himself a helicopter pilot during the vietnam war, and he represented the family of onnie gruber and trish brau. in addition, brian alexander in new york represented 17 families. mr. speaker, i always believed this, i might be wrong because i'm not an attorney, but when a settlement is made a substantial settlement is made, somebody was seen as being at fault. the press on july 27 of the year 2000 in the release they make references to a combination of -- reference to a combination caused by the april 8 scent. they further stated, marine corps commandant james jones,

the tragedy is that these were all good marines joined in a challenging mission. unfortunately, the pilots drive to accomplish that mission appears to have been the fatal factor. mr. speaker, what the family and myself have been battling for since the year 2000 is that the experts have said that the pilots did not understand how it impacts the v-22. vortex marine state is understood in most helicopters, but the v-22 was new and they had not done any testing at all . and mr. speaker, i want to read the paragraph from connie gruber when she asked me to look into this. this was dated december 10 of 2002. with so many wrongs in the world we cannot make right, i ask that you proudfully consider an injustice that you can help make right.

i realize you alone may not be able to amend the report, but you can certainly support my efforts to permanently remove this black mark from my husband's honorable military service record. military leaders continue to refuse to amend this report, but i am certain that there must be other means of making this change. given the controversy of this aircraft and the marine corps' vested interest, surely there is an unbiased ethical way to rightfully absorb these pilots. please help me by not only forwarding my request but also supporting it. when i received that letter from mrs. gruber, i called and told her that i'm a strong man of faith and there was some reason that god put my name in

her letter and that i would do everything i could to clear the names of colonel john broud and major brooks gruber. -- john brow and major brooks gruber. i cannot understand being a pilot or co-pilot in a situation where you have not been trained, you didn't understand the vortex ring state and how it would impact the v-22 and what you should do . without the fault of the united states marine corps, and that's the fault of bell-boeing. again, the lawsuits are settled and the bell-boeing settle for big bucks, if i can say it that way. i want to give you just another idea. i have talked to so many people in 10 years that sometimes it gets confusing.

but i think this what i'm going to read, mr. speaker, probably tells the story as well as anything. it's from the publication wonder weapon or widow maker. and i read, that the tests addressing flying qualities called vortex ring state were reduced from 103 mandated test conditions to the 33 actually flown represents cancellation tests in 68% of the this key area, including the crucial two at 20 and 40 knots, at high gross weight, specifically applicable in this accident. this article further states that it was tested with participating in the april 8 night operating without benefit of such highly relevant test

results and experience represents real and what some might label criminal. negligence on the part of those with nab air and the marine corps leaders who knew the parameters of this missing test and the nature of this nighttime exercise without this prior testing experience data and subsequent analysis, these pilots should not have been nige such a mission. mr. speaker, what makes this so ironic when i share with you in get a year of trying to letter from the united states marine corps that clearly states and the facts support this, clearly states that colonel john brow, pilot, major brooks gruber, co-pilot, were not prepared as to handle

vortex ring state in the v-22 os prix. -- osprey. that's all the wives want. you would think that we were going to be sued or something. i got letters from the lawyers that said, no more suits. it's over. all the family want is for their children -- trish has two young boys. mark and matthew. d connie has a little girl who's just as precious as she can be. and it's just one of those things that as a man of faith, you just wonder, where is the guilt of those who ordered that mission that night, it makes no sense. dick cheney did not like the osprey. he was secretary of defense at the time. so the marine corps ordered a mission where these planes would go to marana, arizona, and they would play the -- they marines g to recapture

being held by terrorists, it sometimes you wonder, where is the heart? where is the feeling? these gentlemen truthfully were known as two of the best osprey pilots that the marine corps had at that time. and all the information i read -- and, mr. speaker, i contacted the three investigators, marine investigators for the j j.a.g. man report. that is the official report of the accident. major phil stackhouse, colonel ron radish and colonel mike morgan have all given me letters within the last year, each one that clearly states nothing in the j.a.g. man report should indicate that the pilots did anything in a eliberate way.

because the pilots had not been trained. bell-boeing, after being sued, they hired a spreermental test pilot who's -- experimental test pilot, who's pretty well-known, named tom mcdonald. tom mcdonald spent 700 hours studying one -- what happens when the v-22 gets into vortex ring state? 700 hours and he was discovered how they should handle it and received -- excuse me -- a ational award. i talked to a lot of people in the 12 years on this issue and the one thing that god has allowed me to understand that his children deserve to be cleared.

i'm hopeful we have back and forth sent a letter that the marine corps' reviewing that the two wives have said they would be satisfied with. and our hope is that sometime in the next few weeks that we will get that letter. i will go to the secretary of defense, chuck hagel, who i know and i have a friendship with, and i will ask him to assign someone on his immediate staff to work with me on this issue. i hope that the marine corps understands that i do not want o do that. because it would bring more peace to trish and connie if the marine corps writes the letter and, again, we're probably talking about at most three letters, three sentences, excuse me -- three sentences.

trish has said to the public, i do not want my children, mike and matthew, to go on google and read that pilot error was the cause of this accident on april 8 of 2000. and quite frankly, mr. speaker, that's what would happen if anyone would google osprey and then april 8 and you would see that. it would indicate it was pilot error. i -- you know, sometimes i have some kids in my office today from my district and they were asking about the things that members of congress gets involved in. i said not everything i get involved in should be or needs to be in the press. some things we get involved in is because our heart tells us that if you don't to it, who's going to do it?

who's going to do it if you, congressman walter jones, don't take it up? and i hope and pray that john brow and brooks gruber and the 17 marines in the back, mr. speaker, will be able to rest in peace. one said, and it's a quote, hat we owe the living respect. we owe the dead the truth. and that's all we're asking is that these two marines can rest in peace. mr. speaker, i have said if that omes to be a reality their graves. john is buried in arlington. th the wife and the two boys

and say, colonel brow, it's over. then with major gruber, with his wife and little girl -- he's buried in jacksville, is . go with them and say, sleep you're not at fault. sleep. mr. speaker, i apologize for getting -- i just feel so passionate about this. so with that, thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for the remainder of the gentleman's time. mr. hunter: i thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: 22 minutes. mr. hunter: thank you, mr. speaker. and this is probably appropriate coming after mr. jones speaking about the united

states marine corps. i come to you -- come before you today, mr. speaker, to talk about a great marine, a marine who was in charge of central command and has retired and resigned after decades of service to this nation, and let me start at the point where i was able to meet him. 10 years ago today the war in iraq was under way. 19 days after the invasion, marines and soldiers had dismantled saddam hussein's regime. the takedown of bag back and iraq was precise and supremely coordinated, much to the credit of james maddus who led the first marine division in baghdad and was commander of central command. on march 20, 2003, maddus led the first marine division to the borders of iraq. the marine's success and effectiveness sustaining light

casualties was due to the intelligent and the skill of one of the most cerebral war fighters of our lifetime, general maddus. he is a tough man, exactly what you would expect from a united states marine. he's practical in combat while laser focused on securing the objective. his marines outsmarted and overpowered saddam's forces and he took a different tactic and hard to win the peace in ire than it was to win the war, but that's when he led his intelligence and outside of the box thinking show through. in the aftermath, general maddus and his commanders, working to build trust, establish alliances that were important to the iraqi people, befriended the -- what

some thought were the worst people in the anbar province. general maddus was able to make riends with those elders and brought upon the awakening where those local tribes realized that al qaeda was their enemy and they tuned on al qaeda in iraq and that was able to precipitate the surge and drawdown from iraq and we won largely as a testament to general maddus' leadership. there was general petraeus, general mcchrystal, general kelly, who is in charge of the international security force, but general maddus stands out to me and i would like to relay a quick experience. when i got to iraq in 2003, i was driving north to join the first marine division and we got

ambushed. my marine was on the mark 19 and as a lieutenant, we were taught to drive out of an ambush as quickly as possible and go back and prosecute the enemy. we weren't able to. it was 2003. there was no radio communication at this point in time, we couldn't talk with our headquarters. me being the highest ranking officer, i was brand new in iraq, we continued north to where the first marine division was head quartered. general maddus happened to be in the command operations center when i got there and dressed me down for not prosecuting the enemy. he was angry -- not that a marine was shot and not that we escaped, he was angry. that is a real trait of general maddus' but for a lieutenant like me who was in country for a

few hours, it was a stark awakening, hey you are in the war and have to live up to the expectations and example set by people general maddus. i met him in 2004 in the battle of fallujah and we would call general maddus chaos. that was his call sign. ot only was he the cerebral or architect of what the marine corps did, but he was fearless. he would drive alone, and unafraid in his light-armored vehicle and show up in any kind of situation whether there was a fire fight or not and he earned the respect of every single marine and soldier that saw him on the front line in those wars. general maddus is not centcom commander. centcom has overseen the afghan war with a strategy that is

indicative of his touch. apiring leaders would be to take note. he served the marine corps for 40 years. i would argue that this administration, with this commander in chief, likes military leaders who agree with it. and military leaders that give this administration the answers that they like to get about the way the world is today. and they are oppose todd military leaders who give their honest opinions regardless of who is commander in chief. general maddus the type of person that our military needs now more than ever before and as e prepares to leave centcom, i can say that i speak for the marines that have served under maddus that a leader of his kind is nearly impossible to replace. i would like to read a couple of quotes. this book is called "victory in

america, how america won." the opening page, general maddus is featured speaking to his first marine division in iraq or in kuwait before the invasion. here's what he said. when i give you the word, we will cross the line into iraq. for the mission's sake, our country's sake and the sake of the men who carry the division's colors and past battles, carry out your mission and keep your honor clean. demonstrate to the world that there is no better friend, no worsen my than a united states marine. i would like to give general maddus the appreciation of the entire united states house of representatives and every single marine, past, present and future and ever single american that knows at least partly the safety of this nation to people like him and to him, literally and

explicitly what he has done for this nation. general maddus, we hope retirement treats you as well as your marine corps did. i yield back the balance of my ime. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 146, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 1120, to prohibit the national labor relations board from taking any action that requires a quorum of the members of the board until such time as board constituting a quorum shall have been confirmed

by the senate. the supreme court issues a decision on the constitutionality of the appointments of the board or the adjournment of the first session of the 113th congress. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. ryan, for 30 minutes. mr. ryan: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the opportunity to be here. are re-establishing the 30-something working group, -- it ome may remember seems like many years ago, congressman kendrick meek and i and congresswoman debey wasserman schultz, came to this

floor in 2003 and 2004 and 2005 and in 2006 and we were talking about issues of the day and how they applied to people in their 30's or people in their 20's. and tried to take at that point some of president bush's policies and make them understandable to young people in our society. and so we had many conversations, many late-night conversations here on this house floor, sometimes an hour a night, sometimes two hours a night, sometimes three, four, five hours a week coming to help deliver the message. 2004, that time, back in 2005, 2006 -- and let me just take a second to thank all the

staff that was here for those late hours for always being around for us, and some are still here today, as we are still here today -- but today we -establish this. back then it was the privatizing of social security and president bush wanted to take the social security program and privatize it and put it in the stock market and allow that to be a part of the private investment system and not the insurance system that we have with regard to social security. and fortunately, we were able, through the leadership of minority leader pelosi at that time before she was speaker, encouraged us to go out and do this and we were able to do it with her leadership, 30-something group and other members, we were able to put a

stop to the privatization of social security and fast forward to 2008, 2009, i think there were a lot of americans who were very happy that we did not at that time have the social security program in the stock market. many people would have lost their retirements. so today, we have a whole new set of challenges and we have a w crop of very tall -- talented young members of congress on who want to come to the floor and talk about the issues of the day as they pertain to young people and people who have been roorned a little bit and some of these proposals that are coming from the republican caucus, the republican study committee, the republican budget committee, how some of these policies will hit the ground. be in my opinion, we seem to

governing by bumper sticker. so we want smaller government. we want less of this and less of that and more of this and more of that that can be phrased to sound really good on a bumper sticker to where you would drive by and look at the bumper sticker and you would think, makes a lot of sense. what we want to do with this working group and the folks who will be joining me here tonight and over the next several weeks and months is to say, how does this hit the ground. how does the republican budget hit the ground. how does it affect you, how does it affect your family, how does it affect your mom and dad, how does it affect your grandma and grandpa. and that's what we would like to talk about today.

and i think and say this knowing that many of the folks on the other side of the aisle are friends of mine, dear friends, good friends. some i like to hang out with, some i don't get the opportunity to hang out with, but are all good people trying to do good things. but why we need to come here and have this debate and discussion and conversation is that we need to figure out how we're going to move forward as a country. and our arguments on our side are that the republican budget -- the republican approach, the republican philosophy has caused a lot of the problems that we have in our economy today. the financial deregulation looking the other way while wall street turned into a crap game

without any regulation at all, no cops on the beat keeping an eye on things. we saw two wars put on a credit card, afghanistan and iraq. other ayer, no citizen than the families of the military were asked to make any sacrifice at all and funding for the two wars was put on a credit card. and then you throw in a prescription drug bill that was .ot paid for on the credit card and so, this is what happened where we were008, running up the deficit, running up the national debt and here we 2009,in 2009 -- arrive in

after having to save the banks and do the tarp program in order to plug this trillions of dollars of a hole in our economy, to make sure the banks don't wlock up and loan everything else. we had to go to the taxpayer and the taxpayer had to foot the bill for the two wars, the prescription drug bill and the massive deregulation of the big ial markets, the too to fail and they failed. and so the taxpayer was asked to foot the bill. what we are saying here on our side is that that's the wrong approach. cutting taxes for the wealthiest in our society -- this is not to the punish the wealthy -- our approach is not to punish

anybody, but what we're saying is when the income for the top 1% goes up over the last 15, 20 years so dramatically that the average c.e.o. is making 300-plus times what the average worker is making, when you have the rich, people that are making hundreds of millions of dollars, the top 1%, but then you also .1% of americans who are making massive amounts of money. hedge funds and what not. . when you have that level of inequality, it becomes a threat to the democratic way of life. that's the democracy piece. but we also have the economic

piece. when you get a high concentration of wealth, then the average person doesn't have the amount of money in their pocket to be able to go out and spend in the economy so this is a supply side argument, cut taxes for the wealthy. this approach that our friends on the other side, republican party, tea party has been pitching since 1980, cut taxes for the rich and hopefully something positive will happen for the middle class. democrats are saying, we've got to invest into the middle class. we've got to help the middle class with health care costs, with the cost of going to school and going to college, getting a trade, going to a community college, helping poorer school districts, making sure that families who send their kids to college and take

out a student loan that those loan repayment rates are reasonable, those are the reforms we made as democrats here at -- while the democrats were in charge of the chamber in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. and those are the investments we made. so we're talking about two separate philosophies. one philosophy on the republican tea party side is to cut taxes for the wealthy, deregulate wall street, look the other way while there's a craps game going on on wall street, have two wars, one of them very questionable and why it started in the first place, and a prescription drug bill that all went on the credit card. so cut taxes, start two wars, and put a prescription drug bill on the credit card drive up the debt, deregulate the financial markets until the

taxpayer has to come in and bail out and the economy collapses. that's what happened. and so we don't really have to have the argument. ose are the facts of republican presidency, house and senate that got to implement their tax package. they got to implement their financial regulatory packages. they got to pass budgets that did or did not make certain investments and what happened is after a decade of those -- that philosophy being implemented, the economy collapsed. and it was not just a normal recession. it was a financial recession which a lot of economists now are telling us how difficult and how much longer it takes to t out of these financial recessions. so the discussion that we had

in the last presidential election and the discussion that we have here in this chamber as to who -- what no, sir fee should prevail -- as to what philosophy should prevail in the united states house of representatives, the body that is most directly elected, federal piece anyway, most directly elected, every two years by the people of this country, what philosophy shall we take? and the democrats are offering and under the leadership of leader pelosi, a different world view, a world view that says we make investments in infrastructure. we make investments in education. we make sure that we have a fair tax code that is simpler but fairer, simpler and fairer, that it doesn't take forever to fill out your taxes and keep it simple and at the same time we ask those people who benefit -- have benefited so much over the last decade or two, whose

income went up and they now make 300-plus times what the average worker makes, that they help pay their fair share and help us pay for the debts that we have incurred by putting the republican party, putting two wars on a credit card and a prescription drug bill. so that's the discussion. that's what we want to do, and the president and democrats have made these investments. and if you think that things like only paying a certain percentage of your income back for your student loan is what is part of your philosophy, then you fall on -- on our camp on that issue. if you think that the c.e.o. that's making 300 times more or $300 for every dollar the

person on the factory floor is making, needs to be balanced out, maybe they need to help us pay down the debt more and shouldn't have all kinds of tax loopholes, then you're going to side what the democrats want to do. so long story short, we are now in a position where we can talk about the republican budget. we are all in agreement -- i think democrats and republicans -- that budgets are documents that represent our values. and we all are in agreement that we need to take care of our long-term debt. we need to reduce our deficits. it is an issue, and one that we all need to take very seriously. now, the republican plan is presented to the american needed d it is taking

investments and cutting them so deeply that we are going to get leapfrogged by china and india and europe and some of the coming industries -- in some of the coming industries that these cuts, in order to try to balance the budget in a short period of time, are going to be pushed off. most of these cuts -- the urden of these cuts will be on education, ass -- economic development, the kind of investments that we need to make. also, these cuts are going to be cut out of programs that help the poorest among us. d that is not a recipe for

success. we have 300-plus million people in the united states. we are competing against india, china on who's going to determine, who's going to shape the future of the global economy. is it going to be the united states? is it going to be china? is it going to be endia? is it going to be -- is it going to be india? is it going to be europe? that's the question, who's going to shape the future? and america has always had a recipe from post-world war ii 1980's ughly in the where we made investments in infrastructure, we made investments in research and development, we made investments in education because we knew that those were public investments that would yield huge benefits for the united states of america. and now we have a republican philosophy that says those

investments are a waste of money, that any investment that the government makes must be a bad one, that the space program, it that the research investments that we make, that making sure that school's affordable, the public-private partnerships that lead to new developments, the research that no one company will make must be made by the public. those are quality investments that help build our economy for a generation. whether it was post-world war ii with the g.i. bill -- and we take all of these soldiers and we make sure they can go to college, we make sure they can go to law school, we make sure they can go to medical school, we make sure they can become engineers, or the space program in which the public money with

-how e ingenuity and know and came together in that investment, in the space program, led to a booming economy in the high-tech sector, the other investments that led to the internet, satellites and all of these other things and private companies come in and benefit from that. and then invest in a work force that can take those technologies and make them better and increase productivity so that we have a strong middle class. invest in our infrastructure, make sure that we rebuild our country. we've got combined sewer systems. we've got roads. we've got bridges that need done. we need to pack sure that we invest in the smart power grids so that we can get alternative

energy pumped into our grids so that we can have a more conservative approach to how we expend energy, a smarter approach because of a smart grid where we're wasting less energy. these are the kinds of investments that we need to make, and all the while protecting what's happening and what may happen if the republican budget would be signed into law. the dramatic cuts in the medicare program. asking those going into their senior years to not have a guaranteed benefit that they paid into. and many of those folks who , uld be hurt by the program the republican budget program, would be women, many of them

older women. 55% of the medicare population, women. the oldest medicare beneficiary s 85 and older, 70% of those are women. , women will see those cuts. we have proposals from the other side about abolishing planned parenthood, about saying that planned parenthood does not serve women well and it's many, many women who get basic health care from planned parenthood. screenings, birth control, family planning, all done through planned parenthood. the other side wants to abolish it, defund it completely. these are some basic things we need to do in order to protect

the middle class. so here we are in the next few weeks and months, we're going to have a discussion about where this country goes and where the house of epresentatives go and what's our philosophy. and so we will be coming here week after week after week to compare this philosophy, the philosophy of cut taxes for the top 1%, to keep the tax code very complicated so the ealthiest benefit from it or democratic philosophies and democratic proposals that say we want a fairer tax code, we want a simpler tax code and we want a tax code that doesn't have so many loopholes that only if you have high-powered accountants will you be able to code. vantage of the tax

the tax code should benefit middle-class families, and we all need to contribute. but it shouldn't be so complicated that if you have a lot of money or you are a big corporation you are somehow going to get out of paying taxes. or you somehow are going to be able to hide your taxes overseas and not pay your fair share. that's one group's philosophy versus ours. we are saying that, yes, we need to balance the budget, but we want to do it like president clinton did it and the democrats did it in 1993. we want to do it in a fairway that continues to make investments in those essential investments that will lead to long-term economic growth. one of the things we're doing in youngstown in my congressional strict is a program that president obama had to put together administratively that we want to push for more of these, public-private partnerships and

innovative institutes. and the innovation institute youngstown now in is manufacturing, three-dimensional printing, the cutting edge of manufacturing. the cutting edge of additive manufacturing, partnering with big companies like lockheed and boeing and other smaller companies, but public money from the department of defense, the department of energy, the department of commerce, public-private partnerships to help position america, not just our region, in the next generation of additive manufacturing, help drive the costs down for these printers so that everyone that has a desk top computer now can have a desk top printer that prints products. that could revolutionize health care, revolutionize energy,

revolutionize manufacturing in the defense energy, but this is a public-private partnership. and what we cannot do is say, oh it's , it's public moneyy got to be bad. the investments we make for the poor in the medicaid program so that we can make sure that these kids have basic health care in the united states of america. and yes, we do need education reform. yes, we do need innovation within the health care system and we have a long way to go even with the health care reform bill and how we can revolutionize health care and education and revolutionize the way we take care of our veterans and i will be back on this floor talking about some of those ways

we can go about doing that. but the issue i have with the republican proposals are they're all about the budget. listen, we all know we have a demographic problem. we all know we have the baby boomers moving into the social security and medicare system. but how are we going to drive down medicare costs? how are we going to drive down health care costs? that's the question. that's what's important. of course we need to bring the costs down of health care, but you just don't say we aren't going to have any reforms and the free market is going to take care of it and should be pushed off on the backs of citizens. that's not going to work. that's not humane. there's a better way to go about it. and when you look at the field of integrated health care, how

you can help prevent a lot of issues from arising that make people sick. nd when you look at 70% or 75% of health care costs that are caused by things that are behavioral in nature. how do we shift the health care system to even more prevention like we tried to do in the health care reform bill. how do we make investments into areas of medical schools and hospitals that are looking into driving down health care costs in these other ways? not just talk about, oh, we are going to have draconian cuts to the medicare program and push it on the medicare recipients to foot the bill and we are going to give them a voucher. and ladies and gentlemen, that's what happened with this republican tea party budget. you will get a voucher, mr. speaker. these folks will get a voucher.

and my friends on the other side say, well, yeah, but that voucher will help you pay for it. that oblem is the voucher the seniors will get doesn't go up -- doesn't rise with the cost of health care. so the voucher only goes up a small bit, while health care 4%, 5%,ve been going up 6%, 7% and you get the voucher today and it's worth $100 and your health care bill is $150 but next year, your voucher is worth $102 and health care costs are $170, and that happens every single year. that voucher becomes worthless at some point. and the costs will be pushed off

onto the seniors and will have to come out of pocket and their kids will have to help them. you see the huge cuts in the medicaid program which in many states help senior citizens get into a nursing home and pay for a nursing home. the middle class, people 40, 50, 60 years old have parents in a nursing home, will have to come out of pocket. that's bad for the economy. less consumer demand. so all of these things fit together. and we're going to come back and continue to talk about many of these issues over the course of the next few weeks and months and compare. as i said at the beginning, i have a lot of republican friends in this chamber. i've got a lot of republican friends in my congressional district, but i also have a lot of republican friends in my congressional district that would disagree with the approach

that this investment in the united states is coming from the other side. mr. speaker, i look forward to coming back in the next weeks and months and i'm sure you are excited about that. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from from michigan, mr. walberg, for 30 minutes. mr. walberg: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the opportunity to address this chamber and to address an issue of great concern to me. i just heard my colleague and friend from ohio, what he had to say and certainly there is a debate that's going on that's worth being had, a debate about the progression of this great

country, the greatest on this earth in the history of this earth. a country that distinguishes itself in a few short 236, 237 years as a nation that understands what liberty is about, but also understands authority that we come under. mr. speaker, i have wrestled with coming to the floor tonight because since i first began my legislative career back in 1982 in the michigan house of representatives. and when i stood in front of people and asked for their opportunity or their support to give me a privileged position in that great body, i stated clearly and i have from that poirnt in 1982 to this very day, i stated that as a christian and as a former pastor, while i

would not flaunt my religion, i would not hide my faith. i continue that in coming to the u.s. house of representatives as well. i truly believe that all laws are moral. some of us would consider morality one way and others of us would consider another. we all come through filters in life. i understand that. and i respect that. and i believe that the framers and founders of this great country, its ideals were based upon truth as they determined truth to be, as they understood it, truth coming from the word of god that they declared to be found in the bible at that time and weren't ashamed to say that and quoted many times from scripture, even without reference, because it was clearly understood by the

citizens of that day that the basic ideals that this new government was established upon were ideals found and written down in the bible. and clearly understood to be the word of god. but i have wrestled with the fact that i understand that there are filters. and the moment that i let it out of the bag, as it were, mr. speaker, that i'm a pastor, i'm a christian. come from a judeo christian system and that's my filter that i would lose the opportunity to speak to society in general. i assume that risk this evening. because we have come to a time unifiedistory where the understanding, whether we acknowledged it or fully agreed with it or certainly lived by it, because i know as one who has feet of clay, though i

understand truth, i don't always live by it. yet our country is at a crossroads in a battle along those premises. i read in this greatest manmade cument ever pened, the constitution of the united states. i read the first amendment, the second amendment, the third amendment and on through the 10th amendment, which are classified as the bill of rights. bill of rights that were given and acknowledged by the framers and founders and implementers of these amendments, the bill of rights as really stemming from od himself, god-given, not man-given, recognizes these rights as above simple human

reasoning. in recent days, i have read and reread our first amendment that says congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise delf or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or of the right of people peacebly to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances and the 10th giffles states the authority they should have. and as i see what is taking onee tore one complex -- to complex bill that was passed, called the affordable health care act, but specifically one mandate that i clearly believe runs roughshowed of this first amendment when it, in fact, is a aw that prohibits the free

exercise thereof of religious beliefs. that's my perspective, but it's a perspective that is backed up by the framers and founders and their writings and speeches and beliefs that they implemented into this great, great country. just recently, i read an article that more than just simply being an article, gave names of fellow who ens, business people through no fault of their own except for the fact that they were religious, they were people of faith that had firm convictions, convictions that they believed went beyond themselves, but went to the god that they honored. ople like chris and paul driesdeck. i don't know them personally, but i know they run a a

105-year-old company started by their great grandfather, a company in st. louis that employs 150 people. and they are sincere christians that believe to be forced to supply health insurance that abortion patient coverage. agents that will produce abortions are against their firmly-held christian beliefs and would be a violation of their responsibility to their god. that's their morality. that's their filter. but from the inception of this country, believes that with all other religious beliefs were protected under the bill of rights. they are at a point right now that if they violate the mandate of the law, which they are attempting to get an injunctions and see themselves covered just

like churches and christian colleges, but if they aren't, they are looking at $5 million fine under that mandate annually. and they have indicated that that will put them out of business. there's another company run by david green. hobby lobby and see their ads at easter and christmas time that he pays with his own money to declare the meaning of christmas and meaning of easter in his faith. long-standing, and yet, if he doesn't fall under this mandate and bow the knee to the government and not keep his knees bowed to his god that he serves, he will pay $1.3 million fine, which will take the 13,000 employees that he employs and

potentially put them out of a job. many of whom agree with his personal strong faith. he said it's come down to the point that i'm forced to either abandon my beliefs to stay in business or abandon my business in order to stay true to my belief. that's not the america that was founded by people who put the bill of rights together and specifically the first amendment. and i could go on with other illustrations about other business owners. well, let me point out one business owner here who is doing significant work, not only as a very successful 85-year-old insurance executive -- insurance company, but he has taken those resources, like mr. green, who has given over $500 million to

charitable causes, living out his faith, but this gentleman has done the same thing in reaching out to many needy people and developing a business that impacts people's lives who are in difficult circumstances. his name is charles sharp, 85 years old, founded a ministry th the christian rehabilitation program and boarding school for troubled youth with his own money. the employees that are employed running this organization, but more importantly, the lives that are impacted positively by this ministry will be impacted and the ministry will go under. i said i could go on and on with other illustrations of how this first amendment, liberty, is being violated by a country

as the first of the bill of rights. just recently we all heard, i believe, a concern that a briefing had been given to the u.s. army reserve recruits which classified catholics, some jews, evangelical christians and sunni muslims as religious extremists along with hamas. k., al qaeda and religions strongly held, firmly believed, religious beliefs being attacked as extremists along with terrorist organizations like al qaeda and hamas. and k.k.k. mr. speaker, i submit to you, this isn't our america. i don't care what the courts have said at this point, hey've ruled on a tax.

but on the con stance of question, i think it's clear to us who read it with a reason of mind to understand but understand it as more than just a document. but to understand it as a warning to us and a reminder that the blessings of the freedom of this great nation come with a commitment to ideals that are beyond us, that are timeless, that are important. we often call religion, but are beyond that. they are faith. that goes to our integrity, our convictions, our character. john adams, one of the founders our country, john adams who defended liberty, even when he defended the red coats under the same premise that we believe, that all people deserve a hearing and a trial, a just trial. john adams who was willing to

give his life, his fortunes, his sacred honor, said our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. why in the world would he say that? huge wisdom there. it came from an understanding that humanity wasn't enough in itself, the wisdom of beings, human beings, weren't wise enough in their own right. but rather had to flow from meone and some truth wiser than that. social critic i think encapsulated when he said, this appears to be a sociallogical truth. this is religion that reassures people that this world of ours is a home, not just a habitat, and that the tragedies and unfairness we all experience

are features of a more benign, if not necessarily comprehensible, whole. it is religion that restrains the self-seeking hedonistic impulse so easily engendered by successful market economy. we are a successful market economy here in the united states. and i'm grateful for that and we need to do a lot of work to continue that. but our faith beliefs, and i'm not talking about one religion or another -- over another, i certainly come from a judeo-christian viewpoint and i believe it to be true. i would not have given my life to that belief if it weren't. but it impacts society as a whole. alexander who understand it with his life said all individual human rights are granted because man is god's creature.

that is, freedom was given to the individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant religious responsibility. 200 or even 50 years ago it would have seemed quite impossible in america that an individual could be granted boundless freedom simply for the satisfaction of his instincts and whims and, mr. speaker, i submit to you that seems to be the point in time where we're at right now. where we're willing for our whims, our instincts, our desires, our own purposes to give in to the baseness of those hedonistic philosophies. and it's proven to be true. the results are there. ust a few of them -- since 1960, the end of the so-called christian america, as the media has called it in "newsweek." the u.s. illegitimacy rate has rocketed from 5% of all births to 41%.

among african-americans, the share of births out of wed lock is 71%, up from 23% in 1960. percentage of households that were married couple families with children under 18 had plummeted by 2006 to just 21.6%. since roe v. wade, 50 million-plus abortions have een performed. declaration of independence, we're all endowed with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. between 1960 and 1990 the teenage suicide rate tripled, though the number then fell as of 2006, suicide was the third leading cause of death of young adults and adolescents age 15 to 24, just behind homicide. and i could go on with a tragic -- with the tragic results of

going away from religious belief, faith belief, truth, a moral character and, again, all laws are moral. right and wrong are different. and we all have filters. submit to you, mr. speaker, that we are challenged economically, we are challenged socially, we are challenged in our security, we are challenged our liberty because we have want -- wantonly walked away from or from complacency have given away the underpinnings that have allowed god to bless this great country. of which it's still receiving

the results of much of that blessing. the founders argued very clearly that virtue derived, and i quote here, that virtue derived from religion is indispensable to limited government. the american model of religious liberty takes a strongly positive view of religious practice, both private and public. far from privatizing religion, it assumes that religious believers and institutions will take active roles in society, including ministers. including engaging in politics and policymaking and helping form the public's moral consensus. in fact, the american founders considered religious engagement in shaping the public morality essential to ordered liberty and the success of their

experiment in self-government. jonathan witherspoon, a minister, who signed the declaration of independence, said a republic once equally poised, talking about our republic, a republic once equally poised must either preserve its virtue or lose its liberty. mr. speaker, as i began, i will never intend to flaunt my religion but i will not hide my faith. and i believe in this country where we are given the greatest amount of freedom to all religious beliefs, we would do well to remember that ourselves. to not hold it back, but to encourage faith and to encourage laws that respect that to the fullest degree. and say to people like david green or the others, we respect you for what you do, your beliefs, and we will certainly honor your freedom.

we will not imfringe upon you by mandates, no matter how good the law might seem, because there's something higher than health, physical health. and that's our spiritual health. our character health in this country. there's a stone above you, mr. speaker, that's there tonight and has been here since this great chamber was put together. and it's a quote of daniel webster and i read it often. and it says simply this, let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests d see whether we, and daniel webster could be speaking to us tonight and to our country, mr. see whether we

also in our day and our generation may not perform something worthy to be remembered. i submit to you, mr. speaker, that if we would restore liberty and justice for all, if we were to restore the opportunity to live under our spiritual liberties and beliefs, that we would not mandate people to go against that, bow their knee to almighty governments as opposed to bowing to almighty god. this nation will be a blessed nation under god, with liberty and justice for all. mr. speaker, i thank you for the opportunity tonight and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair thanks the gentleman. the gentleman yields back.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for 30 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. as always, it's an honor to be recognized to address you here on the floor of the united states house of representatives. and i want to say to you, mr. speaker, that i come to this floor very troubled here this evening. and i'm troubled at the current inertia that seems to have been created in the minds and in the positions of a number of people that are here in the house and in the senate, primarily those on my side of the aisle. who seem to wake up on the morning of november 7 and decided that mitt romney would be president-elect if he just hadn't said two words, self-deport and if he hadn't said two other words, 47%. and that they had done this analysis apparently before there were any kind of exit polls. it could have been considered and they persist in sticking

with this opinion that something must be done about immigration in this country and that there needs to be comprehensive immigration reform passed and if that doesn't happen, then it's going to be a kind of calamity that might eliminate or badly weaken the bipartisan two-party system that we have in this country. i reject those principles or those opinions, mr. speaker, because what i know about the facts refutes them completely. there are no facts that uphold such a position. it is true that the people in my party have lost a growing share of the vote of the list of minority coalitions that there are in the country. it's also true that the other party has demagogued this issue measureslessly and the affects of their tens of millions of dollars have shown in the poll, my colleagues on my side of the aisle don't seem to recognize that. and perhaps they haven't thought this through and i hope they do, mr. speaker.

but the most essential pillar of american exceptionalism that is affected by this debate over immigration is the rule of law. and it appears to me, mr. speaker, that there are a number of people on my side of the aisle that say, even though they recognize that the comprehensive immigration reform agenda, which has been around since the george w. bush administration and perhaps before, they believe that somehow even though it's fifth or sixth on the list of issues that would be important and relevant to minorities that look at the path to citizenship , and a path to staying in the united states and working and raising their families and being productive here, jobs and comet are more important, a whole list of things are more important, but fifth or six ogget on that priority list, those that advocate for this gang of eight's version that seems to be emerging from the senate and comprehensive

immigration reform seem to think that we should do something, we should pass some type of amnesty because that's what's required to, and i quote, start the conversation. closed quote. i took an oath to uphold this constitution. and the constitution is the supreme law of the land. the rule of law is an essential pill already of american exceptionalism. if there are people in this congress, house or senate, that are prepared to sacrifice the rule of law in order to start a conversation that's enough to get me to come to the floor tonight, mr. speaker, to start the conversation about restoring the rule of law and re-establishing the pillars of american exceptionalism and making sure that this great nation that we are can go on to our destiny beyond the shining city on the hill to a place that actually does realize american destiny with all the pillars of american exceptionalism intact, not sacrificing the rule of law for

political expediency, which is the bargain that is being negotiated over in the senate side and behind closed doors here on the house side not even publicly admitted to. in the earlier part of this discussion, i'd be pleased to yield such time heas may consume to a strong leader on the rule of law, one who has led within his own community in hazelton and been a clear and articulate voice on protecting and defending america's rule of law destiny, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. barletta, such time as he my consume. mr. barletta: thank you, congressman king. there's been a lot of talk in washington about illegal immigration. as mayor of hazelton, pennsylvania, it was estimated that 1% of our entire population was there illegally, i created the first law of its kind in the country. now i don't need to be briefed

about illegal imdwration. i have lived it. -- illegal immigration. i have lived it. because washington has failed to protect our borders, cities like mine have been overcome. i had to deal with it myself because of washington's failure. now our immigration laws were created for two reasons, one to protect the american people, our national security, and two, to protect american workers. now in 1986, ronald reagan had promised the american people that if we give amnesty to 1.5 million illegal aliens, that we would secure our borders and this would never happen again. well after the declaration of amnesty that 1.5 million actually doubled to over three million.

now, a quarter of a century later, over 11 million people are in our country illegally and our borders are still not secured. now this isn't just about the southern border. there's a lot of focus about if we secure the southern border, our borders are secure. 40% of the people that are in the country illegally did not cross the border. they didn't cross the southern border, they didn't come across canada. 40% of the people in the country illegally came on a visa and overstayed their visa. in fact, one of the men who was granted amnesty in 1986 was involved in a 1993 attack on the world trade center. now my city is 2,000 miles away from the nearest southern border, and i have an illegal

immigration problem. any state that has an international airport, you are a border state. there are 22 million americans who are out of work. we should not even -- we should not be encouraging millions more to come here illegally when so many americans cannot find jobs. medicare, social security, going broke. and yet the heritage foundation did a study that found that if we give a pathway to citizenship to the 11 million or more who are here, it will cost over $2.6 trillion over the next 20 years. queshed -- we should not even be talking about offering amnesty. there should be no bill that talks about a pathway to sit certainship. we should be securing our borders first.

this is something that we should all be able to agree upon, democrats and republicans, the senate and the house if we are sincere, if we're not trying to fool the american people a second time, we promised them that we would secure our borders before we give amnesty. offering a pathway to citizenship will make matters worse. it will encourage millions more, millions more, to come here illegally. you know, you don't replace your carpet at home when you still have a hole in the roof. thank you, i yield back my time. mr. king: i reclaim my time and thank the gentleman from pennsylvania for coming to the floor to deliver this presentation, this hands on presentation from the gentleman, mr. barletta. i wanted to ask if you'd yield to a question and that would be, i'd be curious as to the

percentage of the population of hazelton that is a minority population, perhaps his tannic population and how your election results turned out in the last time you ran for mayor f hazelton, and i yield. mr. barletta: over 40% of the population of hazelton was hispanic and i won with 90% of the vote. i don't know anyone who took a harder stance against illegal immigration than i had at that time. this talk that you cannot stand up for the rule of law, you cannot stand up against illegal immigration and still -- and still welcome new immigrants, new american citizens, is totally false. mr. king: reclaiming my time, just doing a quick calculation off that, 40% of the population of hazelton being hispanic, assuming that represented the percentage of the voting

electorate that was hispanic, you carry 90% of the vote, that would indicate you carried somewhere in the vicinity of 70% of the hispanic population. would that be correct? mr. barletta: i believe that would. what i found in dealing with illegal immigration in a city whose hispanic population has exploded, to show you how fast, in the year 2000, the budget for english as a second language was $500. five years later, it was $1.5 million. so as our imgrant population grew, we also realized that the most important issues to those that were there were good opportunities, for good jobs. it wasn't about granting amnesty or a pathway to citizenship, they wanted good jobs, wanted a good education

for their children. they came to america for that better life. offering amnesty was not -- wasn't going to make their life any better and they understood that. they also understand that allowing 20 million or 30 million more people to come into this country illegally is not helpful for people who are starting out, who need the jobs they came here for or many americans who can't find work. mr. king: reclaiming my time, i'm curious as to, since you came to congress here, mr. barletta, and i'm going to presuppose you have strong personal relationships among the entire spectrum of the community in hazelton, have any of them, any appreciable number, edge chaed their mind on the immigration issue since they sent you to congress and could you speak about the types of relationships you have with your constituents today and those who were your constituents when you were mayor? mr. barletta: no, actually, the

position has not changed. in fact, i believe the fact that i stood up for the rule of law and that i speak for the importance of protecting our national security and our american jobs here, it has allowed me to win elections getting both democrat and republican support. i ran in a district that was two to one democrat and i won by over 10% of the vote. and i really believe the fact that i was able to stand up when washington had let us down was really the reason why democrats, republicans, immigrants and nonimmigrants supported me. mr. king: and reclaiming my time, if the individuals that come here to this congress from vears districts, and surely there are many that come from i'll call them blue collar type districts, i'm going to presume that's a fair amount of the democratic constituency they represent, me being a blue

collar guy, a hands-on fellow, started out as an earth moving contractor in the labor part of the construction business, how do you suppose the constituents of other members of congress that don't have this same position you have on the rule of law and immigration and protecting legal imfwrans, what are they hearing, do you suppose, in similar districts to the one you have? and i yield. mr. barletta: i believe that people all over the country understand what i'm saying, that the problem of illegal immigration is crushing our cities. our population in hazelton grow by 50% but our tax revenue remained the same. our population grew by 50% but our tax revenue remained the same. small cities, small towns, like hazelton, pennsylvania, are crushed by the burden of illegal immigration and people all over the country, i was sued for creating the first law of its kind in the country and i couldn't find politicians who

would come near me, it was refreshing, nobody came to hazelton but i thought i was standing there alone until i started getting cards and letters and checks from people all over the united states, in fact, i got checks from every state including alaska and hawaii, to help defend our city in that lawsuit. we raised over a half million dollars, most of it in $10 and $20 donations from people all over america who felt the same way. i am not alone. the american people understand what illegal immigration means. that doesn't mean we roll up the welcome mat to new immigrants. we ask them to come here through the proper channel, respect the rule of law and then give them the opportunity that they came to america for. mr. king: reclaiming my time and remaining furious to the wealth of tissue curious to the wealth of experience the former

mayor has provided here, i ask also, of the illegal drug distribution links that exist in this country and that that i'm going to presume also shows up in hazelton, illegal drugs and violence, i'll make this statement into the record, mr. speaker, that is in my meetings with drug enforcement agency and a number of others involved in enforcing laws against illegal drugs, they tell me that at least one link in every illegal drug distribution chain in america, at least one link in that chain is carried out by someone who is unlawfully present in the united states. the cost of those illegal drugs on our society i don't know has been quantified, that trade itself has been estimated to be something above $40 billion, perhaps something above $60 billion a year. i would ask the gentleman from pennsylvania if his experience would reflect that to be true?

mr. barletta texas it is absolutely true. i'll give you an example. we arrested a young man for selling cocaine on a playground , the man was in the country illegally. took our detectives five hows to determine who he was, he had five social security cards, he had five identities, law enforcement had no idea who they are dealing with, many, many are here under fraudulent documentation rings, fraudulent documents. those that are involved in the criminal element, in the gangs or in drug trades, i do not believe will be coming forward, no matter what laws we pass here and we could pass all the laws in the world if we don't enforce the laws of this country and if we don't allow states and local law enforcement to work in harmony with the federal government, we will never solve the problem of illegal immigration. but what we shouldn't do is make the same mistake we made

in 1986 and give a green light to people all over the world to come here illegally while our borders are still open. if you were a family waiting to come to the united states because you wanted to obey the law, but you hear a declaration like, we're here -- a declaration like we're hearing here in washington, offering a pathway to citizenship and protection while you're here, why would you wait? why would you wait with your family? it would be a green light for people to come. that's why the problem will become worse. mr. king: reclaiming my time, it was reported to me here today on the floor, representative from the area near the southern border said to me that the illegal border crossings are up 20% since the dialogue on comprehensive immigration reform that euphemism, began, so the encouragement for people to get into the united states on the

chance that this congress will pass some kind of act that would ultimately be amnesty is bringing more people into the united states. but i wanted to circle back and ask another question of the gentleman from pennsylvania, and that is, there's a g.a.o. study, a general accountability study of about two years ago that went back through our prison system and asked the question, a number of questions about population of our prison system that are criminal aliens and that number was at least 28%, some numbers show 30% depending how you define it but there was a number in there that was stark to me, that is the people in the united states, people in prisons in the united states, federal and state all together, who have been convicted of homicide, now that prison population according to that study was 25,064, and when i think of a number that large, multiples of

all of our casualties in iraq and afghanistan, that is american population, most of it, that's a number but it's human, it's very, very personal, i ask the gentleman from pennsylvania if he would have any personal accounts that might reflect a component of that 25,064? barrel barlt final straw for me that made me realize i had to protect the people of my town -- mr. barletta: the final straw for me that made me realize i had to protect the people of my town was a day i'd never forget. earlier in the day we had arrested a 14-year-old for shooting a gun into a crowded playground. the 14-year-old was in the country illegally and it was interesting, he had his lawyer on speed dial on his cell phone which i thought, i don't know how many 14-year-olds carry their lawyer on a speed dial. i remember going home that day

and telling my wife that i had -- i didn't know what to do anymore. we were losing control. of the city. we didn't have the resources to deal with the problem. that same night i got a call from the chief of police, 1:00 in the morning, 29-year-old city man, father of three children, was shot in the head and shot by the -- one of the ang members in the city. that one homicide, it took our police department 36 hours to bring the people forward that committed that crime. we spent half of our yearly budget in overtime in the police department on that one murder. and enough was enough. if the federal government wasn't going to do anything, then i had to. i took an oath and i had an obligation to do so.

and that's -- that began my crusade, i was sued by the way, i was sued for creating the law. in fact, the plaintiffs that sued the city of hazelton, many of the plaintiffs were admitted legal aliens who sued the city. they had their identities kept confidential, they had asked if their identities could be kept confidential which they were, we were not allowed to ask their names. they then asked if they could be excused from showing up in the trial because they're in the country illegally they and didn't want to go to a federal courthouse. it was granted. i never saw the accusers. i took the stand for two days. i testified for two days but never saw the people that sued stet of haiseleton. i felt illegal aliens were given more rights than a united states citizen would be given. you cannot sue your city and remain unanimous. i vowed to appeal this and fight this to the supreme court which we did. so, what brings me here is a

life of experience as a mayor who tries to balance a budget, provide a good quality of life for the people that live there and realize what happens when illegal immigration, not just at the border, not just in texas, i'm 2,000 miles away from that southern border. we have good reason to enforce our immigration laws and we should not be encouraging people to come to this country illegally by granting amnesty. we did it in 1986 and we're going to -- we're talking about this again. why obey our immigration laws if we have an administration that won't enforce the laws and a congress that wants to give amnesty every time the problem comes up again? we need to enforce our laws. we need to make e-verify mandatory, protect american jobs. we need to make sure we're protecting our national security. there are people around the world that want to harm us.

and we need to give the immigrants that come here the opportunity that they waited for. those immigrants that stood and waited because they wanted to obey america's laws and they are here and we are stealing that opportunity away from them but yet we're telling them we're doing this for the immigrants that are here. they're smarter than that. and that's why immigration is not the most important issue to the people that are here. they want that education. let's give it to them. all the programs that the heritage foundation talks about that will be impacted by this pathway to citizenship are programs that the most needy need to live. why are we going to hurt people that need these programs? i feel very strongly about this issue. i feel very strongly. and that's why i'm here to speak up. mr. king: reclaiming my time.

i very much thank the gentleman from pennsylvania for coming to the floor and voicing his opinion and i know that he's also occupied with a very tight schedule. so i appreciate that a great deal and, mr. speaker, the attention that i've given mr. bar lelta, i hope you in -- barletta, i hope you in america have given mr. barletta as well and i hope he's rewarded not just by his constituent busby a policy of the protection of the rule of law that can be re-established here in this country. the idea that we should somehow suspend our good judgment and we should waive the rule of law all for some idea of political expediency is not compatible with the principles of our political party and sacrificing the rule of law for political expediency seems to me to be a foolish idea. but it needs to be precious to be an american citizen. citizenship should be valuable and throughout all of the years that people have come into the

united states legally and the distinction between legal and illegal has been con flated by the open board rts crowd. -- borders crowd. both republicans and democrats. but you'll watch, mr. speaker, how they conflate the language. a few years ago they started blending the term health care and health insurance until it became one thing. and we got obamacare out of that because people could no longer draw the distinction between health care and health insurance. and we've also watched that during a similar period of time, as the dialogue of the distinction between illegal immigrant and immigrant, the distinction, immigrant means someone who came to the united states legally and followed our laws, that saw the image of the statue of limitation -- or excuse me, the statue of liberty, saw the image of the statue of liberty, was inspired by that image and found a way to come to america, to exercise all the god-given liberties that are here, that were defined so well in our declaration of independence and protected in our constitution.

that's an immigrant. that's where the vigor comes from. for the american population and civilization. among our brothers, this god-given liberty but it's also the vigor of those who were inspired to come to america. and so, mr. speaker, i recognize there are only about three minutes left. but i'd be very happy to yield to the gentleman from texas who is very reliable and has a very clear voice. so much time as there may remain. mr. gohmert: thank you. i'll just take a moment. what you're talking about is so very critical and just to reiterate the point that's been coming out in a couple of hearings, i was shocked but 34.9% of all prosecutions by this administration were not for drugs, they were for people re-entering this country after theabd been deported. they're prosecuting people for illegal entries. and you don't even prosecute, this administration, they don't prosecute people who just come across one time.

and when you think about all the detention, all the prison, the jail space, the prosecutors, that we pay for the defense attorneys, you think about all of the prisons around america who contain or which contain so many people who came in illegally, when this administration says it cannot afford to secure the border, then they have not taken stock of how much money that this country is having to spend on prisons, prosecutors, jails, defense attorneys, all of the costs that come with that. because they're not doing their job. and i know it goes back to the bush administration, that is not a defense. and they need to take care of their job and i hope and pray they will. nstead of using the issue of a secure border as ransom.

no, we will only secure the border if you'll give us amnesty so people can vote for democrats. that is outrageous and jay leno had it right. i yield back. mr. king: reclaiming my time, thanking the gentleman from texas. it looks like a number approaching 60% of the resources used by the federal government to prosecute have to do with something coming across the border. whether it's people or it's 90% of the illegal drugs consumed in america is the other component of that, of that presentation. so if we control this border, mr. speaker, we can control the 34.9% of the prosecutions about re-entry and roughly that 1/4 of that prosecution that has to do with illegal drugs and drug enforcement agency does tell us that between 80% and 90% of the illegal drugs consumed in america come from or through mexico. if there's a universal position on this side of the aisle, mr. speaker, it has to do with secure the border, prove you've

secured the border, establish that, re-establish respect for the rule of law. at that point we can have a conversation about some of the ideas that are emerging over on the senate side and in the secret meetings here in the house of representatives. so with that, mr. speaker, i thank you for your attention and i'd yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair thanks the gentleman. for what purpose does the gentleman from rise? mr. king: mr. speaker, i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until

all these programs tonight on the c-span thet, with. -- net, with. >> economy and federal deficit are topics in this documentary bartish.el

>> dear mr. president, my name is rachel from indiana. mr. president, i understand that you're very busy, as there are many other issues that you have to deal with, but i think the most important issue is the economy and the national debt. in fact the people that i interviewed seemed to have the same basic thoughts when i asked them about the economy. >> it's rough. it's hard right now. >> i think it stinks. >> well, it could be better. but i think it's getting better. >> there's no secret the economy is struggling in america. businesses are moving overseas, american jobs are being lost, and the national debt is increasing. i believe that helping our small businesses across america can be important for reviving the economy. many of the stores in our small canal town in southern indiana were for sale, for rent or empty in the last two years. these buildings look neglected

and run down and visitors refer to us as a ghost town. so many housing and job opportunities could be available by fixing these rundown buildings. reviving small towns, jobs become available and the economy can continue to pick up. we started our project to rebuild the small village of metamora when my family moved here from a college town in 2006. the famed house sat empty in the center of town for four years and now thanks to my grandmother and the community, it is now open six days a week and is not just a business, but a home to the couple who now own the building. i talked to steve colier and he explained that the building is more than just a place for business. >> for us it's a lifestyle. our business and our house together and the people that come through here are customers and the other people who live around here, it's a small town.

>> also, we as a community have put forth the effort together to help bring back our small town and have successfully opened an art shop, a wellness clinic, two resale stores, a comic book shop two, bed and breakfasts, the duck creek palace restaurant, a coffee shop, a log cabin museum, several gift shops and a 30-acre camp ground. so, what can be done to help the economy? the people i talk to had many different thoughts on what we an do to help america. >> i think there's an awful lot of people that expect an awful lot out of government, more than me. i don't think the government has a -- is responsible for fixing everything. i don't think it's right to pay for our taxes to pay for the -- rnment to be involved in i'll do for myself.

i work my butt off and i'll make it or not based on my own effort, my own work. >> you know, more tax breaks for people, more government grants, more just ways to help people start their business. because we started from scratch. we had nothing when we started. >> don't these sound familiar? >> everyone who means one has been unemployed for 26 weeks, has run out of state benefits, everyone who's in that situation can get an additional 14 weeks of federal benefits. >> that's what we do in this country. that's the american dream. that's freedom and i'll take it any day over the supervision and sank moany of the central planners. >> the reason we're here tonight is because senators brown and why we talk about

outsourcing of jobs, let's do something about it. and that's what we're trying to do tonight. we're trying to actually do something about it. >> you know, every country, every town goes through cycles and things are easy and then things are hard. but i think, i mean, hard times are just that. they're hard times, they're not the end of the world and hard times force us to get creative and think outside the box and do things differently which grow us as business people and as people in general. they say that necessity is the mother of invention. so, hard times create solutions and create neat ideas. but it kind of takes place under that pressure. >> my grandmother came up with one of these unique ideas. on the fourth of july, metomora, indiana, held the first of our saving sam sales which was my grandmother's idea for a $1 trillion garage sale all across america to send the money that is earned to help pay down our

nation's debt. 16 shop keepers and caring towns people sat out in 114-degree weather to earn $500 that was sent to the national debt. there is not going to be any easy solution to fixing the economy and ruth anne reminds us of this. >> i would say it's not fixable in the next six months or a year. i think it took a while to get here and it's going to take a while to get out of it. >> isn't it the same in washington? there are hundreds of different people with different ideas. but when everyone talks at once, it just becomes noise. none of that matters if nobody is putting forth the effort to change things. our government sound as lot like the small towns across america, including mine. >> this town's been here a lot of years. a lot of business people have been here for 30 years and over

30 years, you know, you got to get over problems you've had in the past. that's tough for some people. >> you voted for action. not politics as usual. you elected us to focus on your jobs, not ours. and in the coming weeks and months, i am looking forward to reaching out and working with leaders of both parties. to meet the challenges we can only solve together. >> mr. president, you have a powerful voice. the people of america want to help america. sacrifices need to be made because you can't satisfy everyone's wants. small towns may not be important to every individual in this nation, but they matter to the people like me who live here and have jobs here, running these small businesses and those who are employed by these small businesses.

however, small towns should matter to the economy because of the history and the unique atmosphere that these small communities have to offer. not to mention the job opportunities that could be available to anyone. it's my hope that you, as the president, continue to set a positive example and we as americans continue to work together despite the different political views, because after all, we're all americans and we want the best for america. >> congratulations to all the winners in this year's student cam competition. to see more winning videos, go to studentcam.org. >> she was -- her husband's political equal and his partner. she never went too far within the boundaries of what a proper victorian or early victorian lady should be. in the 19th century. but everyone knew that they shared an office in the private apartments. she was active in discussions at

the many state dinners they had and she was not a prude. but she was very much a woman who knew what she wanted and set her rules out and everyone had to play according to those rules. and she was respected for it. she was very, very popular. >> our conversation with historians on sara polk. life of the 11th president, james polk. is now available on our website, c-span.org/firstladies. and tune in monday for first ladies jane pierce and harriette lane. >> earlier today steny hoyer held a briefing on strengthening manufacturing and job creation. he was joined by fellow democrats who all planned to introduce bills in the near future. this is 25 minutes.

>> [laughter] >> i just said no whispering in the back. i'm so pleased to be joined by so many of my colleagues here to discuss the reintroduction of our make it in america agenda in this congress. three years ago house democrats introduced our make it in america plan to create jobs and revive our manufacturing sector. and we have been pushing hard for its consideration. leader pelosi is giving a speech right now or she would be joining us. but she and i have been very, very strongly advocating, along with our entire caucus, the creation of jobs which we believe is our number one job in america. the number one objective that americans want us to be

pursuing. we'll be able to work with republicans to pass a handful of make it in america bills last congress, including the export-import bank, re-authorization of the america competes act, a critical bill, and patent reform, there's far more to be done. in this political climate we recognize that serious proposals , creating jobs have to have a real chance of gaining bipartisan support in the house and the senate and be signed by the president. with that in mind we're here today to discuss our new make it in america priorities for 2013. which not only stand the greatest chance of drawing support from both sides of the aisle, but also reflect what manufacturers, labor leaders and entrepreneurs believe are the most important steps congress can take to reinvigorate our manufacturing sector and create jobs for our middle class. this congress will be focusing on four core components.

first, we need to develop a national manufacturing strategy to guide us over the shorts and long-terms. secondly, congress needs to continue making it easier for manufacturers to export. in 2010 president obama set a goal of doubling exports by 2015. and we're almost halfway there. but in order to achieve this goal, we must do more to open new markets and improve our transportation infrastructure. third, we need to encourage manufacturers to bring jobs and innovation home. this means enacting a targeted tax incentives to help those businesses that want to move production back to the united states, encouraging investment in research and development and supporting the production of innovative technologies. finally, we must maintain a highly skilled, well-educated work force. not only do we need to invest in quality education and job training, but we also need to

make sure that we are attracting and securing the top talent to live and work here in america. these are four critical areas where we believe republicans are ready to work with us to help our manufacturers make it in america. in fact, polling tells us that the american public erwhelmingly, in the 90% category, republicans and democrats, conservatives and liberals, believe if america's going to be the kind of country they want it to be for themselves, their families and their children, it will be in part because we are making things in america. growing things in america. and selling them here and around the world. today we are announcing specific bills that will advance those four bills. four goals. let me say, though, that there are some 40 pieces of legislation which we have assembled and focused on which we believe can be part of a make

it in america agenda. many of which are sponsored by every one of the people you see standing on this platform. who are committed to making it in america, manufacturing it in america, so that every american feels confident that they can make it. the full list of make it in america bills is available on our website, democraticwhip.gov. now, i'm privileged to turn the microphone over to my colleagues to talk about their bills and what they would do to create jobs and help secure our middle class. first i want to yield to my friend, one of the senior members of the platform group here from the state of texas, eddie bernice johnson. congresswoman johnson. >> i'd like to thank mr. hoyer for his leadership, to revitalize american manufacturing. i strongly believe that if the

united states is to remain competitive in the long-term, we need to ensure that american companies maintain the capacity to manufacture new and innovative products here at home . the key to maintaining this capacity is through strategic investments in advanced manufacturing research, development and education. h.r. 1421, the advancing innovative manufacturing act of act, which ia.i.m. introduce this week, makes these important investments. the a.i.m. act brings the public and private sectors together to tackle the research needs of industry. it provides a small and medium sized manufacturers with innovation vouchers that will allow them to make their companies and products more

competitive. and finally h.r. 1421 ensures that our community colleges are preparing students for the manufacturing jobs of the future. the decline in u.s. manufacturing is a threat to the middle class and middle class jobs in our economy. we need our manufacturing sector to be the most sophisticated in the world, using transformative technologies and innovative manufacturing processes. h.r. 1421 and the make it in america agenda will ensure that u.s. companies have the tools and the work force they need to meet the challenge ahmed -- ahead. i want to thank you and thanks to mr. hoyer. >> thank you. now, we have a vote on so we want to be brief. but i want rosa delaura, thank you for being here -- delauro, thank you for being here. [laughter] >> we're not the only ones.

>> before i recognize the next speaker, i want to introduce you so you don't -- you're going to be next. tony, i want to start with you and i want to give the names, go very quickly. give your name and state and show the support for make it in america. >> the strongest supporter of make it in america in the united tates. >> susan davis, arizona. >> john conyers, michigan. > patrick murphy, florida.

rick dole and, minnesota. >> make it in queens and the bronx. >> i said we need a plan, you don't win a game unless you have a game plan. dan lipinski introduced a game plan and passed the house with 339. dan lipinski of illinois. >> thank you for your leadership on this issue. your make it in america agenda helps bring the focus on some of the issues faced by america's middle class and by those who want to work hard to attain the middle class. the bill that steny mentioned,

which was passed in the house with 339 votes last year, would bring together business, labor, academia and the government to develop policies that would promote american manufacturing. manufacturing is vital to american jobs and our defense. while laws, regulations and agencies impact manufacturing in america, there's no coordination which hurts our international competitiveness. i'm pleased we have had bipartisan support on this bill and continue to have it this year, pass it in the house and pass it in the senate. now a smaller piece, but important piece, is also the enhancement act, which i have introduced which will enable firms and manufacturers who work with customs to maximize our ability to stop illicit goods at our ports. we hear about foreign suppliers

using mislabeling to avoid antidumping, measures put in place to protect american manufacturers and workers from unfair trade. this bill will encourage partnerships to improve our customs enforcement and protect american jobs. both of these important legislation are part of the make it in america ajeopardya and we are pledged to work for america's middle class and get them done. >> thank you very much. we have been joined by sandy levin from michigan -- well, i knew that. from michigan, the ranking member of the ways and means committee and john conyers, the ranking member of the judiciary committee. doris matsui, who is a senior member of congress and succeeded her husband. doris matsui. >> thank you for your leadership

in the make it in america jobs agenda. we must invest in the next generation of american-made clean energy technologies. that is why i re-introduced the clean energy manufacturing and export assistance act. this legislation would provide clean energy technology companies with access to capital, create jobs and ensure that these can compete in the global market. the clean energy technology is growing. new jobs will be created here in the united states or overseas in china or germany. it is up to us to keep these companies and the jobs they create here at home. in my home district of sacramento, california, we have over 200 clean energy companies. clean world partners is a local company is converting food and

waste into energy. these small businesses want to expand their manufacturing operations and export their clean energy technologies to foreign markets but they need assistance. america must be the leader, not a follower. if we don't step up now we'll lose out to american-made manufacturing jobs. it's as simple as this. i'm pleased to introduce another person who is a new member of the representative from texas. >> thank you. i want to thank mr. hoyer for his leadership and particularly the bipartisan proposals which are in the make it in america package. our workers are the most resilient. h.r. 1420 invests in the future of the u.s. economy. it invests in the market development cooperative program which its track record is impressive for every dollar from

the mvpc and this bill invests in what works well for the national economy. the bill will build on our momentum and helps places like san antonio and helps local chambers and neighboring communities to advance their products across the globe and that significantly is important. it is a commitment to sustain ing american exports and commitment to sustaining our american workers. the bill focuses on what matters the most and that is main street, our small businesses and american job creation. my pleasure now to introduce om arizona, representative sinema. >> i thank steny hoyer. our communities have put their

trust and concerns to washington with the promise we will work hard and fight for them and i'm proud to stand here as a representative of my home state arizona to invite america to in us in our unique success, energy innovation. i'm pleased to introduce the security, energy and manufacturing act. this provides a tax credit to companies that are constructing, expanding or retrofitting their facilities that manufacture renewable energy. what this translates is simply american jobs. this brings the jobs of tomorrow to america today. and i'm happy to say we will work with anyone to keep and create these jobs right here in america. we have seen our manufacturing base erode. china has recently leap frogged renewable energy and is captured a growth in the job market.

we have talent and expertise in states like arizona, california, nevada, new jersey and others. the successful passage of this act will ensure we don't allow this opportunity to slip by. it will rebuild our manufacturing industry and provides us the opportunity to do so while exploring responsible energy production. with this act has broud bipartisan support. 300 years of sunshine, we know a thing or two about renewable energy. we know this program works. the first allocation of funding that was successful in leveraging private capital and that led to the investment of over 180 energy manufacturing facilities across 43 states in our country. extending this program today will mean we are creating high-tech jobs in our own back yard. tempe's monarch power in my district could expand and create

their innovative products arranging from energy storage and renewable power system. we have the opportunity to expand u.s. manufacturing jobs. help remain our country be competitive and clean energy production. this bill will allow us to do so and i turn it over to the representative from illinois. >> thank you. and i want to thank mr. hoyer to your leadership inputting together the make it in america program focusing on the priorities that will give people the opportunity to make it in america. i want to congratulate what is a sensible and specific framework on how how we get moving forward. manufacturing is the key to strengthening our middle class. we have to ensure investing in american workers and products, we can grow our economy.

that's what the make it in america plan does and i'm honored to have the first bill i introduced as part of it. it helps address our pressing challenges we see for companies today and that's the skills gap. as i talk to employers, we have the largest manufacturing in our country and tell me the same thing, they have openings but can't find people. something i hear everywhere i go. it reaches the skills gap by bringing manufacturing and businesses together with educators, to train our work force for the 21st century and give them the skills. it's a sensible step and prepare our work force for the jobs of the future and remain to be competitive. thank you, mr. hoyer, for the opportunity to be part of a make it in america program. >> now the representative from

california. >> thank you for holding this press conference and thank you for your push of the make it in america plan. how to make manufacturing is a power house, there is no secret sauce. we have the tools at our diss poetal to do it. the legislation i have introduced it is called the jobs skills for america's students act and encourages partnerships. employers who participate are ble to receive a $2,000 granlt to participate in a skills program with a total tax credit of $10,000 per year. many of america's fastest growing industries, industries that will benefit like advanced manufacturing and clean energy require highly skilled work force. these industries struggle to find workers. the national association of manufacturing estimates that

jobs remain unfilled due to the lack of unqualified candidates. there are three million job openings in america. many of these jobs are unfilled because of lack of training. the job skills for american students act have partnerships between programs to offer students to obtain the training they need to apply in their field of choice and create a work force for the future. we must close the skills act and make training affordable and i urge us to pass each piece of the make it in america act. >> thank you, members. i want to thank everybody for being here and your leadership. sandy levin and john conyers, second most senior of the house of representatives. thank you very much for being here. last year, we passed a group of bills that would put together that was called the jobs bill

and we passed them in the senate and the senate passed them and the president signed them. they were individually small bills and made a difference and they came out and some of those were democratic bills and some were republican bills. americans want us to work together in a bipartisan way to create jobs, to make their lives and the lives of their families as i said better. that's what these bills attempt to do. thank you for being here. members, we have 227 people that haven't voted and we will take a few questions. [inaudible] >> a lot of frustration among democrats that have come out your the proposal -- reaction to that and whether you support the measure. >> what i'm going to say, i have

said for a long time, we need a bold, balanced plan to put our country on a fiscally sustainable path. in my opinion, that's one of the important aspects of making it in america, of creating the kind of environment we need to give confidence to investors and job creators to grow the enterprises here in america. the president has put forth such a plan. i'm not going to go into the individual components at this point in time. but we now have a budget that the house has passed. i don't think anybody here voted for it and i don't think it will work. the senate has passed a plan. that plan will work. but we're not allowed to have it considered on the floor of the house. mr. van hollen offered that four times. the president has overed offered a plan. in my press conference this

morning is we ought to go to conference and discuss individual items so we can move forward in a constructive way and not a confrontational way. >> how about the president's budget on manufacturing, there is a major increase in manufacturing in the commerce section of the budget. $108 million. but very focused investment to help communities to be able to retain manufacturing jobs and increase them and that's part of leader hoyer's efforts here to focus on manufacturing as a way to protect and grow our middle class. >> there is also a billion dollars, 100 million over 10 for manufacturing institutes, 15 institutes around the country which you referred to as well. the president's budget -- inaudible --] >> i'm not going to go there.

the president has offered a plan and mr. van hollen offeredal plan. senator murray in the senate passed a plan. the ryan plan, we need to go to conference and get this country on a fiscally sustainable path. we need to consider all options. that doesn't mean we're for all options. i don't want to get into the budget. this is about growing manufacturing jobs in this country. thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by tional captioning institute] >> talk about some of the people of the movement. who were the people who most moved things? everies,ng, malcolm x,

john lewis. >> all of them had different roles in the movement. one of the ways in which i tried to explain to students is that rosa parks made martin luther king possible. if she hadn't done what she did by refusing to give up her seat martin ontgomery bus, luther king was an articulate minister. because of rosa parks we are talking about him today. she opened up the possibility for him to display those qualities that he had and to rise to the occasion. >> this weekend, stanford university professor joins other civil rights historians at the annual meeting in san francisco and following the panel,

professor carsons takes your questions live on c-span3's american history tv. here's a look at our schedules on the c-span networks at 8:00 p.m. here on c-span, president obama releases his 2014 budget request. senators announce a bipartisan deal on expand ping background checks for gun purchases and on c-span3, a hearing on the keystone xl pipeline. they are starting tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on the c-span networks. > correspondent with "national journal," senators announced their expanded background check proposal. what should we know about it? >> it has created a boat of buzz in the senate and a difference

from the proposal that was dropped by senator schumer from new york because it's not a universal background check. it mandates background checks for gun purchases at gun shows and over the internet and not mandating a background check if i'm going to sell a gun to you. >> what motivated the democratic and republican senators to work together on this compromise? >> you look at the polling, 91% of the polling that supports universal background checks on purchases. senator toomey has an a rating who said is the right thing to do. it is the top part of the gun control's movement for years now and considered the one thing that could actually pass the senate.

but certainly, it goes a long way for answering fierce that some republicans had put forth about the neighbor to neighbor or family sales that they don't think should be part of federal background check system. >> will it get more support from the senatorial colleagues and specifically from whom? >> the only person that sounded positive and not that i can report that is susan collins from maine and she said she was pleased from what she had heard and i have to review the language. so perhaps it will get her support. there are a number of senators whether they are going to support it. that doesn't mean it will fail but they are waiting to see. >> you mentioned the a rating from the national rifle association, how they responded to the proposal.

>> i haven't seen anything from them on that, which might mean they are just being under the radar about it. they put out some stuff about their own agenda on school safety. and they have been pretty quiet to the press about that kind of stuff. the gun control advocacy groups, the brady campaigns, mayors have been out front and center. a lot of them have put out their responses to the compromise said it's a good step in the right direction. everyone is concerned about how far it's going to go, but it is so much better. if it were to pass, so much better than what they have got in the past. >> the senator indicated their amendment would be considered first. what other amendments are likely to be considered in the debate on the bill? >> we know that there will be an

amendment on banning assault weapons, which we expect to fail. we don't expect to get a majority vote. there will be a separate amendment on banning high-capacity magazine clips. these are the bullets that will spew out 30 to 40 rounds in a few seconds. it might pick up a few republicans who will not vote for an all-out assault weapons ban. on the republican side, it would -- an update from the mental health component from the national data base where you are supposed to check against the national data base and purchases on gun trafficking which is the illegal sales of guns. it would have -- it would improve the laws on privacy regulation for health care.

there are some states that don't want to report mental health cases because they think it violates privacy concerns and school safety component. this is a republican alternative. they are thinking about this. and there may be individual amendments on each of those as well. >> a couple of other republican senators, senators cruz and lee and paul were set to have a news conference today and they were canceled. can you tell us what is going on there? >> they said they were having ith scheduling conflicts but will go with senators blocking the bill. i don't know if they can garner the 40 senators to keep the debate from going forward. i don't know what's going on. >> you wrote about the political

dynamic is definitely evolving in describing the gun control debate. what does that mean as the bill comes to the floor? what would that look like? >> it's actually evolving so fast that i can't keep up with. they are grappling with issues on gun control and i never seen it before. i think there was a lot of talk about this back in 1994. but since then, i haven't seen the kind of tough grappling like ok, if we need to check people's background, how can we ensure their privacy and keep the second amendment rights and not have gun purchasers out there. how can we stop gun trafficking? there is some conversation going on outside of the senate about what do we do about our drug policy which is fueling the debate and that's been going on

as well. for gun control advocates, the people who are trying to limit any kind of gun purchases in the united states, they are talking about this for years. and they think they are perfectly happy to. >> you can read her reporting at nationaljournal.com. thanks for joining us. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> that are vote 11:00 tomorrow morning in the senate and show you that news conference with senators manchin and too maniey c-span2. president obama releasing his 2014 budget. when the budget came out this morning, a number of responses from capitol hill. mitch mcconnell on the senate floor among them. >> like nearly every one of his

budgets so far, it's like really late. he had for two months, he has kept the country on hole, both the house and the senate and they have already passed their own budgets. it's hard to see what the white house plans to accomplish here. i want to believe the intention is not to purposely blow up the budget process so the president can campaign against the very budget process he blew up. but from the reports we are seeing, it's getting harder and harder not to draw that conclusion. after all, the document headed our way does not bridge the differences between the house and senate-passed budgets. but his budget does not represent some grand pivot from left to center. it's really just a pivot from left to left.

i mean, if these reports were correct, it's the same old thing that we have seen year after year after year. and that's really too bad, because it's not like we don't know the kinds of things that need to be done to get our budget back to balance and americans back to work. we need to provide a fairer and flatter tax code so they can save for the future and create jobs. we don't need a budget that piles tax increase on top of tax increase. we need the private sector to grow again. we don't need a budget that spends more money we don't have. we need a balanced budget that encourages growth and job creation. we don't need an extreme unbalanced budget that won't balance in my lifetime or mine. the white house initially made some fantastic claims about the

mount of deficit rezucks supposedly contained in its budget. when you get through the facts, and that's over a decade, all of it coming not surprisingly from tax increases. in other words, it's not a serious plan. for the most part, just another left-wing wish list. let me clarify a wish list asterisk.ith an the president concedes there needs to be a slide from bankruptcy. he is coming to grips with the math here. it's well past time for reform and it's something the president ought to want to do because he presumably cares about saving entitlement programs not because he wants another excuse to raise

taxes. as we start to think about reforming entitlement programs we should think about reform this way. will the changes we make help modernize entitlements over the long-term in order to eventually meet the needs of a rapidly aging population in a realistic way or just kick the can down the road without actually solving the problem? remember, kicking the can down the road is how we got to this point in the first place. we need to have the courage to make the tough decisions that americans sent us here to make. if the president and his allies care about social security and medicare and i take them at their word that they do, then they need to prove that commit hit by having structural reforms to save them. this budget is a chance to do that and i hope they will, but if they choose to continue using these programs as campaign weapons instead, it points to a

clear outcome. the entitlement programs that will americans rely upon will go bankrupt and today's washington democrats will have to live with that legacy. we can't get to that point, but republicans only control a tiny sliver of the federal government so there isn't much we can do until the president and his allies get serious about reform. it's way past time they did. we don't need another reheated budget. we have had enough of those in the past few years. we need a serious reform-oriented budget. sadly, i don't believe we'll see that one today. mr. president, i yield the floor. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> you can watch president obama and his 2014 budget request coming up in half an hour at 8:00 p.m. here on c-span. >> it's important vote in the

sense it tells you how the court works. there is so few good books out there that explain what is the process, how do they decide these cases, what are they saying to one another? we see these cases that split the court 5-4. do their personal feelings get into it. it's a book not only about capital punishment but how the court operates? >> when you dig into the notes, the memoranda, the notes back and forth between justices are available and a lot of stuff is available, i'm not a lawyer, i plead not guilty, but i was just fascinated by the human side of it. many cases, you can see justices have reservations. on the capital punishment cases that have defined the

supreme court on "after words" 2. t of book tv on c spanch >> the pentagon held a series of briefings outlining the specifics. how are remarks from secretary hagel and general martin dempsey, it's half an hour. >> good afternoon. >> i'm announcing the fiscal year 2014 budget request for the department of defense. $526.6 a base budget of billion. this budget continues to balance the compelling needs of supporting troops at war in afghanistan, implementing the president's defense strategic guidance and sustaining the quality of the all-volunteer force all while ensuring the use of every taxpayer dollar and

addresses imbalances within the department of defense budget. as i discussed in my speech last week at the national defense university, the cost of acquisitions and personnel come pension must be addressed to put the dugget on a sustainable path particularly giving the pressures on our top-line budget. this takes important steps in each of these areas. first, the budget continues to maximize our use of resources. it proposes a set of initiatives that saves an additional $34 billion over the next five years by changing the way we do business and reducing support costs. this savings is on top of the approximately $211 billion in ongoing overhead reductions and business efficiencies identified in the last two budget requests, which are still being implemented. the new initiatives being

proposed are a restructuring of the work force to meet key needs with fewer personnel and overall military treatment facilities and efforts to control health care costs by taking advantage of health care costs. these efforts are having some success. with projected health care spending in this budget declining by some 4% compared to our budget two years ago. with this budget, the department's requesting to consolidate infrastructure with the authorization of a base realignment and disclosure, brac in 2015. brac is a tool that allows communities a role in reuse decisions by them for their property. and it provides redevelopment assistance. this process is an imperfect purpose and there are upfront costs for brac. it adds $2.4 billion over the

next five years to pay for the costs. there are significant cavings as we have seen. this budget continues the department's efforts to better align acquisition programs with the president's strategic guidance and eliminate those programs that are performing poorly. the department has canceled or curtailed more than 30 major acquisition programs, rebalancing our portfolio towards better security challenges and making new investments in cyber and advanced intelligence, surveil ance. in this budget, the department has continued to shift priorities within modernization portfolios. shifting to achieve an $8.2 billion in savings from weapons programs and restructuring over the next five years. one example by revising the

strategy for the army's combat vehicle program, the department will save over $2 billion in development costs. this budget increases d.o.d.'s investments in its cyber work force. continues to implement our rebalance to asian makes new investments in the flexible platforms needed for the future. another area of significant spending growth has been pay and been for our military personnel. the current fiscal environment demands that we look at these costs. roughlyly one-third of the fiscal year 2014 budget request. in this budget, the department is submitting a new package of military compensation proposals including a modest slowing of the growth of military pay by implementing a 1% pay raise for service members in 2014. the department is seeking

additional changes to the tricare program in the f.y. 2014 budget to bring the beneficiaries cost share closer to the levels envisioned when the program was first implemented. these changes which have the strong support of the joint chiefs of staff save about $1.4 billion in f.y. 2014 and total of $12.8 billion over the next five years. i'm committed as well as all the leadership at the pentagon to working in partnership with congress and all stakeholders to implement needed reforms because current fiscal realities demand we make tough decisions that have been did he ferd in the past. the longer we put this off, the harder it's going to be particularly the uncertainty that exists about future levels of defense spending. let me now address that uncertainty. as we all know, the department

is in the process of implementing steep budget cuts for the current fiscal year as a result of sequester. reductions of up to $41 billion that will lead to the suspension of important activities curtailed training and could result in furloughs of civilian personnel. if these cuts persists. the defense budget would be by $500 billion over the next decade. the apartment's budget request offers a comprehensive deficit reduction plan for congress to eliminate sequestration. that plan averts what would be another significant reduction in the defense budget, some $52 $500 on in 2014 alone and billion over a decade. it calls for $150 billion in defense savings over 10 years, unlike sequester, these cuts are back loaded occurring in the

years beyond f.y. 2018. while no agency welcomes further budget cuts, the president's deficit reduction proposal requested in this budget gives the department time and that's important, time, to achieve these longer-term savings without harm to modernization and readiness. the budget cat norse that will provide the most immediate savings but also encompass most of our military capabilities. we need to plan wisely for a long term future of budget constraints with thorough, clear-headed analysis that was anchored in the president's strategic guidance. i directed the review. the review will examine the choices, posture and investments and identify the opportunities to more efficiently and effectively structure the ept department and develop options to deal with budgetary

circumstances and that review is under way. the purpose of the review is to ensure that the department is prepared to defend the nation in america's strategic interests. no matter the outcome of this budget debate. going forward, every decision must be wabde against our national interests and must be worthy of the service, sacrifice and loyalty of our men and women. these decisions must be made in the partnership of congress and i look forward to having this important discussion about our priorities and in the days and weeks ahead. i'll turn to general dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs and and ask our comptroller general ramsey from the joint chiefs to respond to specific questions. we'll take a few squess. >> we built this budget to

prepare the joint force for an uncertain future and aims to restore the versatility of a more affordable military for a more sustainable defense strategy. e f.y. 2014 defense budget doesn't reflect the full budget. it imposes more time. nevertheless, uncertainty persists about what the top line will be for this and any future budget, nor does it include to restore funds for any lost readiness. we don't know the full cost of recovery from the revenue of shortfalls. as expected, we curtailed or canceled training for many units, specifically those not preparing to deploy and it's more expensive to get ready than it is to stay ready.

recovery costs will compete with costs to build the future joint force. so what does this budget do? it invests in our priorities and keeps the force imbalance. it supports our forward-deployed operations. it upholds funding for emerging capabilities such as cyber and funds those conventional and nuclear capabilities that have proven essential to our defense and lowers manpower costs and reduces excess infrastructure and makes health care more sustainable. it protects investment in what i have described as our real did he sees i have advantage and that is our people. it treats being the best trained and best equipped military as we now nongorble imperative. i returned from germany and afghanistan and i had the honor of recognize idges one of our nation's most humble servants

and 10 of our nation's sons and daughters. i spoke with senior leaders and our troops in the field. budget uncertainty weighs on their minds. for those on the front lines, they trust that we'll get them what they need and we will. they are less confident that when they return home to a force that trains hard and stays ready and want to make sure they are part of that training hard and staying ready. we have the opportunity and an obligation with this and any future budget to restore their confidence. the force is looking for us to lead and we can't do it alone. as i have said before, we need a predictable funding stream and full flexibility top keep the force imbalance. this is the message i will take o congress tomorrow. >> part of the backdrop to the

budget challenges as outlined is a real world crisis that is developing on the korean peninsula. what would be the consequences if a ballistic launch is expected. are they going to war. how close does the u.s. think that north korea is to being able to reach japan? >> well, i'll begin and ask general dempsey to finish your line of questions. first, this country, the united states of america, our allies, the united nations has been very has been north korea ith its rhetoric, with actions -- have been skating very close

to a dangerous line. their actions and their words a e not helped diffuse combustible situation and it is certainly the intent and hope of all of our allies and certainly this country that that rhetoric be ratcheted down, those actions be neutralized and that's in the interest of all countries. now in the event that that does not occur, as we have said many times, our country is fully prepared to deal with any contingency, any action that north korea may take and any provocation that they may instigate. and we have contingencies prepared to do that. with that said, let me ask

general dempsey for his remarks and that will get us into your second question. >> proximity of the north reans to achieving a nuclear device on a ballistic missile is a classified matter. but they have conducted two nuclear tests. they have conducted several successful ballistic missile launches and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we have to assume the worst case and that's why we are postured the way we are today. >> mr. secretary, moving on past this budget, last week in your speech, you made specific reference to gold waternick ols and that when it was done where there wasn't cost. n time, will this budget

re-examine the gold war-nichols. >> which as you know is familiar what it produced, allow the chairman of the joint chiefs to respond to this more fully, but i think what came out of gold -nihols as reality of a force structure that was needed at the time and i think brought capability to our armed forces to deal with the realities of what was coming at the back end of the 20th century and how we fleggetted our forces and our commands. what i was referring to was, as you have noted, i think that

environment at that time were budget issues and were not a primary factor? much of that debate. i wasn't in the congress at the time. was an interested sen -- citizen and i read and what was going on. after 12 years in the senate, i'm far more familiar than i was as a citizen in 1986. the context of when and what they did at that time is different in one sense on budget -- on the budget environment, but it's not different, as i tried to note in the speech in that these are defining times. we are living at a defining time in the world order, world events. in the 1980's, it was a defining time for a different reason, but

it was an important time and the leadership of our country at that time and interestingly enough through bipartisan leadership came together to make that happen. so i don't know if i have confused you further or clarified anything, but that was my intent, not to challenge the fundamental context and -nichols n of goldwater but what the environment was at the time. the budget is a big environment this time much more so than last time. -nichols was a joint team. the last 10 years of war made it crystal clear. there is no necessity of driving us together, the services understand that their future is

in the joint community. >> this budget is predicated on the hope that is balanced deficit reduction plan will be passed by congress and will be reduced by $150 billion. realistically, you know the landscape, this has not worked out. what are the chances of this package passing? and if it doesn't, when do you execute plan b and come up with a sequestration budget earlier than next january and scare the hell of the industrial base? >> i will give you an answer and general dempsey may want to respond. a couple of observations to your question. >> that's why i directed the deputy secretary of defense, carter, working with the chairman of the joint chiefs to undertake a strategic choice in

management review to address the reality of what we are living with now and that is the reality that you noted, sequestration is law. but interestingly enough, both the house and senate budget resolutions as well as the president's budget are about the same as it relates to the amount of money for the defense department. now i don't think anybody is minimizing the reality of sequestration as law and i noted and as marty has, we are all preparing for that reality. we are taking cuts this fiscal year. but at the same time, wife as a representative government an opportunity tore get beyond that and hopefully find a budget resolution both in the congress

and the president that will low us not only some new flexibilities, but new numbers. and when you look at -- this is a $600 billion enterprise, the department of defense. you can't shift budget dynamics and planning in a month or two. these are long-term dynamics. so we have to plan for budgets. it's why any entity has a budget, not unmindful of sequestration and what's coming down the road if nothing is done, if a compromise can't be made on a new budget act. we are playing for everything. again, that's why i directed that strategic review, because it may not happen. but this is uncertain. i think -- i'll end my comments

and go with marty. we are living in a world of complete uncertainty. also the flexibility that we need to manage -- any institution needs to manage is not there in the same way that we need it to be there and hopefully will be there. and the other part of that is time. this is why the president's budget' number are particularly important because of the $150 billion in his budget over the next 10 years, most of that is at the back end and gives this institution the time to manage and respond in a just tore this g fulfilling strategic guidance in the budget not only what the president has given this institution a couple of years ago but our readiness

interest to protect the security of this nation and that's what we have to look at. >> is it a budget gimmick. $150 billion, most of the people in this room is gone. not covering defense. >> i'm not going to get into -- i'm not going to get into debating it should come at the front end or back end. it is what it is and we have to manage and plan for and to your bigger point, prepare for whatever eventuality that is coming. >> i don't think it's a gimmick, tony. you have heard me say for some time that we need certainty, time and flexibility. time. to your point, using the president's defense strategy from a year ago as the foundation, we are running several excursions, one of which is full sequestration because i want to be able to tell the secretary, this is what this force looks like and what it can

and can't do. i think we are doing due diligence here. >> mr. spec, -- mr. secretary, you have been in congress when this pentagon has tried to change or slow down the costs of health care. what's difference this time that perhaps you are more optimistic that congress will make the kind of changes that you worry about the budget eating the pentagon? >> my voting record i don't know is in your pocket, but there is a big difference. when i was in congress, i left congress in january of 2009. that was, as you know right at e -- at the front end of the global financial crisis. and all this was coming. so the last four years that i have been out of congress, i haven't had to deal with that as a member of the united states senate. but it goes back to your

question. when i was in the senate for those 12 years, we didn't have the kind of pressures at all. they weren't even close. what we're dealing with now. that's the big difference. the fiscal realities that are forcing down now some tough choices and some big decisions are going to have to be made. we don't have any choice here, because if we don't start getting a hold of this and moving this back towards some high making tough choices, the congress is going to have to be a partner here. we can help manage it and propose and be part of this. but the congress is a hugely critical component of all that -- all that we need to do. but that's a big difference. marty. >> i completely agree, mr. secretary. we have to absorb cuts of this magnitude. we have to take them across the entire enterprise.

>> that's what i instructed in my direction on the strategic choices and management review is to look at everything. everything's on the table. has to be on the table. >> when do you expect the results of that review? >> the review is ongoing and i have been getting reports, progress reports along the way. we're looking at trying to have this completed by the end of next month. >> can we back to north korea for a moment. at is your thought -- your bottom-line view what kim xiong un is up to right now? and so you said he is walking close to a line. should the american people be worried that we are headed towards war with north korea?

>> he doesn't check with me on his decisions or how he's feeling each day. i don't know if he does with the hairman, but -- the reality is that he is unpredictable. that country is unpredictable. if that is the reality we are dealing with and it is, you prepare for every contingency and we are, which i think has been made very clear. admiral lockleer was on capitol hill yesterday and went into that and a as should the american people be concerned about their safety and security. we have every capacity to deal with any action that north korea would take to protect this country and the interest of this country and our allies. >> you keep saying we have the capacity to take action if they

do something. this suggests that the u.s. military strategy is to respond to respond if north korea does take a first step. what if you see something, do you respond before they take the first step? >> i'm going to hand this off to general dempsey, but i don't discuss -- i don't think general dempsey discusses operations and specifics of what our contingency plans are. general. >> look, the military's job is to do three things equally well, deter enemy actions, assure our allies and prevent and we have options in every one of those bins to offer to our senior leaders and this is no exception. as far as knowing what kim junk un is about. we are in a press conference that the precedent