small business, from new york, nydia velazquez. >> sequestration is bad for >> sequestration is bad for our economy. these types of cuts will be detrimental to our country, and particularly to the job creators, small businesses. i want to remind you that women's own businesses are the fastest-growing sector in our economy. 8 million strong, while they generate over $1 trillion these businesses are some of the most innovative, and unlike their corporate counterparts, they do not have an army of attorneys, and they do not have ready access to the capital markets. filling this void is the small

business administration, which fills our commitment to women entrepreneurs. the sequester has the potential to undermine this very promise by reducing sba funding. as a result, loans to women will be reduced by $250 million, translating to an decrease of 2,500 jobs. this means fewer women will be able to access affordable capital to turn their ideas, their dreams, into reality. when it comes to contracting, we have been fighting for so long we even took the bush administration to court to implement a contracting women program, and now that it is up and running, we're going to shut the door, preventing a level playing field for women's businesses to act as federal contractors. we have not achieved the

mandating contracting goal of 5%. this will translate to $1.3 billion in small business contracts that will be lost for women entrepreneurs. this will jeopardize at least 15,000 jobs. when combined with the closure of business centers that serve mainly women across america that will provide technical assistance so that they could turn those dreams and those ideas into a financial plan and then go to a bank that is matched by the small business center, the women's small business center, they will not be there to assist and provide the technical know-how to help these women. given the challenges they face, women-owned businesses rely on these programs.

by slashing this initiative, years of progress can be undone in an instant. this is not only bad for women, but it is bad for the u.s. economy. and now it is my pleasure to introduce a new member, a great asset, congresswoman julia brownley. >> thank you very much. i want to thank madam leader for holding this important press conference and for your leadership on this very important issue. as a member of the veterans affairs committee, as an american, and as a proud representative of ventura county, we are home to a large naval base with a very significant veteran community. i am extremely concerned about the impact the sequester will have on our women and men and their families who have courageously served, sacrificed, and defended our country.

if congress fails to stop the across-the-board and unnecessary cuts at this time, so many programs that help veterans, like transitioning to civilian life and finding employment, will be reduced. more veterans with less resources is unacceptable. our brave men and women deserve better. now is that time to be doing more, not less. for our veterans' sake, we need to come together to stop the sequester now. thank you very much. >> thank you. while congresswoman brownley was speaking about veterans, i was thinking of examples of pink slips that will go out to psych director nurses who are there to

help our returning vets with ptsd. that will be cut. mindless cuts. i am so proud of our members, all of our house democratic caucus, but i express a special pride in our women today. as you can see, they have knowledge and experience of these issues, working as legislators and in their community. i know they would agree that all the talk here, as serious as it is, is just only more on top of other cuts and other impacts -- $1.6 trillion in cuts agreed to in the last congress that have had an impact on everything from the hhs committee, cuts in research across the board, and now we have these additional cuts, and lord knows what is in

store for us in the future. women are calling a halt to all of this. we have to change this environment. we have to take these cuts and they get home at the kitchen table of our families, where in many cases women are single- parent homes, and it is not only bad for them, but for our economy. i have said earlier, i was just saying sequestration equals unemployment. i am proud of congresswomen velazquez's committee. louise slaughter of the rules committee has been such a leader on these issues. we talked about that chair of the science and technology committee, the list goes on of leadership. and one of the ranking members of this very important exclusive committee in the house, maxine waters will report to us on the

testimony in her committee yesterday. this is about the economy. we talked specifically out about how it affects people and women in particular, but could you tell us what came from your committee yesterday. >> certainly. thank you very much, leader pelosi. i find that we appear to be coming to this room more and more as women, as you lead us in addressing many of the issues that are arising in this conference in this congress and our need to push back on the negative impacts of what has been done by our friends on the opposite side of the aisle.

yesterday we had mr. bernanke in our committee, and he came to tell us what he is doing with quantitative easing, and that is trying to stimulate the economy the bond purchases that he has been doing, because he is trying to keep the interest rates low and create jobs. he said that it sequestration takes place, that is going to be a great setback. we do not need to be having something like sequestration that is going to cause the job, a million jobs that could be lost. he made it very clear, he is not opposed to cuts, but cuts must be done over a long period of time and in a very planned way, rather than the blunt cutting that will be done by sequestration. as you know in this committee, we have all of hud, which is responsible for so many programs that determine the quality of life for women and families.

as you know in this committee, we have all of hud, which is responsible for so many programs that determine the quality of life for women and families. our formula grant program will be cut by $153 million. these are grants to cities that help with women and children and low-income programs. we also will cut the home program by $52 million if sequestration takes place. native american housing grants, cut $34 million. public housing, mostly single women in public housing, another $304 million, and homelessness. everybody claims to be concerned about homelessness and the growing number of women and children who are out there homeless, but they will take a $99 million hit, and on and on and on. we are here today one more time talking about women and children and families and how we can protect our women, children, and families and have a decent quality of life.

sequestration will set us back. all gains we have made will be lost by sequestration. >> what is interesting is the purpose of all this is to reduce the deficit, and cutting these investments does not do that. in fact, maxine, from my understanding from chairman bernanke, it is reported he said if you take too big cuts too soon, you can halt the jobs of the economic growth, and you can increase the deficit. you do not reduce the deficit. what is the purpose of all of this? it is going to increase the deficit, increase unemployment, affect people in their individual lives, and have an impact on the education of children, safety in our neighborhoods, and we will increase the deficit while we are doing that.

it is mindless, it does not make sense. in this month of march, by the end of march, people will see the light and understand that we are not standing for this. every single day you will be hearing from us on this subject, and my colleagues are resources for questions for you. i am trying to remember who had a question last time. >> [indiscernible] also the fact that top democrats said that pushing major pieces of legislation through. what do you think the role of house republicans has been in the legislative process? >> i wondered why i did not realize it sooner.

we come to washington to be legislators, to be representatives of our districts and legislators. that piece is missing here. they're just making noise, saying that something that may have good domestic consumption back home, but they did not come here to legislate -- either did not want to or cannot legislate. there is a void here in terms of what is our purpose. they are not here to get something done because their caucus is dominated with anti- government ideologues. you're right. the only thing they have been able to pass with their votes is the destructive ryan bill. other than that, we have had to

supply the votes. if we have the supply of votes, we should write the bill. we are the legislative branch. we're not the central committee of our parties. we are a serious body. we all have to bring to a level of commitment to the issues of knowledge that the ideas, judgments on the subjects, and we come here to make compromise because none of us is elected as the only one to make a decision. that has not dawned on them. >> i want to make sure that gets into the record. >> at least 750,000 jobs lost. next, and then we will come back. i got to keep a list here.

>> what has the president told you and leaders yesterday, and why are you waiting until the deadline happens to talk about this? >> the president said how thrilled he was to be there to unveil the statue of rosa parks. this was such an exciting day for us. it was such an exciting day, and i announced that legislation had been introduced that there be a statue in the capitol. her funeral was november 2. president bush signed the bill december 1. it was the 50th anniversary of her not giving up her seat on the bus. she was a genius.

she timed her passing in a way that gave us a month to pass the bill, house and senate, get it signed, and it took some time because her funeral was seven hours long. the president did tell us after he expressed his personal joy at being there for rosa parks that he hoped we all came with the idea we would find solutions. >> why are you waiting until tomorrow at the deadline? >> why am i waiting? we have been saying you cannot go home, you cannot go home, cannot. we will not be a drive-by congress. the mindlessness of the sequestration, combined with a complete cavalier attitude that we do not have to be here to work on a solution, necessitates us staying -- but we thought something would happen, but how

could it happen if we are not here? that is a question you have to pose to the republicans -- "why do you keep putting up roadblocks?" my staff will not like it if i say to you what i said the other day. everybody talks -- the speaker talks about they are kicking the can down the road. that would be at least some distance. they are nudging the potato across the line. they're not making any progress whatsoever. they are setting us back. ask them. yes. >> [indiscernible] we have heard from both sides of the aisle about a sequester. jim gordon said yesterday we do not like the sequester, but those on the republican side, "we're getting some of the cuts that we want. we are making progress." what do you say about comments

like that about this question being a success? >> he said it was a home run and a success. perhaps to take a different point of view, we believe the budget is a statement of our national values, a vision for our country should be presented, and our vision and values should be represented in how we put a budget together. it should be something that creates jobs and reduces the deficit. understand the difference between investments for the future and just across-the-board mindless cutting. that is what is called the democratic process. they have a view of anti- government ideology that says cuts no matter what for the sake of cuts. we do not share that view. that is the debate we are engaged in. i would say that it is a false

economy to think if you cut education, that you are born to reduce the deficit. nothing brings more money to the treasury, nothing, than the education of the american people. these are investments. innovation begins in the classroom. our competitiveness depends on that. and so i think -- i do not know if they understand the role of government is and how the budget plays into that, but we agree we have to reduce the deficit and we want growth with jobs and we have these spending cuts. i will go back to my endangered species, where we were two weeks ago, they did not give a hoot, these endangered species, when president bush was racking up this deficit. my colleagues? >> the deficits has increased during the obama years, they're

trying to put that out, where in fact we have seen the percentage of deficit related to gdp go from 10% down to 5%, and we have seen real dollars in cuts from the deficit. we are making progress, and we can continue with our fragile economy to make more progress. this is not only unnecessary, but completely counterproductive in the direction and the past we're taking right now. >> a very quick point. some of the folks who are talking about how we must deal with the spending side of the question, versus revenue side, and i will be happy to provide you with this report. they may have not followed what has happened here over the last

10 or 12 years. there is substantial data that will tell you -- and this is just from the labor, health, education perspective, which is where i am the ranking member, although it has the broadest expense of programming after defense and the largest expanse of resources -- over the last 10 years -- there has been $12 billion in cuts to labor, education, and health programs. if you add what we cut to the budget control act, it is another $9 billion. this will be cut between now and 2021, 2022. if you add one year, it will be another $7.5 billion in cuts to work force training, head start programs, title i, biomedical

research, every program that has the opportunity for jobs that will make sure that people can live a life and be able to have that opportunity. they have not read the bill. they have not read what has actually happened in spending cuts, and they need to do that. this is not cause of the deficit. we know the cause of the deficit. >> we do not have time for one more question, but i promised. >> do any of you feel confident or see a positive side to this question, in that you will have a chance to rein in some of the defense spending that has grown rapidly over the past decade? >> subjecting every dollar that we spent to scrutiny, that is what we have to do to make sure we get our money's worth. the mindlessness of these cuts,

when it comes to domestic and defense. what is our mission? what is our national security mission? that is where we should be making the evaluation of what we need, what we must have, and what we can do without, not in the matter in which i have -- i have met with generals about the subject. this is a horrible way to go about this. this is not about discussing our policy and how can we save jobs. it is about mindless cuts that are harmful to our national security right now in terms of the training and the rest that we provide for our troops. to go back to the question -- to review what we spend and how we have raised revenue and how to create growth. it is important to note that these tax bonanzas for special interests are a spending cut. we talk about expenditures for education, health care, and the

rest. these are called tax expenditures. if you want to cut spending -- some of the spenders you could start with, as the president has suggested, are some of these loopholes in the tax code against tax breaks to special interests. you can begin with $38 billion given to big oil as an incentive for them to drill when they can make a trillion dollars in profits over the 10-year period. the list goes on and on. when we talk about expenditures look at tax expenditures, too. we made the argument about rates. we're not going to that place. what we're saying is if you address the tax expenditure issue, it will limit the amount of deduction that people can take and you will have a fair tax system and you don't have to take the food out of the mouths of seniors and meals on wheels. the strength of our country is

in our military, and it is in the health, education, and the well-being of the american people. our budget must reflect that. you can to cut expenditures. let's start with tax expenditures. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> house leaders of both parties talked on the floor of automatic spending cuts. this is half an hour. , automatic draconian, in my view, irrational cutsstarting tf 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 partment 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 e 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 flexibilityor the defense department in terms of its appropriations, as well as 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 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 of controlling 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 ngress 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 which would have an alternati to the sequester. and in fact, twithstanding

some of the representations, mr. leader, that have been made, mr. speaker, there was bill on this floor on july 19, 2011, which was called cut, cap and balance. 229 republicans voted for that bill. that 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 the first 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 gentleman, let a vote happen on this 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. t 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 askedhree 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, that we 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 andone. 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 good policy. how did we do it?

we did it in a bipartisan vote. and i suggest to my friend, the 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 would 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 spend 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 having 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 t 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 ok but 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 to replace 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 --

agencies' outlook on our situation. but i remind the gentleman, mr. speaker, that the warnings from ese 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 something about the underlying fiscal problem this federal government has which are the mountains of debt caused by thgrowth and the unfunded liblets in our entitlement programs -- liabilities in our entitlement programs. and the gentlen knows we failed to come to agreemt 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's 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 will deal with the sequester. not one. as a matter of fact, we've only met 17 of the 59 days this year . so whemy 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. senate can'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 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 waa lot of dcussion 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 paed in a bipartisan fashion which happened today. and wh 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 mon 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 substtial and you increased spendi substantially and we went from surps 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 only 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 vong for themnd 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 balance fiscal and sustainable plan for america for the years to come without addressing both the

ending 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 prepared and we understand there are going to be things we have to do that we won't like. on your side there will be things to do that you won't

like. that will be a compromise. that's the definition of a compromise. our country 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: 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 there was too many tax cuts inlace and without the control in spending. mr. hoyer: reclaiming my time, because my point, i tell the leader, is that we didn't pay for what we bought. we kept buying but we didn't

pay. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i was saying that. too many 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. speaker. but ironically, 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 increases, mr.peaker, over the course of the next 10 years 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 at 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 en reported that we have 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 of the percentage of g.d.p. so why can't we focus on that? we got to get this economy growing. and the gentleman 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 cut 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 pcess 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 bee going around the country campaigning for the past two months scarring people, creating

havoc. that's supposed to be leadership? the presint 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 conferencend conducting tv interviewses, making false claims abo teacher layoffs. i just feel that people ought to take a look and say, hey, these sequester spending levels, not 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 th 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 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'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 oppo it because we are democrats. if the gentleman listens to independenadvice all over this country, from all sorts of sources, republicans and democrats, conservatives and liberals, they will say, you need 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 follow 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. now, are they going to be on march 1? no, but will they inevitable

occur if the sequester sta 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 act or 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 majoty leader, they expected me to have the house act. even if people didn't agree with 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 simpson-bowles recommended. 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 >> i think that eisenhower handled crises very well. he was a very decisive man. people thought of him as grandfatherly and eight lessened man. he had the winning smile. and a pleasant -- and a pleasant

man. he had the winning smile. behind the winning smile, he had very icy eyes. he made decisions that did not have the liabilities that some decisions have when they are made emotionally. he never made an emotional decision. he was an emotional man, or he did allow his emotions to control him when big decisions had to be made. >> richard nixon reflects on his years as vice president to eisenhower. oralof american tv's histories on c-span 3. >> a joint economic hearing on the economic outlook. the house debated on the violence against women act. also, the automatic spending cuts are scheduled to begin on friday.

several advanced to tell you about for tomorrow on c-span. the gop house armed services committee members will hold a news conference to discuss automatic defense spending cuts. that is live at 10:30 a.m. eastern. the supreme court heard arguments this week in the voting rights act that require certain states to get preclearance. we will air that court session at 9 p.m. eastern. >> at one point, steinbeck had to write a small paragraph that said basically, people are asking what happened? elaine says "we" it's and john. not charley and john.

someone must've said, where is charley? grow a page in half saying, people have asked what happened to him. charley took his position in the family thing. he is fine. editors when in an expunged elaine entirely from the west coast. almost 30 days of her presence with john on the west coast. they were basically on a vacation. >> author and journalist bill steigerwald. he says a book cannot be classified as nonfiction. qunday at 8 p.m. on c-span's " &a." >> now the joint economic committee on economic -- on the

economy and jobs. this is a little more than an hour and a half. >> good morning. i'd like to call the first meeting of the joint committee for the 113th session of dong rder.s session to o 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 senator of connecticut.

and representative 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 recoveries 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 indisputable. real g.d.p. increased by 7.5% in three and a half years. in contrast, average gdp growth was 17.5%. 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 main street have increased by only 5.7% since its cycle low.

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 economy in which our growth slows by 1/3 should be a red flag for all americans. during this congress, the committee will go through hearings and research with respect to the growth gap and how to close it. no doubt some of 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 real based and predictable. ignoring the employment half of its mandate, the federal reserve focused on price stability. the united states led the world in liberalizing 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 soaring 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'sgiven thl 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 brady. 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 engines like 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. over've learned anything the last few years, it's that 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 and 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 balanced approach 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 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 boskin is at the hoover institute and professor of economics at stanford. previously dr. boskin served on the economic advisors at which point independent counts rated the ce agency as one of the most respected agencies in the federal government. he also chaired the blue ribbon commission on consumer price index. dr. boskin 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. austin goolsbee. 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 yale 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

willingness to 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 anemic compared to previous recoveries. 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 gradually as the economy recovers.

that means it's got to be permanent and structural. it requires process rules on spending and debt. progrowth tax reform lower rates on a broad base which all economist agree is desirable 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 unsustainable. 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 vacant 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. anytime it deviates, 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 renewed that jerry rigs all the incentives in the economy. in addition education as well as job training reform, and i might add trade liberalization which i'm glad to see the president has begun to start about in some dimensions would be important compliments 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 dramatically 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 clear 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 recoveries 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 their regulatory regime, so anybody who is arguing that regulation 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 -- 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 epically 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, 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 discretionary 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 gradually 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 fact of arithmetic 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 simultaneously with spending, spending minus taxes. you need to control two to control three. 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 gradually but in the long run these projections, even if you shave them for optimist assumptions are really tremendously harmful. to take the path of spending as the o.m.b. projects for the president's policies with reasonable assumptions 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 imagine 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 country. 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 accumulating in the u.s. and other countries 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 environment like 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 use the money for investment or pay out the money and we will use it for investment but don't just is it on the money. 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 very long period, these skills will be a forefront issue. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> 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 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 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. 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 sequestration possibly cutting 1% of the 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 security's 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 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 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 debt are from 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. hanna 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 significant 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 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 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 potential drop of energy cost could be a great boon to u.s. 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 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.

combined federal, state, and local government, 50% of gdp. they have to pay taxes. >> thank you.

extraneous material on s. 47 under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: today as we consider the violence against women act, aid like to start by thanking our majority leader, eric cantor, and many republicans in the house for their time and commitment to this important issue. the violence against women act first passed on the floor of this very house nearly two decades ago. and it has long enjoyed bipartisan support. years later after two re-authorizations, a pivotal supreme court case, and a nationwide expansion of laws condemning violence against

women, republicans are committed to protecting victims of violence and putting offenders behind bars. that's why we are bringing it to the floor today. it's important to protect all women against acts of domestic violence and other haven't crimes, and ensure that he resources go directly to the victims. because that is what this bill is really about. it's about people. it's time to remember why this bill passed nearly two decades ago. protecting women was our first priority then and it should be our first priority now. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pelosi: i thank the speaker. madam speaker, when congress enacted the original violence against women act nearly two decades ago, we sent a very

clear and immediate message to the american people, no, and i emphasize, no woman would ever be forced to suffer in silence in the face of abuse. no one would ever be forced to fear for their lives or the safety in their own homes because of necessaryic violence. -- domestic violence. that promise formed the foundation of our work then and it has served as a cornerstone of our efforts in the years since to authorize and strengthen this landmark law. even as the times have changed, our commitments have remained the same and strong. over the years we have always sought out ways to improve this legislation. today on the floor of the house we will have a very clear choice. we have a choice to support the bipartisan legislation that has passed in the united states senate. it passed with a 78-22, 77% of

the senate voted for this legislation. the majority of the republicans in the senate supported this legislation. all of the women in the senate, democrats and republicans alike, support the bipartisan legislation that i hope we will have an opportunity to vote on today on the floor of the house. in contrast we have the house republican proposal which, while described in so lovely terms, are a step backward for the women of america and those who suffer domestic violence or sexual assault. it's really hard to explain why, what eyes are the republicans looking through that they do not see the followy of their -- folly of their ways on this legislation they are proposing. not only is it much weaker than

the senate bill, it is much weaker than current law. and that is why, that is why whatever groups you want to name, whether it's 1,300 groups opposed from a to y. we don't have a z. any groups that have anything to do throughout our country in every state oppose the republican legislation that is on the floor today. that is why the american bar association has stated in its letter to members in opposition to the republican bill, it says, the house substitute eliminates certain critical improvements and actually rolls back some provisions of the law that has been successful. so let's understand the difference between these two pieces of legislation that are on the floor today.

our bill, again, a reflection of the bipartisan bill in the senate, says to all of america's women, you will be protected. the republican bill says to the men and women of america, we want to protect america's women. everybody step forward who is an american woman, not so fast if you are an immigrant -- from the immigrant community, if you're a native american, if you happen to be part of the lgbt community. it's just not right. america has always been and our constitution demonstrates a country of expanding opportunity and protection and diminishing discrimination. today on the floor of the house the republican bill discriminates against a woman if she is lesbian or gay or whatever, lgbt, any member of that community, discriminates against the woman if she lives

on a reservation and has been assaulted by someone not from the reservation. discriminates against women in terms of their immigration status. exactly the women who are the most vulnerable who have a situation where there is a power over them, whether it's immigration law or whatever, the most in need of this bill are excluded by the republican, the republican proposal. so this is nothing to be proud of, this republican proposal. it must be defeated. and its defeat will enable us to bring to the floor the senate party overwhelmingly passed and supported legislation which strengthens current law not weakens it and expands the

legislation, which was -- i was here when the bill passed before. i saw the great work of pat schroeder and louise slaughter who argued so beautifully for this legislation yesterday as the rankling democrat on the rules committee. i salute the work of joe biden who was the author without vice president biden at that time, there would not have been a violence against women act. and i was so proud of the work of our chairman and a leader on this legislation then and now, chairman john conyers, former chair of the judiciary committee , now ranking member. we'll be hearing more from him shortly. but he has been there steady and strong as a champion in the fight to end violence against women. thank you. our legislation today, the house

propose -- the democratic proposal, which is really -- is a bipartisan proposal from the senate, but it's authored and presented by congresswoman gwen moore of wisconsin. congresswoman gwen moore has shared her own personal story with us and the strength of her knowledge of the issue, whether it's knowledge of the legislation or knowledge of the trauma of domestic violence and assault, is something that has impressed so many of us. and when we pass this legislation, and we will, it will be in large measure because of her leadership, her persistence, her wisdom, her knowledge of this issue and the difference that every word in the legislation means in the homes of america and for women who are at risk. now, who thinks this is a good

idea? i don't know. i hear the gentlewoman who commands great respect in this body describe this bill as if it's a good thing. it is not. when -- why would this take so long? it's been over 500 days, madam speaker, 500 days, my colleagues, since the expiration of the violence against women act. last spring, almost one year ago, april of last year, the senate in a bipartisan way passed violence against women act. in a bipartisan way. months have gone by with no re-authorization, congress ended a new congress came in, the senate once again voted, again, in a strong bipartisan way, for legislation. the house republicans want to be odd man out on this, or odd person out on this. and have a bill that is weakened

-- has weakened current law as well as does not rise to the occasion of changing times that the senate bill does. other of my colleagues will go into more of the specifics of it, and i -- it's just too much to put into the record of all the groups who oppose the house bill. it is almost unanimous. the only people holding out were those hopeful that something, light would be shed on this on the republican side of the aisle. but this is a remarkable day because we have clarity between the two proposals that are coming forth. one of them has the support of democrats and republicans in the senate. democrats in the house. the president of the united states stands ready to sign it. the other is opposed by almost everybody who has anything to do with addressing the challenge of violence against women, and we

have the documentation to prove that. and it goes into the specific -- that go into the specifics. but i just want to say that -- how proud i am of congresswoman gwen moore. she comes from wisconsin. she is a respected leader in the house. she has made this -- i would say her life's work, but she has a number of things on her agenda, but she has made a tremendous difference. not only in terms of this legislation, but more importantly in terms of what it means, what it means in the lives of america's women. all of america's women. with that, madam chair, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: just to make a couple of clarifications. number one, the house, led by the republicans, passed

legislation in early may last year to re-authorize the violence against women act. number two, funding has continued. $599 million. at this time i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from north dakota, kevin cramer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields how much time to the gentleman from north dakota? mrs. mcmorris rodgers: two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. cramer: thank you, madam speaker. just under three years ago, a 2-year-old little boy in bismarck, north dakota, watched for half an hour while his stepfather beat his mother to death. today that little boy is my 5-year-old son. chris and i were blessed and are blessed, have been able to adopt, where we work every day to dilute the memories of that awful night with new memories of love and affection. i know the scourge of violence against women personally. it is not an abstract concept to

my family. it's very real. that is why i support and will vote today for the violence against women act, because i want the shelters and programs that keep women safe to be well funded. i want the advocates of change to have the resources, to turn victims into victors. i want the law enforcement officers and the prosecutors to have the tools to impose justice on behalf of my son and other women and children. it's not just theoretical to me, it's personal to me. while i support the violence against women act because it's personal, i support this amendment because it's principled. our constitution in its genius guarantees due process. due process to the accused. the concept of innocent until proven guilty is known as the cornerstone of american justice. it is what gives moral authority to our system of justice.

by codifying language like acknowledging inherent sovereignty, i fear we risk giving up the moral high ground for a political slogan that does nothing to protect the victims of violence. even if you are willing to rationalize trading justice through due process, guaranteed in the fifth and 14th amendments of our constitution, we pledged to uphold, please consider the damage we will have done if a court overturns this act and its protections all so that we want -- because we want add good political slogan more than a good law. friends, let's vote for the violence against women act. it not only protects the vulnerable in our society, but also protects the civil liberties upon which our system of justice is built. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady reserves. . the gentlelady from california.

ms. pelosi: i yield to the gentlelady from wisconsin, congresswoman moore. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. moore: thank you, madam speaker. as i stand here, i pray that this body will do as the senate has done and come together as one, to protect all women from violence. as i think about the lgbt victims that are not here, the native americans that are not here, the immigrants that are not included in this bill, i will say, ain't they women? they deserve protections. we talk about the constitutional rights. don't women on tribal lands deserve the constitutional right of equal protection and not to be raped and battered

and beaten and dragged back onto native lands because they know they can be raped with impunity? ain't they women? and i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: madam speaker, i recognize a champion and prosecuting those with domestic violence in domestic violence situations, pat meehan from pennsylvania, the gentleman from pennsylvania. the speaker pro tempore: what time does the gentlewoman yield? mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i yield two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. meehan: thank you, madam speaker. i rise to encourage my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to put aside this rhetoric and to find a way to work together to pass the violence against women act, to move this important legislation forward in a way in which we can reach a resolution. i come to this as a former prosecutor who has seen firsthand the implications, come to give voice to people who do not have an opportunity

to speak for themselves, because one of the things that we realize is that a woman will be victimized 12 times, beaten 12 times before she has the courage to come forward to speak to somebody who needs to be there to be able to help give them a sense of comfort and dignity to be able to retain control over the circumstances. the violence against women act enables the kinds of resources to be there to have the trained personnel who can make a difference. i had a chance to visit sane nurses who work in emergency wards, giving victims of rape the dignity to be able to do an examination in the privacy of a room as opposed to being violated a second time out in a public space in an emergency ward, to reduce the time they have to spend for that examination from 13 hours after a rape to two hours to be able to collect the evidence and help that victim to be able to

make their case if they so choose in court. i have seen the chance to work with victims of -- on college campuses, women on college campuses who have reported they have been victims of rape or attempted rape. so unquestionably, we must find a way to pass the violence against women act in the same way we must reduce the rhetoric and the misrepresentations and the shameful misrepresentations on both sides about the good intentions to try to do this. there are differences of opinion in small areas. we must find a way to get over those. i rise today to make sure we give a voice to those victims, to work together to find a way to pass the violence against women act. thank you. i yield back. 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 yield one minute to the gentlewoman from washington state, congresswoman delbene. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. delbene: i want to thank the speaker for bringing this bill to the floor for a debate, at a time when we must resolve some real disgrments on how to move our country -- disagreements on how to move our country forward. i am glad we're going to pass the landmark violence against women act. however, i cannot support the house substitute amendment because it fails to improve critical improvements passed by a large bipartisan margin in the senate that would strengthen our efforts to combat violence against women. i'm particularly disappointed that this amendment owe mitts provisions that would enable tribes to address domestic violence in indian country. this is an issue that's critical in my district. the lumme nation, comprks, which i visited just last week in bellingham, washington, have seen an increase in violence against women over the past several years. the house substitute would require mistreatment of indian and non-indian offenders while the bipartisan senate bill fill

this gap. for these reasons i urge my colleagues to oppose the substitute amendment and support the senate re-authorization bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california reserves and the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from west virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. cap it toe: i rise to support the re-authorization of vawa, violence against women act -- mrs. capito: i rise to support the re-authorization of vawa, the violence against women act. i witnessed firsthand the good work that they do and that other statewide advocates do in this area of sexual assault and violence against women, and i realize this is way long overdue and necessary. in west virginia every nine

minutes a call comes in, is made about our domestic violence on the doosk violence hotline. -- domestic violence hotline. i'm here to talk about an incident that we don't want to see happen again. i want to talk about jalele. he was in a car with his mother and his mother's boyfriend and his mother's boyfriend began beating his mother. and he got so afraid, and the car stopped on the interstate, jalele got out of that car and started running across the interstate to get help for his mother. and he was hit and killed in the interstate because he was witnessing firsthand one of the most horrible acts of domestic violence. his mother was in danger, and he wanted to help her. and if we don't intervene, if we don't find help, if we don't end the cycle of violence for the jalele clements of this country, we're doing a great disservice to our country. i'm going to be voting no on

the house bill and yes on the senate bill for jalele clements and all the jalele clements in this country. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: i yield one minute to the chair of the house democratic caucus, mr. becerra of california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. becerra: i thank the leader for yielding. my friends, every single day in america, three women die at the hands of domestic violence. yet, this congress allowed the violence against women act to expire more than 500 days ago. every one of those 500 days, three women dying at the hands of domestic violence. there's been a balanced bipartisan solution passed in the senate by a vote of 68-31 that has been sitting on the table for almost a year to re-enact the violence against women act. the failure or reluctance of this house to do its work for

the american people seems to have now become business as usual. this should not be the new normal. the 113th congress has now been in session for 56 days in 2013, and it has only now that a debate on an up or down vote on the bipartisan senate bill will have an opportunity to be had. every woman in america deserves a clean bill to come before them to re-enact the violence against women act, and those three women in america who today desperately seek to beat the odds and live to see another day deserve a vote. we must defeat the republican substitute amendment and pass the senate bipartisan bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california reserves and the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to congressman from california, a physician and a new member of

congress. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. bera: today i rise as a doctor to talk about the patients i've taken care of who suffered as victims of domestic violence. as a doctor, we don't choose to treat one patient or another patient. we choose to take care of every patient. we choose to protect all women in america. that is who we are as a nation. we choose to protect protect all women in america. i urge this body to reject the house version of this bill and pass the bipartisan senate version. that is a reflection of who we are in america and our values. as the father of a daughter, this is personal. i want my daughter to grow up in a country where we value and respect every woman regardless

of background, ethnicity, creed. this is personal, and let's do the right thing. i urge this body to do the right thing today and pass the senate version of the violence against women act. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i would like to continue to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman continues to reserve. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to a champion on protecting women and protecting them from violence, congresswoman jan schakowsky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for one minute. ms. schakowsky: violence is violence is violence and women are women are women. for the second year in a row, the republicans have advanced legislation that not only excludes additional protections for battered immigrant women and battered tribal women and battered gay women, protections

that are included in the bipartisan senate bill, but they've advanced a bill that actually rolls back the central protection that are already the law of the land. we've heard from law enforcement, victims and victim service providers on the need to pass the improvements included in the bipartisan senate bill. and last week more than 1,300 organizations who represent and support millions of victims nationwide join together and said to bring the senate bill to the house floor for, quote, a vote as speedly as possible. we need to pass the senate-passed legislation so that victims of domestic and sexual violence don't have to wait a minute longer and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california reserves, and the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to remind the body that the house amendment actually increases protections for everyone.

no protection is denied. at this time i'm happy to yield to the gentlelady from indiana two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. >> madam speaker, thank you. i rise today to urge passage of the violence against women re-authorization act of 2013. let me start off by saying that i support this bill because it's the right thing to do. i'm committed to ending violence against all women. this bill takes the necessary steps to protect the rights of all of our mothers, our daughters and wives. the statistics are appalling. it's reported that in the united states alone more than 24 people each minute are victims of some sort of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault or stalking. mrs. walorski: that equals more than 12 million individuals each year. these types of crimes happen to individuals from all walks of life. no gender, race, ethnicity or

socioeconomic status is immune. this bill provides protection for everyone who may be victim of sexual violence. this bill makes programs more effective. these reforms prevent taxpayer dollars from being wasted. they ensure that more money is being used to assist victims and reduce the amount of violence that happens against women. by eliminating a amount of money that can be spent on salaries anded a minute straightive costs, this bill -- and administrative costs, this bill maximizes the amount of funding that goes directly to the victims. madam speaker, it's time for us to do the right thing and pass this bill. a constituent of mine from south bend, indiana, recently wrote my office. she said, and i quote, as a woman who has experienced domestic violence and stalking in my own home and as a

physician who has cared for persons affected by domestic violence, i see this as an important tool to improve the quality of life in our nation. i urge the members of this chamber, both republican and democrat, to do the right thing and pass this bill today. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back, and the gentlewoman from washington state reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, freshman member, congress woman -- i'm glaming everybody in california -- from florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. frankel: i rise in opposition to the house substitute amendment and urge the support of the bipartisan violence against women act sent over by the senate. . i do so on behalf of women like

olga who thought she entered into a dream marriage for herself and her two small children. the marriage turned into a nightmare when her husband became insulting, aggressive, controlling, and like a stranger. imprisoning olga and her children in their own home. not even allowing the children to go to school. she fled to south florida and nurtured back to emotional and financial health by an organization in my home area called women in distress. the senate's re-authorization of the violence against women act will save even more lives across america, lives like olga and all women who have been abused by their spouse or partner. so today, colleagues, let's stand up for our mothers, sisters, and our daughters and pass the bipartisan senate bill. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentlewoman from washington

investigate. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i'd like to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield to congressman keating of mass marks former prosecutor and champion on fighting for america's women. one minute. the speaker pro tempore: one meant to the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. keating: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. keating: thank you. madam speaker, i was a d.a. for 12 years. i solicited and actually used these funds. so as we talk about issues, people see issues, i see faces. i see faces of innocent women who are victims. and i see faces of the perpetrators themselves, the rapists, the batterers, the abusers who sought to isolate these victims. strip them away from their friends, their family, social service agencies, law enforcement.

i used these funds to create a life line to these victims. breaking down walls that exist in terms of people who spoke a different language, had a different culture, had a different national. -- nationality. madam speaker, this amendment creates walls, creates these barriers that make the victims more vulnerable and strengthens the hand of the perpetrators. please, all of you, join me in voting against this amendment. and then, then let's all join togetherle with a piece of legislation that does not punish the victim -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. keating: behind bars. 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. i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman continues to reserve. and the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to another champion for protecting women, mr. larsen of washington

state. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. larsen: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in support of the bipartisan senate version of the violence against women act that we vote on today. we wouldn't be here today without the courage of victims from all of our communities. women and men, rich and poor, immigrants, native american, folks from the lgbt community. all those who spoke out about their experiences. domestic violence does not discriminate. and with this bill domestic violence protection will no longer discriminate. this bill improves protections for immigrants, for native americans, members of the lgbt community. in my district a vice chair explained why the protections are so critical. she told me that for far too long native american women have lacked serious protections on our reservations. this bill will make it easier for them to seek justice. and it also includes important amendments to improve enforcement of the international marriage broker regulation act, a law that i sponsored in 2006.

those amendments strengthen protections congress put in place for immigrant women like ms. king who was murdered in my district by her husband in 2000. i urge my colleagues to he oppose the house vawa substitute and to pass s. 47. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the the gentlewoman from california reserves. and the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewomans to reserve. we recognize the gentlewoman from california. ms. pelosi: may i respectfully request the time of the:00. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california has 22 minutes remaining. and the gentlewoman from california has -- washington has 20 3/4 minutes remaining. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you. madam speaker, member of

congress who has been really a champion on this issue for a very long time, congresswoman lois capps of california, health professional in her own right. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for how long? ms. pelosi: one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized. mrs. capps: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the leader for yielding and i rise today in opposition to the republican amendment that would undermine key provisions in the violence against women act re-authorization. and to urge strong support for the underlying senate bill which protects our young people on our school campuses. vawa is a vital program addressing violence women holisically through prevention programs, survivor supports, and provisions to hold perpetrators accountable. but also a symbol that relationship violence and sexual assault is real and that it's unacceptable. has been a symbol until this congress we can put aside our differences and come together to do what is right for violence victims and survivors. we saw this in the senate. and we'll hopefully see it here

in the house. this is still true. our daughters, our sisters, mothers, no matter where they are, including on our school campuses, deserve to live without fear of abuse, and we cannot delay their safety any longer. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the senate bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman wields 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 the gentleman from new jersey one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise this morning to speak in favor of s. 47, the senate version of the violence against women act. i want to thank speaker boehner and leader cantor for their leadership in bringing this important bill to the floor. the bombom line is the programs health save lives in new jersey and across america. we need to expand the current success of vawa so that we can

get even more women, help even more women escape the nightmare of domestic violence. mr. runyan: while we are long overdue in passing this bill, i am glad we are here today and i urge my colleagues to support s. 47, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from washington reserves. and the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to congresswoman kirkpatrick of arizona, who has, again, every day, every step of the way, been helpful in protecting all women, especially those on reservations. one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from arizona is recognized for one minute. mrs. kirkpatrick: i was born and raised on the white mountain of apache nation. the necklace i wear was made by an apache woman. i have seen firsthand the troubled and hardships our tribes experience. now i represent 12 native american tribes and i'm here

standing on the floor of congress to give them a voice. our native american women who need resources and protection face great hardships. they often live in very remote areas. unfortunately native american women are 2 1/2 times more likely to be assaulted in their lifetimes than other women. as a prosecutor i also saw firsthand the need to protect those who are vulnerable. that's why i pushed so hard for the bipartisan senate passed version of this legislation. this legislation strengthens protections for native american women and so many others. my district needs this legislation. i urge my colleagues from both sides to come together and pass the senate version of the violence against women act today. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentlewoman from washington

is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: madam speaker, i'd like to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: pleased to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from california, congresswoman lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you very much, madam speaker. first of all let me thank leader pelosi and congresswoman gwen moore for their tremendous leadership to re-authorize the violence against women act. today we have the opportunity to really stand up for tribal women, the lbgt community, imgrant women, women all across the united states and finally pass the strongly bipartisan senate version of the violence against women re-authorization act. we should have done this a long time ago. after much grandstanding, feet dragging, and shameful politicking over protecting the right for all women to feel safe in their homes and workplace, i hope today that finally we can come together to say that violence against any woman is never an option. when i was in the california

legislature, i authored the violence against women act for the state of california, and it was signed into law by a republican governor. it was indeed a bipartisan effort. as someone who understands domestic violence on a deeply personal level, i know how traumatic it is, and i know the strong and consistent support system needed to emerge as a survivor. that is what the senate's vawa re-authorization will accomplish for all women. i don't mean for some women. i mean for all women. i urge us to vote no on the amendment and yes on the underlying bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california reserves. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. mcmorris rodgers: thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased to yield to the champion on our side of the aisle for the re-authorization of this important legislation, our majority leader, eric cantor, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i thank the gentlelady. and congratulate her on her leadership on this issue.

as chairwoman of our conference, as a strong advocate for families for women, for children in our conversation -- conference salute her and her efforts to improve the ability for individuals, women who are subject to domestic abuse to get the relief that they need. and in that spirit today, madam speaker, i come to the floor in support of the substitute and the amendment that we are offering today. today, madam speaker, a mother and her daughter will go to a shelter seeking safe harbor because they are scared. another young woman will walk into a hospital emergency room seeking treatment from sexual assault. in some cases women will wait to report haven't crimes because they don't feel there is a support system in place to help them. our goal in strengthening the violence against women act is

simple. we want to help all women who are faced with violent, abusive, and dangerous situations. we want to make sure all women are safe and have access to the resources they need to protect themselves, their children, and their families. we want them to know that somebody is there and willing to help. and we want them to know that those who commit these horrendous crimes will be punished and not let go. madam speaker, that's why we feel so strongly about providing the proper support system and needed relief to thousands ever victims and survivors so that they can get on with their lives. for the past several months we have worked hard in this house to build consensus and to put together the strongest bill possible to improve on that which came from the senate. today i encourage my colleagues to support the house amendment to the violence against women act in order to end violence

against all people, against all women, and prosecute offenders to the fullest extent of the law. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from washington reserves, the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from new mexico, mr. lujan, who has been a champion for ending violence against women for all, all, all women in america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new mexico is recognized for one minute. mr. lujan: madam speaker, last congress it was with great disappointment that for the first time since the violence against women act was signed into law in 1994, house republicans failed to give us a vote and congress failed to re-authorize this important legislation that has reduced domestic abuse and provided victims of violence with vital resources. the effort to re-authorize vawa failed despite overwhelming bipartisan support in the senate because house republicans

stripped the bill of critical provisions to help women, especially native american women. sadly we are seeing this effort repeated on the floor today. once again house republicans are trying to weaken a bill that passed by a vote of 78-22 in the senate in order to deny native american women important protections. sovereignty is not a bargaining chip. the republican substitute is an attack on native american women and does not respect sovereignty. studies have found that three out of five american indian women will experience domestic violence yet the republican substitute makes it harder to prosecute abusers and full of loopholes. i urge my republican colleagues to drop their opposition to the senate bill and pass legislation that gives all women, including native american women, vital protections against abuse. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california reserves, and the gentleman from washington is recognized. . mrs. mcmorris rodgers: i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania for three minutes.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. dent: i rise to support the underlying bill. the programs funded have proven effective over the past two decades in achieving real and meaningful reductions in domestic violence. victims' advocates in my district and around the country use this funding for battered women shelters, support for runaways. in my home state, the peff coalition against rape currently operates 50 rape crisis centers that provide services to victims of sexual violence. these centers utilize public awareness campaigns and prevention education to combat the root causes of sexual assault. essential institutions such as this are counting on us in this body to ensure that vawa funds remain available to support their often life-saving work. i'm proud to serve as a council

of a nonprofit organization that provides financial assistance to victims of violence crime and their significant others. another outstanding institution in my district is turning point in lee high valley, which maintains as a 24-hour help line which provides a constant resource for victims and their loved ones. it provides safe houses, court advocacy, prevention programs and transitional programs to help them into independent life. our community depends on these organizations and these organizations depend on vawa. vawa is also improving law enforcement's response to domestic violence. in 2007, the pennsylvania commission on crime and delinquency conducted an evaluation of vawa services training for officers and prosecutors' program, stop grants. this program is designed to promote and enhance approach to improve the criminal justice system's handling of violent

crimes against women. the final report indicated that police with stop training will work with victims' advocates. court personnel, including prosecutors and judges, are demonstrating a heightened level of sensitivity toward victims' abuse. employing personnel from beginning to end has resulted in an improved arrest policies, investigations, 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

>> it is very clear that the american people want a balanced approach to deficit reduction. we, of course, have to do smart spending cuts and we can do that. we want to ask to close the tax

loopholes and ask billionaires to pay a little bit more. that is what our proposal is that we're going to vote on this afternoon. again, that's what the american people want. by almost 80% margin this is what america wants. even about 60% of republicans want this. it is hard to comprehend but as i said before, the only republicans in the country that disagree with this proposal are the republican who is serve in congress. today to make it worse, they once again, said they would filibuster any proposal that we have. i went to the floor. they said they want to have a vote on a new proposal, one that they can't get an agreement in the caucus so they want something else. mccain, graham, and i don't know who else, they want another proposal to cut federal employees and other things. i said fine.

let's have a majority vote on all three. objection, another filibuster. so it is unfortunate that is where we are. they are determined to protect the wealthiest of the wealthy. our proposal, this buffet rule, says that if you make $5 million in one year, that you should may a minimum of 30% taxes. yes, that is pretty fair and that is why america agrees with our approach. i believe that the american people deserve better than what the republicans in this building believe is the right thing. they have endured too much economic uncertainty and now the economy is poised for a long- term growth. the stock market is near all- time highs. our job in congress should be to provide a found for our economy in these next steps. it is a shame that our

republican colleagues have decide to protect special interests is more important than the right thing for our economy. >> two months ago a sequestration buy down had republican support. sequestration would be replaced with a 50/50 split with new revenues and smart spending cuts. we voted for it and so did speaker boehner. and so did paul ryan. i voted for it and so did chuck. 84 of our colleagues in the senate voted for this balanced approach. look around today, the house republicans, speaker boehner, congressman ryan are nowhere to be found. they claim they passed two bills to solve the problem, sadly they have expired.

instead of trying to again the house has decided to sit it out. that's why we were sent here. house republicans deserve to be called to task for leaving american people in the lurch. we've all heard about the dire effects of sequestration. i just left a meeting with ashton carter, the secretary deputy secretary of defense on this issue but there are other cuts too. medical research, think about that for a second. we're going to cut back on medical research? research to find cures for heart disease, alzheimer's, cancer. they are going to lose $800 million in funding. 374 illinois women will be screened for cancer. fewer children will receive vaccinations.

$764,000 less for seniors for meals on wheels in illinois. 70,000 children will be expeled from the head start program because of sequestration. instead of them embracing these cuts as republicans have our bill would ensure that millionaires are not paying a lower tax than the secretaries that work for them and the janitors who keep the lights on. our plan closes tax loopholes that reward companies that move factories overseas. our bill eliminates wasteful spending. let me spotlight that because illinois is one to feel major recipients of direct-spord payments. we voted to eliminate them because they are not defenseable any long perp we're calling to end waste in the last several days. they will have a chance to vote on this afternoon. let's see if they do.

we want to make sure these defense cuts don't jeopardize our national security or harm the men and women who volunteer to serve america. for over 200 years our national values have reflected our commitment to infrastructure, innovation, let's hope the votes today will do the same. >> thank you. for the last several weeks, washington has been consumed with the debate over the across the board spending cuts due to take and effect tomorrow. but the disdiscussion is not productive. rather than hash out the best way to replace sequestration, the conversation has been involved around with who came up the idea in the first place. the blame game is a side ceremony both sides have their fingerprints on sequestration

but only one side is trying to hard to solve it. amazingly enough, the republicans dancing in the streets, happy with the thought that sequestration will happen. the cuts were always intended to force the two sides to the table to revive a grand bargain on deficit reduction. we democrats, are longing for that balanced approach. we're willing to make the tough choices to get a grand bargain. we need a dance partner. we've had trouble finding one. in the house, the leadership is running out the clock until sequester hits. they welcome the cuts, no matter the consequences for our national defense, for middle- class families. they are pointing to two votes they took in the last congress, as if those votes have any bearing now. in the senate, the other side can't agree on a single plan to deal with sequestration, that's because they are divided over

the central question on whether we should try to stop the cuts. many of them want the cuts to go forward as damaging as they are to average americans to our economy, to jobs. now they have tried to unite their caucus around a measure that does not turn off the cuts but try to pass the buck to the president. it has been fairly remarkable watching so many republicans who so distrust this president, willing to see the power of the purse to him. this shows you, no matter what they say republicans are actually quite worried about the unpopularity of these across the board cuts. they want the president to own the consequences. later today we will have two votes. these votes will not be the last word on the issue. the debate is only beginning. in the coming weeks under chairman murrey's leadership, we will continue the budget that will keep this debate front and

center. it will show the contrast in the two sides approach. with that i turn it over to the chairman. >> what i hold in my hand right here is a warn notice. this is a frightening piece of paper that many families will get in the next several weeks and months. this is a notice that is given to employees, families, that they will be laid off or furloughed. it is a piece of paper that will spell serious economic setbacks for our families to their ability to send their kids to college, for their ability to go out to restaurants and keep the local businesses thriving. if the republicans formal follow through on their threats notices like this with hundred go out to more and more workers across the country. it doesn't make sense.

it does not need to happen. our bill to replace sequestration is fair. it is good for middle-class families, it is good for our economy, it will prevent these notices from being handed to workers across america. republicans ought to join us and allow it to pass. democrats are united to replace sequestration. republicans are all over the map, on the one hand some are saying sequestration is terrible, it is all president obama's fault. on the other hand, you have tea party republicans cheering for these cuts. many republicans have said would "hollow out our military and cause our workers to lose their jobs.? on the other hand republicans seem to think that closing loopholes for the richest americans is too high a price to avoid the serious consequences to this defense. the only thing they agree on is they refuse to compromise, even a little bit. senate republicans have spent

days fighting among themselves on the bill that they are going to offer to vote against ours. republicans could not be bothered to take a vote. maybe because speaker boehner knows his members can't pass anything. the republicans are going to be under a lot of pressure to explain to their constituents back home, why they would prefer the pain of sequestration to our responsible compromise replacement. hopefully, when they realize there is no good explanation we can come to the table and work to solve this problem. speaking of republicans in the house finally working with us, i want to say i'm so delighted that the house leadership, after 500 days after we enacted the violence against women act expired passed today on a vote of 286-138.

republicans joined with us to -- 87 republicans joined with us and i'm excited for the women that have been abused and nowhere to go and many immigrants that were left out of the process in the past. when the president signs this bill they will be part of this process again. >> ok. >> today's vote notwithstanding with house republican leaders waiting saying over and over they are waiting for the senate to do something. what has been the substance of any talk between you and senator mcconnell over sequestration replacement? has there been any real substance on moving a vote? >> this takes a lot of pa zazz for the house republicans to say they are waiting for the democrats to do something.

they have done nothing. they did not allow the republicans to have a vote. they are falling back on something that they did in last congress. i would hope is that the republicans there, both of them, would agree with their republicans around the country, that we should have a balanced approach to get rid of this and look forward to the sequestration, which is the 27th of next month. get it done at once. it would be so easy to do. there are things they agreed to in the past on getting rid of some of the tax loopholes and of that nature that we could have a balanced approach. >> so far there is no substance between you and senator mcconnell, it all starts tomorrow? >> senator reid, by this point leaders would have gotten in a room even tried to work this out.

why didn't you do that this time? >> it is not like we haven't talked about it. i've had meetings with the speaker. we have had lots of efforts made by individual senators and republicans in the house and the senate. the republicans want sequester to go forward. they want the sequester to go forward. they said so. any efforts to get reasonable approach to this, they won't let us do it. >> couldn't they say the same thing about you because you're working to pass a bill one day before the sequester is supposed to kick in? >> i don't understand how you can say the same same thing about us. we have a balanced approach. all they are doing -- the caucus on tuesday said their proposal we're going to cut off three fingers and we want to send to the president about which finger

goes first. we tried everything we can. they will not budge on anything, period. >> doing in the c.r. next month, changing the way the cuts are being implemented? >> yes, we're open to any reasonable approach. yes. but remember, we cannot solve the problems of this country with cuts, cuts, cuts. we cut $2.6 trillion. we need to do more but we're going to do it in a balanced approach. we cannot continue to hurt the middle-class and the poor. >> you said that revenues is part of the -- are you going insist on rches as part of the c.r. talks? >> we have to wait to see what the house sends us. we'll wait to see what they send us.

we have had different proposals from them, even this week. is it going to be a straight c.r.? it is going to be defense and veterans in it? we don't know. we'll wait to see what they send us and we'll work on it. >> can you understand the frustration of the american people that you're blaming the republicans and the republicans are blaming you. nobody is talking until the day it kicks. >> i read today that the writers said, let's call it the way it. the republicans aren't willing to deal with the democrats. all this stuff, democrats aren't doing anything, republicans aren't doing anything. i believe that you guys have an obligation to report it the way it is. this did not happen yesterday, we have been fighting this for a couple of days. they are unwilling to do what the american people want done.

it is as simple as that. we do not believe that sequestration is appropriate. we do not believe that the appropriation process, which the nonexistent is a good approach. that is why i'm appreciative of chairman mccull ski, we need to get back to regular order. >> voting here, ready to work, even tomorrow? or the house and senator won't be here the day these cuts kick in? >> we're in session, we're not going any place. if the republicans are willing to let us vote on our bill on a simple majority vote and we're vote on their, we're ready to work. but at this stage, we don't have a partner to dance with. >> when you draft your bill, are

you willing to put spending levels at sequester levels or you going to assume there won't be a sequester going forward? >> in our budget resolution that we will put out in a few weeks, we will replace sequestration with responsible deficit reduction. >> one more time on the c.r. if there's a choice, -- is the choice over here to shut down the government or continue the sequester for the rest of the year? >> let's see what they are going to send to us. we're going to move forward. we're working with republicans to come up with a bill. she will be ready to do that. there's republicans who want more than a c.r. we have republicans who believe

we should do an appropriations bill. we have to wait to see what they send us. thanks, everybody. >> neither received enough votes to move forward. republicans opposed the democrats plan. animated farm subsidies and restructured defense cuts. this is 25 minutes. >> senator from new hampshire. >> i ask unanimous consent. in addition to two votes dealing with think sequester that there will be a time to be determined

by the majority leader in consultation with the remote and leader without intervening action, the senate proceed to a rollcall vote on a motion to proceed proceed to my alternative bill dealing with the sequester. >> is there an objection? >> i reserve the right to object. unless we act by tomorrow, friday, across-the-board cuts will take in. it will start slow but they will ramp up quick. the question for us is are we going to act to replace the across-the-board cuts? the proposal we have put forward, our plan would protect air safety, food supply and our national security. mr. president, air safety, food

supply, that is part of our national security. the alternative that has been put forward would replace the cuts. i said earlier this morning, one of my colleagues in the caucus said on tuesday that he understood the president put forward. we have already decided you're going to cut off three fingers. you are trying to figure out which one to cut first. the alternative would be to replace the cuts but would call for making the cuts in some different way. their proposal is entirely in flexible on one key point. not a single loophole would be close.

the one proposal we have forward says if you make $5 million a year, you have to pay 30% tax minimum. does it. that is not sound too outrageous. that is why the american people agree. democrats, independents and 60% of their publicans. now, mr. president, the republicans seek a third bill which would replace cuts and in place -- consumer financial protection bill, those types of things. i also have trouble understanding, as i do understand why mccain and graham don't like the republican

proposal. haven't we seated enough power to the president? anyway, it is not our fault. the republican leader chose the alternative. we're are going to vote on it later today. i returned to my main question. would the republican leader modify his consent to allow for a single up or down votes on the alternatives. i would happily have three votes if the republican leader would allow the votes to be held. i have asked that. i would be happy to do so if there's any taking of my request

here. that having been the case, unless my friend says why don't you put that in proper form. we could have a vote on all three. i would object to the request to my friend from new hampshire. >> i would say to my friend, i would object. i would object. >> is there an objection? your objection is heard. >> senator from arizona. >> we request -- regret we have

not been able to reach an agreement. i am disappointed that we are unable to consider the ayotte amendment, which is an alternative to the sequestration. a flexibility of the sequestration which still has the same effects on our national security. i also would point out to my colleagues that what we are about to go through is in some respects a charade. we know the proposal on that side will not succeed with 60 votes. meanwhile, the clock moves on until sometime tomorrow night. some of us warned for a long time about the effects of sequestration. if we want to have a blame game , then i will take blame and everybody will take blame. isn't it time that we prevented

what our military leaders in uniform who have made their careers and lives serving and sacrificing for this country say would harm and inflict terrible damage on our ability to defend this nation, our ability to train the men who are serving. i appreciate when people praise men and women in the military. i am pleased to see that. shouldn't we think -- we be thinking about the men and women who are serving who don't know what they're going to be doing tomorrow? like the crew of the aircraft carrier that was just taken -- decided not to deploy to the middle east at time when tensions are incredibly high? i would also point out to my colleagues that this is not a

fair sequestration. most americans believe this is half defense and half nondefense. it is not, because with the time of the formulation of the sequestration, about half of the spending that we engage in is exempt, such as compensation for the president, such as the home loan corporation, such as payment to the distant dust district of columbia pension. all of these and many others were made exempt, which meant the cuts in defense was even larger. those who designed this legislation decided that the federal home loan or corporation and relocation funding was more important than national defense because we did not exempt national defense. that is disgraceful.

19% of discretionary this -- spending is out of this -- defense. we are asking for 50% on top of the billions of dollars that have been enacted on secretary gates. the percentage of gross national product picked -- continues to decline. what are we doing? last week -- a few days ago, there was a wonderful ceremony in the white house were a brave young american received the congressional medal of honor. i went to a function at a pizza place with him and his comrades and a book was written by jake tapper. eight of their comrades were killed. here we are, here we are unable

to make sure that these young men and women who are serving in harms way have the equipment and training and everything they need to defend this nation. we are doing the men and women who are serving this nation a great disservice areas the president did them in disservice when he said in the campaign not to worry, not to worry great sequestration won't happen. the president of the united states said that. i did not say it. the three of us traveled this country worrying about the effects of sequestration. we now know the idea came for the white house. that is the blame game. i will be glad to engage in that. can't we at least come to some agreement to prevent this? are we going to lurch from one fiscal cliff to another? that is one thing. what we are doing to the military -- the general is one of the great leaders i had the opportunity of knowing for many years.

the chief of staff of the army, a man who has decorations, said that he cannot replace the men and women who are serving in afghanistan because it does not have the ability to train their replacements. isn't that alarm enough for us? so we are going to go through a charade. we will have a vote on the democrat proposal. they will not get sufficient votes. the same thing on this side. the clock will take. tomorrow, the last day, the president is going to call people to the white house. where was he in the last year? again, i am not taking the floor today for the blame game. the men and women who are serving this nation in harms way who every single day have a hell of a lot tougher time than we do, we cannot do something on

their behalf to sit down with the president of the united states was the commander-in- chief and did this issue resolved before we do great damage to our national security. i think senator -- i thank the senator. it is real reductions in spending. we have a choice between flexibility, which nobody knows what that means, and on the other side a proposal that there is no relevance to the issues that face us. i thank my collects for the time. if i sound emotional on this issue, it is because i am. it seems to me that we -- at least on this issue -- national security and the men and women who serve our nation, we should come together. i stand ready to put everything on the table to prevent what

could be in the words of the departing secretary of defense a devastating blow to our ability to defend this nation. i could make an argument of the most dangerous times. i yield the floor. >> senator from south carolina. but i want to thank the senator. she has been trying to find efforts to look at programs that are not as essential to the nation as the department of defense. let me put this in perspective. --on't need a poll to think to tell me what to think about this. the leader referenced a poll of where the american people are at. i appreciate polling. i don't need one here to know where i'm at. the question is, do the people

in south carolina think i am right or wrong? i am certainly willing to stand before the people of south carolina and say what we are doing in this sequestration proposal is ill-conceived, dangerous and despicable. let's start with the commander- in-chief. this is what our treasury secretary said. make no mistake, secretary -- sequestration is not meant to be policy. it is meant to be an option that all paul -- all parties want to avoid. i was very view of sequestration. according to bob woodward and common sense, this idea came out of the white house. the white house thought if you created a penalty clause called

sequestration where you would have to take trillions of the defense department, that would make a result that would put pressure to get the supercommittee to get the right result. the question for the country is, can we save 1.2 trillion dollars without destroying the defense department and raising taxes? we could if we tried. put me in the camp that this is an achievable spending cut. this is not something unachievable. but what senator mccain said is very important. two thirds of the budget at most is exempt from sequestration. when you hear a republican say that surely weekends nine -- find $85 billion out of $3.5 trillion in spending, that is not accurate.

we are not cutting $85 billion out of $3.5 trillion. we're cutting $85 billion out out of about 1.3 trillion because the budget control act took off the table two thirds of the government from being cut. now, i will get to the president in a minute. let me talk a little bit about my party. the party of ronald reagan, the party of peace through strength , the party that believes, at least we used to, that the number one obligation of the federal government before you do anything else is to get national security right. that is what made ronald reagan ronald reagan. that is what i believe. i do not need a poll to tell me that. i do not care if 90% of the people said that the defense department is not my primary concern when it comes to federal budgeting. tammy and the 10%. if the party of ronald reagan,

even if it came out of the white house, this very bad idea, agreed to it. what did we agree to? we agreed to take off the table two thirds of the federal government. pell grants -- my sister had a pell grant my parents died. very important program that helps people go to college. in 2008 it was $16.2 billion. in 2013 it is 41 $.57 billion. food stamps -- a lot people need help. i understand that. the food stamp program has doubled since 2008. so i guess the republican party feels like pell grants and food stamps and the faa and home mortgage interest deduction and all this other stuff in the federal government should be shielded, but those who have been fighting the war that

protects us all from radical islam should be on the chopping block. ronald reagan should be rolling over in his grave. shame on everybody who agreed this was a good idea on our side. i cannot tell you how disgusted i am with the concept that when it comes time to cut, because a bunch of politicians cannot reach an agreement we fire the soldiers and keep the politicians and every other social program intact and put half the cuts on those who are fighting the war. the next time you go on a military base, good luck looking those men and women in the i. because i do not see how you could. i do not see how you could go to a military base or see somebody in the air force and shake their hand and thank them for their service given the fact you have taken the defense department and made it something not very special anymore. i will wrap this up here.

i will get to the president, then i will wrap it up. this is what secretary panetta said. after 10 years of these cats -- cuts, we will have the smallest ground forces since 1940, the smallest number of ships since 1915, and the smallest air force in history. in the past -- we are still confronting a number of threats in the world. it would decimate our defense, cripple us in terms of our ability to protect this country. it would result in the hollowing out of our force. it would terribly weaken our ability to respond to threats in the world. it is a ship without sailors, a brigade without bullets. it is a paper tiger. in effect, it invites aggression. a hollow military does not happen by accident. it comes from poor stewardship and leadership. i could not agree more. to my democratic colleagues -- we will not raise any more taxes to spend money on the government.

the next time i raise taxes we will try to get out of debt. we are $17 trillion in debt and every time there is a crisis you want to raise taxes to pay for the government we are ready have. we have enough money to raise the government, we just need to spend it better. to my republican colleagues. there's not enough flexibility in the world to change the topline number. you either either believe secretary panetta or you do not. you either believe every military commander -- i do not trust everything a general tells me, but the question for me is do i trust all the generals who tell me the same thing. can all of them the wrong? it is wanting to deal with a general and admiral admiral, but when every general and admiral's tell you the same thing and we do not believe them, we need to fire them. or act accordingly. as to the president, you have one obligation that nobody in this body has. you are the commander-in-chief of the united states. they trust you. is a need you.

your primary goal is to protect and take care of those in uniform and their families. mr. president, you have let them down. my party let them down. but you are different than any other politician. you are the commander-in-chief. how you could have considered this as an acceptable outcome makes me sick to my stomach. how any commander-in-chief could have been comfortable with the idea that if the supercommittee fails we will gut the military, and you have not lifted a finger in the last year to do anything. you finally go to the naval base in virginia after the election a few days before this kicks in. to me this is pathetic leadership by the commander-in- chief. this is an abandonment of the republican party's believe in peace through strength. this is the low point in my time in the united states congress. we are not going to raise taxes to fund the government. we will raise taxes to pay down debt and fix entitlement. i cannot tell you how ashamed i am of what we have done to

those who have really been busting their butts for the last 11 years, who have been deployed time and time again, and to their families. the thank you you get from your president and congress is we will put your way of life on the chopping block. if we cannot do better than that all of us should be fired. fire the politicians, keep the soldiers. >> senator from rhode island. >> if i could interject -- i believe i have the floor. >> i have the right to question the person who has the floor. >> the senator from south carolina is yielding for a question. >> my question is, do you think the american people appreciate and understand what this does to the lives of the men and women who are serving? for example, those serving on that aircraft carrier that they said was going to deploy for many months and it was canceled

at the last minute? the training plans that are not going to have to be canceled. the deployments that will be changed, not to mention the massive layoffs and -- in the defense industry, which sometimes are not easily replaceable. that is my question. >> i do not know if they did or not. all i can say is that every general, every admiral who has told us the same thing, i respect. leon panetta is a democrat but he is dead right and a great secretary of defense i trust their judgment. i trust to know that if you take $600 billion out of the budget you will make us less able to defend this nation and put our men and women at risk. that is what this debate is all about. i want to thank senator ayotte, who came up with a alternative that would avoid this without raising taxes. >> neither the democratic or

republican bills designed to deal with automatic spending cuts received enough votes to move forward. congressional leaders, including senators harry reid and mitch mcconnell, and house leaders john boehner and nancy pelosi, are meeting with president obama today. secretary jay carney was -- began with comments on the senate legislation. >> the senate will vote on the proposal put forward by democrats that would deal with the sequester, postponed the sequester in a balanced, responsible way. we expect that bill will get majority support in the senate. the only reason why it might not pass the senate is because a minority of republicans led by republican leaders would filibuster that 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've for the problem that we have confronting us with this imminent deadline. we have to see what the senate does, whether republicans filibuster this bill. that has not happened yet. maybe they will have a change of heart. that will obviously affect the topics of conversation tomorrow in the meeting with the president. the president believes we need to come together and deal with the sequester. the sequester was just one piece of the broader challenge, which is reducing our deficit in a balanced way. that is what the sequester was part of when it was included in the budget control act. it was designed as policy that would never come into effect because it was so onerous for both sides that it would compel congress to reach a compromise to reduce our deficit by a further $1.2 trillion. the president has put forward a proposal that is balanced.

they have worked -- they continue the progress we have made in deficit reduction. $2.5 trillion thus far, more than two dollars in spending cuts for every dollar in revenue represented. to find a balance that tilts toward spending cuts that the president has put on the table. the kind of balance we have not seen from republicans. but he hopes that whether it is action by republicans to deal with the sequester in the short term in a balanced way or take the project of a bigger deal -- more deficit reduction that helps us reach that goal. he will be hoping that republicans, whether it is 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. >> where there any preconditions for the president or republicans in terms of taxes or things that are not to be part of that? >> there are no preconditions for the meeting. 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 deadline, and the need to avert it. the need, if it is implemented, to take action in a balanced way to deal with deficit reduction in a way that does not unduly burden seniors and middle-class families or parents of children with disabilities, that asks everybody to bear the burden. if by doing that it allows our

economy to continue growing, to continue the recovery we have seen underway now for three years but still has a long way to go. the president is firm in his conviction that we need to include balance in our deficit reduction. it is unacceptable, a my way or a highway approach, to say that revenue should not be part of it. as is true of the land republicans are putting forward today, what is true about that proposal is they would rather see her -- sequester take place, with the job loss and negative affect on economic growth, then ask a single wealthy individual to pay a little more, to give up a special tax break, to ask big corporations or industries to forgo their loopholes or limit their deductions. that is not a position that is sustainable, we believe. and it is not fair to the american people.

>> on the next "washington journal," we discussed impending automatic spending cuts with representative donna edwards of maryland, whose district includes the suburbs of washington dc and joint base andrews, the home of air force one. also joining us is representative randy forbes of virginia, a member of the armed services committee. "washington journal" is live on c-span everyday at 7:00 a.m. eastern. house speaker john boehner told reporters that in negotiations with the white house over the sequester he was ruling out tax increases. >> good morning, everyone. americans know washington has a spending problem. it is hurting families and small businesses and must be addressed. there are many people in washington who do not believe

the government has a spending problem, the minority leader, the minority whip, who do not believe we have a spending problem. the president said to me in december we do not have a spending problem. in the four years since the senate democrats last passed a budget, government debt has ballooned to $16 trillion. i do not believe that that is a result of insufficient taxation. this year the federal government will bring in revenue more money in from taxpayers than any year in our history. the debt is a result, i believe, of spending that is out of control. i think the spending problem we have in washington is threatening the future for our kids and grandkids and is threatening the american dream.

republicans have offered solutions to promote economic growth and address our long-term debt crisis, and we will again as part of our upcoming budget deal with these issues in an open and honest way. in contrast, president obama and senate democrats are demanding more tax hikes to fuel more stimulus spending. republicans have voted twice to replace the president's sequester with smarter spending cuts and reforms. the president and democratic leaders have failed to pass a solution of their own. it is time they do. my message at the white house will be the same as what i am telling you today. it is time for them to do their job and pass a bill. this week we announced that hr1 will be reserved for tax reform legislation. the tax reform that lowers rates

and closes loopholes will help create american jobs and promote more economic growth in our country. the president talked about closing loopholes, but only as sufficient to fund more government spending. do we want to close loopholes? we sure do, but only if we are going to do tax reform that focuses on creating jobs, not funding more government. last year we proposed generating new revenue through tax reform. we did that as an alternative to the president's demand for higher tax rates, and ultimately the president got revenues and got his way in higher rates. given those facts, the revenue issue is now closed. any revenue generated by closing loopholes should be used to lower rates across the board for american families. that will create jobs and make america more competitive. that choice is simple. should tax reform focus more often the government or on

creating jobs? i am for more jobs, too. >> mr. speaker, if the cuts in sequestration are not smart, why was there never even talk of a bipartisan negotiation to avoid those? >> the house has acted twice over the last 10 months to replace these cuts with smarter cuts. we have done our job. the president has not offered a plan. it is time for them to pass a plan. >> [indiscernible] >> the house did its job. i am happy to talk of the president and senator reid, but the way things happen around here is the house passes a bill, the senate passes a bill, we disagree, we go to conference. >> it looks like the sequestration will go into effect. are you open to one-on-one negotiations with president obama which many outside analysts think it is the only

way this can be resolved? >> i am happy to talk and work with the president, but the house has done its job. it is time for the senate to do its job. >> [indiscernible] >> to any extent possible we should follow regular order to arrive here. it does not happen as long as it should. regular order around here is we have done our work. they have not done their part. the house should not have to pass a third bill to replace the sequester before the senate passes one. >> the clock on all of this debate over debt reduction did not start at christmastime when the president did get his revenue. it started a couple of years ago. the overall debt reduction that you all have done has been roughly 2-1 spending cuts to revenue. why is the revenue discussion closed now?

>> the president got his tax hikes. the american economy is going to create more tax revenue this year than any year in our history. we do not have a revenue problem. we have a spending problem. it is time to get serious. >> you are up 2-1. you are up 2-1 already. you are up 2-1. why is the revenue discussion over? >> you are asking the question, how much more money do we want to steal from the american people to fund more government? i am for no more. >> one of the central parts of the debate has been your calling this the president's sequester. even, if that is true, which you and bob woodward think it is true, how much does that matter since he accepted it and you ushered it through your chamber and got his signature? >> look, listen, it was the president's sequester, it was his team that insisted on it, and let's remember why we have to sequester and why the president insisted upon it. because the president did not like the agreement that senator

reid, senator mcconnell, and i had to deal with the first tranche of cuts and to move the debt limit out a year. he wanted to make sure he did not have to deal with a debt limit before his reelection. this is about his convenience, in not wanting to go to refight the debt limit again. that is why he came up with a sequester as a backstop to the supercommittee. >> but the possibility for accepting that? >> it was a negotiation. i did not like it any more than anybody else. when the president and harry reid told me they would work with us to get an outcome of the supercommittee, i felt confident we could get an outcome. unfortunately, we did not. >> mr. boehner, you said you have worked to get an agreement. are you concerned about the

optics of not even doing that and the house being out? >> i will be here tomorrow. i will go down to the white house and accept the president's invitation. we have laid our cards on the table. we have shown that we can pass a bill to replace the sequester. the that is why we did it twice. it is time for the senate act. >> [indiscernible] everybody is talking about a lot of blame going around right now, but few people have blamed the supercommittee. they were the ones who were charged. don't they share blame, and if they do, why do we not hear from them? >> i do not blame the supercommittee members or their leaders who worked with the members of the supercommittee. it is unfortunate they did not come to an outcome. there were an awful lot of others influencing the supercommittee to not come to an

agreement unless their goals were met.as i would start there with the president of the united states. thanks.you are also discussed expanding cuts. -- house democrats also discussed automatic spending cuts. this is 40 minutes. >> are we set? good morning, everyone. i am so honored to be here with some of my women colleagues in the house of representatives. others are on the floor as we debate the violence against women act. it is important to come together today because tomorrow is fraught with meaning on the calendar. it is march 1, it is a day that the indiscriminate across-the-

board spending cuts will cause unemployment, instability, and uncertainty in our economy. it is a day when soon people will be getting a pink slip. we might as well get a pink slip from the office of the speaker and the republican conference -- the 750,000 american workers laid off because of sequester implementation. unless the house stops the- across-the-board spending cuts, you too could lose your job. tomorrow, also march 1, is the beginning of women's history month. we should refer to it as women's progress month, acknowledging our history, seeing what more we have to do, and i mention these two points because of the impact of sequestration on women. it is specific, it is large, it is substantial, and it must be avoided. my colleagues are here detail

some about it, but consider this cuts to women's health, from prenatal care to cancer screenings and cuts the services to victims of domestic violence $20 million will be cut out of the violence against women account, $20 million for cuts to initiatives to support children and to support wic and head start, cuts to women's jobs. democrats want solutions. republicans want sequestration. some of them have called it a home run. that does not sound like anybody is on team america if they think sequestration is a home run. there is no time to waste. you know that. we are at once again against a time limit. we should stay here. how could we have been gone for

10 days just leading up this, coming in now for a few days? we have a positive solution. chris van hollen has put forth an initiative that recognizes that he must cut spending, that we need revenue, and we want growth with jobs. it is similar to the proposal in the senate, is positive, and had a good suggestions that some republicans have made themselves in the past. our priorities are clear. creation of jobs. i have sent you before, others have told me since last week when we talked about what is the root of the word "sequester." "sequester" is really "to hold hostage," and that is exactly what this does. it holds hostage. we will go to the white house

tomorrow, and everyone will be there with an open mind to deal with a wider range of issues so we do not have these minute-to- minute, month-to-month crises, manufactured crises. for the sake of our country, for the sake of america's women, the health and security of our economic security for our families, democrats and republicans must work together to protect the middle class, create jobs, and reduce the deficit in a very, very sensible way. with that i am pleased to yield to a champion for women, whether paycheck fairness and lily ledbetter, the distinguished chairman of the policy committee, rosa delauro of connecticut. >> thank you very much, and i am again honored as you are to stay here with our colleagues today to address these issues. if i may quickly paraphrase from

a report by the national women's law center, women are more likely than men to be poor at all stages of their lives because of the ongoing employment discrimination and greater responsibilities for unpaid caregiving. these dangerous, indiscriminate, and across-the-board cuts threaten vital services for women and their families and the services they rely on every single day in order to make their way. they also threaten our economy and will cost women thousands of jobs. while there will be a ripple effect throughout the economy, many of the jobs destroyed by this sequester will be public sector jobs that are disproportionately held by women. women make up 57% of public sector jobs. while the private sector has continued to gain jobs of the past year, the public sector has lost 74,000 jobs, 85% of these being 63,000 jobs held by women,

and they were lost by women. cuts to head start could cost 14,000 teachers, teachers' assistants, and staff. cuts to education grants would mean 21,500 women teachers and aide jobs lost. cuts to special education would force the layoffs of 7,500 lower jobs, and wic, you will see a loss at the state and local level because we know who are working in working in the wic offices. you take chowder, where 86% of --childcare, were 86% of families serve our single parent households and we know who the child care providers are in this country. they're mostly women. allowing these cuts to pass is reckless, irre