navigation met.x that have to be there is a safety piece as well. been developed with the what i have seen is that it seems like airplanes that have jet engines get the fancy equipment that makes the pilots more safe and airplanes that have propellers do not. fighters andin flown in propeller aircraft. it seems like it is across forces. i would like to get your take on that. can you briefly share with me your thoughts? >> i think that changed with the c-130j. intentionally. upgrading the aircraft we already have is the problem and it falls under the same

discussion we have had about setting half of our programs because that is all we can afford. >> madame secretary, the fiscal 2014 private the air force for modifying the avionics modernization program. are you aware of that? >> i am. >> are you aware that congress has appropriated funds for amp, not just authorize but appropriated funds in fiscal year 2012? >> yes, i was. year 2014 andl 2013? >> yes. >> these funds are not being obligated. we are authorizing, preventing the programs for being canceled, and we are programming the funds and in each case there not being obligated. do you see this as the way the air force is making an attempt

to go around clear congressional intent and goal round the law as -- and go around the law? of not being obligated is what is new to me. my understanding about the amp program is that it is a major program as you pointed out. the problem is affordability. , ido have funded in fy15 portion that would go to the airspace compliance. our position has changed due to affordability. there have been a couple of studies and i think we are waiting a gao report on this as well. >> congressional intent is one thing and you are doing something else. i just want to be really clear what the congressional intent here is and has been for a number of years. we see the department of defense going in the opposite direction.

i yield back. >> i yield myself five minutes. secretary james and general welsh, thank you for coming in to answer questions and provide testimony. i want to focus on the third air force proposal to remove missions from an air force base. fight toll you i will kill this one just as i have fought to kill the other two. units, ated moving the reserve base in georgia and then an army airfield in north carolina. did notined that they the infrastructure for the units and the air force agreed. --is now being abandoned as in favor of closing the units. the air force base is saying that the c-130s will be sent to little rock. it seems like the air force is hell bent on moving these aircraft out of south mississippi.

a general claim just the other day that he could save 600 billets. mississippi --om about moving these planes and the move itself was budget neutral. can you tell me who is responsible for those dollar amounts? is that an air force reserve number or an active air force number? >> the people are air force reserve savings. i little but of the active group. together by put general solvalva. >> i might ask for that and written -- in written just negation. -- justification. i think whoever did the math in this instance is flat wrong. i did the math. we are talking about deactivating the three 45th.

there are many civilians and active-duty. that assumes no one stays in the air force. i could line up the so-called savings you will see in pay and benefits but i will provide that for a later time. since hurricane katrina, they have improved and expanded to the tune of $58 million to accommodate the c-130 j. that money will be essentially wasted to the $5 million and permanent change of station costs. get failing to see what we anywhere near the $100 million of savings by moving these planes to base is already stretched way too thin. it is interesting to know that oftentimes assimilateeors are so full, that they usually do training elsewhere. deactivated inas

2007 will be reactivated to accept these planes. it was a c-130 eight unit. even if we pull the palace back in, it will take an additional five or six months and plenty of training cost to qualify them to fly the aircraft. i'm asking the following list of awards given to the air force that are currently proposed as commission being inserted into the record. without objection, so ordered. i am not going to let the air force get away with moving families, disrupting communities, moving our airmen around whenever they feel like it without justification. i have been watching these proposals for over two years. i thought no way what our commanders try to take away these planes from the top-performing base. you can imagine my disappointment when i saw this on the most recent news.

general welsh and secretary james, the general said this move would be cost neutral and said he would check into the specifics of what might be required of little rock it would not be required of any other location. i am going to be a little more specific. i don't care about how much it will cost to move the planes. i don't care how much it was going to cost to move them to dobbins. i want to know how much it will cost and actual dollars, fuel, other relocation costs, manpower downtime for these planes the move to little rock air force base. i have been asking for cost justification for these movements for over two years and i have yet to see an answer that shows me any cost savers. we are running short on time so i request you provide the full cost justification to my office in writing as soon as possible. i will be anxiously awaiting it. can i get your commitment that you will provide that

information? >> yes. >> thank you for being here. to answer my questions and i look forward to hearing from you. i would like to personally extend an invitation to you both to come and see the base firsthand. the community that loves them very much and the great work they are doing. did you know when you may have an opportunity to do that? >> i don't have a date but i promise i will come. >> thank you very much. i recognize mr. gallego. >> thank you. welcome to the committee. as you may know, the district i represent has a significant air force presence in one of the a lot of times

that doesn't translate for the folks who are watching at home. basic real sense, can you tell us for folks in san antonio, what sequester has meant to them and done to them because people don't understand -- and don't necessarily feel any different today than they did before sequester. how would you explain sequester and its impact on dell rio or san antonio? ofi think the first year sequester was transparent to people in many parts of the country the does nothing fell out of this guy the day the sequester took effect. we are starting to see with this 15 budget and we will see more of it in the 2016 budget and beyond if we stay at sequester levels that the impacts will be significant over time. compared to the program we had in place three years ago in the air force. we will have $20 billion less per year in our spending plan

and that will affect things in a big way. >> when you say in a big way -- can you give examples of what that would mean for someone that is listening on the radio? what does that mean? years, wenext five will cut 500 airplanes from the air force, about 20,000 people. that is a huge impact on who we are as an addition. -- as an institution. it will create more of a discussion about brack. it will have an impact. does that have on u.s. readiness in terms of being able to respond? >> if i could jump in -- i say this as someone on the outside and recently on the inside. the thing that i worry about most going back to sequester has

to do with the preparedness and readiness of the airmen and the military at large because what all of us want is to make sure we have the training and equipment so they can do their job and stay safe if we send them into harm's way. i think our air force has done such a fabulous job over the last 25 years. lost many we haven't people and thank goodness there hasn't been that many crashes and accidents but there have been some and i worry that the money gets tighter and tighter, we may see more fatalities and more lost aircraft and that is something you cannot capture until it happens and i hope it does not. >> two extra questions. that ther testimony policy of sequester and specially -- essentially endangers the lives of our sons and daughters in uniform? that would be question number one.

let's use that one first. >> it compromises our national security in a way that i sure hope we won't have to. i have to say our air force will always respond, we will always go. they are make sure also as safe and effective as we can give to them. >> if people ask you, why can't you just take money? why can't you cut and find efficiencies? what is wrong with that question? >> we must save more money and you heard me say, that is one of my top three priorities in every way shape and form. it takes a while to shift in aircraft -- ship and aircraft carrier but we are reducing headquarters. >> you cannot find enough efficiencies to get over the hump of sequester.

>> that is correct. >> general, do you have any information about how -- if you found every efficiency you could, it wouldn't be enough to meet sequester levels. it willill not -- >> not meet 12 $20 billion a year. its else tosize of a size we can afford to keep that way which means we must get smaller if the funding stays low. >> thank you for your presence in testimony. -- and testimony. texas is a friendly place. anytime you guys would like to visit, you are always welcome. >> i am coming back so thank you. return for questions. on theow you have been job for 11 weeks and i look forward to working with you on the c-130 amp issue.

switching topics -- i am interested in the evolving spendable launch vehicle program. a new acquisition strategy included 14 rocket cores competition. can you see what -- can you say what the status of this competition is? >> we are actively trying to get new entrants ready to compete. i would guess that will happen within the next year or so. i am a big believer in competition. i think it will bring down our costs. i think having the competition out there has already brought down costs for that program. i will say that over the next five years, those new competitors provided they go and end up being able to compete, they will compete for seven out of the eight launches that will be happening for our gps satellites that need to be

put up. when you think about russia's invasion of ukraine, their occupation of georgia, their complicit in helping the assad regime, going around the sanctions in iran, them being involved in producing nuclear centrifuges for iran, giving edward snowden asylum, it seems like we are not friends with moscow. you see it being a problem that we rely on moscow for rocket engines? >> it is worrying. we will take a look at that. future, weediate have to years worth of supply for those engine so we are ok in the short run. although it is worrying, it is true this is a long-standing relationship and it has weathered various storms.

it is something that we are going to take a look at and see where we go in the future. the -- does our current position violate the current suspension of military cooperation with russia? i have to assume the answer is no, we would not be in violation but let me check that the record. >> i appreciate it. thank you for being here. i yield back. >> i yield myself for one last question. general welsh, i am concerned about levels in the lead -- in the air force, that it will take 2023 to get healthy. what risk level are we at as a result? >> i am worried about readiness in the air force as well. the things that affect is much more complex than just aligning

our money. there is training space and threat systems to train against those systems. constructive simulation capabilities as we get more martyr aircraft, we are the only place we can re-create a real place simulator. those things have not been funded over the last 10 to 15 years because we have been tied up spending money on operations in afghanistan and iraq. full time to get the spectrum's training and readiness because that is what is going to take us 10 years. to rebuild those things that are beyond the power curve and especially as we bring on an airplane like the f-35. >> ditto. that was an excellent answer. i just want to associate myself with those remarks. the top concern is if we were to get into a contested environment, that is a more complex environment, it is more difficult for the pilots.

that is where practice makes perfect. that is why we train people and that is the sort of training that we have not been able to do. >> what you think will happen if we do not turn up off sequester and 2016? our proposal is in the choices that we will make. it is not what we wish. i feel our national security concerns will be compromised too much. these are tough budget times but ask you to please try to reverse that sequester. >> we would not be able to chief --hat the server service chief wants. >> we have to do everything we can to turn off sequester for our military, our national defense standing. it is not right we are trying to balance our budgets on the backs of our men and women in uniform

and their families. we know what the fix. we know the number one drivers of our deficit and that's our we need to address that. as we have seen recently all across the world, it is not becoming safer, it is becoming more dangerous. this congress has an obligation to make sure our men and women in uniform have the tools and equipment and training and leadership they deserve, that we expect them to have so they can keep this nation safe at home and abroad. i want to thank you all for your testimony today. i want to thank the members further questions. it was a fantastic hearing. secretary james, for your first appearance, you deserve an a rating. the bar has definitely been raised. you can only go backwards from here. i am sure you will do a great job serving. general welsh, thank you for your service.

thank your beautiful wife betty and daughter for their service and sacrifice because it is just as great as any member that wears the uniform. this hearing is adjourned. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] the russian foreign minister and john kerry discussed the intervention in ukraine. here is part of what the russian foreign minister had to say. >> secretary kerry did not voice

any threats against russia. we arehe sanctions, hearing what is being discussed in europe and let me assure you that our partners understand that sanctions is a counterproductive instrument. if the decision is made, it will be a bad decision. it certainly won't facilitate, it will be helpful in the interests of business development. that is a fact. we will take any reciprocal measures. there is no point in guessing now. we have to wait. >> a portion of remarks from the russian foreign minister from earlier today in london.

you can see his entire comments along with those of secretary john kerry tonight at 8 p.m. eastern here on c-span. tomorrow on washington journal, alex smith of the college republican national committee and the dosha mckenzie -- and the tosca mckenzie -- natasha mckenzie talk about the millennial generation. joshua landis of the university of oklahoma looks at the war between the syrian government and rebel groups would've cost the lives of over 140,000 people since the conflict again over three years ago. after that, you'll university graduate student -- yale graduate student on a field experiment he conducted. plus, your phone calls and basil, ask -- plus your phone calls and facebook comments and

tweets. challenges in defining war in cyberspace. what war is. from a policy's, we are trying to work away through those issues. the tenant that are applicable is that whatever we do within the cyber arena, international law will pertain. if we find ourselves getting to will point where we believe that cyber is taking us down in armed conflict scenario, that the rules and law of armed conflict will pertain as much in this domain as it does in any other. i don't think ciber is inherently different in that regard. i think those sets of procedures, the sets of policies and law as a nation have stood as in good standing. they represent a good point of departure. >> senate armed services takes

up military nominations at saturday morning at 10 eastern. any pardons and jonathan allen look at hillary clinton's political career. c-span3, american history tv for march 1964. robert penn warren interviews martin luther king jr. ago, in theweeks midst of a terrible tragedy in the potomac, we saw again the spirit of american heroism at its finest. the heroism of dedicated rescue workers saving crash victims. ouraw the heroism of one of young government employees who when he saw a woman lose their grip on a helicopter, died into

the water and dragged her to safety. [applause] >> find more highlights from 35 years of house for coverage on our facebook page. c-span, critter by america's cable company 35 years ago have brought you today by a public service by your television provider. next, a look at the investigation on whether the irs targeted certain conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. this is 35 minutes.

host: rob woodall is our guest, a republican from georgia. a member of the budget committee and the oversight and government reform committee. he represents the 7th district in georgia. guest: the northeastern suburbs just outside gwinnett and forsyth counties. host: suburbs of atlanta. what is the economy like? guest: we are doing pretty well. there are folks who have taken a beating. if you are breaking ground on a new home in forsyth county, you have full offer bids coming in as ground is being broken. we have great growth. host: what is some of the industry? guest: the service industry. fortune 100 companies in the area, cisco is headquartered in our space. a lot of service industry folks and folks commuting during the crazy snowstorm in atlanta. those were my constituents.

host: we begin our program talking about what eric holder had to say. talking about reducing prison time for drug crimes. what is your general thought process? guest: i tell high school students if you go to california you will find the teamsters have unionized marijuana growers. that is something california can experiment with. i do not think that is coming to georgia anytime soon. folks in my district look at penalties for drug use in d.c. and think what is going on? are those carveouts? no, it is not viewed as the same kind of crime here as it is in my part of the world. i wonder why the federal government got into criminal law. that is the province of communities and better handled locally where community norms can apply. i do not fault experimenting in other states. i think we are going to stay on

the straight and narrow. host: you are a member of the government and oversight committee. you were at the hearing, the lois lerner irs hearing. what is your impression of what happened? guest: we do not all have our best day every day. i turned down some caffeine this morning so i would not get agitated. not all have our best day every day. down some caffeine this morning so i would not get agitated. my chairman called ranking and said he was sorry. things will go differently. we are talking about a branch of the government going after american citizens for what they believe. even according to the instant -- to the inspector general's report. if you criticize the decisions of the government, you are more likely to endure scrutiny for your group's proposal. that is a serious charge. it is not a month ago, not a

year ago, this has been going on and on. jail. has gone to the fbi -- you cannot tell what is going on. . frustrated because you need the confidence your government works folks back home are frustrated because you need the confidence your government works for you. host: did what happened between darrell issa analyze d elijah cummings take focus off of lois lerner and the irs? with the media. they did not take the chairman's focus off. the second time lois lerner came before the committee. the first time, she pled the fifth. the president was saying there is not one smidgen of corruption

leader ofhave the this division of the irs saying i cannot talk about it because i could incriminate myself. host: what happens next? guest: we're still putting together information at the government oversight committee. we are having to use the subpoena power to get information. this isd think something that both sides of the aisle in all four corners of america would be concerned about. and yet we still have a tough time getting information. my counsel to everyone who gets in trouble is be honest about what is going on. let's clear the air as soon as we can and deal with it and move on. the irs has not been as candid with the committee as we would have hoped. you are not going to see the committee give up. redirect theo focus, but i tell you our chairman is laser focused on getting the american people answers they deserve. host: representative woodall,

what is next on the budget committee? guest: working through the numbers right now. the obama economy has 10cerbated debt for the next years to about $1.2 trillion in lost growth. balanceto find that to using the same proposals we used last year. we are going to do it. i'm not only sit on the budget committee, i serve as chairman of the republican study committee budget task force. moreually have a budget observant than the house budget. distinction you will see between the president's budget and the house budget is not a fact that he never balances and we do. not the fact that we are trying to pay down debt and he is not. we lay out big ideas and big solutions for the big problems out there before us. the biggest disappointment we

had on the committee when the president introduced his budget a month late last week was that there were no big ideas. he did nothing to save social security disability insurance, which is going bankrupt in 24 months. he did nothing to protect and ensure thedicare and solvency of social security or to pay down the debt that is a stranglehold on the economy. i understand why some people do not want to take on big challenges that the president gets paid to take on big challenges. take on big challenges and i am disappointed we do not have him as a partner on the budget. host: do you think there will be benefits and the relationship between paul ryan and patty murray? guest: i do. you see that in the conversations with chairman ryan. when we are having a conversation about what went right and what went wrong in december, he sticks to those commitments. this was not a bait and switch

conversation. this was a very hard, difficult conversation and they came together. look at what has happened. we have a farm bill, we were able to sort that out. we have a budget deal, at least for two years in th -- two years, passed. work on the to appropriations bills. i see glimmers of hope. not necessarily between the congressional and the white house relationship, but between the house and the senate. when i read my constitution, it is article one for a reason, the house and senate have a special obligation and the a special relationship. host: the end of march brings another deadline. guest: we are taking right along. i believe what you are going to see is a continued commitment to moving legislation forward. i do not think you see folks

dodging anything, they are embracing the ability to do something. 2010, no one came to sit on the sidelines. everyone came because they wanted to make have decisions to make a difference. the: isn't the debt limit, short continuing resolution running out at the end of march? guest: we are funded through the end of september. do not worry between here and september. host: i apologize. representative rob woodall from georgia. joseph in new york, democrat, first caller. caller: good morning. i would like to know why blockingns are progress in this country. you are against raising the minimum wage.

you are against extending unemployment. you are against every progress. meantime, you guys are living a big life. to guys are going all out destroy them this country. that's not right. guest: what i have learned in three years with the voting part of my district, i thought folks on the other side of the aisle were out to destroy the country. what you believe about me i believed about the democrats. i learned everyone loves this country that we have different ideas about how to make this country better. you talk about on a plummet and i will tell you i am committed to every american accessing -- you talk about unemployment and i will tell you i am committed to every american accessing the unemployment they have paid into. wagealk about the minimum and i will tell you i do not

want to see the minimum wage raised out of washington. we have the highest use unemployment rate the country has ever seen. that is the wrong direction for america. raising the minimum wage at the federal level will exacerbate that. 34 states have already raised the minimum wage above the federal minimum or are considering legislation to do so. raisingt your community the minimum wage to anything you would like it to be. we will find out if that works and if it does we will adopted in georgia. we willstroys jobs, look to georgia. host: unemployment insurance? thet: we are committed to 26 weeks. i read they have an agreement on the senate side, five republicans and five democrats. we do not have that on the house side. what i hear from employers back home is the longer folks remain on unemployment the more difficult it is to get back into the workforce.

if you have not worked for two years is it because no jobs were available or because your skills were not up to the task. getting folks back into the workforce should be our priority. folks getant to help unemployment checks, i want to help them get paychecks. host: mitchell, republican in maine. you are on "washington journal." caller: good morning. guest: the morning. caller: thank you for your vote raising the debt ceiling. i also appreciate the ongoing work with your revenue reform. thingsly doing the right trumps politics and peer pressure for you. theill congress face scientific evidence of the building seven and the world trade towers -- host: that is our second call this morning. the building seven, 9/11.

we have already talked about that. we have not given you a chance to answer. we have several callers who talk about building seven being pretty blown up -- being pre-blown up. fan of lettingig science speak for itself. i am not an engineer. i've read the same reports you do and i come to a different conclusion. i do consider that a settled matter. host: bill king tweets in. we elected obama. to ask you about that. the largest item in the medicare.s budget is the second largest item is social security. the third largest item is economic growth. it continues to taper and will be interest on the national debt. think about that.

the third largest item in the federal budget would be paying interest on the national debt. i don't think anyone voted for the president to have interest as the third largest item. it is the fastest growing item in the budget and doubles as a percent of our economy over the 10 years of his budget. you elected president obama because you believed in his big ideas for tackling big challenges that face this country. this budget does not seem to reflect any of those. i would welcome a conversation with the president to do the big things and the difficult things that make a different place of your family -- in the lives of your family. host: irs scandal is worse than watergate, liberal media will not talk about it. next call comes from grace in new york. i was so angry i forgot what i wanted to say. congress is a mess. you keep on downgrading your

-- your president. he is your president, too. you are making us the laughingstock of the whole entire earth. you keep knocking the man. we are not getting anything done. you are saying you are there to do the people's work, do the people's work. host: we got your point. i appreciate your frustration. having been on the job for three years, this is not what i expected. aboutht be frustrated different things. let me ask you to do this. let's not paint congress with one brush. there are different members and there is a house and a senate. if you are looking for hope, vice president kerry promised the ukraine $1 billion in loan guarantees on march4.

introduced legislation in the republican house to follow through on that promise on march 5. we passed that on march 6. te still has not moved forward on legislation to fulfill the vice president's promis. se. vice president's promie together as a nation. i am an american first and a republican down that list. host: answering the previous tweet. potusted for gop house, serves congress. down innate race georgia. have you endorsed any candidate? of great have a lot men and women and we will be well served. it will answer some of the questions about who we are as a party. georgia is a good republican

state. we have republicans from across the continuum. it will be a great place for the nation to watch to see who we want to be. host: representative woodall spent 16 years on chapel hill, a chief of staff to john linder of often do thisould program. what is former congressman linder doing? guest: he is enjoying a well-earned retirement and spending time with his grandchildren and wife. he has one of the biggest mind , writing and commenting on issues. trying to move the debate for. obligation as citizens. host: tom from pennsylvania. caller: to follow up on the call for government reform. let's have legislative district reform. i doubt we are going to see

that. my one-year-old could be the house republican gop the local operatives and get the majority with the way those districts are drawn. restoringn, how about the pay cut that we took when the bush tax cuts expire. be done now. you talk about people going to jail. nobody went to jail after the financial crisis, they got a bailout. where's my bailout? guest: a lotto. asking where their bailout is. i hope we can agree that we are not in the bailout business. i would rather talk about how we can stop a bailout. are right about redistricting. i was doing a town hall meeting last week and a lot of folks -- and walked fulks through the districts. we have one of the 5 most

republican districts in the nation. the five most democratic districts are gerrymandered worse. district,no's president obama that 97% against mitt romney. both ends ofem on the spectrum. i would be happy to work with you. host: in 15 minutes you will start a debate on the doc fix for medicare payments. guest: this is why i tell folks do not believe anything i tell you will happen 10 years from year.t will happen this this was a provision that started in 1997 and has never gone into effect. it was intended to prolong the life of medicare. congress has put it off. this measure we are going to

consider it looks more like a permanent fix than anything we have ever seen before. we ought to either enforce the law or repeal the law. that is true with immigration policy and the president's health care bill. it is true as it relates to medicare. we have not been enforcing this law. host: pat is a republican in south carolina. you are on "washington journal" with congressman woodall. caller: good morning. you are on the oversight committee. guest: yes, ma'am. any wasteu never find the government has until the press comes out with it. get moneyou ever back from the department that wasted? why are you looking at their budgets before they have the money to waste? why are you catching them in line item budgets? before we lose it. look: pat, i want you to

at not just where the line items in the budgets are today aware where they are projected to be this year. spending and federal agencies is at its lowest level as a percent of our economy in my lifetime. when i have in him congress, we have reduced the spending goes agencies have been doing. $1.91ere spending trillion, we are taking their spending down. do not havetee we that authority. that is in the appropriations committee. they have been doing a great job. our responsibility is .dentifying problems i could not be more proud of darrell issa and the way he has been targeting issues. when he finds a smidgen of corruption the president does not believe exists, he goes after it. with our limited resources, we are doing everything we can to

solve the problems. -- tax reform. what did you say? efforthe has spent more on fundamental tax reform to anyone i have seen in decades. i am a fair tax guy. i want to replace it entirely with a consumption tax code. what dave camp has done is he has laid everything out ahead of time. it was not in a closed cigar smoke filled room under cover of darkness. he laid out for all to see. we will end up with a better proposal. my constituency would prefer the fair tax but they would take anything over what we have today. we need more economic growth. i do not want to cut wages, standard of living, air quality, but we can fix tax code. the fair tax repealed the income employment, state and gift taxes.

a single national consumption tax of taxable property or services. what are the political realities? we have more cosponsors on the fair tax than any other fundamental tax reform bill in congress. they are continuing to be added every day because it eliminates every exemption in the tax code. there is no reason washington would support it. we have cosponsors because citizens back home support it. it would be the largest transfer support back home. i had some boy scouts in my office yesterday. william, chris, campbell, declan , we were talking about their opportunities and responsibilities in the future. every time we add another penny in debt, we trade responsibility by transferring that authority back to folks by taxing not your productivity by your consumption.

we will provide a new level of opportunity for youngsters. we have stolen it from them with national debt. host: tweeting in. low does voting to repea obamacare for the 50th time create jobs? , the question is how does obamacare destroy jobs. i see that every day back home. i see that and slower growth in our economy in every metric that comes out. repealing obamacare refuels all those burdens and regulations that destroys jobs. i am not the only one who sees a it, smiley. the president keeps putting off regulations until after the next election. his own health and human services department tells us 80% of small business policies are going to be canceled under obamacare. is something the president

does not want to see happen before the next election. i wish he would work with me to repeal that. smiley,t uncertainty, ask any business man or woman, uncertainty is a job killer. the president amplifies uncertainty with every delay he unilaterally imposes. host: tony, rhode island. caller: thank you for c-span. i am a career -- i am a korea vet. politicians give us a lousy $20 with social security. grocery, gas, everything is going up more than 1.7%. this president is terrible. i am independent. they do keeps saying not take money out of social security, that is a lie. reagan took $2.5 million. with the equipment we have today, what is going on in

washington, we already know money has been taken out of social security. you cannot say it has not. it has. it is a sham. this: i was talking about last week, we know how to solve social security, there are not that many levers to pull. taxes, raise the level of taxation are raise the amount of money taxed. you can change the qualifications, 66, 67, 69. there are not that many levers to pull. we should not have social security recipients 12 months away wondering if this is the year social security is going to go bankrupt. we know what the problem is and we need to come together and do that. the best thing we can do other than get the economy back on track is to provide permanent certainty that social security will be there. have the men and

women on both sides of the aisle to do that and i hope we have the leadership. host: freelancer tweets in about tax reform. guest: i do not know what you mean by class warfare. the power to tax is the power to destroy. if i decided to tax all purple pies, there would be no purple pies left. now, we tax productivity. we destroy productivity because we do. if you have enough money to buy a mercedes, you have enough money to help make this government go round. aat is why i support consumption tax. income tax burdens people trying to move up the ladder and escape poverty. consumption tax taxes those people who have already escaped oupoverty. i am all about the latter.

i care about can you make tomorrow better than your today. we live in a land of opportunity. doing?ow is john boehner fan of johna big boehner. he has a tough job. we have elected 435 ceo's to conserve on a giant committee together. john boehner, i do not love the results but i love the way we get them. he believes in individual members and he believes, imagine believes that if you allow ideas to come to the floor vote,low an up or down that the best ideas will win. it is so easy for the speaker of the house to believe you are the smartest person in the room. that is not john boehner. he says america is going to be better at the people's voices are heard through their 435 representatives.

it is messy but it is the way this country was designed to work. a speaker who believes that my constituents' voices are important. host: ronnie from new jersey, democrat line. caller: hi. you turned down a caffeine fix? you are wonderful. it is the same old thing, broadbrush. are un-american. i think you are close to being a good old boar. i hear the same thing from southerners -- host: what is a good old boy? caller: he knows what it means. good old boy. southern boy, proud of their heritage. you stop people from voting and stuff all kinds of down there. this president took over from a war criminal that put this country in such a hole.

i would like to see any republican do as well as this president has done. aknow certain constituents, guitar owner who i will not mention, has called this man a mongrel. guest: i appreciated the warm way you opened the call. i think we ought to be able to disagree on ideas without being disagreeable. i can't think your ideas are terrible while believing you are a good human being. district i have more first-generation americans than any other republican district in the country outside california or florida. rights arek voting being trampled in my district i will tell you the option. i cannot get folks to the po lls fast enough. my counties is a majority minority county. what you are saying is true of

the state of georgia before i was born, not today. if you love faith, family, and believe in education and community, you can call yourself a republican or a democrat, it does not matter. you will be with me at the ballot box. i want everyone who believes in this country to get to the polls. i am never afraid of your ideas. i am afraid of apathy. if we can have a battle of ideas this country is a better state. in georgia we see more voter turnout than we have seen in decades. host: congressman, is immigration going to come to the house floor this year? guest: i hope it does. what we have is a trust problem. i had a serious conversation with some thoughtful folks. i said what can we do to get this process moving. they said we cannot. if we can negotiate a deal, the president will choose not to enforce the party does not like

and enforce the part he does like. this lack of trust, we have to overcome. we can if we begin with border enforcement and interior enforcement and changing the rules on the books. people in my district that have been trying to get into america legally for more than 20 years. their number has not yet come up. if you want to bring your sister in from mexico legally you had to apply in the 1980's for your number to come up legally today. let's not pretend this is a who camenly of folks here the wrong way. we have a problem with folks trying to get here the right way. if we could build trust by solving those problems that we can agree on, i am certain we could create the momentum to solve those problems we do not yet agree on. host: what about the dream act? the house, cantor in

second in command, a big believer in moving legislation did not haveldren any choice in this matter. we should welcome them into the country. thoseround at some of young people. you'll find folks that you would be proud to call your neighbor. who you will be proud to be a citizen beside you. ordinarily, our immigration willy-nilly.nd of there is no thorough investigation of who you are going to be and how you are going to turn out. in my district, we have valedictorians in our high schools. we have opportunities to say you are amazing, we want you to be a part of what we have going on. here is my standard -- if you are going to put your hand over your heart and swear allegiance to this country, forsaking all others, if you have something you want to contribute and take advantage of that opportunity, i want you to be here.

it is absolutely true that we have got to take care of the folks who are trying to do it the right way. ' heartstand why folks are touched by children in these circumstances, but families have been sep >> tomorrow, alex smith of the college republican national committee and natasha mckenzie discuss the millennial generation. a recent poll found that generation to be more liberal than once before. landis looks at the war between the syrian government and rebel groups which has cost the lives of over 140,000 people since the conflict began. on a recentjosh field experiment he conducted on

whether members of congress were more likely to grant access to contributors than constituents. your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets. at 70 mve every day eastern on c-span. >> next, russian foreign minister lavrov and secretary of state john kerry discussed the situation in ukraine. >> the russian foreign minister said the west and russia do not have a common vision of the situation in ukraine. withscribed talks secretary john kerry as constructive, but adds that sanctions against russia would be counterproductive. they said that russia will respect the will of crimea.

the u.s. and european union have both said that the referendum is illegal and difficult forward, face economic sanctions. this is over 15 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, we have intensive days of negotiations with john kerry about the situation in ukraine. of course, both parties, ourselves and the american partners, are seriously concerned. we have expressed our position as to what is happening and what are the reasons for what is happening and what are the measures that the international community should take to begin an inclusive international dialogue that would overcome the deep split within society and to implement the constitutional

reform that should, in our conviction, take part in the interest of all the regions of ukraine. from all sides, we have expressed deep concern with the fact that no necessary measures are being taken to provide security and order. no efficient measures are taken to prevent unlawful actions of radicals that escalate provocations, including armed provocations with violence and try to affect what is happening in the country. we have attracted our partners' attention to the fact that the agreement of the 21st of february is implemented, like giving up weapons, vacating the squares and buildings, and our american partners have agreed

that order should be brought in this area. they agreed the constitutional reform that needs to overcome this situation is very important. as to practical matters that should be taken, that could be taken by foreign partners of ukraine, we do not have common vision of the situation. the differences are there. but the dialouge was definitely constructive, and it could help us to understand how much and how good we understand each other and, in general, the overall picture of u.s.-russian relations. from that point of view, the negotiations were very useful. we discussed crimea. we have repeated our position that was expressed by the president of russian federation. we will respect the will of the

people of crimea that would be expressed at the referendum of the 16th of march. >> ok, so international press and russian press. >> [indiscernible] >> will russia agree for creation of an international contact group with european union, russia, and the united states? i have already spoken on the issue. the contact group that is being offered by our western partners is based on the premises that would be the purpose of this multilateral purpose should be facilitating direct contact

between russia and ukraine. we think that this is wrong approach. the crisis was not caused by russia. we warned our european partners that ukraine should not be put before a false choice when it was done when the signing of the association agreement between the ukraine and eu was about to happen, and president yanukovych decided to delay the signing of the agreement. we warned against encouraging illegal, unlawful demonstrations, especially those that -- with the participation of armed groups. the international community, if responsible, needs to appeal to

immediate beginning of the process of constitutional reform. ukrainian parliament can initiate this process by inviting all the regions of the country and by providing them with equal participation in the negotiations. we have our own suggestions of offers that we were giving to our western partners a week ago, and we would be happy to make them available to the media. i will repeat, the most important thing is that this is we do not need international structure to look into ukraine-russian relationships. the relationships have never been ceased. after what happened in kiev, when the legally elected president was overthrown, had some complications, but russian president putin encourages the

russian government to work side by side with ukrainian minister, and the complex alongside the lines of the foreign minister. contacts with foreign ministers never ceased. so any questions there are could be resolved and raised in direct dialogue, contact. the ukrainian side suggested to convene the cis council. ukraine is presiding in the cis, and they offered to have this council in kiev. we suggested that we should begin it with the deputy foreign ministers and to have it in minsk. unfortunately, our colleagues declined this offer.

in our understanding the role of the international community is to encourage a dialogue about constitution reform with the understanding that long inaction and encouragement of current leadership in ukraine in the direction that they are moving now has in fact caused the supreme soviet of crimea to start the referendum. we are committed to respect the results of the referendum. >> are russian military forces being made ready to enter into ukraine -- [indiscernible] the minister this morning made clear he was ready to act to take citizens under their protection --

[indiscernible] >> what happened has become subject of commentary from russian foreign ministry. you have this text you could have a chance to familiarize yourself with it. it is a horrible situation. the military -- armed people, militants, started the violent intrusion into the demonstration. russian government has known no plans of military intrusion into eastern ukraine. we are based on the assumption that the rights of russian, hungarian, bulgarians, ukrainians need to be protected. what is happening in crimea that there are now serious violations

of breaches is the result of the self-defense groups be determined not to repeat what happened at maidan, where the camp town in the center of the european city is still there. and i want to insure you that we do not have any plans of non-transparency what we are doing. just a few days ago, the ukrainian party in the framework of the treaty of the open sky decided to have an extraordinary measure and fly about -- across the territory where the russian military exercises were happening. they were granted this permission. >> [indiscernible]

>> we were discussing this subject, this story, and what is different is that each case is a separate case, singular case. i am convinced that kosovo was a very special case, and crimea is also very special case. >> [indiscernible] >> did secretary kerry raise the issue of sanctions, threaten russia with sanctions, and what is your view on the prospect -- [indiscernible] >> secretary kerry did not voice any threats against russia. as to the sanctions, we live in

an information space, we are hearing what is being discussed in washington or in europe, and let me assure you that our partners understand that sanctions is a counterproductive instrument, and if the decision is made, it will be their decision. it certainly won't facilitate, it will not be helpful in the mutual interests of businesses and developing operations. that is a fact. we will take any reciprocal measures. there is no point in guessing now. we have to wait. >> [indiscernible] >> as to the referendum that is about to happen in crimea on sunday, we have expressed our position through president putin.

-- [indiscernible] we will respect the choice of the people of crimea, of the peoples of crimea. and as to the attitude toward the results of the referendum, we will express it when the results are known. the ukrainian parliament has already accepted the resolution that is about the independence of the crimean parliament. we have to wait for the result. as to the statements of our western partners, i have already spoken on this subject.

we believe that the right for self-determination has not been canceled. this is one of the important postulates of the u.n. status. and in concluding, there is a history of the people there for self-determination. we were talking about kosovo, but there is another state, comoros island, where at the end of the last century there was a referendum about independence from france. one of the islands was against, and france insisted on recounting of the vote so that not the overall number of people who voted in the comoros islands, but each and every island separately.

and the island of mallorca remained within france, first as a colonial territory, and later on it was included into french republic as just another department. was it an annexation or self-determination? the united nations or the african union did not accept the decision of france, but the european union did. and as to the reaction of our western partners, let me say it again, it will be their decision. the russian president is in constant contact with president obama, with chancellor merkel, with prime minister cameron, with other european leaders, with the chinese chairman, the turkish prime minister, and i am

in constant daily talks, telephone talks and meetings with our western partners. we are not hiding our position. we are not even evading the questions that are being asked. it all needs to be discussed honestly. >> [indiscernible] >> i cannot answer this question. we never decline and reject a cooperation and diplomatic framework, and if our partners do not want that, we can never force them to do that.

but i do hope -- i feel in personal meetings and conversations that i hope that they are aware that this is the case that cannot be looked into in an isolated way, without looking to the history. there are precedents of international law, and everybody understands that crimea for russia is something really important, what it means for russia. it means immeasurably more for russia than falklands for united kingdom or comoros for france. thank you. johns. secretary of state kerry is in london holding meetings with prime minister cameron. the meeting comes before a

crimea.referendum in the u.s. and european union have both said the referendum is illegal and if they goes forward, russia could face sanctions. this is 20 minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> good afternoon, everybody. president obama, as you know, asked me to come to london in an effort to try to de-escalate the situation in ukraine. today, foreign minister lavrov and i engaged in a very in-depth , constructive dialogue on how to address legitimate concerns in the context of a unified, sovereign ukraine. the united states strongly supports the interim government of ukraine, and we continue to favor a direct dialogue between

ukraine and russia as the very best way to try to resolve the crisis. i came in here in good faith with constructive ideas which we did put forward, on behalf of president obama, in order to try to restore and respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of ukraine while addressing at the same time russia's legitimate concerns. foreign minister lavrov and i talked for a good six hours, and the conversation was very direct, very candid, frank, and i say constructive because we really dug into all of russia's perceptions, their narrative, our narrative, our perceptions, and the differences between us. i presented a number of ideas on behalf of the president, which we believe absolutely could

provide a path forward for all the parties. however, after much discussion, the foreign minister made it clear that president putin is not prepared to make any decision regarding ukraine until after the referendum on sunday. the united states' position on that referendum, i must say, is clear, and it is clear today. we believe the referendum is contrary to the constitution of ukraine, is contrary to international law, is in violation of that law, and we believe it is illegitimate. and as the president put it, illegal under the ukrainian constitution. neither we nor the international community will recognize the results of this referendum. we also remain deeply concerned about the large deployments of russian forces in crimea and along the eastern border with

russia as well as the continuing provocations and some of the hooliganism of young people that have been attracted to cross the border and come into the east as well as some of those who live there. i was clear with foreign minister lavrov that the president has made it clear there will be consequences if russia does not find a way to change course, and we do not say that as a threat. we say that as a direct consequence of the choices that russia may or may not choose to make here. if russia does establish facts on the ground that increase tensions or that threaten ukrainian people, then obviously, that will beg an even greater response, and there will be costs. president obama and i could not

be more convinced that there is a better way for russia to pursue legitimate interests in ukraine. we believe it is not insignificant that we acknowledge there are legitimate interests -- historical, cultural, current strategic. these are real interests. and i think all of us who are joined together in the eu and extended contact group understand those interests and are prepared to respect them. but that requires also that russia would respect the multilateral structure that has guided our actions since world war ii and the need for all of us to try to resolve this challenge and to meet those interests through the international multilateral legal norms which should guide all of

our behavior. foreign minister lavrov and i talked about that and we talked about the other options that are available, options of dialogue, options of various contacts, meetings that could take place, options of international legal remedy, options of joint multilateral efforts that would protect minorities, u.n. options, international human rights organizations options, many options for the ways in which any challenges associated with the rights of people could be addressed. we are prepared to address those rights, whether they be the rights of ukrainian living in the west, ukrainian hitting in the east, somebody of russian language and russian decent that might feel threatened, all minorities, all people should be protected.

foreign minister lavrov and i agreed we are going to stay in touch in the next days on ukraine as well as on the other issues of concern, which we are working on -- syria, iran, and other challenges of mutual concern. before i close, i want to reiterate what president obama said in the oval office on wednesday, when he visited with the ukrainian prime minister. the united states stands with the people of ukraine in their desire to make their own choices about their future and to be able to live their lives in a unified, peaceful, stable, and democratic ukraine. the president said clearly that is our only interest. that is what drives us, not a larger strategy, nothing

with respect to russia directly. we are interested in the people of ukraine, having the opportunity to have their country's sovereignty and territorial integrity respected as we would ask that to happen for any country. so i will be briefing the prime minister shortly as well as all of our colleagues and counterparts in the eu and members of the contact group as soon as i leave here. i will engage in those briefings, and i look forward to taking a couple of questions. >> mr. secretary, as you noted, russian troops are carrying out extensive military exercises in ukraine, and at the same time the russian foreign ministry said today that the kremlin reserves the right to protect what it calls compatriots' lives in ukraine. did you obtain a clear assurance

from mr. lavrov that russia will not use these forces to intervene in eastern ukraine, as they have in crimea? what did they say was the purpose of this exercise, and has russia abided by its obligations to provide osce nations with timely information about the size of the exercise, the types of forces involved, the purpose of the exercise? have they done that for this current exercise, and have they done for that the one immediately prior? >> i do not know whether or not they have made that notification. i have been wrapped up in these talks and in other talks. i'm not aware of whether or not that notification was made. i can tell you, indeed we talked about these exercises and we talked about the level of troops that are deployed, where they

are deployed, with the purpose is, and i raised very clearly the increased anxiety that is created within ukraine as a consequence of this. we talked about one of the proposals we made, discussed the possibility of drawing all forces back, reducing these tensions, returning to barracks, having a freeze on those kinds of deployments, while the diplomacy is working. i think in fairness that foreign minister lavrov is going to report that proposal back to president putin as he will all of the proposals that we put on the table this afternoon. he is going to fly back, have that discussion with him. so the president will be well aware, president putin, of all the options we have offered. that was one of the principal areas of discussion, is this increased tension created by

these additional departments, in -- additional deployments in crimea, as well as along the border of the east, and the need to reduce that kind of tension. and it is our hope that they will take the business is very steps. with respect to assurances, it is my understanding this afternoon that foreign minister lavrov gave assurances, publicly, with respect to their intent, but i think all of us would like to see actions, not words, that support the notion that people are moving in the opposite direction and in fact diminishing their presence. right now, in this particular climate, given what has been happening, we really needed to hear a more declarative policy

in order to make clear where russia is proceeding with respect to these troops and these exercises. >> thank you. mr. secretary, you said last week that crimea is ukraine. we were told crimea is more important to russia than the falklands to britain. given that, did you get any indication from mr. lavrov that not annex crimea and even if so, why would not greater economy that kiev said it would allow, why would it not set a dangerous precedent for the rest of the region? >> the issue of additional autonomy by crimea is one that is constantly on the table.

it has been on the table prior to russia making these moves. that is really a decision for the ukrainian government to make. in his visit to washington, the prime minister made it clear that they are prepared to provide additional autonomy. they see it as no threat to the integrity and sovereignty of the ukraine. i think they see it as strengthening it. we don't know definitively what president putin is going to decide. what was made clear, any decisions regarding the next steps until the vote has been taken, he has said that once the referendum vote is taken, he will make a decision with respect to what will happen. i would say to him today, as i

said to prime minister lavrov, that is a decision of enormous consequence with respect to the global community. we believe in a decision to move forward by russia, we ratify that vote initially would be a backdoor annexation of crimea and against international law. and fly in the face of every legitimate effort to say there is a different waited proceed to o proceed andway t protect the interest of crimea and and protect russia's interests and respect the integrity of the ukraine and the sovereignty of the ukraine. we hope that president putin will recognize that none of what we are saying is meant as a threat. it is not meant in a personal way. it is meant as a matter of

respect for the international multilateral structure that we have lived by since world war ii. and for the standards of behavior about annexation, secession, and how countries come about it. here in great britain, the parliament voted to legitimize a vote in scotland about where scotland would want to proceed. under the constitution of ukraine, the ukrainian legislature in kiev would have to vote to legitimize a secession effort by any state or province or entity. the autonomous region of the ukraine. that has not happened here. that is why this runs against the constitution of the ukraine.

much hope that president putin will hear that we are not trying to challenge russia's rights or interests. its interest in protecting its people, its strategic position. none of those things are being threatened. they can all be respected even as the integrity of the ukraine is respected. we hope that president putin will see that there is a better way to address those concerns that he has. we hope you will make that decision. he has decided not to make any other decision until that vote takes place on sunday. >> thank you. mr. secretary, foreign minister lavrov said there is no common vision between the west, russia, and the ukraine.

that international mediators are not needed and that russia would respect the results of sunday's referendum. despite your message to president putin that this is not meant as a threat, but do you believe that diplomacy is failing and they will go ahead with what you just termed as a possible backdoor annexation of crimea? and is it now safe to say that monday we will see sanctions from the european union and the united states? and what gives you confidence that those sanctions will in any way change his mind that we see the ruble falling? >> i suspect the market in russia and moscow can be significantly affected by these choices. it already is being affected. obviously if there are more sanctions, i think it will have an impact. the reality is that president

putin's statement that he will respect the vote is how he to respect the vote. if the people of crimea vote overwhelmingly as one suspects they will to affiliate or be associated with russia, he can respect the vote by making sure the autonomy is increased. that the needs that prompted the vote are properly respected without necessarily making a decision to annex. until that decision is made i'm not going to interpret what it may or may not mean. nothing is more important for president putin to understand that we are prepared to respect his interests and rights and they can be fully respected. and that he can have a claim his purpose,d

protecting the people that he is interested in protecting, by augmenting their rights and by asserting his prerogatives at the end of this effort. there are other options and that is what we are continually trying to say. until he has made his decision, those options are still on the table and we hope you will make a different set of choices. what was the other part of your question? >> whether there will be sanctions or not. >> with respect to the president and the european community, as the referendum takes place, there will be some sanctions. there will be some response. let's put it that way. if there is greater diplomatic opportunity that can be pursued and that is, in fact, on the table, i am confident that

whatever the response is will be calibrated accordingly. if, on the other hand, a decision is made that is negative or flies in the face of the rationale that the eu and others have put on the table, that will obviously demand some further response which i am confident both the eu and the united states will produce. it is not our preference. it is not where we want to go. it is not what we are choosing as a first choice. but if the wrong choices are made, there will be no choice but to respond appropriately because of the gravity of this breach of international standard and breach of international law, and challenge, frankly, to the global standard by which nations have been called upon to try to behave. we believe these are consequences that can be felt in many other parts of the world.

there are many places where people might take the wrong lesson from that. i think many people are concerned about that. thank you very much. a bipartisan group of u.s. senators are in ukraine this weekend to meet with leaders of its interim government and other groups. john mccain is leading the delegation, which includes republican centers john barrasso of wyoming, john hoven of north dakota, ron johnson of wisconsin, and jeff flake of arizona. three democratic senators are there, dick durbin of illinois, christopher murphy of connecticut, and sheldon whitehouse of rhode island. in december, senators mccain and murphy, who is chairman of the european subcommittee, traveled

to kiev in ukraine and address the anti-government demonstrators that led to the ousting of former president unicode which -- former president yanukovych. after that, russian foreign minister sir j weber of -- sergey lavrov. >> just to bring weeks ago, in the midst of a terrible tragedy on the potomac, we saw the spirit of american heroism at its finest. dedicated workers saving crash victims from icy waters and we saw the heroism of one of our young government when he saw any, woman lose her grip on the

helicopter line, and died in the water and dragged her to safety. in the water and dragged her to safety. [applause] >> find more highlights from 35 years of house floor coverage on our facebook page. c-span -- creed by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you today as a public service by your television provider. agriculture sector he -- .ecretary tom vilsack he outlines the department's 2015 budget request and priorities for this fiscal year.

the 22 billion dollar request includes funding for rural development, food safety, and the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, it and children commonly known as wic. this is about to one half hours. >> good morning, everyone. before we begin today i would like to express to you, mr. secretary and the u.s. forest service, our condolences for an officer that lost his life this week. he was killed in the line of duty this past wednesday along with his canine partner. men and womenthe who serve in law enforcement at the local, state, and federal level. as they put their lives on the line in the line of duty on a daily basis. mr. secretary, we realize that anytime you lose a, one of your finest, we certainly are, have sympathy and along with the forest service and the family.

i did want to mention that. we are pleased to welcome the secretary of agriculture, tom vilsack. along with the chief economist and the usda's at a director, mike young. thank you for being here this morning. we start our view of the 's budgett of ag request. we have three goals for the subcommittee for fy 15. the first goal is a robust oversight. as stewards of the taxpayer's dollar, we are responsible for ensuring these funds are wisely invested improperly use. through oversight, we can detect in a limited fraud and abuse. sometimes we are criticized about snap. this is the usta's largest program.

it has an overall loss prevents -- percentage of 4.07% per year which is about $3 billion. when fraud and erroneous payments are combined. snap fraud undermines support for this program and other federal nutrition programs. i would like to be clear that i support oversight of illumination it in fraud in each and every usta program those programs should not be neglected. usta -- usda has had trouble for years securing its i.d. systems. has significant problems still and as you can imagine it is this pointing to hear that. she suggested that the u.s. the a's agency should rebalance the

focus on more than just delivering benefits. u.s.d.a.'sut the healthy hungry free kids act. it appears they pick and choose when they will be flexible to pursue its own agenda. we have seen the administration go beyond congressional tent at times. we are following the implementation of these laws and i will explore some of these in detail as we go to the questions. my third goal is to ensure the funding is targeted at vital programs. there are two sides -- one is about the decision that the subcommittee will make to allocate funding in the bill. theother is about administration authorities. we cannot fund and do everything. we must focus on programs that are most effective and broadly supported and those that address

imminent threats. wic is affected -- effective and broadly supported. we will ensure that sufficient funding is provided. we cannot provide excessive funding that will unnecessarily limit funding for other programs of high priority. regarding role housing programs, i do not understand why the usda proposes to dramatically reduce funding for them. these programs have brought support across congress as they help low income and elderly americans to have decent homes. i hope we can discuss this a little more in detail as we go to the questions. turning to usda's budget request, at first glance it would appear to be modest and straightforward. it is to under $20 million below the fy 14 level. are significant increases for funding and others. some of these increases are

offset by question will decreases, such as the closing of 250 farm service agency offices and the reduction of 815 staff years without any real background and how you arrived at savings. there are major increases, including three new innovation costing $75 million and hundreds of new staff for the rule development missionary rate the budget proposes major changes to crop insurance programs with the goal of saving $14.3 billion over 10 years. this is clearly an authorizing issue and the 2014 "farmville" just spoke to it. while many believe that this program could be improved, it is not realistic to pay for increases based on proposals by the authorizing committee. ofust mention the presence additional requests.

provide 277ld million dollars for the usta, it cannot be -- usda, it cannot be considered because it is above the discretionary cap. chairman rogers says it will write its appropriation bills to be established cap of just over $1 trillion. senate appropriations chairman mikulski has said the same thing. the additional request is also irresponsible given our debt and overall economic situation. while the federal budget deficit has fallen sharply the last two years, the congressional budget office estimates that under current law be deficit this year will be $540 billion. even after all the tough battles to reform spending, the deficit spending this year will still expense -- exceeded spending on all non-discretionary spending

dollars by $22 billion. they further projected under current policy, public debt will reach $21 trillion. that is 79% of our gross to vested product by 2024. bygross domestic product 2024. those numbers are staggering. before i recognize you for your opening statement, i would ask listing was shot him in from california for opening remarks. gentleman fromd california for opening remarks. has awesomertment jurisdictional responsibilities for all of the food in america, all of the development of rural interestsd our ag around the world. i think your background as a mayor and governor that you really know how to handle your

job well. i think you do a good job. i would be interested in a comment or two. last year we were able to give flexibility to the department of defense and how they spent sequestration funds. rather than just us putting it all in a category and across-the-board cuts, we give them the flexibility to make those determinations. i am wondering if there is any unfunded balance, unobligated balances that you might have -- giving yout some flexibility to use those in the chairmanget as indicated. i have lots of questions. it is a very exciting department and i think a lot of us are here because it is also the biggest apartment and united states government that handles poverty in america. and overseas and i really appreciate your responsibility in that area. thank you. have mr. rogers from

kentucky has joined us this morning. i would like to recognize him for any remarks he might like to make. >> thank you for getting us off to a great start. this the earliest that we have started off these hearings in my memory or recollection. we're doing it because we the top number that both house and senate can appropriate to brute we are not waiting on the budget committee to come forward with a budget resolution that can be agreed to by the other body. consequently we are way ahead of ourselves and we will try to keep going that way, mr. secretary. committee backhe to regular order like we used to do things, doing 12 individual bills, conference separately with the senate. youme start off by thanking for coming to my district recently to help announce, as

you did, the strikeforce program of the department. communitieslp rural combat the difficulties that they are in economically. the strikeforce that you announced, we are incorporating in kentucky with a program that the governor and i just announce called shaping our appellation a region hit by losses. the soar program will attempt to find new ways to make a living, provide jobs in a formally cold -- coal-dominated country. i thank you for that. the ranking member and i have committed to moving all of the 12 bills through a subcommittee, full committee, and the floor and we plan to move that process

along at a very brisk pace. areou can tell, i think you the fifth secretary that we have had on the hill this week before our committee. we plan to move this process along briskly. unquestionably, this return to regular order is critical to crafting bills that wisely spend taxpayer dollars. 2014 omnibus package that we passed in generate, funding the balance of this fiscal year. a prime example of what we can accomplish together. tos committee was able divide every facet to the federal government with adequate, responsible funding walk continuing to reduce totaling $165ng billion in cuts since fiscal 2010. we have had to work hard to bring about these discretionary reductions. a lot of late nights and

compromises but we have gotten it done. now we have to tackle mandatory spending. that is the big problem. when i first came here, mandatory spending was one third of federal spending. now it is two thirds and growing. it is squeezing out everything else. reduce defense spending, spending for everything you can imagine in the discretionary side because of the crowding out that the mandatory spending has caused us to deal with. 2/3 ofatory spending, federal spending, is the problem. leadership from this administration to try and tackle this major issue. while mandatory spending comprises about 86% of your department's request, only 14%

is what we actually sit down and decide how to be spent. the rest is on automatic pilot. that is no way for a government to be operated. you experienced that as governor. your budget proposes to lower mandatory and discretionary spending within the department. however, we have heard this before. over the last two years, we have seen your artificially low estimates on mandatory spending blown up by the middle of the year. it is time to get serious about the mandatory spending crowd out that is taking place and have an honest discussion of how to do it. he cannot hide behind phony estimates anymore. once again, and this yours budget, the request proposes a significant cut to the section 502 direct loan and the mutual

and self-help housing programs. we have seen this kind of were funding is cut from useful programs in order to make room for new spending and create the illusion of budget savings. the concern i have is that the shows a disrespect for our rural communities and the constituents who have made these programs successful. in my district, a group called kentucky highlands, who you may be familiar with, through its program, hassing completed 20 homes and has six more under construction. for example, one woman in my district just finished a three bedroom home for $98,000. contractor,se a

that same home would have cost $145,000. the rental home where she and her young daughter previously lived was so poorly insulated that she kept the thermostat at 52 degrees in the winter just so the electric bill would stay below $500 a month. her electric bills now are expected to average around $100 a month. another single mother and my district use these programs to build a four bedroom home. $102,000 and a contractor would have charger $148,000. it would not have been possible without section 502 direct loan program. the sortthat this is of thing we should be encouraging and there are a lot more hard-working people like these women who are more than happy to put in the time and

effort to gain their own home. i hope that we can begin to support this program with a little more emphasis than we have seen in the budgets so far. esther secretary, we look secretary, wemr. look forward to hearing your testimony and we welcome you to the hill. we look forward to working with you. >> thank you. we also hear -- have the ranking full committee chair member, and we would like to recognize you. .> thank you very much it is a pleasure for me to welcome secretary vilsack. estate whicha career and we are fortunate to have someone of your caliber and experience in this position. thank you. mr. secretary, your department plays an important role in nutrition assistance for folder will populations. conservation efforts, rural

community development, research to combat climate change and improve crop yields are the responsibilities are amazing. i was pleased that your budget request fully funds the expected participation for the wic program, along with additional funds to successfully implement the new wic rules. providesule notably more money for the purchase of fruits and vegetables for children. it makes other important improvements as well. 15,000proximately nutritionally at-risk women, infants, and children served for a month in new york, this program is vital to the health of young mothers and the health of their children and i applaud the department for issuing the new rule. while i oppose the $66 million cut to the foods for peace

program, i agree with the proposal to grant the administration the authority to use up to 25% of title ii resources available for cash in emergencies to better respond to multiple, high-level crises around the world. this change will allow u.s. aid to administer the program to reach an estimated 2 million more people in chronically food insecure communities like syria, the central african republic, the samean, with resources. i look forward to working with my colleagues on the committee to continue to review the president's budget request to ensure we adequately fund initiatives to combat hunger and ensure the safety of our food supply and support sustainable agriculture practices. thank you. >> >> just a reminder.

if anyone has an electronics, if he can put those on silent mode, that would be helpful. we understand we may have folks that may be called over the next few minutes. take questions or take your statement as long as we can, and then we will do a temporary adjournment. so everybody is welcome to come back after the vote to proceed. secretary feel sack, without objection, your written testimony will be included in the record. thank you, again, for being here. members of the, committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here this morning. let me start by focusing on the impact of this budget on real people. 85% of whichs, will be beginning farmers or socially disadvantaged farmers, will benefit under this budget. crop