militia who basically ran when the time came, or -- >> he had additional security personnel, official within the department. i think it was one or two people who were assigned, so his number when he went out there met what he hadded with. obviously, it was not adequate, as we all have sadly learned, to the task of repelling what took place, but the intelligence community has said had he had no information about that kind of attack. there was nothing operative in which to be able to make a decision. >> are we still using militias, or do we have more of our own people doing protection? >> we have more of our own people. we have significantly hardened up the embassy there. we have -- i'm not going to go into the numbers, but we have a very significant increase in american personnel on the ground. we have much more significant emergency contingency plans, and

we are working very, very hard with other countries to work on the overall security issue. i was just in algeria and more ok wroe for the security dialogue in the last few days of last week, and we discussed specifically the training of personnel for a rapid response force in libya and the greater capacity going forward. i think everybody is concerned about libya in the current status. >> thank you. mr. secretary, we're almost at the end here. i know that senator corker has a few comments to make, and then i'll close out, and we'll get you back to the challenges that we have all collectively face. >> mr. chairman, thank you. mr. secretary, thank you for being here. i would like to ask permission that the testimony on september 3rd be entered into the record. especially as we have highlighted it. it tells a different story about why the administration was asking for the military strike,

the limited military strike that the secretary alluded to. it was a very different story then than the story that is now being told by the administration, and mr. secretary, i want to say that i know the issues in syria are difficult, and i look forward to this detailed briefing we'll have soon. i don't think they're easy solutions. i do think that from a bipartisan standpoint. people are very concerned right now about u.s. credibility, and syria, i think, was the beginning of that. i think there are concerns about ukraine, our actual willingness to go forward and do something after we lost so much credibility around the red line issue, and so much credibility on the ground with just people in the neighborhood regarding not following through on commitments that were made, and

i know you know they were made. i hope the chapter support written, and i hope we have discuss. i think everybody on this committee wants our foreign policy to be successful, and i think under chairman mendez's leadership, we've operated in a very bipartisan way, but i will say to you that if things don't change, you, in effect, could be presiding over a period of time where more u.s. credibility is lost than anyone could have imaged and a time when the world is becoming less safe as a result. i wish you well. i really do. i'm very genuine in my thoughts that i'm glad you are in a position to try to affect these things, and have said that over and over again, but i will tell you, i think there's genuine concern here about where we are on both sides of the aisle. i think you sense that today.

i do hope that the people we're dealing with get a sense that we're really willing to do the things that are necessary to deter. i hope the president will soon -- we had a good conversation a few weeks ago. looked at sectoral sanctions if we have the troops on the border there. i think that would be a good place to start. again, a lot of concerns. i thank you for your work. i hope things turn around because i do believe that right now our foreign policy efforts are not yielding the kind of results that you would like to see or we would like to see, and, yet, we all want them to be successful. >> well, senator, if i could comment, having spent 29 years on this committee, started way over there in that far end seat, and i worked my way up to where senator mendez is, so i have seen the ups and downs. i have seen the merry-go-round and the roller coaster of american foreign policy up close and personal, and i will tell

you that we're living in a different time. i know the expectations are very high, but at the end of world war ii there was only one country standing so to speak, and we were magnanimous enough to rebuild germany and japan. people opposed it, many people. truman had the courage with marshall to make it happen. the fact is that we could make mistakes either in policy choices or in economy and still win, and we did for a long time, and ultimately in the 19 -- in 1990, 1991 things changed with the soviet union, and that released an enormous amount of

pressure. it placed what was then check slovakia. unleashed all kinds of forces everywhere. so today we're living with a far more almost 19th century, 18th century diplomatic playing field where interests and, you know, in some cases -- in other cases just security interests or territorial interests, other kinds of things, are raising their head in ways that they didn't during the cold war because they were suppressed. now with the rise of radical islam and massive numbers of young people who are filled with aspirations because they're in touch with everybody in the world, through social media, they know what's happening everywhere. if you look at what happened in tunisia, it was a fruit vendor

who was tired of being slapped around and -- by the police and the corruption in the country and so he self-immilated, and a dictator of 20 years left. that wasn't the muslim brotherhood. it was young people looking for a future. syria, same thing. young people were looking for a future, and when their parents came out to protest the way they were put down, assad started shooting, and that has brought us to where we are today. you know, the united states has power, emorms power, but we can't necessarily always dictate every outcome the way we want, particularly in this world. we have rising economic powers. you know, china, india, mexico, korea, brazil. many other people who are players. you know, 11 of the 15 people who used to receive aid from imf

are donor countries. we're living in a changed world, and governance is not doing very well in many places. might i add either here, refwretably. we need to do a job of looking into the future and try to figure out how we're going to stand up for america's interests and promote them more effectively, and that includes in the budget for foreign policy and in the option that is we can put on the table. now, one final word, if you permit me. on syria, where we hear this notion that somehow there was a red line and then it wasn't enforced and somehow, you know, it's a sign of weakness. i beg to differ. you know, facts are stubborn things. the president of the united states made his decision. he said i am going to use military force, but he listened

to people on the hill who said if you are going to do that, you have to come to congress. now, maybe some of them were, you know -- there were some crocodile tears in that particular plea because when he came to the congress to accede to the constitutional process of our country and get them to affirm his prerogative to do what he decided to do there was a resounding reluktants, and you fought it. this committee was the sole exception. we know what the senate floor might have done, and we know what the house would have done. the president made his decision. use force. but out of my discussions with lavrov, and mighty add president obama's discussion with putin, at the summit that they had, they talked about an alternative way of doing it without use of force. so we came to an agreement to remove all of the weapons. not just to degrade some of his capacity over one or two days or

whatever it was going to be. now, that would have had an impact, yes, on people's thinking, but it would not have changed the fundamental course, i believe, of what was going to happen. might have had an impact, though. but i have to tell you, the president made his decision, and he was ready to use force, and we actually came up with a better solution, which is get all of the weapons out, all of them out, and that still leaves us with other options, folks, so i don't think we should -- you know, i think we need to depoliticize this a little bit and try to find a way forward for us to -- >> i don't think when you have bipartisan concern that anybody is politicizing. i take tremendous offense at you making a comment that i have concerns, have some kind of political implications when both sides of the aisle express concerns. let me just say -- >> let me say -- >> well, well, let me finish. >> i'm not directing that at you

personally. i'm saying this whole notion of -- i think there's a politics involved in this notion that we're not, you know, pressing in enough places and enough things, and i just think that the united states' interests are better served by us trying to find the common ground and move forward on these things rather than falling prey to some of these, you know, i think stereotypes. >> i don't think the president made the kind of effort that most presidents would make in shaping opinion within congress, but we'll let that go, and i'll just say in general i can't imagine that you would feel differently that our moves to work with russia in the way that we did has certainly changed the dynamics in many places. certainly iran has been the beneficiary of that. russia has been the beneficiary of that. we have created an era of

permissiveness, there's no question. and i don't think -- i don't see how you can debate that. that's scholars on both sides of the aisle. understand that to be the fact, and facts are hard to overcome. look, you've got a tough hand. you've been dealt a tough hand, and i don't know what kind of support you get or not support you get from the white house, but we wish you well. we want to be successful, and in our foreign policy, but right now i will say i think the steps that we took in syria have affected us in iran. they've affected us in the peninsula. they've affected us in ukraine. china is watching us. it's affected us there. i hope that somehow during the remainder of your tenure, you're able to turn around our foreign policy in such a way that the statements that have been made are not true, but that we have some successes because i think all of us are very concerned. >> well, senator, look, you have

been a terrific help in keeping this committee working with the chairman, in cooperating in so many different ways, and i thank you for that, and i know this comes from a genuine concern. i'm not suggesting otherwise. i promise you. but i would say to you that i think that -- i think russia with all due respect is not acting out of strength. i do not believe that russia has particularly helped itself. have they accomplished a goal to protect for the time being and to "secure" crimea in a military concept, if not legitimately in international law? yeah. but at great cost. at great cost. over time if you look at russia's economy, there are real

challenges. they are running the risk, clearly, of isolating themselves further and of losing friends around the world. they've already lost them in ukraine where people who were once more supportive now feel threatened and, frankly, abused by what has happened, and if russia were to -- ukrainians, i believe, will fight over the long-term. that will not be a pretty picture, and i suspect that president putin understands that. so this is not a hand of strength, and i think we need to all of us stay focused on a strategy -- on a long-term strategy and recognize that russia also has far closer ties to ukraine and far greater interests other than our interests and democracy in freedom which are huge but in

tirmz of history we have to counter that, and we are. my hope is that i agree that russia has tremendous weaknesses. i think the hopes are they are moving to crimea and it ends up being one of the biggest geopolitical mistakes that could possibly have made. i think our concern is will the administration carry out a policy to insure that that is the case, and i think that's what -- >> he is clearly going to -- he will continue -- he has in the last weeks been conversing with all of the leaders personally on the telephone, building the

support for this current level of sanctions and for what has yet to come, and we hope it won't have to come because i think that is a challenge for all, but it's something we are ready to affect if we need to. >> year after year we have seen cuts to the hemisphere even though it is our own -- we in doing so i think undermine taking advantage of the economic opportunities, under estimate the security challenges stemming from international criminal organizations, and do not do

enough to promote development, educational exchanges, and the consolidation of democracy in the rule of law, and when i look at central america and the crime rate, i sigh what's happening in venezuela, in ecuador, bolivia, i see the challenges in argentina, and i say to myself there is an enormous agenda here to pursue. would you commit to working with me to figure out how we can better position the western hemisphere and our budgetary priorities here? >> i would be delighted to, senator. on some of the change it's a reflection of shifting circumstances. like columbia is much more capable today. it is doing things it wasn't able to do before. >> i recognize in columbia and mexico that's a fact. the problem is that we don't reinvest that money back in the hemisphere. we send it somewhere else. >> that's a fair comment. there is -- that's true. there are choices that have been made in the overall budget allocation process. there are other places where, for instance, in haiti there are some productions, but that's a reflection of money in the pipeline. the money in the pipeline gets

used, and we will be right back here asking for the same level or more, so there are challenges, and nobody knows it better than you do, and we're happy to sit down and work with you. >> well, let me close the hearing by just making an observation. i think as you well know, mr. secretary, from your service here, that the members who choose to serve on this committee are passionate about the views that they have as has been expressed here today from a wide range, and these views, i think, generally are held in very principled positions. we may not always agree as to them, but they are held in very principled positions, but i would hate for the hearing to end without putting that in context. this committee on a bipartisan basis has passed virtually every nomination that the administration has sent us from secretary all the way on down in a timely basis. what happens on the floor is another challenge, but on a timely basis overwhelm leg. this committee took one of the most significant steps that any member of the senate could ever

take, which is to vote in a bipartisan way for the authorization for the use of force in syria, which i think we all acknowledge was critical for the president to get russia to change assad's calculation on the use of chemical weapons. this committee in the aftermath of ben ghazi has in a bipartisan way, embassy security legislation. this committee passed oas reform, had for reauthorization previous iran sanctions that have been have iing are asly pursued by the administration, most recently legislation on ukraine. even though there are passionate views in a very strong -- i'm happy to say that we have had a wide breadth of bipartisanship in the committee on the critical issues of the day working with the administration, and so let me close by saying i have one

disagreement with my colleague who said that our foreign policy is spinning out of control. we are facing some of the most intractable challenges, and you, mr. secretary, have sought to go after some of the most intractable challenges that others could have just simply walked away from, and instead of walking away from them, you sought to try to change the course of events for the better. so from the chairman, i want you to know that i have every confident in your intellect, in your tenacity, in your capacity to try to meet those challenges. that does not mean we will be successful every time. nor does it mean that we will necessarily agree every time on how to get there, although generally we always agree on what we want to get to. with the gratitude of the committee for your service, and for the time you spent with us here today, i'm going to leave the record open medical the close of business on thursday and the hearing is adjourned.

>> mr. chairman, can i just you know what i fan i am of this committee, and i appreciate the bipartisan efforts. i really do. thank you. >> let me say to him simply -- let's bury the hatchet. [applause]

first, i want to say to the new speaker that we would like to invite him and his wife to our congressional district in missouri. i hope that in the days ahead we can come to your congressional district in illinois. >> find more highlights from 35 years of house for coverage -- floor coverage on facebook.

>> during this month, c-span is pleased to present the winning entries in this year studentcam the documentary competition. annual competition that encourages students to think critically about issues. we ask students to base the documentary on the question -- what is the most important issue the u.s. congress should consider in 2014? lu-yangth and juliana are sophomores at montgomery blair high school in silver spring, maryland. they believe the economic achievement gap is the morse -- is the most important issue. 96% of kids from the highest income group complete high school. it is almost a given. only less than two thirds, 62% of those come from the lowest economic quartile, do. fewer than one and 10 low income children eventually graduate

from college, nine percent. that is unacceptable. my name is anna barth and i go to montgomery blair high school. a rapidlying is growing incredibly diverse city in the washington, d.c. metro-area. it is a great school and one of my favorite things about it is the diversity. i see all kinds of people walking down the halls. there is a subtle this balance. something you cannot see just by looking at her students. -- at our students. why are students from high income and middle class families statistically outperforming low income students at every subject? this is only a snapshot of the problem that sweeps across the entire nation. the economic achievement gap.

>> for the most part, it is the gap in educational performance based on different groups of students linked to their social economic status. >> the gaps presidents is economical -- undeniable. fourth graders are typically three years behind their higher income counterparts. why? low-income income students test lower and drop out more often? >> this is a long-standing debate. it is one of those issues where the answer is probably -- >> being a low incomes didn't comes with a slew of factors that could hinder academic performance. the home environment is more

stressful, parent to work multiple jobs may not be home to help their kids with homework or read to them, something that helps younger children acquire language faster and do better once they start school. the u.s. department of education is reported that lower income students who have a good learning environment at school start school ahead of other low income students. further example find the importance of a good education from an early age. >> the environment could be very different. a family come from with one parent where they don't have the interpersonal support. haveommunities don't advantages. the community with a lot of thee tensor experience same. it is a really big challenge.

>> a low income neighborhood could also lack a library or resources. schools located in lower income areas with lower property values tend to struggle more to fund their local public schools. classrooms lack of resources, students economic status at home may also cause stress and neurological issues that can hamper their performance. >> we need to look at the achievement gap as a multigenerational issue. the families right now is children with lesser iqs than he could've had. brain or mind grew up in thatily with less stress, means i can only hold so much information at one time.

i can learn as fast -- can't learn as fast as somebody else. it doesn't need to think, it needs to react. >> basic principles in this country is that if you want everybody to make it based on their character, but the time and effort to work at something. that is why is it important to provide these opportunities because you don't have access to those opportunities, it is more difficult to succeed. it is important on individual level to make sure every child can succeed. it is also important to us as a country because we are only a successful as the people of these country -- of this country.

we can empower more students, we empower the country. >> we cannot use the brutal reality of poverty as a catchall excuse. oddselping them beat the that thousands do year after year after year. our children only have one chance to get a great education. they cannot wait for poverty to magically disappear. for them and their parents, education is the way out of poverty and they don't want to waste a minute. they are chasing the american dream with everything that have and we have to help them get their. re. we all share in that responsibility. nobody gets a pass. >> we first began researching the achievement gap, we had no idea what kind of impact it has had in our community and our country. it is an issue that affects all parts of the country. we cannot ignore the low income population.

letting them fall further into poverty with cover generation that is in a received polity education. -- quality education. the future of the country depends on how we deal with the achievement gap today. ♪ to watch all of the winning videos and to learn more about our competition, go to c-span.org. tell us what you think about the issues these is students want congress to consider. poster comments on our facebook page. itshe house is working on 2015 is a resolution -- budget resolution. we will talk to marsha blackburn

about the gop lost 10 year plan. the new jersey democratic congressmen bill pascrell. house democrats release their proposal on monday. aaron cogan recently wrote an article on the west virginia chemical spill. we will be joined later in the show. washington journal is live at 7:00 a.m. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> the house started floor debate on the republican digit -- budget plan. we will have some of that debate in a moment. then president obama signed an executive order at the white house.

this budget would balance in 10 years. that is something a lot of conservatives are insisting on. to make it balance, they had to use dang amick scoring. a score from the congressional budget office. it was based on the amount of deficit reduction, which basically said that the deficit reduction would actually cause the economy to expand and that would bring in more revenue and reduce spending. they use dynamic scoring for this budget to get it to balance in 10 years. that is the first time that that has been done. >> what does the leadership have to do conservative members to get them on board? i may need to make sure that it balances in 10 years.

thatthey also have to do -- they have to increase some of the spending cuts over the years. they reduced the government spending for domestic agencies starting in 2016. the dynamic scoring will probably help as well. that is something that a lot of republicans believe in. >> this is one of the five alternatives that the house will consider. how different is their plan? >> it actually cuts revenues a little bit. not a lot. it cut spending a lot more. it really cut spending. it would actually balance in four years as opposed to the ryan plan which bounces in 10 years. >> the democrats have a plan.

the headline in your piece says democratic alternative budget would add $1.8 trillion in taxes. what does thet, democratic budget show about their priorities? >> it increases spending a lot compared to the ryan budget. notdemocratic budget does really make any changes to medicare or medicaid. lot of other mandatory spending programs. increases discretionary spending. it gets rid of the sequester. >> in terms of specifics, where is the biggest increase that they are proposing? in terms of the biggest increase in spending, it is really spread throughout the budget. assume that unemployment insurance will be extended.

immigrationthat reform overhaul, which would bring in more money, and as i have said, the discretionary spending is increased. they increased spending on other social programs. it is spread throughout. >> the congressional black caucus and the progressive caucus will have their shot at a budget alternative. what should viewers know >> both of those budgets would have more spending than the democratic alternative. budgetgressive caucus would have the most additional spending. also, revenue. he progressive budget would actually increase revenue by almost $7 trillion. that will be over 10 years. by comparison, the democratic

alternative would increase it by under $2 trillion. >> the president's budget is getting a hearing on the house floor. what is the likely result? >> it is what every republican and democrat will vote against. that is because democrats consider it a gimmick. a representative from south carolina put the obama budget together. -- he saysally his that it reflects the democratic budget, but it is obama's budget. democrats say that it is a gimmick. it is not really obama's budget. they will vote against it. republicans will vote against it. they will say they're voting against it because it is the obama budget. >> in terms of what the senate might do, we are seeing lots of alternatives.

what will happen in the senate? >> little to nothing. chairman, budget patty murray, is not writing a resolution this year. it is possible that some alternative resolutions could be considered in the senate, but it is not -- there's not a lot of appetite to have a big debate over a budget. reporting atad the cq rollcall.com. >> thank you. in support of h.con.res 96 for the fiscal year 2015 -- excuse me. this is the fourth year we've done this. this being bringing a budget to the floor, about a toll the budget and to pay down the debt. this is exactly what our economy needs today.

we ask congressional budget office to look at this kind of deficit reduction. what would it do? it's very clear it would promote economic growth. in 2024, economic output would be 1.8% higher than it otherwise would be. what does that mean? that means by getting our fiscal house in order, by paying down our debt and balancing our budget, take-home pay would be $1,100 higher than it would otherwise would be if we didn't do something like that. that's one part of our budget. we call for more job creation, tax reform and energy development. all of these things would help get our economy back on track. now, i also understand there's a lot of confusion about what's going on in our budget, and i'd like to spend a few moments sort of clarifying and clearing up some of that confusion. first, our budget does repeal obamacare. let me say it again. our budget does repeal

obamacare because we think it is going to do great damage to our economy, to our budget, to health care. we don't keep are the tax hikes in obamacare. instead, we propose revenue-neutral, comprehensive tax reform. our critics like to claim we're keeping it. what we're saying is let's scrap this tax code in favor of a better tax code, including replacing obamacare taxes with pro-growth tax reform to create jobs, increase take-home pay and get this economy growing. second, we end the rate on medicare. the dirty little secret that the other side won't want to talk about is the fact that they turned medicare into a piggy bank for obamacare. they rated -- raided $716 billion from medicare to pay for obamacare. we say that those savings from medicare need to stay with medicare to make it more solvent, and if some of those savings from medicare are doing damage to the medicare provider

network, like reducing access to things like medicare advantage, then we have a mechanism in it here to make sure we can fix that. just like we did for the s.g.r., otherwise known as the doc fix. we think we need to save and shrink this program, not only so it is there intact, for those in near retirement, for for future generations who are facing a bankrupt program if we don't do something to reform it. second, we don't slash the safety net. if anything, we strengthen the safety net. this administration has made all sorts of promises that it has no way of keeping, or it's made all sorts of promises and it's not telling us in any way how they're going to keep these promises. it's promised major expansions in programs like medicaid and pell grants. how they plan to pay for it, we have no idea. we will not be complicit with the demands of these programs. we spend over $10 trillion in

the next 10 years under medicaid. under our budget, pro-growth programs will rise -- we grow the program each and every year after fiscal year 2016 onyard. we simply slow the growth rate by giving governors and state legislatures to customize these programs to meet the needs of their unique populations instead of criming the one-size-fits-all which has been failing the population and the network. it spends $600 billion over the next 10 years on food stamps. this is a program that's qude rupeled since 2002 -- quadrupled since 2002. we propose to give governors more flexibility so they can customize this program to meet the needs of their populations, but not until 2019, when c.b.o. says the economy will recover by then. c.b.o. says the pell grant is going bankrupt, it will face a

fiscal shortfall after 2016 and a year thereafter. so instead of making these pell promises that the government las no way of keeping, the budget maintains the current pell award, $5,730 throughout each of the next 10 years and funds it. our budget, all told, cuts $5.1 trillion in spending over the next 10 years. now, we do this by cutting waste, by cutting abuse, by stopping the age-old washington practice of spending money we just don't vand by making much-needed reforms to government programs. our critics call this draconian. look at it this way. on the current path, we are set to spend $48 trillion of hardworking taxpayers' dollars or borrowing it from the next generation. $48 trillion over the next 10 years, on this path we will

spend $30 trillion. by contrast, on the current path, federal government spending is slated to rise 5.2% on average in the next decade. this budget it will rise 3.5% over the next decade. hardly draconian. mr. chairman, there is nothing compassionate about making promises that the government cannot keep. when that bill comes due, it's going to hurt the vulnerable, the first and the worst and the voiceless. this is why we need to get spending under control. let me show you what we are proposing in a nutshell. the red shows you our national debt. our national debt is on the course to hit catastrophic levels. our national debt is going to hit these catastrophic levels which guarantee that the next generation of americans inherit

a bleak future, a lower standard of living, a burden of debt that they cannot have a high standard of living with. we in our generation have to make tough choices. we've got to face up to this issue, and what we are saying here with this budget is, the sooner we get on top of our fiscal problems, the better off everybody's going to be. we're saying if we get ahead of these problems now, we can phase in reforms such as medicare reforms that don't even affect people in or near retirement. so the sooner we tackle these fiscal problems, the better off everybody is going to be. the faster the economy grows and the more we can guarantee that the next generation inherits a debt-free future. we've never given the next generation a diminished future in this country before. . that is the great legacy of this nation. work hard, make tough choices so that the next generation can be better off. we know without a shadow of a

doubt that's not going to be the case. we know, according to the congressional budget office, in a couple of years the debt starts taking back off, we're back to $1 trillion deficits, our tax revenues are at an all-time high this year. the problem is, spending's outpacing that. the sooner we can get our fiscal house in order, the sooner we can create jobs, get economic growth. the sooner we bring solvency to our safety net, to our social contract, the more people can depend on these programs. and the sooner we bring these reforms to get our spending in line with our revenues, the faster we can pay off this debt. just like a family, a government that lives beyond its means today necessarily has to live below its means tomorrow. we want to make right by the next generation. we want to grow this economy, we want to create jobs and increase take-home pay and we want to get people to work. that's what this budget is

designed to do and that's why i'm proud to bring this balanced budget to the floor and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. we're looking forward to the debate on the budget over the next couple days. chairman ryan mentioned that the critics of this republican budget call it draconian. i would point out to the gentleman that the republican chairman of the house appropriations committee just referred to the budget that's before this house as draconian. now, the chairman and i do agree on one thing. which is that these budgets that we bring before this congress reflect our different visions of america. they reflect the choices that we make. they show what we care about and they show what we care less about. they are fundamentally different blue prints for the future of this country. now, the president has presented a budget that will

boost job growth, sharpen americans' competitive edge and expand opportunity in the united states of america. now we have before us the congressional republican budget. and of all the republican budgets that we've seen on the floor of this house since 2010, this one is the worst for america. many will argue, mr. speaker, that we should not be taking this budget seriously because, after all, we have a short-term bipartisan agreement and the senate would never pass this budget, but i urge the country to take it seriously. because what it tells america is, -- is what our republican colleagues would do to the country if they had the power to do it. if they can impose their will, this is the budget that they would impose, so we need to look hard at the consequences. so what does it mean for america? what choices does the budget before us make for our country?

at its core can it rigs the rules of the game for very wealthy and very powerful special interests at the expense of everybody else in the country. and at the expense of other priorities in the country. so, for example, if you're a multimillionaire, under this budget you will have your top tax rate cut by 1/3, all the way from 39% where it is today down to 25%. that's an average tax break for millionaires of $200,000. that's great. for people who are well off. what does this budget do to the rest of this country? it guts vital investments in our children's future, it squeezes the middle class and it violates important commitments to our seniors. now, let's step back because the chairman mentioned the economic benefits of this

budget. the reality is that our economic competitors around the world will eat our lunch if we pass this republican budget. it provides for perverse tax a incentives that -- tax incentives that ship american jobs overseas while shortchanging investments in jobs right here at home. as we will see over the next couple days, it guts important investments that historically have helped power our economy. and the nonpartisan congressional budget office tells us that in the next couple of years this is going to slow down economic growth. it's going to slow down job growth. and one estimate puts the job loss at three million jobs. at a time, mr. speaker, when we need to be modernizing our national infrastructure, the backbone of our economy, this

budget slashes the transportation budget by $52 billion this year alone. stopping new projects, throwing construction workers off the job. it will condemn the united states to a potholed road of economic decline. and it refuses to include one thing that the congressional budget office says will help boost our economy right now. which is to pass bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform. so, mr. speaker, as this budget provides these windfall tax breaks for the folks at the very top, let's see what does to others -- what it does to others in our country. we all depend on our kids getting a good education. it's good for families, it's good for the country. the saddest part about this budget is that it casts a dark shadow over the american dream and violates the fundamental

promise that every hardworking american should have a fair shot at success. at a time when we should be investing more in education in the united states, all told, if you look at early education, k through 12, and college education, this budget cuts it by $370 billion below current services. that has devastating impacts on everything from head start to early head start to k-12 to college. let me just mention one of the things it does to college student loans. it starts charging college students interest while they're still in college. before they've gotten out and gotten a job. that saves $40 billion in this budget. actually a little more than that. in the same budget that provides huge tax breaks to the wealthiest in this country. so much for wanting to address the lack of upward mobility in america.

rung by rung this budget knocks out the steps of that ladder of opportunity. tough luck and worse. let's look at seniors as our next example. those on medicare will immediately, immediately pay more if they have high prescription drug costs. right? the chairman mentioned that the democratic budget cut medicare and turned it into something else. the reality is the savings that were achieved in medicare by ending some of the overpayments in the democratic budget were recycled to strengthen key parts of medicare. including to close what has been called the prescription drug doughnut hole. the republican budget here reopens the prescription drug doughnut hole. if you're a senior with high prescription drug costs, $1,200

more per year on average as a result of this budget. and seniors who have been able to get preventive health services without having to put down co-payments will no longer get those screenings and now they'll be at risk of not getting the treatment and care when they need it. n top of all that, it ends the medicare guarantee by creating a voucher program. so for seniors who decide to stay in the traditional medicare program, they'll see their premiums hiked by 50% when that goes into effect. so, they can stay, but they have to pay big-time to stay. that's not the medicare guarantee. middle class families. i mentioned that this budget cuts the top tax rate for millionaires from 39% to 25%. that's a 30% tax cut. but it says it's going to do that in a deficit-neutral

manner. so, it's simple math, mr. speaker. if you're going to do that, you're going to squeeze middle class taxpayers. and in fact, this budget pretends that chairman camp and the exercise he went through in the ways and means committee, the fact-based exercise, never happened. because what chairman camp found was that you couldn't bring that top rate down to 25% without squeezing middle income taxpayers. that's why he had a top rate of 35% in his plan. and yet this says, let's go to 25% top rate. and that means $2,000 more for a family with kids in taxes to finance the tax breaks for the folks at the very top. now, this budget reserves perhaps its cruelest blow, for those who are seeking to climb out of poverty into the middle class, have the opportunity to

participate in the american dream. you know, in the last election the republican candidate mitt romney said he didn't really care about the 47%. this republican budget sets out to prove that statement. and if you look at this budget, it is an assault on americans who are struggling to climb out of the middle class. we had a big debate in this congress about food nutrition programs, right? the republican plan called for $40 billion in cuts. it ended up being $8 billion. this budget, $137 billion, millions more kids will go hungry as a result of cutting that safety net. and that is why faith-based groups that have looked at these republican budgets over the last three years have said that they don't meet the tests of a society that cares for the least of these. now, i want to close by asking

a question. because our republican colleagues say the goal is to -- the goal has to be in 10 years to hit this political target. it's interesting because the republican budget three years ago didn't balance until around 2040. but now we have this sort of olitical target that they have to hit and if it's so important to hit that, why do they ask everything of our kids and our seniors and struggling families and nothing from very powerful special interests? this budget does not close one special interest tax break for the purpose of reducing the deficit. not one. not a special interest tax break for hedge fund owners, not a special tax break for big oil companies. we've got a race to hit their political timetable here, but we're not going to ask those special interest groups to pay one dime to help reduce the

deficit. and here's the really strange thing. after all is said and done, this republican budget does not balance in 10 years if at the same time republicans claim to be repealing the affordable care act. it just doesn't add up. the math isn't there. what this republican budget does is this. it gets rid of all the benefits in the affordable care act. so it gets rid of the tax credits that help americans purchase affordable care. it gets rid of the provision that says you can stay on your parents' insurance policy until you're 26. it gets rid of the provisions that say you cannot be denied coverage because you have a pre-existing condition. it gets rid of all the benefits. but guess what it keeps? it keeps all the tax revenue from the affordable care act. and you don't have to take my word for it. this is the heritage foundation. this isn't some liberal group. here's what they say.

perhaps the biggest shortcoming of this budget is that it keeps the tax increases associated with obamacare. that's what they said about last year's budget, this year is exactly the same. and this budget also keeps all the savings from medicare. it doesn't recycle any of those savings to strengthen it, as the democratic budget does. but it keeps them and if you actually look at this chart, you'll see that in 2024, when the republican budget claims to balance, without the revenues and the savings from medicare, they don't come close to balance. so, our republican colleagues have to choose. either you claim to have a balanced budget and you recognize that you support all the revenues and savings in the affordable care act or not. but you can't have it both ways. and the sad thing is, after hitting everybody but the very wealthy in this budget, they still can't achieve what they claim isthe chair: the gentlela

onnecticut is recognized for twomens. ms. delauro: a moment ago the gentleman from mississippi said families are sitting around at their kitchen table. they are, and they are crying. they do not have a job. their unemployment benefits have not been extended. their wages have stagnated. they can't afford to send their children to college. this majority fiddles while rome burns and refuses to address any of these issues. but they certainly make it easy to lower the top tax rate for the richest americans. i rise in strong opposition to this cruel budget proposal. yet again, the house majority has put forward an ideological plan that puts all of the burdens on the most vulnerable among us, especially women and families. today is equal payday a day that women's earnings finally catch up to what men made in 2013. but the fact is this dubious milestone, that it even exists,

is a sad testament to the financial pressures that women and families face. this budget puts more pressure on women and families. 2/3 of seniors in poverty are women. they rely on the bedrock american institution of medicare to survive. this budget ends medicare as we know it. it turns it into a voucher program. seven in 10 elderly individuals, six in 10 nonelderly individuals rely on medicaid, they are women. the budget proposes $2.7 trillion in cuts to medicaid and other support to help low and middle income families buy health insurance. w.i.c. provides critical food benefits to 8.3 million pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and children across america. the budget drastically slashes the program, hurting the families struggling most in this economy. devastating food stamp a program in which 2/3 of the adult participants are women, and children, and they account for

nearly half of all recipients. it costs -- it cuts 170,000 kids from head start, educational resources for 3.4 million disadvantaged children. it cuts the pell grant by over $125 billion. it allows the insurance companies to once again charge treat -- than men to it cuts pell grants and allows insurance companies to once again charge women more than men and to treat pregnancy as a pre-existing condition. according to the center for budget and policy priorities, 69% of the cuts in the republican budget would come from programs serving low and moderate income people. this ryan republican budget is not a reflection of america's values, it's not who we are as a country. it is an ideological document that threatens american families, i urge my colleagues to reject it. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expire. the gentleman from wisconsin.

mr. ryan: i would like to ask unanimous consent to insert a very specific refuteation of the claims the gentlelady mentioned. the chair: the gentleman's request is covered urn general leave. mr. ryan: i would like to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. black. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. black: i rise in support of the house republican budget plan. unlike the president's budget, this is a serious proposal that balances our budget and helps our economy grow. our nation is $17.4 trillion in debt and if we want to pro serve this country -- preserve this country for our children and grandchildren, we must reform the way washington works. everyone knows that medicare will soon go bankrupt and that's why i'm so happy that this budget proposal save this is important program for our seniors and future generations. by transitioning to a premium support model, we can preserve medicare for those in or near

retirement and strengthen medicare for younger generations. furthermore this budget ends obamacare's raid on the medical -- medicare trust fund and repeals obamacare's independent payment advisory board to help ensure our seniors get the care they deserve. and despite what some critics say, this does not eliminate traditional medicare. instead, it ensures that americans will always have traditional medicare as an option. under this plan, every senior will have the support they need to get the care they deserve. those who attack this reform without offering credible alternatives are come plist in medicare's demise so i want to commend chairman ryan and my republican colleagues in the budget committee for leading where president and -- where president obama and the senate democrats have failed.

one way or another this country will have to address out of control debt and deficits and this budget does so responsibly. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. it's now my privilege to yield four minutes to a fellow marylander, the democratic whip, mr. hoyer, who is -- who has spent a lot of time focused on budgets to empower our economy and make sure we do so in a fiscally responsible manner. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the ranking member for yielding. i would first observe, mr. speaker, that the american people ought to lament another opportunity missed. an opportunity to come together and adopt a big, balanced plan for investment and balance in our fiscal system in america. mr. speaker, last year we adopted a budget and during the

course of its implementation with the consideration of appropriation bills, the republican chairman of the committee called the sequester numbers adopted in the 2014 ryan plan unrealistic and ill conceived. mr. r 2016 through 2024, speaker, this budget has numbers below sequester levels that the chairman said were unrealistic and ill conceived. chairman rogers has called the numbers in this budget draconian. chairman rogers, responsible for funding the operations of government and assisting and building our economy and its people. mr. speaker, i believe it's all that and a call to disinvestment, this intudget a call to disinvestment -- this budget is a call to disinvestment in america's growth and success. we have heard a lot of claims about what the republican budget

will do for our country. i've heard those claims from previous republican chairmen, frankly, they did not pan out. let me clear the fog away and get down to the raw numbers which reveal the magnitude of the damage the republican budget will inflict. as a matter of fact, with all due respect, i call it a retreat. the chairman's retreat. first the republican budget would repeal the patient protections and other benefits of the affordable care act, leaving millions without health insurance coverage. of course, it keeps the money. it just doesn't give the benefits. it would turn medicaid into a cap grant program and cut its funding by $732 billion over the next decade. that's for seniors who need long-term care, for people with disabilities who need medical services.

2/3 of medicaid aid spending goes to low income seniors and the republican budget cuts it by a quarter. it would also end the medicare guarantee and reopen the doughnut hole for prescription drugs, shifting costs back to seniors. secondly the republican budget disinvests as i said from many of the very important initiatives congress has made a priority for the future growth and competitiveness of our economy. it cuts over $120 billion from middle class college affordability programs like pell grant and will leave a college undergraduate taking out a student loan as much as $3,800 deeper in debt. by eliminating funding for a i plied research, their -- for applied research, it will reduce federal research grants by half. disinvestment. it could result in 2,400 fewer national science research awards and 104,000 fewer national

institute of health awards. the republican budget would decimate pediatric research. we've heard a little bit about that it would decimate pediatric research and decimate all other research as well, and other medical research into life-saving diseases by billions of dollars. not just pediatric research, cancer, heart, lung, blood, alzheimer's and others. $173 billion would be cut from highway spending over the next 10 years, disinvestment. even though infrastructure investments are critical to the growth of our manufacturing sector and job creation. . it reduces our investment in long-term education -- one minute. mr. van hollen: one minute. mr. hoyer: long-term investments will be reduced in education, research, infrastructure and job training by over 15% over the next decade compared to the deal the

republican chairman negotiated just four months ago. i will tell you, mr. chairman and mr. ranking member and mr. speaker, our competitors around the world are not retreating in terms of investments. perhaps the most egregious market against this budget, though, is it does not achieve the fiscal balance its authors give as the reason for these cuts in the first place. instead, it relies on dynamic scoring. that's pretend something will happen. now, if it happens we'd have a bonus and we could use that bonus, but if it doesn't happen, this budget will guarantee that we will be further in the hole. it has an astrisk for $166 billion. doesn't say what that $966 billion is about. at least 2/3 of it, but you guess. pretend, hope. if it doesn't happen you're in the hole. this budget -- 30 additional

seconds, if i might. mr. van hollen: i yield the gentleman. mr. hoyer: this budget is a blueprint for economic decline for vulnerable americans being left to fend for themselves and for an america less equipped to protect its citizens. i urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution and send a message that our country will continue to invest in its priorities. opportunity, security and growth. let us not retreat. let us serve this country and serve its greatness. defeat this budget. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i yield myself a minute. i want to rest the mind of the distinguished minority whip at ease, chairman rogers does support this budget. his comments in 2013 aside, he's a supporter of this budget. this budget balances using c.b.o. numbers, and i would also say this.

all these complaints about spending cuts or slower increases in spending aside, this budget, by the way, doesn't specify that n.i.h. is going to have all of that, all of these reductions in spending or reductions in the increase in spending will pale in comparison if we have a debt crisis, if we have a bond market -- if we have a shock. if we keep kicking the can down the road, the solution then will be so much uglier, so much more draconian -- mr. hoyer: will my friend on that point? mr. ryan: with that i yield to the gentleman from tennessee, dr. roe, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. roe: i rise in strong support of the house republican budget. today our national debt exceeds $17.5 trillion. mr. chairman, that's a blueprint for decline. more than $55,000 for every man, woman and child in

america. if we fail to address this mounting debt now, our children and our grandchildren will inherit an america that will be poorer, less free and provides fewer opportunities. to address this looming crisis, republicans propose balancing the federal budget in 10 years. most americans don't realize that discretionary spending has decreased four consecutive years, a tremendous accomplishment spurred on by house republicans. now we must show the same resolve to tackle our largest drivers of debt, mandatory programs, including medicaid, medicare, social security and snap. we can achieve balance without reducing overall spending. let me say that again. we can achieve balance without reducing overall spending by simply slowing the rate of growth at which spending increases. we must spend hardworking taxpayer dollars smarter. mr. speaker -- mr. chairman, i'm medicare age, and i realize

that for every dollar that we pay in in premiums we get $3 out in benefits. this is clearly not sustainable. as a physician, i would like to commend chairman ryan for his continued efforts to save and strengthen medicare. we must act to protect seniors' access to medical care before the medicare trust fund becomes insolvent in in 2026, a short time from now. this proposal achieves that goal while ensuring those americans 55 and older experience absolutely no change. i urge my colleagues to support this very conservative budget and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: i reserve, mr. chair. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from montana, mr.

daines. the chair: the gentleman from montana is recognized for two minutes. mr. daines: thank you, mr. chairman. to create jobs and grow our economy, we must work toward lasting solutions that puts our nation back on solid fiscal ground, stopping wasteful washington spending and balance our budget. the american people deserve more accountability from washington, and washington has a responsibility to the american people to produce, number one, a budget, and number two, a budget that balances. anything less than that is a failure to lead. and that's why i introduced the balance budget accountability act, which requires congress to pass a balanced budget or members won't get paid. the principles found montana common sense and they stand in stark contrast with the president's budget which never achieves balance. and the senate where democrat leaders have decided the american people don't deserve a budget at all. that is irresponsible and will only lead to never-ending

deficits and a debt that will take generations to pay off. that is not the montana way. that's not the american way. i don't agree with everything in this budget, but i know that the people of montana want and deserve a solution to our debt crisis and a balanced budget and a congress with the courage to lead. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm now very pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from oregon, a member of the budget committee and the ways and means committee, mr. blumenauer. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for three minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you. i have appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding me time. as i'm sitting on the floor listening to the back and forth and the division, i was thinking back to a time when there was consensus in this body on important investments

for our future. indeed, the character of our nature -- nation, our economic vitality was grounded in the investment the united states made in our ports, our railroads, our highways. the finest infrastructure in the world gave the united states the strength to be victorious in battle in world war i, world war ii, to have the economic strength to be able to meet national challenges and to provide economic security and well-being for our families. unfortunately, as families struggle, as we have difficulty providing family wage jobs for american workers, the american infrastructure is no longer the envy of the world as it is in the past. in fact, all the independent studies show we're nowhere near the top of the pact.

we've fallen to the lower ranges of the development world. the american society of civil engineers has given our infrastructure a grade of d-plus and suggests we'll need to invest over $3 trillion over the next six years just to remain economically competitive in the global marketplace. the failure to deal with our infrastructure is going to cost american families in terms of wear and tear on their vehicles over $1,000 a year and millions of hours stuck in traffic in congestion. now, we're facing a soon-to-be bankrupt highway trust fund. the clock is ticking. by the end of september it will run out of money, which means we're seating cutbacks on federal contracts this summer which means some states are having to act now this spring. the decision of tennessee this last week is the 11th state

that has announced cutbacks. the republican budget, being debated today, ignores this pending crisis, let alone the growing needs of american communities. their budget would freeze us in decline, a 30% reduction over the next decade from already inadequate levels, making it impossible to deal with projects of national significance, severely strange ongoing maintenance of our highways and transit systems. it doesn't have to be this way. a broad and powerful coalition ranging from the afl-cio to the chamber of commerce, the trucking association, the a.a.a., bicyclists, contractors, businesses large and small have joined with a group of 17 bipartisan governors and the heads of 31 state chambers of commerce. mr. van hollen: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one additional minute. mr. blumenauer: to urge congress to face this crisis so

we can have a full six-year re-authorization, so that we can put hundreds of thousands of americans to work, strengthen the economy and protecting our communities. instead of wasting more time on a budget that is going nowhere, we should come together to address our failing bridges, roads and water system. our future demands it, our constituents expect no less. i strongly urge the rejection of the republican budget if for no other reason than it freezes us in this decline for infrastructure and look forward to the day when we'll work together to solve this problem. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin reserves his time. mr. van hollen: may i inquire how much time remains on each

side? the chair: the gentleman from maryland has 40 minutes remaining -- mr. van hollen: 40? the chair: and the gentleman from wisconsin has 41 1/2 minutes remaining. on today's time, the gentleman from maryland has nine minutes remaining. and the gentleman from wiff has 11 minutes -- wisconsin has 11 minutes. mr. van hollen: does the chairman have further speakers? ell, let me see. all right. mr. chairman, i'm now pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, a member of the energy and commerce committee, mr. tonko. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two

minutes. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to our ranking member of the budget committee for the opportunity to share some thoughts. wow. mixed messaging. it really grips the american public. washington republicans are presenting their budget and proclaiming that we're about reducing the debt and addressing the deficit, reducing the deficit. we're concerned about our children. we're concerned about our grandchildren. while at the same time the mixed messages to the crowd that is above $1 million threshold, income threshold, we have munl for you, we're going to spend for you. we're so -- we have money for you, we're going to spend for you. we're so concerned about the debt and deficit that needs to be reduced, but we'll spend on you. we'll offer you on average $200,000 tax break so allow us to spend on you. somehow the children and the grandchildren are not aworry

then, so the mixed messaging is amazing. i had the opportunity to either meet in the office or in group sessions or in large gatherings here in washington a number of advocates who are concerned about investment that needs to be made in this federal budget. well, there's the alzheimer's association imploring us to find a cure, invest in research. so washington republicans say, no, we need to spend on tax cuts for the wealthy and we need to use your funds to reduce the debt and the deficit. . washington republicans will tell our college-bound students who need an affordable path to that higher ed opportunity that we can't spend on you or invest in you, we need to spend on tax cuts for the wealthy. washington republicans will sweep the savings and the

revenues of the affordable care act and proclaim to the senior community, we're now repealing the affordable care act, all the benefits that were there for you are now removed. washington republicans will tell a group that i met with about water infrastructure needs. we can't spend on you, but we need to spend on tax cuts for the wealthy. you know, this is a mixed message that is disingenuous. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. van hollen: i yield 30 seconds. tonchingtonching i think we should be -- mr. tonko: i think we should be truthful with the american public. that will grow for the economy, provide greater opportunities for jobs, there is a path to prosperity for a few that the republicans have put together with their budget.

i suggest we look at a highway for hope that has been advanced by the democrats in the house that invest in alzheimer's research, higher ed opportunities, infrastructure for this nation and continuation of the affordable care act. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield myself two minutes. you know, i think there's this view that the pie of life is fixed, society's static, the economy, a fixed pie and that we here in washington should decide how to redistribute the slice of the pie. you know, we reject that whole entire premise. life is dynamic, the economy is dynamic. we want to grow the pie for everybody. and you don't grow the pie, grow opportunity or grow the economy if you drive this country to a

debt crisis. if you continue spending way beyond your means, if you spend money we don't have that's taken from the next generation. this president has already raised taxes $1.7 trillion. the top effective tax rate on successful small businesses is almost 45%. the tax rate on big businesses ike corporations is 35%. our competitors, the countries we compete with -- i yield myself another minute, they tax their businesses at 25%. and so when we tax ourselves a lot more than our foreign competitors tax themselves, they win, we lose. what we are hearing from the other side was, that $1.7 trillion tax increase, that's not enough.

let's go farther and tax another $1.8 trillion and this rhetoric about winners and losers and the few and the this and the that, it's a notion that all the good ideas come from washington. it's a notion that goes beyond the idea that government needs to play a supporting role in our lives. but does government need to play a commanding role in our lives? it needs to dictate these things? government decides who wins and who loses? guess what, mr. chairman, when you do that, the interest groups that they are complaining about, they are the ones who call the shots up here. what we are trying to do with this budget is get the basics right. what we want to do is make sure we can make good on these very important missions of health and retirement security. and we want to make sure that

people, they get to decide how it's done in their lives. we want to make sure that american businesses have what they need to compete, survive and grow jobs in this global economy. we want to make sure that we don't live beyond our means so that our kids live below their means. we want to grow this economy. i'm going to give myself another minute. we've got a big debt. we all know that. the question is, who owns our debt? who's in control of our future? we are asking much from the next generation. when i was born in 1970, 6% of our national debt was owned by foreigners. 1990, when i was in college, 19% was owned by foreigners. today, 47% of our national debt is owned by foreigners. they control half of our debt.

that's not in our country's interest. relying on other countries to cash flow our country, to cash flow our budget is not smart economics. and we know we are taking control of our country and feeding it elsewhere. this is why we have to get this debt under control, for our kids, for our grandkids, for our economy and for our soncht. and with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. we all believe in growing an economy and greater prosperity, the issue is how do we make sure we have that prosperity as a country. we have two very important strains in the american character. one strain is the frurel strain and self--- entrepreneurial

strain and helped unleash huge amounts of potential. but we have learned as a country there are some things we can do better by working together than if we are just hundreds of millions of people working separately on their own, things like investing in our national infrastructure, things like investing in the world-class college system and working and investing in medical research so we can be the world's leader in those areas. those are what have made us a world economic power and have allowed us to support that military. and the problem with the republican budget is it ignores that part of the american character. and we keep hearing from our colleagues about all those tax expenditures that are out there, but i have to go back, mr. chairman, to pointing out, they don't close one of those tax loopholes for the purpose of

helping to reduce the deficit. and because they make that decision and because they decide to say, we aren't going to touch those very wealthy, their budget has to come after other people in the country, after the middle class, after seniors, our kids' education, after infrastructure. our budget and the president's budget dramatically reduces the deficit and reduces the debt as a function of the economy in the outyears going down. the republican budget didn't balance until a few years ago. whether you are going to be driven by the ideological target or whether your focus is on jobs and opportunity. i now yield -- with unanimous consent, to yield the balance of the time to mr. blumenauer. the chair: without objection, the gentleman from oregon will control the time. the gentleman from oregon

reserves. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. rothfus. mr. rothfus: i thank chairman ryan for the hard work he has been doing over the last several years as we look to get a handle on the spending problem we have here in washington, d.c. mr. chairman, our debt is out of control. in the past 10 years it has doubled from $7.1 trillion to $17.6 trillion today. we paid $416 billion in interest just last year. imagine where that money could have been better spent. failure to address the debt and deficits reduces opportunity and prosperity for future generations and directly threatens our ability to pay for our priorities like social security, medicare, a strong national defense and taking care of our veterans.

unfortunately, president obama has offered another budget that increases taxes, expands the government, does nothing to save medicare or social security and never balances. harry reid's senate will not even consider a budget this year. the budget we offer to the american people protects and preserves medicare and social security and balances in 10 years. when congress responsibly budgets, we increase economic security for our families and ensure we leave our children and grandchildren with more opportunities and a brighter future. mr. chairman, i call on my colleagues to do right things and pass this budget. i yield back my time. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: at this point, i would yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlelady from texas, distinguished member of the judiciary, ms. jackson lee. the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for 1 1/2

minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman from oregon and the members for a thoughtful and important debate, and that's what this is all about, it is about gripping a hold of the heart and soul of america. the budget is actually a moral document, a moral compass of where we want to take this country. i think what needs to be explained to the american public is in tulet, we have been making progress. the deficit has gone down from $1 trillion from the past administration, the bush administration, to now $680 billion. we are making trog, from losing 800,000 jobs a month to imagining close to 200,000. but the document that is on the floor today, the ryan budget, the republican budget chooses to not have the morality and affection for the american people that is desired. when you look at their budget,

you will see that $3.3 trillion, 69% of their budget is cuts for programs for people with low or moderate income, the people who need a stair step of opportunity. they give $200,000 in tax cuts to the top 1% and none of us have any challenge to prosperity and opportunity, but how can you have a budget that hits low-income programs or programs that give opportunity, how many have gone to schools because of pell grants, $175 million in cuts. how many people have gotten their health care from medicaid and still do, like children? how many people have needed to have the snap program? i believe we have budgets to work all people. i plan to vote for the c.b.c. budget and democratic budget and no on this republican budget. we need to have a standard that respects all people in this country and this budget does

not. i yield back. the chair: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for two minutes. mr. schweikert: i have been listening to the speakers on the left and as the gentlewoman just spoke, it's a moral document. i agree with that. let us discuss what is moral for the next generation and the generation after that and the generation after that. i grabbed this little poster which had been dropped off to me last week and it's a little poster from over at the center which has been doing calculations of what would united states' debt look like if you took the debt and unfunded liabilities of this country and

put it on g.a.p. accounting, what's the real number, the window attached to the regular debt. process in your mind what you have been told year after year of your unfunded liket. i need you to wipe -- liability, i need you to wipe that number clean. they came up with $205 trillion. $205 trillion of debt and unfunded debt and liability. you do realize if you go to google and look at the best estimates of the wealth of the world, our unfunded liabilities are now exceeding many of the estimates of the wealth of the entire world. and this is what so many members are willing to hand to our children, our great-grandchildren and the

future generation. if you want to make a moral argument that debt, those unfunded liabilities is the moral argument. i yield back. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: i would yield a minute and a half, the gentleman from vermont, member of the energy and commerce committee, mr. welch. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. well well we are -- mr. welch: we are making an argument as we see it alliance with our point of view on the budget and the bottom line is we have to invest and have a balanced budget, but the question i have about this budget is what's going to happen to the potholes in america? i came out of the state legislature where we had constraints on it and we had to find ways to pay our bills within the needs of the people of vermont to pay them.

we had to deal with real problems and required a confident approach in investing in the future. that has to be part of a budget and america's roads are falling apart, our bridges are falling down. this is a real disaster when it comes to meeting the infrastructure needs of this country. the american society of civil engineers rates our infrastructure d-plus and estimates that the amount of investment needed by 2020 to be $3.6 billion. this budget accepts the looming insolvency of the highway trust fund and does nothing to fix it. those potholes are not going to fix themselves and that is not republican or democrats but potholes in your district and mine. scientific research, both sides are proud at america's scientific achievements and what this budget continues to do is

reduce and squeeze national institutes of health grants by about 1,400. the university of vermont has seen a 20% drop in those research grants and affects folks who are finding the cures for diseases in the future. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. . mr. ryan: how much is left? the chair: while there is no set time, the time is approximately 34 -- it will be 34 for -- full time and 32 on the minority side. mr. ryan: all right. having the right to reserve to close, we have no more speakers so i'll let the gentleman consume the rest of the time. mr. blumenauer: further inquiry, as i understand, the majority has consumed 34 minutes -- the chair: has that much time

remaining. and the gentleman from oregon has 32 minutes remaining. mr. blumenauer: but we're going to carry that. got it. so i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you. and i do appreciate the back and forth discussion here, but i want to put this in perspective, if i could, because our friends with the republican budget have assumed, for instance, that we're really not going to -- we don't necessarily have to raise taxes. we could actually cut some of the loopholes that we've offered repeatedly, and although that is referred to rhetorically, they've never been able to follow through with any that they would cut. there are medicaid cuts -- and make no mistake about it -- these medicaid cuts are actually reductions in nursing home care for america's most vulnerable. that's 2/3 of this money, and it's going to be visited back on the states and impacting on

families. they repeal the affordable care act, but they keep all the associated revenues. we went through a campaign season excoriating democrats for the reductions in medicare advantage and they keep that in their budget. there's the magic of dynamic scoring, which we've heard about repeatedly for years which never quite proves itself. and then we have cuts to pell grants. we heard described in committee that these cuts to pell grants are not a problem because they're just an excuse to raise tuition and enrich lavish academic salaries. mr. speaker, this republican budget not only would constrain us to have a -- freeze us into a downward decline in our infrastructure, it would be the lowest level of nonmilitary

discretionary spending that we have seen in generations. it's not going to happen. it shouldn't happen, and my republican friends should not be able to get away with assuming that this is a viable and responsible approach. i hope we'll come to the point, again, where we can find a way to come together to deal with things that we fuelly agree on in a tangible way and make some real progress. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield myself four minutes. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for four minutes. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, budgeting is about choosing. budgeting is about setting priorities, and in this particular case, setting a path for the country. we've got serious fiscal challenges unlike any we've had before. and when we look at some of these fiscal challenges, it is

very clear that the sooner we get on top of these problems, the sooner we deal with these problems, the better off everybody's going to be. here in a nutshell is our big fiscal issue. it's not a democrat-republican thing. it's not a partisan thing. it's sort of a demographic and math thing. we are going from roughly 40 million seniors to about 80 million seniors, retirees. the baby boomers are retiring 10,000 people a day at this pace for 10 years. the programs they use, that they rely on like medicare, really important programs, they grow 6% to 8% a year. so when you have a pay-as-you-go system where current workers pay current taxes out of their current paychecks to pay for current when i'm 'm paying,

retired, my kids will do the same for me, when you have an 89% increase in the retirement population but about a 17% increase in the tax-paying population, therein lies your challenge. so these programs are growing so much faster than our ability to pay. they're growing faster than wages, than our economy, than revenues. to the point where these programs that we rely on -- look, i've seen social security and medicare do very important things in my own family, in my own life. these things are going bankrupt . the sooner we fix it the better off we're all going to be. the other problem is, if we don't fix this, if we don't even show the world or the country that we even intend to x this, our economy really suffers, because the economy,

business, banks, credit unions, creditors, small business, large business, they don't know what the future is going to look like. so all these things we need to do to get people to take risk, to hire people, to invest, to start a new business, we're slowing that down. that's why the c.b.o. says the economy is just slowing down. it's hard to get people out of poverty if we don't have good jobs that can get out of poverty too. now, you look at a chart, we're going into uncharted territory. we've had big debt before. our debt was as big as our economy in world war ii but for the years we fought world war ii and then it went back down. because of this problem i described, not a republican or democrat problem, just america's problem, our debt is going more than twice the sees size of our economy. -- twice the size of our economy. you can't have a prosperous society with na kind of debt. it's never been done before. and so what we're saying is,

let's get ahead of this problem. let's phase in these reforms so that we can make good to our promise to our seniors who've already retired, so all those people who are nearing retirement, people in their later 50's who are thinking about planning for their retirement, let's make good for them but let's acknowledge that those of us in the x generation and lower, younger, these programs will not be for us when we retire. we need to fix this. and oh, by the way, we need pro-growth solutions, reform the tax code, balance the budget, have an energy renaissance in america, streamline our regulations so businesses know how to plan so we can plan and create economic growth. this budget does that. that's why >> the house is working on its 2015 budget resolution this

week. on the next "washington journal" we'll talk about the g.o.p.'s 10-year plan. lays out his rell policies. an article for national journal on the west virginia chemical spill that happened in january. she will join us later in the show. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> i think what we need is something akin to the grace commission during the reagan administration or the -- commission, the base realignment during the clinton administration. an outside group with integrity. former members of congress. no currently elected members of government to come in and do an audit of government top to

bottom. it has a purpose. if it is not fulfilling that purpose or not doing it within a reasonable budget, it should be cut or eliminated. let's just take head start. this came in with the highest motivation. do you know there are three head starts. there is early head start. enhanced head start and regular head start. why do we have the second one? because the first one sbt isn't working. >> cal thomas on fixing a broken washington. immediately following afterwards, a heritage foundation book party as he signs his book and chats with guests. also this weekend on book tv, conference. literature and shifting identities in africa. strengthening communities.

a panel on publishing. book tv. every weekend on c-span 2. >> president obama signed an executive order designed to strengthen equal pay laws for women. the president is joined at the white house by lilly ledbetter. [applause]

>> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states accompanied by mrs. lilly ledbetter. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. [applause]

thank you and good morning. my name is lilly ledbetter and i am honored to stand here today on behalf of women everywhere who are struggling to make ends meet because of the gender pay gap. my perm story of unfair pagan in 1979 when i started at good year tire and rubber company. i thought a job at good year could help put my two children through college and enable my husband and i have to financial security in retirement. superadvisor,male i persevered through daily harassment and took as little leave as possible because i never knew if my job would be waiting when i returned. almost two decades into my career at goodyear, i received

an anonymous note that said i was being paid thousands of dollars less than my male counterparts. all i could think about is how much my family had done without and how hard it had been over the years and how i would never workers'to my male co- salarieses nor have the retirement benefits. my legal battle for fair pay soon began and wound up in the supreme court. when the supreme court decided in 2007 that goodyear had been paying me unfairly long enough to make it legal, i knew i wasn't ready -- [laughter] >> i knew i wasn't ready to give up my fight for fair pay. less than two years later, congress passed the lilly ledbetter fair pay act --

[applause] and president obama -- [applause] and president obama made history with his signature on the bill. [applause] the first bill he signed sending a clear message about his priorities. standing behind the president as he signed my name sake bill into law was one of the greatest moments of my life. yet i knew and the president knew that my bill was just an important first step in the fight for fair pay. in the five years since, we have seen my bill's companion legislation, the paycheck fairness act stalled in congress

with little movement the fight for fair pay. that is until today. folks often refer to me as the face of fair pay. but for today, at least, that time belongs to president obama. [applause] today president obama will sign an executive order that will ban federal contractors from retaliating against workers who discuss their pay and their salaries. not only is this a critical piece of the stalled paycheck fairness act, but this action also gets at what was my largest barrier for all of those years ago. i didn't know i was being paid unfairly and i had no way to

find out. i was told in no uncertain terms that goodyear then and still a government contractor, fired employees who shared their salary information. it was against company policy. whoever left me that anonymous note did so bravely knowing that he or she could face retaliation if they were found out. for my name sick bill through today's executive orders, president obama has been the outspoken leader women and families need on fair pay. i urge congress to join the president on the right side of history by passing the paycheck fairness act. [applause] i thank president obama for his

continued courage and vision and am deeply moved to be the one to introduce him today. please join me in a very warm barrack president obama. [applause] >> thank you. thank you, everybody. [applause] thank you. [applause] thank you, everybody. all right. well, thanks to my friend, lilly ledbetter, not only for that introduction but for fighting for the principle, equal pay for equal work. it is not that complicated. lilly, i assure you, you remain the face -- people don't want my mug on there.

they want your face. [laughter] you know, as lilly mentioned, she did not set out to be a trail blazer. she was somebody who was waking up early every day, going to work, doing her job the best that she could. then one day she finds out after years that she earned less than her male colleagues for doing the same job. i want to make that point again. [laughter] doing the same job. you know, sometimes when you -- when we discuss this issue of fair pay, equal pay for equal work, and the pay gap between men and women, you'll hear all sorts of excuses. oh, well, they are child bearing and they are choosing to do this and that. she was doing the same job. probably doing it better. [laughter] same job. [applause]

putting in more hours. but she was getting systematically paid less. and so she set out to make sure this country lived up to its foundings. the idea that all of us are created equal and when the , rts didn't answer her call congress did. the first time lilly and i stood together in this room was my 10th day in office. that is when we signed the lilly ledbetter fair pay act. the first thing i signed into law. and some of the leaders who helped make that happen are here oday, including leader pelosi, [applause] and i want to thank all of the members of congress and the state legislators and advocates

who are here because you contributed to that effort. . i want to give a special thanks to the equal pay task force who did outstanding work to make workplaces across america more fair. we're here today because today is equal payday. equal payday. [applause] and it is nice to have a day. but it is even better to have equal pay. [applause] our job is not finished yet. equal payday means that a woman has to work about this far into 2014 to earn what a man earned in 2013. think about that. a woman has got to work about in order to nths get what a man got. because she is paid less. that is not fair.

that is like adding an extra six miles to a marathon. [laughter] it is not right. ain't right. it is not right and it ain't right. [laughter] america should be a level fair race for a anybody, a place where anyone willing to work hard has a chance to get ahead. that opportunity for every american, men and women, has to be a driving focus for our country. more than 7 million americans have signed up for health care coverage under the affordable care act. [applause]