the chair: the yeas are 1 3. the nays are 291. he amendment is not adopted. it is now in order to consider

amendment number 5, printed in house report 113-544. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. van hollen: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5, printed in house report number 113-405 in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. van ollen of maryland. the chair: the house will come to order. ommittee will be in order. pursuant to house resolution 544, the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, and a member opposed, each will control 15 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from maryland. the committee will be in order. members will take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman from maryland has

the floor. the gentleman from maryland vked. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment reflects the priorities and values of the country. this amendment focuses on growing jobs now, making sure that we have a strong economy, and making sure we significantly reduce our deficit and debt as a share of our economy over the longer term. and does it in a balanced way. does it by closing -- mr. chairman, mr. chairman, if i could have order, please. the chair: the committee will be in order. the gentleman can proceed. mr. van hollen: it does it, mr.

chairman, by for example closing some of the special interest tax breaks that actually perversely encourage american corporations to ship american jobs overseas. we believe we should be in the business of shipping american products overseas. and this budget does invest in jobs right here at home. unlike the house republican budget, we don't allow the transportation trust fund to go insolvent later this summer. unlike the house republican budget, we do not make deep cuts in our kids' education. we think it's important to build that ladder of opportunity. unlike the republican budget, we don't reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole and require seniors to pay more if they have high prescription drug costs. we don't shred the social safety net. mr. chairman, i want to also bring to the attention of the body something else that's in here. we violence fund the veterans. mr. chairman, if i could have

order, please. the chair: please remove all conversations from the floor on both sides of the aisle. please remove your discussions to the cloakroom. please remove your conversations to the cloakroom. the gentleman may proceed. mr. van hollen: i thank you, mr. chairman. we also advance fund on a 100% basis the veterans administration, because what we saw during the unnecessary and unproductive government shutdown last fall, was that the closure began to put at risk the benefits that were being paid to our veterans. now, we already provide for the advance funding of those health care benefits, but what we don't fund in advance are the people who have to administer them, to make sure that they are delivered to our veterans on time. so we are very pleased to have a

letter here from the d.a.v. and other veterans groups strongly support this provision in our budget. it's something that they have been requesting. i just want to read one of the paragraphs. we would like to commend you for presenting an alternative budget proposal that -- alternate budget proposals that contains a provision for advance protions to all v.a. programs and services, a critically needed reform that is universely supported by veterans organizations and is d.a.v.'s number one priority. so whether it's veterans, whether it's our kids' education, whether it's making our commitment to our seniors, we choose to make sure that we fund the priorities of the country, and we don't keep off limits tax preferences for the powerful and privileged. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise?

mr. ryan: i claim time in opposition, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: i'd like to yield three minutes to a distinguished member of the budget committee, mr. williams from texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. williams: thank you chairman ryan. as a business owner 42 years, i know what it means to meet the bottom line and live within my means, both in my business and family. unfortunately, america hasn't lived within its means for years and we are nearing the tipping point. president obama and the democrats in congress want to push us nearer to the edge rather than rein us back in by sending money we just don't have and growing government with massive government-run programs like obamacare. the government already takes enough money from the hands of hardworking americans, and that's not the problem. the problem is spending. mr. van hollen's plan does nothing to address the real problem. it makes it worse. we need a budget that shrinks the size of government, reins in out-of-control spending, and prevents tax dollars from being subject to waste, fraud, and

abuse. the van hollen plan raises taxes by $1.8 trillion. when compared to the republican budget offered by chairman ryan, it spend nearly $6 trillion more, adds more than $4 trillion to the national debt, and never balances. the budget is a disaster that doesn't reflect the direction of our needs -- this nation needs to go, nor does it reflect what the american people want or need. we need a responsible plan. that's why i urge my colleagues to vote no on this suxtute. -- substitute. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. the gentleman is right that we do close some special interest tax breaks, but we also have about $400 billion in revenue from pro-growth immigration reform, which is in this budget. which at least some of our colleagues on the republican side recognize is a good thing. in fact, the congressional budget office has told us that one thing we could do right now to get the economy moving faster

would be to pass comprehensive bipartisan immigration reform. in fact, they say it will help reduce the deficit by close to $1 trillion over the next 20 years and generate some economic activity. so $400 billion in that revenue is for more economic activity, the kind of pro-growth activity we thought our republican colleagues liked. i'm now very pleased to yield one minute to the gentlelady from california, distinguished member of the budget committee, ms. lee, who has been focused on trying to make sure everybody in america gets a fair shake. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you, mr. chairman. let me thank the ranking member for yielding, for your tireless leadership of our committee. i rise in very strong support of our democratic alternative to the disastrous republican budget. our democratic alternative closes tax loopholes and makes smart investments in policies and programs that create jobs, cuts poverty, and grows the

economy for all. the democratic alternative raises the minimum wage to $10.10 which lifts nearly one million americans out of poverty. it also expand the earned income tax credit, and for the mfls americans still struggling to find a job, it extends the lifeline of unemployment compensation which house republicans have refused to consider. nearly three million people are living on the edge because republicans refuse to extend emergency unemployment compensation. our alternative protects chair, eliminates sequester, and includes as our ranking member said, comprehensive immigration reform which lowers our deficit by $900 billion. finally, mr. speaker -- mr. chairman, let me just say i appreciate some my republican colleagues have shown an interest in cutting poverty in our country. however we have starkly different opinions of how we achieve that goal. we must attack -- mr. van hollen: i yield the gentlelady another 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. ms. lee: we must attack poverty

not the poor as evidenced through the draconian cuts to the safety net in the ryan budget. gutting snap is not a path out of poverty. . the american deserve a fighting chance to enter the middle class. they can he serve better than the ryan budget. let me tell you the better budget for our country is the democratic alternative, which provides pathways out of poverty and creates jobs, protects the safety net and grows the economy for all. the chair: the lady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? mr. ryan: at this time i'd like to yield 1 1/2 minutes to a distinguished member from south carolina, mr. mulvaney. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for 90 seconds. mr. mulvaney: thank you, mr. chairman. i think it's north worthy that once again -- it's noteworthy that once again, again, this is the fourth budget cycle i've been through, the fourth democratic budget offered here that never balances, never balances. how do you ever, ever pay back

money that you have already borrowed if you never have a surplus and never get to balance? i've said it before, i'll say it again. if you borrow money from me and intend to pay it back, that is debt. if you borrow money from me and never intend to pay it back, that is theft. and that is what the democrats are offering here today, mr. chairman. they're encouraging us to borrow more and borrow more and borrow more and never lay out any plan whatsoever for paying that money back to the children, grandchildren for whom we are borrowing it. the only plan that will be offered here later today that does that is the republican budget. i strongly encourage a no vote on the democrat plan, a no vote on continued generational theft and a yes vote on the republican vote. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i just find this new-found ideology of having to hit a

particular target at a particular time interesting since three years ago the republican budget balanced maybe around the year 2040, and this year it doesn't balance. if you also claim to be getting rid of the affordable care act, because you have $2 trillion in revenue, in savings in this republican budget from the affordable care act, the same affordable care act you say you're getting rid of. you just can't pay -- have both things true at the same time. someone who knows a little bit about logic, mr. mcdermott from washington, a distinguished member of the budget committee, i yield him one minute. the chair: the gentleman from washington is recognized for one minute. -- mcdermott: the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, a budget is a statement of a society's moral principles. the democratic budget is an investment plan that creates a job for a marine that comes

back from vietnam -- from afghanistan. it guarantees self-security for single mom and her asthmatic daughter. it expands opportunity of a bright-eyed son from immigrant parents who go to college. the republican manifesto doesn't create a job for that marine. the ryan budget fires three million americans and it will ship jobs overseas. the ryan budget repeals the affordable care act, forcing that single mother and baby daughter back into the intolerable days when their family cannot afford health care. in summary, the republican budget asks not what you can do for your country but proclaims your country refuses to do a thing for you. the democratic budget invests in our greatest resore, the american people, the key to our nation's continued greatness in the years to come. vote yes on the democratic

alternative. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the vice chairman of the budget committee, the gentleman from georgia, in price. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. price: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to commend the chairman of the committee for the great work he's done and bringing forward a positive solutions-oriented budget. what we're hearing, mr. chairman, is the same song, different verse. you'd think they would get tired of singing this song because it's so out of key. spends more, taxes more, borrows more, adds $4.3 trillion to the debt and never, ever, ever comes to balance. ever. the american people out there watching this and looking at their -- reading their newspapers about what the plan is in washington, what the budget is in washington and they recognize that the democrats' plan is never ever to balance. not something they can do in their homes. people has to balance their

budget. not something they can do in their businesses. they have to balance their budget. we hope at some point in the future our friends on the other side of the aisle recognizes that fiscal responsibility has something to do with the american dream. when we don't balance as a nation, when our federal budget doesn't balance, when we continue to add, again, mr. chairman, $4.3 trillion more to the debt than the republican budget, what that means is that we're robbing from future generations. we're telling them, you're going to have to pay this. we're not responsible enough to pay it. you get to pay it. how's that sound to the young person out there who, by the way, is graduating from college nd can't find a job in their interest because of this faltering economy? so what's the alternative? that's the good news, mr. chairman. the republican budget that we're going to have a vote on just this morning, a positive budget that actually balances the budget over a period of 10

years. and not only balances the budget, it gets us on a trajectory, a path to pay off the entire debt of the united states. you think about the wonderful dreams that can be realized by young people and others across this great land when we don't have any debt. think of what happens when you finally pay off that car, what a great relief that is, when you're finally able to pay off your home, when you're finally able to pay off those debts, you wake the next morning and you feel freer. you feel more excited. greater opportunity to realize your dreams. our budget recognizes that health care is indeed important and that medicare and medicaid, not according to me or to the republican side, but according to the actuaries in those programs are going broke, bankrupt. what does that mean? that means that seniors and individuals in the medicaid program will no longer be able to receive the benefits, the services, the health care that we have promised them as a country. that's what that means. that's what this program does on the other side of the aisle.

that's why in our budget we save and strengthen and secure medicare and medicaid. we do so by making certain that patients are in charge of health care, not the federal government. the republican budget is the premiere budget that's being offered today. i urge my colleagues to oppose and vote down the democrat budget and vote for the republican budget and yield back. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. look, our republican colleagues are going to have to choose and tell the american people, either they claim to have a budget that balances in 10 years or they're going to repeal the affordable care act. but right now, because they get rid of the entire affordable care act, including the revenues and savings, they don't come close to balancing. i keep hearing this balance and the reality is has all that revenue from the affordable care act. the one thing we know is the nonpartisan congressional budget office says the republican budget will slow down the economy in the next

couple years, we make investments in our infrastructure, and i now yield to the gentleman who is making sure that our country has the modern infrastructure it needs and that's the ranking member of the natural resources committee and that's mr. defazio. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for one minute. mr. defazio: if it balances it may be on planet reagan. but it has a view of investments because they or ties tax cuts of billion -- prioritize tax cuts for billionaires. and it will cut out roads, bridges, highway and transit, $52 billion cut. that's a couple million jobs and a lot more crumbling bridges. we have something called the land, water conservation fund. it's funded through taxes through offshore drilling. they will not allow a single acre of land to be purchased by the federal government, but they'll still collect the tax

from the oil industry. and then what about the looming crisis in wildfires in the west? well, they've closed their eyes and they're pretending we're not going to have drastic wildfires across the west. and they put zero budget in there in anticipation of drastic wildfires. this is the most -- i just -- unbelievably, unrealistic and, i would have to go almost to the word -- and i can't attribute to people's motivation but hypocritical budget i've ever seen. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to a member of the budget committee, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for one minute -- two minutes. two minutes. duff duff -- mr. duffy: thank you, mr. chairman. i think this is a fascinating debate taking place today laying out two truly different

versions for america. my friends across the aisle have no interest in putting america on a pathway to sustainability. they advocate for $2 trillion of more taxes, but more taxes and more spending in a proposal that never leads us to a balanced budget. they lead us to a debt crisis. it's one thing to come into this house, into this chamber and tell the american people, i want to raise taxes. and with those tax increases, which are going to kill jobs at one point i will balance a budget but they don't even do that. they tax and they spend and they spend and they tax. and they never balance. mr. chairman -- mr. ryan, i know this is his last budget that he's introduced, i have a somewhat disagreement with him on this. and there's some good news and bad news in what the democrats propose. the good news is that they actually pay for all of their

spending. the bad news is the money they pay it with is still in the pockets of our hardworking middle-class families. it is going to be an attack on middle-class families who are going to pay for an irresponsible budget, an irresponsible spending path and in the end they are going to have a lower standard of living. with that, mr. chairman, i think that's unacceptable. i think we should reject this budget and actually be responsible for the american people. sustainable for the american people and truly get the next job for our next generation. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. just for your information, the gentleman from wisconsin has eight minutes, the gentleman from maryland has 6 1/4. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: i thank you, mr. chairman. i now yield a minute to the gentleman from oregon, distinguished member of the budget committee, mr. blumenauer. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: mr. chairman, the republican budget flies in the face of the reality of their own budget. it does nothing to deal with

the very real looming crisis of social security. they're afraid to inflict their medicare solution on the seniors that vote today. instead, it will bite long after the people arguing for it will have moved on. it repeals the affordable care act but keeps the taxes and fees they railed against. but there's nothing sadder than yesterday's ryan soliloquy on how america cannot afford to invest in its future. we don't think having billionaire hedge fund managers pay the same tax rate as hardworking americans would be a blow to prosperity. our budget invests in america's future, in infrastructure, in education, innovation while the republicans would sentence this rich, great country to perpetual decline. mercifully, this won't happen. their budget won't become law. in someday america will invest in our future again, close tax loopholes, work together to solve our problems and our

budget shows how. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i will yield myself one minute, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: we've had a good three days of debate here. i plan on saying more in a few moments. but i find it really interesting. i don't see much of a defense of the budget that the gentleman is offering and more of the continual, what i call discredited tax against ours. this budget increases spending on average by 3.5% over the next 10 years instead of 5.2%. we are proposing to spend $43 trillion over the next 10 years instead of $48 trillion. this is draconian, awful, evil, terrible, hurting people. look, we have seen this movie so many times over and over again. all the other side is offering is just keep doing more of the same. the same economics that we've had in the past five years, just keep doing more of that.

if taxing, borrowing, spending was working, we'd know by now. it's not. giving myself 30 more second. that is why we need a different direction, that is why we owe the country an alternative, one that actually grows the economy, one that balances the budget and pays off the debt, one that secures retirement, not with empty promises but real reforms, one that goes after waste and cronyism, one that respects people and does not offer more and more and more and more control in washington. and with that i'll reserve the balance of my time. . the chair: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: what we know is stale and doesn't work is trickle-down economics. the identify he deyou give folks at the top a little bigger tax break will benefit everybody else. didn't work. made the deficit go up. i'm now pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from minnesota, member of the finance committee, mr.lelyson. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for 30 seconds. mr. ellison: let me thank the gentleman. we do live in a great country. thank god before this congress, before mr. ryan's budget, understood that investing in our nation's infrastructure was critical to achieving that greatness. the budget being offered by the democrats, invest in america. we invest in infrastructure. the ryan budget does not do that. we go back. our country's never been made great. we never built railroads, great dams, great things to make this country the wonderful place that it is based on cutting and slashing and recontributing money up toward the wealthiest. vote against the ryan budget. vote for the democratic alternative. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin m ryan: reserve. the chair: reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i'm now pleased to yield 45 seconds to a terrific new member of the budget committee, mr. kildee from michigan. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for 45 seconds. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the ranking member for yielding. i think we can agree at least on the rhetoric that the best thing we can do to balance our budget in the long-term is to grow the economy, but it's clear we have a different vision how that will happen. we believe that a tax code that is fair, that's equally distributes the obligation to all americans, is one of the ways we get there. we don't believe that simply cutting taxes for the wealthiest americans in passing the obligation on to working people is the way to do it. we believe that we grow the economy by investing in infrastructure so that we can grow jobs and deliver products across the country and across the planet. we don't think we get there by cutting infrastructure and continuing to challenge our businesses. we believe we grow the economy by investing in the skills of our work force so that they can become more productive not by cutting those necessary programs. i yield back. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin continues to reserve.

the gentleman from maryland is ecognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. how much time remains? the chair: the gentleman has 3 3/4 minutes remaining. and the gentleman from wisconsin has 6 1/2. mr. van hollen: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. it's been a good debate on the floor of the house over the last couple days. the question boils down to what are our country's priorities? what are our country's values? we believe we should be focused right now on growing opportunity and growing jobs. that's what our budget does. the congressional budget office tells us that the house republican budget will actually slow down job growth and slow down economic activity over the next couple years. we invest in our infrastructure to keep america going, their

budget actually has the transportation trust fund go insolvent later this year. we continue to build ladders of opportunity so more people can prosper in this country. the republican budget protects tax breaks for folks at the very, very top, in fact provides millionaires with a 1/3 cut in their tax rate. they do that, but they cut our investment in early education and k through 12. we actually increase, we increase our early investment education. we think our kids' future is the most important thing for the future growth of this country. and we protect our commitments to seniors. we don't reopen the prescription drug doughnut hole. we do not end the medicare guarantee. yes, we significantly bring down the deficits and stabilize the debt to g.d.p. ratio in the out

years, and we don't do it by playing games. we don't say we are going to get rid of the affordable care act and then rely on all the revenue and all the savings from the affordable care act to pretend to hit balance in the out years. as i said earlier, we make sure we learn from our mistakes. in the 16-day shutdown which was totally unproductive and unnecessary, and all part of an effort to get rid of the entire affordable care act, a lot of americans got hurt. including our veterans who were on the edge. and so we do in this budget what every veteran organization asks this congress to do. we made sure we advance fund those appropriations so that next time, god forbid, someone in this house thinks it's a good idea to shut down the government, at least those who served our country are not put at risk in terms of getting the medical and other support they need. so, yes, we invest in our veterans.

we invest in our kids' future. we maintain our commitments to seniors, and we do do that by asking the most powerful and the most privileged special interests to contribute a little bit more as we grow our economy through commonsense bipartisan immigration reform. so if you want an america that is going to grow and prosper as one country, where we respect our individual freedoms and liberty and entrepreneurship, but also recognize that there are some things that history has taught us we do better by working together, which is what has made us a world economic power, then support the democratic budget. if you want to continue to support and protect special interests at the very top on some trickle-down theory that that will help everybody else, then vote for the republican budget. because that's what they do at the exence -- expense of the

rest of our country and at the expense of economic growth and prosperity for every american. so vote yes for jobs, opportunity, and security. vote for the democratic budget. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin is now recognized. mr. ryan: i yield myself such time as i may consume. first off let me start off by saying to my friend from maryland i'm glad we have had this debate. this is the last time the two of us are doing this. it's been a pleasure. i also want to thank the staff. all of our staffs have put so much hard work in this. i want to thank our staff led by our great staff director, austin, for all he has done. i want to thank the people over at the c.b.o. who worked really long hours producing all these estimates so we can write these budgets. i ask unanimous consent that i can put these names in the record to show our thanks. the difference is between -- differences between our budgets

and approaches could not be more clear. let me take them one by one. we have had a number of substitutes on the floor. there is one consistent theme from the substitutes offered by our friends on the other side of the aisle. while we are offering a budget that balances the budget and pays off the debt, they are offering a budget that never, ever balances. they are starting with a $1.8 trillion tax increase, that's on top of the $1.7 trillion tax increase that's already occurred. they go as high as offering a $6.6 trillion tax increase in the progressive budget. they are offering not only spending on auto pilot going out of control today, they want to raise it higher, $791 billion in this budget, to as much as $3.3 trillion in more spending. they are offering a budget to add trillions to the debt. now, when they say they want to raise taxes, and that's what their proposal is, again they like to say it's just on the

rich. anybody listening, don't worry, it's not on you. it's these few rich people. here's the problem, they have a funny way of defining rich. they have a funny way of defining it as small business. most of our jobs come from small businesses, those are the people who are going to get hit with this tax increase. that's where our jobs come from. second, we have seen this movie before, we know what it looks like. they have already raised taxes $1st7 trillion. look at the taxes on obamacare. that was supposed to be taxes on the rich. it taxes everybody. it doesn't matter how much you make, you're going to get hit with a tax. a mandate tax, a help sell your house tax, taxes, taxes, taxes. are they raising all these taxes so they can pay off the debt? no. to fuel more spending. here's what we are proposing. here's what the gentleman doesn't want to say. we are saying have revenue neutral tax reform.

meaning, take the amount of revenues we bring in the government today, keep that same revenue, but clean up this awful tax code. plug the loopholes. cancel loopholes so that we can lower tax rates for families and businesses across the board to create more jobs, more economic growth. we have already gotten the study to tell us doing this helps a lot. we are taxing american businesses at much higher tax rates than our foreign competitors are taxing theirs, and they are winning and we are losing. so we are saying, fundamental competitive tax reform stop picking winners and losers in washington, lower tax rates. second, this house democrat budget increases spending by $740 billion, above what would happen if we did nothing. now, that's $5.9 trillion more than our budget. they used to call this stimulus. i remember just a few short years ago all these ideas were called stimulating and stimulus. remember, mr. chairman, we have

done this. and guess what? stimulus didn't work. so now they call it investment. if you disinvest that means you're not spending enough. and investment, just remember every time you hear the word investment, it means tax, borrow, spend in washington. take money from hardworking taxpayers, borrow from the next generation, and spend more money in washington. that means take money from businesses, take money from small businesses, take money from people creating jobs, borrow more money from china, leverage it against the next generation, spend more in washington. we will spend $3.5 trillion this year. spending is slated to go above 5.% on average. we are basically saying let's get this under control. 3.5% is enough. what they'll also say is look what we are doing on medicare. all these awful things we are doing on medicare, we are saving

it for the current generation by preserving it as is. and then we are making sure that it's there for the next generation. here's the dirty little secret. look what they have already done to medicare. it was obamacare that ended medicare as we know it. it was obamacare that raided $700 billion from medicare to spend down obamacare. it was obamacare that set up this new rationing board of 15 un-elected, unaccountable bureaucrats to put price controls on medicare which will lead to denied care for seniors. it is the house democrats' budget that is complicit with the medicare trust fund going bankrupt in 2026. our budget strengthens medicare, saves it for this generation, and puts reforms in place so that the next generation can count on it without having 15 bureaucrats running the program. look what they are proposing on national security. they track right along with the president's budget. they are proposing to cut

compensation for our men and women in uniform, to hollow out our force, to cut training and readiness, and structure, not to lower the deficit but to fuel more domestic spending. so we will have an army lower than anything we have seen since before world war ii. we will have a navy smaller than what we haven't seen since before world war i. we'll have an air force smaller than we have ever had before. not for deficit reduction but for more domestic spending. we reject that approach. finally, their budget adds $4.3 trillion to our national debt. that's despite this massive tax increase. their budget never balances. ever. under their plan in 2024 the deficit will be $637 billion. at the end of the day it's just not credible. we trust the american people to have more control over their lives. we reject this budget, let's balance the budget, grow the

economy, create jobs, and pay off our debt and pass the house republican budget. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. therefore the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. this amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: roll call vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. those in favor of taking this vote by a recorded vote will rise. seeing a sufficient number having arisen, the recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 163. the nays are 261. he amendment is not agreed to.

he committee will be in order. the committee will come to order. he committee will be in order. pursuant to the rule it is now in order to consider a final period of general debate which shall not exceed 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on budget. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, and the gentleman from

maryland, mr. van hollen, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. the gentleman will suspend. the committee will be in order. ask members to take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished house majority leader, mr. cantor. the chair: the majority leader is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: mr. chairman, thank you. i thank the chairman, the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. chairman, i rise today in support of the pro-growth budget act. right now america is not working for too many people. for years our economy has remained stagnant and job growth weak.

at the current time three out of four americans report that they are living paycheck to paycheck. the ability to climb the economic ladder of success and live the american dream is becoming much more difficult for millions of people. mr. chairman, this is the status quo in america. but it is a status quo that we must not accept. . our constituents deserve better. our constituents deserve a government that is focused on turning this economy around and making america work again. nd work again for everybody. in the house, there are some very clear differences on how

to solve america's problems. my democratic colleagues believe the best way to move the country forward -- the chair: the majority leader will suspend. i'd ask members to take their conversations off the floor on the minority side in the back. mr. cantor: my democratic colleagues believe the best way to move the country forward is ith $1.8 trillion in new tax hikes. so that this government can even spend more. that's not right and it's not fair. working americans deserve a chance to put more of their hard-earned pay checks into their personal savings

accounts, to invest that or spend it on their families before they are forced to send it to washington. we house republicans have a better plan. a balanced budget that will begin to provide working families, many of whom are struggling to make ends meet, with just a little relief. the budget before us will create jobs, it will cut wasteful spending, it will reform our tax code and hold washington more accountable. plain and simple, this budget is pro-growth, this budget is about making america work again. today members of the house have a very simple choice. we can continue the status quo, stand in the way of economic progress and new opportunities for working middle class families or we can choose to

lead the american people down a path to prosperity where all americans have a chance at success. mr. chairman, passing a budget is not only an important step to restoring trust in government and faith in our economy, it is our legal obligation to do so. the house passes a budget even when our paychecks aren't on the line. the house republicans choose to lead on this issue. we have passed a budget every year since taking the majority. so let's now stand together and fulfill one of the most important duties that we were elected to do and pass a budget that the american people that senlt us here can be proud of -- sent us here can be proud of. i want to thank the gentleman from wisconsin, the chairman of the budget committee, for his

continued dedication in reining in wasteful spending and restoring fiscal responsibility nd in balancing budgets. i also want to thank the other members of the budget committee for their hard work continuously on this issue. and i urge my colleagues to pass this budget on behalf of the american people. nd i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: mr. chairman, i yield myself four minutes. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for four minutes. the gentleman will suspend. the committee will be in order. once again, ask members to take their conversations off the floor, particularly in the back n the minority side.

the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to start by joining the chairman of the committee and thanking both the democratic and republican staff of the budget committee for their hard work and should be mitt for the record their names -- and submit for the record their names. i'd also, mr. chairman, like to take this opportunity, it's chairman ryan's last year as the head of the budget committee, and i do want to thank him for the professional way in which he's conducted the committee. lest he think i'm getting carried away, this is an example where process did not lead to a better product. and that's why we're here today. because unfortunately i have to report that this house republican budget is the worst of the republican budgets i've seen in the last three years for the united states of america. budgets, budgets -- mr. chairman, budgets reflect the choices we make for our country. they tell the american people

what we care about and what we care less about. and at every juncture in this house republican budget they choose to protect very powerful special interests and the most wealthy in our country at the expense of everyone else and at the expense of all the other priorities. for example, they have tax cuts that actually encourage companies to ship american jobs , not product, overseas. while our budget invests right here in the united states of america. now, we heard the republican leader say we want a better economy for everybody. the congressional budget office tells us that this republican budget will slow down economic growth right now for the next couple years. that it will reduce job growth in the next couple years. all while doing what? providing another windfall tax break to millionaires.

yes, look at their budget. they want to drop the top tax rate -- the chair: the gentleman will suspend. he committee will be in order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. look at their budget. they want to drop the top tax rate, 39% to 25%. full 30%. what does that mean? $200,000 average tax break for millionaires. who finances it in their budget? well, math tells you middle income taxpayers pay more. they pay $2,000 more per average in order to finance trickledown economics, even though they we know from experience that that was a dead end for this country. and while our republican colleagues talk about fiscal responsibility, apparently they don't care enough about it to close one single special interest tax loophole to help reduce the deficit. not one. not a hedge fund owner, not a

big oil company, not one. and because they say hands off the most powerful and the most privileged, their budget has to come after everybody else and it does. so it hits our kids' education, early education, k-12, college students are asked to pay more interest. in fact, they got $45 billion savings by charging college kids more interest while they're still in college and not working. again, while hands off the powerful special interests, seniors, seniors on medicare see their prescription drug doughnut hole open. the safety net, again, sleded -- shredded and all for what purpose? now, they claim that they're going to somehow balance the budget at the end of the 10-year window. but you know what? they can't have it both ways. we have had over 50 votes here in the house of representatives from our colleagues to repeal the affordable care act. but guess what?

they've got $2 trillion in this budget from revenues and savings from the affordable care act. we use some of those savings -- we use those medicare savings to strengthen medicare. i now yield the final minute to the distinguished democratic leader who has been a fighter for america's priorities, nancy pelosi. leader pelosi. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. thank you, mr. speaker, for the recognition. i congratulate the budget committee for the hard work that you have done. i wish we had more than 10 minutes on each side to discuss the house democratic budget. but so it is. here we are about to leave for the holy season of easter and passover. it reminds me of the gospel of it says, where

your treasure is, there your heart will be also. this budget is a statement as to where our treasure is and where our hearts are for the american people. a budget, as our distinguished ranking member said, must be a statement of our national values. what is important to us as a nation should be reflected in our spending priorities, in our treasure. but you be the judge, i want to say to the american people, but the speaker will not allow me to address the american people, so their representatives here. is it a statement of your national values, of our country, to give a $200,000 tax break to people making over $1 million a year at the expense f increasing taxes of $2,000 to the middle class, is that a statement of our values? i didn't think so. is a statement of our values in order to finance the special

interest privilege that is in the republican budget, is a statement of your values to cut over $17 -- 170,000 children from head start? is that a statement of our values? children learning, parents earning, opportunity, fairness. is it a statement of your values to support a budget that says 3 1/2 million children in our country, disadvantaged children and economically disadvantaged areas, will have cuts in the budget of title one, is that a statement of our values in order to get tax breaks to big oil? is it a statement of our values to say to aspiring families, some the first in their families to be able to go to college, that we're going to cut over half a million, maybe over 600,000 kids from head start? is that a statement of values that to say to over a half a million young people, you will not have opportunity to have a higher education, instead we're

going to give that same amount of money to big oil for tax incentives, for them to drill, is that a statement of our values? i don't think so. i don't think so. so where is their treasure and where is their heart? the treasure in this republican budget is just what our ranking member said. it's with the special interests and the wealthiest people in our country. it is a trickledown approach that has never worked. it's worked for the rich. it's worked for the special interests. and their supporters. but it has not worked for the great middle clals. do we need any -- class. do we need any more evidence of it not working, that these same warmed-over policies that existed in the bush era, that took us to the great recession, a great recession where we met right before the election, in september of 2008, where the chairman of the fed said to us, if we do not act immediately we will not have an economy by monday, this is a thursday

night, that's where these policies took us. at the end of the bush years. and we're still digging out of that recession. and instead of having a budget that lifts us up to create jobs, to create growth, to invest in science and education, to keep america number one, they call their budget a path to prosperity, it is a road to recession, it always has been and that is what it is now. and that is what it is now. so at least we have a few minutes to discuss our value system, where our treasure is, with the richest and the special interests, or with the great middle class and those who aspire to it. and therefore where our heart is in terms of budget priorities in this budget. and this is an important budget. some people want to dismiss it as a joke because it's so outrageous. it's debtly serious.

it isn't funny at all -- deadly serious. it isn't funny at all because of the impact it has on the lives of america's families. our children, our seniors, voucherizing medicare, removing the guarantee of medicare for our seniors. is that a statement of our values to say to our seniors, you are on your own? you are on your own. don't think so. so our heart is with the middle class, we will put our treasure there. with investments in education, job creation, investments in science. i'll just close, again, i started with the bible, scientific research gives us an almost biblical power to cure. where there is scientific opportunity, we almost have a moral responsibility, certainly a moral imperative to invest in it. to improve health, to improve the quality of health in our country. and to make sure that everybody has access to it. but don't worry about the

access to it, because our investments, our investments in basic scientific research are seriously impaired by this budget. it does violence to any concept of science that keeps innovation making america number one, advancing innovation, investments in science and technology, undermining investments in how we protect our environment so our children can breathe clean air and drink clean water, about how we protect our america by investments in science and technology to do so and the intelligence to avoid conflict, to avoid conflict. and the investments in job creation that science will enable us to do. so if you believe in knowledge, if you believe in fact, if you believe in the middle class you

must reject the republican budget. you must reject the republican budget. what the republican leadership is asking members to do is something that i don't know that they share that value. certainly republicans across the country do not. republicans across the country support education, investments in sigh epidemics, and the rest. any poll will show you that. just one other thing. if you really want to reduce the deficit, one of the fastest ways to do it is have a budget as our does, includes comprehensive immigration reform which reduces the deficit by $900 million, $900 with a b, billion according to the congressional budget office. so by reason of treasure, by reason of heart, by reason of values, by reason of ethics, by reason of honoring our responsibility to the american people, a good strong no on the ryan republican budget.

it's a path to ruin. it is not a path to prosperity. mr. van hollen's budget is a budget of -- about of growth, keeping america number one, strengthening the middle class which is the backbone of our democracy. thank you-all. ote no on this budget. the chair: the time of the gentlelady has expired. he committee will be in order. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. ryan: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. ryan: let me start of by saying you have presided over this budget for many years. you have set a great example for the rest of us. this is your last year serving, and i want to thank you for what

you have done for this institution. thank you for setting a great example. i ask unanimous consent that that applause did not take out of my time. the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, what this debate comes down to is a he question of trust. we have offered a budget because we trust the american people. unlike the senate democrats who once again have punted, chosen not to even offer a budget this year, we trust the people to make an honest assessment. we trust them to make the right choice for their future.

now to their credit the house democrats have offered budgets as well. the problem is they put their trust in washington. every time you hear this word investment, just know what that means. take from hardworking taxpayers, borrow more money from our next generation, from other countries, spend it in washington. time and again they are proposing to put government in the driver's seat. they have already engineered to take over our entire health care sector. they are overregulating our energy sector. they are depriving us of jobs. they won't even give us the keystone pipeline. they are proposing yet new taxes. another $1.8 trillion tax increase. they are proposing more cronyism. they are proposing more control for washington, less control of

our communities, less control over our businesses, less control over our lives. less control over our futures. in my respectful opinion it is a vision that is both paternalistic, arrogant, and down right condesending. you know, big government in theory, it sounds compelling. in practice it's totally different. remember if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. remember, if you like your health care plan you can keep your health care plan. or remember, if government just takes over this sector, it will lower your costs. big government in practice is so different than the theory. the results have nothing to do with the rhetoric. we, on the other hand, trust the eople.

we are offering a balanced budget that pays down the debt. we are offering patient centered solutions. we are offering patient centered solutions so patients are the nucleus of the health care system, not the government. we are offering a plan to save medicare now and for future generations. we are offering a stronger safety net with state flexibility to help meet people's needs and to help people get from welfare to work to make the most of their lives. we are offering pro-growth tax code. we are offering more energy jobs. you can boil the differences down to one question -- who knows better? the people or washington. we have made our choice with this budget. i trust the american people to make theirs.

mr. chairman, let's call the ote. the chair: all time for debate has expired. under the rule the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration, pursuant to house resolution 536 -- the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has under consideration house concurrent resolution 96 and pursuant to house resolution 544

reports the concurrent esolution back to the house. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the concurrent resolution. under clause 10 of rule 20, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, this five-minute vote will be followed by a five-minute vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal, if ordered. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 219, the nays are 205. the concurrent resolution is adopted. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the question is on agreeing to the approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the journal standed a-- stands pproved.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my name as co-sponsor of h.r. 2377. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on the judiciary be discharged from further consideration of s. 2195. mr. goodlatte: and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 2195, an act to deny admission to the united states to any representative to the united nations who has been found to have been engaged in espionage activities or a terrorist activity against the united states and poses a threat to united states national security interests. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the bill? without objection, the bill is read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair lays before the house

a privileged concurrent resolution. the clerk: senate concurrent resolution 35, resolved that when the senate recesses or adjourns on any day from thursday, april 10, 2014, through thursday, april 24, 2014, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority leader or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12:00 noon on monday, april 28, 2014, or such other time on that day as may be specified by its majority leader or his designee and the motion to recess or adjourn or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, which ever occurs first, and that when the house adjourns on any legislative day from thursday, april 10, 2014, through thursday, april 24, 2014, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its majority leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on monday, april 28, 2014, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 3 of this concurrent

resolution, which ever occurs first. section 2-a, the majority leader of the senate or his designee, after consultation with the minority leader of the senate, shall notify the members of the senate to reassemble at such place and time he may designate if in his opinion, the public interest shall warrant it. b, after reassembling, pursuant to subsection a, when the senate adjourns on a motion offered pursuant to the subsection by its majority leader or his designee, the senate shall again stand adjourned pursuant to the first section of this concurrent resolution. section 3-a. the speaker of his designee, after consultation with the minority leader of the house, shall notify members of the house to reassemble at such place and time he may designate if in his opinion the public interest shall warrant it. b, after reassembling, pursuant to subsection a, when the house adjourns on a motion offered pursuant to the subsection by its majority leader or his

designee, the house shall again stand adjourned pursuant to the first section of this concurrent resolution. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the concurrent resolution is agreed to and a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lamborn: mr. speaker, last week we learned something shocking and appalling. the iranian government wants to appoint a terrorist as their ambassador to the united nations. a man who participated in the 1979 terrorist attack on our embassy in tehran. this is unconscionable and unacceptable. last week senator ted cruz and i introduced legislation to fix this problem. this bill gives the president the authority he needs to deny this individual a visa.

senator cruz pushed the bill through the senate unanimously on monday. i've been working with house leadership this week to quickly move this bill forward here in the house so that we do not have an iranian terrorist walking the streets of new york city. and having diplomatic immunity. i am proud to report that we just passed this bill unanimously. i thank my colleagues and house leadership for passing the cruz-lamborn legislation. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. frankel: thank you, mr. speaker. they cradle us in their arms when we were babies, picked us off the ground when we scraped our knees, worked long hours to send us to college and embraced us with unconditional love.

i'm talking about our parents and our grandparents and that's why, mr. speaker, i am distraught with tears in my heart because of the republican budget. slashing medicaid by billions, cutting critical funding for our neediest seniors in nursing homes. when our grannies and gramps are at their weakest, their oldest, their loneliest, the republican ryan budget puts them in a wheelchair and throws them off a cliff. and that is wrong, mr. speaker. i say no to this budget. we can do much better. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the school's centennial anniversary. the school will celebrate 100 years of learning and service

this weekend. it is a world renowned institution in dallas, texas, and in my congressional district. the school educates over 1,000 students from pre-k to 12th grade. it stands on the same four cornerstones upon which it was founded. mr. marchant: character, courtesy, scholarship and athletics. these four cornerstones were the original vision of the school's founder, ms. ella hockaday. they remain the very fabric of the school and will continue to guide hockaday students for years to come. i ask all of my colleagues today to join me in honoring the hockaday community on this very historic occasion. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in honor of the national day of silence. tomorrow is the 17th year we've commemorated the national day of silence. it's a time when students across the country remain silent for a whole day to draw attention to discrimination towards their lgbt peers. our country's made great progress toward more acceptable and tolerance for gay, lesbian individuals. mr. farr: however, gender expansive students, gender diverse students and straight allies still face a lot of fear and discrimination. i want all these students to know they are not alone. i say this every year but i continue to be so proud of the young constituents, their parents and families who are working to make a world a better place for all people, no matter your race, your color, your gender or your sexual orientation. for example, jordan, a ninth grade student transgender male in santa cruz will be the m.c. at the 17th annual queer youth

leadership awards. jordan's mom heidi is an advisory council member to the transteen project and a facilitator for transfamily support group. though many lgbt students and their allies are silent tomorrow, we in congress must never be silent. it is our job to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? . >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise to pay tribute to jane tucker of dallastown, pennsylvania, who was honored at today's victims' rights caucus awards. she endured years of abuse at the hands of her first husband in the 1950's. through tenacity and perseverance, she dedicated

decades of her life to access york, a service providing shelter for victims. she continues at this time as a volunteer at access york and serves as inspiration to the countless victims who turn to access york for protection. she is the epitome of strength and integrity. from a battered her o-- mother to a founding mother of access york, her story is a story of triumph over tragedy. i'm proud to be part of honoring her accomplishment with the unsung hero award. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the republican budget put together by chairman ryan is one of the world's worst

vanity projects. it doesn't actually help the american people. it simply fulfills mr. ryan's ideological fantasies. mr. takano: i want to to -- i want a budget that will grow our economy, create jobs, invest in the american people. mr. ryan wants a budget that will make ayn rand proud. i want a budget that improves our national education system. mr. ryan's budget would cut funding for nearly 8,000 schools. i want a budget that expands job training. mr. ryan's budget would deny 3.5 million americans access to job training programs. i want a budget that keeps the promises we made to our seniors. mr. ryan's budget, however, ends the guarantee of medicare and turns it into a voucher system. mr. speaker, the ryan budget is an unmitigated disaster.

i opposed it and i know all my democratic colleagues opposed it. this budget is at odds with what the american people need. thank you, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise to congratulate walter h. keck junior. he joined the air force in 1961. throughout his 27-year military career he rose through the ranks to master sergeant before retiring in 1988. in 1989 he began his law enforcement career as an officer with the harrison county sheriff's department. nearly 10 years later, he assisted in the city of daberville in creating its

police department while continuing to work for harrison county. mr. palazzo: he'll retire on may 6, 2014, with over 28 years law enforcement service. he's been described as a man of integrity, dedication and compassion and as a man who truly cares about the citizens he serves. the ck, on behalf of united states congress, thank you for your servicism wish you all the best in your future endeavors. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> 10 years ago, a plane carrying rwanda's president was shot down. hundreds of thousands of people,

estimates range up to one million, were killed in a matter of weeks. many were butchered with machetes they bodies left to rot in the african sun. entire families were slaughtered at once. the goal was simple. to kill every tutsi in ru wan dasm the killing went on for three month -- in rwanda. the killing went on for three months until rebel forces toppled the government and took over a deeply troubled nation. rwanda has made a lot of progress, it's taken on the dell cant task of bringing those responsible for the genocide to justice without tearing the country apart. rwanda's saga, even as we mourn the dead, is ultimately a story of hope. it stands as proof of our failure to live up to the promise after the holocaust of

never again. today's u.n. security council vote is a first step to this kind of e of slaughter. i urge us to support this quickly, lives are on the line. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mcgovern: every year we celebrate easter and passover with food. yet for many, it's no different than any other day. it's a struggle at best and a failure at worst. it's a failure of this institution that we tolerate incredibly low wages so people are forced to choose between rent and food, clothes and food, utilities and food. we can do better. we need the white house to step up and own this issue. they can start with ewhite house conference on food and nutrition. even though millions struggle

with hunger, there are good souls out there trying to help. i want to highlight one good samaritan who paid for the groceries of a young woman named andrea who was just trying to feed her kids. when she exaustd her snap benefits an unnamed woman in line gave her $70.38 so that she didn't have to return any of her groceries. this house could learn from this example, to help our neighbors rather than penalize them simply for being poor. i ask unanimous consent to include andrea's letter to this unnamed woman in line at the grocery store in the record and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman's time has expired. the chair announces the speaker's approval pusuant to section 743-b-3 of public law 133-76 and thed or of the house of january 3, 2013, of the

following individuals on the part of the house to the national commission on hunger. the clerk: mr. jerry evert of waco, texas. dr. susan finn of columbus, ohio. mr. robert dorr of brooklyn, new york. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. ms. norton: thank you, mr. speaker. while i'm waiting for my four posters to arrive at the rostrum, i am happy to yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia. >> i thank the gentlelady for yielding.

ou're allowing me to correct a mistake i made earlier today. mr. woodall: we passed the budget committee balanced budget, i think that's a success but those successes don't happen by themselves they happen because we are surrounded by staffers in this institution who do an amazing amount of work, day in and day out. in my case, it's will dunham who is staff director at the republican study committee, the very able budget staffer there, matthew dickerson and my own budget associate nick myers. without their help, it would have been impossible to put that budget together and i am so grateful for their commitment to this institution and to the very difficult work that we do. with that, i thank my friend very much for yielding and yield ack. ms. norton: mr. speaker, all

this week i have come to the house floor for a very special purpose. have offered only some of the reasons that the residents who live in the nation's capitol should have the -- capital should have the same basic rights as other americans. all other americans have achieved these rights through statehood. we have tried to break down the elements of statehood into separate bills. but we have not been able to get these elements recognized by the ongress of the united states either. so, mr. speaker, i am making use an important day upcoming

next week when congress will be out of session. april 16 is commemorated in the district of columbia because it ago when 251 years abraham lincoln freed those slaves who happened to live in the nation's capital nine months before the national emancipation proclamation. i have used this upcoming ccasion to offer a series of remarks not only, of course, because of this historic occasion in our city, but because of the meaning this occasion has to the residents of the nation's capital here and

now. right this moment. not 251 years ago. nlike 1863, when african-americans who happened to live in the nation's capital , in eprived of freedom of every american citizen every background, of every race, of every color, of every ethnic originvery , is equally deprived of equal rights with other americans. other americans, to have their full rights, need only be tax paying citizens who serve in the

nation's wars. the people i represent have served in the nation's wars, sent the very first -- since the very first war, the war that created the united states of america was fought, and from the moment the congress imposed federal income taxes on the people of the united states, the people i represent have paid those taxes to support their government without a voting , this in this congress house of representatives, and with no voting members in the senate of the united states. , do have the vote in committee

but when matters affecting my or sdiction in particular matters affecting the united states in which my jurisdiction is implicated, like whether to go to war in iraq and afghanistan, where our residents have served, i have no vote on this floor. mind you, on this floor, they the on the budget raise, local budget raised in my city. has been nny of which ontributed by this congress. yet nothing is more important to residents of our country than the ability to pass their own local laws, to raise your own

local money and say how it's to be spent, without interference rom the national government. federals who pay taxes, taxes, obviously we pay local taxes, but no others who pay federal taxes and who have served in our wars are denied their basic rights in our country. . this of course is an embarrassment to the country itself. but today it is far more serious. it is a violation of international law and a treaty that we have signed.

last month the u.n. human issued its ttee report for 2014. its report called our country to account on the denial of congressional voting rights in the national legislature for the residents of the district of columbia. in other words, the united states government is in violation of the international covenant on civil and political

rights. that is a treaty that our . untry signed in 1992 , u.n. report recommended provide full voting rights for washington, of d.c. that you nture to say will not find an american itizen who does not agree that before the congress can impose any burden on you, you ought to have the right to raise your hand, yea or nay. moreover, this is not the first time that the united nations has called our country to .ccount

earlier, in 2006, the human rights committee wrote, the committee, having taken note of the responses provided by the delegation, that means the united states delegation to the u.n., heard their responses and said, remains concerned that the residents of the district of columbia do not enjoy full representation in congress. a restriction that does not seem to be compatible with article 25 of the covenant and then it cited articles 2, 25 and 26. article 2, and i won't quote from the entire article, says, adopt such laws or other

measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present covenant. at covenant is a treaty, a treaty we signed in 1992 to which we are by human right and international law bound. article 25 says that that right includes the right to take part in the conduct of public ffairs directly or through freely chosen representatives. in our country we do not have the -- we do not have direct democracy. you do it through freely chosen representatives who get to vote on this floor. the residents of the district of columbia get to choose me but i do not get to vote even on matters of matters affecting

their local concerns -- matters affecting their local concerns. article 25 also says, to have access on general terms of , to public service in this country, the residents have access to public service. i serve as a member of congress , but we do not have that right in terms, quote, of equality, because i cannot vote once i become the member chosen to exercise that service. moreover, let me note that when my party was in power, using house rules, i was given the right to vote for the residents of the district of columbia on matters coming to the so-called committee of the whole.

mantle after getting a -- imagine after getting a right that is not the full right to vote even on most matters in this chamber, when my republican colleagues came to power, they took even that right, the right to vote in the committee of the whole, from the people of the district of columbia. n fact, my friends, equality or is that discrimination against the residents of your own nation's capital? the republican refers also to article 26. that's worth quoting. all persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law

. in this respect the law shall prohibit any discrimination and and ntee all persons equal effective protection against discrimination on any ground, then they name some, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, and here's one that applies to us, or other status. what is the other status of the residents of the district of columbia? their status is that they reside in their nation's capital. the only nation in the world that denies the residents of their capital the same rights that the residents in their

country enjoy. nor is there any question that there are more than enough americans here to be granted tatehood or at least equality. two states of the unions,, that have two senators and one , have fewer residents than the district of

olumbia. here is one, the lowest population in the country, wyoming. next is vermont. and finally, with considerably , re residents, almost 650,000 he district of columbia. and we're soon going to overtake a number other states. the district is growing. so much growing that there's been an attempt to raise the so-called hyde act where there is a limit on how high buildings can be because of the need to expand housing and office supplies. that attempt was turned back because the residents were more

concerned with the low-scale residential quality of their city. we're talking about, mr. speaker, 650,000 people. that's about the size of an average congressional district. and look how the district grows. by on an average more than 2% a year for more than 10 years now, and the last couple years it's grown by almost 2.5%. just compare that with growth in the united states itself. the united states population % ew not by 1% or 2% but by .7 in the last couple of years. we live in one of the most rapidly growing regions in the country. this is called the national capital region. maryland and virginia are the

closest states. and yet the district, growing more than 2% compared to virginia which grew only .9% and maryland which grew only .7 %. during my remarks this week on the two , i selected most basic obligations of statehood to test whether the district is being denied its ights.

i began with taxes that i think people fret most about paying taxes and almost all of us have to pay taxes. not because taxes are more important. who thinks taxes are more important is the republican majority. they are obsessed with taxes. so you would think that they would want to do something about people who pay taxes, but don't have representation. taxes is about the only issue that the republican majority cares about. but by taxes they mean cutting taxes. by they raise taxes imposing taxes without representation on the people of the district of columbia. they're happy to take more than

$3 billion annually out of the , with no our people vote on whether those taxes should be raised or lowered. t the most surprising fact about taxes in our country is who, what individuals pay the most. well, if i were to ask you to guess, you probably wouldn't come up with the district of olumbia. well, let me clarify. of the residents of all the 50 states, the residents of the

district of columbia pay more federal taxes per person than 50 esidents of any of the states. this chart shows how it goes from the highest to the lowest. the highest in the united per at almost $12,000 erson in federal taxes , resident by resident, live in the district of columbia. the lowest per capita, per person lives in the state of mississippi. so imagine the rage.

nobody wants to pay taxes. but imagine the rage when you pay more taxes than anybody else and still don't have the vote on the house floor. now, i haven't put all the states here because no chart could be seen, but you see it goes from $12,000, almost $12,000, as the district pays, down to as little as $4,000. the first 10 states, the top 10 states, end with california, some of them you might recognize, if you had to guess them, second is connecticut, third is new jersey. 10th is california. at about $8,000 per person,

compare that to our almost 12,000 per person. and understand, this doesn't have to do with the size. just has to do with the amount of taxes per person. so i indicated that vermont and wyoming were states which we exceeded in population. wyoming residents pay something close to $8,000 per person, ompared to our $12,000, almost $12,000. and vermont also a state with fewer people than the district , columbia, pays about half something over $6,000 compared to our almost $12,000, per

person, in taxes. or just randomly pick out your state. bear in mind, we're comparing them with almost $12,000 per person in federal taxes paid to support the government of the united states. ebraska, half of that. about $6,400. or just take two others that are close to one another in the amount they pay. each about $6,000. arizona and indiana compared to our $12,000. or idaho. to support the federal government, idaho, which has two senators and representatives in is congress paid $5,000 -- $5,440.

we're at something over twice what they pay. when you get to those who pay the least, let's take the bottom $4,500,es, louisiana at mississippi at $4,200. you see we're getting to paying three times what these states pay. these states who have representatives, these states who have two senators. of all the obligations, perhaps

the most poignant is service in the armed forces. for the people i represent, there has been service in the armed forces ever since there's been a united states of america and even before when we were fighting in a revolution to create the united states of america. but that service has often been disproportionate to the number of residents. and if you go down the wars, the major wars of the 20th century, ou get an idea of what i mean. world war i, 635 casualties. but that was more than three states. world war ii. now we're getting to more than

four states in casualties. by the time we got to the korean more -- re talking that the district had more casualties than eight states. we have gone from three to four to korea, to eight. and finally, vietnam. casualties -- more han 10 states. yes, the district has sometimes had to fight to get respect,

equal respect for members of the armed forces. a mother wrote me when she went son graduation of her recently. from boot camp at naval station great lakes. the family was there, glowing with honor and pride in a son who had passed up going to college in order to serve in the united states navy, so passionate was this kid about serving. when each graduate stepped forward, the flag of the state was raised. when jonathan -- seaman jonathan no stateepped forward,

flag was raised. that, my friends, was the last straw. i was immediately in touch with the white house, with the armed services committee, particularly after veterans in the district of columbia came with particularly heartbreaking stories, for example, among the most serious were some veterans who spoke of no d.c. flag being displayed at welcome home ceremonies. even though the flags of other tates were raised. i don't think anybody meant any disrespect to our residents who served in the armed forces. i just believe that when you don't have -- when you pay taxes without representation, when you

don't have anybody in the senate who can take care of you, when you have only a nonvoting representative in the house who votes in committee but not on this floor, it is easy to be disregarded in other ways. i am very grateful to senator levin and the senate armed services committee and to this house and its armed services this tee for rectifying residents,ght to our the ones who have given the most to their country. mr. speaker, i read an honor simply a few of

the very distinguished washingtonians who have served in the armed forces because some them stand out with great particularity. had was a city which segregation, racial segregation imposed on it by the congress of the united states until the 1960's. that is even though, until that time, the majority of the population of the district of columbia was not african-american, but was white. yet even during that period, that period of segregation, when african-americans were entering the armed services from every part of the country, the first

african-american army general, born in this city. the first african-american air force general, born in this city. the first african-american naval academy graduate, born in this city. the first african-american air force academy graduate, born in this city. this roster continues to this very day. the first deputy commandant of the u.s. coast guard, serving as i speak, admiral manson brown, born in this city and the first african-american female aviator of the d.c. national guard is a washingtonian. mr. speaker, we know that statehood is the only way americans have gotten full and equal rights. that, of course, is why we seek

statehood. but don't think we haven't tried in every way to get our rights in every single way we could. we tried it piece by piece. there are pending bills before the house and senate, some contain important elements of statehood. budget autonomy. that would allow our budget to go into effect. local budget after all, once it is passed by the local legislature, the d.c. council. because this congress insists that we bring our local budget to this national body which has not raised any part of it, our this s almost shut down

past year when the congress shut down the federal government for 16 days. that was a subject of great anguish in the district of columbia. because we were no part of that fight. we've got a balanced budget, we've got a surplus, but because we have to bring our budget here and they had not passed a single appropriation, we got shut down too. or almost. andmayor kept the city open as we were running out of money, the republican majority relented and allowed the federal government to open and therefore the district did not have to close down. i am pleased that the administration, president obama, has put into his budget language

that would grant the district control over its own budget, to go into effect as soon as it's passed he put that same provision in his budget last year and the senate appropriators passed it. i thought, then, it would come out with the budget deal but when the budget deal came out, it left out that section that would have given the residents of the district of columbia control over some money they themselves and nobody else has raised. i'm pleased to say that there are people, members of this house on both sides of the aisle, who recognize that element -- that elementary fairness lies in budget autonomy. and i thank the majority leader eric cantor for his support for budget autonomy.

he's the second in leadership a republican leader of this house, i thank daryl issa, chairman daryl issa, chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over matters of -- matters affecting the district of columbia, that he has pressed for budget autonomy even as he pressed to keep the district open when we almost shut down. but if we don't have control over our own budget, we don't even have control over our local laws. what we have is a costly requirement that delays bills for months before they can become effective because they have to come to the congress and though the congress never uses this procedure a layover procedure, to overturn our laws, but finds other means to do so,

continues to impose this requirement of bringing every local law here to the congress before it becomes effective. appreciate that senator mark dagich, who chairs the subcommittee and chairman tom harper who chairs the full committee with jurisdiction over matters affecting the district of columbia in the senate have introduced bills that would give the district budget and legislative autonomy. . mr. speaker, when i came to the house in the early 1990's i was able to get almost 2/3 of this house to vote for statehood for the district of columbia. it wasn't enough because almost

all of them were democrats, but it does show you that there were people then and i believe there are people now who recognize the unfairness of the status i have laid out today. it has been more difficult as the years went by, particularly because for most of my service in the congress i have been in the minority, yet we are beginning to make progress. we were able to get the first statue, representing the district of columbia in the capitol last year. the reason that's important is that it was denied us because we were not a state. so we were able to break through that what is surely a symbol of statehood. at the ceremony with majority and minority leadership, the ajority leader, majority reid,

used the occasion with great enthusiasm to indicate that he was co-sponsoring the d.c. statehood bill. the reason that is of some moment, mr. speaker, is that the majority leader, like the speaker of this house, supports very few bills. it says something about the importance of correcting this unfairness that majority leader reid not only has become a co-sponsor, one of 17 senators, but did show with great enthusiasm and in a public announcement. i'm pleased that virtually the entire democratic senate leadership has sponsored our statehood bill. mr. speaker, congress continues to deny the american citizens

who live in its nation's capital their most basic rights. today we have learned that that is a violation of every american principle, and it is even a iolation of international law. congress has failed to give d.c. sidents even some of the rights associated with statehood . rights that they could give today or tomorrow even if they were not prepared to grant us statehood. the right to control our own local funds. funds that we raise. funds we then turn over at a cost of $12,000 per person to support the government of the

united states. congress tir ranically overturns locally passed -- tir ranically overturns locally passed laws and keeps our local laws going into existence until they have had an opportunity to look at them, except they don't. they just leave this costly delay-ridden requirement in place. congress continues to command our taxes to support the national government at a higher per capita rate than the rate paid by any other americans while denying d.c. residents voting representation when

congress passes laws concerning those taxes or concerning any other matter affecting our country. therefore, mr. speaker, in the name of those who have died in the nation's wars, in the name of the living veterans of our 650,000 re among the residents of the district of columbia today, in the name of those who pay $12,000 per person, the highest per capita rate in the country, to support in united states of america, ever since millions

1801 when we became the capital o have died in our wars, thout seeing the benefits of voting representation in the house and senate, and without the full and equal rights of other americans who died alongside them, i ask this house to grant the residents of their ation's capital statehood. and if you decide to fall short of statehood, at the very least our residents are entitled to equal representation and to equal recognition to equality under law with every other american citizen.

thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to express my concern that protectionism could one day lead to a war on -- brought wurst. mr. petri: they are delicious, they are enjoyed around the world. in wisconsin we take our brauts seriously, nowhere more so than the sixth district which includes the brautwurst capital of the world, shi boy began, wisconsin. they battled the cyrus ohio for the title and won. the battle was ended on august 14, 1971 when a judge issued an official decision bestowing the title upon sheboygan and barring all other claimants from using it. unfortunately this title could soon be under attack.

there's growing concern that the european union could consider more geographic name restrictions on products, kielbasa kill bassa -- and the brought wurst. this isry particular ridiculous. i'm currently circulating a letter urging the u.s. trade representative to reject any attempt to include these provisions in further trade negotiations. i i strongly urge my colleagues to consider signing this letter. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced the of january 3, 2013, gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. it's amazing some of the efforts made to rewrite history and cast things in light that don't exist. in the e people

gin to -- not begin but step up and continue trashing conservatives in america. we have already seen the assault on conservative groups by the i.r.s.. that does need a special prosecutor, clearly, but the assault on people with whom some in the administration disagree, they can't answer questions, and so they make personal attacks. attorney then our general makes a speech yesterday in which because he was busy helping perhaps terrorists or things like that he didn't notice, but -- i'm sure he

wouldn't be truthful -- he wouldn't be untruthful or tell a ie, but he doesn't even know how bad it gets in washington if you're a conservative, if you're george w. bush, if you are john ashcroft, if you are alberto gonzalez because it got pretty brutal here a lot worse than anything our current attorney general has seen, and that's even without having to go back and recall the treatment that john mitchell got. i would say deservedly so john mitchell got the treatment he got, but for any attorney general to be so ignorant of what has happened in very recent maltreatment and slandernt and basically

republican ns and president, and republican tonches general -- tones general, it's a bit breathtaking. -- attorneys general, it's a bit breathtaking. boycott liberalism, it has a lot of quotes from people, senator harry reid said president bush is a liar. i don't recall anyone saying that in our hearings with our current attorney general. the speaker of the u.s. house of representatives, nancy pelosi, said, bush is an incompetent leader. in fact, he's not a leader. i don't recall anyone saying nything of that magnitude of our current attorney general or president. not in any of our hearings. not -- hillary clinton, former

secretary of state and u.s. senator, said, we have a culture of corruption. we have cronyism. we have incompetence which actually raises a question about pots and kettles calling each other names. ut other quotes, john edwards, former u.s. senator, and republican vpal nominee, i say -- vice-presidential nominee, i say if you live in the united states of america an vote for george bush, you lost your mine. senator al franken said, i think the president hijacked 9/11 and used it to go to war in iraq in a way that was very divisive. the late ted kennedy, no president in american history has done more damage to our country and our security than george w. bush. d amazingly i'm not aware of

any u.s. president in one party reaching out more to a senator in the other party than did george w. bush with senator ted kennedy. and these are the kind of comments he got in response. senator hillary clinton, former secretary of state, said, quote, i predict -- i predict to you that this administration will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country. we are just talking about there's never been an attorney general or president treated as have been the current ones. senator hillary clinton, former secretary of state, said, there's never been an administration i don't believe in our history more intent on consolidating and abusing power to further their own agenda. she also said, i have been absolutely amazed, even shocked at the combination of arrogance

and incompetence that marks this particular administration. we just are helping those who have short memories or maybe were busy helping terrorists or others get pardons and didn't notice these kind of statements being made. former senator, former vice president al gore said, while president bush likes to project an image of strength and courage, the real truth is that in the press ns of his large financial contributors he is a moral coward. speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, said bush is an incompetent leader. in fact he's not a leader. he's a person who has no judgment, no experience, and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon. quotes go on and on. pages of quotes.

democratic senator from washington, patty murray said, he's, talking about osama bin laden, been out in these countries for decades building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building daycare facilities, building health care facilities, and these people are extremely grateful. e haven't done that. former speaker of the house nancy pelosi said, i believe that the president's leadership in the actions taken in iraq, talking about president bush, demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment, and experience in making the decisions that would have been necessary to truly accomplish the mission without the deaths to our troops and the cost to our taxpayers.

she also made this statement, former speaker of the house nancy pelosi, talking about president bush, i believe that the president's leadership and the actions taken in iraq demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment, experience, in making the decisions that would have been necessary to duly accomplish the mission without the deaths to our troops and to cost -- and cost to our taxpayer. basically the same thing again. but there are some of us that could care less about someone's party or someone's race or someone's gender, someone's age, we don't care. we care about whether you are helping or hurting our country if you're in a position to do ne or the other. i would also direct my friends

who would care to do research and get the proof before they go accusing, ignorantly, someone who has the gal to -- the gall to question, refusal to turn over documents provided by the justice department to terrorists , convicted terrorists, people who financed terrorism which made them a part of the terrors act tissue terrorist act, convicted of over 100 counts, they were given, their lawyers were given thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of documents, lawyers were given 9,600 or so tran scritchts or summaries of transcripts and members of congress are told, as i was in a letter this year in response to my years of trying to get these documents that the justice department provided to terrorists, i get a response

basically saying, hey, here's a website, you can look up some exhibits that were admitted in evidence and here's a public access website. been asking for three years, just give us the documents, -- give us the documents justice gave to the terrorists. somebody wants to try to make something of that, that's their problem. but the constitution provides that congress has oversight because that's the only way we know what to fund and what not to fund. that's part of article 1, section 8 of the constitution. so to be denied documents for with years as i have been, little coy, useless answers and then allegations of ulterior motivations when i want to

protect america and i travel around the world and i hear moderate muslim friends, leaders in other countries, say, why are you not helping us against radical islam anymore? you're helping the bad guys. and i want to find out what the documentation was and is that the justice department has. and they know how to reduce it to disk and provide it to others. i'm told they've done that to others in the justice department. so do that for congress. at one point i was told there were classification issues. you gave them to terrorists, your department did, so it shouldn't be a real classification problem to give them to members of congress. so, for those who wonder about the treatment of an attorney general coming for an oversight hearing, we have already seen

that the justice department repeatedly refused to provide the documentation of what happened in fast and furious. if someone wants to talk about unprecedented treatment, let's look at the facts, just the little ones we know that haven't been covered up by this administration, that haven't been kept secreted by this administration, and thank god one of the gun store owners who was being pressured by the justice department to sell the people he knew he should not sell -- to sell to people he knew he should not sell to, he recorded some of the conversations. if he had not, you can't help but believe they would have turned on him bigger than they did because once they found out he had tapes of the conversations, they knew they couldn't completely blame him

because he was saying, in essence, i shouldn't be selling to these people but he was coerced into selling. people were cannersed into selling weapons to people that should not have had them, morally or legally, because the justice department wanted to get. the to drug cartels in mexico where they did and we know, we've heard at least a couple hundred or so mexicans, each one of them a life worth saving, those lives were taken by guns that this justice department forced into the hands of criminals. people that should not have had them. so we'd like to know more information about how this all came about. it's not good enough to say, hey, the bush jawsties department had a scheme where they had devices, they had guns

that they were going to track just like in drug sales where you have a controlled sale, you can try to arrest the bad guys and because of a problem, they got away from them, that's a different thing entirely, of intentionally letting guns get away to criminals who killed hundreds of mexicans and at least one american, brian terry, and perhaps more. it would be nice if we could get to the bottom of that. wherever there are big problems in our government, we need to know what they are so we can efund them or at least bring about accountability just as my democratic friends in the senate repeatedly said, except not so kindly, about the bush administration and john ashcroft

and alberto gonzales. and there were some things i agreed with senator schumer on in the gonzalez justice department. it was outrageous that they allowed so many national security letters to go out without proper basis. i was outraged about that. and in fact, if someone cares to check the record, they can see the way i went after the bush f.b.i. director because i believed then and still believe he did some serious damage to the f.b.i. during the bush administration. and the only difference is, i never heard him run out and give a speech whining about how he was mistreated as he came before me for questioning. he didn't do that. and he actually tried to take actions to correct the problems that i got all over him about.

another difference is, he was a republican president f.b.i. director. but i didn't care what his party was. i didn't care who he was. i thought he was hurting the f.b.i. and i sounded off and i was shocked that i did not have more friends on the democratic de of the aisle join me in going after the republican appointed f.b.i. director. and of course once he held over and became the f.b.i. director for this administration, the other side of the aisle got even more kind in its questioning. but one of us, i certainly stayed consistent. but there are many problems in this justice department that are very clear. there's an article from 2011, article 26, by christian adams, guy that should know, he was in

the justice department and had a case ready for judgment against the new black panthers who were intimidating voters at a voting politicall the holder appointee stepped in and stopped it. es they got one judgment but basically of no effect. they can go intimidate othersed a other polling places and there were no legal actions that were really pursued to provide any teeth. christian adams has an article entitled "the politicized hiring of eric holder's compliance section," he says every single new attorney hired has a history thick with left-wing activism. and then he goes through and talks about it in a very long article.

very well documented. and my friend across the building, ted cruz, senator cruz, invoked watergate in blasting d.o.j.'s probe of the i.r.s. scandal. this was march 20 this year. this article from "the blaze" by fred lucas. senator cruz said the investigator in a partisan democrat -- is a partisan democrat who has donated over $6,000 to president obama and democratic causes, just as nobody would trust john mitch tole investigate richard nixon, nobody should trust a partisan obama donor to elimb nays the political targeting of president obama's enemies. but he makes a good point. john mitchell deserved the criticism he got but no attorney eneral since john mitchell has

their thful history in favor to stand up and say, no attorney general has ever been treated worse than i have. you just have to go back to alberto gonzales. again, i think he deserves some of the criticism he got, especially on national security letter issue. and i'm right there thinking it was a it's aer and he shouldn't have been -- and it shouldn't have been allowed to happen, people needed to be held accountable, which is why i called the white house after it came to light that a report had been on the attorney general's desk before he testified before the senate, that there were no known abuses of the national security letters, and i told the white house, this is indefensible. it isn't right. we can't defend this. and i wish colleagues across the isle when they found similar

abuses, problems, fault, would ot let party politics or other divisive issues stand in the way of doing what's right. there's transcripts of senators going after attorney general gonzalez, attorney general ashcroft, or even going back to john mitchell, this attorney general compared to them doesn't have a lot to complain about. one thing interesting, you know, when i was a freshman, bush administration was in power, we had a lot of trouble getting documents from the bush administration. the difference between that one and this one, they'd eventually get us the documents. the difference here is, they've been there five years and they still will not produce documents

that should be of critical concern to every american. some would say, look, there is no other issue than concern for america when in may of 2013, as this article points out, from rite bart -- from breitbart, eric holder testified in front of the judiciary committee about the recent scandals plaguing the administration. unfortunately the committee and america did not learn much because holder apparently does not know much about what happens in washington, d.c. the a.p. claims the department of justice violated their constitutional rights when they obtained two months of phone records of reporters. when asked about the scandal, holder claimed ignorance and that he was not a part of the decision making process.

he did defend the effort to subvert the press saying the d.o.j. wanted to find who leaked the information to the a.p. bt a c.i.a. operation in yemen to stop an airliner bombing plot around the anniversary of osama bin laden's death. on tuesday, holder recused himself from the investigation into the a.p. scandal and told the committee it was because he had the leaked information. he could not give the exact date the he refused -- recused himself and he never put it in writing. it took quite a while for him to receive con firmation television deputy attorney general james cole who signed the subpoena for the a.p. phone records. there are all kinds of reasons to be concerned about what's going on, there are plenty of stories out there, oh, gee, how about the speech that my friend across the aisle, keith ellison gave, where as reported here

from the "minneapolis star tribune," mr. ellison said, talking about comparing september 11, it's almost like after the fire burned they blamed the communists for it and it put the leader of that leader, hitler, in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted. the fact is that i'm not saying september 11 was a u.s. plan or anything like that, because you know, that's how they put you in the nutball box or dismiss you but he went on, basically, omparing september 11 to hitler's reichstag fire which was set and then blamed on the communists. . cnn, a report on this, keith

oppenhimer said, first of all, wolf, some of the things that keith ellison is talking about are things he's been sounding off about for a while. and then oppenhimer said, the "minneapolis star tribune," quoting ellison at the forum, is saying this about the vice president, it is beneath his dignity in order for him to answer any question from the citizens of the united states. that's the very definition of totalitarianism. authoritarianism, and dictatorship. in response to a question as to whether ellison supports a new investigation of the causes of september 11, ellison made a comparison to the fire in berlin that adolf hitler used to consolidate power. then he quoted my friend across the aisle with what i just mentioned. anyway, there are all kinds of accusations. i thought both george h.w. bush and george w. bush should have

done more to defend themselves against the outlandish claims, but one thing george h.w. bush and george w. bush never did, no matter what race, creed, color, national religion, gender, age, whatever anybody attacked them, he never resorted to name-calling. in fact, would often try to point out actually they have the right to their opinion. but nowadays it's a different matter. if someone's concerned that your department or their department would provide discovery documents to convicted terrorists, that they are refusing to provide to congress, that's not the issue of anything other than just not doing what the law requires in the way of oversight.

there is so much going on in this country that needs our attention, and one of them is the department of justice. is it the department of justice? is it the department of just us? there is an article from red tate by candice lanier, june 26, 2013, where she entitles the article 16 scandals, the legacy of eric holder, and then she goes through and cites 16 reasons we should be very concerned about this justice department. one of them from discover the she says, quote, holder also took the leadership student the afro-american society which at one point demanded that the

schools abandon rotc office be renamed the malcolm x lounge in honor of a man who recognized the importance of territory as a basis for nationhood. in 1970 holder was a participant in a five-day occupation of that office. according to some accounts the occupiers were armed. in addition, holder and saas also occupied the office of henry coleman, dean of freshmen, until their nands were met -- demands were met. it would appear the saas was an advocate of the black panthers because in march, 1970, the saas released a statement supporting the black panthers who were charged with plotting to blow up a police station, department stores, railroad tracks, and the new york botanical garden. it references the discriminatory hiring practice -- practices in

e department of justice, and in this article points out in june of 2008 holder admitted to the american constitution society, an organization started as a rib bral counter weight to the federalist society, that the justice department was going to be looking for people who share our values. then it references fort hood and the fact that following the fort ood attack on november 5, 2009 not one of the post attack reports issued by the department of justice mentioned the dollar signs islamic ideology. talks further about that and it talks about the a.p. surveillance, the way it went after the associated press. number four, the department of justice secretly targets fox news reporter, james rosen, and there were issues of credibility

in comparing our attorney general's testimony saying he didn't know of anybody ever being prosecuted in essence, and then his signing off on the ursuit of james rosen. five is the mark rich pardon mentioned that eric holder played an important role in what was arguably the most infamous of president clinton's 176 pardons. he was the billionaire, financier, and fugitive oil probinger who illegally bought oil from iran. president clinton signed the pardon, later crediting holder's recommendation as one of the factors that convinced him to issue the pardon. number six was the weather underground pardon, holder as deputy attorney general was the gatekeeper for presidential pardons, that's in quotes, to the recipients of holder's parts -- two of the recipients were

former underground weather members. number seven, i'm not reading all the information about these, but seven holder's d.o.j. threatens free speech. talking about the american muslim advisory council of tennessee sponsoring an event on june 4 called public dess closure in a diverse society. the main speakers for the event were d.o.j. official bill killian who is the u.s. attorney for the eastern district of tennessee and f.b.i. special agent of the knoxville division, kenneth moore. what's troubling about the event is the killian addressed how social media posts and documents deemed inflammatory towards muslims can be considered a violation of civil rights laws. and he went on to say and quoted the law, talking about how

anybody critical of islam could be violating the law. if two or more persons conspire to injury, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any state, territory, commonwealth, possession or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the constitutional law of the united states they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 10 years. talk about a chilling effect. number eight, hostility towards conservatives. at an american constitution society gathering in 2004, holder made the following comments. these are all quotes. conservatives have been defenders of the status quo, afraid of the future, and content to allow to continue to exist all but the most blatant inequalities. conservatives have made a mockery of the rule of law. said conservatives are breath

taking in their arrogance which man fests itself in such things as attacks on abortion rights, energy policies that are shortsighted as they are ineffective, tax cuts that disproportionately favor those who are well off and perpetuate many of the inequities in our nation. the hallmarks of the conservative agenda includes social division, mindless tax cutting, and a defense posture that does not really make us safer. he's got quite a few quotes like that, but number nine, opposition to second amendment rights. in 2008 eric holder claimed that the second amendment does not protect an individual's right to keep and bear arms but only apply to government militias. number 10 was the treatment of terrorists as criminal defendants instead of enemy combatants as the laws that were passed should have indicated. number 11 was the arizona immigration law, how he went after that.

and he had not even read it. filed pleadings, his department filed pleadings and he made statements about how bad the law was. he had not even read it. i thought my friend ted poe, former judge, asked one of the stupidest questions i ever heard in our judicial committee hearing when he said, had you read that law before you filed that suit? and the answer was no. i couldn't believe. no lawyer would file a bill calling a law -- file a suit declaring a law unconstitutional and he hadn't even read it? the new black panther intimidation. 13, opposition to voter i.d. laws. and by the way, we have evidence --you have places where photo i.d.'s have been required and there was an increase in minority voting.

14 fast and furious we can't got to the bottom of because they continue to secret information about the department's involvement and what they did. 15, the references, to radical islam. we know about the purging of f.b.i. documents -- training documents so we don't offend people that want to destroy our way of life. 16, about the islamic outreach. when i was grilling f.b.i. director mueller about not even pursuing adequately the information about the tsarnaev being radicalized, you didn't even go to the muslim mosque in boston to ask about the radicalization. he said, yeah, we did go to the mosque. nd then muttered an outreach program. never wept there to talk to anybody that might know whether tsarnaev might have been radicalized. and "the new york times" has a story blaming the russians.

the russians an our own intelligence community know any time you give a heads up to another country about information that may be helpful to them, you may end up giving away how intelligence is obtained. so it was wonderful that twice russia gave us heads up. and instead we go to the mosque that zarnafter -- tsarnaev attends with the outreach program of the f.b.i. instead of investigate how radicalized this young man had become and the damage and death and mayhem he was about to cause. if someone wants to say there's another mowive for being critical, well -- motive for being critical, well, they are living in their own little world. somebody wants to bring up race, mr. speaker, for the record let me just say there is one african-american, i am still

furious with. his name is fred mcclure. he was the president of the state of texas future farmers of america. he was the student body president at texas a&m university where i attended. he was a good friend. i went to baylor law school before him. he said, wow, you really did well. won award for a law review article. won best brief award. fred came in behind me and set the place on fire figuratively speaking with how well he did and the things he accomplished, but he went to work for president george h.w. bush, and in 1990 in december, i begged fred to come back to east texas where he grew up in saint

augustine, and there were a lot of us that loved hum and would get him elected congress so we could come back up here to washington and set things right, and the thing i'm still furious at fred about, if fred had taken the encouragement to heart, and come back and run for congress, we could have gotten him elected, and if we had done that, i could have been about a normal life and not had to be here in congress. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a motion? mr. gohmert: pursuant to senate con surnt resolution 35, 113th congress, i move that the house do now hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to.

pursuant to senate concurrent resolution 35, 113th congress, the house stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on monday, april

>> the louisiana republican party has called on advance mcalester to resign after he was caught kissing an aide. house speaker john boehner was asked about representative advance mcalester, he said he has spoke within the congressman but he wouldn't share details of his conversation. he said he expects -- expects all house members to uphold the highest ethical standards and says, quote, this is no

different. he answered that question among others at today's briefing, we'll show you that, and nancy pelosi's as well. >> good morning. how is everybody? from our committees to the house floor, once again, it's a busy week here in the people's house. two committees of jurisdiction took action and helped get answers about what took place at the i.r.s. the american people deserve the truth about what happened in the administration's targeting and abuse of conservatives. since the president hasn't acted -- has enacted the bill to speed up export of natural gas. this will create jobs here at home and place pressure on the russian government as it continues its aggressive stance vis-a-vis ukraine. we passed budget reform legislation to provide more accountability here in washington and a more accurate picture of what we've spent.

of course later today, the house will pass a jobs budget for the fourth year in a row. this document is our vision for getting americans back to work and our budget back in balance. i want to congratulate chairman ryan and the members of the committee for a job well done. meanwhile, democrats here in washington continue to play their usual politics, using their old playbook of picking one -- pitting one group of americans against another. frankly, it's pretty obvious their efforts have failed. they've fallen flat because the american people are still asking the question, where are the jobs? these political votes provide no answers. so the house is going to continue to focus on the american people's priorities, creating a good-paying jobs, increasing wages and expanding opportunity for all americans. this means reforming our job training and skills programs, advancing bipartisan charter school legislation, critical water and highway infrastructure

bills, expanding exports to our allies and repealing and replace og ba ma cair, just to name a -- and replacing obamacare just to name a few. we've been pursuing our agenda of building an america that works one week at a time, one bill at a time. we're going to continue to do so. that's the message our members will take home during this upcoming recess. >> [inaudible] >> i expect all members to be held to the highest ethical standards. nd this is no different. i've talked to representative mcalester -- mcallister, i won't share with you the conversations we had but i had a conversation with him, he has decisions he has to make. >> this morning, we learned that 7.5 million people have been enrolled on the affordable care

act. you said you're going to put your own alternative on the floor. it seems to be delayed, a lot of members are calling for you to put an alternative on the floor. when will we see that alternative and what will it look like? >> if you look at the alternative we offered during the consideration of obamacare, we have at least a broad outline of the kind of things we believe would help create more affordable health insurance for more americans. the majority reader -- leader has been working with the chairman, the whip, and the conference chair have been working with our members, trying to build consensus over what an alternative would look like. i hope that that work would continue. >> when will we see the bill? >> we're building a consensus. >> [inaudible] >> mr. speakering could you give us an update on the senate u.i. bill? seven seven house republicans wrote a letter to bring that bill up or a similar one to it have you made a decision what,

if anything, you're going to do with that? >> i made clear to the president last december that, you know if he wanted us to consider an extension of emergency unemployment benefits, it would have to be paid for and would have to include things to help get our economy growing. they have not put forward anything with regard to how we would create more jobs. so the ball is still in their court. >> senator -- >> whoa, whoa, whoa. >> what kind of job creation package would maybe work for allowing that? >> you'll have to ask the administration. we would consider it but they have no suggestions. >> recently they said using the trust fund to keep the -- the highway fund to keep the trust fund solvent is on the -- is

under consideration. >> i know a lot of members working on the highway trust fund and the sol generalcy issue, no decisions have been made but i hope that in the coming months they'll have some solutions that will work. >> mr. speaker, there was a pretty sharp exchange between congressman gohmert and another congressman. in a speech yesterday the attorney general suggested the way he was treated and perhaps others in the administration were treated a certain way because of race. even if that's not intentional by members of congress, and the attorney general -- as the attorney general might be intimating is that a problem with members of your party when they go after members of the administration? >> it's not an issue of race here. the frustration is that the american people have not been told the truth about what happened at the i.r.s. the american people have not been told the truth about what

happened in fast and furious. the administration has not told the american people the truth about benghazi. and we've been going through all these hearings, having to hold people in contempt because they've made it impossible to get to the documents. they've not been forthcoming. they owe the american people the truth. when it comes to benghazi, we have four americans who are dead, their families deserve the truth about what happened and the administration refuses to tell them the truth. >> good morning. good morning. as we prepare for the easter and passover season, i wish you all a time of renewal with your families, remembering that renewal is an -- is important to ll of us, the word recreation, re-create, we have to renew ourselves so we're strong for the challenges ahead. and for all of life's

opportunities. hat's why it just seems so off kilter that as we leave for the easter vacation, we do so with a coldness toward so many people in our country. over two million now getting up to 2.4 million people who have lost their unemployment benefits. they've lost their jobs through no fault of their own. the senate worked in a bipartisan fashion earlier this week and passed legislation to renew the emergency employment insurance, took action to restore critical economic lifeline for more than two million, now they're telling me today 2.4 million americans who depend on unemployment insurance. it's realy hard to understand. i really enlist all of you in the press, we didn't see any coverage of all the families that are suffering because of this. you know at christmas, we see in

the paper this family needs help, send money to the fund that our newspaper has and the stories are heart rending and people react to them. well, certainly personal generosity and philanthropy is important but we have to have public policy that meets the needs of the american people. in those hope that very illustrative, heartwarming stories that move people to action, there would be some coverage in the press and national media and the local press, especially in the hard hit areas, that would say, this is what this means to these families. and not only that, many of these people are veteransmark are women. full representation of our community. many of them with advanced degrees. all of them hoping to have work, some of them affected by sequestration and other budget cuts here as the private sector job numbers increase, the public

sector numbers go down, the unemployment is across the board and of course some of it is regional. but the other part of it is, it immediately injects demands, unemployment benefits, checks that people spend immediately because they're for necessities, injecting demand into the economy, creating jobs. there are some economists who ay almost nothing to does more as an immediate stimulus than unemployment insurance benefits. so the senate overcame their differences, we have 193 members on our discharge pesigs -- petition and we would hope that the speaker would take up the vote. we're supposed to be a marketplace of ideas here a place where you come to debate the issues of the day. why can't we have a debate on unemployment insurance? why can't we have a debate on immigration reform? why didn't we have a debate on

pay equity, paycheck fairness? that's just out of the question? that's just not right. that's not what our responsibility to the american people is. we're supposed to find solutions and one way to find solutions is to have the public see what the debate is on the subject. people are very wise. they have great ideas. and they have good judgment. so i would hope that we would get more attention, this is an emergency. imagine any other situation with 2.5 million people lost their jobs and had no safety net paycheck to see them through. by the way that safety net is not just for those individual workers and their families, it's for our economic system, so that the economy can go and unemployment goes down, unemployment goes up, but there's a safety net for the free market to function.

as we go into this holy season, i'm reminded of the gospel of matthew where he said, where the treasure is, there also your heart will be. clearly if you applied the gospel of matthew to the budgets that are on the floor today, you would see where the heart is of the republican party. the wealthiest -- with the wealthiest people in america, with special interests in our country, and not with the great middle class. by contrast, the house democratic budget does show where our heart is. and our head. and because -- and that is because we allocate the resources, the treasure, the federal budget, as a statement of our national values to meet the needs of the american people. it's about growth to create jobs , it's about investing in

education to help people reach their aspirations and to keep america number one. it's about our seniors, it's and the seniors initiatives in the affordable care act that assist seniors instead of turning medicare into a voucher program. at the same time, giving a $200,000 tax break for people making over $1 million a year, and a $2000 tax increase to most last. in the middle of our children, our seniors, our budget, our statement of values, our treasure, our heart. not justis budget is about numbers. it is about values. it is a statement of our national values, at least it

should be, and i think you will see on the floor -- you have seen on the floor this week a sharp contract. let the people -- we have a democratic alternative on the floor, 10 minutes on each side. how could that be an appropriate debate on a statement of our national values? how can the american people judge what is at stake here? you have to ask the american people. they can be the judge. it is a statement of their values. 190,000 children would be kept off from head start. children learn how important that is. the jobs that go with it. people, in disadvantaged areas, investments of title i cut off. what does that do about a

society that is a democracy and wants to give everybody a fair shot? 616,000 fewer students will receive pell grants. those are grants to students who are in need for financial assistance in order to go to their college education, higher education. thing, quite an amazing and, again, it is the difference between the democrats and republicans from where your treasure is. there also will be your heart. i had a sad experience yesterday, very privileged to go to fort hood, all the presentations by the military and the president and by moving,y mccue were so and the families were so sad. of course, no words are adequate

to comfort them. i hope they know the country again, with them, and, we have to focus on the fact -- 1982s two weeks ago we had flags, one for each of the veterans who took his or her life since january 1, 22 a day. that,lly need to address because in fort hood, it is such a patriotic center of our country. and do not up, expect to get to work at have a fellow person in uniform take their lives. that is a tragedy in itself, the perpetrator of the crime. i will be pleased to take any questions you have. >> over the last couple of years

the pay equity legislation has focused on equal pay for equal work. this discussion continues to come up, that higher-paying positions are often held by men. is there anything congress can do about that in the discussions you're having? >> i appreciate your question because it is important or mention -- important to mention the issue. pay, and be the same we will continue to make that fight. we also have to have a recognition of women in nontraditional, what had been considered nontraditional fields, need to be encouraged and opportunities open up to them. there is a small business community that has legislation to make sure that the federal government honors its commitment

to entrepreneurship of women, not just as employees, but as employers. clearly, the way for many more women to succeed as entrepreneurs, the way many men being contractors for the federal government, and then beyond in the private sector. i think the higher education of are at leastn now as many cannot but more women in institutions of higher learning, getting degrees that one able to get those higher salaries. it is really important part of it. fortunately hundred -- what -- 20 ceo's are women. it cannot be for lack of talent. there has been opening up to that. this is important, because i think i mentioned this last

week, but many of you did see that janet yellen, we honored her, the new chair of the fed, and we are so thrilled to have a woman head of the central anchor. the only one of the world. we have not had any director of the imf. which wereremarks reported in the press, she really said a lot of the economic success of the 20th century is attributed to many more women working, in the economy. more waso do so much part of her message. that is what we have to do. said we arer -- going to grow our economy because we have many more women in our economy. here, hent visit us said, what is your secret? it is no secret. it is about women in economy. that is why we say when women

succeed, america succeeds. it is not just the title of our agenda. it is a statement of fact. is a good one, because we are not talking about women making less because they are doing a different job. we are talking about the same job in that particular instance. to raise thehave possibilities for women in corporate america and entrepreneurship and their own risk taking in terms of small businesses and arrests. and that will grow our economy growthl grow at -- the of the gdp will be greater. positive for our economy. for some of the things we could do in terms of government contracting, that is one, but we to what used to be

considered nontraditional occupations, which have paid higher, they are becoming less nontraditional because more women are engaged in them. having an openness to all of that. right now, frankly, there is behavioral we say, or sensitivity to that issue that has to be heightened. yes, sir. >> democrats have run in the past on the right budget with limited results. some would say they have not worked well at all. wondering how you plan, as you push that issue that you, how you plan to tweak the issue a bit so it will resonate with voters, and if you had to support it now, what the ryan budget does for america, for the country, for the middle class, and if you can boil it down into one sentence. maybe a bumper sticker that

could be more digestible than saying just -- >> i do not remember us making election about the right budget. most elections are about jobs. in persistence of ryan doubling down and making matters worse with the budget he has now , it is a totally moral imperative for us to make that fight the center satage. seeing it to the prism of what the rent budget does. that's what the ryan budget does. it is the roach recession. on the contrary, the house democratic budget is about growth. you want to reduce the deficit, create jobs, bring revenue into the treasury, that is one way to do it, and how do you create the jobs? investing in science and technology and innovation in our country. we talk about education.

in ovation begins in the classroom. some are short term, some is longer term, but it is again a moral imperative for us to make sure the public knows how serious they are about his budget. some people think it is over to see -- think it is so ridiculous a joke.smiss it as it is deadly serious, and it is not good for children and other living things. how we will do it with a bumper sticker, we will see, but the fact is this is a case that has to be brought to the american people. you are going to see as we do the appropriations bill based on the budget they probably will pass today, you really cannot meet the needs of the american -- honor our responsibilities to the american people. their own chairman said that, with the budget numbers that they put forth before. it is kind of exciting, as a matter of fact, because they are serious about it.

for the futureng of our children and families, and it must the outed for what it is. >> do you see that as a district by district issue? >> medicare is all over the place. some is more regional, depending on the unemployed in shorts, and that is not the central issue to the core of the ryan budget. it is again another manifestation of the heartlessness, heartlessness of the republican budget. a matter of excitement. as i said to you last week, three things happened last week. right at the start of the week. one, the numbers for the past 7ble care act when million. today they are counting at 7.5 million, and we still have another week of the sign-ups.

7.5 million. that is in addition to over 3 million, closer to 5 million on medicaid, and 3.1 million for young people on their parents' policies. around 15 million. over 7 million and the marketplaces,. the second thing that happened, the mccutchen decision. what are we missing here? why don't we just destroyed any confidence the american people have been government? we have to show them that you cannot separate the ballot box from the breadbox. that is tied to the well-being of the american people, to what happens in elections. this in the third thing was the release of the ryan budget. theryan budget -- that is substantive argument of the on decision demands,

the social media, whatever medication we can get to the is why these this decisions in the court are wrong, because they present an opportunity for you to hear the facts about how you would be affected, directly affected by this. and the aca, the affordable care act numbers, give us a comfortable give it to the budgets, job creation, a government of the many, not a government of the money, and this is what their money wants them to buy. no equal pay for equal work. . medicare payments cut off from headstart and their families, affecting so many other ways. . 8000 teachers cut under this budget.

again, hundreds of thousands of people affected by pell grants. you cannot disconnect the political piece from the policy piece when the court is a decision heavily in favor of the intereststhe special that will spend it endlessly without any judgment. face.uestion about -- race. exchangea sharp between the attorney general and a representative from texas to and from the remarks yesterday, the attorney general suggested that some of the way that [indiscernible] the fact is it is because of race. do you think there is something, even if it is subtle, potentially [indiscernible] that is going on with [indiscernible] i know what you just told me,

and i read a little bit about it. i did not see what the exchange was that provoke that mark. it is a very different subject to talk about. i think it has something to do with the fact that they are not bring up an immigration bill. [indiscernible] spiegel --erally speaking they are disrespectful of the representatives of the -- administration, very disrespectful. . we have all been on both sides of that discussion in committee. isalways say whatever it that you are agreeing or disagreeing, if we always oh are witnesses respect. i do not really want to go to that place. i would just say their disdain

for anybody who disagrees with them is pretty across the board. i do not want to go to the race piece, but i think it applies to women. it is so evident that it applies to women. i do not want to be distracted. the fact is we have to talk about the fact about how we create jobs in our country, how we build an economy that works for everyone. whatever it is, it is their problem. ignore them. show them how -- if they have a problem with race or women or whatever, it is their problem. they are on the wrong side, not only of history, but on the wrong side of the future. integration, do you endorse [indiscernible] for those undocumented immigrants [indiscernible] d about very excite

it. i am pleased with the attitude that the secretary brings to the issue. since you brought up immigration, here we have 191 co-sponsors to the discharge and why can't we have that debate on the floor of the house? a bus tripe welcomed to washington, d.c. they traveled 11,000 miles around the country, visiting aggression offices and communities. i saw them in florida on one of their stops down there at the florida international university. all covered in the press, there was a little primer chama but i do not see anyt hing in the press about that?

you don't think there would be a mention on "the nightly news"? especially since it is a reinforcement, not a flash in the pan. this is who we are as a nation, a nation of immigrants. million people waiting for the legalization that the senate bill provides for the path to citizenship. 1100 people deported each day. one person standing in the way, the speaker of the house and his caucus. that's have a debate. we think the votes are there. we know they are there. give us a vote. >> [indiscernible] president obama talking about deportation [indiscernible] never republicans are going to move unless they think there is a price to pay politically for not bringing a bill to the floor.

the recent the deportations are taking place is because the republican outburst demands it. i do not know if you cover the appropriations committee -- elderly, frail, whatever, they'll those bit. that is what congress requires, and they have said we will not have an immigration bill if the president lowers the deportations. one of the bills on the floor, you can sue the president if you think he is not obeying the law, and the provision to allow dreamers to have deferred action for least two years, and the second was if the president use prosecutorial discretion to stop all these -- then you can see the president, because -- then you can see the president because he is breaking the law. i have a beautiful mixed

district, more minorities in my district than night. many of them not born in this country. i see the pain and suffering of the deportations. the answer, the medicine for every ill in the deportation is to pass comprehensive immigration reform. it stops the deportations, legalizes 11 million people in the country, or thereabouts. if they meet the standards. and it is the right thing to do. let's -- what is it that we want to do? we want to pass conference of immigration reform. what is it we want to do? we want to stop the deportation. it is a violation of status. ratcheting up those who have broken the law in some other ways. we are talking about a violation of immigration status. if we want to stop that, pass the immigration bill. at least honor the american people, give them the perspective saying we want to have a discussion of it on the

floor of the house. it is a discussion in many households across america. a successful discussion in the united states senate, a buyer person -- a bipartisan bill was passed. mom is the word in the house of representatives. [laughter] votee republicans might for your extension -- [indiscernible] >> [indiscernible] i think that would be fine. >> [indiscernible] >> they are trying to get a vote on their side. look at what happened in the senate. have high that do not unemployment, like north dakota or something like that, or other but theirthe country, unemployment has some regional aspects to it, as we know.

we saw the senator from nevada where unemployment is high enough part of finding a solution. so i think there must be enough of them in places where the unemployment of its need to be extended, that they should weigh in with the speaker and say give us a vote. give us a vote. are you afraid of the vote because we would win? are you trying to protect us because you do not think we would win? we are willing to take that risk. i do not think it is about protection, by the way. they basically said this is not a priority for them. it is going to take abraham lincoln -- public sentiment is every thing. you hold the key. yes, sir. just one real quick. >> medicare advantage them ever since it was born so many years ago, a couple days ago [indiscernible] because the insurance

corporations are -- the oneelf have been who has disguised the richness of the medicare advantage in terms of its benefits to the insurance companies. having said that, at this time, the whole point of medicare advantage and the affordable care act was to bring it in line with the fee for service, and it was well because how we brought down the rising cost of health care in our country, what the administration did, what is consistent with being on a path -- >> [indiscernible] take a look at it again and see where it goes from there. the whole point is to bring it in line with fee for service because of other things that are happening and lowering of because of the

affordable care act we are able to do that, because of the cuts. that is off the table. the other considerations that are not present. i hope you enjoy renewing -- easter is like my favorite holiday. butstmas is the most fun, easter really is the most triumphant and beautiful and also passover at the same time. it is even mohammed's birthday coming up. you observe it or not, at least -- joy the onset of spring at least enjoy the onset of spring. we will come back after the break. thank you. before heading out for their recess, the house wrapped up today voting along party lines to approve a republican 2015 budget proposal that balances the federal budget by cutting over five dollars trillion over the next 10 years. the -- $5 trillion over

next 10 years. both bodies return the week of april 28. of a, live coverage senate committee hearing, p.m.ing at 3:00 eastern. the house oversight committee voted along party lines to hold the was learner in contempt of congress. the full house. she has been a key figure in the irsstigation of alleged targeting of consumer groups. republicans say she effectively waived her rights by giving a brief statement before pleading the fifth. coming up, we will show you some of today's hearing getting with remarks from the chairman and ranking member.

>> the committee will come to order. the kitty meets today to consider a resolution finding lois lerner, former director of exempt organizations, irs, in contempt of congress. the data committee has convened a is this meeting to consider a resolution recommending contempt of congress for former irs executive lois lerner this is not an action i take likely. for almost a year, since she leaked information from the inspector general's report, the committee has been trying to get to the bottom of irs targeting.

lerner's testimony to complete our oversight work to bring the truth to the american people. things she do certain and who else was involved? it is important to review how we arrived at this resolution today. erner appeared before this committee last may and made an entirely voluntary opening statement in which she professed her innocence. said she did nothing wrong, broke no laws, and did not violate any irs rules. -- after herer under oath wide-ranging claims sf innocence, ms. lerner answer some additional questions, then refused -- i'm sorry -- ms. lerner asserted her

fifth amendment rights and then answered some additional questions after asserting the fifth. we know from her attorney that she sat down for a lengthy noticed rings attached interview justicec holder's department. she was not granted immunity. think about that for a second. ms. lerner, who once held the position of great power and responsibility at the irs, is willing to talk to the justice department, the executive branch, but she remains unwilling to answer questions from elected representatives of the american people. at one point, ms. lerner's attorney told us she would testify, but then rescinded that offer after seeing some of the evidence gathered by the committee.

way these things work. the american taxpayers certainly do not get to plead the fifth and escape all of accountability when the irs audits them. yesterday, the ways and means committee voted to release information allowing chairman referringnd a letter her to the justice department for probable criminal acts. unanimous and said that those documents be placed in the record. without objection, so ordered. i'm chairman camp, concerned ms. lerner violated the law. if she or her lawyer explained what she wanted to admit and why she needed immunity to tell the full truth, i certainly would consider it. but i am not going to support immunity so ms. lerner can continue to mislead this

committee if she really did nothing wrong and want to tell the full truth. she does not need immunity. absent a charge -- change of position by ms. lerner, this committee has already determined she waved her fifth amendment claim. responsible for the committee not to vigorously pursue her testimony that includes holding her accountable if she fails to meet her legal obligations. throughout the summer, the irs self-ed self-selected and beneficial documents purporting to show the irs also targeted liberal groups. prioritized those documents over the material, including those lerner's e-mails -- lois lerner's e-mails, which were the subject to subpoena and to this day have not been turnover. on monday the committee released

a 141-page safed report that debunks the myth that the irs targeted liberal groups. the evidence showed that only tea party and conservative groups were targeted because of their political beliefs. regrettably, the misinformation campaign continues. the new irs commissioner testified before the committee just two weeks go. he tried to engage in some history, flatly denying the irs inspector general had ever called the irs wrongdoing targeting. the commissioner was simply wrong. the washington post fact checker found the commissioner's claim was a significant factual error. is not a good start for a man selected by the president to restore trust in the irs. people rightfully do not trust the irs to tell

them what really happened. that responsibility falls to us. we cannot tell the american people that we have done all we can do to get to the truth in this investigation if we offer a path to a critical witness like ms. lerner. we are here today for one fundamental reason -- to get to the full truth about irs targeting. cannot abandon our responsibility. i recognize the ranking member for his statement. thank you very much, mr. chairman. thatieve with all my heart you take this meeting very said, you and, as you do not take it lightly. there is no one on this side of the aisle, and i'm sure on the other side, who take it lightly

coming either. for i begin, i want to note that i would like to be recognized at the appropriate time for a motion after the members speaking on a resolution. today i do not direct my comments to my fellow midi members. -- my committee members. my comments are directed to generations of americans yet unborn who will learn about this vote in their history books long after i am dead. i speak to those who are reading the transcript of today's proceedings, 50 to 100 years from now, and trying to 2014stand why congress in tried to strip away an american fifthn's rights under the amendment of the constitution of the united states of america. i want them to know that members of this body believe that this vote was a rejection of the

constitutional principles we were sworn to uphold. i want them to know that i objected. let me make clear that i am not defending the actions of lois lerner. but rather, the protections air the the constitution -- protections guaranteed by the constitution to every american, and perhaps i am a little sensitive about rights, having been the son of two former sharecroppers with only a second-grade education who did not have certain rights throughout their lives. let me also make clear that i wanted to hear ms. lerner's testimony. i would want to know why she did not discover for more than one year that inappropriate right. were being used in cincinnati, and i also wanted to know she did not tell the congress sooner

about these actions. however, i cannot cast a vote to replace me on this -- that would place me on the same page of history books as senator joseph mccarthy, and i do not draw that comparison lightly. today this committee is trying to do something that even joe mccarthy could not do in the 1950's, something virtually unprecedented. ago, joe mccarthy tried and failed to obtain a criminal conviction of an american citizen after she professed her innocence before his committee and asserted her right not to testify under the fifth amendment. i want to read briefly from the hearing transcript. in 1954, senator mccarthy accused a woman named diana hogue of being a communist. she worked at the westinghouse

company in a small town in new per hour.ng $171 .71 the similarities to the hearing today are striking. " i have said this, never engaged in espionage or sabotage. i am not so engaged. i will not so engage in the future. i am not a spy nor saboteur." like chairman i said, senator mccarthy argued that she waved her fifth amendment rights said shewhen a witness never engaged in espionage, then she waved the fifth amendment, not nearly as to that question, but to the entire field of espionage. like chairman issa is doing today, senator mccarthy held the witness in content and- senator'srejected the

legal theory. the court held that defendant did not waive her privilege under the fifth amendment and that she was entitled to an acquittal on all counts. today's vote were weighing about these see the constitutional questions, we would have a held at least one hearing of experts on all sides of the debate. take this lightly, and i know you do not either, mr. chairman. i made this request more than nine months ago. last june, but committee has never held a single hearing with a single expert on these issues. as of today a total of 31 independent experts have now come forward to identify fatal flaws in these proceedings. it includes the not follow constitutional due process protections. they include two former house

clerks,, supreme court and prosecutors and professors from across the country. they also include both democrats and republicans. they cost procedure mainly of a quote that i have always loved i originally barbara my faithhen she said, in the constitution is old. it is complete, it is. i am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the minutia, this version of the constitution. as i close is the chairman's are right a hold hearings and not to hear from these experts, but given the significance of this issue and its grave implications to all americans, i believe we should have. i sadly disagree on this, but i

will not be an idle spectator. today i will vote against the resolution, and i want to go back to the -- i do not want to to the era that strips americans of their citizens that has nothing to do with results will oversight and has everything to do with the worst kind of partisan politics. i yield back. will leave the record open today, that any member may submit a writ ten statement. members may offer amendment of five-minute rule. the report has been distributed to all members without objection. the report will be considered as read and open firmament as any point. does any member which is the report? the general one from ohio, mr. jordan. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

james madison not when he was representative madison that, talked about the role of the legislative rounds, the role of the house. he said this, the house should possess itself of the fullest information in order to do justice to the country and to officers. the fullest information. that is as much information as you can get so that you can arrive at the truth and you want to arrive at the truth so you can do justice. here's what we know >> lois lerner and the internal revenue service systematically targeted conservative gourroups. think about the first amendment. the most fundamental rights under the first amendment, freedom of speech, to criticize your government, that was

systematically attacked, because remember the context. go back to over 19, 2010. speechrner is giving a at duke university talking about the citizens united case, and she says this, the supreme court aa huge blow dealing a huge precedent. they? the it is the democratic senators who wrote the irs and said do something about this. it is the president of the united states. the state of the union address that year, the president called the supreme court of the state of the union address. they want the irs to fix the problem and she said, so everybody is screaming at us right now to fix it now before the election. she said i cannot do anything right now. she could not do it before the election in 2010, but she could put in place a systematic targeting to fix it the next year, and that is what she did. in the limited e-mails we got,

from her, she said this, in the fall of 2010, we will do a c-4 project next year. we need to be cautious so it is not a per se political project. which means what? it was a political project. she tried to hide that fact. guess what -- she got caught. when she got caught, we called her in before this committee. she's had at that table, and the only thing she said, we can put that on the screen, the only thing she said is that statement. the only testimony we have is that testimony right there. we know that is false. we know it is false. the press knows it is false. the american people knows it is false. the ways and means committee knows it is false. here we are. the only remedy we have to get every truth is to use tool at our disposal to try to get lois lerner to testify and

answer the questions. that is the only remedy we have. the only route -- remember this -- the only route to the truth is to the house of representatives. that is what madison was talking about, because we know this -- the investigation of the justice department is a complete joke. the fbi on january 13 this year, the fbi leaks to the wall street journal nobody will be referred for prosecution. the president said there's no corruption, not even a smidgen. the person having the $6,750 to thegave president's campaign. just this week on tuesday in the judiciary committee, i asked eric holder, have you looked into the leak that the fbi gave to the wall street journal? have you investigated that? his response, no, i have not. i am not even checked out the leak. the only path to the truth, the

only path to the truth is through this committee, the ways and means committee, the house of representatives. we have got to pass this resolution. it is the only chance we have to give the american people an opportunity to get the truth about a fundamental right that was systematically attacked. i want to close with a statement from our colleague. two weeks in this committee room, when we had mr. -- the head of the irs here. he said this, and i praised him in the pressroom for making the statement, and i talked to before yesterday, and i do not know how he is going to vote, but this statement is right on target. i talked to him on the floor and i looked at it again, looked at his statement last night it here's what he said two weeks ago. powerful agency, with a lot of information, on a lot of individuals, it has been targeting u.s. citizens, and that is serious stuff. it sure is. i think that justifies the scope

of the committee's inquiry and the urgency that we get to the bottom of this. for is not just good republicans. that is not just good for democrats. that is good for our democracy. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> i seek recognition for five minutes? >> i will take the liberty of going in order of seniority when i see hands. the gentlelady from new york? >> thank you. i wholeheartedly support the role that congress has been given to oversee the federal agencies. i completely agree that this committee should lead the way in ensuring our government is properly managed and working diligently on behalf of the american people. but unfortunately, this is not what this investigation has been about. wasuse if this committee

truly interested in examining allegations of undue influence from outside the irs, there would be an offer of immunity on the table. right now, for lois lerner. an offer for immunity so that we could ask her what, if anything, she was instructed to do by others. but there is no offer of immunity on the table, which happens in most serious investigations are just as there is no intent to seriously pursue a legitimate line of inquiry. herlerner has invoked constitutional right to remain silent under the fifth amendment, and that is it, the and. the fifth amendment states quite clearly that no person shall become held in any criminal case to be a witness against herself. republicans in this committee have claimed that ms. lerner has committed federal crimes rate

they say there is a criminal case to be made. and they wish to compel her to be a witness against herself. the constitution says no matter how powerful you believe yourself to be, in our country you just cannot do that. ms. lernernnocent -- has a constitutional right to remain silent on this issue. under our founding documents, we believe she is not endowed with that privilege by this committee, but rather, it is her right under our democracy. just like the first amendment right of free speech and the second amendment right to bear arms, the fifth amendment and its right to remain silent is a bedrock principle of our democracy. by thist be suspended congress. i would like to emphasize that our side of the aisle is just as determined to get to the truth on this matter as you are.

but trying to rip up the constitution and run it roughshod over the bill of rights is not a path to truth. it is merely political theater. and i would like to remind all those in attendance that just last month the treasury i.g. for tax administration justified its own audit found no evidence to support the accusations that there was political collusion. the i.g. found no evidence that its employees were politically motivated, and it was no reason for individuals outside the irs in creating the criteria and causing the delays. it was the i.g.'s report that began this thing. this committee has pursued this issue relentlessly. it has now collected more than 400,000 pages of documents from

the rrs and can't -- from the irs and conducted 38 interviews. but the issue of whether or not lois lerner waived her fifth amendment rights asserting her innocence is not for us to decide. it is a matter for the courts to weigh. on this matter i would like to point you to the analysis of morton rosenberg, a man who served with great the station for 35 years as the american public law specialist at the nonpartisan congressional research service, and i would like unanimous consent to place his analysis in the record. objection, all extraneous material will be placed in the record. >> he wrote in these proceedings the protections have not been met. i would like to note that stan brand, who served as house counsel, fully subscribes to mr.

rosenberg's legal analysis and conclusions. what would actually be far more important for this committee to report on is what the irs is doing to correct the problems that the agency and congressional oversight have identified. investigationt contained nine recommendations that it thought would improve an issue and guidance for reviewing and tracking. at a hearing last month, the irs confirmed that the irs has implemented every single one of these changes. that would be a good thing for the american people to know more about and to really fulfill its mandate. i think this committee -- hashe gentlelady's time expired. >> instead of pursuing the destruction of one single woman clean to her god-given constitutional rights. >> i recognize the gentleman from tennessee. you, andairman, thank

a law professor, well-known law professor at georgetown, is known as a very liberal pro-defendant analyst, said this about ms. lerner. he said she has run a grave risk of wave her rights this is on things she has already talked about. in that situation, when you voluntarily open up the subject you want to inquire into and in the same proceedings, that would be a waiver. alan dershowitz, a very liberal legal analyst, very pro- defendant usually, said this, he says, ms. lerner opened a legal pandora's box. you cannot make statements about a subject and then plead the fifth in response to questions about the very same subject. once you open the door to an area of inquiry, you have waived your fifth amendment rights. you have waived yourself-incrimination rights on that subject matter.

expert at the heritage foundation said we know that lerner already invited permission to that justice department before her appearance at the house committee. under the rules of the federal courts and the district of columbia, she waved her rights to assert the fifth amendment. some of you know i was a criminal court judge in 1/2 year.7 in the 1980 plus, we were trying cases right and left. i tried sending a jury trials my first year as a judge. lerner tell you when ms. made her statement and then asserted her fifth amendment right after that, i was stunned. lotmit i have forgotten a of law in 26 years since i was a judge. i also can tell you, and i am sure is a judge i made a lot of

mistakes, but i do not believe i was ever reversed in a single case, and i had a reputation as and ia pro-defense judge, leaned over backwards trying to give defendants every right that i possibly could. but you cannot come in and make a state ms. lerner did and say i violated no laws, i have broken no rules, and specifically saying that i have finally did no rules or regulations of the irs. do that and then come in and plead the fifth because if that was possible, every person, every defendant in any proceeding in this country would do that. they would come in and testify them and then plead the fifth so they could not be questioned so that they could not be cross-examined. to allow this makes a mockery of our system. it makes a joke out of it, and i have got other quotations from

leading legal experts, and i can just -- i will close by saying i appreciate what you have done, mr. chairman, and i personally think you are the right track. i have talked to many legal experts and read many articles about this situation. i have read and heard from many lawyers that know a lot more about this than i do. and most of them, the great majority of them, say that she has waived her right to plead the fifth in this situation, and so i agree with you and we will support you as you proceed to this markup today. thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. the gentlelady from the district of columbia. >> thank you. what we are seeing in the last couple of days is a kind of coordinated passing on of lois lerner. lois lerner is not a particularly sympathetic figure, but they are making her one. the ways and means committee had

a hearing which the papers have called a farce yesterday. . hearing unprecedented if you have not done before, use of the recurrent. to their we are having another hearing, another contempt hearing. hearing on lois lerner. the tragic irony is that we could have heard from lois lerner, and she was willing to testify before this committee. she has faced a accusede where she was before we had ever received a single document of false and misleading information. she was told that it carried potential criminal liability. the most powerful man in the house, speaker boehner, said at that point, my question is, who was going to jail over this

scandal? are two powerful politicians. as the committee's work was just getting underway, when people have taken the fifth during prior decades, they have also been labor leaders or inherentlys, sympathetic figures, but when you work for the irs you are not a synthetic figure. lois lerner was willing to testify before this committee. the chairman called her back last month. he gave her one week's notice. her attorney was going to be out of town, and he asked for a one-week extension.

i do not a court in the world that would have denied that extension, because you want to hear from the witness. was denied that extension even as ms. lerner was negotiating to come before this her fifthand waive amendment rights. but the chairman went on national television and e sensually blew up those negotiation -- and essentially blew up those negotiations by announcing inaccurately, without the permission of her attorney or ms. lerner, that she would , though hemarch 5 had given the attorney nooks tension of the kind he had asked. -- given the attorney an extension of the kind he had asked.

it is hardly likely that any attorney who did not want to be accused of malpractice would have come forward and allowed her to testify under those circumstances. in fact, what he said was we lost confidence in the fairness and the impartiality of the for um. it is completely partisan. it would be very hard to read but that in blue ---- to rebut that in light of the service as is when we could have -- of the circumstances as we could have heard from the witnesses. the american people have lost the confidence intervals of our work here. the public deserves to hear from ms. lerner. if you had acted in a more responsible fashion, if you had allowed the witness every

opportunity to negotiate to come before us and tell us what these hearings have been about from the beginning, this contempt matter would have been unnecessary, but the point seems to have been to have a show ntempt -- a show co hearing, to find her in contempt, and make political hay out of what is truly a far more serious matter. i thank you, mr. chairman, and yield back. >> i think the gentlelady. we go to the gentlemen from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and members of the committee. side of the aisle would have you believe that this justmething that republicans are doing and we did not give ms. lerner is a chance -- ms. lerner a chance. the facts are pull up a little

chart that irs began targeting withrvative groups conservative-sounding names from march to april, 2010, and ms. lerner was in charge of that particular agency and responsibility. june 2010man issa in alerted irs. it was not republicans who really helped launch some of the investigation.al in february, we heard previous comments from -- february, 2012. the investigation actually started, and i penciled it in, march, a month later, the