the suspect males are under reporting. guest: one point i would like to mental a lot of disorders are treatable and depression is certainly very treatable. cases we are calling to have a chronic course. depression and post-traumatic stress disorder are very treatable. host: thank you both for being with us. we will not take the to the floor of the house of representatives. live coverage here on c-span. eternal god, through whom we see what we could be and what we can become, thank you for giving us another day. send your spirit upon the members of this people's house to encourage them in their official tasks.

be with them and with all who labor here to serve this great nation and its people. assure them that whatever their responsibilities, you provide the grace to enable them to be faithful in their duties and the wisdom to be conscious of their obligations and fulfill them with integrity. remind us all of the dignity of work and teach us to use our talents and abilities in ways that are honorable and just and are a benefit to those we serve. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. -- his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> pursuant to clause 1, rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker: the question is on

agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. >> mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fitzpatrick. mr. fitzpatrick: our guests in the gallery, please rise. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. fitzpatrick: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker: without objection. mr. fitzpatrick: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to honor the lifetime service of harry w. fox who passed away in pennsylvania this week. i'm fortunate and honored to

have known harry fox and benefited from his leadership. on a personal level, his friendship and advice made me a stronger public servant and person. as role of republican chairman, harry was selfless and mag in an muss. everything he did was to the benefit of bucks county where he was born, married, raised and family and served his community in elected office. harry was recognized as an effective leader and decision maker because he led the party based on principles and worked tirelessly to find common ground. his only request of me of a public servant was to take care of bucks county. we'll never see another like harry again. our community has lost a giant of a man, strong in stature and principle and humility and graciousness. may he be granted eternal graceful that he earned. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek

recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. mr. barrow: madam speaker, it's a great sadness that i rise to honor jack who passed away at the age of 93. for 34 years, jack represented augusta, georgia, as a member of the georgia house of representatives. or 26 of those years, jack served as speaker protemperature of the georgia house. -- speaker pro tempore of the georgia house. he worked as a traveling salesman, went on to own several businesses in the augusta community and began a long career of public service. someone once said it's easier to fight for your country than it is to live for your country. jack did both which we can all be grateful. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from missouri seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. hartzler: the 113th congress was elected to tackle

the big problems and there is nothing more than getting hardworking americans back to work with the skills they need to compete in a very tough economy. today the federal government currently operates more than 50 different job training programs, many of which are duplicative. at a cost of $18 million annually to taxpayers. with nearly 20 million americans unemployed or underemployed, it's time to cut through the red tape and start training individuals with the skills they need to find high-paying middle-class jobs. mrs. wagner: that's why the house will take up the skills lap, which overlaps training programs which eliminates unnecessary red tape so state and local resources goes directly to job seekers. according to the report released by st. louis community college, 76% of employers said that employees lack proper training to contribute right away on the most important demand certificates for job

openings were for registered nurses. the skills acts addresses those needs. we need to invest in nurses, manufacturing assistants and cut the ineffective government programs that do little to train employees for the skills they need. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. wilson: madam speaker, it's now been 803 days since i arrived in congress and the republican leadership has still not allowed a single vote on serious legislation to address our unemployment crisis. my question is simple, why then are we here? in poll after poll, election after election, unemployment ranks as our constituents'

number one priority and for good reason. unemployment deprives people of their basic dignity, their health care, their homes and their self-worth. and high levels of unemployment deprive the government of the tax revenue needed to overcome our fiscal challenges. president obama has proposed the comprehensive american jobs act to get people trained, get people working and get people contributing to the tax base. mr. speaker -- madam speaker, it's time to bring this bill to the floor. our mantra should be simple -- jobs, jobs, jobs. people are suffering. people are hurting for jobs, jobs, jobs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: madam speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mr. secretary. the secretary: i am directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in

writing. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, today i speak of the importance of working together to adopt a budget on time in the 113th congress. mr. hultgren: for the past few years the house passed a responsible budget that would rein in spending and debt without raising taxes while protecting the vital safety net of medicare and social security only to see the senate fail to pass any budget at all. this is irresponsible, and it cannot happen again this year. the american people and families back home in my district in illinois cannot afford a government that does not meet its basic responsibility to adopt a budget on time each year and every year. the very first bill i introduced in congress was the congressional pay accountability act of 2011,

legislation if congress fails to meet its statutory deadline to meet appropriation bills on time then members of congress should not get paid. this straightforward concept defines what every american family and job creator understands, that you cannot spend more than you take in. let's act responsibly to pass a budget and work with our closing in the senate to ensure we get the job done this year. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. butterfield: madam speaker, i rise to honor and congratulate sergeant major andrea farmer who will soon retire from the united states army after 30 years of service. a native of north carolina's first district, sergeant major farmer's work ethic has allowed her to successfully hold a variety of positions, including chief career management n.c.o. sergeant major farmer's abilities resulted in her being awarded masters degrees in human affairs and receiving the army women legacy scholarship

award. sergeant major farmer will retire as program manager for the 23rd quarter master, sexual assault prevention program where she works very hard to aid victims of sexual assault. that ith great pleasure i congratulate sergeant major andrea farmer upon her retirement and also to recognize andrea's parents, bobby and mildred farmer, of nash county, north carolina, who instilled high values in their daughter many years ago. i ask my colleagues to join me in thanking sergeant major farmer for 30 years of service to our country. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek rick anything? -- seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> for too many years our leaders have irresponsibly put off the tough decisions necessary to place our country on the sound financial footing. president obama seems not to be focused on the problem as he never even mentioned our nearly

$17 trillion debt during his inaugural address and state of the union speech. his former budget director recently told a bipartisan group of freshmen representatives that unless you deal with the debt you're playing games with our economic future. unless you find savings with entitlements, you're playing games with the debt. you better go fix it. well, american taxpayers deserve and expect an accountable government, not a bloated bureaucracy in need of credit counseling. each passing year makes the decision more difficult and the changes more painful. medicare will be insolvent by 2024 which means we are rapidly squandering any chance to fix the problem. our $17 trillion debt which currently results in $220 billion in annual interest payments is a drag on our economy, deduring our ability to create jobs for american families. mr. pittenger: we must provide for the future. any plan to reform entitlements must preserve the current

benefits promised to this generation while providing guaranteed options for future generations. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, i ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing the medal of honor day as well as honoring master sergeant richard pittman, a veteran who served more than 0 years in the marines. mr. mcnerney: he had the distinguished service medal, the republic of vietnam campaign medal along with others. mr. pittman was born in stockton, california, and attended local schools. after graduating from franklin high school in stockton, he enlisted in the united states marine corps. during the vietnam war, he was assigned as a rifleman to the third battalion, fifth marines and would later become squad

leader. when on assignment near the demilitarized zone, his unit came under range. he risked his life while he exchanged fire and destroyed many enemy forces. i've had the honor to get to know mr. pittman over the years and know he cares deeply for this con. i ask my colleagues to join me in honoring mr. pittman and all our veterans for their bravery and service to the united states. madam chairman, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? mr. fleming: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. fleming:, madam speaker, the assault on religious freedom must stop. the so-called h.h.s. mandate established under obamacare forces individuals, charities and businesses to buy health insurance that includes coverage for drugs which may

destroy life. this week a federal judge stopped the enforcement of the h.h.s. mandate against the founder of domino's pizza, the former founder. like many other companies, domino's corporations, the company offers health insurance to its employees but not coverage for drugs that could destroy human life. to do so would violate the religious rights and beliefs of the companies' owners. that injunction is a victory, but no one should have to battle the federal government in court to stop it from infringing on religious values. that's why i am proud to introduce with my colleagues, diane black and jeff fortenberry the health care conscience act, our government must not force people to violate their religious and moral beliefs. i ask everyone to sign on today to support this bill. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, i rise to recognize courageous women whose work on behalf of the advancement of human rights has inspired millions throughout the world and continues to shine a light on the cause of freedom just 90 miles away. for over 10 years, one has documented the realities of life in cuba through her blog. . they have earned their recognition throughout the world. the strength stands as a beacon of hope for cuba's future and her strength in the face of incredible odds has earned our community's profound admiration and respect. if my colleagues will indulge

me, i would like to say a few words in spanish. [speaking in spanish. she'll be here next week and i'll ask our colleagues to take the opportunity to meet this very courageous woman. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman will provide translation to the official reporters. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 803. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 113 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of

h.r. 803. the chair appoints the gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen, to preside over he committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 803, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to reform and strengthen the work force investment system of a nation to put americans back to work and make the united states more competitive in the 21st century. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from minnesota, mr. klein, and the gentleman from crarks, mr. george miller, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. klein: madam chair, i rise in strong support of h.r. 803, the supporting knowledge and investing lifelong skills act,

the skills act. and i yield myself such time as i may consume. he despite an increase in hiring last month, our nation is still experiencing a jobs crisis. 12 million americans are searching for work. nearly five million of these unemployed workers have been without a job for six months or longer. for many americans the hope of a new job grows more desperate the lodger they are unemployed. -- longer they are unemployed. jack has not had full-time work for more than three years and has lost count of the number of times he's applied for a job. he recently told cbs news, quote, from my perspective, my eyes, i still see that we are in a deep recession, close quote. today we have an opportunity to advance reforms that will give workers like jack a better chance to succeed. our economy is extreelly -- extremely competitive and constantly changing. unfortunately, the work force training system has failed to keep up. it's not surprising when you consider the size of the bureaucracy that now exists.

this chart is a snapshot of the current job training system. it includes more than 50 programs spread across nine federal agencies. president obama described it as a, quote, maze of confusing training programs, close quote. i completely agree. the current system is inefficient and ineffective. for individuals serve the work force investment act, less than one in five completed training. fewer than half of those who received employment assistance such as job searches and resume writing were able to find work. to make matters worse, federal mandates stifle the engagement and innovation of employers and state and local leaders. onerous rules prevent workers from accessing the training they need when they need it. and taxpayer dollars are being spent with little accountability. a bloated bureaucracy is standing between workers and the support they need. we tried the washington knows best approach and it isn't working. it's time to move in a new direction.

it is time for our work force training system that empowers job creators to meet the demands of a dynamic economy. it is time to give state and local leaders greater freedom to serve their communities. it is time for work force training system that spends taxpayer money wisely. it is time to invest less in bureaucracy and more in workers and training. the skills act will help us reach these goals. the legislation replaces 35 ineffective and duplicative programs with a new work force investment fund. no more maze of programs. instead, workers will get help through one simple and flexible source of employment support. the bill strengthens the role of job creators as well as state and local leaders who know best the needs of their work force. doing so will ensure the skill workers receive can be applied to the jobs of today and foot ture, not the past. the legislation also makes sure our most vulnerable workers, including veterans, disadvantaged youth, and individuals with disabilities are being served.

finally, the skills act provides accountability over the use of taxpayer dollars. if a program demonstrates a pattern failure, then taxpayers will know about it. madam speaker, for 10 years congress has talked about job training he reform, but has failed to make reform a reality. it is time to fix the broken job training system and help put more americans back to work. i urge my colleagues to support the skills act and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. miller: i thank the gentlewoman. i yield myself four minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. miller: madam speaker, the house today is considering republican legislation that re-authorizes the work force investment act. rewriting work force investment act is an important task and should be taken seriously. this should be the opportunity to address some of the significant challenges to our economy including how to educate and train the diverse work force with the skills required to compete in a global market. for 40 years this task has been taken seriously by members of both parties.

job training legislation was generally bipartisan. i wish we were here to present a bipartisan bill to the floor. i wish we were here to discuss the product of bipartisan negotiations. i wish we were here to consider something -- getting something done for the american people, but that's not the point of today's exercise. today we are here to meet the deadline set by the majority leader as part of a rebranding strategy. this bill is a political product. puts ideology over practical solutions. it fails to take an approach to what our workers and businesses need t decisively walks away from the program's mission of helping our most disadvantaged workers, and that's why i oppose this bill. first the bill eliminates and consolidates programs simply for the sake of elimination and consolidation. the population served by these programs often face daunting challenges in the job market. youth, older workers, farm workers, workers with disabilities, english language learners, veterans, low-income workers are among those who face the greatest barriers to

employment. programs that serve these populations are the very programs targeted by the republicans. even worse, the bill eliminates the director requiring these workers be given priority of service. with limited money, hard to serve populations will be left out in the cold. and we have yet to hear any credible evidence that eliminating programs will save taxpayers money. we have yet to hear any credible evidence as these programs are duplicative. nor have we heard credible evidence that this approach will make the system work better. in fact, the general accounting office warned that this one-size-fits-all approach may make services less accessible to the many groups considered hard to serve. second, the bill restructures the work force system in a way that walks out key shareholders and leaves the system vulnerable to favoritism. the legislative -- legislation arbitrarily mandates work force increase business participation on the board from 51% to 67%. this will allow people and power to lock out key stakeholders, including labor,

community-businessed organizations, community colleges, or people who work with youth or workers with disabilities. these stakeholders know how to get the training to the people they provide the voice for the very people who need training and the very people work -- people looking for work. it removes local control so local communities can't direct their work force systems. yet local communities working with local business workers and other organizations, they know best how to respond to their economic need. finally, the republican bill essentially turns funding into a block grant and freezes authorization levels for six years. we all know that this is a code word for cutting funding. that's what the republicans have been doing in the c.r. that's what the republicans have been doing in sequestration. the democrats have a different version. we agree that the current system is in need of significant reform. so don't believe the others who falsely say we want the status quo. the system should be improved and ways to maintain our nation's commitment to expand opportunities for all americans. we want to make job training

programs more efficient, more effective. this can be accomplished by requiring unified plans that streamline and coordinate these services. democrats want to ensure that real accountability, everyone knows that these programs work and which programs don't work. finally, we want to promote the innovation of the work force systems by fully engaging community colleges. this can be done by ensuring that there are resources for community colleges to effectively respond to the economic challenges and to meet the future industrial need. this should be congress' way forward to strengthen the work force investment system. congress should not be dismantling a system and leaving only those -- leaving those who need help the most in the back of the line. i'm disappointed that we have reached this point on this very important topic. and for months democrats have extend add hand to work together with the republican majority. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. and the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: madam chair, i'm very pleased now to yield he three minutes to the gentleman from

tennessee, the chairman of the health subcommittee, dr. roe. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. roe: madam speaker, today there are more than 12 million americans who are out of work. these lives are on hold to the economy gets better. provide that we here in washington can stop ourselves from taxing, borrowing, spending, and regulating it into a stand still. even in this time of economic uncertainty, 3.6 million job openings in this country that remain unfilled. unbelievable when you have 12 million people out of work. i support the bill on the floor today, h.r. 803, the skills act, because it will help give some of our neighbors the sense of dignity and satisfaction only commoms from a hard day's work done well. this legislation will help bridge the gap between unemployment and work in three significant ways. first the skills act will ensure that workers can access job training programs immediately. eliminating the need to navigate

a complicated bureaucracy by cutting through the red tape we can get workers trained and back into the work force more quickly. at the same time, this bill removes some of the burdens on state and local officials by repealing 19 mandates that impact who can serve on work force training boards. the entities that oversee local job training programs. second, the skills act will require state and local leaders to use common performance measures to measure the quality of services offered to workers. this will ensure that there is accountability and work force training programs ensuring a good return on taxpayer dollars. the bill also empowers job creators by requiring that 2/3 of the work force board members are from the business community. giving more say to the people who know the needs of their business and the local economy is just plain good common sense. finally the skills act will ensure that taxpayers are seeing a good return on investments by eliminating or streamlining 35

ineffective or duplicative federal programs. it also gives governors additional flexibility to further consolidate any additional employment and job training programs at the state and local level to ensure efficiency and cut waste. let me just, madam speaker, go through a few of these. you talk about duplicative programs. this will help consolidate some of the -- these are the names of the programs. reintegration of ex-offenders. grants to states for training for incarcerated individuals. second chance act prisoner re-entry incentives. it looks to me like we could have one program for all of these. let me read a few more. refugee and entrant assistance, refugee social services program, refugee entry systems targeted assistance. i could go on and on with 35 programs that when we hear our chairman speak one in five actually completes one of these programs. let me just tell you what happens in our state of

tennessee. every tennessean is within one hour of a technological -- technology center. knees are all across our state. even in today's economy, with the economy being what it is and hard to find a job, 90% of these people get a job. are hired. right now today. not one in five. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kline: i yield 30 seconds more. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. roe: i thank the chairman for yielding. i want to finish my saying there are things that work today out here. today that we can emulate. we need to streamline this. you should read all these -- i agree with the ranking member miller, we do need reform. that's what this is an attempt to do. i want to commend dr. foxx and chairman kleine for their leadership on this issue and i encourage my colleagues to support this bill. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. miller: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. hinojosa, the ranking member of the subcommittee on

education and work force. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. . mr. hinojosa: madam speaker, i rise today to oppose h.r. 803, a fatally flawed and highly partisan bill that would weaken our nation's current public work force training and adult education system at a time when millions of americans continue to struggle to find good family sustaining jobs in our nation's economy. . simply put, h.r. 803 will take our nation in the wrong direction, making it more difficult for individuals with barriers to employment to receive the education and training services they need to get back on track. e skills act repeals and consolidates 35 w.i.a. programs, block granting critical programs that provide invaluable training to adults, youth, veterans, farm workers, dislocated workers and many

others. this fatally flawed bill eliminates the priorities of service delivery for low-income adults and out-of-school youth despite the high levels of unemployment rates for youth of color and low-skilled workers. this fatally flawed legislation strikes state and local board representation for unions, community colleges and community-based organizations, moving away from some of the key tenants of w.i.a. it was set up so that 51% of the seats on that board of directors would be represented for the business community. and 49% for those who are no the employers and businesses, but those that i mentioned, and that type of diversity is very necessary, such as collaboration, inclusions, strategic partnerships, the work that needs to be done to

improve people's lives. finally, this fatally flawed bill freezes program funding authorizing for fiscal years 2014 through 2020, and i must underscore that job training and re-employment services for i.a. have already been cut 50% since 2001. how can congress freeze funding for w.i.a. the next six years when we have millions of men and women year after year who need training? how can w.i.a. boards do their job if the inflation costs and the increase of operating costs like utilities, wages, insurance of properties and for health insurance continue to increase? for these reasons it is no surprise that at least 50 organizations strongly oppose our have concerns about this misguided legislation, including the u.s. conference of mayors, the national league

of cities, the national council of la raza, the legal council of skills rights, the national skills association, the national farmer opportunity program, the consortium for people with disabilities, the afl-cio, the national coalition for literacy, the national youth employment and they go on and on. i ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to both against h.r. 803. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman -- the gentlewoman, mrs. roby. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. mrs. roby: i am proud to support h.r. 803 which i am a

co-sponsor. currently over 30 different agencies are involved in work force development or unemployment services. why? because washington loves creating a bureaucracy but rarely ever ends one. the skills act changes that by consolidating these myriad department into one fork worse development platform tasked with equipping employees the skills they need to land a good job. it gives states more authority to direct resources based on their individual needs. it empowers state work force development agencies to collaborate more with community colleges by removing bureaucratic red tape. in addition, it repeals 19 federal mandates that previously dictated who was even able to serve on these state work force boards. also, i'm pleased that the legislation that we're debating today also reflects an amendment that i offered in the markup last week to strengthen the underlying bill. my colleagues accepted my

amendment that prohibits any state or local agency from using federal work force funds authorized by the skills act to turn around and lobby for more funding or to engage in litcal activities. we can all agree that federal funds provided to state and local areas should be used to provide workers the training and support they need to find a job, especially when there are 12 million americans searching for work. work force development agencies need to be using precious federal resources to help their unemployed workers land jobs, not to lobby congress for more funds and certainly not to advance political beliefs. i am proud to vote in favor of h.r. 803. i encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill so we can streamline government spending, eliminate duplication and allow states to build more effective work force development programs. thank you, madam. i yield my time. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves and the gentleman from california is recognized.

mr. miller: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. without objection. mr. andrews: i thank my friend for giving me the time. it is a vecksing problem that at a time of -- vexing problem that at a time of high unemployment we have jobs unfilled in our country because we don't have sufficient training to fulfill these jobs. it's not a partisan problem. it's a commonsense problem. i believe it's a commonsense problem we could have solved if the parties had worked together here, but mr. miller and mr. hinojosa, mr. tierney and many others on our side reached out to negotiate a consensus on this bill and those negotiations never happened. i believe they should happen in the future and will have to in the future to give us a better work product. here's what i think is wrong about the bill before us today. we absolutely have to do a better job at training our own

people to fill the jobs that are vacant in this economy. but if you leave that decision as to how to do that up to state politics in state capitols, i think the evidence is pretty clear that people get left out of that job training situation. let's take a worker who's worked in an oil refinery or factory and his or her job has been outsourced to another country. at the age of 50 or 55 they have to start all over again. if you leave the decision as to whether or not that worker gets training up to state politics, i think it's pretty likely that he or she won't get the training because people like that don't have a whole lot of clout in state legislatures, as far as i know. you have teenagers, 17, 18, 19 years old who dropped out of high schools for reasons of having a child or having some criminal problem. and they need to get back on their feet and back on the work force. they need a youth job training program. well, these are people who don't have lobbyists in the

state legislature or much political clout in state capitols and they could be forgotten about. you have women that are the victims of domestic violence who nearly beaten to death by their husbands or their boyfriends and they need to get back in the work force so they can be self-supporting and self-sustaining for themselves and their children. but if you leave it to the state legislature, i'm not sure that those citizens will get the job training that they need because they don't have a whole lot of clout in the state legislatures across our country. we should be sure that that displace worker has the funds to get the training for a new job. we should be sure that that enager who needs to be trained to lift himself or herself up has training for that new job. we should be sure that the person who's the victim of domestic violence has that kind of training that they need to lift themselves and their families up. the fundamental division here

is whether we guarantee that funds will be available for the people i just described or whether we do not. the right thing to do is to negotiate those kinds of guarantees into this bill. when we do, when we do i believe that we will go forward with a bill that reforms and improves our job training system. let's not waste any more time. let's vote no but then start the negotiations today. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves and the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, madam chair. i am very pleased to yield two minutes to the -- i'm sorry -- i yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for three minutes. mr. goodlatte: thank you, madam chairman. i want to thank the gentleman from minnesota, the chairman of the education and work force committee, for his outstanding work on this. and i want to say to all of us, we should be sure that the people who are needing job

training in this country are being trained and prepared for the jobs of the future, the jobs of opportunity, the jobs that are being created in the communities and whether they're a teenager or a woman who has been the victim of domestic violence or anyone else, they can be sure that with the kind of flexibility and creativity in this legislation they will have the best opportunity to be trained for those jobs. i want to thank the chairman, again, and say as we stand here today there are approximately 12 million americans without a job. 12 million. the numbers get worse the closer you look at them. over 40% of these americans have been unemployed for more than six months and the percentage of americans participating in the work force has recently fallen to under 64% which is the lowest number since 1981. the situation is even bleaker for america's youth who should be at the dawn of their careers. for people between the ages of 18 and 29, the unemployment rate is a shocking 12.5%.

this is simply unconscionable. it is time for the congress and the president to address the high unemployment and the unsustainable debt that's shackling this country. the skills act is an important first step. this bill streamlines duplicative federal programs related to job training and reduces bureaucracy so that more funds and support can go to the people who need it and not to washington bureaucrats. specifically, the bill requires increased coordination among federal, state and local and tribal agencies to ensure that money is well spent, including on the federal re-entry programs that are focused on helping prisoners reintegrate back into society. and also within the judiciary committee's jurisdiction, the bill ensures that employment and training services for refugees are provided through the streamline system set up in the work force and investment act as opposed through several different systems. i'd like to thank the gentleman from minnesota, again, for

working with the judiciary committee on these provisions, and i support this commonsense legislation that seeks to solve a serious problem by making better use of the limited resources that we have, an approach that i hope can be applied more broadly. i commend the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, as well as chairman kleine for their leadership on this issue -- chairman kline for their leadership on this issue and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. miller: i yield to mr. tierney two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. tierney: i thank you and thank the gentleman for yielding. we could have had a bipartisan bill and that seems to be the real shame here. this has been historically a bill that has not been hyperpartisan as the one that's before us today, one that the parties sat down together and came to the best solution on that but it didn't happen. the underlying bill arbitrarily eliminates and consolidates all the programs and collapses them

into one. it tries to substitute that i guess for an analysis for how it should be done. it relies on the comments of the g.a.o. report that says some of the programs may have overlapped somewhat but did not reach to the conclusion that they were duplicative or didn't serve some populations. the majority sees that to collapse the programs together and freeze the funding for that. i would have had consideration of what programs ought to be sustained, make them justify how they are serving populations, determine whether or not there needs to be changes, whether some did need to be terminated or consolidated. that process has been avoided and ignored throughout. it's interesting to note that the administration is opposed not to this year's version but last year's version which was fairly identical and indicates it doesn't meet the administration's goals set out for training in this country. the underlying bill would

dissolve youth training programs. i hear youth that are out of work. the underlying bill dissolves youth training programs and also has virtually no support amongst all the people that are really involved in work force development in this country. there was very little, if any, consideration of their views and their input into that despite the labor they put in and the policy decisions they help make day in and day out. the substitute has broad support. it did go out and listen to the stakeholders on that and it did get their opinions and incorporated them. that's why a bipartisan discussion amongst members would have benefited the bills on that. we have better accountability. t advocates to the governors to have responsibility where it deserves. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, madam chair. i yield now two minutes to the

gentleman from michigan, the chairman of the work force protection subcommittee, mr. walberg. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. walberg: i thank the chairman. madam speaker, our country's job training programs often stand sadly as a barrier between workers and the employers that want to hire them. in december, 2012, employers reported 3.6 million job openings all across our country despite 12 million americans searching for work. the challenge is is that today's job hunters are being frustrated increasingly by bureaucratic inefficiencies in getting the specific skills they need to fill many of these jobs. the skills act would reform the nation's work force development system and better equip job seekers with the abilities they need for today's economy. . it makes good sense that

rereducing the size and scope of big government helps the industry and work force. h.r. 803 ensures that local employers are given more of a say in these programs. helping ensure that there are qualified and recognized for today's most in demand jobs. it also includes reforms that allow states to determine what standards will be required for providers. which will streamline the bureaucracy that has limited many work force development providers. such as community colleges, in their goal to succeed. my congressional district is fortunate enough to have a number of talented hardworking individuals and community colleges that are committed to helping reinvent michigan and its workers through these programs. it's time to give both workers and employers more ability in providing smart, commonsense solutions and tools to strengthen our work force and ut americans back to work.

really isn't that the reason, madam speaker, that our government set in place to ensure the opportunity for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. by people who are assured that that liberty will allow them choices that only americans really can make. please join me in passing h.r. 803. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. miller: i yield three midgets to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. holt: madam chair, i thank the ranking member, my friend from california, and i rise in opposition to the skills act. an work force investment is important role that congress needs to do, and it could and should be done in a bipartisan way. the government has a role to play in setting standards to preserve fairness and to expand access. the so-called skills act seeks

to combine and reduce vital programs. it takes 35 programs and identifies them for elimination and says the federal government will leave a bushel basketball full of money on the steps of each state capitol. this is an abbey days of our responsibility -- abbey scation -abdication of our responsibility to set standards. what some on the other side might call red tape or overregulation i would call standards to see that the work force investment programs really address the needs of individuals with disabilities or the needs of identical -- identifiable groups that deserve our help. that will provide good services for those who need the help most, not the easiest cases, say single parents whose daily struggles with food and housing and transportation and childcare make job training difficult.

we had good ideas, the democrats. ideas that were similar to what went into the original work force investment act. ways to improve these programs and make them serve all of these americans. h.r. 803, for example, does not support library he resource centers. it ignores individuals with disabilities. and incumbent workers. the bill doesn't allow libraries to partner fully in the work force investment program. last year i introduced an amendment to authorize libraries to engage in statewide employment and training activity. no such this year. many low-wage workers, often single mothers struggling, need special help. my home state of new jersey has online learning for low-income workers. by creating grants for online

learning such as laptops at home, we could provide many of these workers who have to stay at home and raise a family the opportunity to improve their skills and enter the new economy. yes, that should be in this program for the nation. the rehabilitation act is intended to aid individuals with disabilities. the amendments to the rehabilitation act in this bill before us today would reduce significantly the services for individuals with disabilities by eliminating programs and eliminating those dedicated funding streams. and saying instead, well, you can do it if you want to. incumbent workers do not get the help they need here. this act does nothing really to improve those people in low-level positions who have the opportunity with help to move upward. we need to work together to provide our nation's job seekers

the resources and training they need. and we here in the federal government have a responsibility to set the standards to see that people of all sorts who need the help have the access. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, madam chair. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from nevada, member of the committee, dr. heck. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. heck: thank you, madam chair. thank my colleague, ms. foxx, for bringing this bill to the floor. i was pleased to work with ms. foxx and mr. mckeon in the last congress on similar legislation. i enjoyed working with my colleagues in the committee on this bill. i rise in support of the skills act. back in my district the biggest concerns of my constituents are still jobs and the economy. southern nevada was hit hard by the recession due to our economy relying heavily on the travel and tourism industry and construction industry. we lost a lot of jobs in those sectors.

unemployment is just under 10% in our state today. madam chair, the skills act is exactly what southern nevada needs to foster our recovery. our state is identifying and attracting new in demand industries that will come to nevada and create jobs and economic opportunity. now we need to train our workers to do these jobs. the jobs that do and will exist, not the jobs that did exist. the skills act will help us to -- do that because it strengthens the role of employers and work force development decisions by requiring 2/3 of the work force board members be local employers and focuses training on in-demand occupation. the skills act will also improve job training programs by eliminating and streamlining 35 ineffective and duplicative programs and creating a flexibility work force investment fund to serve as a single source of support for workers, employers, and job seekers. to think that our state and local elected leaders are not

concerned with helping all of their unemployed, whether they be victims of domestic violence, veterans, those unable to complete high school, or the single mom is a slap in the face to those local he elected leaders elected by their constituents. finally, the skill act increases accountability and transparency for work force investment boards and their performance measures ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly. the skills act will certainly improve work force development efforts across the country, getting more nevadans and more americans connected with the jobs of today and the jobs of tomorrow not the jobs of yesterday. and i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. million miller: i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from oregon, ms. bonamici. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. bonamici: thank you very much, madam speaker. thank you ranking member miller,

for the yield. today i rise in opposition to the skills act. this partisan bill unfortunately takes a one-size-fits-all approach. freezing funding, eliminating programs that help veterans, the disabled. young workers and older americans find work. and ending the requirement that community colleges serve on work force investment boards. as a graduate of a community college i take that very seriously. this bill also fails to address the skills gap issue. when i'm out in my district talking to businesses large and small, especially in the high-tech sector in oregon's silicon forest, they often say there are job openings but not enough qualified workers. there's a substitute bill, the work force investment act, sponsored by mr. miller, mr. hinojosa, and mr. tierney. unlike the substitute bill, the skills act doesn't include the wise investment act language that i authored to address this skills gap problem.

the wise investment act helps connect the needs of small businesses and other stakeholders to training programs available through community colleges and elsewhere. it's time to set ideology aside and work together so the best ideas rise to the top. unfortunately this bill does the opposite. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and let's start working together to get a bill that robs support. i urge my colleagues to support real work force reforms that we need that are bipartisan and address the skills gap issue as well as the other important issue that are included in the work force investment act, but unfortunately not in the partisan skills act. thank you very much, madam speaker. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. thea. california reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you again, madam chair. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from indiana, the chairman of the early childhood and elementary and secondary

education subcommittee on the committee, mr. rokita. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. rokita: thank you, madam chair. i thank chairman kleine and representative foxx for their work and leadership on this bill. the work force investment act is long overdue for re-authorization, especially given the monumental changes to our economy over the past 10 years since the law was last authorized. there are many important reasons to do so, including cutting waste and improving he efishency, but the most important reason to me is the moral one. quite simply the existing maze of federal work force training programs is failing those who it is intended to be serving by trying to be all things to all people, the federal work force training program is serving no one well. that's a problem. the federal government's food print has gotten far too large and our national debt has grown with it. as a result of this failing to serve the work force of today and piling up ever larger bills for the children of tomorrow.

people that don't even exist yet. what the skills act does is consolidate and eliminate many unnecessary and duplicative programs not simply for the sake of downsizing but improve the quality of work force training. that's what we should all be about. republican and democrat alike. business owners understand this. they understand the importance of streamlining and efishency. they understand the importance of getting a good return on their investment and they aren't getting that right now. we have to make sure the federal government abides by those same principles. in addition to consolidating existing programs, which the skills act does, it is important for us to make sure we are actually recovering savings and reducing the deficit as well. we can do both things at once, my friend. i am thankful for the opportunity to work with miss folks and the chairman to include an important provision that would take the next step and reduce the amount of employees at the department of labor in line with reducing the programs. the bill gives the director 60 days to identify how many full-time equivalent employees work for on or administer

programs that have been eliminated or consolidated. the director would then have a year to reduce the federal government's work force by that same number. jobs that have the most value are jobs in the private sector. the productive sector. and the extent we need jobs in the public sector, they should be truly support and grow the private sector in a responsible way. quite simply, if the programs no longer exist, there is no reason for extra federal government bureaucrats. while many of these federal employees are no doubt very committed to their work, it is immoral for us to borrow more money from our children and grandchildren to pay for unnecessary expenses today. the department of labor may exist to serve our work force but it is not supposed to be a jobs program in and of itself. the legislation before us is a strong step in the right direction and will not only strengthen the federal government and reduce our debt but ensure that we are delivering better results for america's work force. by actually reducing the federal government employment role, we'll be restoring more local control and perhaps more importantly we'll be making

smarter use of american tax dollars. so i encourage my colleagues to support this legislation for that. and also the performance measures included in this. one of my constituents, and a small business owner serves on one of the work force investment boards and he says these performance measures -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. rokita: he says these common performance measures are absolutely critical, even the simple difference of committing someone to a job for -- and measuring a performance in that -- for that job from six months to a year makes all the difference in how we really gauge whether or not these programs are successful. whether or not our economy is really growing. thank you very much, madam chair. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. miller: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from nevada, mr. horsford. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. horsford: thank you, madam speaker. thank you to the ranking member

for his leadership and the committee members as well for working so hard to try to find a balanced approach in a bipartisan approach to a very important bill, which is job training and developing america's work force. the latest employment report for nevada came out this morning, and while we added 6,600 seasonally adjusted jobs and are on the right path, we cannot shortchange our workers at this critical time. . i heard from local officials who serve on work boards and they don't support h.r. 803 and that's why i strongly oppose the bill as well. before coming to congress, i ran a joint labor management training academy in las vegas that helped train thousands of nevadans, youth, adults and dislocated workers, to find careers in the hospitality industry each and every year.

so i know the value of quality training for perspective workers. i'm opposing the so-called skills act because it's a partisan bill that's dressed up as a work force investment act legislation. it would block grant 35 work youth over ting workers and workers with disabilities against each other. and it would freeze job training investment for seven years even though funding for work force programs have already been cut in half since 2001. this at a time when there's a growing demand for training and placement of workers. you know, the democratic alternative to this bill builds partnerships with the private sector, with labor, with community colleges. it evalue waits the efficiency of work force programs -- evaluates the efficiency of work force programs and it

expands on-the-job training and incumbent worker training. now, i'll work with anyone from any party -- mr. miller: an additional one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. horsford: thank you. i will work with anyone from any party who has a good idea for how we can get the american people back to work. unfortunately, h.r. 803 is not that bill. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves, and the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, again, madam chair. at this time i'm very pleased and honored to yield one minute to the distinguished house majority leader, the gentleman from virginia, mr. cantor. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: thank you, madam chair. i want to thank the gentleman from minnesota, the chairman of the education and work force committee, for bringing this bill forward and his leadership on so many issues affecting working families across this country. madam chair, i rise this morning to speak in favor of

the skills act. today, there are 20 million americans unemployed or underemployed, and i want to take a moment and speak about the individual that's looking for their next job and explain how the skills act will actually help them. first of all, the skills act streamlines the complicated maze of existing federal programs. rather than spending time figuring out which one of 30 different programs you're supposed to go to, this bill creates a one-stop shop and creates a one-stop work force investment fund. second, if you need job training, the skills act eliminates bureaucratic hurdles, such as first requiring you to work on your resume and develop an individual employment plan so that you can access the training that you need right away. third, by emphasizing the role

of local employers on your local work force training board, the skills act helps ensure that the training you receive is related to the jobs actually available in your area. and finally, the skills act makes sure that you receive quality training by making it easier for community colleges and technical schools to actually participate in these work force training programs. what does all this mean? better, more accessible job training to help more people who are unemployed find jobs faster. yesterday, i had the opportunity to tour an automotive workshop at the northern virginia community college and saw firsthand the need to train skilled workers. i want to thank chairman kline who went with me to that community college, congresswoman virginia foxx, and congresswoman susan brooks for their leadership on this

important issue. the skills act has been endorsed by numerous employers, community colleges and community college systems and a number of governors because they all recognize that a broken work force training system hurts those in need of assistance. we have a chance to fix that broken system with this bill, and i urge my colleagues to support the skills act and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota reserves, and the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. miller: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. butterfield: i want to thank the gentleman for yielding time and thank him for his leadership on the committee and what he's done for education in this country. madam speaker, never have job training and educational opportunities been so crucial for so many people as they are during this challenging economic time. our country's economic situation is getting better. last month we added 236,000

jobs, and the unemployment rate fell to 7.7%, the lowest rate in four years, but the unemployment rate in my home state of north carolina is 9.4%, and in my first district, one in four people are below the poverty level. the skills act, madam speaker, will stall our delicate economic recovery. at a time when we must invest in our work force to ensure hardworking people are able to access the training they need to achieve the american dream, the skills act skills work force development as we know it. it will turn 35 important work force development programs into a block grant system and force effective programs targeted to help disadvantaged populations to compete against each other for funding. the bill would subject work force development programs to partisan politics by putting funding in the hands of governors and would remove seats reserved for community interest groups and community

colleges on local work force investment boards and instead leave the decision of where to invest the money in the hands of, who, big business. h.r. 803 would devastate the innovative partnerships the work force investment act has created in my district. the bill will jeopardize the partnership between the community college in kinston where students gain technical assistance in a career in aerospace. it will not help disadvantaged children in elizabeth city and a work force and training system which helps retrain dislocated workers in rocky mountain, north carolina. for these reasons, madam speaker, and more, i urge my colleagues to oppose h.r. 803 and support the democratic alternative. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves, and the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: madam chair, can i inquire as to the time remaining on each side?

the chair: the gentleman from minnesota has 9 1/2 minutes remaining. and the gentleman from california has 8 3/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, madam chair. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, a member of the committee, mr. guthrie. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. guthrie: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise today in support of the skills act. this legislation is a key tool to improve employee skills and in turn strengthen our nation's work force. jobs and growing our nation's economy must be our top priority. there has never been a more critical time to make sure that our work forces had a the opportunity to find new jobs or receive additional education. the bill includes a number of positive changes to the work force system, creating a flexible work force investment fund to give local work force boards additional funds is the first step in getting people

through the work force system. it does away through the sequence of service which delays access to training. in addition, the bill enhances adult literacy, a call that's particularly important to me. today, approximately 12 million americans are without work. yet, jobs are opened in many industries, especially in manufacturing. when i travel around my district, i continue to hear employers are actively looking for workers but are finding difficulty in finding them. technology is ever advancing. we need to make sure they have the skill sets required for the tasks today and tomorrow. this bill will address for this head-on and have the education these people need. these high-skilled, high-demand jobs are the pathway to the american dream. i've seen firsthand at my family's manufacturing facility how lives can be transformed through additional skills and investing in our work force. there are countless benefits to better educating our work force

as our economy continues to rebuild from the recession. we must do everything we can to put americans back to work. i hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this effort and our nation's work force. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. and the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. miller: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. cicilline: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman from california for yielding. i rise today in strong opposition to the so-called skills act, h.r. 803, a bill that would fail to live up to our responsibility to job seekers, businesses and working men and women across our country. i served as mayor of the city of providence for eight years and saw closely what excellent work force boards do in my home state. right now we should be doing everything we can to put our nation back to work and offer assistance for folks who are struggling to find employment. but unfortunately this highly partisan bill does just the

opposite. it would block grant and effectively eliminate 35 programs, including programs that help dislocated workers, veterans, disabled workers and other disadvantaged populations, putting these individuals at high risk of losing access to services. even though funding for the work force investment act has en cut in half since 2001, this radical proposal would freeze investments in job training and other work force investment services for seven years. mr. hinojosa, mr. miller and mr. tierney have offered a compromise alternative, a commonsense alternative that would create strategic partnerships with employers, community colleges, labor unions and nonprofits to find new jobs and careers for working families. the democratic alternative would expand the central role of community colleges, authorizing $8 billion for president obama's community college to career fund to help community colleges recognize

credentials since students will graduate with job training that meets the needs of employers. it would also better serve high poverty services with effective services by creating innovation funds to expand the use of promising strategies for adults and young people. ladies and gentlemen, our country is facing serious economic challenges, and we need a serious solution like that offered in the work force investment act. i urge my colleagues to oppose h.r. 803 and support the democratic alternative and enact real work force reform that will put americans back to work. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california reserves. and the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, madam chair. i see our last speaker hasn't arrived on the floor and don't know if he will, so in the interest of keeping this moving i'll reserve. the chair: so the gentleman from minnesota reserves, and the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. miller: i have no further speakers. do you want to yield -- i yield myself 30 seconds just to say

-- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: i think it's clear from the speakers on the democratic side who spoke this morning is that it was really quite possible to have a bipartisan bill come to the floor of the house out of our committee. we offered to enter into member-to-member negotiations. that offer was not taken up. this bill was introduced one week in a hearing and reported the next, and the fact of the matter is i think there's a great desire on both sides of the aisle to make this a well-run, well-functioning program for the people who need it so they can get back into the work force in the american economy, but unfortunately that didn't happen and we're now left with a partisan bill much like we were last year and i think unfortunately it's going to make it very difficult to get a good job training bill to the president's desk for his signature and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. and the gentleman from minnesota is recognized.

mr. kline: thank you, madam chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, madam chair. we believe that the skills act is genuine, commonsense reform addressing a real problem that our nation has faced for years. the last -- this authorization expired in 2003, and so under republicans and democrats we've en unable to get legislation passed in the law, through the committee, through the house and move it forward. there have been all sorts of reasons for this. sometimes it was just recognized as it's too hard, but in any case we haven't been able to move it and that includes frankly under four years when the other side had the majority, chaired this committee and in fact had a majority in the house and the senate and the white house and weren't able to move legislation forward. so i appreciate the calls for bipartisanship. i'm not entirely sure why

walking out of a markup engenders further bipartisan support. nevertheless, that's what we're faced with. this legislation was thoughtfully developed after the committee convened multiple hearings over the last three years, examined the testimonies of dozens of witnesses, including governors and state and local work force investment leaders. this ongoing debate has been open and fair. . when we had this bill in the committee last year, amendments were offered by republicans and democrats, amendments passed as offered by republicans and democrats. we have to move this legislation forward. we can no longer afford the failed status quo that wastes taxpayer dollars and prevents people from getting the skills they need, to get the jobs that are available today. the skills act will strengthen the work force training system, make our nation more competitive in the 21st century, and help put americans back to work. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on h.r. 803.

i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, this bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on education and the work force printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text or rules committee print 113-4. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those in house report 113-16, each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to demand for

division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 113-16. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: thank you, madam chairman. i rise in support of the manager's amendment for h.r. -- the chair: does the gentlelady have -- ms. foxx: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1, printed in house report number 113-16, offered by ms. foxx of north carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 113, the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, madam chair. i rise in support of the manager's amendment for h.r. 803, the supporting knowledge and investment in lifelong skills act, and i i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam chair. the issue before us can no longer be ignored.

last week we received encouraging news as the nation's unemployment rate dropped to 7.7%. the reality remains that millions of americans are still searching for work and too often they cannot get the support they need to compete for in demand jobs. each year hardworking taxpayers spend $18 billion to fund more than 50 federal work force development programs administered by nine different agencies. many of the programs overlap or are duplicative and few have ever been evaluated for efficacy. our nation's economy is only as strong as its work force. right now the need to reform our broken work force development system could not be more critical. as friday's job report illustrated, 12 million americans are still searching for full-time work, yet employers reported another month with more than three million unfilled job openings. in part because there aren't enough qualified workers to fill them. we know that the jumbled state

of today's work force development system is unmanageable and the ineffective maze of programs each of today's workers has to navigate in order to receive assistance or education to help in their job hunt. i have a chart that shows this. americans deserve a system that is more efficient, more accountable, and more responsive than that. and what we propose today will take care of that. today many of my colleagues, this is the chart that shows where we will go with this system. today many of my colleagues have discussed how the skills act which foster an employer driven system that prepares job seekers for a successful career in the 21st century economy. i'd like to highlight a few technical changes included in the manager's amendment that will enhance efforts to he eliminate waste, safeguard taxpayer dollars, and provide education and support to american workers. first the manager's amendment

will improve accountability and ensure officials aren't wasting taxpayer dollars by requiring the government accountability office to evaluate the administrative savings that will occur at the federal and state levels due to the streamlining of work force development programs. second we recognize that local leaders are much better informed and equipped to serve the needs of local job seekers than we are in washington. that is why our approach relies on a bottom up approach when designated local work force investment areas. local leaders will submit applications for designation and establish the processes needed to align their areas with other service delivery and labor market areas and their region. in doing so, the designation process will be more effective and transparent and will naturally serve the priorities of local communities. finally, when serving individuals with disabilities, the manager's amendment requires state and local work force development leaders to detail how they will focus on employment opportunities that foster independence and intera gration.

these commonsense changes can help -- integration. these commonsense changes can help provide maximum support for workers and employers. in the 2012 state of the union address, president obama urged congress to cut through the maze of confusing training programs. today we have the opportunity to do just that. we cannot encourage economic growth or put americans back to work without reforming an anti-waited -- antiquated system that fails to meet the needs of today's job creators and workers. we cannot continue to defend the outdated policies of the past. it's time we reform these programs to create an efficient and effective system that supports the true backbone of our economy, the american people. madam chairman, i strongly urge my colleagues to support the skills act and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. >> i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tierney: i understand much of the manager's amendment is technical in clarifying

corrections, but it does make one notable substantive change to the underlying bill that pertains to the designation of the local work force investment areas. current law calls for automatic designation of local work force areas with populations of 500,000 or more. it also ensures that the voices of local elected officials, businesses, work force development officials, among others, are heard. that's a good thing. now the underlying bill, the so-called skills act, radically changed this. it repealed the automatic designation that i just mentioned, and essentially empowereded governor to designate an entire state as one local area if that governor chose to do so. this is not viewed as sound polcy. two days ago the conference of mayors, national association of counties, the national league of cities, and the national american -- association of work force boards sent a letter to the house leadership that expressed concerns with this particular provision. specifically they wrote, and i quote, h.r. 803 undermines existing structures by virtually

eliminating the input of local elected officials in the decisionmaking process. they also said, i quote, h.r. 803 fails to promote intergovernmental collaboration between state and local officials by eliminating prior provisions relating to automatic designation of local work force development areas, effectively allowing state boards to designate local areas in consultation with the governor without considering input from local stakeholders. now, i think the stake has been recognized and we can see this by this manager's amendment where there is an attempt to address the situation, but there is further evidence of the deficiencies of a hyper partisan bill that neglects the opportunity to sit down with others and work through these issues so we can come up with the best solution on that. they are trying to get out of this hole that's created by prohing a solution that's still inadequate and certainly is worse than current law. the manager's amendment provides an application process for the

local board. so instead of being automatically designated, if there is 500,000 population or more, they have to apply to be designated a local work force area. that application still has to be approved by the state which could totally reject it. that's only for a period of three years. so they have to keep going through this process periodically. if i were a mayor or businessperson who is chairing a local board, i don't think i would be very pleased with this provision. i'm not sure how creating an unnecessary and bureaucratic process where locals would have to reapply continuously for designation every three years squares with the republican colleagues supposed concerns about duplication in the work force. later this morning we'll be offering a substitute amendment that retains current law and protects the local individual's role in the work force system. certainly we have the opportunity for a bipartisan bill, we could have worked through this issue and come up with what would be the best solution. this is just one example of the important policy provisions in this bill that could have been

addressed in that way. this could have been a bipartisan bill. we could have got the best product and didn't. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam chairman. i appreciate my colleague reading the letter that he read, but as he well knows that letter was written before the manager's amendment came out. and the manager's amendment actually corrects what the letter was talking about. we are making this system better. current law allows the governor of the state to designate local areas in consultation. and our colleagues are advocating to keep the status quo. my amendment makes it a better situation. and i appreciate his acknowledging that the manager's amendment does do that. i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. tierney: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tierney: this is an attempt

to deal with the problem that was in the underlying bill as pointed out by that letter, but an attempt that mirrors the process for the last session and this session. they didn't talk to anybody, they didn't say what would be the solution. they went out and arbitrarily decided, again, having once messed up they thought they were the repository for all knowledge on this subject and went about setting on a course that still falls short. yes current law allows for governors to work with the consultation of others in setting designated areas. but areas of 500,000 population or not are already designated. that's the point at issue here. i think we have seen an example of the process just deciding that all knowledge deposited in one section, not wanting to discuss with others. understand this could have been a good bill. this could have been a bill that went through the house, was taken up by the senate, and went on to the president's desk. a bill the public could have been proud of. a bill everybody could have got behind. we didn't. we see a failed process so we end up with failed part of the provision of the original bill

and other failed attempt to fix it because there is no reaching out and no attempting it. last time we had some hearings very brief. we had a vote where -- partisan votes went all the way down the line. this time we have one here, two out of three witnesses say they didn't read the bill. an immediate markup where chose not to go through the same full hearing process of having all of the amendments shot down in the partisan vote. we are here, we always have been here. we want to work this through. this is not a hyper partisan issue. thank you. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady has 30 seconds left. and the gentleman from massachusetts has 15 seconds left. ms. foxx: a failed process is when you're in control the house, senate, and the presidency and you do nothing to fix the situation. we offered our colleagues on the other side of the aisle the

opportunity to offer amendments. they walked out of the meeting. their substitute does not fix this situation in the way that they say that they want it fixed. madam chairman, we have allowed them to offer amendments. they walked away. we have given them extra time today to discuss their substitute, even their substitute does not take care of the problem. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. tierney: no normal person would confuse the aspect of being given an opportunity to have your amendment shot down on a party-line vote as a bipartisan process. i remind the gentlewoman it was her party, mr. mckeon, who correctly stated this, the majority's obligation to reach across the aisle and seek compromise on that because they are the ones with the gavel on that. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from north carolina. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the aye vs. it. the amendment is a -- ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the -- it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 113-16. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2, printed in house report number 113-16, offered by mr. gallego of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 113, the gentleman from texas, mr. gallego, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. gallego: thank you, madam chair. i would like to thank chairman kleine and the ranking member for their work as well as for

consideration of my amendment today. my amendment is very simple and commonsense. it accelerates job training skills for veterans. specifically the amendment would promote advanced manufacturing within state and local plans for veterans. assisting veterans and employers can translating their military skills into advanced manufacturing does two things. first, it addresses 600,000 advanced manufacturing jobs that remain open in our nation. and more than 82% of manufacturers report that they cannot find people to fill their skilled jobs. . over the next four years, one million veterans are expected to exit the armed forces and transition into our work force. this amendment creates cohesion between filling our advanced manufacturing jobs, such aztec nothing, air owe -- such as technology, aerospace with

capable, talented veterans. there are close to 900 veterans who are unemployed in our nation, and often these veterans obtained advanced manufacturing skills while serving our country but unfortunately they have a hard time obtaining employment once they leave their service. although unemployment for veterans has fallen from 12.1% to 9.9% in the last year, it still outpaces the nation's overall rate, and today there's more than 1.6 million veterans who live in my home state of texas, and in the reaches of live st texas, some there. a sector that's added 500,000 jobs in the past 26 months, technology. this doesn't present budgetary

issues. there are no cut-go violations. it doesn't impact discretionary authorizations. i'd ask your support of a very commonsense amendment. let's work together to get our veterans back to work. thank you, madam chair. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: madam chair, i rise to claim the time in optician but i do not intend to owe -- in opposition but i do not intend to oppose. the chair: the gentleman is recognized in opposition. kleine chine thank you, madam chair. i appreciate the involvement of the -- mr. kline: thank you, madam chair. i appreciate the involvement of the gentleman from texas. it would translate veterans' skills to civilian use in an important and growing sector. a focus on advanced manufacturing training will allow our veterans to get training while increasing their earnings potential. so we support this amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields

back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 113-13 -- 16 -- sorry. for what purpose does the gentleman from alaska seek recognition? mr. young: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 113-16, offered by mr. young of alaska. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 113, the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: madam chairman, i rise today to an an amendment -- to offer an amendment. h.r. 803, as reported, contains

a provision which establishes a 1% cap on the amount that each state can designate for native employment and training grants out of the total funding allotment. my amendment would instead require that each state provide exactly 1% for each program. this change is important because h.r. 803 as currently stands gives states dramatically reduce or eliminate native work training fund. alaskan native, american indian and native hawaii have high unemployment rate. since 1998, american native people have relied crucially on funding from the work force investment act to provide the necessary resources to educate their work force and help reverse these trends. my amendment would guarantee the tribal funding continues. i urge a yes vote on the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. tierney: madam chair, i

rise to claim time in opposition but will not. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tierney: i reserve time but i do note in the gentleman, mr. young's letter regarding this matter, he notes that the underlying bill does not accommodate the needs of this particular population and that's why the necessity existed for him to bring this amendment that we support to the floor but it's another example of how the process should have improved this bill all along had it been done in a bipartisan consultative manner as we all hoped it would be. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: madam chair, at this time i yield to mr. cole from oklahoma one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cole: i thank the speaker and i thank the gentleman. i want to thank my good friend, mr. young, for bringing this amendment. nobody has fought harder or worked longer for native people in this chamber than my good friend from alaska. and the fact we would guarantee this i think is important

recognition of how difficult the circumstances are for much of the native population in the country. the bureau of labor statistics does not actually keep statistics on native american unemployment. but anybody that's ever been to a reservation knows that we have plenty of them in the middle of states with very low unemployment rates where the unemployment rate on a reservation will be 75% or more. so again i want to thank my friend for making sure that important resources are directed toward an often neglected population. i want to thank him for his many years of work in this area and look forward to working with him as we move forward. so with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from alaska reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. tierney: madam chairman, i give myself 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tierney: i just further make the point that obviously there are certain populations within our society that deserve particular attention because they have unique needs. you don't accomplish that by arbitrarily taking all the programs and lumping them together without a full analysis and determination of

which ones would be better served in that basis and which ones wouldn't. i think it further establishes our further point that was made throughout. i congratulate the gentleman's amendment and support it fully and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from alaska is recognized. mr. young: at this time i'd like to yield a minute, minute and a half from my good friend from south dakota. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. noem: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for his work on this important issue. you know, we face some specific challenges in indian country in south dakota. this amendment ensures that 1% of the funds within the work force investment fund would be dedicated towards meeting those needs. madam speaker, the three most impoverished counties in the nation are located in south dakota. each of these counties are located on on near reservations and the poverty rate in these counties hovers around 50%. life in indian country certainly has its challenges and among those is chronically high unemployment. while some of our tribes face an unemployment rate of around 0%, we have one of them, the

rosebud reservation near todd county which face almost 80% unemployment. again, this is challenging for indian country and needs to be dealt with. it is clear we must do better for indian country and jobs that s guarantees set-aside money for native american will make sure it's available for them. i toward lakota foods which makes some of the world's best popcorn. they have 12 full-time and part-time employees right now. with the right training they can employ around 50 people. also, there's a similar success story in pine ridge where native american natural foods produces tonka bars which is made out of buffalo meat and cranberries. it has caught on and are sold in over 3,000 stores now nationwide. with the right training and work force development, they could expand over 20 pulltime employees.

we need to ensure that -- full-time employees. we need to ensure that this is helped. i urge support on this amendment. thank you. the chair: the gentleman reserves. mr. tierney: i ask unanimous consent to reclaim some of our time. the chair: without objection. mr. tierney: with that point, our member having arrived, i'd yield to representative gab rder -- gabbard. ms. gabbard: i want to thank you for offering this very important amendment. he hawaii members have had a long relationship and look forward to that relationship. each state will provide 1% of their total allotment for native grants. it is capped at 1% which could result in funding reduction or no funding at all. with this amendment we can ensure our native populations are guaranteed at least 1%. this is a critical provision to

ensure that our native populations are not forgotten or left behind. in my home state of hawaii, for example, one is able to take critical work force investment funds and help native hawaiians as well as alaskan natives and native american indians advance their academic or occupational skills and put them on a path to personal and economic self-sufficiency. thank you, madam speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman yields back and the gentleman from alaska. mr. young: madam chair, i urge a yes vote. this amendment solves some problems. i'd like to address the issue of training. we've been very fortunate in alaska. we've used these dollars for training for our alaskan natives successfully. we have aircraft training programs, carpenter training programs. we're training a group of alaskan natives to do the jobs that they can do not only in their tribal areas but in the state itself. the reservation mr. cole

mentioned, we still have that high rate and i hope we understand and i am going to seek a new empowerment act for the american indians to make sure they don't have that high rate through training, utilization of their land for their benefit for theirselves so in fact we can continue and raise their standard instead of keeping 80% unemployment. so again i urge a yes vote and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alaska. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 113-16. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from tennessee seek recognition? mrs. black: thank you, madam chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 113-16 offered by mrs. black of tennessee. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 113, the gentlewoman

from tennessee, mrs. black, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from tennessee. mrs. black: thank you, madam chairman. i'd rise today in the support of reaffirming our commitment to upward mobility and greater opportunity for all americans. my amendment would express the sentiment of the house that the funding for the united states department of agriculture, usda marketing and outreach program currently used in participation in supplemental nutrition assistance programs, snap, better known as food stamps, would instead be used to fund job training programs contained in the skills act. these precious taxpayer dollars should be used to facilitate upward mobility and employment, not dependence. the usda created an aggressive outreach program that has grown under the obama administration, particularly through the president's stimulus package. these expanded initiatives

include the collaboration between the usda and the mexican government officials to promote participation in targeted communities which teaches recruiters how to convince working class families into dependence. the obama administration has conducted over 30 meetings with the mexican government personnel since he took office. since this program began in 2004, the united states taxpayer has funded this participation with the mexican government to promote the snap program by holding 29 health fairs and traveling to 19 cities. the usda in coordination with the mexican government has conducted an aggressive campaign issuing guidance to state and local agencies with a record 91 meetings focusing on growing the outreach program to expand enrollment in snap. and none of these meetings were needed to point them in the direction of job training programs or employment searches

that would offer much greater opportunity than whatever the federal government would have to offer. i recently read through this 55-page document put out by the usda entitled snap, guidance on noncitizen eligibility that essentially explains every possible scenario for avenues of going about receiving snap assistance. these policies are in plain conflict with our financial health of the united states and it fails to recognize that welfare reform is guided by a moral principle, that good policy helps people with better lives. usda has also used these outreach dollars to, quote, hunger champions, awarded in 2011 to certain workers which translated to a 10% increase in food stamp recipients in just one year. under the obama administration, the number of food stamp recipients has jumped 46% with

one in six americans living in poverty and the administration still continues to undermine work requirements and effective job training. we need to reaffirm our belief that we are a nation of opportunity and not dependence. the government should not be promoting food stamps. the government should be used hard-earned taxpayer dollars to help those out of work to acquire skills they want and to achieve the american dream that they have for them and their families. i would now like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman that is the chairman of the agriculture, mr. lucas. . mr. lucas: thank you, madam speaker. i appreciate the gentlelady from tennessee's attempt at reform here. in fact, the farm bill passed bay the agriculture committee-by the agriculture committee last congress accomplished the goal of her amendment by preventing usda from mow moating the snap program. our goal in congress should not be getting more people on the snap rolls. instead we should be providing

opportunities for increased economic growth in programs that facilitate upward movement, upward mobility to get people off the rolls. i pledge to work with the gentlelady to include language in the farm bill we intend to bring to the floor later this year to accomplish her goals. i thank her for her efforts. mrs. black: thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. i so appreciate your earnestness in helping to work together in making sure that we do have upper mobility rather than dependence. with that i reserve my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does -- does anyone seek recognition? the gentlelady is recognized. from tennessee. mrs. black: i want to thank the chairman for being willing to work with me on what i think is a very, very important issue of making sure that we help people with upward mobility. i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. the chair: without objection. the amendment is withdrawn.

mrs. black: thank you. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 113-16. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. gar rhett: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5, printed in house report number 113-16, offered by mr. garrett of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 113, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: thank you. i appreciate the -- thank the chair for recognizing me. i also thank the chairman as well. and also i want to thank the gentlelady from north carolina, i'm not sure if she's here right now, for her efforts to make necessary and meaningful changes in reforms to the skills act. but the federal government spends literally billions and billions of dollars on work

force training programs every single year. but there was a study that was done in 2011. that was done by the g.a.o. the government accountability office. and they found that very little is actually known about the effectiveness of a lot of these programs. so when we are here at a time of constrained spending and constrained budgets, we have to do everything we can from both sides of the aisle to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely and that the recipients of these dollars or the programs actually get an effective program at the end of the day. so the skills act that's before us now includes provisions mandating, this is good, meaningful evaluations of these very same programs. but simply mandating that evaluations be done doesn't really guarantee that they will actually be conducted. for example, back in 1998 there was the work force investment act legislation, and it mandated that the department of labor

conduct what they called then the gold standard, if you will, of studies, job training programs, and require that those studies be done by 2005. but here as we stand here now in 2013, those studies still aren't done. i i even checked into it and they say it will not be completed until 2015, that's 10 years later than the studies were supposed to be completed. congress can no longer tolerate the negligent of report deadlines. especially concerning the effectiveness of federal programs that cost us billions of dollars. and when they are not being done effectively, the people who should be getting the effective programs are not getting the services. my amendment simply provides a incentive to the department of labor to conduct these aol vations -- evaluations on time and the authorizing committees can have the information to do their job as well. it is neither the taxpayer nor the job seeker any good at all that congress is funding something that's ineffective. this amendment will put something -- executive branch on

notice. congress is keeping an eye on their performance and the authorizing committees can also have more information to do their jobs. with that i urge support of this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. hinojosa: i stand up in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hinojosa: i would like to yield two minutes to the the gentlewoman from texas, sheila jackson lee. the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i thank the distinguished ranking member of this committee. i thank the floor managers. i particularly thank mr. hinojosa for long service on work force issues, but higher education issues. to the proponent of the amendment. certainly we know that reporting is important. t what i want to focus on, madam chairwoman, is to focus on what america is all about. we are the land of opportunity and dreams. we are the richest country in

the world. and our benefit and our successes come because we have invested in people. and we watch the depression and the era of world war ii and our soldiers coming home, prosperity began when we gave them the g.i. bill. and here we are today trying to undermine under h.r. 803 the very opportunity in states for those people still seeking to climb the ladder. by block granting these 35 programs, shifting to our state governments individual programs that serve our adults, youth, and farm workers, and dislocated workers, we are going down a road of no return. we are eliminating the priority of service delivery for low-income adults and out-of-school youth. we are eliminating the thought process that is are necessary to know what rural neighborhoods or communities and urban communities need. texas is one of the largest states in the union and i can assure you that eliminating separate training funds for

youth programs is devastating. it was devastating when we lost the summer youth job program which i always said is a more effective program if you joined it with training. and in our local communities that's what we did. we joined summer youth jobs with training. now you're telling us that we will be eliminated from doing that. rather than suggesting that the problems of this deficit is always on the least, it would look for us to be able to chronicle while we got here billions of dollars in the iraq war, the afghanistan war, medicare part d of the bailout. and so it is important -- mr. hinojosa: i yield an additional 20 seconds. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for 20 seconds. ms. jackson lee: it is important to support -- i thank the gentleman. it is important to support the democratic alternative. which streamlines and improves coordination of training programs, which puts the dollars in community associations who

are there on the ground. madam speaker, america is not good with this bill, h.r. 803. but it is good with the democratic alternative that invests in people and makes america great. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman reserves. p new jersey from is recognized. mr. garrett: thank you. i begin by saying i associate myself with the words of the gentlelady over there that we should not put the burden on the least in this country. that's why we support this legislation before us and this amendment. i yield now 20 seconds to the chairman of the committee. mr. kline: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank you for bringing forward this really solid amendment. we know that under republican administrations, democrat administrations departments are required by law to submit all kinds of reports, but there are no consequences. so they don't do it. we have to do our job in the dark. i appreciate him recognizing the shortfall and taking this step. i support the amendment. the chair: the gentleman

reserves. mr. garrett: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hinojosa: we oppose the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. garrett: again i thank the chair. i just want to reiterate that we are on the exact same page with our colleagues from the other side of the aisle. that we understand the burdens that the americans across this country are suffering right now. we understand that the burden and the cuts that we are -- we may have to consider going forward in this country should not fall on the least among us. they should not fall on those who are without jobs. they should not fall for those who are struggling on the bottom trying to get up to the middle class and higher rung after that. we have to work together to make sure they do not suffer like that. that's why we have this amendment. to make sure that every single dollar we pass in this congress, every single penny we spend on a program an effective dollar, effective penny to get the job done. to let them rise up out of the depths of despair they are in to a higher level. we want to make sure we have effective programs.

that's exactly what our amendment would do. i encourage both sides of the aisle to join the support of this legislation. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 113-16. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. tierney: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6, printed in house report number 113-16, offered by mr. tierney of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 113, the gentleman from mass marks mr. tierney, and a member opposed each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: i yield myself three minutes. the chair: without objection. mr. tierney: i thank you. this amendment is offered in its entirety as a substitute for the

underlying bill in the manager's amendment to it. i do it because i strongly believe that this is in fact a better proposal than the existing one, but would have preferred what could have been the best result on this bill which would have been one where all the members had consultation and all the negotiations occurred and we were able to bring forth a bill with concessions by both sides to get a bill that would have been assured of passage in the senate or close to that, assured of the president's signature, and assured the support of the broad public. just as last session we end up with a proposal that ignores sound proposal from both sides and goes with a hyper partisan approach and that's not going to serve the country or this process at all. having a chance to present 18 amendments as done in the last session, to have them all shot down on a party-line vote is not an excuse or substitute for having a process where we try to work out our difference answer make reasonable concessions. this bill that's before us today by the majority party was filed

on february 25. a so-called hearing occurred on february 26, the very next day, where two of the three republican witnesses admitted they never read the bill. instead this bill proceeded forward with arbitrary consolidation or elimination of the programs that exist right now without any evaluation of their efficacy, effectiveness, whether or not they want to be consolidated or changed or terminated or kept intact as they are. reliance is made on the g.a.o. report that did not say anything about consolidating. all it said was some of the programs duplicate some aspects. and that only five programs had a full evaluation which would have begged the question for more hearings, a thorough evaluation, data, more consultation with people involved and stakeholders to come to a conclusion of just how and if consolidation should happen. we have seen from some of the amendments made today by members of the majority they thought some of the populations should have got more attention than the base bill gives them. essentially here we have a

policy dictated not by washington in the underlying bill but advocated to governors so instead of being accountable for the decision we make, who we think the job training in this country, the national needs, the republican bill would abdicate that to governors. they could decide to serve or not serve entire populations and afford them the opportunity to get the training we believe as legislators they need. this bill as amended by the manager's amendment creates a one-size-fits-all. it eliminates separate training funds for youth. it silences the voices of community colleges, labor, economic development groups, community-based organizations. it eliminates support and employment programs like the disabled veterans outreach program. it eliminates the priority of service delivery for low-income adults and out-of-school youth. perhaps that's why so many groups have expressed serious concern about this underlying bill. groups like the united states conference of mayors, national association of counties, national league of cities, national association of work force boards. corporate voices for skilled work force.

good will industries, and so many others have expressed concern for this underlying bill or expressed approval for the substitute that we offer. it's why the administration has filed a statement opposing this bill just as it did last year, saying it doesn't meet the administration's goals in urging the republicans to work with us to make a better bill on that. mr. chairman, we could have had the best of all alternatives. we could have had a good bill for the american people. we could have had a bill that took the best aspects of all proposals and put them together with consultation and blend that for approval of this house. and then passage by the president and support of the american people. unfortunately that process was not followed. the arbitrary process was endured by all of us on that part. i ask that the members support the substitute as being better than the underlying bill and hopefully we can get back to getting the best bill which is one done by collaboration and cooperation. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.

for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. kline: i rise to came the limetime in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes. mr. kline: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. despite the extraordinary mis characteristics -- miscarkization of the bill and pretty amazing strawmen that have been put forward today, let's look at what we really have here. this is the situation that we've got today. . this myriad of programs, i would call bureaucracy run amok, i might call it red tape, it is confusing at best. and this is what the president had to say about it. he said it's a maze of confusing training programs. he said that last year. i thought he meant it. i'm not sure about his statement today, maybe he's changed his mind. but he called it a maze.

so, what are we going to do about this maze, this red tape, this bureaucracy? we recommend simplifying it, making it easier to use, helping people get the training they need, not the bureaucracy for them to wade through. so, we took the information from the general accountability office, we looked at the statements coming from the administration and departments, we looked at programs that even the administration had recommended to stop funding and we said, let's make this simpler. let's make this easier. let's let the local work force boards who know their communities, with the employers in their communities, make it easier for people to get work and we put together a bill that has one work force investment fund. not a maze, not confusing, less red tape, easier to use, something that the people who need work can use so that you

don't have less than one in five who show up to that maze actually get the training they need. and what have the democrats proposed? well, let's take a look at that. they took the current system and they boldly eliminated one program that hasn't been funded since 2003 and they added six more. i don't see how that helps us get where we need to go. i don't see how that helps get the millions of unemployed back to work. i don't see how that helps employers who have 3.6 million openings get those jobs filled. we need action here. that's what we believe our bill does. this is what their bill does. i recommend that we support the skills act and reject this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. >> thank you. at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman . om texas

>> i rise in support of this bill because the congress has a responsibility to modernize this nation's public work force training and adult educational system. putting america back to work must be a top priority for congress and the nation. this tierney-hinojosa-miller amendment would bolster the role of community colleges in job training by authorizing president obama's $8 billion community college to career fund. mr. hinojosa: it would develop a 21st century system for adult education literacy and workplace services, it would engage our nation's youth through multiple pathways to success. it would create competitive employment services and opportunities for individuals with disabilities and, yes, it would improve accountability

and transparency through performance measures and republicanning. importantly the democratic substitute bill would strengthen rather than eliminate the priority for low-skilled and low-income adults under w.i.a. mr. speaker, today our current public work force and adult education system provides an invaluable range of services, including education, occupational skills training, career counseling, job search assistance, adult education and english language literacy and civics education and, yes, it provides job placement services to populations with unique barriers to employment. these populations include migrant and seasonal farm workers, native americans, people with disabilities, veterans, older workers, people who are homeless, low-income youth, low-skilled workers, english learners, ex-offenders and women seeking nontraditional employment

opportunities. in the 12-month period ending september 30, 2012, we -- w.i.a. programs provided services to 38.8 million people as well as hundreds of thousands of employers across the country, according to the u.s. department of labor. while our current w.i.a. system is providing much-needed education in training and re-employment services, the tierney-hinojosa-miller amendment would modernize our current w.i.a. system. it would prepare greater numbers of unemployed and underemployed americans for jobs in health care, advanced manufacturing and in high-growth -- high-growth industries and sects that are require specialized skills for these -- sectors that require specialized skills for these positions and it would ensure our most vulnerable populations are served. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in voting for the amendment in the nature of a substitute and do what is right for the

millions of unemployed individuals. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. he gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you. i yield to ms. foxx. the chair: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for three minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the chair of the education committee for his leadership and i want to give special thanks to the staff for their hard work on this bill. they've done phenomenal work. mr. chair, i am also opposed to this substitute amendment. this amendment blatantly ignores the president's call to, quote, cut through the confusing maze of training programs, end quote, by creating a number of new redundant programs in addition to the 50-plus programs already in existence. the amendment re-authorizes programs that president obama

eliminated in his f.y. 2013 budget proposal and funds programs that have not been funded in years. unfortunately this substitute amendment gives priorities to bureaucrats instead of un- and underemployed americans who are hurting. more than 20 million americans are struggling to find work and turn to their government for answers and assistance. this amendment adds to the confusion of the dizzying maze of existing programs. we should be streamlining our nation's work force development system, not making it more complicated for workers and job seekers. this week several of the north carolina work force administrators were in town and shared with me their frustration in filling local work force boards with members washington mandates rather than the partners who they know understand the needs of their local community and work force. this proposal does nothing to address these federal mandates and instead adds to the burden by mandating that 20% of board

members be big labor. this is unacceptable. state and local leaders should be deciding who is best equipped to meet the needs of their communities. finally, the amendment dramatically increases the amount of hard-earned taxpayer dollars spent on administrative costs rather than direct services. our nation's debt will reach $17 trillion very soon and taking more money from hardworking taxpayers to spend on bureaucrats is unconscionable. the democrat proposal asks us to double down on the status quo that is failing our country in this time of high unemployment and record debt. mr. chair, the numbers tell the story. 12 million unemployed, eight million working part time who want to work full time, 3.6 million jobs unfailed -- unfilled. obviously the current system is broken. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the skills act.

i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. tierney: thank you, mr. chairman. at this time i yield three minutes to the minority whip, a member from maryland, mr. hoyer. the chair: the gentleman from maryland, the minority whip, is recognized for three minutes, that is the balance of the gentleman from massachusetts' time. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. and i rise in support of his substitute. and in opposition to the so-called skills act. mr. chairman, there was an opportunity to do this in a bipartisan fashion. as we so often do, unfortunately, in this body, we choose to do it in a partisan fashion. which almost predictably will mean its defeat. this bill is a partisan-sponsored version that is opposed by most stakeholders, including the national skills coalition, it's a partisan bill because unfortunately republicans

refuse democrats' request to negotiate a bipartisan version. we need a bill like the democratic alternative introduced by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. tierney, who wrote a bill that enhances career pathways into training programs for advanced manufacturing and other industries. our alternative would work to finance -- enhance, excuse me, partnerships with industry, maintain a role for all stakeholders in work force investment and protect services for those facing significant barriers to finding work. this is the type of approach that house democrats make it in america plan has endorsed -- democrats' make it in america plan has endorsed. unfortunately this will consolidate 35 programs into a single work force investment fund. that may sound good, but it lacks any priority of service for those facing the highest barriers to employment. these include low-income

individuals and those with poor work histories. it ends the requirement that state and local work force investment boards include representation of work force -- workers, labor relateation, and removes much-needed funding for low-income youth, other than job corps. mr. chairman, this is not the work force investment act re-authorization that the american people expect, nor the one that congress should pass. we need one that invests in competitiveness, jobs and the growth of our manufacturing sector. we need the alternative offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. i hope my republican friends will set partisanship aside and work with us to enact legislation that helps all of our people find jobs and pursue the opportunities that make our country great. we have had some success in this congress, when we acted in a bipartisan fashion. we had it just a few days ago

on the violence against women act. but when we act in a partisan fashion we fail. and this country is sick of failure, sick of this congress' inability to work together and this is an example. a bill that has historically been passed in a bipartisan fashion comes to this floor in a very partisan fashion. what a shame. what a shame for america. what a shame for americans. what a shame for work force development. what a shame for our ability to compete and to grow and create jobs. let's pass this alternative that the gentleman from massachusetts has offered and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. tierney: mr. chair, first of all, for having the discussion on that, apparently the time was a little bit confused on that. i would ask unanimous consent that both sides be allotted an additional minute. the chair: without objection, each side may have one additional minute.

no objection being heard, so ordered. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: mr. chairman, can i now inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side? the chair: yes. the gentleman from minnesota has six minutes remaining. the gentleman from massachusetts has one minute remaining. mr. kline: i thank the chair. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the chief deputy whip, the gentleman from illinois, mr. roskam. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. roskam: i thank the gentleman for yielding and thank you. look, we were admonished a minute ago in the well of the house about the shame of things and i think we can all accept admonition that we as a congress need to do better. but part of doing better, part of creating a bipartisan bill is showing up to do the work. so, when the minority chooses to walk out of a proceeding, while that's their prerogative, it doesn't create the

environment for bipartisanship. enough said. we're also told that there's a shame in disappointment and not working and i would ashame that that shame and disappointment goes back to the previous majority, mr. chairman, who failed to do this work. now, that's living in the rearview mirror and enough of that. so the question is, how do we move forward? how do we take bipartisan or actually more importantly nonpartisan advice from the government accounting office which has looked at the status quo and made a couple of points? they said, the status quo is a failure, the status quo isn't syncing up, job creation opportunities, that is job training where the actual jobs are, or said another way, we've got a status quo that's good for job trainers but it's not good for the people that we all claim to speak for. that is those who are unemployed and need a skill. so we were also told a minute

ago that, and i think the word was a majority of those who were involved somehow are opposed to the g.o.p. plan, i'm getting data that shows that there's dozens of groups, and i'm sure it's on the work force website, that are supporting this. so here's the question. do we listen to the g.a.o., do we say we're not going to defend the status quo, we're not going to bulk up with more bureaucracy but instead in a time when everybody recognizes that resources are limited, we're going to consolidate, be smart, be clever about how we're doing things in order to get this done and i think the failure with all due respect of the democratic substitute is that it creates six new programs as opposed to consolidating and putting all of these savings i might add back into the very job training programs that we're all trying to defend. so i accept admonish where

admonish is due but i think -- admonition where admonition is due but i think we're reluctant to say there's not a bipartisan opportunity when part of being bipartisan is making sure that we show up for that opportunity. with that i urge a no vote on the substitute and a yes vote on the underlying bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. chairman. could i inquire, you have no other speakers and you have the right to close? the gentleman from massachusetts has the right to close? the chair: the gentleman from minnesota has the right to close. the chair: that is correct. mr. kline: i agree with you. it seems very unfair. but you do have the right to close. if you're the last speaker, so we'll do that. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. tierney: previous speaker i don't know if he he stayed, he talked about the environment being set. the environment for this is set

in a hyper partisan nature of the last session's presentation of the bill similar to this. the bill this time where they are giving no right to consult, showing up to participate in a so-called markup process where every vote would have been on a partisan basis. the issue is whether or not people reach across the aisle as republican friend indicated is the majority's spot to do this. it's one thing to listen, another to comprehend. g.a.o.'s report, want to listen to it being read on that, indicated there were a number of programs, only five have been eval witted. we would have begged for evaluation we never had. talked about the fact that some might have overlapped, said nothing about programs needing to be eliminated or terminated or saying they were duplicative on that. we needed to determine that. the underlying bill fails a number of reasons i stated earlier. the amendment improves that but again the best bill would have been a bill where people sat down member to member, worked out their differences and

presented to the american public and president's signature a bill that was bipartisan in nature and served both the employers and perspective employees. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for three minutes. mr. kline: i thank you, mr. chairman. interesting discussion today about what constitutes bipartisanship. i would just note for the record that when we attempted to re-authorize the work force investment act in the last congress and moved it through committee, amendments were offered by republicans and democrats, and amendments offered by republicans and democrats were included. in fact some of those democrat amendments are included in the underlying bill today. there have been accusations all morning about how the skills act is going to stop training for all sorts of people. we had various strawmen here. it was women and people with disabilities and all manner of things we were just going to shut out, but as the gentleman

from massachusetts said sometimes it's helpful to read the language. in the skills act, in the underlying bill, it insists that state and local boards put together a plan that has a description the local area and state will serve the employment and training needs, and i'm quoting, of dishe located workers including displaced homemakers, low-income individuals, including recipients of public assistance such as the supplemental nutrition assistance program, long-term unemployed individuals, including individuals who have, as youed entitlement to state and federal unemployment compensation, english learners, homeless individuals, individuals training for nontraditional employment, youth, including out of school youth and at-risk youth, older workers, ex-offenders, refugee and entrants, veterans, including disabled veterans and homeless veterans and native americans. in the bill. we believe that we have a choice

in front of us today. we brought forth a bill that says we need to address these needs with this program. simple. straightforward. allowing these people the opportunity to go and get directly the training they need. to get rid of that confusing maze. to get rid of red tape and allow people to get the training they need, including all these people. what has been proposed by the gentleman from massachusetts to address these needs is this program, the current program, minus one, and six new programs. more complicated, bigger maze, more red tape, harder to use, serves these very people poorly. colleagues vote against the gentleman's amendment and support the underlying bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota yields back his time. the question is on the amendment

offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. tierney: request a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those in favor of taking this vote by recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 192. the noes are 227. he amendment is not adopted. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute as

amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly under the rule the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 803 and pursuant to house resolution 113, reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the

committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to reform and strengthen the work force investment system of the nation to put americans back to work and make the united states more competitive in the 21st century. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will come to order. the house will be in order.

the house cannot proceed until members come to order. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. miller: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. george miller of california moves to recommit the bill h.r. 80 to the committee on education and work force with instructions to report the same forthwith to the house withle following amendment. insert after section 4 the following, section 5, protection of wages and job opportunities for seniors, veterans, women -- mr. miller: i ask unanimous consent to suspend the reading of the amendment. the motion. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to dispensing with the reading? without objection, the reading -- for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? the gentleman from minnesota objects. the clerk will read.

the clerk: with disabilities. nothing in this act or the amendments made by this act shall repeal, deny, or weaken the wages, employment protections, or training opportunities or educational benefits for the following. one, seniors who receive employment opportunities and wage protections under the older americans act of 1965 public law 89-73. two, veterans protected under the disabled veterans outreach program under section 4103-a and programs under 4104 of title 38 united states code. 3, women who receive training and other employment assistance under the women and apprenticeship and ontraditional occupations act. 4, receive employment opportunities under youth build programs, the youth conservation corps act, and any other youth training programs under the work force investment act of 1998. or five, individuals with

disabilities who are provided job opportunities under the rehabilitation act of 1973, 29 nited states code, 701et sec which ture. minimum wage, one, in general section 6-a-1 of the fair labor standards act of 1938. 29 united states code 206-a-1 is amended to read as follows. one, except as otherwise provided in this section not less than, a, $8.20 an hour beginning on the first day of the third month that begins after the date of enactment of the skills act. b, $9.15 an hour beginning one year after that first day. c, $10.10 an hour beginning two years after that first day. and d, beginning on the date that is three years after that first day and annually thereafter the amount determined by the secretary pursuant to

subsection h, two, determination based on increase in the consumer price index. section of the fair labor standards act of 1938, 29 u.s.c. 2006 is amended by adding at the end the following, h-1 each year not later than 09 days before a new minimum wage determined under section a-1-d is to take effect the secretary shall determine the minimum wage to be in effect pursuant to this subsection for the subsequent one-year period. the wage determined pursuant to this subsection for a year shall be a, not less than the amount in effect under subsection 5. -1 on the date of such determination. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. mr. kline: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to dispensing with the reading? is recognized.an mr. miller: i met a young man -- the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman will suspend. . is the gentleman oppose the to the bid? mr. miller: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. one moment. the house will be in order. the house will be in order so the gentleman may be heard. . the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. miller: mr. speaker, last week i met a young man named gregory noso. he lived in block lynn, he's married, they have a little 3 years will soon turn old. he's a pizza delivery man. he makes $7.25 an hour but he can't make ends meet. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's correct. the house is not in order. he house will come to order. he gentleman will suspend.

the gentleman may continue. as gregory told me, he can't make ends meet. if he pays one bill he can't pay another. he told me, i'm delivering food to other people all day but sometimes i need food stamps so my family can eat. when i look at the bill before us i think of gregory and a million other hardworking americans like him. the bill before us is not for him. he's low-income. under this bill he loses his priority of service. even if he wanted to train, to try to get new skills for a better job with better wages, to provide for his family, with this bill he wouldn't be able to. with this bill he shouldn't ask what it does for people like gregory but what it does to them. under the foxx bill, seniors and youth no longer have ways of protection. low-income workers no longer get a priority of service. the voices of labor and community colleges are squeezed off the work investment board and the poor and disadvantage get the shaft.

we propose this motion to do something different. so that no matter what happens with the adoption of the foxx bill, the poor will get a better shot at better jobs and those who are working and low-wage jobs will get a decent wage. this amendment raises the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. and indexes it for inflation and gives tip workers a raise for the first time in 20 years. for the first time in 20 years they will get a shot at a raise, at a decent wage for the work that they do, on waiting on other people. without an increase in years, the working poor have been falling further and further behind. while corporate profits soar, while the dow breaks new records, and while c.e.o.'s take home 380 times the wages of average workers, the lowest paid workers are falling behind. if we vote to raise the minimum wage we pump more than $32 billion into the economy. money into working people's

pockets, money into main street small businesses, money spent that demands an generates jobs. some businesses might have to pay higher wages but they'll see higher revenues thanks to higher demand. the number one complaint according to steve chase, the , not enough o.l. customers on main street because they're not earning enough money. they can't spend on main street because they're not earning enough money. that's why business owners -- that's why business owners are coming out for the raise. large businesses like the c.e.o. of costco encouraging and supporting the minimum wage. small businesses like the restaurant who came out for the minimum wage. business leaders like the c.e.o. of the u.s. women's chamber of commerce coming out for the minimum wage. in 2005 the chairman of the board of wal-mart came out for the minimum wage because like

today their customers don't have enough money to buy the necessities of life. they don't have enough money for the necessities of life. so think what this means, if they can have an increase in the minimum wage. think what this means to those individuals. over 2/3 of the people in this country support an increase to the minimum wage. a majority of self-identified republicans support an increase in the minimum wage. and we must understand that this is a pay raise for 30 million americans, half of those workers are women in this country. 88% of those workers are at least 20 years of age. and 17 million children will live in a family that will get an increase in the wages and the income to those families. 17 million children. these hardworking americans have suffered enough in the great recession. enough of the attacks on medicare, head start and now job training.

let's do something different this time. let's do something that's right. let's reward work. for people who go to work every day in very difficult jobs, sometimes very dirty jobs, sometimes very demeaning jobs and they work every day and they go home poor. at the end of the year, they end up poor. they work 52 weeks, they end up poor. they work in tough jobs, they end up poor. now's your opportunity. now yes, sir you are a your opportunity to reward -- now's your opportunity to reward work, to provide this. lease he -- let's help these individuals, let's help these families. let's raise the minimum wage. it's time for $10.10 an hour. vote yes on the final passage to vote for the minimum wage and protect seniors, protect veterans, protect low-income workers. thank you very much. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the chair would ask members not to cross the well when another member has received recognition. the chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the house and that any manifestation of approval or dess approval of proceedings or other audible conversation is in -- disapproval of proceedings or other audible conversation is in violation of the rules of the house. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. kline: seek time in opposition to the motion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is opposed to the motion? mr. kline: i am. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i always appreciate the passion of my friend and colleague, the ranking member on the education -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman will suspend. he house will be in order. the gentleman may continue. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. no doubt personal incomes have been flat in recent years and unemployment remains high.

12 million americans unemployed , some 22 million americans underemployed. unemployment among youth is extraordinarily high. people trying to get into the work force and they can't get in. we need jobs out there. the best approach right now is to get federal spending under control and government out of the way of the nation's job creators. republicans are always willing to discuss responsible proposals that will promote economic growth and help people get to work. since the motion to recommit would force this committee to advance a proposal that may hurt workers and job creators, increase unemployment, i urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion, yes on the underlying bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. miller: mr. speaker, on that i ask the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage of the bill if ordered and approval of the journal if ordered. this is a pive minute d vote. -- this is a five-minute vote.

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

the speaker pro tempore:on on this vote the yeas are 184. the nays are 233. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from california.

mr. miller: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 215. the nays are 202. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question of agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the journal stands approved.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following message. the clerk: to the congress of the united states, this year's economic report of the president describes the progress we have made recovering from the worst economic crisis since the great depression. after years of grueling recession, our businesses have created over six million new jobs. as a nation, we now buy more american cars than we have in five years and less foreign oil than we have in 20 years. our housing market is healing and consumers' patience and homeowners enjoy stronger protections than ever before. but there are still millions of americans whose hard work and dedication have not been

rewarded. our economy is adding jobs but too many of our fellow citizens still can't find full-time employment. corporate profits have reached all-time highs, but for more than a decade, wages and incomes for americans have not budget. we need to grow our economy and create good middle-class jobs. that has to be our north star. that has to drive every decision we make in washington. every day we should ask ourselves three questions -- how do we attract more jobs to our shores? how do we equip our people with the skills needed to do those jobs? and how do we make sure that hard work leads to a decent living? we can begin by making america a magnet for new jobs and manufacturing. after shutting jobs for more than a decade, our manufacturers have added about half million new jobs over the past three years. we need to accelerate that trend by launching more manufacturing hubs that hits to global centers of high-tech

jobs and manufacturing. these steps will help entrepreneurs and small business owners expand and create jobs. but we also need to provide every american with the skills and training they need to fill those jobs. we also need to reward hard work and declare that no one who works full time should have to live in poverty by raising the minimum wage so that it's a wage you can live on, and it's time to harness the talents and ingenuity of hardworking immigrants by finally passing commonsense immigration reform, continuing to strengthen border security, holding employers accountable, establishing a responsible path to earned citizenship, reuniting families and attracting highly skilled entrepreneurs, engineers and scientists that will help create jobs. over the last few years, both parties have worked together to reduce the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion which puts us more than halfway towards the goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction that economists say we need to stabilize our finances.

most americans, democrats, republicans and independents, understand that we just can't cut our way to prosperity. that's why i put forward a balanced approach to deficit reduction that makes responsible reforms to bring down the cost of health care for an aging generation. the single biggest driver of our long-term debt and save hundreds of billions of dollars by getting rid of tax loopholes and deductions for the well-off and well connected. the american people don't expect their government to solve every problem. they don't expect those of us in washington to agree on every issue but they do expect us to put the nation's interests before the party interests. they do expect us to forge reasonable compromise where we can. our work will not be easy, but america only moves forward when we do so together, when we accept certain obligations to one another and to future generations. that's the american story. that's how we will write the next great chapter together. signed, barack obama, the white house.

the speaker pro tempore: referred to the joint economic committee and ordered printed. the chair announces the speaker's appointment pursuant to section 4-b of the centennial commission act, public law 112-272, in the order of the house of january 3, 2013, of the following individual on the part of the house to the world war i centennial commission. the clerk: mr. ted poe of humble, texas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the speaker's appointment pursuant to section 313 of the legislative branch appropriations act, 2001, 2- usc, as amended by section 1601 of public law 111-68 and the order of the house of january 3, 2013, the following member on the part of the house to the

board of trustees of the open world leadership center. the clerk: mr. fortenberry of ebraska. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute for the purposes of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i yield to my friend, the majority leader, mr. cantor, of virginia. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, for yielding. mr. speaker, on monday the house will meet at noon for morning hour, and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m.. on tuesday and wednesday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. on thursday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative

business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. on friday no votes are expected. mr. speaker, the house will consider a few suspensions on monday, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business today. in addition we'll take up an expected senate amendment to the house's continued resolution, ensuring that the federal government remains funded beyond march 27. we'll also consider resolution providing for the funding of the house's committees. this is a responsible resolution that makes tough choices and abides by sequestration. finally, mr. speaker, the republican house will consider and pass a budget resolution on time for a third consecutive year. the republican plan put forward by chairman paul ryan in the budget committee will increase economic growth and job creation, cut wasteful government spending and strengthen our entitle am programs -- entitlement programs. and for first time in recent memory, the house's budget will

balance in 10 years. before i yield back, i'd like to acknowledge the launch of the house's historians' new website, the house and selma, bridging history and memories. this important historical record is now available for the public to explore at history.house.gov. it will soon include oral testimonies from members of congress like john lewis, describing their role and contributions to the civil rights movement. i was proud to join congressman john lewis, congresswoman terri sewell, and martha roby, as well as others and the gentleman as well in that trip to selma and montgomery this year, but those particular who were active and involved in the unveiling of this project, i look forward to its growth in the years to come. i thank the gentleman from maryland and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. and i would remark that i was

pleased that he had the pportunity to go to selma with john lewis and others of us who had the opportunity to go to the birth place of our colleague terri sewell. congresswoman sewell is on the floor. the march from selma to montgomery, of course, which was interdicted by members of the alabama state police at the was tion of the governor one of the events, as the gentleman knows, that led to the introduction, passage and signing by president johnson of we oting rights act and are privileged to serve with someone whose contribution to this country and to its realization of its promise of equality to all was so enhanced by the life and commitment and courage of john lewis, our colleague. and i was glad that the gentleman participated with us

on that. i also am very pleased to hear about the website. i think that's a very positive step. and i want to thank the gentleman also for the information about next week. mr. leader, i'd first like to ask about the budget resolution that you referenced that will be coming next week. i wondered if there's any plan on the floor to replace the sequester which all of us seem to think is irrational, at least i think it's irrational, and most of the colleagues i talk to think it's irrational in that it is a meat axe approach. we have offered a number of times to get to the same budget savings but notwithstanding that, whether there was any thought of replacing the sequester with its cuts to high-priority and low-priority

by the same percentage to replace that. is there any plan to do that as far as you know? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i respond to the gentleman. as the gentleman knows, the c.r. and the amendments of the senate -- that the senate is working on contains within it measures dealing with certain sectors of government that prescribe for spending plans hat avoid that very blunt, indiscriminant approach that the gentleman speaks about. the gentleman knows, i agree with him, these kinds of cuts are not smart. they are indiscriminant. they save -- they cut good programs just like they cut bad programs. i don't think any of us would choose to do things that way. i look forward to working with him to see what we can do to even expand the prescription to go beyond that which is in the sequester. and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments and

that would be a positive effort i think toward that and of course if we could adopt a budget and if we could adopt appropriation bills and ways and means recommendations pursuant to such a budget, that preferred ery much option than the sequester. having said that, the budget committee marked up this week on wednesday, and i know members of the committee worked well into the night, both republicans and democrats, and i wanted to ask the gentleman, i know that normally when we bring a budget, both sides have brought a budget, which does in fact allow for substitutes, but for the most part does not allow individual amendments. now i say that because so many amendments were rejected in the committee. mr. card miss it, for example, from california, offered an amendment to protect the mortgage interest deduction for

the middle class. that amendment was voted unanimously by democrats and unanimously opposed by the republican members of the committee. mr. cicilline voted -- offered an amendment to protect workers from privatizing social security. again on a partisan vote, with democrats supporting the cicilline amendment and republicans opposing it, it was rejected. mr. jeffries from new york offered an amendment to prevent the student loan interest rate as the bling which is gentleman knows is set to occur on june 30 without our action. again unfortunately the same bipartisan vote. democrats voting for the jeffries amendment and republicans voting against it. it failed. mr. pocan of wisconsin offered an amendment to protect middle class americans from tax increases. it seems to me that we have agreement on that but nevertheless that amendment was rejected again on a bipartisan

-- on a partisan vote. with democrats voting for it and republicans voting against it. which i don't understand, kurt schrader from oregon offered a sense of congress amendment on the need for long-term balanced deficit reduction. that was also rejected on a party line basis. i could go on and mention other amendments, there were approximately 28 of them. my question to you is, mr. leader, is it possible that any of those amendments would be made in order so that the house might work its will on those propositions? and i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman, mr. speaker, and what i would say in response, as the gentleman knows it's been the tradition of the house both with republican and democratic majorities that when the budget comes to the floor there are substitutes that are offered. as the gentleman knows, the budget is a very complex and

large document and there are easy ways to perhaps distort one's intent by offering amendments and i believe and i would just venture to guess that's why the tradition is as it is. both under democratic majority and republican, which is to allow for substitutes and anticipate the very robust debate around the offering of substitutes as well as the passage of our budget next week. and i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. i would suggest that the amendments put forward do in fact express policy which of course is what the budget does. and those policies are pretty straightforward in terms of not raising taxes on the middle class, on making sure that students don't have to pay higher interests for their loans and making sure that we do in fact proceed with a comprehensive agreement not

only to replace the sequester but to, in a bipartisan way, get us on a road to fiscal sustainability. regrettably as i think the gentleman probably knows, most budgets are usually partisan documents, whether they're offered by democrats or republicans. i understand that. rarely have we been in the position that we now find ourselves in, however. rarely have i experienced in the 32 years i've been here, if ever, the fiscal crisises that occur on such a regular basis here. the public, i think the economy, i think the business community and indeed the international community is hoping that we get on a solid path. the gentleman mentioned that the budget was a complex document. i think that that's a fair statement. but unfortunately the budget that has been proposed, which

the gentleman is very pleased to say balances within 10 years, unfortunately doesn't tell us how it's going to do so. it is in fact filled with conclusions but not with policies to get us to that end. in fact, dana millback of "the washington post," i think you probably read this, so many blanks in the ryan budget that it could be a mad lib's exercise which i is a children's book that -- which i understand is a children's book that has a couple of sentences and the rest is fill-in the-the blanks. this of course is not a game. it's black box budgeting in my opinion and lowesty aims which is that we balance in 10 years. if there were no democrats in the congress of the united states, i tell my friend with all due respect, if there were no democrats in the congress of the united states, in my view you could not implement the

ryan budget. you couldn't get appropriation bills passed and you could not pass a ways and means tax provision that would meet the requirements of the ryan budget. and in addition to that, will leader, you and i both -- mr. leader, you and i both know we voted over 30 times to repeal the affordable care act. that's not going to happen. and if we want to do something in a bipartisan fashion, if we want to get to an end here, we ought to stop pretending that we're going to repeal the affordable care act. we had an election about that. we won. the president won. very frankly, even in the house there were more people voted for democrats than voted for republicans for the house of representatives. having said that, you're in charge, that's the law. and you won fair and square. but having said that, we're

going to need to get to an agreement. i would hope that, as we deal with the budget, and i will oppose the ryan budget, i think the ryan budget's unrealistic, i think the ryan budget will not possibly be able to balance within 10 years, i wish we could. but if we do that we're going to badly damage the economy that the gentleman talks about. we're going to undermine the creation of jobs. i don't say that. c.b.o. says that. c.b.o. says the sequester itself is going to cost us 750,000 to a million jobs. the ryan budget, if adopted, would cost us over two million jobs. so i'm hopeful that as we consider the budget and my expectation is that your budget will probably pass this house, but my hope is and urging, mr. leader, is that we deal with this budget. i don't know whether the murray budget's going to pass or not through the senate, i hope they

pass some alternative. not because the budget for pay bill passed which i think was a terrible bill to put on this floor and a terrible bill to pass. i think it sets a terrible precedent about you got to pass something or you don't get paid. that's not what our democracy is about. people voting their conscience is what our democracy ought to be about, not whether or not they get paid. but in any event, mr. leader, i'm hopeful that in fact we can get to, in some form or fashion or another, a budget, an appropriation bills and a bill that can be signed by -- and a ways and means bill that can be signed by the president, passed by the senate, passed by this house so we can get our country on a fiscally sustainable path. and i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i appreciate the gentleman and his sentiments and wanting to try to work together and as he knows, i have always held the position that there are going to be differences in this house and i hear the gentleman saying he doesn't want to support the

ryan budget. that's why we're going to have debate on his party's alternative budget. i agree with the gentleman, we ought to agree on some type of resolution. the best way forward to do that, mr. speaker, in my mind is to be able to set the differences aside. there are big differences on health care. we believe that obamacare is not good for this country, not good for health care, and we're going to continue to advocate that position because unfortunately what we're going to see is a continuing increase in costs, rate shock that would come into play over the next year whereas more and more of the american people are going to realize this is going to be a very expensive endeavor with a big question mark as to whether the quality of health care is going to stay the same or will stagnate and become worse. that question's still unanswered. we believe very strongly in our

position it ought to be patient-centered care. we ought not have this board of 15 unelected bureaucrats who deny or cut care for our seniors. the gentleman knows we disagree strongly on health care. we disagree strongly on taxes. yeah, we don't want to raise taxes. we just had a huge tax increase in the beginning of the year. we don't think you ought to be raising taxes in this town every quarter, but every time we hear from the president -- because we heard and he was nice enough to come and visit our conference this week -- we heard yet again the cry for more taxes. we saw an introduction of the murray budget in the senate. $1 trillion of more taxes to try and say that the american people are going to be benefited by that kind of tax levy i think is something we take strong exception with. but the gentleman's right, we can agree on some things. let's go find where we can

agree, and i look forward to doing the things that we can do together, like extending the welfare reforms that we did this week, like making sure that we also do the things we did today on the floor without much help from the other side. and that is, mr. speaker, try and put some good government practices into place. that skills act was a -- it came from a recommendation of the g.a.o. and said you got 50 programs, a maze of bureaucracy, unemployed people have a very difficult time of even beginning to navigate that maze if they want skills to get back to work. that was the essence behind the bill. and we also said you need some flexibility. take people and put them back to work, so get the community colleges and the other training forces in place to respond to the marketplace where they're opening -- job openings. not some micromanaged idea of what that should be from

washington. i think we can agree on some kind of commonsense principles like that. so, again, i appreciate the sentiment of the gentleman, look forward to working with him on some of the big challenges we face as well as those issues that working families face every single day. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments. mr. speaker, the majority leader says his side is against the affordable care act. he said that regularly since it was first considered. he said they're against revenues. mr. speaker, he said that repeatedly. the majority party has said that repeatedly. of course, pursuant to the republican tax bill of 2001 and 2003, rates went up on january 1. it went up substantially. you could look at it half full or half empty. the gentleman looks at it as we increase $600 billion in taxes,

actually taxes would propose $4 trillion had the tax law that was in effect at that time stayed in effect. the gentleman knows that so you can look at it as a tax increase or tax decrease ensuring that middle-class taxpayers didn't get an increase. the american people, of course, 80% of them say what we did was the right thing. now, we had an election and the gentleman's position did not prevail in that election, but we are still hoist on the pitard of saying we disagree, do it our way or the highway. the gentleman mentions the skills act. i wish we had an opportunity. we need to make the programs more focused, more effective and the gentleman's absolutely right on that. gave unately the majority no ability to have bipartisan input into that bill and so its

prospects for passage are almost minimal. .aybe nil so that the gentleman continues in my view partly keep us in this gridlock. we understand your position. you understand our position. we ought to get off our positions. the only way democracy's going to work is if we come to an agreement and simply restating what i know to be your position or me to restate i know what my position is, we've already come i think pretty far way towards your position in trying to reduce spending. about $1 trillion worth, which by the way, your budget takes credit for. we have a baseline that's been reduced because of the revenues that are in the affordable care act, which you take credit for. you take credit for the $715 billion in your budget while repealing the affordable care act, but you take credit for

the $715 billion that reduced the baseline so that on the one hand you want to say i'm against this, on the other hand you want to use the revenue that it produced or the baseline that it reduced. so i would hope -- we have the same debate every week. it doesn't get us anywhere. the american people are upset with us. they ought to be. i tell the press 10% of the people think we're doing ok. they're wrong. we're not doing ok. and our country as a result is not having the kind of success in growing jobs that it ought to have. now, let me ask you -- because i don't think you're going to change my mind or i'm going to change yours right now -- mr. cantor: if the gentleman will yield? mr. hoyer: i'll yield. mr. cantor: just responding to the gentleman's allegations as there wasn't an open process with regard to passage of the skills act, the gentleman's members, the members of the minority walked out on the committee markup. now, if you can't show up for

work, how are you going to participate in the markup in shaping of a bill? and the committee process was fair. it was open. there was hearings. there was a markup. and the gentleman's members on the minority side chose not to participate. now, if you're asking what the american people expect, i think they expect there's going to be disagreement but i think they expect everybody to show up for work, and that didn't happen. so, you know, i say to the gentleman, we continue and i and he has my commitment. he knows that. to work together, to have an open process. our speaker has continued to uphold that as a goal, so i hope we can sort of resolve that lingering question, especially around this bill. the skills act is something we all should have agreed on. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i wish i had the figures in front of me and i don't, but it's my understanding the skills act was introduced february 25,

marked up shortly thereafter. there may have been hearings in the last -- last year when the skills act was passed on bipartisan vote. the reasons the members walked out was because they didn't believe they were given an opportunity to interface. but i don't have the facts strongly as i ought to have them, but i believe the proximity of introduction, markup was very, very close and therefore the opportunity and the inclination of the committee to engage in a bipartisan discussion of what the bill ought to look like which should have been a bipartisan bill was not there but let me get my facts straight so we can discuss that perhaps a little further at some point. april schedule, mr. chairman -- i mean, mr. leader. mr. speaker, if the majority leader could give us some information on the april schedule as we go forward. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i'd be delighted to respond to the gentleman's request. just to give you a general idea

of the kind of things that we'll be considering upcoming. we look to consider some cybersecurity legislation that will result from the work of multiple committees. the gentleman knows as well as i that we face a very serious threat in the cybersecurity arena. we want to take action as a house. we want to take bipartisan action and look forward to working with him on that. we're also going toiking up the working families flex -- taking up the working families flexibility act. this will provide working moms and dads with flexibility as they try and manage their obligations at work and at home. we also are going to be looking at taking up some measures in the area of health care and innovation and pursue an agenda that focuses on medical research. i know the gentleman has been a on of that and we -- champion of that and we want to

promise the devotion of resources to medical research, to curing disease and to developing therapies that increase and enhance the quality of life for so many americans who are afflicted by disease. we'll be working on that. we'll also be looking at some legislation in the area of domestic energy production that will lead to more jobs, that will lead to more energy independence for america. these are the kinds of things that we look to in april, mr. speaker, and i would tell the gentleman again, look forward to working with him in an open process, in a bipartisan fashion. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. now, we'll be ending now, but i know you have an extraordinarily able assistant sitting to your right who advises you on issues of great importance to our country. the gentleman to my right does the same thing for me. the gentleman to my right went to wake forest.

maryland played wake forest last night. and i hope as we play duke tonight that we are equally successful, mr. nevins, who is a graduate of duke, it will be a little tougher game than wake forest, i understand, but we look forward to trying to be successful in that effort. kyle nevins is a wonderful member of the majority leader's staff. he worked for my dear and close friend, roy blunt, for some period of time, and he began working for mr. cantor in 2008 as his floor director, and he's been a really delight to work with and i know mr. burns and my floor staff all appreciate all the work he's done. and while i want to be very atuesdayive today, i want him -- afusiv today, i want him to know that i will be rooting against duke when they play maryland and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet on monday next when it shall convene at noon for morn hour debate and -- morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute peeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, durable medical equipment supplier recently sued the u.s. department of health and human services over medicare's competitive bidding program. in february, the judge dismissed the case stating the supplier had no jurisdiction because congress prohibited judicial review of the program in 2003. the court was, and i quote, stated deeply concerned about

the unjust consequences of its order. so concerned the court was compelled to issue a memorandum from the full opinion. all citizens are entitled to equal justice under law by the right to receive medically necessary treatment. the extent that a civilized society is measured which it protects its most vulnerable members, it has failed today. congress has the benefit to ensure c.m.s. is transparent and the comparative bidding program doesn't prevent access to these critical services. i will not be complacent, mr. speaker, and this body should not be content with the culture of insecurity by providers and the vulnerable population they serve. the american people deserve better and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition?

without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i pay tribute today to dr. deana stallings, a professor of forensics at riverside community college, beloved by her students and whose passing my community mourns deeply. mr. takano: this sunday my community will join together to celebrate her life which was devoted to teaching the art of persuasive speaking. dr. stallings achieved national recognition during her 26-year career at r.c.c. directing the forensics and debate programs. she was the first woman to be named a full professor at r.c.c. and in the 1960's and 1970's she coached teams that won national competition. after retiring, dr. stallings continued a deep involvement with friends of forensics, a group she founded to promote speaking activities for students from kindergarten through 12th

grade. mr. speaker, we count ourselves fortunate to have had dr. stallings as a leader within our community, her commitment to faith, family, and forensics has left a profound impact on the -- our nation. as dr. stallings said herself, you measure yourself by the service you give to others. let us measure up to her legacy in both our service to america and our democratic discourse. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. neugebauer: thank you, mr. speaker. it's the job of this congress to pass a responsible budget that protects our seniors and the future for generations to come. the same future you and i enjoy today. like goldielocks, the american people have three choices. we have the senate democratic

plan which raises taxes, increases spending, and never balances. that's too much government. then we have the president's plan -- no, wait. we don't have the president's plan yet although it was due last month. he keeps talking about a balanced approach, but he leaves out one key component in his budget. it doesn't actually balance. that's not governing at all. finally we have the house republican plan which takes a balanced approach to deficit reduction and job growth. a balanced budget isn't some fairy tale, it's not just another washington talking point. it offers reresults for the american people. it will grow our economy, it will create five million new jobs and increase the median income for americans to over $80,000. the republicans are offering a better way to move forward and i think the american people will find this proposal is just right. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition?

without objection, the gentleman s recognized for one minute. mr. waxman: we have come a long way over the last four years for clean renewable energy, like wind and solar, and the new tailpipe standards for automobiles will double the fuel efficiency of our passenger vehicles. still there's much that needs to be done. study after study has shown that the effects of climate change are occurring sooner and with greater effect than expected. superstorm sandy, the devastating drought that hurt farmers in the midwest, last summer's heat waves, and forest fires. scientists tell us that these are signs of climate change and it's going to get worse if we don't act to address it. over the last two years the united states has experienced 25

weather disasters that have caused more than $180 billion in damage. it's time to get serious about clean energy, the consequences are too grave to do otherwise. yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, this week senate democrats introduced a budget that will never balance. ever. but it does raise taxes by $1 trillion. that will be helpful to working families. the good news is next week we'll have an opportunity to consider the house budget proposal which properly addresses the spending problem and makes commonsense reforms in order to pay down our debt. now keeping with the committee's theme of balancing the budget within 10 years, i have introduced my own balanced budget amendment, house joint resolution 36, which also balances within 10 years.

we don't want to balance the budget on the backs of taxpayers. that's why we require a 3/5 majority to raise revenue and the debt limit. it also requires agencies and departments to justify their funding. now, we are living in modern times so it allows to be waived during times of war, military conflict, and during natural disasters. mr. perryon 49 states, including pennsylvania where i live, do this. single moms, families, cops on the beat, working folks do it, and washington should do it, too. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from alabama seek recognition? ms. sewell: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. sewell: i rise to speak against the ryan budget. mr. speaker, here we go again. another house republican budget filled with the same gimmick and fuzzy math that the american people resoundly rejected last fall during the presidential election.

it's another budget that slashes critical economic investments, undermines job growth, and attempts to reduce the deficit on the backs of our seniors, the disabled, women, and low-income families. we cannot pass this budget. just like we could not pass it last year. it increases tax breaks for the wealthiest americans at the expense of the middle class. on average $2,000 more in taxes will be charged to the middle class. this budget also does nothing to replace the arbitrary and irrational cuts of the sequester , and as a result, 750,000 jobs will be lost this year alone. the republican budget would end medicare as we know it, and force alabama seniors to pay more for health care. it will reopen the doughnut hole and 48,264 alabama seniors will

have to pay more for prescription drugs. this budget also cuts $6.2 billion in health care. mr. speaker, the american people deserve more. we can't allow our republican leadership to continue to try to give streaks to the wealthy at the expense of the middle class -- tax breaks to the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to urge my colleagues to support the cross border trade enhancement act, a bipartisan bill introduced this week that will create jobs and facilitate trade at no cost to the federal government. trade between the u.s. and mexico has grown by 600% in 1990 and continues to increase each year. 100,000 jobs in el paso, texas,

and six million nationwide depend on this trade. unfortunately capacity at our ports of entry have not kept pace. despite increased staffing and use of technology, waits at our ports are unpredictable and unacceptably long. mr. o'rourke: this bill will help us solve this problem. by authorizing public-private partnerships, this legislation would provide customs and border control effective new tools to improve infrastructure, ban capacity, and increase staffing at our ports of entry without new costs to u.s. taxpayers. at a time of heightened partisanship, this legislation is proof that when democrats and republicans work together we can advance commonsense ideas that can create jobs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. cohen: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. he cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. -- mr. cohen: thank you, mr.

speaker. the ryan budget, words of the great republican president, the republicans like to remember, there they go again. the same budget. it's catering to the wealthy. it's cutting the middle class. it's reducing the top tax breaks to 25% which will give the wealthiest $200,000 a piece in tax breaks. it continues the sequestration, a stupid meat ax approach to our budget that cuts $1.6 billion from the national institute of health. anybody there, out there, mr. speaker, have cancer? heart disease? thinking about some relatives that might have alzheimer's? aids? diabetes? cures and treatments come from the national institute of health and you're not going to get them if they cut $1.8 billion out of it. and that savings, those cures, and that treatment, the cures and treatment will benefit the next generation more than this

generation, and that's what we should be doing is investing there, and this foolish meat ax approach is to be continued with the ryan budget and cost us lives, stop us from being a leader in research and innovation. we need to have a smart budget and preserve our human infrastructure. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise to comment about the budget introduced this week by republican budget chairman paul ryan. the first thing we notice about this budget is that it is nothing more than a tiresome

rehash of the right-wing wish list. mr. cart write: i call it a tiresome rehash because we already know that representative ryan doesn't like ensuring that all americans have access to affordable health care. we remember he doesn't like allowing coverage for pre-existing conditions. we understand that he doesn't like closing the medicare part d loophole -- doughnut hole for seniors. we are acquainted with his dislike for granting preventive health care services to women. we already know that he wants to turn medicare into a lousy voucher system that costs seniors thousands of dollars extra every year for their health care whether they have it or not, and we already know that the american public rejects the position as it did in the last election. mr. speaker, i ask can we not at

long last move on? yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house sundry communications. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the u.s. district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed, sincerely, ted poe, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house

of representatives. sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the u.s. -- united states district court for the eastern district of california purr for thing to -- purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed, sincerely, bob goodlatte, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with

a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed, sincerely, mr. labrador, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir. this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have been received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined that under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly i i tend to move to quash the subpoena, signed

sincerely, lamar smith, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed sincerely, george holding, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally ruent to rule 8 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives that i have been issued a subpoena for the eastern district of california

purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed sincerely, trent franks, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house.

accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. igned sincerely, keith rothfus, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed sincerely, michele bachmann, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena

issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed sincerely, steve chabot, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that

it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed sincerely, ron desantis, member of the congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed sincerely, blake farenthold, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally

pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the system. signed sincerely, spencer bachus, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i

have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed sincerely, joe heck, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined that under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed sincerely, louie

gohmert, member of the congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined under rule 8 the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed sincerely, jim jordan, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in

connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed sincerely, jim sensenbrenner, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena.

signed sincerely, doug collins, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed sincerely, mike conaway, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern

district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed sincerely, john campbell, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the

privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed sincerely, darrell issa, member of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed sincerely, randy forbes, ember of congress. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have received a subpoena

issued by the united states district court for the eastern district of california purporting to require certain responses to a questionnaire in connection with a civil case. after consultation with the office of general counsel, i have determined under rule 8 that the subpoena seeks information that is not material and relevant and that it is not consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. accordingly, i intend to move to quash the subpoena. signed sincerely, tray gowdy, member of -- trey gowdy, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. woodall: i thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the majority leader for allowing me to utilize the time today.

mr. speaker, you know, a lot of folks as votes have finished for the day and headed for their flights back home and i know folks are in their offices trying to finish up work, i appreciate you being here because what we heard when we haven't been debating the skills act, that fantastic bill that consolidates so many important job training programs from the multiple duplicative programs that we have today down into a few effective targeted programs, when we haven't been talking about that important work today, folks have been taking shots at the budget process. i'm a member of the budget committee, mr. speaker. in fact, i'm the chairman of the budget subcommittee on the rules committee, budget and legislative process, and i believe that what we do here with the budget is so important. i know my colleagues who will be debating this next week share that same view. i brought with me, mr. speaker, a copy of the path to prosperity, a responsible balanced budget.

this is the budget that we produced in the budget committee. we went from about 10:00 a.m. on wednesday through almost midnight, we took every amendment that folks had to offer, we took a vote on every topic that folks wanted to consider and we produced a responsible budget that deals with the fact that spending is the problem. i heard my colleagues, mr. speaker, offer over and over again today -- over and over again today on the other side of the aisle talk in terms of heartlessness, of callousness, talking in terms of the production of this budget in a way that does not reflect american values. i tell you that's just patently false which is why i had to come down and speak to it this afternoon, mr. speaker. . what i have here is a chart that shows taxes. it begins in 2006 and runs out to 2041. it shows taxes as a percent of the size of the economy. population grows, inflation

devalues our currency. the quan tating values, different topic for different day, but we measured it in terms of size of the economy. what our burden of taxation is. historically that burden of taxation has been about 18.1%. we had a dip in the recession ack in 2009, 2010. down below historical new orleans. when we talk about that -- norms. when we talk about it here on the floor of the house, moderates, liberals, conservatives, republicans, democrats, everyone agrees we need revenue at historical levels to fund the historical obligations of the government. here's the thing, mr. speaker. you look out from -- here we are in 2013 on out across the verizon as far as the eye can see, you see a level funding of our tax burden. you then here in this blue line

see so a graphical representation of every single tax increase that the res. proposed. hear that. because so often on the floor of the house, mr. speaker, we talk about spending reductions on one side of the aisle and tax increases on the other side of the aisle. this blue line represents every single tax increase proposed by the president of the united states. so we have all the taxes we have today. we have all the taxes the blue line proposed by the president. then in the red line we have a reflection of the promises that this congress has made to the american people and future generations in terms of spending. now, again, mr. speaker, green represents historical taxes. blue represents all the taxes imagined by the president of the united states and the red represents the spending that is flooding the town of washington,

d.c. spending is the problem, mr. speaker. if we took everything from everybody, if you and i got together with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and we decided we needed a 100% tax on everything that everyone in america has or will have, and we took it all, we still couldn't fund to this red line. there is no level of taxation -- this is 40% of the economy we are talking about here, mr. speaker. there is no level of taxation that we could have that could pay for the spending promises we have already made. and there are some on the floor of this house who want to make new promises tomorrow and the next day and the day after that. it's not a function of where our priorities are in terms of taking care of one another as americans. we share that priority. it is a function of whether or not we can afford to do it all from washington, d.c., and we can't. spending is the problem, mr. speaker. this is #spendingistheproblem

you will a see that trending on twitter as folks come to the realization that we can't tax our way out of this circumstance. what do we do in the budget committee, mr. speaker? what did we do for 12 hours on wednesday and months and months of preparation? this is one of my favorite charts, mr. speaker. it's a chart that tracks the deficits. sometimes we get confused as we are talking about it, mr. speaker. the deficit is what you're adding to your credit card each year. the debt is what that total balance on the credit card is. this is a reflection of what we are adding to the credit card each year and what you see, mr. speaker, is a dramatic reduction in those deficits in 2013, 2014, and 2015. let me tell you why. you're part of this new freshman class, mr. speaker, i'm part of the freshman class that came in two years ago, and we have a natural suspicion of all these wonderful plans in washington that they are laid out over a 10-year time frame we say, oh

goodness, out there in years eight, nine, 10 we are going to do these wonderful and difficult things, but today here's one, two, three, what we are going to do is raise your taxes to get there. if i make a promise to you about what i'm going to do in year 10, you need to be suspicious, you need to ask me what i'm going to do between now and the next election, now and the next opportunity to vote me out of office if i make the wrong decisions. what you see reflected here, the red line representing current law, you see the path that current law has our deficits on. folks say that looks good. we are headed straight down. looks like congress is doing a lot of work. yes and no. we are headed down. we are headed down from record deficits begun in the obama administration. record deficits, deficits four times higher than the worst deficit ever experienced in the bush administration. bush administration was the former record holder for the most deficit spending in this country. president obama dwarfs that and

goes four times higher. i came into this freshman class, mr. speaker, freshman class of almost 100 folks on both sides of the aisle who he decided that to run for congress because they wanted to solve problems. they didn't want to talk about who to blame, they wanted to talk about how they could solve the problems. we got together over the last two years and we turned the corner on those rising deficits, begin to bring deficits back down. but when these tools that we have been able to put in place, mr. speaker, expire, those deficits start heading right back up under current law. what can we do about it? we can change the way we do business in washington, d.c. which is what we did in the budget that we passed out of the budget committee, the budget that's going to be on the floor of the house next week. as you see represented by this greenline, mr. speaker, we go from the record setting deficit a 010 and 2011 down to budget that balances for the

first time since the clinton administration. first time since bill clinton and newt gingrich, republicans and democrats, came together on the floor of this house to balance budget. the first time in about 15 years. we are doing that, mr. speaker. we are not doing it out in year 10. this budget, mr. speaker, that i'm so proud of that has just a small part in helping to craft, it begin the tough decisions today. because we don't need to make promises about how we are going to fix things 10 years from now. we have certainty about how difficult things will be 10 years from now. we need to fix those things today. every day we put it off, it gets harder. but we are having a tough time finding agreement, mr. speaker. and i don't mean agreement on how to reduce the deficit. i don't mean an agreement on how to eliminate the debt. i mean an agreement on whether or not the debt in fact needs to

be eliminated. now, at the end of this presentation, mr. speaker, i'm going to get to why this is important. this is not a mathematical exercise. this is not a green eyeshade exercise. this is an exercise that impacts the quality of life of every single family in america. every child growing up in america today is going to have their opportunities curtailed by the debt that their parent and grandparents are leaving to them if we fail to act today. a debt that is growing faster and faster and faster. this isn't about numbers. this is about real lives and real opportunity, but i want to talk about the numbers before we get to the real lives, the real opportunities because i want you to understand the magnitude of the challenge. this is world war ii, mr. speaker. this is a chart that reflects the debt. the debt held by the public. in world war ii when we were fighting for freedom around the globe, when literally the future of the world hung in the balance , we borrowed an amount of money

there to for unheard of in america. just over, in fact, 100% the size of economy america borrowed to win freedom around the globe. we began to pay that back, of course. and over the years that debt became lower and lower and lower and lower. here you see the spike in modern times, mr. speaker. that spike in the end of the bush years, beginning of the bow bama years, running on -- obama years running on today and you see the red line that projects the current path of debt. if we do nothing. folks often tell me back home, mr. speaker, congressman why don't you shut the government down and save some money? i have some bad news. if we close the congress today, if we locked the doors to the white house this afternoon, if the congress and the president never passed another law, never made another promise, this red line represents the promises we

have already made. this red line isn't what happens if we act poorly. this red line is what happens if we fail to act at all. it takes affirmative action in order to bring that debt crisis down. look at the green space, mr. speaker. that's the path to prosperity. remember this chart represents debt. debt. not the deficit when you try to bring a budget to balance, but the debt that we are trying to pay back when you bring a budget to balance, when you create a surplus and use that surplus to pay back the folks from whom you borrowed. the path to prosperity, this budget, mr. speaker, that we have crafted in the budget committee, that i hope this house will pass next week, puts america on track not just to eliminate annual deficits. not just to end the increase of in federal illion debt, but to begin to pay that debt down so that we owe the

world zero. zero. balancing the budget is not an exercise in and of itself. balancing the budget is what has to happen first so that you can pay back the folks from whom you borrowed. we take debt down to zero. this is what the president said. sunday morning television. abc's george stephanopoulos, march 15 of this year. we don't have an immediate crisis in terms of debt. in fact, for the next 10 years it's going to be in a sustainable place. here it is, mr. speaker. that red line you see rocketing towards the top of the page, it doesn't actually end up here, i just ran out of ink, mr. speaker, that red line continues off the chart in perpetuity. this is what the president calls a sustainable place.

but this is what's even more important. every mom and dad in america knows this. when you're planning for your children's future, you don't begin with what you want for them today. you begin with what you want for them 10 years from now, and you begin to plan and work and save and scrimp so that it will be a reality 10 years from today. not just 10, but 20 and 30 to achieve the goals we want in the future, we have to begin today. and what the president has said -- the reason i bring this up, mr. speaker, is because when i quote the president back home, folks often think i'm being spirited. why do you say those awful things about the president? i say i'm not sayingfall things about the president. i think the president is a good man. he's got awful ideas but he's a good man. i'm telling you what his ideas are. if he were here he would tell you the very same thing. i don't need to engage in hyperbole on the floor of the house, mr. speaker, because the

president believes that we don't have a debt crisis. the president believes that it's all right if the debt continues to go higher and higher and higher forever. forever. that's not hyperbole. he would tell you that if he was standing here today. in fact, we can look at every budget the president has ever submitted. he he hasn't submitted a budget this year. he's going to go down in the record wooks as -- record books who has introduced his budget, the longest passed the legally required deadline in the history of presidents presenting a budget. that's where we are going to be today. he he has never introduced a budget that balances. but more importantly, he's never troduced a budget that stops raising the debt. not only does the president not pay back a penny of debt in any budget he's ever introduced, i don't mean a one-year window or

five years or 10 years. i mean 75-year window. he increases that debt more and more each year. he believes, again i'm not trying to say anything that he wouldn't tell you himself, mr. speaker. he believes that what our goals should be as america is not to actually pay the debt back as we try to do in our budget, taking that green line -- green line down to zero, but what our goal should be is to slow the rise of the debt below the rate of growth of our economy. what does that mean? in practical terms it means if you have a credit card, your goal should not be to pay your credit card back. in fact your goal shouldn't even be to pay the interest. what your goal should be is to make sure that as that balance on your credit card continues to rise, it rises slower than whatever your income is rising to be. here that. if your credit card balances, in fact they get higher and higher and higher, but yet if your goal

as a family is to keep that rise from going any faster, then your paycheck is rising. it's a crazy philosophy, mr. speaker. absolutely no family in america shares that philosophy. that's what the president said on george self testify. that's what he believes today. that's what he told the republican conference when we met together this week. if our plan is to balance, the president's plan says balanced approach. that means he wants tax increases and spending reduction, that's the definition of a balanced approach, but it's an approach that never balances. our friends in the senate have not passed a budget for four years, but it looks like they are at least trying this year. aapplaud them for that. this is an editorial from "the wall street journal" this morning, mr. speaker, that talks about that outline of the senate budget that was shared with america yesterday. "the wall street journal" says this -- the bill manages the

unique achievement of offering no net nondefense spending cuts and no entitlement reform worth the name, while proposing to raise $1.5 trillion in new tax revenue in such a way that would ruin the prospects for bipartisan reform. spending, mr. speaker. spending is the problem. the problem we have is spending, and what "the wall street journal" observes is that the budget that's being proposed over in the united states senate -- and again i applaud them for beginning that process. the law requires them to do it every single year. they have not done it for four. i hope they'll do it this year. we passed the no budget no peso if they don't do it they -- no ay, so if they don't do it they won't get paid. a bill with no net spending cuts, no entitlement reform, and tax increases of $1

trillion, so says "the wall street journal." democrats admit to raising taxes by $975 billion over 10 years by increasing fairness and efficiency in the tax code. ms. murray provides few details, however. the real tax increase is closer to $1.5 trillion, but because the budget owe mitts $480 billion in unspecified taxes to replace sequestration and $100 billion to offset the cost of new stimulus. new stimulus. spending, mr. speaker is the problem. the house budget puts us on a track to in the just a balanced budget within 10 years but paying back every penny of debt that we borrow from americans and the world. and the senate budget has yet to pass committee, remains to be seen if they pass it in the senate, but the proposal is to increase spending and increase

taxes. we're not up here bickering about what -- how to name a post office, mr. speaker, or whether or not we ought to meet on tuesdays or thursdays or fridays. we're up here arguing about whether the future of the republic, whether opportunity for our children and grandchildren lies in a future where we have paid back all of your debts or lies in a future where you allow those debts to rise forever. that is a legitimate discussion. only in washington. there's not a kitchen table around the country where that would be the discussion that we'd have. i read from "the wall street journal," i know there are some folks back home that says, rob, "the wall street journal," that's a conservative publication. what are the liberal publications saying? i have a copy of "the washington post" in my office. that is no conservative rag. this is what the official

editorial from "the washington post" said this morning about the senate budget. partisan in tone and complacent in substance, it scores points against republicans and reassures the party's liberal base but deepens the senators' commitment to an unsustainable policy agenda. they go on, "the washington post" says, it's on the issue of entitlements that the democrats' document really disappoints. there is literally nothing, not a word suggested of trimming social security. whether greater means testing or more realistic inflation adjustments or of disability benefits. the document's fuzzy call for $275 billion in health savings is $125 billion less than the number president obama has floated. there's plenty of excoreiation of the g.o.p. premium support plan, "the washington post"

says, but there's no explanation of how the democrats would pay for their promise, not a hint of the cost savings reforms that would extend medicare's life without embracing the g.o.p. plan. "washington post," it scores points but it deepens an unsustainable policy agenda. there's literally not a word suggested of reforming entitlements. it's less ambitious than even president obama's agenda. it excoriates the g.o.p.'s plan, but provides no explanation of a democrat alternative. and it closes with this, mr. speaker, in short this documents gives voters no reason to believe that democrats have a viable plan for or even a responsible public assessment of the country's long-term fiscal predicament. it's the "washington post" talking about the democrat plan

in the united states senate. in short, this document -- and be clear, mr. speaker, the first budget to be produced by the budget in four years, remains to be seen if they can actually produce it but at least they're suggesting they're going to produce one, and "the washington post" assessment of that plan is that this document gives voters no reason to believe that democrats have a viable plan for or even a responsible public assessment of the country's long-term fiscal predicament. mr. speaker, that's what we're talking about here. this isn't a bunch of children bickering about who gets to take home the ball. we're talking about whether or not opportunity will exist a decade, two decades, three decades from now. there's not a family in america that believes they can borrow in perpetuity without consequences. there are terrible, terrible consequences.

and let's just think -- and i'll be first to say, mr. speaker, i've been suspicious of newspaper editorials. i don't believe the newspapers always get it right. i i have a quote from the hearing that was going on yesterday. senator mike crapo is over on the senate side. he was questioning the democratic staffers who put together the budget. serving on the budget committee, mr. speaker, but what happens is budgets are very technical documents. when you craft one they take all the committee counsels and they put them in front of the table in front of the members and they get to ask the staffers who got to prepare all the complicated numbers. it's a give and take for the folks who prepared the documents. this is what senator crapo asked. whether through taxes or spending reductions that are claimed in the budget, what percentage of those are achieved in year one? this is what he said. i'm not asking whether you're raising taxes or cutting spending.

what i'm asking is, what are you doing in year one to begin immediately to put this country on the path to paying its debts? the staffer says this. committee staffer says there are spending savings in year one, but in total it's about no in the first year. it's about what? senator crapo asks. it is no in the first year because there are spending savings -- pardon me -- and spending costs. you thinking that sounds like washington double speak, mr. speaker. well, senator crapo thought so too. so i didn't understand you. it's zero in the first year? staffer says, yes, sir, on net, sir. senator crapo says, that confirms my worry. understand that. here's a budget that is increasing taxes by $1.8 rillion, increasing taxes by

1.8 trillion and changes our deficit for next year by nothing. it does not put us one dollar closer to a balanced budget. it does not put us one dollar closer to stemming the rise in debt. taxes going up in this budget by $1.8 trillion and they want to spend it all as it's coming in such that they change nothing about our fiscal condition in year one. it's one of those back loaded budget, mr. speaker, we hear so much about. it was wimpy, i think in the popeye cartoon growing up, i'd gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today. it's what's going on here. i'd gladly make the tough decisions 10 years from now if only you allow me to keep spending today. mr. speaker, that's the mentality that got us here. you can't measure budgets what they do 10 years from now. you have to measure what they're doing today.

i am not alone saying this. this is president obama. president obama in 2008, he said, adding $4 trillion to the national debt was irresponsible and unpatriotic. i want to read you the whole quote, mr. speaker. he said, the problem is it's the way the bush administration has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the bank of china in the name of our children driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents, and then number 43 added $4 trillion by his lone some. it was $5 -- lonesome. was $5 trillion added up to president bush. president bush added $4. president obama goes on, so we have nearly $9 trillion that we are going to have to pay back.

$30,000 for every man, woman and child. that's irresponsible. that's unpatriotic. president obama rightly noting that during eight years of the bush administration our federal ebt rose from $5 trillion to $9 trillion. through the first four years of the obama administration, it ose from $10.6 trillion to $16.6 trillion. $6 trillion in four years. president bush, $4 trillion in eight years. president obama calls it irresponsible and unpatriotic. the president is running up debts twice as fast. and since he has been in office has produced not one budget lan that would stop that rise.

in case you couldn't follow it, mr. speaker, i blew it up in red because i didn't want it to be missed at all. the national debt under esident obama has risen $6.1 trillion, from $10.6 trillion when he was sworn into office in january of 2009, to $16.6 trillion today. a 57% increase. it was irresponsible and unpatriotic, the president said, to increase the deficit 4 trillion over eight years. $6.1 trillion for the president over four. i say this, mr. speaker, because we're not supposed to be arguing about this. i mean, it's so frustrating. you're here in your freshman

year. i'm here just two years in the job. we didn't come here to find out who to blame. we came here to make a difference. tell me what that is. tell me what on the mandatory side of the ledger folks want to begin to reduce, mr. speaker. they want to reform what they want to do to guarantee that medicare and social security survive for another generation. i will partner with them to do it. not one budget that has saved not one dollar in five years of this white house. not even a budget plan from the senate in the last four. i don't want to tell the american people who to blame, mr. speaker. i want to tell the american people who got together and worked with one another to solve the problem, but what the president knew was a problem, a problem he called irresponsible and unpatriotic while he was running for president, he seems to have forgotten all about after getting elected president. here he is in 2009, mr.

speaker. in 2009 the president believed that a failure to control the deficit would make it harder for the economy to grow. how often have we been on the floor talking about jobs, mr. speaker? and this is the part that gets me excited. i don't mean excited because i'm happy about it, mr. speaker. i'm excited because i'm energized about it. we want to balance budgets so we can pass on a more prosperous america to our children and our grandchildren. the president knew that. he said this -- newspaper article bloomberg, february, 2009. president obama wants to reduce the deficit because he's concerned that over time federal borrowing will make it harder for the u.s. economy to grow and create jobs, said the official speaking on the condition of anonymity. you unit be anonymous about the fact that growing debt will curtail job opportunities in the future. of course we know it is. all all know that to be. every economist