also this afternoon, reports that the president has met with house speaker john boehner. the speaker's office saying the president and the speaker had a constructive conversation in the oval office for about an hour today. we'll take you live now to the house floor here on creerp. -- here on c-span. the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy.

chaplain connery: let us pray. loving -- chaplain conroy: let us pray. we thank you for giving us another day. as we think about the blessings of life, we prayner blessing of peace in our lives and in our world. our fervent prayer is that people will learn to live together in reconciliation and respect so that the terrors of war and dictatorial abuse will be no more. in a special way we ask your blessing on the people of ukraine. may peace and civility descend on that nation as it finds itself in political turmoil. may your special blessings p be upon the members of this assembly as they return from a week in their home districts. give them wisdom and charity that they might work together for the common good. may all that is done this day in the people's house be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has

examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approve the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield. mr. butterfield: please join me in the pledge. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to rise and address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. barton: in just a little over a month's time, the nation's physicians will face a cut in medicare system. this affects access for medicare

patients and it could be esolved. mr. burgess: two weeks ago, for the first time, a bill was introduced to have a growth formula. it was not perfect but it was a significant achievement and arked by an editorial piece in "the wall street journal." in the editorial they noted that the senate finance, house ways and means, energy and commerce don't agree on much but they're doing a service by agreeing to end the charade known as the s.g.r. doctors hate the uncertainty of the s.g.r., that's ahn understatement. every member of this house has heard from physicians back home about how much they hate this formula. they go on to say, absent reform, one way or another, the money is going to be spent and congress can either continue to do so in incremental slices or

admit in advance that it was always going to do this. in fact, the time has come. it's within our power. we should repeal the s.g.r. and pass h.r. 4015. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. butterfield: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. butterfield: on february 8, more than 8,000 north carolinians protested against the policies of governor pat mccrory and the republican-led legislature rm they have cut education funding to the bone, denied a half million people access to health care by refusing to expand medicaid and trying to slinals north carolina citizens by making it harder to vote. these policies are making life difficult. north carolinians have had enough. north carolina republican leaders must not continue to sacrifice the common good of millions to benefit an elite

few. we need to increase funding for education and job training, expand health care access and guarantee the right to vote. i applaud the moral monday protest and all those who support a better way to gon. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. boehner: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. boehner: this week, the house will consider several measures to stop government abuse, especially then it threltens freedom and limits opportunity. the american people expect accountability. every day the house is focused on carrying out responsible oversight. as an example, late on friday, the obama administration released a report that we demanded detailing the impact of the health care law and what it will do to employer-sponsored health plans. you may not have seen the report, it was released rather

quietly on friday afternoon, so i'm going to enter it into the record today. i urge every member to read it and share it with your constituents. as you do, keep in mind that the white house promised that this law would bring down health insurance premiums by some $2,000 per family. instead, according to the administration's own bookkeepers, premiums would go up for two out of three small businesses in our country this amounts to about 11 million employees who are going to see more money coming out of their paycheck for their health insurance every month. these premiums will be felt not just by workers but small business owners themselves, making it harder to create jobs, another sucker punch to our economy. another broken promise to hardworking americans. and the only reason we even know about it is that the house demanded this transparency from the administration. that's why the house continues to focus on stopping government

abuse and promoting better solutions for middle class families and small businesses. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the member's request is granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor reverend nehemiah davis on his 50th anniversary as pastor baptist church in fort worth, texas, located on evans avenue. while this year marks his 50th year as pastor of the church, i would also like to congratulate him as -- on his installation as president of the national missionary baptist commission of america. his commitment to his church is exceeded only by his devotion to his wife, dorothy nell davis and

his two daughters, who have given dr. davis two grandkids. mr. speaker, pastor davis has lived his entire life giving service to the community and preaching the faith. and he wanted everyone here to know today that in -- out of all the things he's accomplished over his lifetime, he's also very proud of his domino playing skills. i ask my distinguished colleagues of the 113th congress to join me in honoring pastor davis on his 50th anniversary as pastor of mount fiska missionary baptist church as well as an exemplary life of service. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one inute. >> mr. speaker this picture depicts sudanese women in a food

distribution line. another desperate woman is hunched over barbed wire. violence, displacement, and starvation plague the world's newest nation but that doesn't have to be so. months ago, i wrote the obama administration urging that they invite former president george w. bush and the bush institute to engage in the crisis. mr. wolf: given that president bush forged lasting relationships with the sudanese leaders in the negotiation in 2005. the obama admgs, perhaps constrained by pride, has failed o act, and the very nation the u.s. helped birth is perishing in its infancy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for

one minute. mr. wilson: defense secretary chuck hagel outlined a proposal calling for a troop reduction to shrink our army to the smallest since since world war ii began. this is sad proof that the president's priority will threaten the strength of our military at a time when al qaeda is developing safe havens across africa, the mideast and south asia with an intent to destroy america. this last week, i participated japan, ers in a trip to taiwan and the philippines. we met national leaders building their militaries to face threats and promoting peace through strength. the president has misplaced priorities and chosen to place our brave men and women in uniform on the chopping block in order to spend more money promoting big government dependency. national defense is the first duty of the national government

as promoted by the military officers association of america. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, during our most recent constituent listening tour, i had the opportunity to speak with over 1,000 kansans, many who continue to voice their frustration with a federal government that seems to create more problems than it fixes and builds too many barriers to success for those working to realize the american dream. mr. speaker, the house must continue to pass legislation that helps regular, average working american people. mr. yoder: despite the entrenched washington interests, we must remove the big goth barriers that are slowing the drive and ingenuity of our great nation. we must pursue a robust, all of the above energy policy that increases domestic energy production, making us less

dependent on foreign sources of energy, keeping energy prices down for american families and putting tens of thousands of meshes back to work. we must reform the tax code that's riddled with exemptions and loopholes and is unfair to the average american worker. we must put forward patient-centered reforms to our health care system to spur competition, quality of care, innovation and cost reduction. and we must make our federal government leaner, more efficient, and more accountable to the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair lays before the house a message. the secretary: to the congress of the -- clyde: to the congress of the united states, section 202-d of the national emergencies act provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary of the -- anniversary date of its declaration the president publishes in the federal register and transmits to congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. in accordance with this

provision, i have sent to the -- i have sent the enclosed notice to the federal register for publication stating that the national emergency declared on march 1, 1996, with respect to the government of cuba's destruction of two unarmed u.s.-registered civilian aircraft in international air space north of cuba on february 24, 1996, as amended and expanded on february 26, 2004, is to continue in effect beyond march 1, 2014. signed, barack obama, the white house. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed. pursuant to clause 12a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess su

>> demonstrationsp that occur, but they are really done by these famous identify connick people, basically it's rosa parks, who just was so tired she refused to get up from the bus in montgomery, alabama, and sparked the bus boycott. and basically a young preacher who even though the president referred to during the election as this young preacher from georgia, which is dr. martin luther king jr., who sort of leads the masses of african-americans from racial oppression. but this notion that rosa sat

and martin could do this stuff, and jesse could run, and barack, all these things, they sound good, but they really simplify a much more complicated history. that complicated history really involves so many african-americans, women and dismantle actively racial segregation, including rosa parks. she was an activist. she didn't refuse to give up her seat by accident. it was a concerted strategic effort to transform democratic institutions. >> his trey professor and author of dark days and bright nights, specializes the subfield of africana and what he calls black power studies. his latest will be in bookstores march 4. sunday he'll take your questions, in-depth, live for three hours starting at noon astern on c-span2's book tv.

>> now two former congressional budget office directors weigh in on a recent c.b.o. report finding that if the minimum wage is incrossed it will cost jobs. the job losses are not nearly as important as the huge number of people it would help pull out of poverty. meanwhile, douglas called the proposed increase a terrible anti-poverty tool. they both took part in this panel discussion yesterday at the national association of business economics conference. >> it's exciting to this -- have this lineup. to help us navigate through this next session, i have asked matthew shays, president and c.e.o. of the national retail federation to moderate. of course many of you know that i am working with the national retail federation. by way of background, the national retail federation is the world's largest retail trade

association with membership in more than 45 nations. matt is a graduate of wittenberg university, the ohio state university college of law, holds an m.b.a. from georgetown. he's been recognized as one of the top 50 nonprofit executives. and i know everybody knows our other panelists, so-so we can use as much time with the audience and with matt, i'll turn it over to matt to begin this session. thank you. >> thank you, jack. good morning. it's a pleasure to you back with you again. especially pleasure to be here with jack serving in his capacity as president this year. we are very proud and pleased to have him in that role. it's a terrific organization, and we are proud to be supporting it. and especially pleasing to be here today to engage in this discussion with two of our nation's foremost economists on fiscal policy. jack mentioned that their

reputations precede them. i'll just share from our perspective at the national retail federation this is interesting for us because one of the nation's largest private sector employers, creating jobs for essentially one in four americans in this country, 42 million, in the work force, everything that happens in the economy affects retail. and fiscal policy in particular. so while we are frequently in the middle of the discussion when it comes to the security of the payment system or infrastructure or minimum wage or variety of other issues we talk about, at the end of the day it's about consumer confidence, job creation, economic growth, and g.d.p. that really drives things forward for us. and while it's nice to be in the middle of those things, obviously has a bit of a downside which is when things take a negative turn then obviously retailers feel that quickly, and maybe even more acutely than some businesses.

so talking about fiscal policy and its ability to stimulate the economy and get the economy growing again at a moreau bust and sustainable way is obviously of great -- more robust and sustainable way is obviously of great importance to us. you both know, i think, that alice and douglas, our foremost thinkers and very experienced here, and proving the theory that there are truly only six degrees of separation, they are the first and sixth directors of the congressional budget office. alice has the distinction of being the nation's very, very first. so delighted to welcome them here today and have them share their thoughts. i thought we would start with -- >> identified' like to interrupt for a special announcement. it was 39 years ago today that alice became the first director of the congressional budget

office, and thus launched the great institution. i would like to offer my thanks and our congratulations. [applause] deserved.ll congratulations, and thank you for launching this great organization. let me start with just the estion -- your opinions on long run imbalances in this country, do you agree that we are suffering from those. if so, how severely? if so, what sorts of policy prescriptions would you suggest to maybe address those issues? start with alice. >> yes. thank you for recognizing that the c.b.o. endured for 39 years. i was sworn in by the speaker of the house 39 years ago. how many of you know who that would have been. it was carl albert. that's a trivia quiz for today.

the outlook for the federal udget looks a lot less scary than it did only about three years ago. if you go back to 2010 and think about what things looked like then, first the short-term was very uncertain. the economy was beginning to grow again, but not very robustly. nobody knew whether there was a really sustainable recovery or not. and most of us thought that the stimulus was working and maybe there should be more of it. but there was great uncertainty about the short run future of the economy. there was also a very scary outlook for the longer run. everybody knew that as the

economy recovered and as the stimulus spent out, that the deficits, which were then over 10% of g.d.p., would come down, and they have come down. they have come down very fast. t what was looming at us was the combination, as doug said demographics plus quite anxiety making projections about the increase in health care costs. so we had the simpson bowles commission, and domenici-rivlin task force and we looked at this double phenomenon and bipartisan needs were saying we don't to have austerity in the short run, we should be careful about that. maybe even need more stimulus, but the long run picture is

scary, it needs equipment reform that will slow the growth, especially of the health care spending, and give us tax reform that might raise some more revenue with a more sensible tax code. so that was the standard prescription at that time for a really nervous making situation. so what's happened? well, the deficits come down -- defendant's come down a little >> fast. fiscal drag. but we haven't had a catastrophe. we have an economy still growing at reasonable rates, which i think is proof of the most -- resilience of the u.s. economy when you throw a lot of austerity at it and ridiculous behavior on the part of policymakers, fiscal cliffs, close down the government, threaten to default on the debt, the political system did everything it could to derange

derange the economy, but it didn't work. so we are on a fairly solid growth track in the near term. the longer term looks a lot better, too. but my concern is that it may be based on a couple of false assumptions. -- -- asumses. if you looked at doug's numbers, only ou see is that while a couple years ago we thought that the debt was going to rise 80% ofpidly through 75%, g.d.p., it now looks more contained and sort of leveled off. a debt of 75% of g.d.p. is scarey, especially with those interest rates going up. a lot of debt service to be paid

off the top. it doesn't look as scary as it did. but that's built on two-o summingses. one was, instead of heeding the instruction not to have too much -- two assumptions, one was instead of heeding the instruction not to have too much austerity in the near term, we have had it. we cut discretionary spenged. we had the sequestration. as the c.b.o. runs those numbers out, as doug said, we would have discretionary spending at a 20 r level of g.d.p., 10 to years from now, than we have ever had. or we had since 1940. that's sort of the beginning of time. before that we didn't have much of a federal government. so one question is, is that level of discretionary spending

sustainable? we are a much bigger economy with a lot more people and lot more demands on our government. there's homeland security, and there are all sorts of things that we think are important that we didn't know about in 1940. can we run the government on that percent of g.d.p. in spending? the other big one which doug also talked about is health care costs. they have slowed, they have slowed dramatically over the last decade. it is not just a recession phenomenon. and part of that clearly is the slow growth. if we have the economy roaring back and high growth, we will certainly have some increase in spending above those projectionings. we should be so lucky. -- projections. we should be so lucky. but if we don't we don't really

know what will happen. so there is -- adopting this slower growth in projections for health care spending, i think you go with the numbers you have. but it's risky. so i think it might be worse in terms of the debt to g.d.p. ratio, and we should be concerned about it. >> thank you. doug. >> i spend my career learning do ame question, which is not follow alice rivlin either on the job or podium, because i agree. let me just point out that i think there are two important outlooks, aspects of the outlook. one is the core imbalance, and the second is the risk management issues that we face. the core imbalance is present in both the private sector and public sector. it's an imbalance in favor of current consumption over saving and investment. it man fests itself especially

in the private sector, with the declined, demise of the defined benefit pension plan, a relatively thin pension safety net. low household savings, and this is not something that people spend a lot of time wringing their hand out during the great recession, but it will be something we come back to because we are not adequately people for the latter aspects of their lifecycle. the public sector, the federal budget, federal budget a ma -- ma sheep to move resources from -- machine to move resources from saving investment to consumption. that comes from a couple things. the first is the composition investment that doug highlighted. i'm the original doug. with the rise of the large social security medicare, medicaid, other health care spending we are -- seeing these leg kwlacy programs of the past crowd out the remainder of the

budget and crowd out discretionary spending. discretionary spending is the place where the core functions of government are financed. the founders would have recognized. the national security basic research, infrastructure, education. that's all there. that's also the investments in the future. so we are literally as a structural matter letting our past trout out our future and saving investment components of the federal budget. there's also the issue of financing. by and large even if we ran balanced budgets what we would do is we would tax consumption and savings, return of savings, in order to finance what is largely consumption. tell politicians love to provide consudges because it makes people happy and they vote for them. there is a systemic bias in the structure of the budget. we are taxing to finance it. we are borrowing to finance it. and tilting the fundamental imbalances. so when i look at where we are long term, we can and will recover from this recession. it's been far too sleen painful,

but we will. and we'll be left with an economy that has some fundamental imbalance problems that i worry about. on the risk management, i want to echo so things i don't think get enough attention. the first is the debt service associated with high levels of federal debt relative to g.d.p. in the c.b.o. forecast, which did not have anything like precipitous rises in interest rates, we have debt service nominally larger than defense spending at the end of the 10-year window. one of our largest spending programs. it's effect on g.d.p. is 3%. which is a traditional dividing line for deficits that are too small. the debt service alone will get you there. i think that's a risky position to be in both from the financial risk it presents to the federal government, but also future democracy that's going to have less flexibility to respond in difficult times. to whatever circumstances might arise. they get this service to do

that. and in the last piece is how you think about these health care costs. and the slower growth in health care spending per person is not a price phenomenon, at least not definitively yet. if you look at medical services, component. c.p.i. relative to c.p.i. growth, we are in a low inflation era, and there's nothing that stands out as special about the relative price growth in the health sector. it's the quantities that have gone down. you have to decide whether that's good or bad because there are some of those quantities that people should have and don't have, and that's bad health policy, and some which are truly unnecessary and not helpful, and we can probably live without. the nature of that slowdown in terms of its welfare properties is still not clear to me. and how long it will persist is not obvious. there's the question of swheas really changed -- what's really changed that would lead to different incentives. there are things to think about.

larger co-pay deductibles, out-of-pockets, we are seeing in the employer sector. that's driving things. we have seen some changes, some changes in payment plans. and certainly more experimentation with putting providers and other entities at financial risk for the cost of the services they provide. that i think is driving it. but there are also some things that could be very well transitory. everyone in the health care sector knows the whole world is watching right now. they are paralyzed, that could go away. we could see them push spending increases through. there's the recession, who knows how much of an impact that's had. it can't be zero. and the affordable care act is designed to go the other way. the whole idea is to cover people with insurance so they'll go buy more stuff. so it is built, if successful, to drive the spending growth back up. and i at least am cautioned by the history, which is in the late 1990's, we saw the same thing. we saw four years where the

spending and health relative to the g.d.p. growth disappeared. anti-high five's were done all around. and then it went away. went away quite dramatically. there is nothing that i can see that precludes that. if you're thinking about the risks associated with these budget projections, then you have to ask, do you want to err on the side of declaring victory and doing much in the reform of health care, and thus run the risk of much larger spending and bigger debt than i see in the point estimates, or do you want to be aggressive and perhaps get the debt down, get the debt service down, and leave what i would think would be a better situation to the next generation? i know how i make that call, but i don't hear enough sensible discussion how we think about that. i think that's a core piece of the outlook over the next 10 years. > maybe one more question on balances and imbalances to go back to alice's observation that 1940's was the beginning of time. for the last 50 or 60 years or so, federal spending has

averaged about 19 1/2% of g.d.p. and federal revenues have averaged about 17%. looking forward over the long term is that the right ratio? should we be restoring that balance? where do we go? what should be the optimal level of that ratio? >> well, remember in that period we didn't have very many old people. the world has changed. and it's not old people like me, it's the next generation of old people. the baby boomers retiring. can we al question is still run -- do the service that is we thought we wanted over this period in the face of this democrat graving tsunami and the rising cost of health care. it's the same thing we have beening -- been talking about.

we certainly can do everything we can to make health care more efficient, and we can talk more about that, but we are going to want more of it as we get older. it isn't just the baby boom. it's the increasing longevity. we areare the skepticism going to be able to cut back on the major entitlements all that much. if you don't, then you got to ither raise taxes or cut the discretionary spending even more. everything else the government does. don't think we can. i think we have cut it too much already. >> i don't think there's a right ratio. i don't know how to answer that question. i do think that the fundamental distributive new orleans in the u.s. are not -- norms in the u.s. are not going to cause us

to slash social security as part of g.d.p. social security is one of the handful of programs that's had an impact on poverty in the united states and it really is a big success. hard to see a u-turn on that. where we'll end up on health, i don't know. i think the right way to think about it is can we get a system in which well positioned decisionmakers, american families, can assess the value, proposition, and next health service to make good decisions. that will be what it will be. it could be quite expensive. i'm with alice. the discretionary programs, every one of them needs fundamentally reformed and some need fundamentally exported orever like the farm bill. we are not going to get rid of those core functions of government. we'll to finance them somehow. it looks to me like the budget projections just underfund them completely. all that says we are going to go higher, not lower. that suggests we need a better

tax system. if you're going to raise more g.d.p. in taxes than now, we need to do it in a more intelligent fashion. that's a big challenge. >> can i pick up on the social security point? because i think while social security is not a big part of the long run deficit, it's only demographic, it's not -- it doesn't get multiplied by the rising cost of health care, it's still significant. but the reason for fixing social security is not budgetary, it's to reassure people that social security will be there for them. and put it on a firm foundation for the long run future. i don't actually think that's very difficult. mr. roy in the previous session, one of them said something about $22 trillion. i can't think about $22 trillion.

that's the unfunded liability. actually very small -- >> there is no unfunded liability, that's the problem. under current law, when the trust fund exhausts, benefits get cut to the level of revenues. there is no unfunded liability, there is a dismal pension program being run by the federal government. >> i guess that calculation is running out the benefit. whatever you can talk about being trillions. actually fixing social security means relatively small changes in benefits quite far in the future. you could raise the retirement age another notch if you wanted to. you can change the way the c.p.i. is calculated. you can make the benefits a little less generous at the top. and compensate by making them a little more generous at the bottom. dozens of commissions have look at this, and it's not very hard, but we ought to do it and we

ought to do it soon. we used to think that the trust fund would run out of money in 2033, and that was many years from now and the future and we didn't have to worry about it. think about 2033, people already in the labor force, in fact middle-aged people, people in heir 40's, will be retiring in 2033. we owe it to them to have a system that is on firm foundation and not waive this notion that we are maybe going o cut benefits by 25% in 2033. >> nabe just released its policy survey and not surprisingly there seems to be a fair amount of consensus about monetary policy, that monetary policy's about right, but there is not consensus on fiscal policy. either too restrictive, stimulative, maybe just about right. if we could play armchair quarterback for a minute and

look back five years ago to the big fiscal stimulus of the american recovery and reinvestment act, five years later, too big, not big enough? effective? not well targeted? what are your thoughts how it worked if it worked? >> i have some but i don't always get to go first. want to start? >> sure. it's pretty tough to throw $1 trillion at the u.s. economy and not do something. the whole notion how this has no impact is badly misplaced. it is shocking that it's had such little political success. in terms of political success per dollar of g.d.p., this is an all-time loser. i think it could easily have been executed much better. this is a bill with an enormous number of design flaws, in my view, and in part -- in part that came from the natural inclination of the congress,

administration, to pursuit other objectives in the midst of the closed stimulus. i don't think there is a good case to be made that a stimulus bill should have been included in the clean energy and health information technology and broadband and other initiatives that really were about the president's domestic policy agenda, and it tangled the politics up and i think that's proven to be a misstep. it also made it very hard, i think, for it to be as timely as it needed to be. once you started -- my best example of this, we used to have two rural broadband programs, one in the department of commercial and one in the usda. don't ask. and they spend a total of about $4 billion a year. and then the stimulus bill put $4 billion in rural broadband. there is nothing you can scale tenfold overnight successfully. not private sector, not public sector. it's just too hard. once there became concern about waste, every one of the managers in those programs started asking

for ridiculous documentation before they handed out money because they didn't want to end up on "60 minutes." so it didn't go out. you can repeat that example all through the bill. i think by not picking a cleaner design, by mixing too many objectives into the stimulus bill, it harmed the effectiveness in the end and danieled its credibility as an effort to respond to recession and it looked and said it was responding to political imperatives. that was the flaw. think -- i agree with that. this free fall is adrib beautyable to good monetary policy and bailing out, if you . ke

it should have been much quicker, the phrase then was targeted and timely, that meant more increases in food stamps and things that people needed and would spend out quickly. and less of the longer-run things that would spend out slowly. in hindsight i'm not so sure. i think maybe we should have done more total and more of it in longer run investments as in infrastructure. now, this spends out slowly if you do it well. there's no such thing as a shovel ready project. if there were we would have done it. t if we had invested more in modernizing our infrastructure, it wouldn't -- it might solve it, still be spending out, but

that's fine. >> we might have been a little bit -- we could have spent more. >> i'm not so sure that we were all right that it hall to be timely. this was going to be a long slog . we did need the longer run investment. >> i think this debate's gone on for a long time, but i think the fact that so many people place so much of the emphasis on the recovery in a single bill actually revealed the flaw. growth is not a bill. growth is in fact, a commitment to the kinds of incentives that get people to invest, to hire people, and to spend money. and farm bill. when we look back at the poor recovery today, the striking feature has always been that the business sector was -- had the financial wherewith-all to spend more -- wherewithal to spend

more, and thinking harder about better consecutives, including doing things we know we need to do, getting corporate right in line, or international tax rules up to the 21st drentry -- century, doing those then, getting them in place in a permanent fashion, would have been a very wise step. we didn't do that. and unfortunately we actually looked into this. there are shovel ready projects. they are things that someone has done all the prep work for and decided they weren't a good idea and we built them. >> in just a minute we'll collect the cards and take a couple of questions. i want to ask one more. i think you sort of previewed your answers on this. there are some folks that think maybe given the complexity and size of our economy today that this fiscal stimulus may not be an effective tool. it's almost so big, i guess that would be too big to stimulate. that would be tbts, our own

version. have we gotten there with this economy? fiscal stimulus still works if targeted, if the right size, applied the right way? you would make that argument? >> yes, i would make that argument. and the automatic stablizers still work. remember that the biggest things that helped write this economy were not passed in 2009. they were passed in the great depression. a big had this cushion of tax system. is at least progressive enough so that when incomes go down, we take in a lot less tax money, and that's good. and the social security continuing to pump out money and medicare continuing to pay health costs and unemployment compensation, whatever the argument about how long it should be, it helps people get

over -- get through a period when you are losing a lot of jobs. so, yes, i think stimulus works. one more point. am always astonished that although conservatives often face government spending kills jobs, if you are talking about military spending, they don't believe that. and i spent -- doug and i spent a nice session with some of the western governors. almost all of whom were republicans and quite conservative republicans. and you would have thought we were going to kill their states by closing a few military bases. if that's not stimulus work, i don't know what it is. >> i want to pick up where alice -- not with the military

closures, but with the automatic stablizers. i think to the extent that we want to learn something from this episode and build a better macroeconomic regime, it's focusing on the automatic stablizers and getting them right. the u.s. system flatly needs overhauled. we don't want to have the fight over the fight we have had, length of benefits and things like that. we need to fix it. but the stablizers are a great thing. i look back in this era, and what i see is an economics profession and its advice to policymakers since lost the lessons of history. in the 1960's and 1970's, we decided we were clever enough to fine-tune business cycles and manage them from d.c., and we were going to stop up turns with clever tax increases and spending cugs, and cushion downturns, and it was a complete disaster. we closed the 1970's with chronically high unemployment and inflation. we then swore off that and said we should put fiscal policy on

some uth matic stablizers for cyclical purposes, and a lesson that serves us quite well in the 1980's and 1990's. and collectively, this is an important thing, we did scrigsary fiscal policy in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2008 we sent out the checks, 2009. then we kept -- then we had political gridlock or we would have done more. no quefment that's a mistake. i think we have just unlearned the lesson of history and we got to get back to a better regime. there will always be a place, if you have a shock as bad as 2007 and 2008, there is no administration that wouldn't have done something like the obama administration d that was imperative. i think thinking more about the focus on the automatic part and less on the discretionary part would serve us well. >> let me ask one more as we get the cards up here, i know a lot of folks want to ask questions, chairman, former fed chairman alan greenspan this morning

mention add number of interesting things. one of which he spent time on was the issue of income inequality. which maybe -- income inequality in and of itself not a bad thing. maybe it's more about economic mobility. leaving that aside for a moment, there's been talk about increasing the minimum wage. the federal minimum wage. the congressional budget office last week released a study that said that while increasing the wage i think the $10.10 an hour would lift a million americans out of poverty, it would result in the loss of half a million jobs estimated by the end of 2016. to jump into that conversation, is raising the federal minimum something that we should be doing to address income inequality? is it good for the economy? bad for the economy? what's your view on that issue? >> i would raise the wage. maybe in a couple of steps. go to $9 or something first.

and index it. that's the main thing. the reason the engage is so far below -- the reason the minimum wage is so far below the medium wage or whatever now is that we don't index it. and we should. i would favor an increase, it may be some job loss at the it doesn't -- the job loss is not nearly as important as the huge number of people that would be helped and pulled out of poverty if we raise the mange. -- minimum wage. >> i think this is silliness of the highest order. we raised the minimum wage during the great recession and we have teenage unemployment over 20% right now. we have priced them out of the labor market. did an enormous disservice. we could go ahead and do it again and hit more low-skill workers if we want, the c.b.o.'s

estimate is 500,000. that's a good estimate. and what will we get for it? we get 900,000 out of 45 million poor americans ticked above the poverty line. that's a pretty small payoff. and the incomes that are process, ted in the only 19% go to poverty household. this is a terrible anti-poverty tool. it's not teargetted on poverty. it's not like the income tax credit which says are you a poorhouse hold? if so we'll do something for you. it harms the job growth, the i.t.c. helps people get into jobs. the dividing line between poor and not poor in america is having a job. poverty rates on those working 7%, poverty rates on the rest, three times that. i don't understand why we've got this puny little policy at the center of a debate over a real phenomenon. if you did the minimum wage, you

wouldn't change the fundamental trends in wage inequality that's been going on since the 1980's at least where the high end continues to prosper more. the low end has fallen for about a decade and a half and now stabilized, but stabilized at a bad level. i find this a distressing distraction from real policies to deal with what might be a serious equity issue. >> congratulations, you found something we disagree on. but not that much. i would certainly agree with doug that the earned income tax credit is by far the superior tool to raising the minimum wage, although i would go with a wage increase and indexing. >> another interesting question that you may or may not have different perfect specsives oun -- perspectives on. preff fansed with let's put the nail in the coffin now. is austerity during a down cycle of economic growth a bad idea, yes or no? >> yes, but we survived it.

>> i don't think we have any austerity. that's in the eye of the beholder. we certainly -- there was a big stimulus response, and for the record i think the fundamental policy response made the biggest difference was the initial fed actions. that stabilized the fall more than any other single policy action, the tarp and stimulus probably pail in -- pale in comparison. i would very much have liked to have seen quick moves toward changing the permanent growth incentives as opposed to ntinued targeted "austerity" discussions. we can't relive that history. >> on health care, a couple of questions. is the affordable care act helpful or harmful to the long-term fiscal picture and why? you both touched on that in your opening remarks.

specifically to the affordable care act. helpful or harmful to long-term fiscal perspective? >> well, broadening coverage to include more people to have insurance is bound to mean spending more money. if we do it as i think there is a good chance we are doing it, in conjunction with reforms, both in the public and private sector, to change the incentives in the health care system, moving away from fee-for-service and so forth, then i think we can compensate and indeed override the increase that we have from covering more people. no question that covering more people will cost more money. >> i think this is a bad thing for the long-term outlook. no doubt about it. we will spend more. my concern is that we'll spend a lot more because the insurance subsidies are sufficiently

generous that for anyone up to 300% of the poverty line, employers can get out of the business of providing health insurance, pay the penalty, provide their employees with a raise that after tax plus subsidies get some better insurance than they were offering. and that's a combined incentive for the two groups to figure out how to get that done somehow. i have great respect for the ingenuity of those two groups. , we start d be getting twice the number of people we expect in these exchanges over the long term, it's expensive and bad. don't think we'll get spending reforms that alice referred to, that would be great. but the a.c.a. has in it just a wish list of pilots and demos. the road to health care health is paved with pilots and demos. we never scale them up, even the one that is seem effective, because they involve taking money away from people. it's hard politically to get that done. i'm less optimistic to get that done. the real reforms that could have

been made was medicare. but by intertwining medicare into the financing the a.c.a. they have paralyzed medicare reform at the same time. i'm much more pessimistic about the spending projections that come out of the a.c.a. than a lot of people. my bigger concern is it also hits the denominator. there is nothing pro-growth about the affordable care act. if you asked a group, what do you want for a spluss bill? would you pick a trillion and a half in new entitlement spending? a variety of very expensive regulations that touch every aspect of the economy? i don't think so. part s has been, i think, of the growth problem is a fail yaur to recognize that -- failure to recognize what's ostensibly a health care discussion, social policy objective, has gross consequences. we are hurting the spending numerator, growth denominator,

and i'm not a big fan. >> i'm much more positive than that. but the reason for enacting the affordable care act was not fiscal, it was here we have a big country, big rich country that had millions of people with no health insurance and no access to care. that's why we did it. and it's worth spending money to do that. then the question is, can we make our health care delivery system more efficient? and i'm more hopeful than doug, but not just because of demonstrations. clearly we got to take the things that are working and move them into the mainstream, but i think that is actually happening. in the big payers, the big insurance companies, and medicare, are moving toward innocenting value rather than just volume.

>> how about a tax question? the chairman of the house tax writing committee, dave camp, is scheduled to announce this week an overall of the tax code, probably on wednesday, what are your general thoughts about do we need to rewrite the tax code? how badly do we need it? like? ould it look when will it happen? will it happen? >> yes, we need a rewrite of the tax code. both the individual and the corporate income tax in the same direction. broaden the base, lower the rates, and i would have preferred to do it as part of some grand bargain. we are not going to get the grand bargain, let's do it anyway. and i don't know what dave camp will come up with, but we could hardly have a worse tax code. ee if we can't make it better.

>> there are some things that are obvious. the need for a big tax overhaul is one of them. i did do some polling and actually did some focus groups on tax reforms at my think tank, and just for those who want this to get done, know that there are two words that you cannot use when discussing tax reform, the public absolutely turns their back, those words are tax and reform. >> we need a big mack this year. and i think the core of that is the corporate and the international tax provisions i mentioned earlier. if you're going to do good tax policy, you have to recognize this is income taxed in two ways

and somehow maintain a unified set of incentives. that means you touch the individual code, that gets you immediately into -- you're trying to get the top individual rate and the top corporate rate to come into some kind of alignment. a lot of pressure to put the individual rates up. that's the tax policy box of this era. there's no way around it. that makes me pessimistic about getting it done, quite frankly. the tax code turned 101 on february 3. that's 101 years we have had a handful of major tax reforms. that tells you it's tax reform is hard. i want to congratulate the chairman for pushing forward with this effort. i think it's not a 2014 issue. i don't know if it's a 2015, 2016, or 2017 issue but in't -- but it can't wait forever, but put some proposals on the table and start having sensible

discussions about them. that would be a good step. >> this will be the last question and a chance to leave everyone in a great mood before they go to enjoy their lunch. that is, if you saw, doug, i guess he would be doug second, if you saw doug's presentation a few minutes ago and the c.b.o.'s sharply reduced projections for g.d.p. over the next decade, did that change your optimism about the economy generally and our prospects for the future? >> no, we knew this was coming. it's largely demographic. and i think there are lots of things we can do to increase productivity. i mentioned infrastructure investment. i think lots of different kinds of investment, improving the skills of the labor force, getting older people to work longer in jobs in which they can function productively, all of those things are important

things to do and might raise the potential g.d.p. aly et -- a little bit but no question it's going to go down as our paplation shifts. >> i'm fundamentally optimistic. >> the house gavels back in for legislative work, seven bills on the agenda this afternoon. with any votes called for to be held at about 6:30 eastern. live house coverage now. poned questions will be taken later. the speaker recognizes -- for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. issa: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1211, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. ller: h.r. 1211, a bill -- the clerk: h.r. 1211, a bill to amend section 552 of title 5, united states code, commonly known as the freedom of information act, to provide for greater public access to information and for other

purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. issa, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. h.r. 1211, the foia oversight and implementation act, or foia act, is a bipartisan bill approved unanimously by the house oversight and government reform committee last month. i co-sponsored the legislation, which ranking member elijah cummings, authored. the bill is a product of a joint effort by our staffs. the legislation has been endorsed by 29 nonpartisan transparency groups, including the project on government oversight, known as pogo,

sunshine in the government, and the sunshine foundation and the american society of news editors. . it's critical at this time that the american people believe and actually receive the information that lets them understand what their government is doing. a key provision of this bill is to codify requirements in a foya memorandum issued by president obama and attorney general holder that includes making presumption of openness the standard law of the land. that means that if an agency -- that an agency can only withhold if the disclosure of such records would cause foreseeable harm. this shifts the burden of proof from the public requester seeking information from goth agencies which he must demonstrate he has the need, to the government being open and

transparent unless it has a good reason to withhold. the foia act of 2014 also includes a -- an unprecedented level of disclosure, meaning more information will be made available to the public without each individual interest in the information needing to separate foia requests to get it. mr. speaker new york plain english, in un-- if one person and then another person, or one entity and then another entity seem to want to have the same information, rather than the agencies possibly posting it publicly, they will be required to post it publicly system of that which a few agencies want to know or a few private organizations want to know, the entire public would have easy access. another way of putting it is, if you going to tell one person that it's reasonable to have public access, then all the public should have easy access

to that information. these proactive disclosure requirements are intended to make the information sharing a routine part of government. like the data act passed earlier this year which the house approved, the foia act requires all information be posted in an electronic, publicly accessible format. raw data, whenever available, as the original format, so it can be machine searched and give the widest ability for the public to have not just access to the letters but access to the meaning and the cross meaning of this information. under the bill, more agencies will be using technology to increase transparency by processing foia requests through a centralized web portal. users will submit requests in one location, where agencies can automatically post their response this kind of one-point

access is something the public has long waited for from the federal government. the legislation before the house today modestly amends the committee report -- the committee reported bill by establishing an open government advisory committee, housed within the national ar dives office of government information services. the open government advisory committee will ensure that reforms -- reform efforts continue after this bill is acted. mr. speaker, this foia amendment -- amendment to the foia law, is one of the most additional accesses to the american people and i might note with thanks that this was an initiative begun by this administration, by president obama, that we believe should be there for all time. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland -- mr. cummings: i yield myself such time as i may consume.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i want to thank chairman issa for sponsoring this bill with me. this bill, if enacted would be a landmark reform of our most important open government law, the freedom of information act. this legislation would make significant improvements to the current law, which has not been consistently implemented. during the clinton administration, attorney general janet reno adopted a policy under which the department of justice would defend an agency's use of a foia exemption only one the -- when the agency could reasonably foresee that disclosure would harm an interest protected by that exemption. in the bush administration, attorney general john ashcroft reversed the standard and directed the justice department decisions to cy withhold records as long as they had a legal basis for

doing. so president obama, to his credit, on his first day in office, directed agencies to implement a foy -- to implement foia with a presumption of openness. attorney general holder overturned the ashcroft standard and reinstated the foreseeable harm standard. the legislation before us today would codify in law this resumption in fare of disclosure, no matter who is president. under this bill, an agency would not be allowed to withhold information in response to a foia request unless disclosure is prohibited by law or would cause specific, identifiable harm to an interest protected by one of foia's exemptions. this bill also would create an advisory committee to make recommendations to improve government transparency. the president recently endorsed this idea in the open government national action plan

issued by the administration in december of 2013. this legislation also would create a pilot project to encourage participation in a centralized foia portal a centralized portal such as foia online allows requesters to use one website to file requests to multiple agencies. it would also strengthen the office of government information services by enhancing its role in providing guidance to agencies and ensuring that agencies notify requesters of their right to use its mediation services. the bill would strengthen the independence of this office by allowing it to send testimony and reports directly to congress without approval from the office of management and budget. i urge every member of this body to support this open government legislation by voting for it. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. we don't often find in this body the kind of consensus behind something that, as the ranking member said, has gone both ways under different presidents. i'm a proud republican. but i believe that the order given by president obama was the right order. the order given by president bush, perhaps in light of 9/11, perhaps in light of other considerations, might have seemed right at the time. but let me make something clear today. on our committee, there is unanimity. the american people must have access to all information unless there is a specific reason to withhold it. this requirement under foia

today will drive the data act and other reforms. it will cause information to be likely stored in formats that's easier for agencies to determine that which they must withhold and we think it's important. today, legions of people often spend countless hours redakotaing nothing more than one name or one social security number that cannot be found except by a set of eyes scanning over it system of in addition to the american people getting what they're entitled to under this act, we believe that it will drive the kind of innovation automation that actually will save the american people money, cause more information to be available, and just as census data is critical to our economy so is access to what your government is doing, planning to do, or thought about, talked about, or did in the process of making laws, regulations and rules. so i join with my colleague on

believing this is a time in which we say, this president acted properly in how he ordered something, we believe codifying it so that no follow-on president could modify it or fail to deliver what this legislation envisions. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i'm about to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. cummings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i want to thank chairman issa for his work, his hard work on this. this is so very, very important. i often tell my constituents, mr. speaker, that this is our watch. we are the guardians of the democracy today, and it is important to us to pass on a stronger and a better democracy than the one we found when we came upon this earth. a significant part of any

democracy is openness. where people can know what the government is doing. when off representative government, people come to the town hall meetings trying to find out what's going on. now they can go to now they can go to the computer and find out what's going on. we need to have as much openness as possible. i think this is a big step in the right direction of preserving that part of a democracy that calls for transparency. and so i agree with the chairman. this is so much bigger than us. this is not just about this moment. this is about generations yet unborn. this is about people trying simply to be a part of their democracy, trying to understand it, trying to use information so they can be participants in it. if they do not know what's going on, it's kind of hard to

participate. they do not know what's going on, it's kind of hard to go to their representatives to urge them to make appropriate changes. and so with that i urge all the members of our body to vote in favor of this legislation, and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. as i kwlose, i want to thank my -- close, i want to thank my partner in this legislation, mr. cummings. in order to get this kind of legislation, you do need to make sure that you've dotted the i's, and i believe we've done so. the minor modification that was made between the time it left the committee and the floor was one that was done on a bipartisan basis. were this to go back to our committee, of course it would pass unanimously. therefore, i urge all members te yes on hrp 1211 -- h.r. 1211. support the bill, support freedom, support the opportunity for the american people to know, and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: all time has expired. the question is suspend the the question --

is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1211, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended -- mr. issa: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. issa: on this i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. issa: mr. speaker, i above that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1232, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. to clerk: h.r. 1232, a bill

amends title 404,1 and 44, united states code, to eliminate duplication and waste in information technology acquisition and management. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. issa: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. this bill, the federal i.t. acquisition reform act, or fitara, is slightly modified than the one we had in committee in order to make it more likely to easily pass both bodies. this is in fact substantially the same bill, as amended, as the full house voted last year to incorporate in the house version of the defense authorization bill.

h.r. 1232 reforms governmentwide the process in which the government annually quires and employs roughly $81 billion of federal information technology. to quote president obama on november 14, 2013, he stated and i quote, one of the things the federal government does not do well is information technology procurement. now, that was profound because in the fifth year of this presidency, it is very clear that the president has realized that this is a monumental task, not one inherited by him, not one created by him. there are systematic problems in the way that we procure i.t., including the nature of the history of individuals at all levels thinking they can buy something, and often they

can, but too often our committee sees and reviews billion-dollar write-offs of i.t. programs in which you cannot find out who was in charge, you cannot find out how ey went on so long and the hardest thing is to find out why they don't work after billion dollars in and out of house production. indeed, industry experts estimate that as much as 25% of the over $80 billion annual expenditure is mismanaged or duplicate investments or simply doesn't come to be used. we need to enhance the best value to the taxpayer, but more importantly, good software saves billions of dollars and countless lives and countless hours if it works. well, bad or poorly done software can frustrate the american public and often deprive them of the very

product or service that they expect to receive. when this bill was originally envisioned, written and passed out of our committee, no one had heard of healthcare.gov website. our committee in fact had looked at countless other failures within the i.t. procurement community, including ones at the department of defense and others, including ones that occurred under previous presidents, and we had determined that there were a number of areas -- along with mr. connolly -- had determined there were a number of areas in which we needed to make fundamental change. so although the american people can certainly see the launch of healthcare.gov as a poster child for not done on time, not perhaps done on a budget we would be proud of and certainly something in which you could not find the responsible parties even when you called them before your committee, let us make this clear. this bill is not about one failure. it's about a governmentwide

long-standing failure that predates this administration. one of the -- among the things that fitara will do is it will create a clear line of responsibility, authority and accountability over i.t. investments and management decisions by empowering gencies' c.i.o.'s, creating an operational framework to dramatically enhance government's ability to procure commonsense and commonly used i.t. faster, cheaper and smarter and strengthen the i.t. acquisition work force. and i want to reiterate this. this is the federal i.t. acquisition force. there can be no better investment than to make sure the people who you trust the most for procuring i.t., both from a standpoint of functionality and security be a well-trained work force and that is part of what we want to make sure we have.

fitara accelerates and optimizes the organization of government's proliferating data centers, something my colleague from virginia has worked on tirelessly. it increases the transparency of i.t. investments' scorecards by providing 80% of governmentwide i.t. spending be covered by public websites called i.t. dashboards, and it ensures procurement decisions give due consideration to all technologies, including open source. i might note that for $677 million that initially was spent on healthcare.gov, some of the areas in which the code worked was proven open source technology that was made available. excuse me. the decision -- the discussion drafted this bill was first posted by our committee on its website 18 months ago.

we held two full committee hearings on the bill and the language that has evolved through the course of several rewrites and extensive feedback by the contracting and technology community and experts inside and outside of the government has given us the legislation you see before you today. this is a significant and timely reform that enhances both defense and nondefense procurement, and i urge all members to support the bill and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, yumeds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized -- mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. f mr. cummings: mr. speaker, fitara, i think if we were to summarize what this bill does, we would have to use the words effective and efficient. we'd have to use them over and over again, and we'd also say that we are going to do better.

it would enhance the authority of the federal chief information officers, require agencies to optimize the function of the federal data centers, eliminate duplicative i.t. practices and strengthen the federal i.t. work force. these reforms are needed to ensure that the federal effective and efficient investments in information technology. i want to commend representative issa, chairman of the oversight and government reform committee, for the bipartisan approach to this legislation. we had two full committee hearings on the concepts in this bill, and the draft of the bill was made available for comment prior to the committee considering it. and we really do appreciate that. i also want to recognize representative gerald connelly, the ranking member of the government operations committee for his critical work on drafting this legislation on

technology issues generally. he's made himself an expert in this area, and we are the beneficiaries of that expertise. a significant portion of the legislation before us is based on ranking member connelly's own bill to consolidate federal data centers. last year g.a.o. issued its most recent high risk report which lists several i.t. projects as being among the federal government's highest risk investments. for instance, a contract to streamline the army's inventory of weapons, systems, 12 years behind schedule and almost $4 billion over budget. effective oversight is one of the best weapons against this kind of wasteful spending. congress has a duty to conduct oversight as well as the obligations that give agencies the tools they need to conduct their own oversight and improve their processees.

agencies need more well-trained acquisition management professionals to effectively oversee complex systems, acquisitions and to ensure that the government is a smart and diligent consumer. if you do not have the people who have the expertise during the ack -- doing the acquisitions, you often run into major problems. as often been said, it's like knowing something you don't know. the federal i.t. reform act requires o.m.b. to submit a five-year plan to develop, strengthen and solidify i.t. acquisition cadres. i understand that the administration has some concerns with this legislation we are considering today, so it's my hope we can address those concerns as the bill moves forward in the legislative process. and so, again, i want to thank chairman issa for all of his hard work and mr. connolly for all of his and i urge all of

our colleagues to support this legislation and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from utah, a man who has worked diligently on the subcommittee to ensure that national security includes internet security. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized for two minutes. mr. chaffetz: i thank you and i this.the good work on i appreciate the chairman's work and dedication and passion on this issue. i also appreciate mr. connolly and the good work he does on this topic as well as mr. cummings. i hope what people see here is a bipartisan approach to something that is a very large problem, and there's a great imperative that we deal with this and deal with it right away. the federal government spent more than $600 billion over the past decade on information technology, and we spend roughly $80 billion, $80

billion a year just on i.t. it's a critical component to make sure we have an effective and responsive government. of the $80 billion spent each year about 1/3 is spent on new procurement projects and about 2/3 is spent on operation and maintenance of existing or obsolete systems. it takes so much more energy and personnel to go through obsolete systems than it does to quickly replace with software and hardware and personnel new information technology systems that will make our government more responsive and more effective. there's nothing more frustrating than trying to work with an operating system that is no longer supportive by the company that has the operating system. we heard people of working on d.o.s. operating systems, still looking at green screens, for goodness sakes. this has an imperative and we need to make sure it's prioritize. some industry experts have estimated as much as 70% of new i.t. acquisitions fail or

require rebaselines. the technology's c.e.o. council, made up of some of the top industry experts, estimate that $20 billion of the $80 billion wes spent is wasted every year on mismanagement and duplicative i.t. programs. the g.a.o. has estimated the departments of treasury, ag, energy and state spend well over 80% of their i.t. budgets on operation of potentially obsolete systems. we can do better on this. we're united in a bipartisan way. i encourage my colleagues to pass this bill and, again, mr. speaker, i appreciate chairman issa and his leadership on this issue and urge a yes vote on this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. couple,: i yield to the gentleman from virginia, a man who has worked very hard on this legislation along with chairman issa, mr. connolly, i yield him six minutes.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for six minutes. mr. connolly: i thank the speaker and i thank my good friend and distinguished ranking member of the committee, mr. cummings, for his graciousness and generosity. he's been a great leader on our committee. issa, the chairman, mr. for his leadership on this legislation. i've been proud to co-sponsor and co-author this bill with him. in the 21st century, mr. speaker, effective governance is inextricably linked with how uses vernment technology. yet our laws are antiquated and yield poor results. far too often, cumbersome bureaucracy stifles innovation and prevents government from buying and deploying cutting edge technology. program failure and cost

overruns plague the vast majority of major federal i.t. investments. as the distinguished chairman indicated, would that the rollout of the health care website be a unique incident. it unfortunately actually characterizes most major federal i.t. procurement rollouts. some federal managers report as much as 47% of their budgets are spent on maintaining inadequate or antiquated i.t. platforms. 47%. in recent decades, taxpayers have been forced to foot the bill for massive i.t. program failures that ring up staggeringly high costs but exhibit astonishingly poor performance. the air force investment, for example, six years in a modernization effort that cost more than $1 billion but failed to deliver a usable product. prompting the assistant secretary to state, an i quote, i'm personally apalled at the

limited capabilities that program has produced relative to that amount of investment. this status quo is neither acceptable nor sustainable. again, i want to chang chairman issa for working with me in a productive manner to develop the bipartisan issa-connolly federal information technology acquisition reform act, the tara this bipartisan legislation seeks to comprehensively streamline and strengthen the process and promote adoption of best practices from the community. the reform measure before us recognizes that effective federal i.t. procurement reform must start with leadership and accountability. it's absolutely essential that the department's top leadership understand how critical effective i.t. investments are to that agency's operations and ability to carry out its future mission. we must elevate and enhance the prestige and more importantly the authorities of the c.i.o.'s

across the federal government to hold them accountable and give the flexibility to manage an agency's i.t. portfolio. agency heads and -- need talented leaders to serve as their primary advisors on i.t. management, to recruit and retain tall ebted i.t. staff as the distinguished chairman has indicated, and oversee critical .t. investments across the area. our legislation would accomplish this while avoiding one size fits all sluelingses by allowing agencies significant discretion in implementing the various aspects of this new law. our bill would also accelerate data center optmyization as the distinguished ranking member indicated and provide agencies with flexibility to leverage efficient cloud services and strengthen the accountability and transparency of federal i.t. programs. if enacted, 80% of the approximately $80 billion spent

annually on federal i.t. investment would be required to be posted on the public i.t. dash board, compared to the 50% or less that characterizes that activity today. strengthening the transparency requirements of the i.t. dash board is an urgent and much-need red form in light of the recent january 20 -- january 20 -- january, 2014 report that the -- board has not been updated for 15 of the last 24 months. this finding is as astonishing as it is unacceptable. fortunately, a bipartisan consensus is forming around the urningt need to further streamline and strengthen how the federal government acquires and deploys information technology. president obama has embraced federal i.t. procurement reform and a number of agencies are taking the lead in the area. now is the time, mr. speaker, to ensure reforms are adopted government-wide and carry the force of reform law.

i urge all of my colleagues to join us in this bipartisan effort and supporting this important and urgently needed reform. with that, i yield back to the distinguished ranking member. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: can i inquire how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 12 minutes remain, the gentleman from maryland has 11 minutes remaining. 11 1/2. mr. issa: i yield myself two minutes. my partners in this are sitting on the other side of the aisle but this committee has come together to look at a problem as simple as chief information officer doesn't mean chief, it simple -- it's simpley a hol row low title. this bill to the american people more than anything else means that for every piece of major i.t. procurement, there will be a chief information

officer. and that c.i.o. will have budget authority and be held accountable but also be given the ability to make those decisions, including pulling the stop button on a bad piece of legislation. so the title of c.i.o. and c.t.o. and some of the other titles need to mean something. our committee unanimously believes that if you are to be a chief, you have to be able to tell the indians what to do. you can't be a chief in name only and when something doesn't work, find yourself without the ability to call halt, to go directly to the agency head, or do the other things we would expect a tite -- the title chief to mean. for that reason, i believe it's united the committee behind something that cannot fail to be passed, must pass today, go to the senate, be taken up and

become law if we're going to begin regaining the american people's confidence in our ability to procure large information systems. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: i yield myself such time as i may consume to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: i agree with chairman issa, if we're going to have a chief information officer, they need to be what we say they are and they need to have the power to effect change when cheage is appropriate. and have to have the power to make sure decisions that are issues arry out the that come up with i.t. in an effective and efficient manner. i think this legislation is a giant step in the drithe -- in the right direction. and with that, mr. speaker, i would hope and ask all the

members of congress to vote in favor of this legislation. as i often say, we can always do better. i think that this is one of those times when, through bipartisan effort, we are making a major statement that we are going to do better and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: mr. speaker, in closing, first, i urge all members to vote on this important legislation, send a strong message that this is a do-something congress when it comes to problems that have been around for a very long time. and secondly, i would like to take a moment, a bit of personal privilege, to say to the american work force that work for the federal government, in every investigation we have found our committee has found that in every failed project, there were legions of good federal employees who recognized the

problem, who sent letters who tried to have a program that was not going right to go right or go better. it is not for lack of many, many in the federal work force who are doing their job as best they can. it's for lack of a consolidated and predictable chain of command. it's for welcome of the ability to have somebody know they're in charge, bear the full weight, and be qualified. i have no doubt that upon enactment of this law, the federal work force will begin to breathe a breath of fresh air, to know that they are being empow everyday to do the work they so desperately want to do, that the tools are going to be added for them, and that the titles will become a title earned and then used wisely. so seldom do we spend a lot of time on the house floor talking about how great the federal

work force is, while we're talking about monumental failures. but let's understand, it's not for the lack of god programmers. it's not for lack of good contractors. and it's not for lack of well-meaning and dedicated federal workers that we come today. it's for the need to organize them in a way in which we believe they can be successful. and that's the other part of our committee. we're the committee on oversight an government reform and today is a structural reform and how we purchase information technology and for that, i want to thank my partners on the other side of the aisle because we have been right next to each other on this all the way and particularly for mr. connolly, who has put his staff and his own personal time into every aspect of this and who added his earlier legislation that allows taos bring about the cessary consolidation of

duplicate centers all spread around the country, they're simpley a waste of energy and waste of software power. i see this as a win-win, one in which republicans an democrats have come together as a congress that doesn't have a great reputation but on occasion does great things. i urge support for this and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time having expired, the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1232 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? mr. lankford: i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1423 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. clyde: h.r. 1423, a bill to

provide taxpayers with an annual report disclosing the cost of government programs and areas of duplication among them and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lankford, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lankford: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lankford: i rise today because i believe that the american people should know what their government spends and what their government does. it's a reasonable request to be able to make of a government that's designed to serve the people. that the people should be able to look back and evaluate, is this government serving the people? are they doing it in such a way that it's actually efficient and making a difference? every company in america can tell you what their staff is spending their time on, what the cost of their activities are, how many customers they have, and whether they are successful at reaching their basic goals. but we do not have that within

the federal government. h.r. 1423 has just a few specific -- asks just a few things of our government, to delineate things businesses do. the name of the program, the administrative costs of that program, the numb of staff for that program, this -- the number of beneficiaries of that program, the statutory authority for that program, and very important, how that program is actually evaluated, what are the metrics to determine, is this program actually getting the job done that it needs to get done? we started in the drithe direction -- in the right direction. o.m.b. is going to comply with the modernization act of 2010 by publicly listed all the programs the government administers and their performance goal bus that information is incomplete. h.r. 1423 fills the gaps on the information provided to the peculiar by requiring o.m.b. to include such vital information as the administrative costs, the expenditures of each

federal program, the number of people the program serbs, the number of people in the program and where on the statute that program is authorized. this bill offers a simple list that congress can use to evaluate federal programs and to make informed decisions about how to make government work smarter and better. agencies could cut billions of dollars in cost without compromising services. in many cases, they could improve their services while we're still saving money to the taxpayer. if we just cut duplicative administrative costs and eliminate the programs that to not work, we can protect taxpayer dollars. we have an enormous federal deficit. we should do we should do everything we can what we're doing as a government and be able to determine where we're wasting taxpayer dollars. they are not taxpayer dollars left to waste. under the bill any person anywhere in the country can at anytime access information about the cost, scope and

performance of every federal program. h.r. 1423 requires o.m.b. to report publicly any duplication founded by g.a.o., inspector general or any report. it requires g.a.o. to maintain a database that tracks how quickly and how well the administration and congress to duplication. congress finds duplication and sometimes does nothing about it. this will provide the opportunity for the american people to be able to look back and to be able to track, are we doing something about inefficiencies na have already been isolated in government? the vice president was asked during the state of the union in this very chamber by the president of the united states to begin a study of job training programs. we know there are more than 57 job training programs that already exist across the federal government in multiple agencies. the vice president was asked to be able to locate those programs, evaluate those

programs and help determine what is the right process forward for those programs. now, it's something we in the house did earlier last year, the skills act, but it's something we would welcome participation from the administration on. but i ask the question, why can't we already do that on every area, not just duplicative job training programs? we have multiple programs and multiple agencies that are duplicative. why do it in just jobs training programs? we ought to do it in all of them. this is the beginning of the process to get after that duplication and that waste. no one here on either side of the aisle wants to see a program that's unnecessary or ineffective. waste in government is not a democrat or republican issue. it's a big government issue. the government the size we have, we have duplication and we have waste. let's identify. taxpayers right-to-know act will ensure we do that. i urge my colleagues to support this bill, and i remind my colleagues that multiple groups

have already leaned into this bill to say please pass this, including the citizens against government waste, the small business and entrepreneurship council and the national taxpayers union. america's watching us. let's deal with our inefficiency, and with that i yield back and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: i want to thank chairman issa and the sponsor of this bill, chairman lankford, for working with me to improve this legislation. i respect the sponsor's goal with his bill, which is to provide taxpayers more information about how their money is being spent by the federal government. i think most people don't mind paying taxes but they want to know that they are spending them and they are being used in an effective and efficient manner for the purpose intended. however, the congressional research service identified

multiple areas of potential overlap and duplication between the bill as it was introduced in the current statutory requirements. for example, the bill, as introduced, would have required each agency to report information on improper payments. but the improper payments information act already requires agencies to report information on improper payments. the current bill, as amended, eliminates much of that duplication. this is a much better bill, and i applaud the majority for their work on it. there's one provision in the taxpayers right-to-know act that i want to note because i think if will be a real improvement with regard to transparency. the bill would require agencies to report the number of full-time positions that are paid in full or in part through a grant or a contract. we do not currently know how many employees are working for

the federal government through contracts. this bill would require agencies to disclose this information on an annual basis. this bill also includes an amendment that was offered by representative speier during our committee markup to require agencies to report for their programs, any findings or duplication identified by internal ref view. the inspector general, g.a.o. go, or other reports to the agency. this requirement will help agencies keep track of areas of duplication. it also will increase accountability by making this information easier to find for government watchdogs, including congress. i appreciate the improvements that have been made to the bill. i appreciate the bipartisan spirit by which we were able to come to the floor today. i intend to support the legislation, and i reserve the

balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. langevin: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent -- mr. lankford: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. lankford: mr. speaker, this allows us to gather that information. it's a good thing to have the information. over the past several years there has been a push to provide greater transparency in the federal government. the difficulty of bits of information scattered in different parts in different reports has forced the need for this. to say, let's put all that data together. not only the number of staff and the number of programs and duplication reports and all things, let's gather that in a one readable report so that every american doesn't have to know where to chase down to get the bits of information. they can actually go to one spot and be able to look at it, whether it's a watchdog group,

any member of congress or any citizen in america can be able to do that kind of research. mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. i'll be brief. when our committee works together in the way they have, and particularly under the leadership of chairman lankford, we can do some amazing reforms. this in fact is more amazing than people might at first gather. for example, this requires something as simple as to have the office of management and budget report what's called all-in cost of federal programs. for too long the american people have heard about what a program costs only if you find out if you go through all the various budgets that a particular action is spread about, it might cost five or six times as much. that kind of single point accountability is just one of the many reasons that this well-thought out bipartisan legislation, led by mr. lankford, really needs to be passed today as part of this

package of reforms to get a government accountable to the american people. and i thank the chairman, thank the ranking member and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: yumeds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized -- mr. cummings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, in closing i urge all members to vote in favor of the legislation and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. lankford: mr. speaker, i appreciate the debate today. this is something that republicans and democrats can agree on. we should have transparency. this is not a democratic issue, this is not a republican issue. we've grown extremely large in the federal government. we have duplication that none of us can find. large budget categories with no specific items underneath them to be able to identify how much things cost, what their effectiveness includes. this is a moment for us to begin to get the details of all these programs that congress has authorized back to the congress for us to be able to evaluate their effectiveness.

this is the right move to be able to make in the days ahead for us to get our arms around an extremely large, an extremely complicated budget with a tremendous amount of duplication and waste that we can't find until we shine some light on it through this bill. with that i urge all members to be able to support this bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma yields back. all time having expired, the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1423, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the firmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1123, the unlocking consumer choice and wireless competition act, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1123, a bill to

promote consumer choice and wireless competition by permitting consumers to unlock and for reless devices other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, each will control 20 minutes. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado -- mr. polis: i don't believe there is a rule for this bill? is there a rule for this bill? the speaker pro tempore: the chair is referring to the standing rules of the house. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from virginia favor the motion? mr. scott: mr. speaker, i'm in favor of the motion. i am not opposed to the bill. the speaker pro tempore: on that basis, the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, will control the 20 minutes in opposition. the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and their remarks include extraneous materials on h.r. 1123, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: last winter, due to an expired exemption to existing law, consumers lost the legal right to unlock their cell phones so they could use them on a different wireless carrier. outraged consumers flooded congress and the white house with complaints over this change in policy that resulted

in reduced marketplace competition. in response to this impact on consumers, a bipartisan group of house judiciary committee members introduced h.r. 1123, the unlocking consumer choice and wireless competition act. the legislation reinstates the prior exemption to civil and criminal law for unlocking cell phones for personal use. it also creates an expedited process to determine whether this exemption should be extended to other wireless devices, such as tablets. when this legislation is enacted, consumers will be able to go to a kiosk in a mall, get help from a neighbor to unlock their cell phone without any risk of legal penalties. this is not the case today, which is why this legislation is necessary. h.r. 1123 is supported by a diverse -- by such diverse groups in the cellular industry, from the large carriers of ctia, to the small

carriers of the competitive carriers association. although these two groups announced a private sector agreement in december on unlocking based upon this same legislation, that agreement cannot eliminate the potential of civil and criminal sanctions for consumers who unlock their cell phones. so the need for the legislation remains. even consumers union supports this critical legislation. the committee has been aware of law enforcement concerns regarding the explosive growth in smartphone thefts, efforts by criminals to undertake bulk unlocking and transfers of stolen phones are a growing concern in america. smartphones seem to have become crime magnets in many cities across america. because the policy issue has always focused on the ability of consumers to unlock their phones, the legislation is similarly focused on individual consumer unlocking without raising law enforcement concerns. why would it make sense for

congress to enable criminal gangs to more easily make money off stolen phones? instead of simply solving the main issue of consumers to be able to unlock their own phones? some would like this legislation to go even further, however, i hope all can agree this is a good start and a solid piece of legislation that empower consumer choice. i urge my colleagues to support this important pro-consumer legislation, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank youing mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to the unlocking consumer choice and wireless competition act. i support the sentiment behind this bill, i support the version that was reported out of the judiciary committee. however, unfortunately, an important change that i will discuss to the detriment of this bill was added last week,