prosecutions, hearings and follow-up. this study demonstrates the positive effect that stop grants have had across the board in pennsylvania's criminal justice system where domestic violence is concerned. vawa has substantially improved our nation's ability to combat violent crime and protect its victims, protect -- providing a strong safety net across the united states. incidents of rape have dropped nearly 20% from the law's enactment in 4-to 2011. the rate of intimate partner violence has declined 64% over that same period. however, much work remains to be done. the c.d.c. estimates one in four men and one in seven women have experienced severe physical violence by their partner at one time. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: happy to yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. dent: congress must re-authorize vawa to prevent more innocent victims from becoming victims and to provide critical services for those who

do. further delaying this crucial legislation does this congress no credit and leaves state and local service providers facing uncertainty about their ability to continue protecting some of the most vulnerable members of our society. the senate voted to re-authorize the violence against women act with a strong bipartisan majority, and i would strongly encourage the house of representatives do the same to support that underlying bill. vote yes on the underlying bill. we'll move the re-authorizing legislation to the president's desk immediately. it's the right thing to do. it's about time we do it. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington reserves. -- the gentlewoman from washington reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i'm very happy to recognize our distinguished democratic whip of the house, mr. hoyer. he was there in the 1990's when we worked to pass this legislation on the appropriations committee. he and rosa delauro and congresswoman nita lowey and i worked to fund the violence against women act. he's been there for -- on this issue for a long time.

i'm pleased to yield him two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to congratulate the leader for her efforts in getting us to this point. today after two months i think we're going to do something very positive and do it in a very bipartisan way. i think that's excellent. i think america will be advantaged. every american, women, yes, but every woman will be advantaged. house democrats support the fully inclusive re-authorization of the violence against women act which passed the senate by a bipartisan vote of 78-22, as has been referenced. the majority of republican senators and all republican women senators voted in favor. that bill represents a compromise. i urge my colleagues to defeat the partisan amendment version so we can pass the senate bill. i voted for the rule, which allows us that opportunity. let us take it.

the change -- changes house republicans made in their version significantly weaken its provisions. i want to say some republicans. i want to make that clear. not all. and protecting victims of domestic violence and empowering law enforcement to keep our people safe from these crimes. the house republican bill owe mitts critical protections for native americans, for lgbt americans and for immigrants. furthermore, the house republican bill removes protections for students on campus, victims of human trafficking and those who've experienced rape or stalking. why? why not protect everybody, all americans? when we fail to protect all victims, abusers can get away with the abuse and repeat it. maments, congress ought not to be playing -- madam speaker, congress ought not to be playing with the lives of women and all those who suffer from domestic violence. we it owe it to the families,

law enforcement, prosecutors to make sure that the violence against women act work and can meet the challenges we face today. that's why we should defeat the weaker house republican alternative and instead pass the fully inclusive version passed by senate democrats and republicans. i expect it to be a bipartisan vote. it is a good day for america, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. and just to clarify, on the house substitute that we'll be considering later, it ensures that money goes to victims by increasing accountability. it guarantees that grants to combat sexual assault are distributed equitablely. it improves the ability for law enforcement to prosecutor abusers. it better protects indian women from domestic violence, and it safeguards constitutional rights to ensure justice for

victims. and at had time i'm pleased to yield to our policy chairman, the gentleman from oklahoma, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for two minutes. mr. lankford: thank you, madam speaker. i do want to stand in support of the house proposal today on protecting women across this nation. this is something that protects all women. i know there's been some interesting accusations that we're trying to exclude people. this is for all women and all places. as a dad of two daughters, i get this. i understand this. my two daughters were on this house floor not very many weeks ago getting a chance to visit to be here and be part of the process and meet great ladies on both sides of the aisle and also to interact with people and see how laws are made. i want them to know in the days ahead, laws here that are done are for every person and that we stand for every family. this is a family issue. this is a women's issue. this is also a state legal issue. it's a community issue, and it's also a national issue

that's right that we deal with today. i want to encourage organizations in oklahoma city, like the w mbings ywca, who have a simple theme of eliminating racism, empowering women, but they work every single day to be able to help women that are in situations that they have got to escape out of. i also want to stand up for the 39 drives in oklahoma that i've meat with some of the -- 39 tribes in oklahoma that i've met with some of the tribal leaders. from my constituents, i want them to know that if there's domestic violence that occurs, and the house version assures of this, if they live in indian country, if they work in indian country, if they're married or dating someone were indian country, that this law protects them from that and makes clear through all of section 900, i encourage people to read, to go through the details of how we stand beside the tribes and how we stand those around indian country, there needs to be prosecution and protection but most all, we need to stand beside every single family to

do what is right. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields and the gentlewoman from washington reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i'm going to yield to my colleague in a minute. the ywca u.s.a. supports the bipartisan senate bill that we are urging members to support and reject the house bill. with that i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from illinois who came to congress fully committed to passing this legislation, mr. quigley, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. quigley: thank you, madam speaker. well, if this is for all, and this is for everybody, why attempt to strip out essential protections for immigrants, tribal and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender victims? do they not feel the same pain? once again, we have to stand up

and vote for equal protections for all victims. the senate seems to get what this had body does not. we are all in this together. these victims are not nameless, faceless members of some group of others. they are our friends, our neighbors, our family members. we are a nation built on justice, fairness and equal protection. we are all stronger when we uphold these ideals and protect the most vulnerable among us. the senate-passed vawa embodies these principles and protects all victims. we should pass it today. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from california reserves, and the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased to yield to a former prosecutor and the lady from indiana -- four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from indiana is recognized for four minutes.

mrs. brooks: thank you. i rise in support of vawa. yelling, name-calling, black eyes, bruises, belts, broken bottles, children scared and crying in the corners, crying for it to stop, the lies and cover-up us to friends and family and then the abuser gains the control and says i'm sorry. i love you. i won't do it again. i'll change. and the victim stays again and again and again year after year. the cycle of violence goes on from generation to generation just like brittany from tipton county, indiana. abused by her drug addict mother. married a man that was a victim of child abuse. and the cycle continued. brittany's husband verbally and physically abused her while their children watched.

whether you are in a poor family, rich family, whether you're in the city, country or on the farm, we as members of congress have the power and the control to change her life. when brittany finally took control and made the call, it was vawa funds that made sure that the cops that responded recognized it. and i've done those ride-alongs and they are the most dangerous calls cops make. when vawa funds are involved, they keep shelters and transitional housing stays open. when vawa has funds, it trains sexual assault nurses who help those victims through the humiliating exams they have to endure which are so important so we have the evidence to put the abusers behind bars. when vawa funds are involved, we have advocates and prosecutor offices and in courtrooms who are trained to help them through the painful, long, difficult court process. when vawa funds are involved, we have counseling services

needed for the victims and their families to heal. vawa gives victims a fighting chance to gain control of their lives. vawa doesn't pass in my district, alternatives incorporated will have to lay off two of their five victim advocates, shut down one of their offices and won't be able to serve the 700 victims in rural counties that they served last year. vawa is a program that works. it's one of those federal government programs that works. this bill is not a perfect bill. no bill that congress passes is perfect, but i will tell you the victims being attacked can't wait for perfect. the three women and one man who die every day at the hands of their intimate partners cannot wait for perfect. isn't there anything that congress -- i'm a freshman -- and isn't there anything that congress can agree on and get behind? i think we need to show the american people we can give control back to the women, men

and children who are subjected to the horrors of violence at the hands of someone who supposedly loves them. this shouldn't be about politics and about political party control. in my short time in congress, i've seen too often that we lose sight of the people that we are here to protect and to serve. . it is about control. that's what their lives are about. i urge every member to think of the victims. take those statistics, replace them with the brittanys in your district. take control away from the abusers, provide them to -- back to the victims with the control they need. can't we be the voice that they don't have? we as members of congress have the ability to give control back to the victims, to give control to the cops. to give control to the sexual assault nurses. to give control to the victim advocates. to give some to the shelters and countors. i'm asking this -- counselors.

i'm asking this congress to show the american people that we care. i do. please pass this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back of the the gentlewoman from washington reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i have listened attentively to some of the comments made by those who support the house version of vawa, and they use words like all, as the distinguished majority leader said, all women. not true in the republican bill. not women if you're gay, if you're from the immigrant community, or if you happen to be living on a reservation. i hear an appeal from the freshman member very eloquently stated, why can't we work together and put partisanship aside. that's exactly what the senate did, 78-22, a majority of the republicans in the senate voted for the far superior bill. we have never had a perfect bill, you are absolutely right. the very far superior bill that expands protection as opposed to

the house bill which not only is not as good as the senate bill, it diminishes protections already in the law. and i heard the gentlelady talk eloquently about money and where it needs to go. it's sad to say that with the sequestration, 20 millionle toars -- $20 million according to a new estimate from the justice department will be cut from the violence against women account. that means approximately 35,927 victims of violence will not have access to lifesaving services and resources. the fact is people have come together from the senate. the house agrees with their bipartisan position. the president stands ready to sign t it's just the house republicans that are odd people out on this. it's hard to understand why you think some people are all. it's not. that's why it's really important to reject the house version and

support the senate version. with that i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman fromp california, member of our freshman class, a former prosecutor. the speaker pro tempore: how much time? ms. pelosi: one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. violence against women and preventing against women means preventing violence against all women, especially those from the lgbt community, especially those from the immigrant community. i'm here to support the bipartisan senate bill that was passed. and oppose the house amendment. i was a prosecutor in alameda county for seven years. i worked day in, day out with women who came in as violence victims. people who had been battered. it's only because of the vawa, violence against women funding that we have in our office that allowed our victim advocates to provide them with the emotional and physical service these

needed that we could even begin to put them on the track of healing. only because of this funding. so right now it is incumbent upon us to make sure that this funding is available as we move forward to all women. mr. swalwell: all women. violence against all women must be protected and we must have funding that shows that we will go aggressively after their abusers and support our law enforcement and their efforts to do that. today's bipartisan bill gives us an opportunity to show that this house can do big things when we work together. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california reserves. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i would just ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to please point to anywhere in the house bill that coverage for anyone who is denied, to specifically state where the coverage denied. the house covers all victims. this bill does not exclude

anyone for any characteristic. not only does the bill specifically prohibit discrimination, it directs the attorney general to make a rule regarding anti-discrimination efforts as he sees fit. moreover, the stop grant is re-authorized to permit funding to go toward men as well as women. the house bill enhances protections for native american women. the house bill requires the justice department to cross designate tribal prosecutors as federal prosecutors in 10 federally recognized indian courts -- tribes. this allows tribal prosecutors to move forward more quickly in federal court. the house bill provides a constitutional round for indian tribes to prosecute nonindian offenders against native american women. this is critical for victims to assure defenders do not have their convictions overturned. the house bill contains increased accountability provisions. the house bill mandates better

coordination among grantees and federal employees to ensure money is spent effectively and efficiently. this is in response of allegation of a miss use of funds. it limits administrative expenses and salaries to 5%. ensuring that money goes to victims and law enforcement. this ensures that money goes to victims not bureaucrats. at this time i'm happy to yield to a champion for all human rights, the gentleman from new jersey, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. smith: madam speaker, i rise in strong support of the violence against women act offered by congresswoman mcmorris rodgers. i just want to point out something that little attention has been -- attention has been paid to. a little over a decade ago i authored the trafficking victims protection act of 2000. the landmark law that created america's comprehensive policyle to combat modern day slavery. the state department trafficking in persons office, now led by an ambassador at large with a complement of over 50 dedicated

and highly trained people. the leahy trafficking amendment to s. 47, title 12, guts the office and represents a significant retreat in this struggle to end human trafficking. the only way to fix it is to pass the mcmorris rodgers amendment, go to conversation -- conference, and get this fixed. the tip office is an extraordinary mechanism and has had a huge impact worldwide. in addition to best practices, the office monstors labor and sex trafficking and makes recommendations for whether or not countries be ranked tier one, tier two, or tier three. for over a decade, the trafficking in persons there is a flag ship in our struggle to combat human trafficking. the leahy amendment cuts the authorization for the tip office from about $7 million down to $2 million. it eviscerates the tip office. no doubt about that. it also shifts responsibilities

to the regional bureaus. we have had problems over the last decade as my colleagues know, the regional bureaus have a whole large portfolio of issues they deal with. when they deal with those issues, trafficking is on page 4 or page 5 of their talking points. the tip office point has now been demoted significantly. i hope that -- i would point out that when i first did the trafficking bill, there was huge pushback from the state department. they didn't want human rights in general and absolutely they did not want the trafficking in persons issue to be dominant and center stage. that's what the office does. it is a step backward for combating human trafficking. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from washington reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to mr. conyers of michigan. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. conyers will be controlling the time.

the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, madam speaker. i recognize mr. ellison from minnesota for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. mr. ellison: madam speaker, i'd like to talk to you about lucy. lucy is not the name of the person i'm referring to but she's real. i can't use her name because lucy still lives in fear of her abuser. a man she was married to. lucy is from a nation in west africa. and the man who was abusing her

physically and sexually and mistreating her would tell her, threaten her based on her immigration status to the united states that she was hoping to obtain. he would threaten her and tell her i'm going to hold this against you. don't you dare leave me. and the violence against women act could self-petition process was a lifeline and a savor -- savior to her. she was able to explain the extreme violence she lived through and suffered through all the time, and she was able to separate from her husband and seek a way to become a citizen and stay in this country and get rid of her abuser. sadly -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. ellison: house version rolls this protection back. that's why you should -- the speaker pro teore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentlelady from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. happy to yield to a champion,

former judge who has worked on these issues for many years, the gentleman from texas, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. poe: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. violence against women is all of -- is awful. i think we can all agree with that. and behind the scenes in homes throughout america, behind closed doors, bad things are happening in those families. it is violent. it affects the spouse, the children, and the quality of life of our community. today the house of representatives can do something about that. to take america safer for women, primarily. and their children. we have two choices before us today. the house bill, the senate bill. but there's another thing going on behind closed doors in america as well.

and that's sexual assault that is occurring in america. i spent time on the bench as a judge in criminal cases in texas for 22 years, and one of the greatest scientific, forensic discoveries was d.n.a. and it's helped prosecute sexual assault cases. d.n.a., when those outlaws commit the crimes against primarily women and children, they leave d.n.a. evidence. it's examined and we find out who the criminal was. here's the problem. there are 400,000 d.n.a. rape kits that have not been tested. some going back 20 and 25 years. they are so old when the outlaw is determined who it is, they can't be prosecuted because the statute of limitations has run. 400,000 cases where rape victims are waiting for us to just analyze those sexual assault cases. that concept is called the safer

bill sponsored by carolyn maloney and myself to try to fix that issue by taking money in one legislation and put it in the safer legislation to analyze those 400,000 cases so victims know who committed the crime and also outlaws go to prison and not get a freed you ride because there is not money to test those cases. that safer bill is in the senate version. and i encourage the house of representatives to vote for the safer bill because it is in the senate legislation and that's just the way it is. i yield back, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from washington reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased to recognize the gentlelady from hawaii, ms. hanabusa, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. hanabusa: thank you, madam speaker. thank you to the chair, ranking member of our judiciary committee. i rise in support of the senate bill, senate s. 47, which

re-authorizes vawa and passed by a strong bipartisan vote of 78-22 on february 12. it is also an honor to be next to the the gentlewoman from wisconsin who has really championed this bill. i rise specifically to address section 904 which provides tribal governments with jurisdiction over the abuse of native american women on tribal lands. the specifics set forth by senator udall in a recent article were alarming. they are 2 1/2 times more likely to be raped, one in three will be assaulted, and three out of five will encounter domestic violence. and the criticism, the criticism we have heard against why the senate version of this bill should not pass is because they say it doesn't afford due process. all we need to do is to look at the defendant's rights as set forth in the tribal court criminal proceedings under icra,

the indian civil rights act, and tloa, tribal lands and orders act of 2010. the rights are there. support the senate version. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. and the gentlelady from washington is recognized. . mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i am pleased to yield to the vice chair of the democratic caucus from new york, joe crowley, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. crowley: i thank my friend from sdroict, michigan, for yielding me this time. madam speaker, it's been over 500 days since the violence against women act expired. 500 days. and every day that's past without a vote, my colleagues and i have been asking ourselves, what are we waiting for? are we waiting for our colleagues in the senate to have a strong bipartisan vote and send us a bill worth voting on?

wait a minute. they've already done that. but maybe we're waiting for a bill that strengthens the violence against women act? sorry. the senate's already done that as well. or maybe we're waiting for support from hundreds of state and local and national organizations. but wait. we've already had that with the passage of the senate bill. my colleagues, it's time to end this wait for our mothers, for our daughters, for our friends so they can get the protection and the service that they deserve. because let me tell you, the abuses are not waiting. today we have a chance to pass the actual senate bill, the bipartisan, commonsense legislation that has been waiting for a vote. so let's vote no on the substitute amendment, support

the underlying bill and send this to the president's desk. i don't believe my colleagues, if they saw a lesbian woman being beaten by their neighbor, that they wouldn't want to have that violence stopped. i don't believe my republican colleagues, if they saw an undocumented person, even an illegal alien, being beaten by her husband, that they would not want that stopped. i don't believe that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if they saw a native american woman being beaten or abused that they would not want that stopped. why don't they have that in their legislation? the senate bill does. let's stop this back and forth and pass the senate legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves, and the gentlelady from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. just to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the house, the republican majority in the house, passed legislation to re-authorize the

violence against women act in may of last year. funding has continued. congress, including the republicans in the house, have supported and continued to fund these important programs that is $600 million. no program has gone unfunded as we've continued to focus on the important work of getting this bill re-authorized. i would reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i'm pleased to recognize for one minute the distinguished the gentlelady from california, susan davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. mrs. davis: thank you, madam speaker. at last, at last, madam speaker, like americans all across the country, i'm glad this chamber has put the senate's violence against women act to the house floor for a vote. i ask my colleagues to support this bill and oppose the republican substitute. if we pass a strong

re-authorization, women can breathe a sigh of relief knowing that congress has got their backs. every woman deserves protection and justice. i'm glad that the senate bill closes the gap in current law by extending that protection to native americans, lgbt and immigrant victims. and contrast, as we've heard, the republican substitute inexplicitly continues to exclude these groups and put them at risk, and that is exclusionary and it is hurtful. let's swiftly pass the senate vawa and send it straight to the president's desk for his signature. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on s. 47 and to stand up for all victims of domestic violence. they've waited far too long for this day. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i'm

pleased now to recognize the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline, for 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, two weeks ago the senate overwhelmingly passed a strong bipartisan re-authorization of the violence against women act to extend much-needed protections to all women of domestic violence, including immigrants, native americans and members of the lgbt community. domestic violence victims and their families have waited for far too long for the house to act to re-authorize vawa and to provide victims of domestic violence with important resources to help end this violence. and it's critical that we ensure that every single victim of domestic violence, no matter what they look like or where they come from or who they love has access to these critical tools and resources. according to the national task force to end sexual and domestic violence, one in four women will be victims of domestic violence during their

lifetime. each year 15 million american children are exposed to domestic violence and all the dangers of this violence. have we really come to the point that we can't persuade every single member of congress that violence against all women is indefensible and that we have a moral responsibility to do everything in our power to stop it? do we really want to say some women, some group of women are not worthy of protection against such violence? i hope not. i urge my colleagues to pass the strengthened senate version re-authorizing violence against women and to protect all american women from violence. i thank the gentleman and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan reserves. and the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased to yield to the lady from tennessee, a champion for all women and families, two

minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam chairman. i thank the gentlelady from washington for the leadership that she has brought to this issue, and i also stand to thank leader cantor and the leadership that he has placed on this. you know, it's an incredible thing when you think about we still need the violence against women act. and i think for so many of us who have participated in giving birth to sexual assault centers and domestic abuse centers and child advocacy centers, we realize that for far too long domestic abuse was something that nobody ever wanted to talk about. it should be swept under the rug. it should be hidden behind the four walls of a house.

it was not something that was addressed as a crime. but we all knew it was a crime and we knew it needed to be addressed and we know that this act and the grants that have been provided to our state and local law enforcement agencies have allowed so many, so many people the safe harbor that was needed for their opportunity. now, i stand here today to support our republican alternative and the amendment that we have placed on this bill making certain that in a fiscally responsible, targeted and focused way that those who need access to the help, the assistance, the funds are going to be able to receive the help,

the assistance, the funds, the focus and the attention that they are going to need. i also want to draw attention to the fact that we have -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. if the gentlelady from washington -- mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i'd be happy to yield an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. mrs. blackburn: i think it is north worthy that we also -- noteworthy that we also put attention on stalking, the need to address this, that we look at the need for additional education so that someday we can say yes, indeed, local law enforcement is fully equipped to handle the issue because the problem has been arrested. all too sadly, madam chairman, the problem has not been dealt with, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlewoman from washington reserves. and the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i'm

pleased to yield to the distinguished gentleman from nevada, mr. horsford, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nevada is recognized for one minute. mr. horsford: thank you, madam speaker. no woman should have to live in fear of violence in this country. one of my first actions in congress was to co-sponsor the violence against women act, which was authored by my colleague, gwen moore. her bill took critical steps to strengthen the ability of our local law enforcement and service providers to protect victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. her bill went to great lengths to ensure that all women in our country would be protected under the bill. the senate passed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis her bill. that is why i find the political games being played by some republicans today to be frustrating.

my colleagues find it to be frustrating. and my constituents find it to be frustrating. i do not understand why, madam speaker, you would eliminate provisions to protect women from immigrant communities, 30% of which i represent in my district in congressional district four, and women from native american communities are inappropriately dis-- or inappropriately discriminate women based on sexual orientation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. horsford: i ask my colleagues to vote for the bipartisan bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: the balance of our time, 4 3/4 minutes, we now give to the distinguished the gentlelady from wisconsin, gwen moore. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for the remainder of the time.

ms. moore: thank you, madam speaker. thank you, distinguished ranking member of the judiciary committee. i've listened very carefully and very patiently to all of my colleagues in the house. and it seems like everyone in the chamber is against the violence against women. it's just which women we want to protect remains the -- to be the question. you know, for the last 18 months, it appears that i have lived in some sort of twilight zone where there's sort of like that program on tv "sliders" where there are alternate realities. this debate recalls that alternate reality, when we hear a support of the house amendment over the senate amendment, we hear that all

women are protected. for example, the senate bill supports lgbt victims in the senate bill, but the house bill strikes lgbt women as underserved communities and it also strikes the language that would have them as a protected group to not be discriminated against. so i think that the distinguished floor leader has asked us to find ways -- find areas in the legislation that are wanting, and i would submit that is one area that is wanting. the distinguished floor leader has asked us to find ways that

are the substitute is wanting and the senate bill is superior. and i would say with respect to supporting tribal victims, you know, we say that we give lip service to wanting to support tribal women, but when you stop and think about it, in 1978 the supreme court in the case olephant decided that policies divest tribes over nonindians and the substitute seeks to affirm that even though that was modified and overturned in the u.s. supreme court in u.s. vs. laura which said that in fact if this body voted we could in fact confer upon native americans the authority to give them plenary power to

enact legislation to relax restrictions on tribal sovereign authority. . we have the power to allow them to enforce necessaryic violence laws and rape laws on their land. and we so need it, madam speaker, because if you are a tribal woman, a member of a tribe, say for example the band river chippewa in my state and you were raped on native land, tribes don't have any authority over that perpetrator if he's a nonindian, even if he's your husband. the local police in that area don't have any authority. the county sheriff doesn't have any authority. the state trooper can't come in and arrest them. and the only person that has any

authority over that non-indian is some federal agent in madison, wisconsin, 500 miles away. which is why there has been a 67% declination of prosecutions of sexual assault. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. all time has expired from the gentleman from michigan. the gentlelady from washington is recognized for the remaining 30 seconds. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you. happy to yield the remainder of our time to the attorney, the wife, the mom, the lady from alabama. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from alabama is recognized for 30 seconds. >> in closing i want to make sure we are clear. mrs. roby: the republicans are committed to standing for all victims. this bill, our amendment, strengthens penalties for sexual assault. sexual assault improves the

federal stalking statutes. provides for enhanced investigation of sexual assault and provides services for victims. most importantly our amendment is constitutional. and it will stand up constitutional muster to the court. the senate passed a weakened bill that has a real chance of being overturned by the courts. i urge support for the house amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady >> the house went on to pass the extension of the violence against women act. it now goes to president obama for his signature. the chamber returns on monday at noon. earlier today, eric cantor and steny hoyer can to the floor to discuss next week's house agenda. this is 30 minutes. as all of us

know, automatic draconian, in my view, irrational cuts will occur starting tomorrow as a result of the so-called sequester. i did not see any legislation on the floor for next week which would obviate the happening of that event, of the sequester, although i do see that there is some desire, apparently, to make sure that the defense department and the department of veterans affairs has the ability to manage those cuts in a way that will be least detrimental. i would ask the gentleman, there are of course 12 other -- excuse me, 10 other appropriation bills , there are 10 other major agencies and multiple departments and offices that

will have a problem similar to that of the department of defense and the veterans administration. is the gentleman aware of any efforts that will be made to accommodate the domestic side of the budget? mr. cantor: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. and i would say, mr. speaker, as the gentleman knows, the house has acted twice to offer alternatives to what we agree with is a very wrong way to go about cuts. which is the sequestration measure. but unfortunately both times the senate rejected or refused to take up the alternatives. i'm aware the other body is anticipating at least -- anticipating to at least attempt to vote on an alternative, both of which are protected to fail in the state in -- predicted to fail in the senate. so i'd say to the gentleman, mr. speaker, that he's right in saying that our intent is to try

and provide the flexibility for the defense department in terms of its appropriations, as well the milcon bill. and we do so because there's bipartisan agreement around those two bills. and i would say to the gentleman, if bipartisan agreement somehow is reached in other bills, i would say to the gentleman, we certainly would like to be able to take a look at that. but i believe, mr. speaker, it's prudent for us to try and do the things that we can do right now so that we don't have to bear the burden of the wrongheaded way ofontrolling spending which is that sequestration. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. let me only observe that the bills which the gentleman has now discussed for three weeks running, that we've had colloquies, are no longer available to either the senate or the house. he knows that.

they were in the last congress and they died in the last congress. there has been no legislation in the 59 days that we've been here, put on this floor, and only the majority leader can put legislation on the floor. no legislation whichould have an alternative to the sequester. and in fact, notwithstanding some of the reprentations, mr. leader, that have been made, mr. speaker, there was a bill on this floor on july 19, 2011, which was called cut, cap and balance. 229 republicans voted for that bill. th bill had as its fallback, if the objectives of the bill were not reached, sequester. that was substantially before, many days before the president and through the person of jack lu talk about the making that a part of a piece of legislation that we needed so that we did not default on the national debt. and for theirst time not only

since i've been serving the congress, some 32 years, but the first time in history as a result of that action of coming so close to defaulting on the national debt this country was downgraded by a single point. the gentleman talked about the stem bill that was passed and i voted for, he voted for, the overwhelming majority of democrats and republicans voted for it, to help our economy. that event substantially hurt our economy. mr. speaker, the inability to get to agreement on this sequester is hurting the economy. and i will tell my friend that we've offered three times to have a bill considered as an alternative to sequester which cuts spending, raises some additional revenues. i know the gentleman is going to give me a lecture about raising taxes. i understand that. but i would urge the gentman, let a vote happen onhis floor. let the house as you said in

2010 work its will. that's what the speaker said he wanted to do. let us vote on an alternative. not just blindly go down this road of sequester, not blindly go down this road that the gentleman has just agreed with me and we agreed together, i think most of us agree, the sequester is irrational. it should not happen. in fact, it was put in the bill on the theory that surely we wouldn't let it happen. but in 59 days we've had no bill on this floor. all the gentleman says is a bill that's gone and dead and bury, that we can't consider, that won't make a difference, that will not get rid of the sequester. i regret that, mr. leader, because i think we can. frankly we can next week put alternatives on the froor. if you have an alternative, put -- on the floor. if you have an alternative, put it on the floor. but that's what the american people expect. they expect us to solve problems, and they sent us to vote on policy.

mr. van hollen, who's the ranking democrat on the budget committee, has asked three times, mr. leader, to bring a bill to this floor, an amendment to this floor to provide an alternative to sequester. it seems strange that when both of us agree that sequester is wrong, irrational, will have adverse effects, ben bernanke said it would substantially hurt the economy, thawe don't provide alternatives, and all we talk about is something we did yesterday -- actually more than three month, four months ago, that is dead and gone. we need to do something now, and we need to come together in a bipartisan basis. i might say to the leader, we've had four major bills signed into law in this congress by the president. every one of those bills were passed in a bipartisan basis

with an average of 168 democrats voting for it and an average of 124 republicans voting for it. we saw a perfect example, mr. speaker -- mr. leader, on the floor today of making very go policy. how did we do it? we did it in a bipartisan vote. and i suggest to my friend, e majority leader, that we could do that as it relates to the sequester if we would bring something to the floor, have a vote on it and in my view in a bipartisan fashion we could in fact set aside this irrational, negative sequester and move on to a rational, fiscal policy. i'd be glad to yield to my friend if he wants to make a comment on it. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman. first of all, there woul not be a bipartisan vote on the democratic suggestion as to how to deal with the sequester. as the gentleman rightfully suggests, that measure will include tax increases.

we heard a lot of talk about balance, that we need to approach the situation in a balanced way. well, the president has enacted $149.7 billion worth of tax increases for this fiscal year. sequestration results in $85.3 billion worth of spending reductions. as you can see, mr. speaker, the balance is clearly in favor of tax increases. taking people's money and then allowing washington to decide how to spd it when most people realize that government is never the one best to spend and allocate someone else's dollars, which is why we insist on havg a limited government providing the necessary support and roles as it should and not continuing to take other people's money and deciding how we spend it. now, i'd say to the gentleman, he knows as well as i do that the senate refuses to take up

whatever we send them. they refused again and again. so we've got a real problem, that somehow one house does its work. twice this house has passed bills with alternative measures to address sequestration, and a significant portion of both of those bills, one of which i sponsored, were provisions taken out of the president's, himself, budget. not spending increases but reductions that the president says are obut yet still the senate failed to take them up. so there's a meeting tomorrow at the white house, mr. speaker, and i know the gentleman shares the desire to perhaps have that men -- meeting make the senate act.

the house can produce a plan and has twice toeplace this sequester. now, i'd say to the gentleman, he's concerned about the economy and so are we very concerned about the economy. we're concerned about the rating agencies outlook -- encies' olook on our situation. but i remind the gentleman, mr. speaker, that the warnings from these rating agencies are not warnings that are wholly addressed by just coming to some deal. those warnings from the rating agencies are directed at our doing someing about the underlying fiscal problem this federal government has which are the mountains of debt caused by the growth and the unfunded liblets in our entitlement programs -- liabilities in our entitlement programs. and the gentleman knows we failed to come to agreement in 2011 as to how to deal with those unfunded liabilities

which is why the sequestration is in place. we got to have that deal on the unfunded liabilities, because that's what those warnings are about, that'what we should be concerned about, not raising more taxes. those warnings are not about raising more taxes. it's about getting rid of the out-of-control liabilities that are racked up because of the spending which is out of control. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. it doesn't get at -- we've been here 59 days in this congress. not a single bill has been brought to this floor which willeal with the sequester. not one. as a matter of fact, we've only met 17 of the 59 days this year . so when my friend laments the fact that the sequester is going into effect and he talks about bills he doesn't deny they're dead and gone. senatean't take them up.

so many folks want us to read the constitution of the united states. i'm for doing that. it's article 1 that gives to the house, as the leader i'm sure know, the responsibility to raise revenues and to pass appropriation bills. it's the house that needs to initiate legislation, and we guard that pretty jealously. we guard it as -- we just passed vawa. there was a lot of discussion about vawa having -- in the last congress that passed overwhelmingly was delayed because very frankly they had some money effect in that bill. we said it was subject, therefore, to objections on our side. we haven't met very often and when we do meet the only real bills that are passed are passed in a bipartisan fashion which happened today. and when we talk about balance -- and i get very frustrated and take somebody else's money.

do you want to take it out of your pocket? was the constitution of a united states which formed a more perfect union designed to take the chinese money or european money and fund our education, our health care research, our highways, our national security? of course not. it is our money. each one of us individually works hard and we apportion a part of our earnings to the common good, to the common defense, to the common investment in our future, in education, in innovation, in infrastructure. yes, we do that. and i will tell my friend, and he well knows this, i get somewhat frustrated when i hear this. when i served in this congress from 2001 to 2008 when the economic policy that was in effect was all your party's economic policy, and you cut

revenues substantially and you increased spending substantially and we went from surplus to deep deficit. we need to solve that. i agree with the gentleman. we need to solve it, but we need to do it in a bipartisan basis. that's why i point out the oy bills that have of substance that have been signed by the president that weren't suspension bills on which we all agree were bipartisan bills which averaged 124 republicans voting for them and average 168 democrats voting for them. both parties joined together to solve problems. that's what needs to happen. and i will tell the gentleman he can talk about confidence all he wants, talk about why the rating agencies downgrade us. there were a number of reasons. but the greatest reason was, and they articulate it, standard & poor's articulated, they weren't confident that we could work together to solve problems. and we're not doing that. the gentleman continues to not want a balanced program. every group, every group that i've seen or read about or

talked to people about has said you cannot get from where we are in the deep debt that was created in the last decade to where we need to be, a balanced fiscal and sustainab plan for america for the years to come without addressing both the spending side and the revenue side. the example i use is we are selling a product, mr. leader, that many of us voted for it and you want to accommodate on the defense side, which cost $23 -- costs $23, and we are pricing it at $15. no business in america or in the world could survive with that imbalance. we need to bring that in balance, and you're not going to get to the 15% of revenues that we're collecting or now maybe 16% or 17% simply by savaging either defense or nondefense spending or entitlements. so i would certainly hope, mr.

leader, that we would come together. you and i have talked about this a lot. people go home and talk about how bipartisan we are going to be. we are prepareand we understand there are going to be this we have to do that we won't like. on your side thereill be things to do that you won't like. that will be a compromise. that's the definition of a compromise. oucountry needs it. americans want it. i would hope that we could in the coming days, not only address the sequester, but address the need over the next 10 years to get this country back to balance where we were in 2000 where we had a balanced budget, the debt was coming down and in fact people were concerned that it was coming down too fast. unless the gentleman has further remarks, i'll yield back. mr. cantor: i appreciate the gentleman yielding. mr. hoyer: i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: the gentleman loves to go back and talk about that period from 2001 to 2008 and

the fact that thereas too many tax cuts in place and without the control in spending. mr. hoyer: reclaiming my time, because my point, i tell the leader, is that we didn't pay fowhat we bought. we kept buying but we didn't pay. i yield to my iend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i was saying that. tooany tax cuts in place, and i agree with the gentleman, mr. speaker, not only on the fact that there were tax reductions and cuts in place but the fact there wasn't a control in spending. that is a problem here, mr. spker. but ironical, the gentleman has consistently been in support of and just voted to extend 98% of those tax cuts. and so what we're saying right now is we got to do something about the spending. you just got $650 billion in tax incrses, mr. speaker, over the course of the next 10 ars through the fiscal cliff

deal. i just prior spoke about the imbalance. this year, f.y. 2013, of the amount of new revenues versus the actual spending that is being projected to be reduced in the sequester. i agree, let's get back to balance. let's go ahead and increase the spending reductions. washington does have that spending problem. the gentleman agrees. so, you know, again, i think it's unfair to say that there's just, you know, no agreement on the fact that we ought to go and reduce tax rates and taxes because the gentleman supports doing that. so let's talk about balance. you know, and we got the highest level of revenues, it's been reported that whave the highest level of revenues coming into the federal government this year ever. and the gentleman does know as well the spending is out of

proportion in terms of history, in terms the percentage of g.d.p. so why can't we focus on that? we got to get this economy growing. and the gentleman is correct in saying the government needs to be adequately funded, but we got to take a look at what we're funding. that's what we're talking about in replacing the sequester is prioritizing. what are the functions of government? and the sequester, it does t spending, but we'd rather cut it in smarter ways. you know, again, i hear the gentleman talk about he'd like to be here on the floor passing bills. we would, too. get the senate to act. we have a bicameral process here, and the senate has not acted. the white house, the president hasn't even sent up his budget, mr. speaker. the president has that obligation in law.

has not presented his budget to the house. the senate refuses to do anything. and what's the white house doing right now? the president's been going around the country campaigning for the past two months scarring people, creating havoc. that's supposed to be leadership? the president says to americans that their food is going to go uninspected and the borders will be less patrolled and unsafe. his cabinet secretaries are holding press conference and conducting tv interviewses, making false claims about teacher layoffs. i just feel that people ought to take a look and say, hey, these sequester spending levels, no the sequester, but the spending levels, and say, in 2009, was food not inspected? because that's what the claim is, mr. speaker. that somehow if we were ever to reduce spending at all we

couldn't have food inspectors. did we have a border patrol -- any border patrol agents in 2009? of course we did. of course we did. they will be funded at the same levels under the sequester. and that's our point. replacing the sequester with smart cuts. but the other side, mr. speaker, and the gentleman and his caucus won't join us in doing that. because all we hear again and again is raise taxes. and i have said, as the gentleman knows, we can't in this town be raising taxes every three months. that's just not the way we can get this economy back on track. did the f.a.a. shut down in 2009? that's the claim. that's the claim that the president's saying. shut down the f.a.a., stop air travel as we know it. or give us higher taxes. that's the false choice that this president and his

administration are out there hawking. we can't have that. that's not leadership. let's come together. i agree with the gentleman, but stop the false choice. stop the games and let's get it done. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. he said a lot and i could have a lot of comments on that but i will say this as long as the gentleman believes it's only us saying that we need a balanced program, he will oppose it because we are democrats. if the gentleman listens to independent advice all over this country, from all sorts of sources, republicans and democrats, conservatives and liberals, they will say, you need a balanced approach. we need to cut spending, we need to restrain spending and we need to balance the cost of what we provide with the income that we have. every business person, small, medium and large, understands that concept. we have not followed it and we did not follow it in the last

decade. i regret the fact that the gentleman doesn't like the president going around the country and telling the truth. saying what the consequences may well be. w, are they going to be on march 1? no, but will they inevitable occur if the sequester stays in place? the answer to that is an emphatic yes. so i think the president is going around the country saying, look, these are the alternatives . and saying that the senate won't actor the president won't act -- people did not elect me, i will tell you, to make the president act or to make the senate act. they didn't think i could do that. what they did think i could do is make steny hoyer act. and if i were the majority leader, they expected me to have the house act. even if people didn't agree with me of legislation i put on the floor. but they expect us to do our job , not to cop out, with all due

respect, to the fact that the president's not doing something or the senate's not doing something. we have a responsibility here in this chamber, the people's house, as representatives of 435 districts, to do our job. and if the other folks don't do their job, we can lament that, we can criticize them, we can inform the american public of that. but we cannot say that's why we're not acting. so i would hope that next week we would in fact act and bring legislation to the floor and i'd be, as the gentleman knows, my friend knows, i'm for a big deal. i'm for getting us to that $4 trillion that the simon-bowles recommende because i think that will give real confidence to our economy, really grow businesses and put our country on a fiscally sustainable path and i will

>> those comments happening early yor today on the floor. the chamber returns on monday at noon eastern for speeches. funding runs out at the end of march. automatic spending cuts are set to begin tomorrow and president obama has invited congressional leaders to the white house tomorrow for negotiations on the $85 balance cross the board cuts. those expected to attend speaker boehner and nancy pelosi. earlier today speaker boehner held a briefing on those spending cuts which here is part of the briefing. >> the clock on all of this debate didn't start at christmas time when the president did get his revenue. it started a couple of years ago.

and the overall debt reduction that you all have done has been two to one spending doubts revenue. so why is the revenue discussion closed now. >> the president got his tax hikes. the american economy is going to create more tax revenue than any year in our history. we don't have a revenue problem. we have a spending problem. >> you're up two to one already. why is the revenue discussion closed? >> you're asking a question how much more money do we want to steal from the american people to fund government? i'm for no more. >> you're saying the president deviced the sequester. even if that's true, how much does that matter since you accepted it and ushered it through your chamber and got a signature? >> it is the president's sequester, it is his team that insisted upon it.

and let's remember why we have the sequester and why the president insisted on it. because the president didn't like the agreement that senator reid, senator mcconnell and i had to deal with the first crunch, the $1.2 trillion of discretionary cuts and to move the debt limit out a year. he wanted to make sure he didn't have to deal with the debt limit before his reelection. this was about his convenience. him not wanting to go through a fight over the debt limit again. that's where he came up with a sequester as a backstop to the super committee. >> but you accepted it and accepted that deal. >> it was a negotiation. i didn't like it anymore than anybody else liked it. but when the president told me and harry reid told me they would work with us to get an outcome out of the super committee, i felt confident we

could get an outcome out of the super committee. unfortunately we didn't. >> you can see the entire briefing to night on c-span. >> and congressional leaders head to the white house for negotiations about those spending cuts. press secretary jay carney spoke about that in today's briefing. >> the senate will vote on the proposal put forward by democrats that would deal with the sequester, postpone the sequester in a balanced, responsible way. we expect that that bill will get majority oh support in the senate. the only reason it may not pass the senate a minority of the republicans would fill bust they're bill. a pretty stark indication of the state of things when a bill that has majority support is blocked by a minority when that bill would avert the problem that we have confronting us

with this imminent deadline. so we'll have to see what the republicans do and whether they fill bust they are bill. maybe they will have a change of heart and that will affect the topics of conversation tomorrow with the president. the president believes we need to come together and deal with the sequester. the sequester is one piece of the broader challenge which is reducing our deficit in a balanced way. that's what the sequester was part of when it was included in the budget control act and it was designed as policy that would never come into effect because it was so onerous for both sides, it would compel congress to reach a compromise to reduce our deficit by a further $1.2 trillion. the president put forth a budget that is balanced.

reduction of $.5 trillion spending cuts. the kind of balance that tilts toward spending cuts that this president has put on the table, the kind of balance we haven't seen unfortunately from republicans. but he hopes whether it is action by republicans to deal with the sequester in the short term in a balanced way or to take up the project of a bigger deal and more deficit reduction that helps us reach that $4 trillion goal. he will be hoping that republicans, whether it's the short term or the long term are ready to talk seriously about compromise and making sure that washington is not inflicting wounds on the economy right when the economy should be growing and creating jobs. >> off the table for tomorrow, are there any preconditions for the president or republicans,

taxes or things that are not to be part of tomorrow? >> there are no preconditions with a meeting like this. this is a meeting with the president and leaders of congress, both parties and obviously any topic is up for discussion if one member of the group decides he or she wants to broach it. the immediate purpose of the meeting is to talk about the imminent sequester deed line and the need to avert it. the need if it is implemented to take action in a balanced way to deal with our deficit reduction in a way that doesn't undullly burden seniors or middle class families or parents with children with disabilities, that asks everyone to bear the burden and allow our economy to grow.

so the president is firm in his conviction that we need to include balance in our deficit reduction. it is unacceptable, it is amy way or the highway approach to say that revenue shouldn't be part of this. as is true toft proposal republicans in the senate are putting forward today, what is true about that propose sl true toft general republican position which is they would rather see sequester take effect with its negative effect on economic growth than ask a single wealthy individual to pay more, to give up a special tax break tofment ask some big industries to forego their loopholes or limit their deductions and that is not a position that is sustainable, we believe and it's not fair to the american people. >> and that meeting at the white house takes place tomorrow when automatic spending cuts are stote begin.

those expected to attend, john boehner, harry reid and mitch mcconnell and nancy pelosi. >> here is a look at our prime time schedule. when i will briefings -- capital hill briefings. on c-span2 modernizing medicare and medicaid services. and on c-span3 how it affects students. >> the u.s. economy and job creation. we'll hear an assessment on the u.s. economy and why growth remains slow. this is an hour and 40 minutes. >> good morning everyone. i'd like to call the first

meeting of the joint committee for the 113th session of dong order. the employment act of 1946 established the committee to make policy recommendations to congress. as the 37th chairman of the committee. i want to congratulation senator amy on becoming vice chair and welcome new and returning members to the committee. i would like to introduce our new members. representative of minute, of new york, senator roger of mississippi jor murphy of connecticut. and john of maryland. while the united states confronts many problems our most vexing economic challenge is the growth gap and how we close it. the growth gap between this economic recovery and others is

significant and intensifies our problems. the growth gap has two interrelated aspects. first by economic measures remains the weakest among recoverries since world war ii. second, our economy's potential to grow over time has slowed. if true, the average rate of growth and private job creation during this recovery of 2.1% annually and 175,000 new jobs per month are about as good as our economy will ever perform in the future and that is unacceptable. therefore, it's appropriate the first hearing the committee should address this growth gap. while i have job creation have remained weak and what should congress do to boost them? >> the recovery is indisputeable. real g.d.p. increased by 7.5%

in three and a half years. in contrast. in all the post war recoverries g.d.p. increase was 7.5. it would have to grow at an annual rate at 5.5% to catch up by the end of president obama's second term. that would be slightly higher than the 5.4% rate that president reagan achieved. private payroll employment, that is jobs on mainstreet have increased by only 5.7% since its cycle lofmente had this been average, it would have increased by 9.4%. the growth gap means the united states should have 3.9 million more private jobs today than it does. equally troubling is mounting

evidence that the mounting growth rate for potential real g.d.p. in the future has fallen dramatically. in the outlook, the congressional budget office cut the estimate of the real g.d.p. growth rate to one percentage point below its average since 1950. one point may not sound like much, however, the real economy doubles in 22 years at 3.3% growth rate. but at that lower, smaller rate, it takes 31.9 years to double, almost a decade longer. the prospect of a new normal for america's commi in which our growth slose by 1/3 should be a red flag for all americans. during this congress, the committee will through hearings and research streth growth gap and how to close it. no doubt some of the the growth gap may be due to demographic

factors. however, even a cursory review of recent history strongly suggest that economic and fiscal policies have played the dominant role. to understand how these policies affect performance let's compare the progrowth policies in the 1980's and 1990's to the slow growth policies during the last decade. during the great moderation under both republican and democratic presidents in congresses with split control or republican or democratic. they achieved outstanding results. the size of the federal government shrank. marginal income tax rates fell. policy makers focused on reducing the after tax cost of capital for new business investment and jobs grew. monetary policy became rilse

based and predictable. ignoring the employment half of its mandate, the federal reserve focused on price stability. the united states led the world in lib raliesing international trade in investment. beginning in 2001, under both democratic and republican presidents in congress both democrat and split control, the federal government reversed course in large part to terrorist attacks of 9/11. the results have been disappointing. the size of government has grown soring to 22% of g.d.p. and remaining elevated. marginal income tax rates were first decreased then increased and in recent years policy makers have focused on the fairness of the tax system rather than its effect on

growth. monetary policy has become discretionary again. the regular tear burdens on businesses has increased generating uncertainty and inhibiting new business investment. the united states has fallen behind its major trading partners. today is the perfect time to focus on the growth gap and what we should do about it. given the historical and legal relationship between the committee and the council of economic advisors, it's appropriate two of the most distinguished chairman are with us today as witnesses. with that i look forward to the testimony. i recognize vice chairman for her comments. >> thank you very much chairman braid. it's an honor to be here. i'm joined by many colleagues

from both the house and senate. i look forward to working on some good discussions and hopefully solutions to the budget and economic problems facing our country. i also want to thank our two witnesses. it is a great way to start this hearing with both of you having been former chairman of the economic advisors. we're at a time when congress's energy is focused on sequestration and the solutions to that. while that is not the focus of today's hearings, in many ways it's a good starting point for our discussion, not just because of the consequences but because it underscores the need for policies that address our debt challenges without undermining growth. my hope is we can explore some of the bigger pictures for moving our economy forward while discussing specific policies for strengthening the fundamentals, the core

engineslike entrepreneurship and invasion. as we explore the current landscape, i think it's important to remember where we were a few years ago. i sat through hearings in this room as we would hear the unemployment numbers, the difficult situation our country was in. i think back to the first half of 2009 when our country was lugs jobs at a rate of nearly 700,000 a month. that is literally equal to the entire population of vermont. four years later we are adding jobs. not as many as we'd like but we've seen 35 months of job growth. in that time we've also seen promising signs of growth recently in industries like housing. take the january numbers for new home sales. they hit their highest rate in four and a half years, up nearly 16% compared to

december. exporting has been another bright spot with exports reaching a record of $2.2 trillion last year. i personally spent last week in 30 below wind chill weather around minnesota visiting 30 different businesses, saw warehouses full of crates that said ship to china and saw in our state where we are down to 5.5 unemployment. what we are seeing with this private sector job growth which is based on exports in our state as well as a skilled work force. these are positive signs but there is more to be done. there are still more than 1 million americans out of work and there is no question we have much more work to do. our focus needs to be on policies that create job creation in the short term while laying ground for prosperity in the long term. if we've learned anything over the last few years, thates

america can no longer be a country that churns money. our financial industry is important but it can't be the basis of our economy. we need to make things and export to the world which we need to work to bring our country back to the brass tacks of invasion ond entrepreneurship. i come from a state, i will try not to mention my state too much if you don't mention texas too much. but my state brought the world everything from the peacemaker to the post it note. i have a model i look at how we were able to keep our head above water during this downturn. this isn't a minnesota story. it's an american story. invasion has kept our country moving forward since its earlier days. the things i think we need to focus on as we go forward, i

hope we can be as bipartisan as possible. we're going to have different views, but as long as we get the right information from our witnesses, i think we can come together which we need to bring our debt down in a balanced way. i think there were good things coming out of the simpson bowles commission and the work being done on that balance add proach to bring that debt down. i don't think we can put our heads in the sand. education, i think we should double our schools. we need to get our kids to science and math. we have so many companies looking for welders and tool and die and these are jobs that are there right now that are going unfilled because we have failed to train students in those areas where we have jobs that are good paying jobs. exports, i mentioned. the president's goal of

doubling the number of exports within this foo five year period is attainable. regulations, keeping very important regulations in place but going industry by industry and saying what can we do to make things work better so we can compete on an international basis. reforming our tax code and doing something about immigration reform which i think is very doable given the bipartisan work in the senate. i'm excited about working with chairman brady and the rest of my colleagues. i look forward to this hearing. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> i'd like to welcome and introduce our witnesses for today's hearing. dr. michael is at the hover institute and professor of economics at stanford. previously dr. boston served on the economic advisors at which point independent counts rated

the ce arnings as one of the most respected agencies in the federal government. he also chaired the blue ribbon commission on consumer price index. dr. boss kin is author of more than 150 books and is recognized for his research and received the adam smith prize for contribution to economics in 1988. he received his bachelors and masters and m.d. at california berkeley. >> i'd like to introduce dr. robert gools by. previously he served on the council of economic advisors from 2009 to 2011 and led it as chairman. he writes monthly for the

"washington journal" and contributed economic analyst for abc news. he's also spent time as a special consultant for internet policy for the department of justice and it was lead editor for the journal of law and economics for several years. he earned his degrees in economics from yeal university. graduated from a docket rat in economics. clearly we have highly respected witnesses. there is an awful lot of wisdom to be tapped today as we look at these issues. >> thank you for your willing tons come before the committee. we look forward to your expert opinion. >> thank you chairman brady,

vice chair. i've had the privilege of testifying before this committee and working with it since the 1970's. i obviously testified often in my four years as senior chairman when we were cleaning up two financial crisis, the savings and loans and the banks being insolvent. we had the first iraq war, oil shock and a recession. so not totally dissimilar, though not as large a scale as what we went through recently. obviously we had a horrific recession following the collapse of the housing market and the housing bubble and the financial crisis. the recovery has been aneemmick compared to previous recoverries. it's growing at 4% and employment at 20% as rapidly.

the subpar growth is as damaging to employment opportunities and skills as the order however deep and southeast veer recession. the modestly good news is despite the fact the economy has been flat lately and most people expect this quarter to be only slightly positive, most expect the economy to pick up this-year and into next. that is the forecast as has been for some time. hopefully they are right but the blue chip is looking at 2.5% or % next. that would still be way below what the economy should be doing recovering from such a deep recession. there are many risk it is economy faces from problems in europe, to joe political issues, deleveraging the private sector, racing cost and

uncertainty that has yet to be written and enforced and so on. and the uncertainty about the fed's exit from its monetary policy. but there are good signs. technology revolution in fracking and bringing energy cost down in the united states and bringing jobs in a wide array of our states. housing seems to be rebounding and there is lots of cash sitting on the side lines waiting for an improved economic environment and an improved policy environment. i believe that the early policies, the early fed actions, the automatic stabilizers in the tax code and the making capital available to the banks as poorly as it was done was essential to preventing the recession from getting worse flt but much of the policy since then has not

been as effective as it could have been. i detail that in my testimony. the marginal tax cuts, the attempted social reengineering of the economy from energy to healthcare to financial services. whenever their intrinsic benefits and cost created a lot of uncertainty. so i think there are a lot of reasons to believe we have a different course of action is required now. in my opinion, it starts with a strong credible commitment to serious consolidation facing garagely as the economy recovers. that means it's got to be permanent and strukechurel. it requires process rules on spending and debt. progrowth tax reform lower rates on a broad base which all economist agree is desireable would be important to that effort. in the long run we need to get

entitlement cost growth under control in a manner that strengthens and preserves our key entitlement programs but presents them from bankrupting the rest of the government. simply put we're going to have too many people collecting too generous benefits. we should be trimming them at the top and slowing the increase through a variety of matters. i've calculating that the harm from allowing the projected debt to go. it's not only unsustain annual. it's dangerous. it would lead to a generation of lost income for our children and grandchildren on a level of 20 to 30%. we need to get the g.d.p. heading down. i think there should be in addition to those two things,

medium fiscal consolidation and tax reform. minimizing that reducing subsidies to the well off. budget reform, making programs more effective. jobs going vanget for lack of training. we have 46 job training programs in the federal government. one was added for green energy. it should be shut down. most of those programs don't even have metrix. we need to eliminate the bad ones, consolidate the hopeful ones, modernize and train people. it will help people at lower cost. there are many examples of that throughout the government. i'd be happy to take questions on that. in terms of monetary policy, it need to be more predictable and permanent. i call it rules based, if it's

not following a clear rule, it's working as if it is. knit it dwates there is an emergency reason and so on. you could eliminate the tax combruse and spending programs that leaves everybody uncertainty about whether they will be renude that jerry rigs all the incentives in the economy. in addition education as well as job training reform, and i might add trade libization which i'm glad to see the president has begun to start about in some dimensions would be important compments to this but it should be on consolidation on the spending time as the economy recovers. research shows consolidations do not cause recessions have $5 spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase. an economically balanced consolidation is primarily on the spending side.

it's not 50/50. i wish the committee good luck and progress and i look forward to working with you and hearing your questions. >> thank you. >> thank you. it's a great honor and i appreciate the invitation. i think the central question that have you raised here today fits in the tradition of the joint economic committee where they've had a long history of democrats and republicans working together, the house and the senate working together and i think there are a lot of things that we can agree on not the least of which is our dress code today. we did not coordinate. but if the questioning gets difficult i'm going to try to look like i were him and direct the questions away from 3450eus. the central question is why is

the economy not growing faster after a deep recession? and i think there are three primary reasons for that but before i state those reasons i would like to make one factual observation which is this is not the weakest recovery in memory. it is not the weakest of the last two. the 2001 recovery was substantially slower than this one. what is different about this one is it is not v shaped in the way professor points out in his testimony. it was after the deep recessions of 1975 and 1982. i think there are three reasons why that is. the first is this recession came from the popping of a bubble unlike the 1982 and 1975 recessions and popping bubbles are much more difficult to escape from the grips of than are the other.

so in 1982 my dear friend paul voker rose the -- the interest rates rose to over 20% on mortgages. economic activity slowed dramically as interest rates came down that pinned up demand came right back. that is not having a do a lot of structural transformation of what the economy is doing but going back to what you were doing before. there was a joke headline in the onion newspaper, serious nation demands new bubble to invest in to have prosperity. let's not reenact that headline. it's cleer as we look at the data as we highlighted in the report when i was serving as the chair that the expansion of the 2,000's was dramatically outsized in contribution of

housing construction and personal consuming spending as the key drivers of growth. it was way underweighted as compared to past recoverries and compared to other expansions around the world in business investment and export growth. we must shift the economy away -- we can't go back to the building of residential construction and personal consumption spending faster than income growth as the two drivers of growth. those were fueled by a bubble and they aren't coming back in the way they were then. so that has taken some time. what that means for the job market? i think it's not a secret the performance of the job market is tied to how much faster growth is than productivity. productivity of our workers grows about 2% a year. anytime growth gets above 2%, you have to hire workers or add

hours to meet that demand f. growth remains in the 2% or below the job market is going to remain stagnant. the good news is that the forecast are that growth would get back up in the 2% or higher range in the immediate term. i fear that the impact of the sequester would cut .5% to 1% off the growth rate and would again put us back into the circumstance in which growth is not fast enough to shrink the unemployment rate. that instead of unemployment shrinking, it would be rising again. the second factor that has made this not a v shape recovery, is we're overcoming the worst housing market in history. if you look at research housing and construction are the most cyclical component of the economy. 24e have a much outsized

component. the normal coming out of a recession is at least a third related to new construction. we got overbuilt in the bubble with 6 million vacant homes, construction fell close to nothing. it's quite understandable why the overall growth rate of the economy has not come back in the short run as rapidly as in past because we couldn't go back to getting anything from construction. the good news is that the long nightmare of housing in many if not most markets appears to have turned the corner. so we may start to get some contribution from that. third, the evidence is that financial crisis and big d leveraging take a major toll on growth. the economic growth report of this year compares its experience of the lab boar

market to experience of other countries that have had financial crisis and the u.s. appears to be doing a fire bit better than average for that circumstance. all of those are just to say it's not fast enough, but i think it is understandable why it wasn't v shaped. why it looks more like the 2001 recovery than the 1984 recovery. lastly, i would like to say two things i believe the data do not suggest are predominantly to explain why growth has not been faster. the first is i do not believe the data supports the view that regulation or policy changes over the last three years are the predominant reason why growth has not been v shaped recovery. if you look at things like the accumulation of money on the balance sheet of corporations and a lack of willingness to invest, that pervades all the advanced committees of the world. that is happening in countries that did not pass a health

plan, that have not had any changes of atheir regulatory regym, so anybody who is arguing that regslation is the driver has to explain why the pattern is consist ant cross these other countries. second, the way economist normally measure the impact of regulation on growth when they say for example that the 1977 clean air act affected manufacturing, they compare counties where it applies strictly to counties writ doesn't. they compare those industries and company that is are affected to those that are not by size, by sector, etc. if you do that now, there is little evidence that those regulatory policies are the primary driver. the second factor that i believe the evidence does not suggest is the cause is the short run deficit. most of the short run deficit has been caused by the downturn, not caused the downturn and while i 100% agree

and have for a long time been an advocate of a long term fiscal consolidation i think you need only look at the g.d.p. evidence in the united states in the fourth quarter or in europe where they are engaged in dramatic austerity to realize there is a tension between trying to cut too much in the immediate term and the growth rate. i think the normal channels by which fiscal contractions can be ex357ks nare go through the interest rate that you satisfy investors and make them more confident in the plan so the interest rate come down. we are facing ep pickically low interest rates. it is hard for me to understand mechanism which fiscal contractions would be in this environment. i believe there are many things we can agree on whether on long run fiscal consolidation, on

investing and training invasion as the keys to growth. i hope we do not something that would be a mistake in the short run on a purpose that is something other than re-establishing a growth strategy. thank you. >> thank you both for the testimony. doctor doctor, as we look at the growth gap, ways to close it and more importantly solutions, you mentioned recently the generational damage by this high spending to g.d.p. ratio and about the need for fiscal consolidation. economists generally believe that federal spending should be capped and controlled relative to the size of the economy. the challenge is how best to do that. i'd like your advice. we've developed over the past year and a half legislation called the map act that address the spending caps. the difference from past

efforts is we used two slightly different we think smarter metrix to do that. one is a non-enter spending. that which is controlled by congress, both discretion nare entitlement type spending. the goal clearly there is to be able to reduce what we can reduce without adding pressure on us to push the fed to keep interest rates political low. the second, the denominator is potential g.d.p. rather than estimated rolling average. it's not as cyclical. congresses can't spend as much in the good times nor do they have to cut quite as much in the bad times. as we go forward trying to find solutions on agradually lowering the size of our government relative to the economy, are those metrix good

ones to work off of? >> i think you're definitely headed in the right direction. i think it's important we allow the automatic stabilizers to work. i mentioned them as the major cause. i agree the quantitatively they are a large part of the deficit. so that's important. i do believe there are two other things that are worth considering. one is that for good purposes or other, we often wind up doing things that are like spending but don't count as spending. we regulate. when the government says put this on your car and therefore, the auto companies do it and charge people higher prices for their car, that may have a good benefit cost ratio but it doesn't show up as spending the money. so regulations is a substitute

and tax expenditures are a substitute for spending. so you would need to have some complementary legislation or safety valve to prevent that you could tighten if all of a sudden the spending cap started to bind and edging into regulation and tax expenditures. the other is when you look at spending, there is this fundamental fack of arith ma tick we can't get around that present discount of taxes has to equal future spending plus the national debt. the government has to pay its bills now or later. a dollar of borrowing now means the interest tomorrow has to be raised to pay off the interest. so with that in mind, it's very, very important that the spending caps be reasonable and

bind and there is some mechanism by which we don't, even with reasonable spending caps, start continuing to accumulate more debt as well. so there is an issue whether you need something on the deficit and debt side simetainsly with spending, spending minus taxes. you need to control two to control threefment but you're at the fundamental core, the first thing we need to get under control is spending. we can argue. i think we would agree that should be done garagely but in the long run these fro jexes, even if you shave them for optimist ache summingses are really tremendously harmful. to take the path of spending as the o.m.b. projects for the president's policies with reasonable asumses which includes the future projected

growth of medicare and social security. means we're going to have a wide swath of the population paying tax rates at 70% paying for it with higher income taxes, not just the well off. it's hard to imagen in a generation from now we can have a successful economy with a large fraction of americans being a minority partner in their own labor. so you are right that spending is the fundamental thing. the other something you might want to give thought to the long run about whether have you a recalibration exercise or think about how demographics interact with it. but you are in the right place. >> thank you both. i did see a few common threads in your testimony and i want to start with the elephant in the room and go through questions quickly. on tuesday ben bernanke testified before the senate banking committee and he said

the congress and the administration should consider replacing the sharp mode spending cuts required by the sequestration with policies that reduce the federal deficit more gradually in the short term. the head wind facing the recovery while addressing the imbalances in the federal budget. >> do you agree with his statement? >> yes. >> if you could keep your statement short. i notice you talked about a fazed in reduction. do you think there is a better way to do this than the sequestration? >> i think there is a better way. but i want to make sure this year the total affect on outlays is going to be between $5 and $45 billion. that is one quarter of g.d.p. it's hard to believe this year the sequester would be a major

event. next year it starts adding up. so it would be better to have it shaped like this, there is no doubt. but it's difficult to do that when we're living in a world where every two months we have a new set of negotiations. >> i agree. many of us would have liked to do a bigger thing at the end of the year but we will proceed now and have the opportunities in the next few months. i know in the senate and the house want to get this done. i want to follow up on one thing i thought was interesting and that is the number of businesses that have accumulated money right now that we would like them to invest in our cun trip. part of it is the problem with the uncertainty with changes all the time. you rightly noted this is not just our country that has this problem. what i wanted to get at is how you think we can unleash this money and get it invested?

>> in my view, the reason it's accumulatesing in the u.s. and other cun industries fear about the world economy is has a recovery taken hold. for all of the discussion of our growth rate being modest. at 2.5%, that's about the fastest of all the advances committees in the world which is a sad state of affairs. it's been a tough period. so i think uncertainty about overall world economic growth and second fear over whether there will be another major financial crisis led by problems coming out of the european banging sector. i think those two things hang over the investment decisions of big firms. and really we can only address that part through macroeconomic management and trying to

persuade the europeans to confront their problems. i think on the micropolicy side, investment tax incentives i think have some impact in an environmentlike this on the decision if you're going to invest, where do you want to invest. i think putting a focus on in some of the sectors getting skilled workers and trained workers that are in our language complementary to the capital is quite important. because you've seen in high-tech manufacturing and others, they haven't been able to do that. and the third i think there is a confidence element that as growth gets going, you will see more pressure like what you've seen with apple and others that investors go to the firms and say either dwruse money for investment or pay out the money

and but do not just sit on the money. >> i want to follow up on one of the things you made. i was picturing myself telling the small business owners in minnesota that you need workers that are complementary to your capital. i think it is right on in terms of trying to encourage our school, from the high school level on, to train workers. i think manufacturing is one of our spots right now. we do not have enough people going into welding. we need more women doing it. we need more people doing it. there is a big effort in minnesota to recruit more women to the manufacturing floor because of job openings. if you could briefly talk about your views on this and maybe in the second round i will ask about your ideas on consolidation. >> i agree with those statements

that manufacturing has been one of the bright spots. it has been pretty clear. in the data, the u.s. has got to shift a more export-oriented growth model. the biggest export market for the u.s. is in the manufacturing sector. most of what we export our manufactured goods. in those cases,, especially in minnesota, those issues of finding structural mismatch and fixing it are important. it behooves us now, at a time when i think cyclical unemployment is the dominant factor nationwide. very soon, as the unemployment rate comes down, structural unemployment will be what remains.

we have already seen the weakest parts of the job market being the drop out of the labor force and a group of people who have been unemployed for a lot of very long -- for a very long period, these skills will be a forefront issue. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> you touched on long-term, structural unemployment. we have created the vast majority of jobs that have been service jobs. a very small percentage were signs, technology, engineering, and math. we know we have disparities'

growing and every job is not the same. we could have zero unemployment and people could be struggling paying their bills. what do you think is the severity, in a global sense, that we are increasingly moving away from those things we need to invest to increase our global competitiveness in terms of innovation, tradable goods, and that type of thing? how big of a factor do you think the unemployment rate we are seeing right now is a function of us not being as competitive and as skilled as we need to be as a people? >> i think it is a substantial part of our problem, both short- term and long-term. people are not getting jobs now. 3.5 million job vacancies.

they are not all computer programmers. welders, etc. that is partly a problem of our education system and the opportunities, private and governmental, to retrain yourself. need to modernize these jobs programs. i think we can get a lot better out of it for less money and help people a lot more than we do now. spending should not be the metric, it ought to be, how people get jobs again. in the long term, it is a larger problem. if the unemployment comes down in the next two or three years, what remains will be primarily structural. >> i think there is a tendency,

when firms are hit with really rapid, sharp adjustments, they make deeper cuts, including stuff that is accumulated. they tend to shed a lot of labor than they might have in previous downturns. they pushed their remaining workers and become more productive. all of that is interactive. there is something major to it. >> i did think it is a major issue. i think it is not appreciated that the u.s.'s competitiveness problem has not principally been on the productivity side. we remain the most productive work force in the world. we only got more productive during the recession.

the long run competitiveness of the u.s. economy is pretty strong. we have gone through a heavy, cyclical unemployment time. it is something we ought to think about. there are a lot of different sectors and jobs that have never faced foreign competition that have become tradable good. that leaves a lot of tough adjustments. we should make quality investments. i think that professor's point is well taken. let's do those things that will get people jobs and sustain them in their jobs. the advance of technology, let's not overly dreadful is it. if they had said in 1920, how many phone lines would exist today, they would have said

that is impossible because every man, woman, and child in america would have to be a telephone operator. the fact that they do not need to be did not put everyone out of a job gradually as we trained for other things, we got more skilled. there is no reason we could not shift again. >> thank you. >> thank you. it is good to see both of you here today. in your testimony today, you suggested congress could help the housing market recovery by facilitating finance, refinancing for people on able to take advantage of low rates because by facilitating to people to convert vacant homes into rental properties, it was interesting what you said about

housing. housing sometimes is put on the back burner. for my constituents, it is a big deal. they have lost a lot of wealth with the recession. could you explain the actual benefits to the economy of allowing borrowers to refinance their mortgages down to the historic low interest rates? >> yes. in the city of chicago where i live, the impact of the housing downturn has been devastating. a lot of cities in the united states, as well as a lot of suburban areas, this has weighed in quite a substantial way. the benefit of refinancing is simple. as the professor discussed in the case of taxes, the most effective tax cuts are those that are long lived and have permanent changes to peoples' income -- people's income.

if you are under your mortgage, you cannot go refinance at the bank. you are paying an interest rate well above what the market rates are. this has been noted by chairman and 9 ben bernanke. if people could simply refinance at the market rate, as they are now, it would be literally, for the average homeowner, thousands of dollars a lower payment per year that would go straight into their pockets. it would be the equivalent of a 30-year tax cut for them of thousand dollars a year. that is substantial picku. it is not just pure stimulus. the incidents in the short run of spending the money for people who are massively liquidity

restraint and hurting, trying to figure out how to pay their bills each month, that tends to be higher than for the banks currently sitting on reserves and for the mortgage owners. that could have a positive impact. >> you said a lot that was very interesting. you talk about the cease -- the sequestration possibly cutting 1% of the gross rate -- growth rate. it was suggested it would be a certain amount, 2% and above. talk about that. we had a policy hearing the other day where the professor, a top economist, talked about the various subjects.

he believes even a month of sequestration would be like creating a crater in our economy. i want to have your comments. >> the professor and i disagree a little bit on what the multiplier would be of the spending on the economy. if you take forecasters like mackerel advisers, they anticipate the direct impact of spending is maybe 25 basis points, two tenths of a point. the question is what other refects does it have. i think that leaves it up to be

higher. i do not think this is as big as what the fiscal cliff would have been, which would have driven us into a recession. in my view, this will cut the growth rate and by a enough that we drop below 2% so there is a decent chance the unemployment rate starts going back up again instead of coming down. that is where i would characterize it. >> i think it was said it would take quite a stretch to make this into a major macroeconomic event. it is literally about a quarter of a percentage point direct spending. economists are not sure in an expansion with a high debt ratio where that spending will be off spent, whether the multiplier is slightly negative, 0.6, 1.3, the incoming

obama administration used 1.7 in the midst of a deep recession. if you to that, which i believe is wholesome, there is a range. it is a range of disagreement among economists. that would get us up to maybe 2.4%. even the most of what has been used in washington recently, it is a minor macroeconomic event. it is not trivial with respect to some things. it is disproportionate to the military. some people will get disrupted. overall in the economy, my best judgment would be it would be a quarter of a percent or slightly left. >> this is an important hearing because i believe our economy has a long way to go to reach its full potential. you had mentioned the current recovery is about 10 million jobs short.

i agree with you overall. we need a strong, credible commitment to consolidation to turn things around. i am discouraged the recent announcement that unemployment is expected to remain 1.5% all the way through 2014. it is the longest in 70 years. my worry is this is being accepted as the new normal. it is being accepted by congress and elected officials. and employers back in my district, that understand this is what will happen now. i am worried about that. this needs to be addressed. i want you to look backs and seeing the bubble in the 1980's, and the bubble in the 1990's, and the bubble of 2000. some would argue we are in a federal spending bubble now. our current trajectory is

spinning right now. at one point do you expect investors will lose confidence in the ability of the united states government to back up our debt? >> you are onto something extremely important. last week, there was a major paper presented by a former federal reserve governor. they concluded when the debt gdp ratio gets to 80%, and our net debt bank, leaving out social were a little below that, our growth status of well over it, you run an increasing risk of a sudden loss of confidence and a dramatic rise of interest rates that you run into these long growth episodes.

there is a serious risk. we cannot be sure. if you are heading toward an iceberg you ought to change course. it seems to me we need to start getting the spending down and we need to start getting the debt gdp ratio stabilized and heading back down to a safety zone, 50% of gdp over the long term. >> you just mentioned interest rates and the growing cost of interest rates to the federal government as part of our government. at some point, they will normalize. how much will these payments increase? what are the trade-offs as a rupture -- larger share have to go to paying off interest. >> cbo projects the interest costs over the next decade will almost triple.

that does not include the one of these abrupt losses. the interest payments will crowding out other activity. the higher interest rates will eventually crowd out investment. we need that investment to generate jobs and increases in wages. it is a serious problem. we have had an unusual period where the fed, for good reason or not, i can give them an input -- an incomplete. i have not been a fan lately. they replaced the credit markets with themselves, deciding to keep interest rates closest to zero.

that has enabled the budget to look better than it was. that is not why they did it. it was to make the budget look better than it was. if we normalize the budget for that, looking at what it would look like, tax revenues would be well above their historic average of gdp. spending would come down kilobit. if we look at that, interest will become a big issue. it is a sizable fraction. held abroad by foreign central banks. it is a big problem. it is an extra reason we need to get the debt down. the effect on interest rates will primarily reflect what the budget position is, a surplus, a primary surplus.

if we get to a primary balance, that should take a lot of pressure off. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for your opening comments. for someone who is new to congress, overly constructive and bipartisan. i appreciate that very much. thank you for allowing me on the committee. i thought the last point you made was a good point. a point often overlooked when we talk about our deficit situation is the fact that we do not borrow from ourselves. other countries like japan that have been able to maintain high are from their cells. -- themselves. it is important to deal with this now while interest rates are low.

we can deal in a smarter way than what will ultimately happen. i agree with the comment. i want to shift my question to tie into some of the comments mr hana made. competitiveness is one of the central issues this country faces. it started years ago when we entered a global and technology enabled world. it changed the face of employment in this country. we talk a lot about tax policy and the size of government. i worry we do not talk about what the future competitive situation of this country is because, even though we have seen cyclical employment trends, the trends around the standard of living and around the average american have been very down. you are competitive, you create

jobs. if you are not competitive, you continue to create jobs that have a deteriorating standard of living. it seems to me reforming immigration, 7 billion people in the world, 6 billion wake up and largely want to come here. it is a huge advantage we have as a country. the lack of a national energy policy, which we do not seem to have, not doing the things and education, there has never been a strong correlation than now between having a better education and a better job. and not creating enough avenues for the cyclical -- sncc and amount of capital to invest in our economy. i worry about these things. my question to you two is how do we think about the role of government in light of what i

think it's a changing economic landscape for the country, a landscape defined by globalization and technology. how do we think about the role of government to address these things, to make us more competitive and so we can absolutely -- actually reverse the unemployment trend? >> my grandmother lived in texas. she used to say to me whenever i would complain, 80% of the world really does not care about your problems. the other 20% are glad. if you were thinking how long will we need to wait before the government solves our private sector competitiveness problem, the answer is forever. if you were waiting for the government to fix it or anyone else, you would do best to

remember the vast majority of what happens to the competitiveness of u.s. enterprises has nothing to do with the government. policy is only setting the framework that is operating in. in my view, the government has, for many decades, played an important function through direct and indirect support of research and development innovation that have been -- in ways that have been quite fundamental. the economic infrastructure of the country is quite important. you can disagree about individual job training programs, but there is no question in my mind that overall federal support through financial aid and training have been crucial in keeping the work force the most productive in the world. we also need to have things like a national energy policy, the

drug -- the potential drop of energy cost could be a great boon to u.s. manufacturing carried it would be lost to figure out a way -- manufacturing. it would behoove us to figure out a way to do that that is safe. those type of broad based things the government can play a more important role, rather than directly making companies more competitive. >> i generically agree this is primarily something the primary -- private sector does. a government plays an important role in doing things we would not expect the private sector to do well. basic physics, individual firms cannot operate the benefits so they will not do it.

that needs to stop short of subsidizing specific firms, which means you are getting a competitive disadvantage for the competitors. education is important. the key difference is i would draw the line a little shorter. he would have a larger government. i would be concerned that the larger it got, the less effective it got. the government is playing this role, the larger it gets, it crowds out the private sector. federal costs, state, and local government, 50% of gdp. they have to pay taxes.

>> thank you. i do not mean to interrupt. with boats pending, i want to make sure we get as many people as possible. >> i asked my staff each day to prioritize my memos. despite tuesday' -- [laughter] >> thank you for bringing that up. we appreciate that. pasay never thought would be from a football powerhouse, either. [laughter] >> i have suffered greatly. let me get my questions. i was interested in your comment here. i would like to go into more detail. you said economically balanced. it is not 50-50 between spending

and taxes. simpson-bowles came in with a commission report with the ratio spending over taxes. yet the administration continues to insist that any kind of long- term deal will ultimately put us on the right track if it is 50- 50. what will that ratio be? you said it should not be 5050. -- 50-50. >> the successful ones have been $5 of actual spending cuts, actual cuts that have occurred for every dollar of tax increases. it does not mean it has to be exactly that. could be smaller or larger. the u.s. may have slightly different circumstances. it suggests it is primarily on

the spending side. the evidence also suggests hikes -- tax hikes are worse than spending cuts. there is a steady by one of colleagues suggesting tax increases can be very dangerous in the short term. the mix, for economic reasons, there are many other considerations. people care about the size of government. they care about the distribution of income and so on. issue shouldnomic eac be overwhelmingly on the economic side. >> two things. the evidence the professor is siding is based on a circumstance fundamentally

different than what we are facing now. our fiscal challenge is nothing more and nothing less than the population is aging and the health care costs are rising. if you just advance for the baby boom to their retirement, with the existing policy, that we have known about for 40 years, it would imply the government side will get bigger than it ever was before. either you have got to cut those promises or raise revenues higher than they have ever been before to cover them, were some balance. those are fundamentally .ifferent tha what simpson-bowles said was 3- 1. 1 ratio.ally a 2- it is best to also remember as we had one round.

if you add all of these things together, we are at the 2-3-1 ratio in simple -- in simpson- bowles. we ought to balance these things against that. at the end of the day, if we do the $4.50 trillion of cuts simpson-bowles recommended, the total would be 2-1 or 3-1 spending cuts to tax revenue is totally inappropriate. >> i think it is important to appreciate to things. -- two things. the projected cost increase of social security and medicare are primarily because of rising real benefits. we are making them more and more generous as they go along relative to the cost of living. some people might say we ought

to have those things proportionate to the size of the economy, but the original mission was to supply a measure of security against poverty and old age. if i were to collect social security at the right time, -- we cannot keep rejecting -- projecting. i do not view 70 years from now as a promise. it is a big increase. i think we have to get these programs under control with respect to -- under control. with respect to simpson-bowles, they did not deal with health care costs. that is a big issue. that is a large driver of future debt. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman appeared i would like to compliment you on your new position i would also like to

welcome a new member on the democratic side from the great state of maryland, who has been a very successful businessman and will bring a tremendously important perspective to this committee. a welcome to our two panelists and thank you for your government service for our country. tomorrow, the real question before our government is sequestration, which kicks in with an $85 billion cut. it is estimated this will result in a loss of over 700,000 jobs. ben bernanke testified yesterday in the house of representatives. although we have been gaining jobs over 35 months, roughly 6.1 million in the private sector, but the government lost 0.6 million jobs. he testified this sequestration

was a problem, besides having an adverse affect on jobs and income, he said a slower recovery, which is sequestration will cause and our fragile economy will lead to less actual deficit reduction. the whole purpose of sequestration is deficit reduction. he is testifying it will slow that because of the impact on jobs and incomes. there has been testimony today the impact on gdp would be roughly a quarter of a percentage point. it is estimated it will contribute about 0.6% to a fiscal drag on the economic growth this year. i would like to hear your comments in relation to what

chairman ben bernanke was saying about the idea of phasing it in overtime, having targeted reductions, the democratic minority keeps putting forward closing loopholes. let's not fire all these people that are paying their taxes, a part of an economy dredging our money back into the economy instead of having them on welfare and not being able to produce a part of the economy. this is turned down by the republicans. there was an article this week in one of the papers where speaker boehner was quoted in saying, in terms of the tax debate, because we all support tax restructuring, that he would take closing loopholes if given a lower rate for taxes. it seems to me closing some of these tax loopholes, why we are giving tax breaks to companies that move overseas and take our

jobs over there is beside me. if you are going to give a tax break, give it to someone providing a job in america. the tax subsidies, the 40% in some of the examples, really upset -- really successful companies, that are making a lot of money, why are we subsidizing the company making a lot of money? it seems to be closing the loopholes and lowering the deficit would be a better approach than closing loopholes and giving a lower tax rate. i would like the response to those two questions. and yours. >> on the first, i am more in the camp as i outlined as the congressional budget office that the impact of sequestration would be half of a point off the growth rate. i think that would be enough to set the labor market back. and it might start to

deteriorate. on the tax loophole point, what professor boskin said, that there is a whole lot of spending in the tax code, is correct. if you cut the loopholes, it is not accurate to think of that as tax increases. by that very logic, we should be dealing cutting of tax loopholes as spending cuts. i do not see any problem with changing the form of the spending cuts to be in a more rational direction. i hope we would get it off of the next 12 months into the spirit of the economy recovering more quickly >> i will be on the 5 minute limit for questions. i would like that order.

>> i will ask one question. i will ask each of you. we cannot do too many things at once. give me your number one thing you would think we should do to boost job creation and economic growth. and one thing you would say we should avoid. >> i would avoid any major tax increase. the first thing i would do was try to have a commitment to changing indexing formulas, altering structural features of programs, not just cutting a few billion dollars off of one program. -- a few billion off of one program. growth of spending heading down. >> i would say putting

investment in the workforce is the most important thing in the short run. i would say the thing to avoid would be anything that is going to have a significant negative impact on incomes and well-being of the broad middle class of the country over the next 12 months. >> both of those are broad. >> federal r&d spending, we should not just not cut it, but increase it. investments in economics -- economically important structure is important. >> the thing you said we should avoid? >> tax increases on the middle

class would be one. things that are the pressing the wages of the middle class. the biggest example would be things that would increase the taxes on the middle class. the stuff we are doing on the housing front can be thought of in that way. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. >> i am concerned about the unemployment rate of our youth. those who are 16 and 19 years old have an unemployment rate of 23.5%. those are 1 to 24 years old have 14%, much higher than the national average. i would ask you both with quick answers, i -- are you concerned about it and what impact does that rate have on the life

skills the kids learn at this in very pretty at this very important age? >> you are exactly right. it is major and limited to a subset of that group, it is a major problem. it is very important we have a more robust economy. we agree on some things. i do not know how to create that in a short run. we need to dramatically improve our education system. competition is one thing that can be done to improve it so they wind up at the beginning of their careers with skills that are better matched. we reform the programs we spend a lot of money on so they provide jobs. >> thank you.

>> i have published on this subject. the evidence suggests the- dynamic you are describing is damaging. if you come out of school in a period in which it is hard to get a job or you are forced to take a lower-level job than you should based on your background, that sticks with you, partly because of less skill development, partly because you get trapped in a negative way. it is critically important. the most important way to do that is to get the overall growth rate of the economy up. i think the youth unemployment is one of the weakest and skerries parts of the labor market. -- scariest parts of the labor market. >> are they the higher or lower earners in our economy? >> the lower earners.

>> it depends on where you are in the skill distribution. from 16 to 19, you see people who could not get jobs and they stay in school longer. >> on average, younger individuals make less money? >> yes. >> if we want to improve the opportunity for our youth in the country to make sure they learn skills in central, can we grow more opportunity for them, create more jobs for them, if we would raise the minimum wage? >> i think the minimum wage has offsetting effects. it is not very carefully targeted in this regard. teenage children, of rich people who are working at minimum wage jobs, will get more. it is a big concern. i think raising the minimum wage is not the most effective way to

deal with this problem. >> will the growth of jobs, will that help grow jobs? >> the most important word just said is the trade-off. the minimum wage has trade-offs. there are some people it would raise their wage and make it harder to get a job. others, it would raise their income. the question is really how much you think that affect the overall income. >> will it grow jobs? >> it could, it depends. if you believe the total income is going to rise for low and middle income people, that could grow jobs. >> if we increase minimum wage, that means more of our small businesses, the places a lot of these people work in, they will have more opportunities and jobs for the youth?

>> my position is the minimum wage does several things, not just one thing. just looking at the one thing is the incorrect way to look at it. >> i am looking at the one thing, job growth. >> there are two factors. what is the direct factor of the wages on people who cannot get a job, the people who are still unemployed, their income goes up, and what is the overall macro impact. that may outweigh the direct impact. >> to invest in our work force, a good policy would to -- would be to increase minimum wage. >> it could or it might not. it depends on what the values are. >> we can continue this discussion. thank you. let me vote in the house. i want to thank dr. austan goolsbee and dr. michael boskin.

thank you very much. >> thank you. we had great attendance. i think you for your leadership. >> thank you for joining us today. >> i wanted to talk to you about tax reform. there seems to be a broad bipartisan consensus that we need some kind of tax reform, especially a tax code simplification. it was in this committee a few months ago we had a gentleman with a ph.d. and we asked if he did his own taxes, and he said he does not we asked why. he said there is no way i could know whether i was correct. i think that is indicative of how many americans feel.

a simplified approach to the tax code would be better. we need tax reform. there is not broad bipartisan consensus on what that ought to >> at least in the sense that some are less inclined than others to say we need a tax reform package that would yield more revenue when static prescored. i think most would agree, as long as we are in the world of saying, too static the score something, if we can assume we are going to be neutral, maybe we would be better to reform the tax code and leave it neutral. at that point, some would suggest that would stimulate economic growth, leaving us free

to see whether and to what extent it did lead to more revenue. would you tend to agree that would be a good idea? >> it is an excellent idea as long it is primarily at broadening the base. a tax reform that raised tax rates would be a bad tax reform. we have not talked much about corporate tax reform or small business here. so many successful small businesses, 3% of businesses, some of it passes through. broader rates would be good for their incentive. we have the highest corporate rates in the world nominally, about 39%. is lower.tive rate, when y

in the high 20's. it is not far out of line. the moving in this direction could be good for the economy in the short run and the long run. i do believe if it were accurately bore form -- >> would that tend to have the impact o. ? we have peaks and valleys within that period in 2011, we were in a valley of 14.5%. at times we have gone to a little over 20%. could lowering the rates and broadening the base produce a more stable code? >> it would because the steep progression, some say the rates

are too high, we have relative to the other countries, we see the most progressive tax system. they collect more, but we have a more progressive tax system. becomes more volatile. in my own state of california, we have a very progressive tax. we get into an awkward situation with our balanced budget requirements, because we wind up having revenue go in, they send that, they project more, the crisis hits, we rely heavily on capital gains and stock options from silicon valley, the revenue collapses, it is hard to cut spending, so we try to make the tax code more progressive, so we cannot even find the basic benefits for people really hurting in california. >> that is a tough cycle. that is why i ultimately tend to come to the conclusion that where there is not consensus on everything, we have to look at

where there is consensus. we need tax reform in the form of simplification. maybe we can start off with something revenue neutral and static the score and see where it takes us. that would leave subsequent congress is free to plus up or- down where they go from there -- or minus down where they go from here. -- there. in your testimony, you mentioned the need for permanent structural changes, not just the specific dollar cuts. the white while discussing a credible commitment to deficit reduction. can you speak to us briefly on the importance on credibility in deficit reduction taxing and why markets will not be satisfied in this regard with cuts and tell us why cuts will not cut it anymore?

>> it turns out if you look at the history of budget negotiations, i have been involved with several, some sought -- sometimes because evaporate later. if you cut tax rates, a much bigger battle than small changes in spending at the next appropriations hearing. what people want to see about what the environment will be for investments that are paying off five, seven, 10 years, infrastructure, a lot of that should be going on in the private sector of big investments. he mentioned energy. we could export natural gas. that will require firms investing $10 billion. to do that, they have to have a notion of what the taxes they will pay on that are. credible means the rules have

changed and they are harder to reverse than a single appropriations bill next year. tax rules, indexing formula, retirement savings over time, and so forth. >> these are the kinds of permanent structural reforms you refer to? >> yes. you say we will cut $10 billion. it may happen once or it may not. the following year, it is up for debate. >> thank you. >> thank you. i have one last question as we grapple with immigration reform in congress. if you could talk a little bit about how you view this from an economic viewpoint for the country. there are many aspects. one of the parts i have been working on, and i have a bill along with senator rubio, it

makes it easier for students from other countries when they study at our universities, they are more easily accessed to green cards. we are also doing more with the cap on the visas. there is another bill called, start up 3.0. if you talk a little bit about how this fits in with the overall economy. we have been focusing on jobs trading, a major part of this -- jobs training, a major part of this. a part will go directly to stem education to help train our students in these top areas we have openings right now. we will start with you, dr. boskin.

>> i am a strong advocate of sensible immigration reform. three key components would be the green card provision you are talking about, it is silly we have great students that come from abroad and then we send them home. we make it hard for them to stay. they should be working here and helping us grow our economy. the the says, again, we tend to focus on what on the problems of people on the lower income scale, we should, but we should not ignore the technologies. we need a sensible worker program. there are other aspects about making sure we have a border and forced. it is very emotional, but it is the case we have been refreshed numerous times by waves of immigration in this country.

we are diverse. it seems to me if we are smart and we have an immigration policy that strengthens the opportunity for higher skilled people to stay here and improve the opportunities so people with lower skills, it could do so again. also, i would say the problems of social security and medicare and the slowing growth of the labor force, which the chairman mentioned about potential gdp, out there unless our birth rates change, we will probably need to have more immigration. >> i appreciate those, spirit one of my favorite statistics, 30% of the nobel laureates were born in other countries. >> thank you for your support and leadership in this issue. we should keep talking about it now.

the president has endorsed that. i champion several of the ideas you mentioned. start of these as -- start up visas. you do not have to look very far, either in the research literature or just talking to business people, to recognize that immigrants have made not just an important contribution to the legacy of who we are as a nation, but to the economy. my friend said 50% of the ompany's funded -- companies funded were born out of the united states. they are big job creators. by doing some of these things, we could have a positive impact. on visas, they do have the complications that you are tied to one employer.

>> we have made some changes. >> making changes on that is a good idea. >> very good. i wanted to thank most rigid both of you for your knowledge and wisdom and everything you shared with us. secondly, the stability you said here. i had several members say, this is so unique. i hope we see more of that going for. we have to come together to solve these challenges. the american people are demanding it. i thank you for setting a good beginning for this committee. you have seen it all, probably in many outfits and hair styles over the many years. we are very excited. we will do a number of hearings on these topics and move toward. thank you very much for being here. this hearing is adjourned. >> you're welcome.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> on the next "washington journal,", we will stuck -- we will discuss the automatic spending cuts with donna edwards. also joining us to take your questions about the sequester, representative randy forbes. live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> at one point, steinbeck had

to write a small paragraph that said, basically, people are asking what happened. this is after his wife joined him in seattle. it is a lane and john, not charlie and john. someone must have said, where is charlie? he disappeared? steinbeck wrote about a page and a half saying, that is what happened to charlie. he is fine. obviously, they never appeared in the book. editors went in and expunged the lane -- the lane -- elaine entirely. 30 days of her presence with john. they were basically on a vacation. >> author and journalist bill >> author and journalist bill