for america today than when president obama took office. now russia is in ukraine. can you name a country that has greater respect for america five years later? >> i can name lots of countries that have greater respect for us as we are attempting to move people out of guantanamo, as we end a war in iraq, are beginning to draw down in afghanistan, stand up for human rights as we are the single greatest supporter of humanitarian effort in syria, as we do countless things, as we save 5 million kids' lives in africa with our program on aids. many things that people admire about what we are doing. are there problems? sure there are problems. in different parts of the world. there is greater sectarianism. greater religious extremism. greater radical islam presence in various places. you're going to dump all that on the united states of america? please, this is a complicated

world, my friend. the fact is the united states is doing an amazing amount with some handicaps, i might add. a budget that is getting smaller, not bigger. having to hold back on what we are doing in certain countries. having to cut in certain places what we've been doing to try to help people educate or change or provide health care or do some of the things we do. i think you need to look carefully at this kind of talk about the action that produces the differential. president putin didn't decide to do what he did in crimea because of something the united states did or didn't do. he decided to do it because he could and it was in his interest. again -- >> and he didn't feel he would pay a price. trust me, i totally blame vladimir putin. if there is bloodshed it's because of vladimir putin, but we have to deter.

>> you have to measure price in certain ways. is he paying a price? his soldiers are not able to travel to some of their various places. they are losing money. ruble has gone down 7%. there is an impact in europe. i think he had a massive change in public opinion in ukraine. people who once felt better about russia don't today. he's united many ukrainians, even those russian-speaking against russia. >> he is still sending in agents under the pretext for further action. he's not been deterred. >> yes, he is. no, he hasn't stopped doing that, that is accurate. but there are, i think, questions about legitimate questions before you pull the trigger that need to be answered about what they may or may not be willing to do in the next days. they are willing to meet with europe, with ukrainians. that is a step forward. they are willing to sit with the interim government of ukraine with europe, with the united

states in an effort to sort of plot a road ahead. we have made it clear, the imperative to deescalate, the imperative to demobilize and move troops after my meeting in paris, they did announce a drawback of one particular battalion. not enough yet. not what we are obviously looking for. but a first signal. the question now is, can some of their other legitimate interests be met in a way that is appropriate, which doesn't invite illegitimate interests to be also mixed into the batch. that's the key. i don't know the answer to that question yet. i don't think we will until we meet, but i do think that begin the serious implication of the sector sanctions, we owe it to ourselves and to everybody to exhaust the possible remedies that the diplomatic process might provide. we haven't done that yet. we are going to find out.

obviously yesterday was a step backwards. no question about it. we've spoken out loudly and clearly as a consequence of it and made clear what our determination is. >> thank you. >> america must face reality and hope is not a strategy. thanks. let me congratulate senator murphy on behalf of his state. he is proudly wearing his uconn pin. there are other members of the committee that will not feel we appreciate the excellent game of both sides, but we want to congratulate senator murphy as he is beaming today. so senator murphy. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. we wear our husky allegiance on our sleeve and also on our lapel. secretary kerry, thank you very much for being here today. i think there are a number of guiding principles behind putin's foreign poll system one clearly is to re-establish control over what he calls the

near abroad. one is to do whatever he can to poke a stick in the eye of the united states. while i certainly understand some of the arguments and some of the interests by members of the establish to arm the the uk military in a lot of ways that creates a military contest in ukraine between the united states and russia. we're playing into his backyard and we are not willing to play by the same rules that he is willing to play by, and so, mr. secretary, i guess i want to ask you a question about how we take steps to insert the ukrainians back into this discussion about their future relationship with russia, and i maybe want to ask that

through -- in sort of two ways. one, how do we shift the diplomatic conversations from conversations between you and lavrov to conversations that are truly -- make sure that the ukrainians are part of that discussion, and, second, what are the things that we can do leading up to the may 25th elections to make sure that they come off in a free and fair manner and the russian advisory no ability between now and then to try to influence that choice. clearly, we're getting some really, really discouraging signals about some of the actions that russians are taking on the ground today to try to intimidate candidates. perhaps to try to dissuade people from coming out to the polls. what we've heard over and over again is that this is a revolution of dignity in ukraine, that they want control over their destiny again. how do we put hem at the center of these political deliberations?

how do we support the upcoming elections to make sure that they actually get to register a free and fair choice? we've been very sensitive to and proactive in our efforts to make certain that everything is eminating from the ukrainians, and so we have said very, very clearly that no decision will be made for ukraine without ukraine.that we're listening very, very carefully to what they need and don't want. they do want us engaged, and they do want us supporting them

in the way that we are through these discussions. yesterday in my conversation with foreign minister lavrov, i said it was really important to -- for him to have a conversation directly with the foreign minister, it would be great. he said i intend to call him after we have talked, and he did. they had a good conversation, i understand, and agreed to set them -- try to come to this meeting and see if we can work constructively going forward. scheduling a meeting or having a meeting cannot solve things all the time. things have to change on the ground. we all understand that. if you don't talk things then

spiral out of control and get worse. what we're trying to do is manage the process going forward with clarity that things weren't professed or upheld. statements were made by not violating the integrity of ukraine, and they did. all of these -- all of these protests and/or proffers have to be taken with a grain of salt, ending the process. we will continue to work very closely with ukrainians. our ambassador on the ground, jeff, you guys have met him, is terrific. he is very engaged. he is listening carefully. we are talking regularly with all of the members of the interim government. with respect to the election, it is interesting. in our last meeting in paris

there was -- while not accepting legitimacy necessarily, there was no effort to change the date of the election. there was no sense that that is not going to go forward. now, yesterday raises some question marks about that, and they're concerning, obviously, but we will continue to try to work. i might add, it's not just us. all our european partners, countless other people are invested ms notion that what has happened is a violation of the international order, the structure by which we have dealt since world war ii, in recognizing boundaries of countries and sovereignty and integrity of territory, and that's a serious issue. so that is all going to have to be resolved in the days ahead going forward. >> just a quick word, mr. chairman, about our ambassador there. i don't think he's taken a day off or a half a day off or an hour off since this crisis

erupted, and i will just note that he was voted out of this committee and out of the senate expeditiously so that he was on the ground in time to know the country, learn the players so that he was ready to go when this crisis erupted, having no idea at the moment of his confirmation that he would be needed in this way. it is just another advertisement for why the senate needs to move with all deliberate speed on nominees because you never know when they are going to be badly needed on the ground. >> well, thank you, senator. i appreciate that very much. and you're right. >> senator mccain. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> secretary kerry, i listened with great interest to some of your comments, and i think you're about to hit the trifecta. geneva 2 was a total collapse that i predicted to you it would be. the only tangible result is that people who went to geneva for

the free national council were kidnapped. the israeli-palestinian talks, even though you may drag them out for a while, are finished, and i predict even though we gave the iranians the right to enrich, which is unbelievable, that those talks will collapse too. you can talk about mali, and you can talk about other places in the world, but on the major issues, this administration is failing very badly. you are talking strongly and carrying a very small stick, in fact, a twig. what's involved is the dismemberment of russia of ukraine that they signed a treaty in return for the nuclear inventory of ukraine which was in the third largest nuclear

power. some individual sanctions, some diplomatic sanctions, suspension. not removal from the g-8. now more threats to come. i predicted that putin would go into crimea because he couldn't bare to give up -- because he is what he is. i am now very concerned because of our lack of response, whether he will foment discontent in the manner in which he is now, which will then demand autonomy for parts of eastern ukraine. when a foreign minister of russia lies to your face, once, twice, three, four times i would be reluctant to take his word for anything. here we are with ukraine being destabilize, a part of it dismembered, and we won't give them defensive weapons.

i take strong exception to mr. murphy's statement. we don't want to provoke. we don't want to provoke vladimir putin fwi giving these people the ability to defend themselves after their country is dismembered and there are provocations going on? that, i say to you, sir, is the logic of appeasement. the logic of appeasement. i want to know -- and i think the american people should know and maybe most importantly the people of ukraine should know why won't we give them some defensive weapons when they're facing another invasion. not the first, but another invasion of their country. it is just beyond logic. frankly, we don't give people assistance to defend themselves, then it just as the syrian decision, it reverberates throughout the entire world. i would like to know why it is not at least under serious

consideration to give them some defensive weapons with which to defend themselves. >> well, senator, let me begin with the place that you began with your premature judgment about the failure of everything. you know, i guess it's pretty ease where i to lob those judgments around, but particularly well before the verdict is in on any of them. geneva 2, my friend, i said would not succeed maybe for a year or two. if the truth is there's no military solution and there is only a political solution, you have to have some forum in which to achieve it. the talks on vietnam, you know

this better than anybody, went on for how many years? years. it took them a year to design the table to sit around. so i had no expectations that assad's calculations will change in time for the first meeting or second meeting, but what we learned is that the syrian regime was completely unwilling to negotiate any serious way, which helps in terms of the opposition, and the opposition showed itself to be quite capable, and that was important. 40 nations took it seriously enough, senator, to come in order to make it clear you needed a political solution. now, that's a beginning. that's all it is. i understand that. but if syria is ever going to be resolved, it's going to be through a political process, and that political process, geneva 2, is now in place, though the moment is not ripe because we still have to change assad's calculation. you know as well as i do, because you and i have talked about that, that that has yet to

happen and has to happen. secondly, israel, palestine. it's interesting that you declare it dead, but the israelis and the palestinians don't declare it dead. they want to continue to negotiate. >> we'll see, won't we, secretary? >> beg your pardon. >> we'll see, won't we? >> yes, we will. >> it has stopped. recognize reality. >> we'll see where the reality is as we go down the road here. there are serious problems. it's a tough issue, but your friend teddy roosevelt also said that the credit belongs to the people who are in the arena who are trying to get things done, and we're trying to get something done. that's a teddy roosevelt maxism, and i abide by it. i think it's important to do this. sure, we may fail. you want to dump it on me. i may fail. i don't care. it's worth doing. it's worth the effort, and the united states has a responsibility to lead, not

always to find the pessimism and negativity that so easily is prevalent in the world today. finally, on the subject that you raise about iran, we're talking. the option is you can go to war. a lot of people are ready to drop bombs all the time. we can do that. we have the ability. but this president and this secretary of state believe that the united states of america has a responsibility first to exhaust every diplomatic possibility to find out whether we can prove what the iranians say, that their program is peaceful. before you ask the american people to go to war, we have an obligation to exhaust the remedies that are available to us medical record to legitimatize whatever subsequent action we might have to take. now, we are engaged in eyes open negotiations. we have no illusions about how tough this is. i'm not predicting success, senator. i'm not. but i know we have an obligation

to go through this process before we decide to go to war. so that's why we are. you declare them all dead. i don't. we'll see what the verdict is. with respect to arming and providing assistance to the ukrainians. the fact is that we are currently working with ukraine to determine their requirements across the entire security sector, and based on those requirements, we're going to review the options with the congress and find out whether or not we're in a position to provide assistance, but let me tell you something, if we decided today to give them a whole bunch of assistance, have you to train them, you have to do things. which is the greater deterrent? we happen to believe right now that if the deterence you are looking for is going to have an impact, the greatest deterence will come from putin's own vulnerabilities in his economy and the royce that if we bring sector sanctions, russia is going to really hurt.

i think that's a strong incentive -- a strong deterrent, even as we consider what we do for the long-term for military assistance which will not make a difference fast enough to change this calculation. >> i appreciate the time, but facts of stubborn things, as ronald reagan used to say, geneva one, 50,000 dead. geneva 2, 100,000 dead in syria. now there's 150,000 dead. any objective observer will tell you that assad is winning on the battlefield. from the time when the president of the united states said it's not a matter of whether, it's a matter of when bashir as assad is going to leave, and no one says that anymornings and your view of what the ukraine yns need is vastly different of what the ukrainians think they need which is a sovereign right to defend themselves which is something we have done historically helping people who are struggling against overwhelming odds. i thank you, mr. chairman. >> john, if i can just say -- i

just said to you we are evaluating with them exactly what their needs are. we'll come back here and ask you. >> they've said what they need -- what the needs are a long time ago, and you and i could sit down in 15 minutes and tell them -- knowing what their needs are, and that's defensive weapons. >> the greatest single need right now is to get their economy moving and to be economically strong. they won't survive otherwise. >> thank you, mr. chairman, very much. mr. secretary, you talked about the russian-led unrest in eastern ukraine, and it has now been an announcement that they're going to try to have a referenda in ganest on may 11th in front of the presidential election on may 25th.

clearly, the goal of that referenda is to say that part of the country wishes to secede and go back to russia. can you talk a little bit about that as it is unfolding as a strategy, a referenda strategy in russia and what the administration is thinking about as a strategy to deal with that? >> well, thank you, senator. >> it is an unsupportable effort to violate the territorial integrity of ukraine. money has any illusions about what might come with that. now, that's the call for that, i believe, came from some paid

individual. not necessarily an announcement per se that that's what's going to happen, and so i think it's unclear. there are representatives of the ukrainian government that have gone out there to begin to negotiate. the deoccupation of the buildings and the process forward, and i think it's sort of -- it's a moving target right now as to what exactly may or may not happen. the issue is whether the russians are serious in this discussion that we hope to have next week at resolving these kinds of questions. part of their complaint right now is that there's an inadequate representation within the constitutional reform process in ukraine, and they allege that if there is a proper representation and listening to people in the north and the south, that that's really what they're after. i don't know the answer to that. if this is camouflage for this

other move, we're obviously going to watch extremely carefully, and the president is completely poised to move forward with the sector or other sanctions necessary to respond to this. what concerns do you have about the russians trying to interfere with this electoral process, and what role do you think we can play with the e.u. to make sure this next month, up until may -- >> the key is to have, you know -- the key is to flood the zone with observers, make sure there are -- we've got osce. we've asked u.n. we're trying to get as many people in there who can be the truth tellers. people who can inform as to exactly what is happening and allow less maneuverability for the pretext and the contrived situations to try to provide legitimacy. i think that's one important

thing. the second is to work with the ukrainians themselves to make sure that all of the instruments for legitimate open, free, fair, accountability, accessible election are available. >> and i would like -- while you're just at it, one more subject, and that is climate change. it is worsening. the ipcc report actually has shown a telescope time frame for the dangers that the planet is facing. could you talk a little bit about that as you see this impact globally? >> well, senator, i appreciate your asking the question. the impacts of climate change are growing enormously. not significantly, but just enormously. at a pace where you know, senator, very well because you have followed this for years and been a leader on it, all of the scientific analysis that suggested targets for that we

need to meet in order to hold the carbon levels such that we can hold the warming of the earth at 2 degrees centigrade, we're in excess of it. we're moving beyond them. we're moving beyond them at a pace that shows us bringing more coal firepower plants on-line, more methane being released, which is 20 times more potent than carbon, which is the consequence of the warming that's already taking place, more carbon dioxide going into the oceans, which is changing the ecosystem, more fires, more floods, more different weather patterns. i mean, there's just a profoundly impactful, clear scientifically proven pattern taking place. all of the predictions of the scientists are not just being met, they're being exceeded, both in the rapidity to which it's happening and the level to which it's happening. given the most recent ipcc report by the u.n. climate panel, really we've got to

respond and we've got to respond rapidly. the margin for error is disappearing, and when i hear people, you know, say to me, well, you know, some people still contest the evidence or they contest the science. without any science to contest it, by the way, but they contest it, nevertheless. they say, well, where should we take these measures? what if you guys are wrong? as you know, senator, better than anybody, if what you're proposing or countless governments across the world are starting to do is wrong, the worst that could happen is they made themselves more energy independent, they've got cleaner energy, there is less carbon dioxide, less particulates in the air, people are healthier, there's more renewable energy. all for the better. if the other guys are wrong, the people saying don't listen to it, what's the worst that can happen? the worst that can happen is life as you know it on earth is over. so i think people in public life

have a responsibility to employ the precautionary principle that when you are weighing various concepts and they're supported by science and fact and imperical evidence, i hope we take action. >> thank you for that work, and all the other issues that we've been discussing here today. they are tough, tough issues, but they have to be resolved. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. as i call upon senator paul, let me say that kentucky played a really tough, defensive, exciting game, and we appreciate them showing the nation what kentucky is all about. >> i know your consolation is sincere, and i wish i could accept it with a better attitude, but still unhappy with the outcome. thank you, secretary kerry, for coming today. one of the first things or actions that i remember as you began your office was that you reinstated the four employees, you know, that were involved and

implicated by the review board in ben ghazi. it's always to me been more of a concern about the decisions that were made in the six months in advance of ben ghazi than the talking points. in fact, i think the talking points have drowned out some really important decisions we made. we're all human, so these people i'm not saying are bad people, but some really bad decisions were made in the six months leading up. two of the big ones were made is i think there was a 16-person security team led by colonel wood who said we wanted to stay in country and they were not allowed to stay in country. there was also a request for a plane, and apparently that evening, you know, for a dc-3 that was denied earlier. maybe about six months before the attack. that plane would have been important. there was a struggle that evening, you know, to get permission from the libyans to get a plane. i think the c-30 they were trying to get on was a libyan plane. there really were some bad decisions made, and this doesn't make the people who made the decisions bad people, but they were bad decisions that were

made. your request for security that were turned down throughout the six months preceding the attack on ben ghazi, though, a lot of money was spent on things that i think most americans would say are frivelous and maybe not part of the immediate mission of the state department. i'll give you a few examples. $100,000 was spent on sending comedians to india. it was the make chai, not war tour. $100,000 was spent on getting electrical charging stations so he could green up the embassy. $350,000 were spent on facebook ads. $700,000 was spent on landscaping for the embassy in brussels. $5 million was spent on crystal wine glasses and crystal glassware, bar ware for the state department for embassies. you can argue the legitimacy of these, but it's hard to argue that in the face of the sdast irin ben ghazi, and it's hard to argue this in the face of people say, well, we didn't have enough

money. the other criticism i think that ought to be considered with regard to ben ghazi is that -- this is something i think the review board didn't adequately address -- is whether or not in the midst of a country coming out of war that really the state department should be in charge of security. whether they can adequately provide security. i think one of the biggest mistakes in decision -- these all happen from your predecessor, not you, but the biggest decision mistake i think in ben ghazi was thinking that ben ghazi was more like paris than baghdad. had we treated ben ghazi as a fortress in the middle of a military base, i think we might have had a better chance. nobody can predict exactly, you know, what could happen with different outcomes, but i think when we have a civil war raging, we have to consider whether or not one of the errors in decision was how we chose to protect or not protect the consulate. where is this still important? i think it's still important

because i'm concerned another attack could happen like this in other countries that are under state department control. i know you're probably well aware of sort of the situation on the ground in libya, but i don't know that it's perfectly stable. i'm concerned whether or not we could have another attack of this magnitude in tripoli at the embassy. we no longer have any consulate in ben ghazi, correct? >> we didn't have one then, senator. that is not a consulate. >> okay. we had some kind of -- it was -- >> not a consulate. >> okay. anyway, my concern is whether or not we're adequately protected, whether the state department can adequately protect, and whether or not maybe embassies in war-torn countries or countries emerging from civil war would be better off treated more as we did the embassy in baghdad, you know, with a much greater military presence and a much greater military oversight of protection and whether or not you have looked at the expenses and if you haven't, you'll look at some of the expenses that many of us have seen in the press and are aghast that we spent $100,000 sending some

comedians to india, $650,000 on facebook ads, $700,000 on landscaping, $5 million on crystal ware. it really in the face of this ben ghazi disaster, we need to re-evaluate how we're spending our money at the state department. >> when did the comedian goes to india? i'm curious. >> it's all previous to your tenure. i'm not blaming this on you. i don't want to be frivelous about sending some comedians. i mean, really, seriously, there are complaints we don't have enough money for security. >> senator, let me answer your question. good questions. legitimate. i keep hearing repeated again and again that there was no accountability for these people who were involved. two of them were forced to retire. they retired. the other two were essentially demoted and took on lesser responsibilities. that's pretty heavy stuff for

career people. this needs to end this notion that there was no accountability. not just the lives that were changed, but the lives lost and the people who were part of that, but these people, you know, obviously paid a price and a significant one. in addition to that, we've gone beyond what is required of the 29 requirements. we've done even more with respect to our embassies. every week i am -- every meeting that we have every day, as a matter of fact, we are starting the morning with an 8:30 meeting if i'm here. if i'm not, i'm informed. we have a review of our threat levels, and we have too many places where there are threats. we've done an incredible job under the hardest of circumstances, hardening sites where they can be, taking unbelievable precautions for our

people, and we've done a lot of different things. we've created a new deputy assistant secretary for high threat posts who is responsible for making sure they get the focused attention necessary to keep people safe. we've insured that the staff of diplomatic security go to regional meetings and regular meetings and security issues. we've discussed work requirements. i'm not going to go through all of it. we've got 151 new security personnel. we've had countless marine detachments to provide protection where we can. all of this has budget implications, obviously. i'm puzzled, and i'll look at them, and i'll investigate it. there's an incredible effort to tighten the belt and upgrade our

capacity for our security. >> do you think it was a mistake to have the ambassador in ben ghazi without more significant military protection? >> let me speak to -- there was a request put in for additional security for ambassador stevens, and it was given to him. he had additional numbers of people that went out there with him. the problem is it wasn't adequate, obviously. >> quite a bit of it was sort of unofficial militia. do you think it was a good decision to have unofficial 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 gene gephardt and i would like to invite him and his to our congressional

district in missouri, and i hope and in the days ahead jane i can come to your congressional illinois.n >> find more highlight from 5 years of house floor coverage on page.cebook c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago, as arought to you today public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> during this month c-span is winningto present our entries in this year's student cam video documentary competition. student cam is c-span's annual competition that en currents mid students tochool think critically about issues.

they are sophomores at montgomery high school. they believe the economic achievement gap is the most important issue. >> my name is ana bartsdz and i go to montgomery blare high school in silver spring, maryland. a rapidly growing diverse city. blare is a great school and one of my favorite things about it is our diversity. i see all kinds of people walking down halls. but there's a sult disbalance here. something you can't see just by looking at our students.

the one glance at our test scores is something obviously off. why are students from high income and middle class families outperforming low income students in every subject? this is only a snap shot of a problem that is across our entire nation. the economic achievement gap. the gap's presence is unde 23450eub8.

this is a real debate and it's one of those issues that you can say definitively. >> being a low income student comes with a flow of factors. the home environment is more stressful. parents who work multiple jobs may not be home to help their kids with homework or read to them. something that numerous studies have shown helps students acquire language faster and do better. the u.s. department of education has reported that lower income children who still have a good learning environment at home start school ahead of other lower income students. further exemplifying the importance of a good education from an early age. >> the family environment can be very different. they're a minority student let's say but they may also

come from a kind of family with one parent where you just don't have the two parents kind of interpersonal support you would necessarily could be the parent isn't well education, the community doesn't have a lot of advantage, could be dangerous. it could be a lot of crime. it's a really big challenge. >> a low income neighborhood may also lack a nearby library or other educational resources. since schools are funded by property taxes schools located in lower income areas with lower property values tend to struggle more. on top of the classrooms lack of resources, a students economic status at home may also cause stress and neurological issues that can further hamper his or her academic performance. >> so you've got to look at the achievement gap as mault jen rational issue.

there's stress, probably producing children with lesser iq than they could have. if this brain's mind grew up without stress, -- with more stress, i can't learn or concentrate as well. 's environment is very stress. it needs to react. >> basic principle in this country is that we want everybody to make it based on their character and their time and effort to work at something. and that's why it's important

to provide this opportunity. don't have ou access to this opportunity obviously it's more difficult. so it's important on an individual level to make sure that every child can don't have has ab opportunity to succeed. it's also important to us to the country because we're only as successful as the people of this country are successful. so to the extent we can empower more students, we empower the entire country. >> but we can't use the brutal reality of poverty as a catch-all excuse to avoid esponsibility. our children only have one chance -- one chance to get a great education. they can't wait for poverty to magically disappear. in fact, for them and for their parents education is the way out of poverty and they don't

want to waste a minute. they are chasing the american dream and we have to help them get there. we all share in that responsibility. no one gets a pass. when we first began researching we had no idea what kind of impact it had on our community and country it's an issue that truly affects all parts of the country. we cannot ignore the low income population letting them fall further into poverty with every generation that does not receive the quality education. to deprive a part of our people is to deprive the country as a whole. the future of the country depends on how we deal with the achievement gap today. me as i m

consume. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i am here to introduce and to rise 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 ithe chair: the gentlelad 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.