jerroldepresented j nadler president obama's news conference yesterday with u.s. policy towards syria and what could signal u.s. involvement in that nation. here is the president yesterday. [video clip] >> with respect to chemical weapons, we intend to investigate thoroughly exactly what happened. obviously, in syria, you have a war zone. you have information that is filtered out, but we have to make sure that we know exactly what happened, what was the nature of the incident, what can we document, and what can

we prove. i have instructed my teams to work mostly -- closely with all countries of the region and international organ -- organizations to find out exactly whether or not this red line was crossed. at thisote without point having all the facts there me, that we know syrian government has the capacity to carry out chemical weapon attacks. inknow that there are those the syrian government who have expressed a willingness to use chemical weapons, if necessary, to protect themselves. of anyeply skeptical claim that, in fact, it was the opposition that use chemical weapons. everybody who knows the facts

of chemical weapons stockpile inside syria as well as the syrian government could abilities, i think would question those claims. i know they are floating out there right now. point is, once we establish the facts, i have made clear the use of chemical weapons is a game changer. host: in the newspaper this morning, and israel --

this is from a cnn interview -- host: i want to get your reaction and your thoughts on u.s. policy towards syria. the numbers are on your screen -- host: you can also post a comment on facebook or send a twitter. you can send an e-mail,

journal@c-span.org. the washington post, obama warns syria on chemical arms -- host: the british-based syrian observatory --

intelligence reports in

december -- host: this is from the washington post this morning. thomas in chicago, what are your thoughts about the u.s. policy towards syria? did morning. i want to give a brief this honorable mention to obama yesterday in the news conference, the way they in tryingreporters, to ask questions other than the ones they had scripted. i am of asyria, strong and intense and firm believer in the precept that the united states is a definitely

in a position to lead along with other nations. a long with that, i am a strong believer in the strongest policies that the world leader, the united states, and have regarding preventing and putting an end to chemical warfare in -- to get ourally to not be right and hypocritical and be doing the same thing and claimed others should not be doing it. host: thank you. caller: let me finish. and drugfood administration, and epa, our corporations are putting more

chemicals into our environment and into our food, making us sick. chemicals are chemicals. we have got to get our own -- this is democrats in indiana. caller: good morning. thank you for having me on. with president obama going to israel, the point i don't get still, what about the palestinians? is a separateic topic. this is u.s. policy towards syria. what do you think should be u.s. policy towards syria? caller: right now, i don't think we should be the police of the world. --should work to resolve this is an internal issue in syria. if he goes over the border, we should look into it. but we should deal not by ourselves but through other nations, the other arab nations.

that is what they are there for. i am not quick about sending our troops to get killed and another war again. here john is a republican in the suburbs and alexandra, virginia. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. in regard to u.s. involvement in the commander testified to the senate last week or two is toogo that it propagated, the situation in we don't terms of truly understand who the resistance is. i heard from folks speaking this one regarding group specifically is in line with u.s. policy or this group is in line with u.s. values. there is no way that anybody could say that and have any

degree of confidence or 100% confidence in making that statement. that turned out to be a hoax. unless we have some really solid fidelity as to what we're ,oing and who we are supporting i would say we should not get involved. the second point i would like to make, if we look at u.s. history, the british and french were interested in blake -- breaking the blockade in north and south in the civil war because they were unable to get cotton exports from the south. of whatuick analysis would have happened, but troops in and either tilted the balance in the civil war or even if it did not tilt the balance, they got involved in the civil war,

how different would u.s. history being, how different would our relations be with europeans at this time? that is something we need to consider as well. host: that is john in virginia. here is a twitter comments --

host: rick is an independent in ohio. u.s. policy towards syria. caller: to understand what is going on, we have to go to back to 1965. , we signed an agreement with saudi arabia. from that day forward, all oil will be traded in american dollars. 65 the americans backed israel. transportd a way to the oil from the middle east. host: tie that in very quickly to syria. 40 years later, world war iii is the united states and israel. they are getting ready to take

on the chinese and the russians. who is going to control oil? here in ohio, we have something called fracking. because of dick cheney, we have these policy where we have to pull natural gas out of the ground and then they're going to have to liquefy it and said all over the world. now you're going to get in world .ar iii just like in iraq now, the next war is going to be israel and the united states versus china. in center,is cindy alabama, democrat line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i can understand the hesitance of the president about going into syria. i mean, we are just pulling out , and we afghanistan

are so far in debt. we can affordw another war. this thing looks to be more propagated in iraq or afghanistan ever could be -- more complicated. it needse need to -- to be in conjunction with other countries so that we don't take the burden for this, you know. haveries are going to civil war. they're going to have -- we can't police the entire world and fix everybody's problems. we have so many here in our country. we can't even get a budget going. aboutd to really think this before we get too far involved. thank you. ambassador to syria, who is been out of the country for quite a while, there was a hearing yesterday in congress on u.s. policy toward syria. here is the ambassador. [video clip]

direct respect to military assistance, our policy now is not to provide military assistance to the supreme military council, the syrian army. we do regularly review this, to be very clear about that. our policy is not now to provide such assistance. we are above all focused in our efforts in convincing both sides of the importance of a political solution and getting negotiatedt political deal. we have taken a major step in thes of our relations with supreme military commander of the free syrian army by now for the first time providing food and medical assistance to it for those in syria in need. host: and some facebook comments that we have received

on this question -- host: josh in indianapolis, republican line, go ahead. caller: good morning. i believe the first question was , i amof obama yesterday going on memory. i believe he will was asked

about the alliance in syria. .t was during his conference the job of the president is to keep the american people safe, you know. involved withing syria, keep us americans safe. the world looks at us as a problem solvers of the world. the president's duty is to keep us safe domestically. getting involved in syria, if it helps him do it, then so be it great why would you want to spend up such a hornets nest? that's all i have. thanks very much. host: here is the usa today --

host: independent in pittsburgh, gary what are your thoughts on u.s. policy towards syria? caller: i think the big dangerous move is russia putting armor meant in syria -- armor ment in syria.

in the background, turkey is an ally with syria and russia -- the rack is -- a rock his allies with -- iraq is allies with iran. troops we should get over on the israel border because russia wants to get into the middle east to control the oil. israel has a lot of gas and oil rights. i think that russia is being -- laying in the background arming syria. they have the mother load waiting to come down in israel. thank you. in florida. caller: the u.s. has one of the most powerful militaries in the

world. so i hear a lot of people calling in about not being able -- they should not be able to police the situation. the bottom line is, it is a sticky situation. the person that just called in mentioned that iran and russia is there now. the ambassador to syria has made it clear that the u.s. is going to have to do something about that, whether we like it or not. we don't want to see another rwanda or something like that. thank you. host: new york times, the headline -- host: russia accused the west of

trying to create a diversion -- host: that is from the new york times. from that no one

knows the facts. the rebels are in most cases, the same ones we are fighting in iraq, afghanistan and yemen. host: front page of the wall street journal --

host: in the new york times this morning -- host: you can watch the hearing online at c-span.org. russell in washington, independent line.

what do you think about u.s. policy toward syria? policy i think the u.s. toward syria, we have been involved and trying to overcome the syrian government for quite a while. if you go back over two years ago, the line in the washington tot stated $23 million spent destabilize the syrian government. , we are responsible somewhat as to what is going on in syria right now, even though we are not intervening directly , but as far as i'm concerned, we should stay out of it. keep our army out and troops out of it. i would like to make another comment, if i may. and i amike to know -- not anti-israel. i think we spend more on the citizens of israel than we do on american citizens.

when we think about the money we give to egypt, jordan and the other nations surrounding, i believe our per capita spending for israel is greater than that of the united states. thank you. host: richard in durham, north alina. democrats. -- north carolina. caller: hello. , do not know, and i cannot say but i am an american citizen. in general, i believe in our president. , it is ai say is secular government in syria. thanieve that is better the islamic overtake. but, let me just say, the biggest thing i am saying is, is beingrum of war

said, as far as chemical weapons. the chemical weapons were used in world war ii. they were used in vietnam as napalm. it is all the same. our government has used chemical weapons throughout this time. they drum the war again because of chemical weapons. sir, what i am saying is, we all .eed to heed history we need to be careful of what happens. i do not think 18 is right, but i don't believe a christian nation should take over. and i don't think an islamic nation to take over. in the business section this morning of the new york times --

host: creating concern that

government officials may favor their old colleagues on wall street. host: the new york times business section this morning. and in the washington post is this article --

host: james is an independent in fredericksburg, virginia.

what are your thoughts about u.s. policy towards syria? caller: thank you. the level of complexity around the combat situation, particularly a civil combat situation, the president touched on this yesterday. [indiscernible] i just hope our political leaders when deciding whether or not we should intervene would -- theff the idea dynamic so that situation could change and there is a trade-off between going in into the unknown. that is coming from experience, having served one tour in iraq. host: are you listening to is on c-span radio? caller: i am.

host: this is kathleen in chicago, democrat line. caller: first of all, can i make a quick statement. america claims they don't have enough money to feed the poor over here, to give us health care over here. they won't even sign a gun man over here to keep our innocent babies from being gunned down. but let -- yet every time another country does something -- we have a war over here in the united states. why does america have to go around the leasing the whole country when they can't do anything with their own country ? if you can't come up with so many millions of dollars to take care of the people here, how are you going to come up with millions of dollars to go into somebody else's country? we are just going to go over there, lose our boys and girls lives. when they come back, they can't even get health care. and we are going to leave just like these other countries. when we leave, they are still

fighting. they still fight against the people. what is the purpose? if you don't have nothing but money to burn in other countries, because this is all it like. have a good day. host: that was kathleen in chicago, democrat. pardon me. the budget and the continued resolution and funding the government is a big topic right now in washington. there are several different avenues that are being discussed and worked on right now. we're going to try to sort those out with our two guests this morning on the "washington talking about budget issues. i want to run through some of the articles in the paper this morning. the continued on resolution and try to sort out what is going on at very quickly. here are some budget articles.

this is from "politico" --

host: that is what the senate did. this continuing resolution will come back to the house for a .inal vote that will fund the government through the end of september. there is the eshoo -- other issue, which is the 2014 budget. this is also from politico this morning --

host: that is one of the issues

going on with the budget. now, what happens next? this morning, both the senate nd the house come in at 9 a.m. both will be working on budgetary issues. you can tune in to c-span to watch them work on these different budgetary issues. , thanks in washington for watching -- holding. u.s. policy toward syria, what do you think? caller: good morning. wouldct that intervention be something that would be highly considered at this time in view of the fact that no one would like to see another rwanda type of situation. that has to be careful consideration.

also looking at any type of involvement to that extent. you have an afghanistan situation, complete withdrawal -- i don't know of any situation that the u.s. has been involved in the has considered a war that there has not been some occupation afterwards. the u.s. has more problems than they can solve, which everyone knows. budgetary, monetary, you name it. we have more on our plate that needs to be resolved, but then this type of and involvement -- when you talk billions and let'sns of dollars -- try resolving some of that here before we go elsewhere and try to take your of situations -- care of situations that the u.s. cannot control.

thank you. , missouri, democrat line. you are on the air. caller: good morning, sir. i happened to catch a little bit askingsenate committee .uestions to the ambassador he did quite well in his presentation. -- the sole thing is with the promising. i really believe -- i think they have to go more to the end of trying to get russia involved working with them. since they are basically allies -- in addition, possibly maybe

even to china. if there can be any kind of medical aid or something like that, there should be a appropriations -- corporations -- [indiscernible] however, i do disagree. i think they have lost a moral high ground as a nation. i don't think we are in a position to cast a stone of --cing judgment of allergic allegedly chemical things. ,here is chemicals over in iraq various nations, including our nation. many nations sold chemical weapons to iraq in the early

1980's. host: we are going to leave your comments there. we appreciate you coming in. you mentioned the u.s. ambassador to syria, robert ford. here is more of his testimony in congress yesterday. [video clip] >> so far, we have no evidence to substantiate the report that chemical weapons were used yesterday. but i want to underline that we are looking very carefully at these reports. we are consulting with partners in the region and in the international community. have been verye clear from the beginning about our concern that as the regime military situation deteriorates and it becomes the director of national intelligence -- it ever more that it might

be tempted to use chemical weapons. and the president has been very clear in saying that if those make the mistake of using chemical weapons or if they fail to meet their obligation to secure them, then there will be consequences and they will be held accountable. twitterd some more comments on u.s. policy towards syria --

front page of the new york times this morning is a profile of dr. ben carson. if you have been following the news for conservatives, dr. ben carson has been out front a little bit. dr. ben carson was a political unknown weeks ago. with a single speech, as president obama looked stoneleigh on --

host: that is just a little bit of the profile. covered cpacspan and the national prayer

breakfast. if you want to watch dr. ben carson, go to the video library. bookse also covered his on booktv.org. you can also watch them on booktv. he would be appearing in the later this year on our booktv in-depth program. you will get the chance to talk with him at that point. moneys usa today's section -- two more articles from the

wall street journal --

host: and this other article in the wall street journal -- host: last call comes from david in new jersey. you are on the air. caller: good morning.

i think the phrase here is my enemy's enemy is my friend. it appears a lot of countries across the world are abdicating any security they have. it is almost an expectation that we're going to come in and straighten out their messes. choose -- truthfully, it seems that is what we all -- that is all we ever do. i think that we have kind of done this to ourselves, because we have ingratiated ourselves into all these different arenas. you guyse are saying are willing to risk your lives to try to straighten out our mess, so why would not we allow you to come in? it is a double edged sword. we created enemies in every part of the world. there was a gentleman called

earlier that brought up how he thought it was going to be the united states and israel in some coalition against other countries. i don't know that he is so far off. ofcould be a coalition and syria orkorea some other strange relationship. i just don't know how these things are going to unfold. i wanted to bring that up as a point. in newavid, republican jersey. the house comes in at 9 a.m., so we have a short washington journal. two members of congress coming up. first, tom rice, republican of georgia. then, representative jerrold nadler, who is a member of the progressive congress talking budget matters with both. we will be right back. ♪ ♪

thrustabeth monroe herself and went to the prison where madame lafayette was being held. she met with madame lafayette and basically made her case a public one. some stories say the next day, she was released. it was not the next day, it was a couple of months. it kept her from going to the guillotine and it did lead to her release. >> in some ways, she has her own cause. she worked with the orphan asylum. in that sense, that is somewhat modern. she does work politics in her to helpn such a way as

win the presidency for her husband him in her own way. >> our conversation with historians on elizabeth monroe and catherine adams is now available on our website, c- span.org/first ladies. a prize to be issued by brigade and a hospital was to predict -- created by each division and personnel and equipment the same. that means when the battle is taking place and over, there is only one place per division or those wagons with supplies need to go. the same thing has to be prepared for the army medical corps in order to evacuate those wounded, get them to the right place, have enough supplies and get them treated. there has to be a system. they transported the wounded to an aid station that was close to the field of battle.

.hey did this via stretcher this was no easy task. they were trained that when the front stretcher stepped off with his left foot, the rear bearer stepped off with his right to be facing forward and be able to get across. it was very difficult in gettysburg. , battlefieldnd medicine at gettysburg, saturday at 10 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. washington journal continues. host: now joining us is representative tom price, member of the budget committee. he is vice chair and a member of the ways and means tax writing committee. if you would, starts by bringing us up-to-date on where the house is when it comes to the continuing resolution and

the 2014 budget. guest: the continuing resolution which funds the government was passed out of the house a couple of weeks ago. the senate has been dealing with that. they passed it last evening. it is back in the house, and we will likely pass that today, which is good news because one of the things that we included was the spending reduction, the appropriate spending reduction so we can try to get this economy back on track. excitingt is an activity that is been on the house floor these past two days. we will likely pass that out of the house of representatives today. this is a budget by paul ryan that will allow us to get to balance. that means the government will stop sending more money than it takes in by the end of the decade, which is really exciting. what that allows us to do is to get the economy rolling, jobs

being created and provide more certainty so young people coming out of college know there is going to be a job in their field. those in the workforce will know they will be needed. those in retirement, social security and medicare and those will be strengthened and security. an exciting time. guest: -- the: when it comes to continued resolution which funds the government through september, did it include sequester cuts that took effect earlier this month? spending atcludes the sequester level. there is flex ability for the military, department of defense and a few other areas that allow money to be moved to areas of greater priority. the house republicans passed to that thest year so across-the-board cuts did not

occur in the way they have occurred. we felt there was much greater flexibility. we need to be wiser about this. we need to get the economy rolling again. and across-the-board cut is not the wisest way to do that. we did not get corroboration from the senate or the president. host: when it comes to the budget, which begins october 1, are there cuts to government spending in the ryan budget? guest: that is one of the great myths. people on the other side say you're slashing and burning. the fact of the matter is, this is the path we are on now. is theleft of that amount of debt the government has held since world war ii in the gray. you come up to where the rant -- red and green begin, that is the current path we are on.

we are destined to take more and more and more debt on as a country, unless we change things. the green line is our budget, the path to prosperity. the weight we do that is to increasee slowly, spending more slowly than the senate democrats or the president proposes. our budget increases spending an average of 3.4% per year. get tolows us to balance within the 10-year. of time, so we can get the economy rolling, get jobs created and make certain safety net programs are out there. safety netregard to programs, social security and medicare, are their spending cuts to those programs as well or how do you treat them in the ryan budget? within ao medicare, 10-year. of time, it is destined to go bankrupt. it would not have the amount of

money it needs to provide services to seniors. that is under current law, the law the president supports. he changed to make that, so it is financially feasible. our program would move us in the direction of premium support, which is what members of congress have. it will allow for a certain amount of money subsidy, a benefit check, if you will, for seniors to be able to utilize that to purchase what they want for themselves so they are able to have an insurance program that is much more responsive to them. as a physician, medicare patients are having a whale of a time finding doctors to take medicare. if you are a new medicare patients and your doctor prior to the agencies the five does not take medicare patients, you have a very difficult time finding a new dr. who will take a new medicare patient. one out of every three doctors in this country have limited the number of patients they are

seeing. see no of every eight medicare patients at all. the program is flawed and needs to be reformed. we need to strengthen medicare. our guest,rice is republican of georgia. we are talking about budgetary matters. the numbers are on the screen. and an e-nd a tweet mail, journal@c-span.org. with regard to the health care law, one aspect of the ryan the health- repeal care law, therefore, saving $1.8 .ill -- $1.8 trillion is that realistic? : absolutely.

we think it is important to repeal that program for financial reasons and quality healthcare reasons. this will drive of the cost of health coverage for every single american. it will decrease access to healthcare for virtually everything a american. i was just it will decrease quality because of the lack of innovation and resources being put in the area. and there is a board of 15 unelected democrats -- bureaucrats to determine whether or not seniors are going to be able to get the services they need. .hat is the wrong way to go we believe it ought to be repealed for quality healthcare reasons and put in place a patient-centered program. it would allow patients and doctors to make the decisions, not the federal government. host: if that is not repealed, how does the ryan budget treat

its debts otherwise? aspirationals are document, their visionary documents. democrats from the and we are appreciative they're year.one this we need to find common ground and move forward with the program that everybody agrees upon. until then, a budget is not a law. tobelieve it is important repeal the president health- care law for quality healthcare reasons. as a physician, i can tell you i believe the law itself will fall of its own weight because it is not work for patients or doctors. it is not work for employers or employees. decreasingthe law, the hours their workers are working, getting under the 30- ourhour cap.

-- he is going to move all except to to part-time so he does not have to comply with the health-care law. host: how did you vote on the republican study committee budget? guest: all of them except the republican study committee budget and the republican house budget, all of them never get the balance. that means we continue on that red path. we cannot do that and expect we will grow again and be able to create jobs. i voted no against all the other budgets. i am the former chairman of the republican study committee, and i voted yes on that budget. anything we can do to begin to have the discussion about how you get this budget in balance is important. of course i will be supporting the house budget committee

budget today. host: are you running for senate and scope georgia? guest: i have been consumed with my activity here, and we have been spending a lot of time making certain we have a document that is positive, responsible, and gets as to balance within 10 years. the time to make a decision has not come yet. host: one other question for you. as a member of the ways and means committee, do you foresee tax reform happening this year in congress? .uest: it is part of our budget we have to make certain we have a tax system that allows the economy to grow. i am excited about the chairman of the ways and means committee. he has put out a call to all of us to come together and make certain that we are positively moving forward with tax reform. i am enthusiastic about the possibility that we will pass a tax reform bill within the coming months. host: let's take some calls for

representative tom price. republican line, you are first up. caller: congressman, i live in scott your district. thank you for all you do. first question for you, only question, i guess. what are some of your ideas to advance patient-centered healthcare? you know, as a replacement to obamacare? .uest: t what -- thank you it is wonderful for people to appreciate that we can do things to face these challenges. we do not have to put washington in charge. i was an orthopedic surgeon for 20 years and scope the atlanta area. what we need to do is make it so everybody can get covered. they have to get health insurance coverage. we cannot have 50 million people walking around without health coverage. we have to make certain that everybody has the financial feasibility to purchase the coverage that they want for themselves and for their family.

you do that through a series of tax deduction credits, advance double credits, so that every single american can financially purchase coverage that they want. second, you have to solve the insurance challenges. portability and pre-existing. you should not lose your insurance if you change your job or if you lose your job. you should be able to take it with you. we have to make it so everybody owns their health insurance regardless of who is paying for it. it they lose their job or change jobs, they take their coverage with them. pre-existing is important, because if you are out there and you get an awful diagnosis, you have an awful disease, you can be priced out of the market for insurance coverage. that is just wrong. that is not the way the system should work. that is because individuals i and -- in that small group market do not have pools of people to get together to purchase insurance, so you do not get the purchasing power of a lot of folks. instead of putting washington in charge, we have to make it so those folks can pull.

you get the purchasing power, than one person's health status does not drive up the cost for everybody else or for that person. there are ways to solve the challenges. we can do it positively without putting the government in charge of our health care. haitians, families, doctors making medical decisions, not washington -- patients, families, and doctors. caller: good morning. i have two questions. one is on the affordable health care act. .his law has passed you cannot revoke it or repeal it. betterught you had a idea, so you should have worked when they were doing the health- care law, with the democrats to make this a bill more to your liking. but it is done and we need to see how it is going to work.

is happening this morning does not mean it will work either. yousecond question is this, say that we're spending too much money and we have to cut, cut, cut. medicare, medicaid, social security. but me ask this question. should we have paid taxes to pay for the wars or not? should we have paid taxes to pay for the expansion in stuff like homeland security? should we have paid taxes to give us prescription? basically, you shifted -- you said am a well, you should not have to raise taxes to pay for those other things. guest: thank you. too good and important issues. the taxes from the president's health care law and the amount of money taken out of the medicare system, the affordable care act takes $718 billion out

of medicare. raise medicare and moves it over to pay for a new program, the president's health care program. we believe that is terrible for medicare, and we believe the program will not work. yes take that money back from the obamacare from a from the president health-care plan, and we move it back in to make medicare sustainable. theerms of the taxes in president health-care law, we keep the level of revenue that is coming into the federal government but we completely repeal it so we move forward with tax reform, tax policy so -- get thisto economy rolling again. and you touched a nerve on the next one. i will -- i fought as hard as i could to work with the democrats. they were in the majority then. the fact is they do not allow anybody to work with them.

speaker poulos he said we have got to pass the bill -- speaker hello see -- speaker nancy pelosi said we have to pass the bill. we have to encourage folks on the other side of the aisle to help us. the wars in the role of government, i believe strongly that we need a balanced budget. there are priorities we should have in our government. there is a role for government, yes, indeed. we have to make certain we are not spending beyond our kneeing -- beyond our means. we believe that the budget that we are going to pass today puts us on the right track, gets as to balance, and makes certain we do not spend more money than we take in. host: john in virginia, independent line. caller: i wanted to point out that dwight d eisenhower was the last president to ever actually lower the amount of to the nation, and

i believe he did that in two fiscal years. since then, we have been increasing the size of the military. stealing from social security to pay for the vietnam war. reagan ignorantly bloated the size of the military and tripled the debt in his presidency. george bush doubled the debt and extent of the military greatly. we need to cut the military. we need to raise taxes to pay for that. i would like to point out to the congressman the united states constitution actually states that the congress has the power to raise taxes. the very first thing it gives for that purpose is to pay the .ebt for the united states i wish republicans would actually start upholding the constitution. host: you made your point. let's get a response. guest: you are right, we need to pay our debt. is too much? taxes

is 50% of what one makes too much? i would suggest that it is. that is basically where we are right now for many individuals in this country. we believe that the way you get this economy rolling again so that jobs can be created and we we can get people back to work ,s -- get people back to work still pushing eight percent unemployment. we need to make certain that we can get the economy rolling. one of the ways to do that is the provost tax policy, bring taxes down so people can spend their money and invest and spend the way they see fit, not the way government forces them to. host: one other aspect to the budgetary talks going on. the president's budget is due. i think you asked him about it when he came to meet with house republicans last week. where does that fit into this equation? guest: it is wise that he point

that out. that is usually the first step in this process. the president presents his budget. by law, the president has to present a budget to congress by the first monday in february. that was february 4. the president is now about six and a half weeks late, the only president to be late on his budget. four out of the five years that he is had a budget to present, he has been late. what that means is that the budget we are working on, the numbers we are working off of our the congressional budget office numbers as opposed to the president's numbers. we believe that the president potentially is doing that so that he can game the system based upon the budget that we pass. tricks thatkind of the american people are sick and tired of. president, wing can we expect your budget? he said, well, we will get it up in a couple weeks, which is past the legal deadline. host: what did you think about

the meeting with house republicans? guest: it is a good first step. sadly, it has not been done much. he had not met with s in a two- year time span. i asked him about how we get trust between the executive branch and congress, because the challenges we have our huge. there is no way to solve these challenges unless we trust each other as we move forward. if this is a one-time event, it will not have any effect. it it is the beginning of a process to build that trust, then it is a good start. host: next call is from pittsburgh, republican line. caller: three quick remarks. forrance was $390 a month years ago. now it is $625. that is because of obamacare. the insurance company even mentioned that. $10,000 iny puts

for you, next year that will count as your earned income. and i would really like to see benjamin carson on this channel for an hour and a half at least. [indiscernible] again somebody as radical as chris matthews who hates catholics and jewish people and everybody else. host: all right, we got it. guest: thank you so much. it is important for the viewers to appreciate that what he said is that his premium for health insurance has doubled. doubled in the last three years. i do not know that all of that is due to the affordable care act, but certainly part of it is. if that continues along that line, that will make it virtually impossible for him to receive the kind of coverage that he and his wife want as opposed to the coverage that

the federal government forces him to buy. premiums have gone up. uprage premiums have gone about $2000. it will get more and more difficult. that is why we believe patient- centered healthcare is so important. am pleased to see physicians get engaged in the public discourse, but i was so excited byut the comment made carson recently, and the american people have been excited because they see somebody talking common sense. they look to washington and they are confounded by the lack of civility that also the lack of common sense. that is why the budget that we're going to have on the house house floor today is so exciting to me and to house republicans. it is common sense. exactly the kind of thing that families and businesses are doing across this country, balancing the budget, making they do not spend more than they take in. host: a democrat and go

michigan. caller: i would like to make a couple comments to representative price. first, leave obamacare alone. but back the $400 -- some odd trillion you took out of social security 30 years ago. my whole entire income is based on $700 a month which is my social security and ssi. i do get medicare and medicaid. but for 17 years prior to this point, i had no medical insurance because i held minimum-wage jobs. multiple66 and have heart circulation and bone problems. if it were not for obama care, as you like to tag it, i would not be able to see the doctors that i need to see right now. rather than cut medicare, medicaid, or turn it into an absolutely inefficient voucher system, why replace the social security funds that were taken 30 years ago over prices pieces

put themthat say iou, back into social security so they can be distributed to the senior citizens? republicans are trying to kill us off. host: thank you for calling in. guest: the hyperbole that passive now for political discussion is really a shame, because we have huge challenges. medicare is going broke. the medicare trustee -- that is not tom price or republican stalking. it says there will not be a the amount of money under current law in medicare to provide medical services for her and every single other senior and go this country in 10 years. that is wrong. we have to save and strengthen and secure the program. that is our proposal. social security, it was a democratic administration that actually removed the ability for the money that is being contributed to social security to go into the trust fund. social security itself, the

trustees of social security will say that within a relatively few number of years, the amount of money coming into social security will not cover the payments that go onto beneficiaries. that is wrong. we need to send the program as well. we can do that in a positive way. we do not have to go broke. we do not have to drive up the amount of debt that we are continuing on a path to drive up, which results in scale and economy that does not work for folks and is not getting people employees and is not getting things moving again. we can do it and go positive way, and that is what our budget is all about. provide greater flexible in the four so they can provide care to the medicaid population -- provide greater flexibility in states so they can provide care to their medicaid population. host: this is a tweet we received -- budgets in washington

are statements of priorities, one's vision. this is the first step in the house process to come together with the senate. we are pleased that the senate is doing a budget. they have not done a budget and scope for years. they are doing so because of the no budget, no pay act. we had to course them into that, but we are pleased that they are doing a budget -- we had to coerce them into that. our budget provides for provost tax reform. it provides for saving and strengthening and securing medicare. the democrat budget increases taxes by over one dollar trillion and never gets to balance. that will not get this economy moving again. avoid this is a place where we can begin to find a common ground so we can move forward and solve the challenges we have got in a collegial way -- hopefully this is a place where we can begin. prior to the holiday recess

next week, the house is hoping to pass a budget today, and the senate is hoping to pass a budget. what about reconciliation? guest: we hope to go to conference committee committee. when the senate passes an item in the house passes an item on the same topic but they are not the same, they need reconciliation, then we go to a conference committee. members of the house and members of the senate come together to meet and see if we cannot work out those differences. i suspect that will begin after we returned after the easter break. that is for the leadership to determine. host: hampton, georgia, independent line. caller: hi, my problem with your budget is that, it depends on you are going obamacare, as you say. the american people spoke in the election that they did not want that repealed, but you continue to do that.

i think it is dishonest. i heard you earlier when you stated that you are not even a part of that. you guys did not want to participate in forming that deal. what is sad about it, it is part of something you republicans wanted to do years ago. i feel that you guys, both sides, are fighting the american people. it is unfortunate, because we're the ones that sent you guys there, and you act like you are not working for the people and your job is to work for the people. .uest: i cannot agree more thanks. the president's health care law, and i rarely call it obamacare. the president calls it obamacare, i do not. i call it the president's health care law or the aca. please hear me, this law, the current law will harm, i believe as a physician, will harm the ability of your dr. to take care of you.

that does not make any sense to me. it is important, when we believe that is the case, we would be irresponsible if we do not propose something different. if it is allowed to continue, if we cannot come to an agreement in washington to move it in a positive way, in patient-centered way, then it will continue. my concern is that there will be real people who will be harmed because of it. we do not believe that it is appropriate to have a 15-member board, which is what the law does, the independent payment advisory board, to determine with your doctor can do for you. that is what the law allows. when that happens, that begins on january 1 of next year, when that begins to happen, i think the american people will be angry that anybody passed this law into place. it gets between them and their doctor. patients and families and doctors should be making medical decisions, not washington. host: last call for representative price comes from

a democrat in silver spring, maryland. ?aller: how do you do i want to step back a minute and one side or the other on the budget and medicare. i want to say citizens do not care whether they are democrat, republican, independent, or whatever -- what are the facts and figures? --icare and the military that war in iraq cost us $1.2 trillion. so the $1.2 trillion that we spent making -- created an illusion of economic activity and -- the second one is that medicare funding of hospital care and the like. of course, hospitals or private

industries, but often times they are nonprofit. so there is a lot of money there. the medicare budget you're talking about, you keep focusing on recipients. forget about that. we are a public economy. medicare and the military has gobbled up what everyone feels is real economic activity. it is really being paid by the taxpayers. host: let's get a response. guest: you're absolutely right. it ultimately comes down to the taxpayers. the federal government cannot spend a dime that it does not take her borrow from somebody else. when it borrows, there is an interest rate on it. and it has to take money to pay off that debt. i agree with you, we should make certain that we have priorities in washington and we are not spending more than we take in. we need to leave more in your pocket so we can get the economy rolling. in terms of medicare, i would report that the medicare

trustees, not republicans, not democrats, but the medicare trustees report, the folks and go charge of making certain medicare is solvent. they are telling us there is a predictable time into the next 10 years at which point medicare cannot provide the medical services for seniors from a financial standpoint. it is incumbent upon us as leaders to make sure we strengthen and secure the program. that is what our budget proposes to do. that is why i am so excited about it being on the floor of the house today. host: what is the timeframe for you deciding to run on the senate? guest: a couple months. host: tom price has been our guest. coming up, a member of the progressive caucus, jerrold nadler. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> the nation's most influential pediatricians group is endorsing gay marriage. the american academy of

pediatrics new policy, published online today, sites research showing that the parents sexual orientation has no effect on the child's development, adding that a stable relationship between parents regardless of sexual orientation contributes to a child's health and well- being. the decision comes one week before the supreme court hears to oral arguments on the issue. the high court has agreed to release the audio of the arguments on the day they happen. you can hear them next tuesday and wednesday here on c-span. president obama is meeting palestinian officials on the second day of his mideast tour where earlier today he inspected the dead sea scrolls. later, the president is headed to the west bank for a joint news conference with president abbas. i in -- in remarks, he said these cannot he achieved through violence or siege. president obama said palestinians deserve a sovereign state and an end to occupation and daily indignities. you can hear this news

conference at 9:00 a.m. on c- span radio. word from rome that pope francis will hold a major ceremony next week in school the chapel of a youth prison instead of in the vatican or basilica. pope francis will conduct the holy thursday afternoon service at the jail for minors. es heldiews hope -- poo it in scope as a at the vatican. a historian sent a tweet earlier, noting that 50 years ago today i'm a then attorney general robert kennedy closed all contrast because it was so costly to run. the island prison was home to both al qaeda own and machine gun kelly -- both al capone and machine gun kelly. [video clip]

if you believe in something that is so right, so dear, so necessary, you have to get into trouble. but before we got in any trouble as children, as young people, we studied. we do not just wake up one morning and say we're going into the city. we did not just dream one day that we are going to come to washington and go on a freedom ride or that we were going to march on washington, as we did in 1963, that we were going to march from selma to montgomery, as we did in 1965. we prepared ourselves. say black power. they intimidated so many people, white people in particular, by using that phrase, black power. because that phrase made many people think that black power meant to structure and. blowing up the statue of liberty or ground zero. the storing america. it was not anything about destroying america.

it was about rebuilding america and having america to have a new paradigm in terms of how we could truly be with each and every one of us doing the pledge in elementary school and junior high school about the land of the free, the home of the brave. >> congressman john lewis and olympic gold medalist giancarlo discussed their personal experiences during the civil rights movement. saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, part of "booktv" on c-span2. "washington journal" continues. , at: jerrold nadler democrat of new york, a member of the progressive caucus. representative nadler, in the back toward budget proposal which was voted on yesterday in the house, you say that 7 million new jobs and go one year will be created if the congress and the president would adopt your budget. it would reduce unemployment to nearly five -- two near 5% and

three years. it would reduce the deficit by $4.4 trillion over 10 years. and it would strengthen medicare and medicaid amah and you'd be asking the wealthy to pay their fair share. -- medicare and medicaid and you would be asking the wealthy to pay their fair share. guest: the institute of policy analysis estimated that you are spending money on infrastructure. we have a to point to dollar trillion infrastructure deficit, according to the transportation -- american society of civil engineers. building roads, highways, bridges, etc. you put people to work building schools and other necessary things. you give money to the states. the states have laid off 700,000 cops, firefighters, and teachers. you give money to states for couple years to rehire them.

those kinds of things add up. by doing all this, you stimulate the economy. that means the private sector generates more jobs. it comes to about 7 million altogether. host: what do you consider fair share when it comes to wealthy taxpayers? guest: we propose two different things. number one, close tax loopholes. our budget, unlike the ryan , we are very specific on our tax loopholes. we will close many corporate tax loopholes, like the tax deferral. you can move jobs overseas and never pay any taxes. , bribed us took bring the jobs home. we say no. if you are an american corporation and you earn money

overseas or you earn money here but use tricks, it does not matter. we will tax it all. if you're paying taxes to a foreign government, you get a credit for that so no double taxation. but you should not get a in a fit of no taxes because you are shipping jobs abroad. we eliminate some of the depletion balances. there's no reason we should be giving tax subsidies to these companies. we eliminate benefits for , reduce corporate meals and entertainment. is one thing. the second thing we do is we say, all right, people making over $400,000 now will be haying a tax of three point 96% on their highest income.

% on their highest income. institute new tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires. $1 on every one dollar above million. 40 six percent on every one dollar above 20 million dollars. we finally go to a total of 49% for every one dollar above $1 billion. host: representative, when a continuing resolution comes aftero the house today the senate passed it, how will you vote on that piece of legislation? guest: i am going to vote no. throws a lot of people out of work. it takes all kinds of benefits away from people who need it on the low income and bank. i just heard that some state

will hold a lottery to decide which 70,000 kids are going to be thrown out of head start. there is no necessity to it. this is kuester -- everybody says the cisco -- the sequester was terrible. it was only done as a result of the republican blackmail on the debt ceiling. we increased the debt ceiling. people do not understand what that is. it is foreiling says money you have already spent. if you owe money, you cannot pay the bills. you have to pay the bills. otherwise the country defaults. the treasury people tell us that would be catastrophic. so you have to pay the bills. we have raised the debt ceiling 77 signs -- times since world war ii. there is political demagoguery from whatever clinical party was

in go the minority. at the end, there was a vote for it. they say if you increase the debt ceiling coming up to cut spending by an incredible amount. over 10 years. white 10 years? arbitrary. -- why over 10 years? arbitrary. 2.4 congress voted for $ trillion in cuts. 2 trillion -- the sequester makes no sense at all. from our point of view, we do not have a that crisis or deficit crisis. we have a jobs crisis. we have reduced the deficit. the only intelligent way to measure deficit is as a percent of the economy. . percent of gdp that is for a simple reason. if you owe $10,000 on your

credit card, is that urban some or not? it depends. if your salary is $30,000, 10 thousand dollars is a lot of money. if you are $3 million a year, $10,000 is not a lot of money. we have reduced the debt as a from 10.1%.f gdp it was 10% in 2009. it is now 5.3%. we have cut it in half. the fastest reduction in the deficit since the immobilization after world war ii, it is an inhibiting growth and the economy. i will vote against the sequester. i think we have done what we need to do with debt. we have the deficit down to a managing level. it will continue to come down. the caucus budget will bring it down further. right now, our crisis is jobs.

we still have an eight -- we still have a 8% unemployment rate. if we got the people back to work, and our budget will create amillion jobs, if you have five percent unemployment rate by doing nothing else other than generating those jobs going that would generate enough economic activity and the deficit would go down by another 40%. host: we were just talking with representative tom price, republican of georgia, and he said the ryan budget, the gop budget, does not have cuts. it slows the rate of growth. hest: well, he is right and is wrong. when you are looking at a budget and you say this is a cut or this is not a cut, you have to look at two things. inflation and population growth. population is always growing. you're going to be spending more on most things if there

are more people and so the country. to maintain the same level of services. number two, inflation. if inflation is 2%, you have to spend 2% more to buy the same things. technically, you may be right. when you're factoring in inflation and population growth , that is different. host: maggie of middletown, new jersey, democrat line. ,aller: good morning congressman nadler. thank you for representing our country, because we need people like you. way that to realize -- back that manufacturing crises come up and so the political situation, and it started with ronald reagan. government was the problem and government had to be shrunk. as a result, we saw pensions

going away, wages decreasing. all of the sudden, i was fresh out of college, my first full- time job, and now my healthcare was part of my income. unions -- host: if you could get to your point -- caller: my point is that the republicans seem to be very focused on robbing the treasury. theking the backs of working people. there is no respect for a wage- earner or a laborer. the only people they have to answer to are the corporations. guest: i think you're basically right. first budget's director outlined a strategy in the early 1980 posts -- 1980's

cold starve the beast. the right wings have noted that even republican presidents like eisenhower and nixon, you cannot cut popular programs like social security or medicare or other things, highway construction. and government grew at a slower rate than under liberals but still grew. ofy came up with a strategy deliberately cutting taxes, deliberately creating huge budget deficits. and then we will cry, oh, my god, government is going broke and we are putting all this debt on our kids. then we can cut the programs that we did not like to start with like medicare and social security. the republicans did not care about deficits at all. they are very high deficits under republican presidencies. we saw that in the last bush

budget in 2009. what they do care about is cutting and shrinking and eliminating government. , shrink ituist said so we can sit and go a bathtub and strangle it. that is what they are doing. they're budget would destroy medicare and medicaid. they would destroy both programs. it would cost more money, by the way, to ensure senior citizens in the private sector than under medicare. they do not care about that. their goal is not the deficit. their goal is to destroy government. let me give you a couple statistics. and so the 1950's, corporations paid, on average, 40% of profits on taxes. , they aretead of 40% paying about 12%. the ryan budget would lower that further. it would say that millionaires would get a $200,000 tax cut

which would be made up for by cutting -- they say, we will make up for that by cutting tax loopholes, but they were lout the major tax loopholes for rich people under capital gains. that means the middle-class class will have to pay more taxes. host: a tweet -- is true.at if you look at the budget, we have not had a great increase in spending since obama took office except as goat two areas. unemployment insurance and food stamps. it is not because we liberalized the food stamp laws, we did not. it is because when you have a recession, you always get a much bigger deficit. two things happen. number one, tax revenues plunge. fewer people are working. number two, programs that we have enacted that are designed to increase during recessions, like unemployment insurance and

food stamps, so that people do not starve and so that some money comes into the economy so that it does not turn into a depression. yes, the very large deficits incurred because of the depression. unemployment down to 5 -- unemployment down to 5% like it was in 2011. host: another tweet -- all, first of entitlements, meaning social security and medicare -- medicaid, i assume. there's nothing wrong with them, basically. social security is -- everybody says social security will have a problem i in -- in 2032. that is the assumption that economic growth will be under 2 .4%.

if you assume it will be over that, then social security will go as far as we can see. the economic growth is average better than 3% since the civil war. the social security trustees have been making the assumption and have been wrong consistently for the last 20 years. they put out three budgets a year. onepress quotes the middle as gospel. it has been wrong about 90% of the time. if we do, 15, 20 years from now, have a problem with social security, you just raise the and that takes care of it. does have a role problem. , the cost of medicare has been expanding about 9.7% a 2009.rom 2000 to

it is slower than increase of the cost and scope private medical care. medicare has been increasing at about 1.2% year, more slowly than private sector care. switch people from medicare to private sector care, as orion would do, that would increase the problem, not decrease the problem -- as ryan would do. three years, something has happened. i do not know if you can see this chart. since 2010, medicare has been increasing not at 9.7% but at 1.9%. we are not sure why this happened. it may be that some of the cost thatinment mechanisms have been taking effect, they're a lot less readmissions for people coming out of the hospital. if that continues, and it is only based on three years, but if that continues, medicare will

not have a long-term problem either. host: the dotted line is the projected -- guest: the actual increase projected out. let's putntinues -- it this way, in 2009, the rate of increase in medicare cuts sharply came down. it has stayed down. if it continues to stay down, then it is $500 billion less over time. and we have essentially solves the problem. we do not know if it will continue because we really do not know why it came down to start with. it is a sharp change, and we may have already solved that problem. if it goes back up, we have a long-term problem. but it is long-term. we do not have a short-term crisis. host: a republican in kentucky. caller: good morning, both of you. i have a couple things to say.

if taxes go up, restaurants told me that some of them have to shut down because they cannot afford to pay me to cook or clean. and i want to know what kind of budget you are running of their, because it is pretty tough down here. more jobs shutting down, closing up. i mean, taxes get higher. it will be up nine dollars an hour. they say they cannot pay me nine dollars an hour at restaurants. first of all, talking about nine dollars an hour, they're not talking about taxes. they are talking about the minimum wage am a which is an entirely different subject. but let me just say that the republicans and conservatives generally say that high taxes on high income people and lossrations have caused of jobs. that is why we greatly lowered taxes under bush.

under bush, you had the lowest growth rate in jobs than under any administration except during recession. we came out of recession in 2001. 2001 two 2009, then we went into another recession. 7 million jobs created under bush. 22 million under clinton, right after we raised the taxes. that was in seven or eight years. what we are proposing in our budget -- let's put it this way, under the ryan budget, total receipts of government would be about 19% of gdp. under the reagan administration 23.5%.o under the caucus budget, receipts would go up to 21.8%. the lower range of the reagan administration, budget receipts.

what inhibits job creation is not high taxes. history does not show that. what and him it -- what inhibits job creation is low demand. if people do not have money, they are not spending it to buy products. we had a housing bubble collapse in 2007 that eliminated eight dollars trillion in value. when it didtgages for closure as a result. we're still about two dollars trillion -- to join dollars below. people are not investing. ?hy not because of uncertainty. you are not going to hire somebody or invest in a new factory if nobody is going to buy a new product. if everybody is saving money because they do not have money, which is what has happened in a recession, then your money is my

income. so everybody is saving money, that might make sense for families, but it destroys the economy. in certain situation, only governments can come and go. herring people, giving money to states to hire people -- hiring people, hiring private companies to fill potholes and roads. people get back to work, they spend money. that is how you generate an economy. we did that somewhat under -- and for the first year of the obama administration, but not enough. our budget would propose to do a lot of that with infrastructure. giving money to states for hiring cops and firemen and teachers and so forth. host: congressman, you represent wall street in congress, do you not? guest: i do. host: progressive caucus, membership 76 democratic members of congress out of 200

democrats. what is the influence of the progressive caucus? guest: it is hard to measure. i do not know how to answer the question. we have an influence, obviously. but the progressive caucus is rather loosely organized. comes to 76 members the meetings. we push the party to some extent. obviously not as far as we want to. host: north providence, rhode island, independent line. caller: good morning. am a korean veteran. i am sick and tired of economists talking about social security. what happened to all the money? guest: congress has not taken any money out of social security. that is a widespread myth. all social security money goes into a trust fund.

the trust fund was deliberately designed to build up a huge surplus. in 1983, they raised social security taxes and raised the retirement age to 67. it is designed to produce a huge trust fund that when the baby boomers start to retire, now, more or less, there would be enough money to pay the benefits to the baby boomers. that depended on our receipts. the trust fund now is about $2.7 trillion. usedll start being roughly in 2017. right now, we are using some of the on it because social security receipts are down because of the recession. it is designed to be paid out from about 2017 to 2030. people say we have taken money out of the trust fund, because when you put money into the bank, the money does not sit their pita the bank lends money for car loans and mortgages,

whatever. all you care about is that the bank arranges finance in such a way that when you want your money, they have it. same thing with social security trust fund. how do you invest money? the law says you can only invested in the safest investment possible. you cannot buy general electric stock. you can only invest it into the safest investment, which is u.s. treasury securities. that means you're buying government bonds, like you buy a savings bond, and you have that as an obligation to the federal government. those are legal obligations, the same full faith and credit of the united states, and when the trust fund starts going down, that money is there. host: did you have a follow-up? caller: yes. it is good thing that i have the va. i have to go because of the food costs. i will be 79. every time i turn around, food costs are going up and up.

myent to the va to get medication. i do not have to pay the price i have to pay with blue cross. guest: that is a good point. it points out the fact that the va, just government-run health care, is more efficient than privately-run health care. medicare is more efficient. medicare goes up more slowly than the private sector. the va gets the best deal. va and medicaid get the best deal on drugs. they get a better deal than medicare. fromare is prohibited using its economic clout to get better pricing than pharmaceutical companies. that prohibition was written into the law in 2005 as a gift from the republican party to the pharmaceutical paying kitcher bidders. host: we have about seven minutes left before the house comes into session. we have a call on the democrat line. call ini have tried to

many times on very important things. storese investigating for medicare fraud. of all the medicare fraud that i see out there, they are closing down the scooter stores. so for the000 or scooters, seniors do, when they cannot walk, and it keeps them out of these $5,000 a month nursing homes. $1000 to medicare or $5,000 a month to medicaid? i cannot understand. ok, scooter stores, if they are double charging or something, yes, but they are shutting down and off like 1500 people. guest: they clearly should not be shutting down scooter stores. one of the things about medicare is it pays for things like this.

we want to keep people out of nursing homes. goes tods of the money pay for nursing homes and assisted living for middle-class .eople host: and tweet -- guest: if they're working, unless they're making very little money, they are paying irs taxes. the rhetoric has shifted. we used to dig it was a good thing if we send low-income people do not have to pay income taxes -- we used to think it was a good thing. when we enacted, under ronald reagan, he said this will take a certain number of low-income people off the tax roll. they still pay fica taxes, which

are less progressive. i think they cannot pay. they do not have the ability to pay. they should not be asked to. host: a caller from kentucky talked about the minimum wage. what are your thoughts on that proposal? guest: i think the president's proposal is a little modest. i would make it somewhat higher. it is much lower than the cost of living and the cost of productivity than it was 30 years ago. it is disgraceful that people can work 40 hours a week and still be in poverty and that the taxpayers have to supplement that with food stamps and sometimes with various kinds of welfare assistance. it is not true by all that we have seen that increasing the middle -- minimum wage kills jobs. studies have been done by observers.

they find no such correlation. i do not doubt that there are some employers like his boss at the restaurant who scare people by saying if i have to pay you nine dollars an hour, although restaurants have a lower minimum wage because of tips, but i do not doubt that some people will scare people to try to generate a little pressure. this to bes not show true at all. host: any idea what the minimum wage would have to be to work and live in your district? guest: much higher. i thought you are going to ask where it would have to be today inshow the increase productivity since 1968, and the answer would be $23 an hour. a call from taxes on our republican line. caller: thank you. congressman, i am curious, i think the american people are

really tired of both parties being against each other. those of us saying attention, i do not care if it is the republican path fault or the democrat's a fault, are all elected to do a job. we are not in kindergarten. we have to stop blaming the other parties, do the work you were sent there to do, the people's work. you represent us. you are there to do a job. i am really tired of it. what is your plan? you know, when is everybody going to sit down and stop blaming each other? guest: i do not think everybody will sit down and stop blaming each other. frankly, the only solution is an election. ideologically, the two parties have not been as far apart in our history except during the decade of the 1790's and the decade before the civil war. the republicans believe, many of them, and honestly, i do not doubt their sincerity, that

government is evil, that it can never produce any good economic progress, that we have to cut taxes on the rich because they create all the jobs, and that people who cannot get by will have to somehow get by and we have to destroy medicare and medicaid because they destroyed freedom and we cannot afford them. democrats, by and large, do not agree with that. we are not going to vote for that. republicans will not vote for the things i want. frankly, the polarized nature of our politics is reflected in the electorate. as a clinical scientist, i would suggest we would be better off if an election would return all one party or the other, so the party would have the power to do what it said it would do and you can judge the results. but we do not have that. now you have a democratic ,enate which the republicans

because of the filibuster, can stop from doing anything. most parties have a veto. we have a democratic president and a radically right-wing republican house. they do not agree. i think there's one further problem. i have been in politics for a long time. i was instantly house for 20 years in the status and before that. normally, until the last 33 years, frankly, you know that if -- your party does not control all three branches, you have to compromise. you have to do something that you think is better than the current although not as good as you think it could be. a lot of republicans today do not have that attitude. they say we won the election to the house and we will get our copper mines and is evil. -- and compromise is evil. that kind of attitude makes it impossible to govern. republicans have also chosen to

create artificial crises. instead of passing a year budget, they passed a three- month budget. host: the house of representatives is about to come into session. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., march 21, 2013. i hereby appoint the honorable jeff miller to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray.

eternal god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. send your spirit upon the members of this people's house to encourage them in their official tasks. this is an important day for our nation. as the members approach the votes they are making today, may they have courage and leadership that looks to the health and vibrancy of our great nation. assure them that in the fulfillment of their responsibilities you provide the grace to enable them to be faithful to their duties and the wisdom to be conscious of their obligations and fulfill them with integrity. as the congress looks to the upcoming holy celebrations of millions of americans, may they and may we all be mindful of god's love for us. may we be faithful stewards, not only of god's creation but

also god's desire that all people would be free from whatever inhibits them to be fully alive. may all that is done this day be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his pproval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman -- >> pursuant to clause one of rule one, i demand a -- rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. the gentleman from texas. mr. olson: 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 pro tempore:

pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from arkansas, mr. womack. mr. womack: join me in the pledge. 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 pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on march 20, 2013, at 8:22 p.m. that the senate passed with amendments h.r. 933. signed sincerely, karen l. haas.

the speaker pro tempore: 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 arkansas rise? mr. womack: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. womack: mr. speaker, i rise today to offer early birthday greetings to one of america's greatest generation. james clemens turns 90 next week, and it's important for him to know how grateful we are for his service to country. inducted into the army in 1943, mr. clemens found himself in the army air corps as a flight engineer, mechanic and gunner. based in italy during world war ii, tech sergeant clemens and his unit, the 827th bomb squadron, 484th bomb group flew missions in italy, the balkans, austria, germany and southern france. the recipient of the distinguished flying cross and a number of other declarations,

tech sergeant clemens, like many other americans, answered his nation's call. as tom brokaw wrote in his book, they won the war, they saved the world. mr. speaker, we're losing this eneration of patriots. two are living from his unit. in advance of his special day next week, march 27, and on behalf of the people's house, i to appy 90th birthday james o. clemens of oklahoma. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the entlelady from florida rise? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mr. speaker, i head

back to my district tomorrow to face the thousands of people who sent me here to help them find jobs 800 days ago. mr. speaker, what do i say to them? they know the real deficit is jobs. do i say that the republicans in congress don't get it, they don't understand that people are suffering and struggling and starving and looking for work? millions of people are out of work, mr. speaker, and this body seeks to fire millions more. wake up, america. it's time to bring the president's american jobs act to the floor for a vote. it deserves a vote. mr. speaker, our mantra should jobs, jobs, jobs and more jobs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the entleman from michigan rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

>> mr. speaker, while we are right to focus this week on passing a budget that puts our country back on a responsible economic path, i rise today to remind my colleagues that it's been over six months since four americans, including our ambassador, were killed by terrorists in benghazi, libya. in six months, what have we learned? we still don't know why u.s. military assets in the region were not ready, alert and in a position to respond. we still don't know why injured survivors of the attack have been pressured not to come forward with their stories, and frankly we still don't know what specifically is being done to ensure that decisions about the security of our diplomatic missions are given the highest priority. i stand with congressman frank wolf and 58 of our colleagues in supporting the effort to establish a select committee to investigate and report on the benghazi attack. mr. benishek: only by aggressive congressional oversight will we ensure that

our pitiful response to this attack will never be repeated again. i hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in demanding the administration provide the straight answers that americans deserve. i yield the floor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today as a member of the safe climate caucus to remind us how the threat climate change poses to our communities and to emphasize the need for increased federal investment in new and i owe vative technologies to improve the world we live in. mr. holt: this past october hurricane sandy hit the mid-atlantic, including my home of new jersey. it was one of the most costly storms in history. society will bear the costs of climate change. society is bearing the cost of climate change. the debt was racked up as we recklessly burned fossil fuels over a century, filling the

atmosphere with excess co-2. now the debts are coming due as wildfires, drought, superfloods, a costly debt in lives and dollars. we would be wise to invest in more resilient infrastructure, n sustainible nonfossil energy sources. we as a country should rise to the challenge. the united states is not a poor impoverished nation, we are just acting like one. we should be investing as if we believe there is a future for us. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. olson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of the house republican budget. when a family racks up debt, it can take decades to pay off.

the interest alone can add up to thousands of dollars. that's money that could be spent on braces, college tuition or bigger home. the same is true for government. ignoring our debt will force us to break promises we made to seniors and the poor. we won't be able to protect medicare, medicaid and social security for those who need it. the house republican budget cuts spending by $.6 trillion over 10 years -- $4.6 trillion over 10 years and balances our budget in 10 years without raising taxes. in stark contrast, the house democrat budget balances when jesus comes back. a budget that spends too much hurts all americans, but the poor and elderly hurt the most. it's time to fix our debt and get our country back on track. i urge my colleagues to support

the republican budget. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from maine rise? ms. pin fwree: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute -- ms. pingree: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. pingree: thousands of americans, including 5,000 in maine, will start getting furlough notices. these men and women are the most hardworking and dedicated and skilled workers in america. year in and year out they repair and refit submarines on time and on budget. last year some of them even risked their lives to put out a fire onboard the u.s.s. miami and save it from becoming a total loss. now, the federal government is telling them they could have to take what could amount to a 20% pay cut. that is going to be a real hardship for working families in maine and in new hampshire. add to the insult to the

injury, they could even have their security clearances suspended if they fall behind on their finances. it's outrageous that congress has not done its job and passed a balance debt reduction package. it's outrageous that congress has resorted to these arbitrary and extreme budget cuts. the public workers at the portsmouth naval ship yard and around the country deserve our thanks, not a 20% pay cut. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hultgren: thank you, mr. speaker. with the house nearing important -- important votes on adopting a bold responsible plan towards a balanced budget, i rise today to speak to a question that's on the mind of many families in my district in illinois and families across the nation. how does congress passing a budget directly help our economy to grow private sector jobs and restore opportunity for more american families?

the actually is very simple. the house republican budget would create certainty in the job market through our commitment to reform and simplify the tax code, giving entrepreneurs and small businesses the confidence they need to expand and create new jobs. furthermore, unlike the senate democrats' plan, our budget would balance in 10 years without raising taxes. this would give bond houses and credit rating agencies confidence in our ability to reduce spending and get our debt under control. making it more affordable for families and small businesses to get loans. our budget plan means more jobs for american families. let's act today to make that commitment to the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from hawaii rise? without, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. hanabusa: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, we'll be voting on the republican budget, better known as the ryan budget, today. this budget has the distinction

of actually being vetted by the voters of this country in the last election, and voters said a resounding no, no to the end of medicare as we know it, no to the medicaid cuts, no to the repeal of obamacare, no to the protection of the tax cuts for the superwealthy, and no to balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class. this ryan budget plan that this body will be voting on in a few hours does exactly these things again for the third time, the voters have said no. if we pass it we're turning a deaf ear to the people. i ask my colleagues to vote no on the ryan budget. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from kansas is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. next week an important issue will be coming before our

united states supreme court and that is the challenge to our defense of marriage act and defense to a proposition in the state of california and i would encourage the court to not be distracted by many issues circulating about the fundamental issue before the ourt that is this -- the should the u.s. supreme court provide a radical 50-state mandate to change the definition of marriage? mr. huelskamp: i encourage the court to uphold marriage and to uphold the will of the people represented in a vote in california and many other states as well as a vote -- defense of marriage act by this body and signed by president bill clinton, uphold the will of the people, uphold the definition of marriage. i appreciate the supreme court sticking to those points and i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for up minute.

ms. jackson lee: in a few weeks transportation and security officers, customs and border protection, and border patrol agents will have devastating furloughs and cuts, jeopardizing the national security of this nation. today we can make a decision by voting on the van hollen democratic substitute and he resounding no on the republican budget. the van hollen bill gets rid of the see quester. it saves 750,000 jobs and creates over 1.5 million jobs. we can do the right thing for america. then, mr. speaker, i would ask that we look and do the right thing for gun control, gun regulation, gun violence prevention, and pass legislation such as h.r. 65, that is my gun safety and gun violence prevention act. that provides for safety locks and educational grants to train people how to be safe in using their guns, and also provide for an age level for young people

not being able to have these guns. this is the way that america wants us to go. let us travel a pattern of saving jobs and preventing gun violence, intervening in the lives of those who need our protection. that's what this congress should be doing, providing the pathway for america's success. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired.

for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the speaker may postpone further proceedings on the motion to concur in the senate amendments to h.r. 933, as though under clause 8-a-1-a of rule 20. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. bjection is heard. objection is withdrawn. there is no objection, so ordered. the gentleman from contract seek recognition. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 933, and that i may include tabular material on

the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. rogers: mr. speaker, pursuant to the order of the house on march 20, 2013, i call up h.r. 933 with the senate amendments thereto and i have a otion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. designate the senate amendments and designate the motion. the clerk: h.r. 933, an act making appropriations for the department of defense, the department of veterans affairs, and other departments and agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2013, and

for other purposes. senate amendment, motion by mr. rogers of kentucky. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of weapons, march 20, 2013, the motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations. the gentleman from kentucky, mr. rogers, and the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. lowey, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. . rogers: we present now the bill to fund the federal government for the remainder of the fiscal year. this legislation provides funding for essential federal programs and services, helps maintain our national security, and takes a potential governmental shutdown off the table. the house passed a very similar version of this bill just two

weeks ago. yesterday the senate passed their version of this legislation. now it's back before the house today for our final stamp of approval. i'm sure i don't need to remind the members of the deadline that we face here. the existing continuing resolution expires next wednesday, so it's vital we get this bill to the president for his signature straight away. the total funding provided in the bill remains at $984 billion, the level required by the president's sequestration order. to summarize the contents of this bill briefly, mr. speaker, it contains full funding for the departments of defense and veterans' affairs. exactly what the house approved the other week. without the additional flexibility provided in this

bill, the pentagon could face severe funding constraints even beyond sequestration. potentially jeopardizing our national security. in addition to addressing our military equipment and readiness needs, it also provides for the quality of life and health of our troops and veterans. we have added an additional $2.5 billion for the v.a. to ensure our nation's war fighters receive the benefits they have earned for their service. the senate -- to the bill we passed, the senate added three additional full year appropriations bills to h.r. 33. the ones for homeland security, commerce, just t. and science, and agriculture. mr. speaker, these were the bills that passed the house by

large margins with bipartisan backing. and are now by the senate reinserted into the c.r. for the balance of the year. and it pleases this member and this chairman that those bills were picked up and certified into the c.r. that we are passing today. this funding will support critical law enforcement agencies, protect our nation's borders and food supplies, and provide important agriculture and rural development investments. we have ensured that critical government services like food and nutrition assistance programs remain available to those who need them most. these updated spending and funding levels will help keep our economy on the path toward recovery, supporting u.s. trade manufacturing, and job creation.

in the other departments and agencies covered by the bill, both the house and senate made limited technical changes where absolutely necessary to prevent extensive waste of taxpayer dollars and to avoid any serious and irreversible damage to government programs, and to provide strict oversight of this spending. the senate added a number of additional what we call anomalies, or exceptions, beyond what was included in the initial house draft. i don't think all of the senate additions are absolutely necessary, but there is no reason to oppose them, not strong enough to oppose this legislation. however, the senate did not add some important matters. and i want to reiterate briefly what they are. the senate did not add

additional funds for he obamacare. the senate did not add addition m funding for the flawed dodd-frank law. the senate did not remove important second amendment protections. and they did not dismantle important oversight and funding conditions that help ensure the wise and appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. mr. speaker, all said this bill is the product of thoughtful bipartisan conciliation and hard work. we stayed in close touch with senators mikulski and shelby as they managed the bill in the senate, as a result the senate added no poison pills, to the bill that passed the house last week. even if a continuing resolution is not the most preferable way to fund the government, i believe this bill is the best we can do under these tricky circumstances.

and i want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and other side of the capitol for working closely with us and the committee over the past few weeks. we still face a long haul for the rest of the year. it may seem far down the line, but the beginning of fiscal 2014 is only six months away, not to mention the other fiscal challenges that we face. passing this continuing resolution today lays the groundwork for a path forward. it takes a looming fiscal deadline off the table to allow us to finish the rest of our work and ensures our government keeps its doors opened through all of that. now, mr. speaker, all the members of this body know that the real work of the body is done by staff. in the case of the appropriations committee, i can

say that 10,000 times. the staff that worked this bill and work on the committee business, both on the majority and minority side put in long hours. on weekends and all night sessions and the like. they are the people who don't get enough praise. this bill, of course, is no different. the staff has worked across the aisle and across the capitol to make this bill what it is today. i want to especially thank the chief clerk, the head of the staff. billingly who sits beside me here has run the committee staff since we have had the chance to chair the committee. i can't say enough good work about he and all of the staff, both sides of the aisle, who have labored so hard with a

great heart to make these bills possible. so i want to thank bill especially for the great work that he has given to the nation through his work in clerking for the appropriations committee. i ask my colleagues, mr. speaker, to do the right thing by the american people and support this legislation and take a shutdown of the government off the table. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i came to congress 25 years ago and joined the appropriations committee a few years later with a strong sense of responsibility and optimism. with hard work and bipartisanship this committee has the power to transform

lives. to ensure that whether you are from the poorest block of urban america or a penthouse in manhattan, with hard work you can achieve the american dream. to research treatments and medicines so that we can cure the most tragic illnesses like cancer and hiv-aids and child hood disorders like autism, to give every youngster the opportunities my grandchildren hardworking parents struggle to find childcare or afford pre-k or think about how they are ever going to pay for a college education. to invest in the initiatives that have made this nation great, bolstering our economy, giving americans jobs, building our infrastructure, teaching our children, and protecting our communities. now while the bill we consider today represents a great deal of

compromise, it fails these tests. but with the current continuing resolution expiring in just six days, we have run out of options, my friends, to avoid a government shutdown. when the house first considered this package, i voted against it in part because it included just two bills, defense and military construction, leaving every other government agency to live under a continuing resolution from fiscal year 2012. . the senate wisely added three additional spending bills to the measure we consider today -- agriculture, commerce, justice, science and homeland security. and amended the bill to help other agencies adapt to current needs. senate appropriations airwoman mikulski and i were

in constant contact during negotiations and i'm glad she got the best deal she could at this time. yet, i remain deeply dissatisfied that sequestration is not addressed and will slash the very priorities i believe all of us came here to fulfill. these $68 billion in detrimental cuts will diminish services americans depend on -- job growth and our overall economy. according to c.b.o., 750,000 jobs, more than a third of the jobs we created last year, will be wiped out by sequestration. this package lacks vital assistance to fully operate and promote federal health insurance exchanges needed to give millions of uninsured americans health care. it also provides inadequate

funds to enforce financial reforms to protect consumers. the majority sets a dangerous precedent by refusing to fund the implementation of laws they simply don't like but cannot overturn. health and financial reform are the laws of the land and the health care law has even been affirmed by the united states supreme court. the american people face erious challenges. children who will lose head start, diseases for which we will decrease research, unsafe roads and bridges and a food supply that could be less safe, we cannot relit gait partisan battles. we should instead forge ahead toward compromise and practical

solutions. in that spirit, i'm pleased the bill includes the administration's full request for embassy security to protect americans working abroad. in addition, it fully funds our commitments to israel, our only and vital ally in the middle east. r. 933 will support 0 -- 20,700 claims processors to ddress the shameful veterans administration claims' backlog. the bill also directs the v.a. progress o congress to help the backlog. transportation funding is also increased to meet the levels authorized under the map-21 plan and critical highway and motor carrier safety programs are included.

mr. speaker, despite its imperfections, i will support this bill to avert government shutdown which would be disastrous for our economy. as we finally put fiscal year 2013 behind us and move on to 014 -- 2014, it is my sincere hope that we can work together to stop sequestration's mindless cuts before american jobs and livelihoods are lost. once this bill is passed and we have avoided a government shutdown, we must ask ourselves -- why are we here? we're here to ensure every family has access to high quality health care, every child has the opportunity to learn, grow and thrive. we're here to protect the safety and economic security of

americans and to leave our world and our country better than we inherited it for our children and grandchildren. we are failing and we must do better. let's restore the sense of responsibility to improve the lives of our constituents and the prosperity of this great nation. i want to close by thanking chairman rogers, the wonderful staff on both sides of the aisle -- pardon me. i want to close by thanking -- a little coaching from back here. i want to thank chairman rogers again and the staff on both sides of the aisle. we've all tried to work across the aisle. i hope we can do so as future bills are discussed and as we

face a new challenge. thank you, mr. speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman continues to reserve. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to mr. perlmutter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. perlmutter: thank you, mr. speaker. and to my friends on the appropriations committee, i do want to congratulate you for working together. this is a positive sign for this congress, but the reason i stand today here in this chamber is that eight months ago yesterday, 12 people were murdered in the aurora theater, 58 were shot and hundreds were traumatized. three months ago 22 kids were

killed in newtown, massachusetts. we have yet to have a single hearing on mental health, on gun safety, on background checks, on whether we limit the number of rounds in a magazine, on military-style assault weapons. but i rise today because in this bill various substantive legislation, which i believe is out of order in an appropriations bill that deals with tracing a gun used in crimes and the prohibition to use any information that might be gained from tracing guns used in crimes in any kind of study to figure out where these are coming from. and so i dare say that the appropriations committee held a hearing on gun safety or gun --

on mag stpwhreens or even on this -- magazines or even in pages l, sections 514, 169 and 170, and i believe, mr. speaker, this is a very important subject that this house has got to take up. it can't be part of some appropriations bill where there's never been real testimony and where we have substantive legislation. so i appreciate the work that you've done on the appropriations piece, but i don't appreciate the piece where substantive legislation concerns -- there's substantive legislation concerning gun safety. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield five minutes to congresswoman delauro, the ranking member and the distinguished leader of the committee that funds health, , labor.

ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized for five minutes. ms. delauro: mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this resolution which has only marginally improved since the last time we voted on it. this resolution makes deem, permanent, indiscriminate and harmful sequestration cuts that threaten our economic recovery. these are automatic across-the-board cuts. it hurts our economic recovery, the health and the well-being and the future of millions of american families. both the nonpartisan congressional budget office and the federal reserve chairman, ben bernanke, argued that sequestration could cost us as many as 750,000 jobs and that is not all. this resolution will make unnecessary cuts to vital programs that support families around the country, and these

cuts will weigh heaviest on the people we should be helping the most to get back on their feet, the most vulnerable families still struggling from the great recession. a vote on this resolution is not a vote for a government shutdown. speaker boehner has pledged on multiple occasions that he will not let the government shut down. you don't have to support this resolution and sequestration to avoid a shutdown. if you vote for this resolution, you're voting to undermine the affordable care act by not providing funding to fully implement and ensure access to the health care marketplace. you are voting to cut $400 million from head start. that means cutting early learning and development services from 70,000 children. you vote to cut $282 million from critical job training programs, cutting services from hundreds of thousands of unemployed and dislocated workers, veterans and students. you vote to slash $730 million from title 1 grants, cutting

federally funded education services from 2,500 schools and one million disadvantaged children. you vote to cut $580 million from special education grants, shifting the cost of educating 30,000 kids to the state and to local education agencies. you vote to cut more than $1.5 billion from the national institutes of health, slowing the pace of research, reducing the number of medical advances we make each year, advances that have the potential to save lives. you vote to cut $115 million from the childcare development block grant, further exacerbating the services for childcare assistance for 30,000 children. the list goes on. on top of the deep cuts that have already become law, this goes deeper into every responsibility of good government -- public health, research, transportation, you name it. it also includes four

provisions, egregious provisions related to firearms that will continue to blind law enforcement and hamper our ability to combat gun violence. this is not the american people want from us. we need to pass a bill that protects the middle class, seniors and the most vulnerable. the resolution before us today does none of these things. you know, whenever we are drafting a budget or debating legislation in the house of representatives, these are the principles that inform my work as a member of the congress. on tuesday in rome, pope francis i asked, and i quote, all those who have positions of responsibility in economic, political and social life, to also quote, be the protectors. we need to be the protectors. we need to carry that vision of service with us and hope that all elected officials heed what the newly invested pope has

called for to work to ensure that our service is truly a service to others. we need to not put american families at risk, and i urge my colleagues to oppose this continuing resolution and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fitzpatrick. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. fitzpatrick: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i want to speak about one small part of the continuing resolution, but one that has a huge impact on constituents in every district in this nation. military tuition assistance, a popular program used by hundreds of thousands of troops to further their education and become better leaders both in uniform and back in the civilian job market. military tuition assistance, mr. speaker, is what the administration chose to cut because of sequestration. the administration didn't have to end this program but they

did. the administration clearly decided to try and make sequester cuts as painful as possible, and our military men and women are being made to suffer the consequences. instead of cutting waste, they ended a popular benefit for members of the armed services. this administration would rather renege on a promise made to soldiers, airmen and marines than work together to prioritize spending and get our fiscal house in order. thankfully through bipartisan efforts in both chambers, we were able to right a wrong. today's vote compels the administration to keep our government's promise to america's service men and women and quite frankly it's a shame it ever had to come to this. i thank every member of this body had aes that -- that has worked to restore the military tuition program. i urge support of the bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. who seeks recognition? the gentlelady from new york.

mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, as we conclude our discussion, i just want to make it clear that i look forward to continuing to work with my friend, chairman rogers, and hopefully we can consider each bill as we address the needs of federal year 2014. i agree with my dear friend, congresswoman delauro, on the problems with this bill and the accounts that we have not funded adequately and i do hope as we move forward we can work in a bipartisan way to, yes, continue to root out waste, fraud and abuse but also address the many needs of our constituents, all the people of the united states of america

and people around the world who look to the united states as a eacon of hope and opportunity. so i again feel that i will support this bill because we cannot allow the government to shut down in six days, but i look forward with optimism that we can work together to address the many needs that we have not considered appropriately in this bill and i thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. . i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: i will be brief. but i wanted to point out to the body the rarity of what we are doing here today. this bill funds the government for the balance of the year.

and the house and senate picked up earlier approved appropriations bills, some of the 12 of the bills, and incorporated them into this c.r. so it's sort of a hybrid bill. a part of it funds the agencies without any particular change from 2012, and then in these five bills that earlier had passed the house and senate committee, now incorporated in this bill, funds those agencies with full-year funding with full-year instructions. the rarity of coming together as we are a week or so before the ending of the c.r., to pass a new c.r., by agreement with the senate with the myriad of details involved in these bills, tens of thousands of decisions

actually that were made a part of this bill, it is remarkable that we are at this point where i think the bill will be approved with great majority as it was in the senate. the senate vote was 73-26. and i think the vote here will be similar. that's remarkable. and it's due to good staff work, number one. dedicated work. it's duele to members of both bodies who were able to listen to their colleagues, understand everyone's needs involved in this process, and for the most part we found conciliation and ability to come together around these common provisions that are good for the country. this will allow our military a lot more flexibility in how they

spend the money we give to them, all the while it's a bigger amount compared to what they need. nevertheless they are given flexibility. likehen the other agencies veterans and homeland security, border patrol, with veterans' pension cases and trying to help relieve that workload, and all of the agriculture needs of the untry included in this bill, as well as the commerce, justice part, science so we are properly, i think, funding things like the f.b.i., the d.e.a., law enforcement agencies, the commerce and trade divisions, as well as all of the others included in the bill. so, mr. speaker, this is a good bill. i'm proud of it. i'm proud of the fact that we were able to do all of this, frankly, as smoothly as it has gone. that's a tribute to the work of

people like nita lowey, the new ranking member on the full committee, and the work of senator richard shelby, ranking republican on the senate side. of course the new chairman of the committee over there, senator barbara mikulski. all of us work together and we were determined to produce a product that would be good for the nation, number one, but as it turns out i think it's good for this body and the senate. we proved when we set our mind to it we can get complicated, hard things done. and that's what this bill does. so, mr. speaker, i urge an aye vote on 933. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. pursuant to the order of the house on wednesday, march 20, 2013, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion by the gentleman from kentucky, mr. rogers. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the previous order of the house, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from wisconsin rise? mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and includeheir remarks and extraneous material on h.con.res. 25, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i'd like to yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. pursuant to house resolution 122 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of house concurrent resolution 25. will the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, kindly esume the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of house concurrent resolution 25 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: concurrent resolution establishing the budget of the united states government for

fiscal year 2014, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2015 through 2023. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on wednesday, march 20, 2013, amendment number 5 printed in house report 113-21, offered by the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, had been disposed of. pursuant to the rule, it is now in order to consider a final period of general debate which shall not exceed 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee of the committee on budget. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, will each control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chair, i'd yield myself 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. ryan: i want to start off by thanking all our hardworking staff and i ask unanimous consent to include in the record a list of all the staff members on the republican side of the aisle. the chair: that will be done in general leave. mr. ryan: i want to recognize in

particular one member, our health care policy expert, charlotte. she was there for our first budget and this marks her last budget as she is now joining speaker boehner's team. she devoted long hours to working with medicare actuaries. she was instrumental in the bipartisan collaboration with senator wyden and former budget director. she always understood her hard work was for a higher purpose. her husband and two boys are what motivate her work and that passion has been contain tajeous. it's been an honor to work at her side and i want to thank all the hardworking staffers on both sides of the aisle to elevate this important debate. we wish her very good luck. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you very much, mr. chairman. over the last couple days we have had a spirited debate on the budget. we have deep differences on this issue, but i want to commend chairman ryan for the way he conducts the business of the

budget committee. the debate is lively, but always civil. and i thank him for the way he has run the committee. i also want to thank all the other members of the budget committee for their full participation in this debate and the staffs, both republican staff and democratic staff, who work so hard for the service of -- their service to our country. and i want to commend our team who have been working very hard and ask that their names be included in the record along with members of the republican staff. mr. chairman, these budget resolutions are mostly comprised of lots of numbers on lots of pages. but we know that behind these numbers are key decisions about the future direction of our country and our priorities and values as a nation. i was disappointed that yesterday this house did not pass our democratic budget alternative that presents a

solutions-based approach to address our challenges. instead of an ideological approach. and stayed i'm going to ask the house to vote against the republican budget because of its uncompromising theological approach, and i will explain more about that in a moment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves his time. mr. ryan: may i ask the gentleman from maryland how many speakers he has remaining? mr. van hollen: i'm the only speaker. mr. ryan: at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the peaker of the house. the chair: the speaker of the house, the gentleman from ohio, is recognized for one minute. mr. boehner: let me thank my colleague for yielding and congratulate mr. ryan and our members on the budget committee