grant, a wreck for those seniors. it is a wreck for those who are relying on food security, like the 74-year-old who gave me this plate at the food bank in san antonio. my social security check doesn't give me enough to buy any groceries. just my rent and utilities. without the food bank, i would starve. those are the kinds of people for whom it is a wreck right now. now, we had a president once who realized the need for shared sacrifice. he had almost half of his budget from new revenue by what he said was closing off special interest loopholes and he said, that is just a matter of simple fairness. his name was ronald reagan. i think we might follow that example. do you have another 30 seconds? mr. van hollen: i yield the gentleman another 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas voiced for 30 seconds.

mr. doggett: president california candidates said they wouldn't give -- presidential candidates said they wouldn't give for spending cuts. this is a reconciliation bill that asks nothing of mr. exxon, that asks nothing more of hedge fund managers, but asks those who are most vulnerable in our soety to share more pain. i think we must reject this wreck, a wreck for so many american families, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, controls the time for the majority. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i yield myself one minute to just address a few of these. if you're eligible for food stamps today, you'll be eligible for food stamps tomorrow under this bill. we're simply saying, you have to be eligible for this benefit to actually get the benefit. the slush fund which is called the preventative services fund, it doesn't fund cervical and breast cancer research.

it funded things such as the pike county, north carolina, funds for signage to promote recreational destinations including public parks, bike lanes and more. the city of boston got a $1 million grant for urban gardening. the new york department of health used a $3 million taxpayer-funded grant from this fund to lobby for a soda tax initiative. the cascade bicycle club education foundation received $3 million to use tpayer dollar 20's to quote, im-- dollars to, quote, improve the walng and biking environment. this is where the tax dollars are going. the child tax credit. one investigation in indiana said, illegal immigrants receiving $29,608 for 20 children that they claim for the tax credit who live in mexico and have never visited the united states before. yielding myself 30 additional seconds, mr. speaker. what we're saying is government spending on these programs should go to the people who a

intended, not for people who are not eligible and are not intended. if we're going to do prevention for health care, then do cancer screening, do cancer research, dot fund signs for bike paths. with that, mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the distinguished chairman of the house armed services committee, mr. mckeon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. mckeon: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 5652. 50% of the savings that we have already generated this yearave come from the military cuts and we're talking about adding another $500 billion to $600 billion on top of that next january with sequestration. that's over $1 trillion a year coming out of the military over the next 10 years while defense spending only accounts for 20% or less than 20% of our budget and while we're fighting war in afghanistan and facing our uncertainties around the world. let me remind everyone here of the major consequences of sequestration.

200,000 troops will be taken out of the army and the marines, bringing our force level down below pre-9/11 levels. ability to respond to contingencies in north korea and iran and other places, hot spots around the world, will be put in jeopardy. a fleet of fewer than 230 ships, a navy that has protected the sea lanes around the world, our commerce, 95% of our commerce travels on the sea. they protected that since world war ii. they'll be taken down to pre-world war i levels. we'll have a smaller air force than any time since the air force was created and two rounds of base closure. that's why secretary petta has said, it's not shooting ourselves in our foot with sequestration, it's shooting ourselves in the head. that's why 31 coalition -- 31 organizations representing more than 5 1/2 million american troops and veterans have called on congress to act immediately to prevent these catastrophic cuts to our military.

mr. speaker, i urge all members to support our troops, support our national security and support this bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back his time. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i also urge all our colleagues to support our troops and support our military. and the democratic substitu that we offered would have made sure that the sequester on defense spending did not take place. and i have great respect for the chairman of the armed services committee, m mckeon, who just spoke. and here's what he said not long ago. he says, quote, we need to address our budget problems comprehensively, through smarter spending and increased revenue. he also said, and i quote, if i came that i only had two choices, one was a tax increase and one was a cut in defense, over and above where we already are, i would go to strengthen defense. in our democratic substitute, we said, let's close some of those

x loopholes to generate a little more revenue to help pay for defense. let's ask people who are making over $1 million a year to get rid of so of theirax breaks to help pay for our common defense. so that we don't have to have a budget that whack everybody else in the country. -- whacks everybody else in the country. i agree with him. he got beaten down by many in the republican party after he made those comments. oh, you violated that pledge that says we're not going to raise one more penny of revenue to reduce the deficit. but he was candid. unfortunately neither he nor any of us are going to have a chance to vote on the democratic subs duty that makes sure -- bstitute that makes sure that we don't have the defense sequester, we just do it in a balanced way. through cuts, as well as closing some of these tax loopholes. i now yield two minutes to the gentlelady from florida, ms. castor. the speaker pro tempore: the gelewoman from florida is recognized for two minutes. ms. castor: thank you. i thank the ranking member.

mr. speaker, two of the most prominent independent scholars on congress recently completed a detailed research initiative. they've never been shy in criticizg either side of t aisle. but their latest research concluded that the republican party has become so ideologically extreme, scornful of compromise, unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science, and they said, when one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the nation's challenges. the republican budget is a perfect example of that. the republican budget shields special interes from participating in deficit reduction and instead says, we want to end medicare awe know it, and we would like -- w target children and our older neighbors and middle class families for the overwhelming

burden of deficit reduction. it's a political party -- if a political party wanted to undermine the health and economic security of millions of american families, well, then this is the way to do it. and it's too bad because i believe decrats and reasons agree on the need for -- republicans agree on the needer to deficit reduction but we have starkly different visions on how to get there. others have called this republican budget extreme, reverse robin hood, destructionive and a threat to -- destructive and a threat to middle class security. i offered an amendment to say, it's time, we don't have t luxury to be giving big oil companies tax breaks any longer. instead let's make sure that children across america can see a doctor, can get the immunizations that they need. but what was the vote? republicans rejected that commonsense amendment. it was paid for by eliminating these big oil subsidi. this is what they mean by their ideologically extreme.

it's not in keeping with our values as americans and i urge my colleagues to vote no on the republican budget and sequestration plan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. ryan, is recognized -- wisconsin, mr. ryan, is recognized. mr. ryan: i yield myself 30 seconds to make three points. the line the lady used on medicare was rated the lie of the year. number one. number two, the reasons the democrat substitute is not being doctored is itiolates the house rules. it would have violated the house rules that the democrats had in place when they were in the majority. third point is when it comes to tax loopholes, we're proposing to close those in order to lower tax rates for american families and businesses, to create jobs. they want to do it to prevent ending cuts. $3 in tax increases for $1 of spending cuts is the math and the logic that the other side chooses to use.

when you have a spending problem, you got to cut spending. with that, mr. speaker, i yield five minutes, i ask unanimous consent to yield five minutes of my time to the chairman of the committee of agriculture, chairman lucas, and ask unanimous consent he be allowed to yield time. the speaker pro tempore:without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes and controls the time. mr. lucas: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of this legislation. it's no secret that we're facing a severe debt crisis right now. we have almost $16 trillion in debt piled up and if we don't act quickly we'll be psing a crushing burden onto our children and grandchildren. reducing the government spending, though, is never an easy task. we face difficult choices. but house republicans have lived up to our responsibility to find ways to cut our costs so that we can once again live within our means. the house agriculture committee has asked -- been asked to do its part by finding $33 billion

in savings over 10 years. we did that by making credible, commonsense reforms to the supplemental nutrition assistance program. or snap. these provisions reduced waste and abuse and closed program loopholes. snap, form early known as food stamps, comprises almost 80% of the agriculture committee's manned spoir spending. over the past 10 years, the cost of snap has neay tripled, increasing by 270%. the changes that we're proposing today cut only 4% over the next 10 years. i'd like to make it absolutely clear, none of these recommendations will prevent families that qualify for assistance under snap from receiving their benefits. we are working to better target the program and improve its integrity, so that families in need can continue to receive nutritional assistance. .

opponents would have you believe we are decimating the nutritional safety net and hungry children and seniors will be left to fend for themselves. that is a false and misleading scare tactic. it's important to remember that many of the very people opposing these cuts, proposed and voted for similar measures during the last congress when they were in control of this body. not once but twice my colleagues on the left voted to cut the temporary increase in snap benefits under the american recovery and reinvestment act. one of those cuts was to pay for the bailout of a union. now the house republicans are advocating that same policy, those across the aisle are crying foul. by ending the artificial increasen snap benefits, we can save $5.9 billion over 10 years. and we won't be turning that

into more government spending, it will go towards deficit reduction. this legislation also ends bonus that is have been awarded to states on the taxpayer dime. states are responsible for administering snap and it's their duty to make sure the program is operating in the most efficient and effective fashion. we save nearly ha a billion dollars by ending bonuses that are given to states for merely doing their job. we also find savings by closing loopholes that allow states to game the system when administering snap. first we stop the states from abuse -- abusing liheap to inflate snap benefits. states are exploiting, long since past exploring, it's exploiting t interact between liheap and snap by sending token checks to households which can trigger hundreds of dollars in increased snap benefits. liheap is a valuable program for households in need of assistance

with heating and energy costs. it shouldn't be abused in this fashion. in new york city a $1 liheap check triggers an additional $131 in snap benefits per month for nearly 90,000 households. in washington state a $1 liheap check triggers an aitional $4 million in snap benefits -- $43 million in snap benefits. at's egregious and taxpayers know it. these token checks not only undermine the integrity of snap and liheap, but they also cost taxpayers billions of dollars in overpayments. closing this loophole saves $14.3 billion over 10 years and ensures that both liheap and snap are targeted to the families whoruly need the assistance. another loophole we have closed is called categorical eligibility which allows any household that receives a benefit from certain low-income assistance programs to become automatically eligible for snap. some of these benefits can be as

simple as providing a household with a pamphlet or access to 1-800 number. when states implement categorical eligibility, these households do not need to meet snap asset or gross income tests. that's how lottery winners slip through the cracks and continue to receive nutrition assistance. when someone is categorically eligible for snap, states don't have to verify assets like lottery winnings. it isn't just lottery winners that are unfairly collecting benefits, either. the "cincinnati enquirer" reported that one woman collected $500 per month in snap benefits, had an $80,000 -- $80,000 in savings, a paid for home valued at $300,000. let me repeat what i said earlier, these provisions do not decimate the program and leave struggling families to fend for

themselves. what they do is restore program integrity. they reserve tpayer dollars for families that are in need of assistance. every one ever these provisions represents common sense and -- of these provisions represents common sense and good government at a time of fiscal restraint. there's no denying snap provides important support for many americans. that's why it's important we ensure the integrity of the program, those who qualify for snap under the program law will continue to receive benefits. by voting for this package we are not only doing our part to reduce the debt, we are imoving the implementation of this important program while continuing to meet the nutritional needs of our fellow americans. yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. first i'd just like to respond to the chairman of the budget committee and point out that the rules committee waived three rules to bring the republican legislation to the floor. waived three rules, couldn't waive one rule to allow a democratic substitute to have an up or down vote. and the one rule you wouldn't waive is the one that rigs the

process against closing special interest tax loopholes. to the chairman of agriculture committee, i think everybody needs to know that the ag coittee didn't reduce one subsidy to ag businesses. not one. even though the overall republican budget says it should be $30 billion, there's a bipartisan bill that would do that, but not one. instead they took $33 billion out of food and nutrition programs. now, we should be very clear on this. people say that they are going to make sure everyone who is eligible to get food stamps who will, then they say under snap. suggesting there are a lot of people who are getting it who are cheating. that's not true. all those other people are em-- eligible. it's not democrat scare tactics saying all these people are going to lose their access, it's the nonpartisan congressional budget office. the referee here that was never contested by our republican colleagues in the budget committee, they say, they say 22

million american households with children will see their food nutrition support reduced. two million americans approximately will lose all access to the food nutrition programs through snap. 300,000 kids will lose the school lunch program. those are our facts. that's what the congressional budget office says. with that i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from oregon, ms. bonamici. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman oregon is recognized for two minutes. ms. bonamici: i rise today in strong opposition to house resolution 5652, the sequester replacement reconciliation act. not long ago we were here debating a very misguided budget resolution and today with this house resolution, the leadership has decided to double down on the draconian cuts contained in that budget. we should be able to come together and have a frank discussion about deficit reduction. that is what the american people expect and that's what the

american people deserve. but instead, here we are today considering another resolution and here we are today with another missed opportunity. there is not even the ability to consider a balanced alternative today. and this is of particular concern because of what is actually in this bill. instead of cutting back generous agriculture subsidies, this bill is cutting food stamps, supplemental nutriti assistance programs. this means a reduction in benefits for an estimated 47 million people and a loss of benefits for almost two million people. and instead of closing loopholes for oil companies, this bill eliminates the social service block grant, not reduces, not tweaks, eliminates the social service block grant. grants that assist states in providing a wide range ever services from support to meals on wheels, to foster care. these are programs that feed

struggling seniors and protect abused children. and these are just two examples. now, we have a moral responsibility to get this right, mr. speaker. this bill yet again attempts to balance the budget on the backs of the most vulnerable, our seniors, our children, those who are struggling. while not asking the most fortunate in our society to contribute anything more. i urge my colleagues to reject this latest misguided effort by voting against house resolution 5652, i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from oregon yields back her time. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin controls the majority time and is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds simply to say that the social services block grant according to the general accountability office is a textbook example of overlap and duplication of federal programs. it's one of 69 programs to fund early education. one of 200 programs serving

americans with disabilities. one of 49 programfor -- providing education services. it provides no measure or means to measure the impact of the programs. mr. speaker, we've got to end duplication d waste in government. we are saying also on the tax side, closeoopholes for tax reform not to fuel more spending. with that mr. speaker, i yield five minutes -- i ask unanimous consent to yield five minutes to mr. pitts, a member of the energy and commerce committee, and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. pitts:mr. speaker, -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania controls the time and is recognized. mr. pitts: thank you, mr. eaker. the reconciliation package we bring to the floor today sensibly reduces spending so that we can continue to adequately depend our nation. the first responsibility of the federal government is to keep our nation safe from foreign

threats. by cutting wasteful spending and reforming programs, we can continue to maintain a military that keeps us secure at home and makes the world a more peaceful place. i'm proud to report that the energy and commerce committee exceeded the budget instructions by $17 billion to save a total of $114 billion over 10 years. in three titles we cut wasteful programs created by obamacare, reform the medicaid ogram, and reform our broken medical liability system. with the nation struggling with trillion dollar deficits, the president chose to increase government spending by more than -- another $1 trillion with his health care law. this wasn't refor it was a government takeover of 1/6 of the u.s. economy that will increase dependency and bankrupt the nation. we continue to push for full repeal, but also do everything

we can to stop wasteful and unwise spending immediately. the prevention and public health fund is a classic example of how the government bureaucrats fail to spend public funds wisely. the health care law provided an advanced appropriation of $16 billn and called for a permanent annual allotment of $2 bill perfect -- $2 bill -- $2 billion per year in perpetuity. so in 2036, 2037, 2057 the secretary of h.h.s. has complete authority over this $2 billion to spend on whatever he or she wishes without cutting back for appropriations authorization from congress. let's call this what it is. it's a slush fund for the secretary of health even human services. almost any program can make a claim that it is preventive.

the secretary has the soul -- sole role of control of the fund and so far has found some quite interesting ways to spend it. for example in pitt county, north carolina n., a recipient used the money to provide signage for parks and bike lanes. in boston, spent $1 million on urban gardening. one of the successors the program was getting the city of golden park, califora, to put a nine-month moratorium on construction of fast food restaurants. government should be encouraging job creation not finding ways to stop ifor a few months. new york, spent $3 million to lobby for a soda tax initiative. philadelphiapent money to push for higher state cigarette excise taxes. why on earth is the federal government paying for campaigns to lobby state governments? these are all examples from just the last two years. who knows what projects will get

money in the future. we have numerous pubc health and prevention funds that could be managed through the yearly appropriations process. a permanent slush fund with limited oversight guarantees that money will be wasted every year. we also repeal the unlimited authority to fund the implementation of state health insurance exchanges. obamacare gave the secretary a credit card with no limit. a bottomless direct appropriation. this is unprecedented and unwise. again, we need oversight in order to make sure that the public's money is being wisely spent. congress never should have abdicated its authority in ts area and now we need to reclaim it. we defund the co-op program before billions of public dollars can be lost. the office of management and budget estimates that a significant portion of the funds given to unproven co-ops would never be returned to the treasury. we would stop this funding before h.h.s. creates its own

solyndra. the president's health care law places a dramatically increased burden on state medicaid programs. the maintenance provisions restris states from making commonsense reforms to stop fraud and abuse. we know that medicaid is ripe with fraudulent claims. in 2011 there were $15 billion in improper payments. we need to give states the flexibility to run these programs sufficiently and to help the truly needy. we also repeal an unwise bonus program that encourages states to undermine the integrity of the program. we should not place unsess barriers to qualifying for medicaid, but neither should we encourage states to oversimplify reviews of eligibility. we do not have unlimited funds. again, medicaid coverage needs to be opened only to the truly needy. finally, we include real medical liability reform in this reconciliation package,he president's health care law gave

a pitiful 50 million -- mr. ryan: additional 3 seconds. mr. pitts: projects. this is paying lip service to the $200 billion program and i recently heard from a doctor who has been practicing in my district for decades, he beknowned defensive medicine but more concerned that doctors being trained in today's climate don't realize they are prescribing unnecessary tests. defensive medicine is simply becoming the norm. medical liability reform means saving for consumers, doctors, and the government. mrspeaker, i'm proud of the job we have done, energy and commerce commiee and i now not only urge all my committee's support the reconciliation package but yield to the gentleman from -- florida, mr. diaz-balart. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. ryan: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. diaz-balart: thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to engage in a colloquy with my frienfrom pennsylvania, mr. pitts, chairman of the energy and

commerce health committee. mr. chairman, i am clearly no fan of obamacare and i know that you are not as well. and you and your committee have done some really excellent work in this reconciliation process in eliminating some of the major spending abuses in this law. i do have a concern, however, with one of these provisions that would affect puerto rico. and in fact what puerto rico receives in medicaid funding. the fact of the matter is that the question regarding made cade funding for the territories -- medicaid funding for the territories has been separate from many issues that many of us on this side of the aisle find so objectionable in obamacare. for example, like individual mandate, the raid on medicare and the slough of job-killing new taxes and regulations. that are at least partially responsible for the acceptable unemployment situation, including 10% unemployment among hispanics in the united states. as you know, the bill before us returns medicaid funding cap and federal match to pre-obamacare

levels for the u.s. territories. for years, the territories have -- an additional 30 seconds if i may. mr. ryan: additional 30 seconds. i have three other committees. mr. diaz-balart: yes. for years, they have expressed concerns with the funding levels and i believe that the ppaca was a vehicle to try to alleviate some of those concerns. mr. chairman, my hope is that we can work together along with the governor who has been the most fiscally responble governor in puerto rico, to look into the funding levels in medicaid so that we can properly address the needs of the millions of u.s. citizens in the territories. mr. pitts: mr. chairman, i very much appreciate the gentleman's concerns, want to assure him that these issues deserve the attention of my health subcommittee and as we continue to legislate the process, i'll gladly work with the gentleman to address the needs for the most vulnerable citizens in the territories. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker.

i know it makes our republican colleagues feel better when they pretend that these cuts don't harm real people. but the reality is they do harm real people. and the cuts that were made in the energy and commerce will mean that 300,000 children will no longer get health care through the children's health insurance program. that's not my fact, that's the nonpartisan congressional budget office. we've heard a lot about the fact that the cuts to the alth prevention fund, the prevention fund to help provide for healthier starts, that that won't have any impact. and we hear these stories coming up, i would just ask unanimous consent to put in the record information from the centers for disease control that refutes this urban legend that somehow these funds were used for spaying or neutering dogs. these things just aren't true. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. the reality is, the reality is it will mean that 326,000 women

will not get breast cancer screenings and 284,000 women will not get cervical cancer screenings. that's what happens when you zero out the prevention fund and now i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from pennsylvania, a member of the budget committee, who's been focused very clearly on these health issues. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. ms. schwartz: thank you. and i appreciate the ranking member's comments and his good work and important work on thi plan, the republican plan, and the democratic alternative. let me start by saying very clearly, once again house republicans are taking a shortsighted approach to deficit reduction and economic growth in this country. the federal budget is a statement of our priorities and our values as a nation. and republicans have made their priorities and their values very clear. the federal budget is about choices. the choice to protect seniors, the choice to grow our middle class, the choice to make smart

investments in our economy or not. the republicans have made their choice very clear. they are choosing to cut prevention and public health earths, immunizations and flu vaccines, screenings for birth defects, developmental disabilities and hearing loss in children. and they are hurting mothers who need prenatal care, children who need hearing and eye exams. women who need screening for cancer and heart disease, and our frailest, sickest seniors who need nursing homes and in-home care. republicans are choosing to eliminate essential health services that save dollars and save lives. this choice will hurt millions of american women, children and seniors. instead, the republicans are choosing to protect tax breaks for the largest oil and gas companies and tax breaks for companies that ship american jobs overseas. there is a better way. the democratic budget takes a balanced approach to deficit

reduction and makes spending cuts and targeted investments to grow our economy and it meets our obligations to our nation. the republican plan rejects this balanced appach. it rejects efforts to grow our economy, it rejects protections for our seniors, our children and our future, it is a wrong choice for the american people and we must reject this plan. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, controls the time. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from florida, mr. young. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida, mr. yog, is recognized for one minute. mr. young: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 5652, to stop sequestration of our nation's defense. we need certainty in the future of our national defense. we need certainty in the industry that serves our national defense. we can't wait until january to

make decisions about sequestration, what the funding is going to be. the pentagon will begin in the next month to prepare industry to begin stopping contracts, not issues contracts, putting -- basically putting small suppliers out of business, putting small contractors out of business. it is important for the readyiest of our nation to defend our nation, that we avoid sequestration at all costs. and there is much more to be said about this. i would ask unanimous consent to include that the balance of my statement -- this is serious. thspeaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. young: wn we talk about sequestration regarding our national defense, this, my colleagues, is serious. and we have got to take this first step so that we can complete before the deadline, we can complete this job. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized.

mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. it is serious and the democratic substitute proposal would have prevented those cuts from going across the board in defense as well as the nondefense part of the budget. unfortunately our republican colleagues don't think it's serious enough to ask oil companies to do without taxpayer subsidies, to help cover the cost. they apparently don't think it's serious enough to ask people making $1 million a year to help with our deficit reduction and to pay for the military that we have. and with that i yield two minutes to the ranking member of the financial services committee, mr. franks, to talk about some -- frank, to talk about some of the impact of this on taxpayers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. frank: mr. speaker, the republican approach does some cutting but it does even more shifting. i agreed with "the wall street journal" editorial a few weeks ago which praised the gentleman from wisconsin because he was shielding the military from any

significant cuts and instead making up for medicare and medicaid. that's "the wall street journal," mr. murdock, thanking the gentleman from wisconsin, for cutting medicare and medicaid, not to balance the budget or reduce the deficit, but to pump up military spending. similarly this claim that they are saving $20 billion-odd in dealing with the lickry dation authority is exactly wrong -- liquidation authority is exactly wrong. what it sa, it continues their position that the large financial institutions, financial institutions with more than $50 billion in assets, should pay nothing, nothing for the cost of cleaning up the mess. in our rorge bill in 2010 -- original bill in 2010, we met c.b.o.'s requirement that there be a $20 billion cost by assessing the large financial institutions. to get the cloture in the senate, three republicans managed to back off and our

company this ye, -- year, the republicansaid, we don't like this and it's going to cost $20 billion. c.b.o. by the way says that it cost $20 billion only within the 10-year window. c.b.o. said the $20 billion will be paid out and it will be repaid by the large financial institutions and i ask unanimous consent to submit another article from the "wall street journal" making that point. but here's the -- here's what e republica did. they said, let's not have the financial institutions be vulnerable. we look to what c.b.o. said, we said, o c.b.o. says the $20 billion from the financial institutions will come at the end of the 10 years rather than the beginning so we had an amendment to assess the large financial institutions, $0 billion, $29 billion, the c.b.o. said it would cost, at the beginning of the period. the republicans said the banks were being overtaxed and voted it down on a party line vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from massachusetts' time has expired. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from wisnsin is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds. medicaid is projected to grow at 12 over the next decade. under this bill it will grow 123%. food stamps grew 275%. under this bill they would have grown 260%. only in washington is this considered draconian cuts. slowing the growth of spending is not cutting. it's slowing the growth of spending. with that, mr. speaker, i have unanimous consent to yield five minutes of my time to mr. franks of theudiciary committee and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to yield time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlan from arizona controls the time and is recognized for five minutes. mr. anks: i certainly thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i believe it's important first of all in this

challenge that we have with our federal budget to realize that all budgets, whether they are personal budgets or business budgets or budgets by governments, all of them eventually and inevitably come balance. they either do so by wise fiscal policy or by catastrophic failure. the fact is that this administration has spent us into the stone age and added to our deficit approximately $1 trillion a year since they came into office. and, mr. chairman, the result is that we have more people living in poverty under this administration than ever before. so, there is something wrong with the equation. now, having listened to the debate over this reconciliation bill, it's clear to me that republicans and democrats have a very fundamental philosophical difference over whether or not we shouldake steps to reduce the feral deficit and avoid the arbitrary and inflexible automatic spending cuts that are

set to go in effect next year. republicans propose to reduce the ficit and avoid the automatic sequestration by eliminating wasteful programs, wasteful government spending and curbing fraud in government programs in general. the president on the other hand has proposed raising taxes on the american people and american families and businesses while at the same time increasing federal government spending. i cannot think of a more stark contrast, mr. chairman. my friends on the other side of the aisle have demagogued this reconciliation bill beyond recognition. the fact, however, remains that this bill reduces the deficit, not by some parade of horribles, but bytopping fraud, eliminating government slush funds and duplicative programs and controlling runaway federal spending. and it does so while preventing devastating defense cuts that the obama administration, their n defense department has

called, quote, unacceptable. and it does so by making sure that the domestic spending cuts that the president's own budget claims will inflict great damage on critical domestic priorities do not go unaddressed. as part of the reconciliation process, the judiciary committee, mr. chairman, has recommended reforms to our medical liability system, to rein in unlimited lawsuits and to make health care more accessible and affordable to all americans. according to the congressional budget office, the judiciary committee's proposed medical liability reforms will reduce the deficit by more than $48 billion the very first year and beyond. the simple fact is that frivelout lawsuit-- frivolous lawsuits drive physicians out of the practice of medicine, in the primes of their careers, it pushes others away from high-risk medical specialties and causes the vast majority of health care providers to practice defensive medicine. studies indicate that the cost of health care lawsuit abuse is

between $230 billion and $650 billion annually. the judiciary committee's proposal helps to eliminate the cause of this out-of-control lawsuit abuse. mr. chairman, i would just urge my colleagues to support this reconciliation pact so we can avoid the draconian sequestration of defense partment funding that threatens harm to our national security. mr. speaker, just a word on our national security. there is no more important thing to our economy of any kind than making sure that we are doing everything to be productive in a secure environment. if our national security is undermined, our economic security will be writing its own enomic obituary. with that i yield back and thank the gentleman for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time to the gentleman from wisconsin. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, is recognized.

mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. we keep hearing from our republican colleagues that there's nothing more important than making sure that we defend our national security. we agree that that's essential. we also agree that we need a strong economy. what's confusing is if that's so important where are our republicans colleagues refusing to ask the big oil companies, why they don't ask them to give up their big subsidies. they say they don't hear them. we hear those cuts won't have an effect. the old saying you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. what we're speaking about is the number of kids that would lose their health care and the number of struggling families that would lose their food and nutritional support. i now yield one minute to the gentleman from puerto rico, mr. pierluisi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from puerto rico is recognized for one minute. mr. pierluisi: mr. speaker, i strongly oppose the provision

in this legislation that would single out the medicaid programs in the u.s. territories for a 65% cut. even though the territories are already treated ia profoundly unequal manner under this program. i'm joined in my opposition to this by the republican governor of puerto rico, luis fortuno, who knows discrimination when he sees it. i'd like to remind the gentleman from wisconsin that in the case of the territories, we're talking about an actual cut, we are not talking about the reduction in our funding, because we have a cap to live with. just as we fought to obtain the funding that this bill now seeks to repeal, we will fight alongside our allies in the white house, the senate and this chamber to retain this funding. this is a fight we intend to win. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, at this time i ask unanimous consent to yield five minutes of my time

to the chairman of the oversight and government committee. i also ask unanimous consent that chairman issa be allowed to yield time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized and controls the time for five minutes. mr. issa: i thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in strong support of this legislation. our committee has participated in $83 billion worth of this package saving our men and women in uniform from finding themselves holding wooden rifles. i use that term because it once happened. it wouldn't happen under sweet ration, but we would make -- sequestration but we would make cuts that would maim them in danger just as if they were carrying wooden rifles. now, many people talk about public servants in a less than kind way. i am not one of them. the federal work force has kept its promises. the federal workers are not always well-led, well-managed but they themselves deliver the product they're asked to deliver.

however, the president's own commission, oftecalled simpson-bowles, on which the chairman of the budget committee served, found something that they all agreed on and that was that in fact the pension program that we as federal employees -- and i say we because members of congress pay into social security, have a 401-k, but we also have a pension -- that that pension was nor generous than our counterparts in the private sector. they recommended that we in fact make it a 50/50 shared pension. my contribion from our committee in fact does that. at a rate of 5%, over five years, we bring the federal work force, members of the civilian d.o.d., members of your park service and members of congress, house and senate, we bring us all into paying what simpson-bowles on a bipartisan basis very much felt was a fair share. now, i want to make sure that everyone understands today that this is in fact a changing for

members of the federal work force from what they perceived they would always have. itill not be easy. they will know that after this goes into effect they will in fact not have as much take-home as they did before. it is not that it doesn't need to happen, let's say we need understanding. these are tough times. the american people made sacrifices for many years before this one. federal work force has made some sacrifices. the president implanted a pay freeze. but i must tell you our looking at it is because of an outdated system, the pay freeze does not in fact freeze pay. step increases have virtually automatically, almost 100% automatically caused the vast majority of these individuals to be eligible and receive pay increases even at a time in which theoretically it was froz. additionally, civil servants know that if we're going to continue to hold on to a civil

service work force that has the confidence of the american people, their wages has to be comparable to their civilian counterparts. our committee will continue to work with others to study to make sure we do keep federal workers fairly paid as compared the nongovernment work force. but our bill today takes the president's own recommendations, the recommendations made to the president, implements them for a savings over 10 years of $83 billion. we believe this is the federal work force and we as their representatives asking them to make a reasonable sacrifice, one that i know they will do, while remaining confident they can deliver the products they can. lastly, mr. speaker, there are things not in this bill. the kind of pay-for-performance that we'd like to see enhanced, the kind of procedure for a quick remedy of individuals who have become disabled that's not in there. there are many other savings

that have improved for the federal work force. we intend to go back on a bipartisan basis to do that, but when it comes to purely paying your fair share, we believe that simps-bowles got it right. we believe the federal work force will n like this but they will accept that this allows them to say, our package is not inherently more generous than the private sector. it's been normaliz for it and that and other changes we made in this bill allow the federal work force to say stop saying that we somehow get something everyone else doesn't. the federal work force pays into social security, into medicare and in fact they're going to be paying half the cost of their pension plan which is commensurate with their private sector. so i want to be very positive here in saying this i never easy to do in times of austerity, but in fact the federal work force will stand behind this as congress will in recognizing that they're doing their share. i'm very proud of the people throughout government who recognize that getting this right is part of being able to say tohe american people,

we're all in this together, and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from wisconsin controls the majority time. the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, is recognized. mr. van hollen: i thank you, mr. speaker, and i appreciate words the chairman of the government affairs committee said with respect to federal employees. if you listened to the comments of a lot of these colleagues, they have made federal civil servants scapegoats and in fact their budget that's before us today does hit federal employees. so the folks in the intelligence community who helped track down osama bin laden, what do they get under this proposal? 5% pay cut. how about the folks at n.i.h. who are every day looking to find cures and treatments for diseases that plague every american family? 5% pay cut. how about the nurses who work in the veterans' hospitals?

5% pay cut. and yet you don't cut the direct payment subsidies to agriculture. you don't cut the subsidies o the big oil companies. you just want to whack federal civil servants. and with that i yield two minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, who has been working on this issue for a very long time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer, is recognized for two minutes. mr. hoyer: i want to thank my friend, m van hollen, for the work he's done. i want to rise in opposition to this focus on federal employees. first of all, the federal employees have contributed $75 billion over the last two years towards helping us reduce the deficit. $75 billion. no other working american has been asked to do that. you treat federal employees in

this house as second-class working people. that's wrong. this is a 5% tax increase on federal employees. nobody else. nobody else do we ask. the richest people in america, we don't ask to help solve this deficit problem. but federal employees, yes, $75 billion contribution. and you don't blink an eye because it's easy because we demagogue about government and by association, we demagogue about bureaucrats used as an ep they. as mr. van hollen said, they protect our food, tries to find cures to cancer, protects us against terrorism, guards our borders. that's what we're talking about, and we treat them as second-class citizens.

that's wrong. it's wrong for our country. it's wrong for the american people and it's wrong for us as an institution representing the government of this country. ladies and gentlemen, reject this. i'm going to talk about other ascts of is so-called reconciliation bill at a little future date, but i ask you on this basis alone, federal employees, i will tell you, as one who represents a large number of them, are ready to participate in helping to bring down this deficit and meet this crisis. but do not ask them to do it alone. that's what mr. van hollen says about oil companies, big corporation loopholes and the wealthie of americans. don'timply ask more from those who have less and less from those who have more. that is not just good policy. let us not pursue it and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland --

-- maryland. mr. van hollen: it's now my privilege to yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. cummings: we honor state, local and federal government employees. shawna from mr. bishop's staff who saved americans billions of dollars by identifying tax evaders and scammers. they include the state department shane morris, a constituent of representative christopher smith onew jersey who played a critical role in ensuring that united states diplomats in the middle east continue to receive classified information, material and equipment during the arab spring uprising in 2011. those who dedicate their lives

for serving others, the republican majority put legislation on the house floor that would take billions of dollars out of their pockets. i ask my colleagues on the other side of e aisle, where is the appreciation or compassion for the dedication and commitment that public employees display day by day? it certainly is not in this bill, which is a passionate and wrong-headed approach to our fiscal problems. federal employee-related provisions in this bill will reduce the take-home pay of nearly three million middle-class americans by 5%, mandatg increase retirement contributions. the bill would eliminate the annuities supplement for new workers who retire before they're eligible for social security at 62. according to the office of personnel management, the average annuity amount for current retirees is nearly $700 per month. i do not think any american who is dedicated his life or to the

public service should be forced to lose that much money on a monthly basis, particularly those on a fixed retirement budget. our middle-class federal employees have already contributed $75 billion towards deficit reduction and other government programs while millionaires and billionaires have not been asked to contribute one additional cent to improve our government's financial condition. i strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and instead support a more rational and equitable budget proposal that asks for shared sacrifice from everyone in our country and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: members of congress and federal employees contribute .8% to their pensions. according to the c.b.o. their

benefits are 48%igher than their average private sector counterparts. we think it's just reasonable and appropriate that they contribute about 5.8% to tir pensions, to contribute their half. it's the least we caask of ourselves, as members of congress, and hardworking federal employees, that we treat ourselves like private sector workers are treated. more to the point, mr. speaker, if we want to have the moral authority to get spending under control we need to ask more of ourselves. with that, i ask unanimous consent to yield five minutesf my time to the chairman of the ways and means committee and ask unanimous consent that be allowed to yield time -- that he be allowed to yield time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you. i thank the chairman for yielding. mr. speaker, back in 2010 i served on the president's debt commission, otherwise known as the simpson-bowles commimp commission. and during that commission -- commission. and during that commission we heard nonpartisan expert testimony that debts as large as ours slow economic growth by

about 1%, in america that translates into about a million jobs. mr. camp:o to start getting r debt under control and our economy back on track, we passed the budget control act. but we all know that was a blunt and ineffective tool ands a result republicans have stepped forward with the smarter plan. and today i want to highlight the more targeted, sensible reductions in spending, the ways and means committee has offered, as part of the reconciliation process. each of which has enjoyed bipartisan support. our first recommendation requires exchange subsidies in the democrats' health care law to be repa in full. this is simple. if you aren't entitled to the benefit you don't get to keep it. this policy will reduce the deficit by $43.9 billion over the next0 years. a democrat-controlled house and a democrat-controlled senate first used a version of this to offset in 2010 and to pay for tempary medicare so-called doc

fix. this congress also endorsed the policy as part of the 1099 repeal legislation that became law early last year. and as secretary sebelius has previously said, requiring the return of exchange subsidy overpayments, quote, makes it fairer for recipients and all taxpayers, end quote. mr. speaker, i now yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from texas to discuss the committee's second recommendation. he is a true american hero as well as chairman of the social security subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas, mr. johnson, is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. johnson: thank you. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, due to a loophole in the tax code, the i.r.s. is shuffling out billions of americans' taxpayer dollars to those to who are heel -- to those who are here illegally. this includes a commonsense solution based on legislation i've authored that would save $7.6 billion by putting a stop to this.

the provision would stop illegal immigrants from getting the $1,000 refundable child tax credit by simply requiring tax filers to provide their social secuty number. right now those who are here illegally can get cash from uncle sam by providing an i.r.s.-provided taxpayer i.d. number to claim their refundable credit. illegal immigrants are even filing tax returns claing children who do not live in america. according to a recent report by nbc indianapolis, mr. speaker, there really shouldn't be any controversy over this. the american people are speaking out against this, treasury and tax has spoken out against this. democratic senator mccaskill has spoken out against this. even the administration supports the idea of preventing illegals from receiving public benefits rough funding of a verification program. mr. speaker, we can fix this,

put a stop to the abuse of precious taxpayer dollars, by simply requiring a social security number. americans want, need and deserve better protection of their hard-earned money and we owe it to the united states of america, to take action today. i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized. mr. camp: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield one minute to the chairman of the human resources subcommittee, the gentleman from kentucky, to discuss the committee's final recommendation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i rise in support of this legislation, including the provision to end the duplicative social services block grant. we held a hearing last year on duplicative programs such as ssbg. despite what we heard fromome on the other side, our concern is not focused squarely on the design of the ssbg program, which does not serve taxpayers well for a number of reasons. ssbg is duplicative and

unfocused. it supports 29 different types of social services with no eligibility requirements. mr. davis: the federalrogram -- or the federal government already spends $446 billion per year on other social services programs. which is about 260 times the amount of ssbg spending. with no state spending requirements or accountability for results, ssbg is more akin to stimulus dollars than other more effective antipoverty programs. with staggering deficits, we can't afford to send money to states without accountability through a program that is recommend cated by literally dozens of other federal programs. that's what ssbg does today and why it makes sense to end this duplicative program. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan, mr. camp, is recognized for one minute. mr. camp: thank you. today the economy's down and we're out of money. so is r responsibility to re-evalueways wait these programs --e-evaluate these programs, assess whether they're meeting their purpose and to determine if the american

taxpayer can afford them. we must reduce the burden, the debt, our debt is putting on our economy, our families, on job creation in this country. this legislation does that. it encompasses common sense -- commonsense, bipartisan policies and i urge its passage and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. with respect to the child tax credit, i ask unanimous consent to put in the record a letter received from the catholic bishops on the subje. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. van hollen: and, mr. speaker, i would just say and i quote, i reiterate our strong opposition to an unfair proposal that would alter the child tax cred to exclude children of hardworking immigrant families. the bishops also talk about the devastating impacts of eliminating the social services block grant and now i yield two minutes to the ranking member of the energy and commerce committee, who has been working

so hard on these issues, mr. waxman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. waxman: mr. speaker, the bill that is before us today is an unbalanced package of cuts that hurts the most vulnerable populations in our society and the working middle class. there was a budget agreement on a bipartisan basis between the congress and the president where we would shield lower income programs from the cuts that are now before us day. thatgreement is being rejected and the republicans are pushing for cuts for low income programs such as medicaid, snap, the food stamp program, programs helped by the sial security's block grant that are vital to maintaining a continuing economic recovery. these are the safety net programs.

with the slashes in medicaid we'll have hundreds of thousands of people, including 300,000 children, denied health insurance. is this something that we have to do when we're letting others not do their fair share? the bill would establish a federal medical malpractice system. that tramples on the meaning of states' righ which the republicans have said is a essential tenant of their point of view. it would undermine our future health care by cutting prevention and public health investments. they would make it harder for women to access important and life-saving presentive care. and they fail to protect medicare from billions of dollars in cuts that would happen under the sequestration. but we shouldn't be surprised. this is all based on the ryan

budget the republicans passed on the house floor last month. and under that budget defense spending is increased over investments in health, education and research. dicare as we know it would come to an end. the number of uninsured would rise. but millionaires and billionaires -- mr. van hollen: i yield the gentleman additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. waxman: millionaires and billionaires would receive enormous tax cuts. instead of a budget that reduces the deficit, actually reduces the deficit, which this budget would not do, and tries to do it in a balanced and fair way, the ryan budget and this bill specifically target those most in need and puts our nation's financial recovery at risk. i ur a no vote on the bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from myland reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized.

mr. ryan: at this time i yield -- mr. camp: -- mr. van hollen: at this time i yield one minute to the gentlelady from the virgin islands. mrs. christensen: thank you. so say i rise in strong opposition to this bill would be an understatement. in addition to the other regious cuts this bill wld eliminate the critically needed $6.3 billion in funding that the u.s. territories medicaid program receive under the affordable care act. and more than that, it send as clear message to americans in the territories that while they're american enough to defend this nation during times of war, they are not american enough for this nation to protect and preserve their health and well-being. this bill is un-american, it is unjust. i ask my colleagues to vote no on this terrible reconciliation bill and i ask unanimous consent to include the list of organizations opposing the cuts to our medicaid funding. and i yield ck the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from maryland

reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is cognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from oklahoma, a member of the budget committee, mr. cole. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for one minute. mr. cole: thank you, mr. speaker. the american people know in their gut that their not taxed too little and they also know that the federal government spends too much. this bill is an important first step in restraining spending and bringing our out-of-control deficit under control. i'm very proud of our chairman, mr. ryan, and our committee for bringing it to th floor. i'm even prouder of the six authorizing committees that systematically did their job, reviewed nondiscretionary spending and found real savings that we can use to reduce the deficit and protect important investments in defense. taming the deficit will require that we take these steps each and every yea going forward. we haven't done it since 2005, it's time to do it today. let's take a step in the right direction. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore:he

gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i yield two minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the ways and means committee, mr. levin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentman is recognized. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. levin: this bill is vivid evidence of the radicalization of the republican party. i recall dades ago chairing a committee in the michigan state nate and addressing a number of reforms affecting the lives of working men and women. i directlengagedn give and take and negotiated final legislation with governor george romney. relting in legislation that passed on a bipartisan basis. today the radicalization of the republican party would make that impossible. instead we have a bill that would take away food stamps for

two million americans, children, working parents and seniors, threaten 280,000 school meals and end the social services block grants which provide home care, transportation for individuals with disabilities, protection for abused children and meals on wheels. all of this and much more extremism to carry out an additional tax cut of $240,000 for the very wealthiest 1% of taxpayers. we can turn off the budget sequester and the damaging across-the-board cuts but not with this extreme partisan bill. the house leadership refuses to follow a bipartisan path. this bilis sad proof of how the republican party of today

has moved dramatically to the extreme, leaving behind most americs except the very wealthiest. mr. speaker, i now ask unanimous consent to enter into the record letters from the following organizations that are opposed to this bill's drastic cuts in services for the elderly. , the disabled a -- elderly, the disabled and children, catholic charities, the jewish federation of north america easter seals, the aarp, the arc, national foster care coalition, the child welfare league of america, the coalition on human needs, the national women's law center, the leadership conference on civil and human rights, the national conference or state legislators and the american pubc human services association.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. and the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished chairman of the budget committee, mr. mcclintock. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, week of heard a lot about fairness which the democrats define to mean taxing businesses to finae a variety of welfare programs. problem is, businesses do not pay business taxes. business taxes can only be paid by consumers thrgh higher prices, by employees through lower wages and by invests, mainly pension funds, through lower earnings. there is no other way to pay a business tax. so the net effect of pursuing their definition of fairness is to push mo consumers into debt, push more employees into employment and push more

retirees into poverty which in turn requires more and more government welfare spending until their financial house of cards collapses. that's the economi spiral their policies are producing in our time. the house budget, which this act advances,reaks that cycle and restores polics that throughout our history have lift our natn from times of want and despair to areas of prosperity and abundance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wiscoin reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. we're still waiting for this house to take up the president's jobs bill that was submitted last september. we've seen 25 consecutive months of private sector job growth was a whole lot better than where we were in january when the president was sworn in losing 800,000 jobs a month but we need to sustain that recovery and we're still

waiting. the clock is ticking. let's take that legislation up so we can accelerate the recovery. with that i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from texas representing the ranking member of the judiciary committee, ms. sheila jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas, m jackson lee, is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: i thank the speaker. i thank the ranking member. i thank the gentleman from -- i thank the gentleman from the full committee, mr. conyers. this is a debate that is of course necessary but it is not going ywhere. this is in essence to respond to the potential impending sequestration and the dead lock of the committee, but the dead locke of the committee gave us an opportunity to work in a birtisan manner. and my good friend who spoke on the other side of the aisle

talked about abundance and prosperity and welfare. i say we are not talking about welfare. we are talking about investment in people and we are talking about not having a siege upon our children. on april 25, 2012 we were back in the judiciary committee again looking at medical malpractice for the ump teent time and i wondered -- empteenth time and i wonred why they were asked to find money and so directions r the republicans of the judiciary committee was to oppress the sick and to be able to cap medical malpractice insurance on innocent victims of women and children and the elderly when the medical system fails us as it relates to medical devices and other elements. we were told to iminate for the children of america by eliminating noneconomi damages, restricting punitive damages, limiting access to court for poor victims of medical malpractice, eliminating the protectionof children and prohibiting joint

and several liability. so we were simply told to shut the courthouse door for children that needed to be able to have the opportunity to have their lives saved. just like the little boy who needed a surgery in san antonio and they told the family it was a serious surgery. they needed to have a cardiologist on staff. he went into surgery and of course things went wrong. there was no cardiologist there. there was a mishap. there was a fault and that little boy died. they wanted to deny that family, that poor family the access to the courthouse. that is what this bill does. and when my friends begin to talk about what else it does, it cuts the snap, the nutrition program. it cuts medicaid. mr. speaker, what i would say is that this bill is a siege on children. we should oppose it. it is not reconciliation. it is oppression and i'd ask us to vote against it. i'd ask to submit in the record, mr. speaker, a letter from the international

association of firefighters that are against this underlying legislation. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. jackson lee: with that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: at this time, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one minute and 30 seconds to a member of the budget committ, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lankford. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. lankford: it's interesting to hear all the hypbole. for a freshman not hearing the back and forth, used to sitting around the table and work out the facts, it's fascinating for me to hear the speeches and hear how oppressive things are when there are simple things. it remind me how difficult it is to bring down federal spending and to actually balance our budget. when we can't agree on simple things. simple things like, should we write a check and mail it on april 15 to people that are here in this country illegally? yes or no? if people do not qualify for food stamps, should we give

them food stamps anyway? if there is a tarp program that's out there that all of us in a bipartisan manner have said does not work, it was supposed to give home assistance for mortgages for millions of people and it's been a miserable failure. can we close down that program and use those dollars? the anticipate seems to come back, no, no and no. and it's this repetitive statement again and again. just tax those oil companies, everything will be all right. well, i'm sorry. but a $4 billionax on oil companies, which would cause prices to increase on gasoline, does not solve a $1 trillion hole. this is a first step. this is a beginning point to say we got to get in balance. and this is a real practical way to begin to deal with fraud and abuse and waste in our system and duplication in government s we do not have the across the board sequestration, so we do not have a big hit on our defense.

we got to solve this and we should be able to come together and say this is waste and fraud and abuse and we should do that before we deal with taxes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. listen, we keep hearing about wruste. we need tdo -- about waste, fraud and abuse. we need to make so we do everything possiblto deal with waste, fraud and abuse. we hear about people cheating the system. they are eligible for the system. and that is why the nonpartisan congressional budget office says that 22 million households with kids are going to see their food nutrition cut. not because they're getting it somehow fraudulently. because what the republican proposal does is cut it f. almost two million people off the food nutrition program.

someone that knows something about these issues is the gentlelady from wisconsin, ms. moore. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleladyrom wisconsin is recognized for one minute. ms. moore: thank you, mr. speaker and i thank the gentleman from maryland. i think the american people need to know the point about this sequestration replacement point. no matter how many times this package is going to cut welfare programs or socialist programs like medicare and medicaid, things that we call the safety net, all for the sake of preserving every last te of military spending, ignoring the opportunity to route out waste, fraud and peace dividend, it doesn't add up. i was taught in math, what you do to one side of the equation, you have to do to the other side of the equation for it to balance out.

you can't jt btract from the social safety net. medica, medicaid, food stamps , cut the social services block grant. stop the wall street bailouts. you can't just add more tax cuts for the wealthiest, add more defense spending, maintain oil subsidies, maintain expensive corporate farm subsidies and say that's a balanced approach. i want to say to americans, it don't add up. this dog doesn't hunt. you can't just cut the social safety net and add billions of dollars of corporate welfare and say that's a balanced equation. it doesn't support simple math. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the chair reminds all members to address their comments to the chair. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mrryan: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield 1 1/2

minutes for the purpose of a colloquy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a nute and a half. >> i would like him to respond, everyone wants to protect the social safety net for the truly needy but we want to stop abuses within a system that take money from that -- those programs and hurt the poor. for example, people who hide their assets to fraudulently qualified, people who misuse food stamps or alcohol and tobacco. mr. murphy: i'd like to ask the gentleman if he's going to work to close loopholes, reduce waste and abuse and reform the system while really protecting those who qualify? and i yield back to the gentleman for answer. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania is exactly right. that is the goal of our language in this bill and it will be the additional efforts that we willundergo in the comprehensive farm bill that

will follow soon. mr. murphy: i have one additional question for the gentleman and ask in fairness here, will you be bringing forward a bill to the house from the committee that's truly going to reform farm subsidies, produce savings a reduce deficits and i yield to the gentleman. >> whewe come with our comprehensive farm bill, things that have been identified, like the direct payments, will not be there. we will address all spending in all portions of the farm bill. we will makeeductions in every part of agricultural spending as we do our part in helping address this huge tremendous national deficit. mr. murphy: i thank the gentleman for his response and i yield back. mr. lucas: thank y. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: well, thank you, mr. speaker. i was glad to hear that last colloquy becausehis republican proposal cut the food and nutrition programs in the ag committee's jurisdiction

and didn't put one penny, didn't ask one penny from the ag subsidies if our democratic substitute hadeen put in order, that was one of the cuts that we de in order to prevent devastating cuts to the food and nutrition programs for over 22 million american families with children. i now yield a minute to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, this bill seeks to achieve a very worthy goal, reduce the debt of the united states and establish a sustainable level of spending. i share that goal, but i oppose this bill for two reasons. first, the proponents of this bill know or they certainly should know, this bill won't be passed by the senate or signed by the president. that tur us into a political manifesto, not a practical proposal. secondly and most importantly, the design of this bill guarantees that it will fail. our budget is a three-prong

stool. domestic spending, pentagon ending and revenues. if you want a strong and durable stool you need three legs. this budget cuts two away. it takes revenues off the table completely and it expting the pentagon with its nearly $700 billion for making any contribution to debt reduction. mr. speaker, our debt problem is serious but solvable. 100 of us in this house, 60 democrats and 40 republicans, wrote to the supercommittee and we said the obvious. put everything on the table. doing so we can succeed. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, a member of the subcommittee, mr.mulvaney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. mulvaney: thank you, mr. speaker. in my office as we all do we get emails from time to time from constituents, these viral

emls, alleging from time to time some type of violent fraud in the system or some type of bizarre government overreach. we actually researched them in my office to find out if they were true or not. we got dozens of them this week about a program where supposedly was part of an investigative report by a television station in the midwest that said that supposedly illegal immigrants were able to file paperwork every april 15 and get $1,000 for every child they had. regardless of whether or not they could prove that the child existed, whether or not the child actually lived in the couny. i was stunned by it, to be quite frank with you. we gave it to my office to research it. it turns out, mr. speaker, stunningly it's absolutely true. absolutely true. it's not just a radio station or television station in the midwest. it's the i.r.s. admits this is true. the nmentor general looked into this and -- the inspector general looked into this and said we're spending $4,000

million every single year. over $4 billion last year on these types of programs. they admit it's true and the r.s. asked us to act and we have done nothing. this is an outrage, mr. speaker. i'm surprised to hear anybody defend this system. this is the type of waste, fraud and abuse that undermines confidence in the way we do business in this town. this is the type of thing that gives people concern that we don't have any idea what we're doing about anything. . the good news is here for a change we can do something about it. we could pass the gentleman from texas' bill, mr. johnson's bill, but we could also do something today. we don't have to wait to fix this type of abuse. we could pass this reconciliation bill today and stop this program and at least take a small step towards restoring confidence in the way the american government provides services to itseople. i hope we do that. thank you, mr. chaman. i yield back the balance of my time. e speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts on

the ways and means committee who knows a lot about this issue, mr. neal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for two minutes. mr. neal: thank you, mr. speaker. we just heard a moment ago from the gentlemafrom south carolina that there was an illicit or perhaps illegal addition that was taking place somewhere in the country across the midwest. the answer is to notify the u.s. attorney's office. the answer there is to notif the authorities. this is not about illegal immigration. this argument today is abt once again asking e wealthiest people in our society just to sacrifice a bit. when the gentleman talks about $4 billion of fraud, there isn't anybody on the democratic side that encourages the idea of fraud. telling the ameran people where the expenditures go. a million new veterans have been created between afghanistan and iraq. you're 20 years old and you have

been wounded in iraq or afghanistan, you're going to be in the care of the v.a. system r the next 50 or 60 years. we are obligated to take care of them. that's where the money goes. we cut taxes in this country by $2.3 trillion during the first years and my republican pals were all culpable in that argument. you can fight two wars in afghanistan and iraq, now both north of $2 trillion, and cut taxes by $2.3 trillion, and peopleonder why we are in the predicament we are in? 12 successive years of tax cuts at the samtime asking nothing of the people at the vertop, who incidentally during the clinton years, were not asking for a tax cut. their argument was, pay down the debt. we are being asked to revisit with this budget what went awry dung the bush years. we are being asked with this budget to go back to the polici that got us into this predicament during the bush years. we are being asked at this time once again to ask the poorest people in our society to

shoulder the burden of tax cuts for the wealthiest in america. tax cuts that have n paid for themselves, tax cuts that will not pay for themselves, and tax cuts that do not take us on a sound path to fiscal stability in the near or long-term future. this should be about balancing the budget and it should be done, democrats and republicans, not with a sledgehammer that's being proposed only this afternoon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i say, mr. speaker, this is not a tax bill it's a spending cut bill. with that i'd like to yield two minutes to t gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. gingrey: i rise in strong support of h.r. 5652 the sequester replacement reconciliation act. i commend budget committee chairman paul ryan for his leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor. this reconciliation legislation will make necessary and strategic reforms to a number of mandatory programs to better

ensure that those most in need of government assistance receive it. instead of individuals who are not eligible or indeed may be gaming the system. with these reforms we will find nearly $328 billion in sanchingse over 10 years. furthermore, h.r. 5652 will offset $78 billion in cuts to the department of defense as a sult of sequestration. mr. speaker, i am pleased to see there are two provisions that i offered at have been included in h.r. 5652. the first is h.r. 5, which seeks to address the rising cost of health care through meaningful, fair, and balanced medical liability reform. the second is h.r. 1683, the state flexibility act, which seeks to correct a problem created by the failed stimulus and obamacare. this provision gives states the opportunity, gives them the opportunity to root out waste,

fraud, and abuse in the medicaid program. i urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle support h.r. 5652. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlen from maryland. mr. van hollen: i ank you, mr. speaker. i w yield two minutes to distinguished democratic whip, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, the challenging times we live in force uso make difficult choices about our priorities. the reconciliatn bill before us today is an example of choosing the wrong priorities. while we must address our deficits and emergey sequestration, the republican reconciliation bill does it absolutely the wrong way. it places the entire burden of deficit reduction on the most vulnerable while nothing -- while asking nothing of the best off. indeed, it asks for more from those who have less and less from tho who have more.

it harms seniors and children by eliminating social services block grants which provide for programs for our communities like child protection services and meals on wheels. they say they are getting rid of waste, fraud, and abuse, i have heard that for 31 years, while they added $6.4 trillion to the deficit. it slaes food stamp funding by $33.2 billion. they say that's waste, fraud, and abuse. c.b.o. does not agree. it's real assistance to families in need. furthermore, it cuts the pay of middle class workers who serve the public. e only workers who it adversely affects. these are the priorities we have seen throughout the republican budget. ending the medicare guarantee, slashing jobs while cting taxes for the wealthiest at the expense of seniors. the gentleman from wisconsin says this bill doesn't do that. he's correct. his budget did that. middle class families and those who are the most vulnerable pay

the price. democrats have our own proposal. unfortunately it wasn't made in order. as the gentleman from maryland, my colleague said, you only had to waive run rule as opposed to three for your budget but you wouldn't do it because you didn't want the american public to see the real alternatives out there. i regret that to that extend you close down this rulwhich you railed so much against -- 30 additional seconds? mr. van hollen: another 30 seconds. mr. hoyer: unlike today's republican bill, our proposal reces deficits in a balanced way, prevented sequestration through a balanced combination of spending cuts and revenues. let me say something, nobody's asked to make a sacrifice in the richestountry on the earth. what we have to do is make appropriate contributions. nobody's asked to make a sacrifice and certainly not the most vulrable in our country as does this reconciliation bill.

mr. spear, i urge opposition to this bill. we can and should do better. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. rya reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yielone minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. engel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlen from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. engel: i thank the gentleman from myland. i rise in opposition to this bill. it should come as no surprise the republicans in congress do not take the budget deficit seriously. when they were in total control during six of the eight bush years, they did nothing to reduce the deficit. quite the opposite. publicans say they are all for cutting spending, just not the spending they like. so here we have an attempt to replace sequestration so that they can continue to destr the social safety net while protecting defense spending, big oil, and the wealthiest in this country. yet again asking the american middle and lower classes to bear the costs of cutting the budget. when they agreed to the

sequester they would try to back out of the deal to protect their pet policies and that's what we see in this document. cutting food stamps, snap, hurting senior citizens hurting federal workers. i voted against the budget control act because it was an unbalanced budget and put the responsibility of balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class. but at least it was an agreement that put both defense and discretionary spending up for cuts. it was an agreement that both parties came to recognizi the need to cut federal spending. now the republicans e trying to book out of that and in backing out of that theare protecting the wealthiest among us, hurting the mide class. this is the wrong way to go. it was a shameful document. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentleman from wisconsin continue to reserve? the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i now yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. kucinich: it's called a

reconciliation act, but how do we reconcile more money for bombs while cutting money for bread? how do we reconcile our nation's helping oil companies, arms merchants, war profiteers while cutting assistance to low and moderate income families? my colleagues are worried about abuse of food stamps. i wish they would have additional concerns and sympathy for the abuse of the middle class, for 10 million americans out of work, for millions losing their homes, their retirement security. t's look for the real fraud in our government. over trillions of dollars, billions of u.s. money lost or stolen in afghanistan just in the last week, $80 million for a council whichhey are not going to use, they are going to close. we blame poor people using food

stamps? the real difference that we are dealing with here is a moral deficit and it's time that we face the truth. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield one minute to mr. baca. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. baca: thank you very much. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this misguided budget that we'll vote on today. this package literally takes food off the table for millions of disadvantaged americans by cutting $33 billion from the snap program. i ask my republican colleagues, where are your priorities? is it to take from the poor? give to the rich? snap is a life line for 46 million americans. we continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year to assist foreign countries. but we don't spend money to take care of the struggling families right here at hom

it's a shame. this budget proposal not only cuts benefit levels, but it also keeps thsands of children from receiving school meals. can you imagine going to school on an empty stomach and having to take a test? in america this should not happen. i understand the value of the snap program because i once relied on food stamps. unless you have been in that situation, you don't knowhat it's like. you have no choice. you have no choice but to receive assistance to feed your family. i ask my colleagues to make sure that we vote against this and make sure thate put food on the table for the 46 million people who are going hungry right here in the united stas. vote no on this. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin continues to reserve. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. may i inquire as to how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has three minutes remaining. the gentleman from wisconsin has seven. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes.

mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. as we said at the beginning there's no disagreement over the fact that we need to have a plan to reduce our deficit. the question has been how? and there's no dispute about whether we need to replace the sequester, the meat axe cuts that will take place automatically january 1. again the question is how? and the republican approach once again asks nothing of people who are doing so well in this country, people making over $1 million a year, and because they ask nothing of them their budget hits everybody else. the figures we are talking about today, these are about real people. these are figures from the nonpartisan congressional budget office, the impact of their oposal, 300,000 kids will lose their health care coverage under chips. 22 million kids will see thr food nutrition suort under

snap reduced. two million people will see all their food nutrition support eliminated. those are facts. i know people want to pretend, pretend that this doesn't impact real people. that makes it easier to say we are not going to ask big oil companies to get rid of tir subsidies. that we can pretend the cuts don't have an impact, but they do. that's why every bipartisan group that's looked at this budget challenge has said we need a combination of cuts and we did a trillion more and we have cuts in our substitute, but also need to get some revenue by closing some of these tax loopholes. mr. speaker, the democrats had a substitute amendment. the republicans won't even let us have a vote on it. they waived three provisions in their rules to bring up their proposal. they wouldn't waive one to hear an alternative. we keep hearing that it's all part to reduce the deficit. apparently not important enough

to ask for one penny from people making a million dollars a year. we keep hearing that this -- impact of the sequester will hit the fence, but again not one penny from the oil companies to help take a balanced approach. i urge rejection of the republican proposal, i wish we could have an up or down vote on the democratic substitute. that would be democracy, but maybe that's asking too much these days. . i now yield the last minute -- ok. mr. speaker, i now yield one minute to a lady who has spent her life fighting for justice and trying to make sure that

that i reflected in the budget that we present to the american people, the distinguished democratic leader, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i nt to call to the attention of all of our colleagueand those who follow the work of congress the extraordinary contribution that congressman -- ranking member chris van hollen has made to this debate. he has led our members on the democratic members on the budget committee in a way that reflects the values of our country. how we can meet the needs of our children, their health, their education. the economic security of their families. the -- when people ask me what are the three most issues facing the congress and i say, our children, our children, our children. and the family in which they

live. i watch with great pride the debate and the strong distinction that's been made between a values-based budget put forth by the democrats and that supports a thriving middle class. and the ry republican tea party budget that upholds millionaires or the middle class. we're here today because the republicans in the house have decided over and over again to walk away from bipartisan, bicameral agreement that we reach to avert economic crisis and to reduce our deficit and to honor t full faith and credit of the united states of america. walking away and punishing the middle class because they refuse to close even one special interest tax loophole to reduce our deficit. they are putting big oil and

millionaires ahead of america's middle-income families. in recent weeks, house republicans have voted twice, not once but twice. here we go again, in the words of a great republican president-to-be, that gives massive tax breaks to the wealthiest americans, while ending the medicare guarantee and increasing cost for seniors in the meantime. that is an absolute fact. today, republicans have voting to begin implementing their out-of-touch budget, middle-class people, seniors, women and children will pay the price. consider these few things. i know that the members of the committee have made the case, but i just want to focus on a few things that affect people very directly in their lives.

this republican-ryan-tea party budget will assault women's health by eliminating the prevention fund. 326,000 women would not get the breast cancer screening they are slated to receive next year. 248,000 women would not get the cervical cancer screening they are slated to receive next year. those are big numbers. but every individual case is important to the families that those women live in. so the numbers are staggering. but the specific cases are what is important and this is hundreds of thousands. it would harm children, seniors, literally taki food out of the mouths of babies as nearly 300,000 children would lose free or reduced cost school meals. 300,000 kids.

wait a minute. we are going to give a $400,000 tax cut to people making over $1 million a year and we're going to take food from 300,000 children to do that. 1.7 millio seniors would lose meals on wheels. people are familiar with that in their neighborhoods, in their communities and other services. put wall street ahead of the middle class and working families by weakening the consumer financial protection bureau. in the wall street reform bill, we not only had the biggest changes in regulation so that the recklessness on wall street would no longer cause joblessness on maistreet. the reckless of some. i don' -- the reckless of some on wall street would not create, again, massive joblessness on main street.

and in that same legislation -- and they were the biggest regulation changes in a long time, decades. t the biggest change in history was in the consumer financial proction bureau. this budget weakens consumer protection. that's just not right. so here we are again with the republican budget to name a few, and contrast to this draconian republican bill, democrats are fighting for a balanced approach, creates jobs, expands opportunity, reduces the deficit, protects the health and economic security of america's families. it honors the entrepreneurial spirit of america. republicans are focused on obstruction rather than solutions. americans have rejected republican obstructionism and made it clear over and over again, we must work together to

find solutions. because this legislation will have a devastating impact, it's opposed by numerous organizations from easter seals to national women's law center, the u.s. conference of catholic bishops and voices for -- of america -- for america's children. as the obama administration wre in expressing their strong opposition to this bill, the bill's unbalanced provisions fail the test of fairness and shared responsibility. the same time as the house is advancin tax cuts that benefit the most fortunate americans, this legislation would pose deep budget cuts that costs jobs and hurt vulnerable citizens, like senior citizens and ildren. let's come together in a bipartisan way, in a balanced way to cut our deficit by

growing the economy, creating growth, creating jobs, bringing in revenue to reduce the deficit. to make the priority choices that is the values of our country, the values of fairness and opportunity, of sustaining a thriving middle class, for the middle class and all who aspire to it. it is the backbone of our democracy. for that reason i urge my colleagues to vote no on this devastating bill and yield back the balance of my time. thspeaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. speaker, i yield myself the remainder of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: first off, mr. speaker, let me thank those six committees that contributed to making this possible. over 60% of the federal budget is in a category of spending we

call mandatory spending. it's a budget term of ours that means that part of spending is on autopilot and congress does not oversee or set the level in any given year. congress does address, we call discretionary spending, that's government agency budget, about 39% of the budget, every single year. we -- the last time congress actually looked at this 60% of spending on autopilot for savings was 2005. it's important that we make sure that we're scrutinizing ho we're spending hard-earned taxpayer dollars, and it's a shame that we haven't revisited this category of spending since 2005. we're doing that here. now, the president, the secretary of defense, the

speaker of the house, the minority leader of the house, they all said this sequester is a mistake, it's bad, it's going to hurt. not only does it hallow out defense according to the defense secretary but creates an 8 across the board cut to domestic discretionary spending like national initutes of the health. and we think we should prevent that in a bipartisan basis. that's what we're doing. this is the only plan that says prevent that from happening and here's how you pay for it. here's our plan to stop that from happening. this event that everybody says should be stopped. now when we take a look at what this package does, i think we want to look at, is our government working the way it ought to be? and in particular, we're hearing lots of comments about how this hurts people, how this hurts the poor. let's take a look at our poverty-fighting efforts.

and so we measure our poverty-fighting efforts based on inputs or based on outcomes? should we msure or poverty-fighting efforts based on the number of programs we're creating, or should we think about how many people we're getting out of poverty? here's the problem. these efforts aren't working. one out of six americans today are in poverty. we have the highest poverty rates we've had in a generation. these programs aren't working. let's fix them. let's pass reforms that instead increase the poverty rate which is happening these days and get people back in the lives of self-sufficiency. let's go back to the american idea of an opportunity society with the safety net that doesn't keep people in poverty but gets people out of poverty, underlines their self-sufficiency.

and we are not going to be able to achieve that if we don't grow our economy. we are not going to be able to achieve that if we don't more opportunities in society so people on the bottom wrung of the economic ladder can climb up and out. we shouldn't be defining success as how many people we have on these benefit programs. we should be defining success as to how many people we're graduating from these benefit programs into lives of self-sufficiency, into jobs. that's the american idea. and so when you take a look at whether these programs are working well or not, we need to reform them. we haven't touched these progms f decades. food stamps. we've grown from 17 million people to 45 million people in a decade. a 270% spending increase. $1.8 billion in overpayments last year alone. we're just saying, you need to qualify for the benefit to get the benefit.

medicaid, if we think it's such a success, why are doctors filling out a survey saying they are mott taking any more patients? then why was $15.8 billion in overpayments made just last year? does this devastate medicaid? instead of increasing medicaid by 125% over the next decade, this proposal increases it by 123% over the next decade. hardly draconian. what we're saying is we need to make these programs work to achieve their intended results. give states more flexibility to customize the benefitto meet the needs of the people in their states. that's what these medicaid reforms are all about. and when we hear the other side talk about no spending cuts but more tax increases, that's going to slow down job creation. where the first ones who came to the flor saying close these tax loopholes, but close these tax loopholes to create

economic growth by reforming e tax code. treat people fairly in the tax code so that a company or a person who makes the same amount of money pays the same level of tax, y do that getting rid of tax shelters and tax loopholes, not to raise spending but to lower tax rates so american businesses can survive, can thrive and create jobs. upward mobility, economic opportunity, that's what we're trying to achieve here. mr. speaker, we should not be talking to each other in this society as if we're stuck in some class, as if this person's lower class, that person is upper class. our ancestors formedhis country which should not be a class-based society. it should be a society of upward mobility, where we can make the most of our lives based on our own talent and god-given effort. the government is here to help

them cope with it. . if we have a debt crisis, if we keep on this path, we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar wepend, we are going to have a debt crisis. europe is in a debt crisis. what happens when you are in a debt crisis? immediate austerity. cutting benefits to seniors, cutting benefits to people in the safety net, raising taxes that slows down the economy, especially for the youth. look what we are doing right now . half of our nation's college graduates are either unemployed or underemployed. half. it's not working. we need to change these policies. we need to grow the economy. and if we have a debt crisis because ofhis spending, then the people who need government the most, they are the ones who get hurt the first and the worst. we are leading. the president, no plan to fix

this. the senate, no budget since 2009. and our friends on the other side of the aisle, tax increases, spending increases, no spending cuts. mr. speaker, this is a small step in the right direction. it's something congr

we are moving forward to a country where every american is treated with dignity and respect. you will have the chance to have your voice heard on the issue of making sure that everybody, regardless of sexual orientation, is treated fairly. you will have a chance to weigh in on this. we are a nation that treat people fairly. [applause] we are not going backward. we are not going backward, we are going forward. [applause] we are going forward.

we are going forward. with everybody. everybody treated with dignity and respect. we will not allow another election where multimillion- dollar donations speak louder than the voices of ordinary citizens. [applause] and it is time to stop denying citizenship to responsible young people just because they are children of undocumented immigrants. [applause] this country is successful we

harness the god-given talent of every individual. when we come together as one american family. black, white, hispanic, asian, native american, gay, straight, disabled -- everybody striving for the same dream. that is what we are fighting for. that is why i ran for president. that is why i am running again for president. that is why i need your help. [applause] you know, a seattle, this election is going to be even closer than the last. the reason for that is too many of our friends and neighbors are still hurting because of this crisis and they see what is going on in washington and they do not like it, so there is a frustration level there.

they will express themselves during the election. i hear from people wondering why they have not been able to get one of the jobs that has been created even if you get a job, that jobs report does not mean much. they are wondering why everyone is still under water or why the family has not been touched by the recovery. there is still a lot of work to be done. folks are so frustrated by washington. as i said, the other side, they will not be offering these americans a real answer to their questions. they are not offering a better vision. they are not offering a new set of ideas. everybody knows that. there is nothing if you have heard from them were you say, man, i did not think of that.

[laughter] that is fresh. that is new. maybe that will work. that is not what is going on here. what they will be doing is spending more money than we have negative before on ads. they will tell you america is down and out. america is not working. they will say are you better off than you were without mentioning that there frame of reference is before the worst crisis in our lifetime. we have seen this play before. here is the thing -- the real question, the question that we have to answer, the question

that will actually make a difference in your life, the lives of your children and grandchildren -- it is not just about how we are doing today, but how we are doing tomorrow. and the next day and the day after that. will we be better off if more americans get a better education? will we be better off if we reduce our dependence on foreign oil? will we be better off if we start doing some nation building here at home? if we are investing in clean energy? if we ask the wealthiest americans to pay their fair share? will we be better off if we invest in new research, science, and technology? when we look back four years from now, 10 years from now, or 20 years from now, will we be better off if we have the courage to keep moving forward? [applause] that is the question in this

election. that is the question in this election. that outcome is entirely up to you. you will have to contend with more negative ads, more cynicism, more nastiness, sometimes just plain foolishness. but if there is one thing that we've learned last time around, one thing we learned in 2008, there is nothing more powerful than millions of voices calling for change. when you pick up the phone, when you talk to your friends, when you decide it is time for change to happen, guess what -- change happens. change comes to america. that is the spirit we need again. if people ask you what this campaign is about, tell them it is still about hope.

tell them it is still about change. tell them it is still about ordinary people who believe in the face of great odds, we can make a difference in this country. [applause] because i still believe, seattle, i still believe we are not as divided as our politics suggest. i believe we have more common ground than the pundits tell us. i believe we are not democrats or republicans burst, i think we are americans first. i still believe in you. that is why i am asking you to still believe in me. [applause]

i told you in 2008 i was not a perfect man. maybe michelle told you that. [laughter] i will not be a perfect president. but i promise that when i was running that first time that i would always tell you what i thought and i would always tell you where i stood. that i would wake up every single day fighting as hard as i know how far you. [applause] seattle, i have kept that promise. i will keep it as long as i am president. if you are willing to stick with meat, if you are willing to fight with me, if you are willing to work even harder this election than the last one, i guarantee you we will finish what we started.

i am still fired up. i am still ready to go. thank you everybody. god bless you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> these men go through things and have scars that no one can understand except each other. >> it with the relationship between harry truman and herbert

hoover, who achieved -- who were different men and ended up forming this alliance that neither of them would have participated in. it was productive and found the foundation -- formed the foundation of a very deep friendship. >> it may be the most exclusive club in the world. michael duffy and nancy gibbs of the relationships between presidents, sunday at 8:00 on c- span's "q&a". >> in a few moments, a hearing on the u.s. military budget and readiness. washington journal is live at 7:00 eastern. we will be joined by the libertarian presidential candidate, gary johnson. a discussion on the foreign-born population in the u.s. and the rate of obesity.

what can be learned from the japanese earthquake at 12:00 p.m. eastern. then, a council on russia after the presidential elections. >> several lives events to tell you about today on c-span. the heritage foundation post a discussion on lessons learned from japan -- japan's efforts to recover from last year's earthquake. that is at noon eastern. at 3:00 p.m. eastern, the atlantic council what that russia after a presidential election in the future opposition parties. >> i thought it was important to write a book that people would take seriously. the movement that elected obama, how did it build overtime? obama did not come out of nowhere. also, the tea party movement seemed to come out of nowhere. how did it work? occupy wall street. those are important things to

take seriously, to let them as social movements. >> on afterwards, former white house adviser van jones on social movements in america today, saturday night at 10:00 eastern on booktv. modern liberalism is flawed and has no answer for today's issues. part of bookstv this weekend on c-span2. >> now, a subcommittee meeting on the u.s. military budget and force readiness. you would hear from representatives on the implications of automatic defense cuts that go into effect next year unless congress acts. the u.s. house of representatives passed a bill yet today to seize the automatic defense cuts, but the measure is not expected to be taken up in the senate.

>> we look forward to your testimony. we are pleased to be joined by general lloyd often, vice chief of staff of the army, mark ferguson, a vice chief of naval operations, and general joseph dunford of the marine corps. i appreciate each of you adjusting your schedule at the last minute. we cannot hold the hearing on the original date because we were voting. after more than a decade of combat operations in iraq and

afghanistan, reported readiness levels have steadily declined. even as defense spending has grown dramatically. our not deployed forces have experienced serious shortfalls in terms of personnel, equipment, and training. even deploying units that struggled with not enough time to train. now we are entering an era of declining budgets, forced structure, and new strategies. as a result, our military services base a new set of challenges as they seek to balance the drawdown of forces, michael reese set of equipment and personnel, and continuing combat operations in afghanistan. i am interested in hearing the extent of current projects current readiness funding back logged and the risk posed by the back lots. we have been told the reset of our forces will require additional funding after the end of combat operations. i would like the witnesses to provide us with their latest

estimates, pipelines, and amounts. i am pleased the navy budget will fully fund the maintenance requirements for the first time in many years. it is my hope this increased level of funding will lead to a decrease in unsatisfactory inspection results at the same time, i am disappointed the navy has failed to meet the 6% capital investment objectives established by congress, the only military service that had done so. i would like to hear what your long-term plans are for making up this gap in investment. i am also please the army and marine corps have funded facility sustainment, restoration, and modernization at the 90% level, the dod stated goal. unfortunately, the air force and navy funded this same ffrm at 82% and 80% respectively. what level of risk are you

taking on as a result of these lower funding levels and what steps do you plan to take to avoid large bills down the road? we of learned the department of defense will face a $1.30 billion bill as a result of the rise in kabul -- fuel prices. this has been exacerbated by the continued closure of the pakistan border, forcing supply convoys to use the no. distribution network at an increased expense of $38 million a month. given all these challenges, we must strive to check our readiness accounts. we can also do a better job of managing funds like operation and maintenance. we cannot approve the -- improve the accounts. in addition to operational readiness models. as the services continue to identify efficiencies in overhead, support, and other areas, i challenge the services to a better balance -- to better

balance the difference between cost savings and cost avoidance. we owe it to the american people to be better stewards of their tax dollars. i cannot thank you enough for your dedicated service and sacrifices you have made. i thank you all for taking the time to have this critical discussion and look forward to your testimony. i know each of you have prepared statements, which will be included in the record. i would ask you to please summarize and we will have plenty of piper questions. -- plenty of questions. >> i thank you for calling this important hearing of the current readiness of u.s. forces. i for most want to thank the witnesses before us today as we confront challenges around the world, i know that each of you have been tremendous leaders.

all of the soldiers that served below you deserve our respect and admiration and i thank you all for what you do but this plea and for the national security challenges we face. on march 23, 1983, but that ronald reagan gave an important speech. in his speech, he said "what seems to have been lost in all of this debate is the simple truth of how a defense budget is arrived at. it is not done by deciding to spend a certain number of dollars, it is deciding what must be done to maintain peace. there is no logical way you can say let's spend x-billion dollars less. what can we do without and still have to consider -- security against all contingencies.

he should be candid enough to acknowledge his cuts mean cutting our commitments to our allies and inviting greater risks. as i considered the national security threats facing our country and as i reviewed the president's 2013 defense budget, i worry that we are falling into the very trapper the reagan warned us to avoid. i worry that president obama's defense budget is based more on my view of what the office of management and budget has handed to you in terms of a number that treats all federal expenditures the same rather than a clear- eyed, objective assessment of our u.s. national security interest and the type of military we need to protect those interest and the american people. as i consider this budget

request, i have serious concerns and a lot of questions i looked forward to discussing today. let me quickly highlight may leading concern for each of the services. we would certainly expect an army in strength drawdown after withdrawal from iraq. i would like to know what the reductions of 72,000 from our army strength does to our forces and our national security. at a time when much of the army has failed to achieve sufficient time between deployments that is essential to allow units to reset and retrain, i have serious questions about the 72,000 number. i am also concerned about the army's plan to involuntarily separate thousands of mid-career officers and noncommissioned officers in order to achieve

this drawdown. we talk about not breaking phase with our troops. i am concerned about this drawdown and with the solution we are taking and our plans to provide many of our mid-career officers involuntary separations. what does this do in terms of the morale of our all-volunteer force and the strength of that force? at a time when there is consensus that our military needs to do more with the rest around the world, that we need to be more agile and responsive, i am also concerned in not only looking at the 72,000 reduction in the army, but i would also like the same question answered with respect to the 20,000 reduction in the marine corps as well. as well at the decision to eliminate one maritime squadron, which we talked about at length before. at a time when we are increasing for this -- focus on

maritime dominated asian-pacific region, with the navy has approximately 30 fewer ships and submarines, and when the navy is failing to meet 39% of our requirements are attack submarines, i also have concern for our navy about postponing the va-class submarine and the mismatch between our stated strategy that features emphasis on the asian pacific and the navy's continued shortfalls in ships and submarines. these are important questions we need to understand. the american people need to understand what risk we are incurring. at a time when the air force is working through 20 consecutive years of combat operations with a fleet that is 32% smaller and older than 1991, my concerns there are about our air force streaked by a reducing that

strength by 10,000 airmen and cutting 246 aircraft from the air force's inventory. to be clear, i am not want to oppose all cuts to the budget of the pentagon or our military. there is no question that there are reductions that need to be made, but as we seek to address our fiscal crisis and reduce federal spending, there is no doubt we need to understand what decisions are being made here in light of our constrained resources, what risk we are taking on as a nation. i am concerned there is a disconnect between our military capability and the number of the budget you have been handed under the budget control act from congress. secretary panetta said, let me be clear -- you cannot take half a trillion dollars out of the defense budget and not occur --

and not incur additional research. there is no margin for error. as president reagan said in 1983, we must make sure that any adversary that things about attacking the united states, our allies, or our vital interest conclude that the risk to him outweigh any potential gain. i do not believe that creating a u.s. military with no margin for error is the best way to assure our allies or deter our potential enemies. that is what i am worried about. america and the world is safer and more prosperous when the u.s. maintains military power and strength beyond challenge. i take it is the purpose of this subcommittee as much as is possible in this unclassified contact to drill down and ensure congress and the american people that they understand the risk of this budget, that we would incur with what you have

proposed today. finally, secretary panetta has described the defense sequestration request as catastrophic, inflicting severe damage to our national defense bar generations. he compared the cuts to "shooting ourselves in the head." even with these compelling statements, i am still amazed that congress has not mustered the courage to make the tough decisions now to avoid these serious risks to our national security. based on these statements by our secretary of defense, we need to hear from the witnesses and the leaders before us today about the impacts of the $500 billion in defense sequestration cuts on each of your respective services. i would also like to hear from each of your services when do you have to start planning for this. there is a view around here we

can wait until december on this sequestration issue, but there is a lot of planning that have to go into this, not only for you, but the defense industrial base. i would like to know how urgent this is in terms of congress addressing this issue. the defense department must play a responsible role in overcoming our debt and defending any crisis we face, which is no doubt the greatest threat to our national security, i am concerned the size and cuts of the budget scope will force us to an unacceptable level of risk. this risk is being assumed at the precise time we are asking our military leaders to plan for an increasingly difficult set of circumstances around the world in terms of things happening right now. we cannot repeat the mistakes of history by cutting our forces so much that we are unprepared for the future contingencies.

our military and the american people deserve better and it is my hope that today we can discuss these important issues. i thank all of the witnesses for being here. i want to thank the chair for holding this important hearing. >> we will begin the testimony now. first we will hear from general lloyd often, vice chief of staff of the united states army. quite good morning. chairman the castle, ranking member ayotte, thanks for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the readiness of the united states army. i have submitted a statement for the record and look forward to answering your questions. these continued to be challenging times for our military. we have been at war for over a decade at no other time in history have american servicemen and women fought for so long a time with an all volunteer

force. as you are well aware, we are still heavily engaged in operations in afghanistan. we recognize that our military and interagency efforts are extremely important. in spite of the heavy demands placed on our personnel and equipment, hours remains a remarkably resilient force. our soldiers are continuing to do an outstanding job. they and their families have returned the done what we have out of them. after more than a decade of war, hard fought in two separate theaters, america's force is a highly capable. this is due to the encouragement and strong support of congress. i want to take this opportunity to thank all of you for your continued and steadfast commitment to our soldiers, civilians, and families. we are proud of all we have accomplished as a national security team, comprised of our military services, our

interagency partners, and allied friends around the world. much work lies ahead of us. our priority continues to be the fight on going in afghanistan, we are doing everything we can hear at home to help alleviate some of the stress on our personnel. likewise, we began to retrograde, replace, and reset our equipment. the demands of the uncertain future security environment dictate we continually prepare the next fight. accordingly, we are making necessary adjustments to our core structure and training programs, recognizing that the army continues to a doubt, we must be ready to respond to a broader range of missions with fewer people. in the years ahead, our army will be stronger and leaner, yet it will be sufficiently agile, adaptable, and responsive. this is critical to assure our ability to deter aggression and decisively defeat any act upon

it. these characteristics will enable us to grow capacity as needed in response to unforeseen contingencies. key to our six guests, as you frequently heard from secretary make you and our secretary of staff is balancing course structure, modernization, and readiness. that is where we are progressing our efforts. one area in particular where we help is far inngress' string of 490,000. this is imperative to our ability to manage our in strength over the next five years from five under 60,000 to four under 90,000. lack of funding will drive us to a steeper drawdown, primarily through involuntary separations and other means that could result in significant hardship for thousands of army combat veterans and their families and

generate a large bill for unemployment and other related costs. likewise, we need to fund we set our to-three years after we complete the restoration of equipment from afghanistan. this is a request this subcommittee has heard many times, but it bears repeating. absent the funding, we will be required to accept risk in other areas. we are confident this strategy will enable us to complete our objectives. we must work together to make sure we remain a force of decisive action, ready today and prepared for tomorrow. i am, that we are on the right path. madam chairman, i thank you again for your continued support and a demonstrated commitment to the outstanding men and women of the united states army and their families. >> thank you so much. next, we will hear from admiral

mark ferguson, vice chief of naval operations, united states navy. >> it is an honor to represent the men and women of the navy and review the readiness of the force with you today. as we prepare our fiscal year 2013 budget request, are decisions were driven by the new defense strategy and our sailing directions for the navy, in deciding war fighting, operations forward, and readiness. we focused on finding the critical elements of readiness as we balanced our investment in future capability, operations, maintenance, personnel, and training. our budget proposes reductions in force structure and delays in -- to ensure the wholeness of our remaining force. we invested in maintaining a sustainable deployment model to allow for the reset of our forces between rotational deployments. as well with selected ornaments

and training for the fleet. we focused on enhancing our for presence. bracing for destroyers in spain and planning for the fourth stationing of combat ships in singapore. simply, we prioritized readiness and capability over capacity to ensure we developed -- we deliver a ready may be. this budget commission, which includes base lot -- baseline and overseas contingency operations, supports the requirements the commanders have adjudicated by the joint staff and the global force management process. there is some available capacity to provide surge forces in other emergency needs. it is important to note the combatant commander's command for naval forces is much higher than the process and the steadily growing. we have been operating in wartime for over 10 years and continue to stress the force as

we draw down from two land campaigns. our forces are ready and give an example today, the navy provides two aircraft carrier subgroup's to the middle east while sustaining a continuous carrier strike group presently in the western pacific. we are augmenting our forces in the central command area with additional countermeasure assets, control craft, and they flow forward staging base controlled vessel. this agility of naval forces to respond to crises is preserved through our investments in training. supporting this current level of a surge is not sustainable over the long term with our current level of resources. to sustain this high operational tempo, we will face the choice between reducing the maintenance and shortening their

respective service lives, reducing the training of our personnel, or increasing the stress of are forced through longer deployments. today, we are dependent on supplemental funding -- funding to sustain our readiness. this year, the added cost of the search forces given fuel cost increases has placed pressure on our readiness accounts and execution. we are working to address the challenges of these additional costs. madam chairman, senator ayotte, you can be proud of the exceptional service of the men and women of our navy. our sailors are the highest quality force in our history. they make us the finest navy in the world. i appreciate the support of the committee and i appreciate the opportunity to testify. i look forward to answering your questions. >> next, general joseph dunford

of the united states marine corps. >> thank you for the opportunity to represent the marines this morning. i would like to make a few key observations regarding our current future readiness. today we have 197,000 active marines on active duty. 26,000 deployed. 18,000 of those in afghanistan. there is no more priority than ensuring our forces are well man, trained, and equipped. with your, support, i can assure you those marines and sailors are at the highest state of readiness. our units and equipment requirements exceed standard allowances. the additional equipment is due to the nature of the fight in afghanistan. the additional personnel support staff and training for afghan security forces. we need these additional requirements might -- meet these additional requirements by pulling from other stations. our units continue to experience

significant personnel shortages. and the past several years, two- thirds of our units have been in greater states of readiness. readiness is a particular concern for the nation of the expeditionary force in readiness. they represent our capability to respond to unexpected crises. of the past two years, a unit that paul station at responded to several unplanned requirements. marines took days and sometimes hours to respond. crisis response become as you are event. as we draw down our forces in afghanistan, we will address these deficiencies at home station and improve our ability to respond. the critical element in improving our readiness in the reset of equipment coming out of afghanistan. we estimate the ground equipment reset liability at $3.20 billion. this is our strategic reset liability. this is based on our replacement

of combat losses, restoration of items into serviceable condition, and the expansion of certain items. we believe it will take two- three years of funding to complete reset once our equipment returns from afghanistan. in addition, we have asked for a $1.30 billion in our fiscal year 2013 budget request to cover operational reset. it addresses the current cost of war, including replenishing missiles, ammunition, repair a certain equipment, and the replacement of destroyed equipment. if we are to meet certain requirements, we are also ensuring we of the right training, organization, and modernization to meet future challenges. our plan is to develop -- is to develop and maintain our ports. -- our force. we believe that structure filled with high-quality marines will

allow us to meet the requirements of the new strategy. with your continued support, that force is a force for readiness. it is designed to be deployed and in days. it will be prepared for a wide range of crises. thank you. i look for to your questions. philipally, general fel breedlove. >> thank you for the opportunity to be here today. these are challenging times. i commend you for your efforts to ensure we have the best equipped and best trained military on the globe. it is an honor to serve on behalf of our 690,000 active- duty guard and reserve civilian air men who serve our nation alongside with their fellow soldiers, sailors, marines, and coastguardsman. i want to share a few important items with you today. first, the readiness of your air

and after 20 years of continuous combat ops. second, the steps we are taking to guarantee a force that can avoid a hollow force while balancing risks. the american people are fully aware that our nation has been at war for nearly a decade. the air force has been conducting combat operations continuously for over to the a decades. december 17, 2011, marked the first time in 20 years the airport did not like a sortie into iraq there will work -- over two-thirds of our uniform herrmann have taken an oath to protect our nation enjoyed the service during a time of continuous operations. far back, i cannot meet -- be more proud -- far that, i could not be more proud.

last year we saw this commitment at full capacity as our airman five attend the provided humanitarian support to our friends in japan, executed a large presidential airlift in south america, supported the nato no-fly zone to protect libya, all the while fully deployed in iraq and afghanistan. our force capacity for the future may not support this high-level of sustained, simultaneous operation. i am immensely proud of how our element performed for the past 20 years and across all spectrums. this intense level of performance does not come without a cost. our force is stressed. we have continually gotten smaller. next year we will be the smallest we have been since the inception of the united states air force in 1947. our aircraft are older than they

have ever been with the average age of our fighters at 22 years, bombers at 35 years, and tankers at 47 years. what really concerns me is the challenges we face to get our force back in training. we are proficient in the current counterinsurgency fight. we have had to put a high and training of the background. that has the greatest affect on our combat air forces. other concerns of the increase in fuel prices and higher than expected overseas contingency operations. together, they have resulted in our current bills being significantly greater than expected. we are working hard with leadership to address the shortfall, to avoid actions that might harm things. we will have low choice to ship resources within our operational and maintenance accounts, which will have detrimental effects on

our readiness. despite these pressures, there continues to be a demand for aerospace and a cyber capability. in order to keep faith with the american people and provide our unique capability upon which the entire joint teams greatly rely, it is imperative we balance our force structure to preserve our readiness and maintain this balanced force. in doing so, we must rebuts our component makes it to make sure we can the join-force requirements. while the plan is free of rest, our analysis tells us we are at increased, but manageable risk as measured against this new strategic guidance. we are concerned that efforts at retaining court structure are out of balance with our strategic jaunts project to teach it guidance. -- strategic guidance.

as we responsibly rebalance this force, we remain committed to advancements in technology and future investments to continually sharpen our sword. although we will be smaller, we will remain an effective and ready force. men up -- madam chairman, i am, and our ability to succeed from the -- through the tough times ahead. we are dedicated to excellence, selfless service, and sacrifice. thank you for your continued support of your united states air force. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much, gentlemen. we have been involved in combat operations since the turn of the century, which have required our personnel to deploy a frequently and have caused incredible wear and tear on both people and the vital equipment we need our readiness.

frankly, we have had a little time to train for anything other than counter-insurgency. notwithstanding the steps taken by congress to increase investments, reported readiness rates have significantly declined over the past 10 years. record funding and still significant declines. in past readiness subcommittees', we have been told by your predecessors that an increase in readiness will not occur until we see an increase in tempo. now we have the drawdown in iraq. surge recovery in afghanistan this year. they stayed drawdown thereafter. what are your best projections as to when we will see a more positive readiness trend in light of the drawdown currently underway? >> thank you, chairman. from the army's perspective, we

are already beginning to see that. as we have come out of iraq, certainly we have more opportunities to train at home stations. we are taking it vantage of those opportunities. again, as we retrograde our equipment and put that equipment through reset, where equipment is being made available. we are already beginning to reach -- reap some of the benefits of that slowdown. as you know, i was the guy at the very end in iraq who was charged with overseeing that we posturing effort. i can tell you that was very well done and a magnificent job by our joint forces to do that. as a general dunford and i have pointed out, it will take two-

three years beyond the complete retrograde of our equipment out of afghanistan to reset that equipment. we certainly need to be funded to do so and would appreciate any help you could provide us. >> madam chair, as you pointed out, there are three components for readiness real training, equipment, and people. we are at a point where our squadrons and the italians were deployed for seven months, all for seven months, and deployed for seven months. that is helping on the training side. as we recover the fourth, we will fill in some of the personal gaps we of had. by would emphasize what the general said. it is a long time before we start to see increased readiness reporting from our units in home

station. in that the video-three years from the time equipment gets home, smart -- our best estimates based on 2014 drawdown from afghanistan would be some time arrau 2017 is when we would see increased reporting. what i was referring to was a scale of 1-4 in terms of readiness. 61% of those units that reported degraded readiness reported it as a result of shortfalls. not only do we have to get equipment home, but we have to reset that equipment going to our depots while we are replacing equipment that has been destroyed. our best estimate is that two- three years, not from the time the marines come home, but the

time the equipment comes home from afghanistan. >> do the navy and air force disagree with that assessment? does that sound about right from your perspectives also? >> from our perspective, the forstmann is a little different on the navy as we withdraw out of land campaigns. we have sustained a training all of our forces at major combat levels do this 10-year period. we invested in training and depot maintenance, but we remain reliant on that oco funding. we think it will take two-three years for a transition period >> madam chair, the difference for us -- as much as you saw as we came out of desert storm, immediately following combat, but there was a change in mission. the actual requirement for the air force goes up in order to

facilitate that retrograde. it reduces the risk for the ground combat soldiers. we are seeing that now, even as we are coming out of iraq. about three months ago, our fighter squadron to plummet was about a 0.5. it is up to about 11. also on the -- if we do not get movement, much of the job of bringing home all the equipment the marines and army needs will fall back to the air force to haul out. there will be a considerable amount of time that we effectively and retrograde, especially before the air force begins its retrofit and refit. our start time should be significantly different from what you heard from my compatriots. it will take us some time between a year and a year and a

half to get to the training cycles and things that we need. >> since you touched on the closure -- the problems we are having on the border of pakistan, let me go to that question. it is relevant to the drawdown as we pull equipment, men, and women out of afghanistan -- it is obviously very important in terms of fuel costs. it is a huge bill. i think people forget that nobody buys more fuel in the world than we do. when it is expensive, it really is a gut-punch to the budget of our military. i know we have to pay almost three times the normal rate to go through the northern distribution network that we would have to extend going through pakistan. what effect will this closure have on getting equipment out,

getting everything out we need to get out, and more importantly, on getting the fuel in we need to continue to support the mission we have ongoing in afghanistan? i will take the first shot at that. there are two effects on the united states air force and its ability to support the joint team the fuel brings. in this current year, the price of fuel will cost us approximately $1.30 billion that was not in our original plan. that money we will have to find from other sources. fuel prices. second of all, we cannot count on the flow that was planned for that when we originally budgeted for our fuel for this next year. now we have to increase the

amount of fuel we used to begin to fly out much of this retrograde. that will be an unplanned bump in the fuel requirements for the air force. >> madam chair, i would add one quick point. it goes back to the previous question you asked about when would we be reset to a high level of readiness. the longer it takes to get our equipment out of afghanistan, the no. distribution network would take longer. the longer it will take us to restore that high level of readiness. factor of time is an issue. >> i do not think a lot of americans understand the stresses with pakistan have many applications. it is not just the direct implication of are they our friend? are they our enemy? what exactly are they and who can we trust within pakistan? it has a dramatic impact on the

budgets of our military as it relates to operational requirements in afghanistan and drawdown in afghanistan. senator ayotte? >> thank you, madame chair. i want to ask each of you -- the conclusion of the chairman's risk assessment. he says that the services will need to "conceive of a new risk paradigm." can you help me with what that means? conceiving of a new risk paradigm? >> i think as you create a new strategy, certainly you look for ways to balance the risks you are going to accept and, of course, you focus on the most dangerous things.

then, also, you consider the most likely things that are going to occur. i think what the chairman is getting to with that, at least my read of this, is that each time that you revamp your strategy, you have to look at things through the lens of a kind of the context of today and what the the threat offers in the future. >> general, this is they follow up on that -- just listen to it from my perspective -- i assume that is what we do whenever we issue a risk assessment. when i hear new risk paradigm, it makes me wonder if our overall assessment has changed. has it or has it not? >> certainly our methodology for conducting risk assessment has

not changed, but the context has changed a bit in terms of the state of the world. where we are today is absolutely -- what we are seeing today is absolutely different from what we sought two years ago. >> i appreciate your answer. just to make it more helpful, let me direct my question were specifically, which i think will be relevant with the proposed $487 billion in reduction, obviously we are talking about the first year, you have got produced -- combat unit elimination, weapons systems, other cost-cutting measures we are talking about today. there is no question these reductions are going to impact the ability of each service to

respond to the request of their combatant commander's. what i think is important to understand is when you look at what the secretary said as i quoted in my opening statement, you cannot take half a trillion dollars out of the defense budget and not incur significant risk. -- additional risk. what in each of your services is the risk you are entering to the extent you can talk about them? if you could, what are the risks we are incurring big keep each of you up at night? if we were to add money back into this budget to meet where we just cut it right to the edge, no margin for error, and you have that choice -- i am not asking you to make a request of us -- what would you tell us? us -- what would you tell us?