say in their drug coverage any more. drug therapy is decided not by your pharmacist, not by your doctor, not by the patient but by insurance companies and government. obamacare has to end. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the following letters in opposition, one from the national committee to preserve social security and medicare, another from easter seals, another from the afl-cio, and the other from sciu. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. scott: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. . mr. bryne: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield to the gentleman from michigan, another new member of this body, another new member at the education and work force committee, who brings a unique experience to this body, i yield for one minute to the gentleman from michigan, mr. bishop. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding.

mr. speaker, for the past 20 years, as a practicing lawyer and business owner, i have seen firsthand how companies have tried to grow and create more jobs, but they simply can't due to the strangling grip of obamacare's employer mandate. small businesses tell a story of how their current plan was canceled and how they were forced by obamacare into a health plan that covers less with higher co-pays and higher deductibles, along with unsustainable increases in premiums. simply stated obamacare is crushing small business across this great country. and despite the urgency of the crisis, the president has decided to dig himself in and promised to veto any commonsense reforms such as removing this employer mandate. so if the white house has decided not to collaborate with congress to ease the burdens on families and businesses, then the only path we have is full repeal. along with that mr. speaker, we need to move forward and develop commonsense health care reform that not only respects

families and the doctor-patient relationship but also considers any and all opportunities to lower skyrocketing health care costs. thank you and i urge my colleagues to join me in voting yes on h.r. 596. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record letters in opposition from the following organizations, the american academy of family physicians, the american diabetes association, and the american public health association. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. scott: and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. bryne: mr. speaker, i am pleased to recognize and yield to the gentleman from georgia another new member of the education and work force committee, a new member of this body, i'm yielding for one minute to the gentleman from georgia, mr. allen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. len len i thank the gentleman from -- mr. allen: i thank the gentleman from alabama for

yielding. mr. speaker, individuals, families and businesses alike in georgia and across the nation agree that obamacare is wrong for americans. across my district hardworking georgians are trying to make ends meet, they've told me their health care premiums have skyrocketed under this law. many have learned the plan they liked and were promised they could keep have been canceled and they've been denied care and access to their doctors. in addition to hurting american families, obamacare's costly mandates burden small businesses. the bedrock of job creation and entrepreneurship. and have real consequences for their employees, facing lower hours and wages. the nonpartisan congressional budget office estimates that the law will lower the number of full-time equivalent workers by 2.5 million. the president's own center for medicare and medicaid services

also found that an estimated 2/3 of small businesses will see their health care premiums go up under obamacare. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 596 and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from connecticut voiced for three minutes. mr. courtney: thank you, -- is recognized for three minutes. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the republican majority held a reteat where other members met and they set their agenda for 2014 and after that retreat, the leadership issued a statement saying, -- promising, with a solemn promise, that the house republicans will rally around and pass an alternative to obamacare this year. well, that's about four years after the law passed, but, hey, at least give them some credit that they were going to move forward in 2014 when the alternative to the -- with an alternative to the affordable care act. that was last winter and winter turned to spring, spring turned to summer, summer turned to fall, fall turned to winter and

we never had a vote in the house on the alternative, the promised alternative to the obamacare. well, maybe we had the committee -- maybe the committees took action, the committees that this proposed bill is lateraling this issue off to. did we have a commission vote on education in the work force, ways and means, energy and commerce? no, did we have hearings on an alternative that was promised by the majority caucus a year ago on an alternative to the affordable care act? no. no hearings, no markup, no vote, no bill. so here we are today with the majority once again throwing out a promise that, you know, trust us, in 180 days we'll have an alternative to the affordable care act. well, mr. speaker, unfortunately in the last year millions of americans have moved on. parents are ensuring their kids through the -- insuring their kids through the affordable care act up to age 26. there are members in the majority who take advantage of that very provision to provide coverage for their children under the affordable care act that they seek to repeal here

today. millions of seniors see their prescription drug costs cut because the affordable care act, because of the leftover of the republican prescription drug bill which led this outrageous doughnut hole that threw 100% of the costs of medications to seniors who was paying monthly premiums and we saw the startup of exchanges both at the state level like my state and the state of connecticut and the federal exchange, which have enrolled millions of americans in the owe to affordable plans. this year the affordable care act in connecticut, we had admissions by the insurance companies to participate in 2015. did we see reduced competition or less of a free marketplace? no we saw more competition we have more insurers who are offering the product through the exchange in 2015 than in 2014. did we see rates go up? mr. speaker, i'm going to submit to this chamber a record from the connecticut state department of insurance which shows that rates went down down for individual plans and for small group market plans.

the fact of the matter is that this marketplace, which now has more carriers is now providing lower rates, saving close to $90 million from last year's rates than the year before. mr. speaker, what we are being asked to do here today is to stop that progress to take away that coverage to young adults that today get it through their parents' plans, to take away the prescription drug benefit -- can i have 30 more seconds? mr. scott: i yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds. mr. courtney: to take away from seniors the relief that they're getting for life-saving medicationings, and to tell those individual and small group plans that are purchasing it now this year again we had 70,000 re-enrollments of the 75,000 that enrolled last year and we have 30,000 new that have enrolled this year in that plan. we have cut the uninsured rate in the state like connecticut, that's embraced the law, down to 4% of its population. and you're telling folks like me blow it up, get rid of it.

and you have no plan, even though your caucus made a promise a year ago to the american people that they would provide a plan and they never came through with it. reject this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. bryne: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield to my distinguished colleague from florida, mr. desantis, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one minute. mr. desantis: mr. speaker, my colleagues have demonstrated ably the substantive problems with this law. higher costs, canceled coverage, lost doctors. i'd just like to say that obamacare has done harm to small -- harm. when you go around the country telling people over and over again that they can keep their plans, that they can keep their doctors and that they will see thousands of dollars in savings on health insurance premiums, all the while you know or should have known that those promises were false i think

that damages our political system, because ultimately representative government requires honest dialogue between elected officials and the citizenry. it's almost as if this is the jonathan gruber law where we want to tell people lies in order to get bills that we would not have passed otherwise . i think that is unacceptable. these promises made to the american people were false. the american people were deceived and i think our representative government and political system have been damaged as a result and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlelady from north carolina, ms. adams. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. adams: thank you mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise today in support of the affordable care act. one year after implementing the health care exchanges, the number of uninsured in this

country has decreased dramatically. implementing the health care exchanges has provided health insurance access to 208,000 individuals in my district, with what are lot accounting for one of north carolina's highest number of subsidized health insurance enrollments. young adults can stay on their parents' plans resulting in nearly 10,000 young adults retaining health insurance in my district. seniors in my district have saved $11.1 million through medicare part b, the prescription drug discount. the affordable care act has also created 9.6 million private sector jobs. my district's unemployment rate is 13.9%. so for me it's not about just health, but jobs and our economy. these tangible benefits cannot be ignored. i urge my republican colleagues end to talks of repeal and instead work with democrats to strengthen the law. the affordable care act would have meant a lot to my sister, who i often had to take to the

emergency room for primary care for sickle cell. she died at age 26, but i know she would have been grateful for the coverage provided by the affordable care act. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. bryne: mr. speaker, i am pleased to yield to a new member of the house, from the state of texas, who is himself a dentist. i'm yielding for one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. babin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. babin: thank you mr. speaker, and thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of h.r. 596, legislation that i have co-sponsored to fully repeal obamacare. my constituents sent me to washington to repeal this disastrous law and that is what we are doing today. the number one issue in my district. as a health care provider myself for 38 years i've seen firsthand the devastating affects of obamacare and how it undermines the doctor-patient

relationship. it's costing us jobs and work hours and has led to millions of americans losing their health plans that they had and wanted to keep. and were promised such. restoring the patient's right to choose a plan that they want and can afford is just plain common sense. our bill does this by repealing obamacare and replacing it with free market solutions. we put america on a path toward patient-focused care, rather than government-directed care. their traditional doctor-patient relationship would be restored. let's show the american people that we are listening and rid the nation of this terrible law and replace it with policies that work. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. bryne: mr. speaker, i am pleased to recognize and yield to a colleague of ours a

distinguished veteran, the gentleman from utah, mr. stewart. for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah is recognized for one minute. mr. stewart: i'd like to thank my friend and the gentleman from alabama for giving me time to express my feelings. the intent of obamacare was to make health care more accessible and more affordable. and it in fact has done exactly the opposite. and i have heard from hundreds of my constituents who tell me how it's impacted their lives. a friend of mine from bountiful who -- their premiums have doubled, have doubled. a small business owner in the southern part of my district who found they could not get insurance at all. their plan was entirely taken away. this law was built on a foundation of deception. we were told if you wanted to keep your doctor, could you keep them.

we were told if you wanted to keep your plan, you could keep it. we were told it would reduce costs by an average 2,500 per family. we now know -- $2,500 per family. we now know that all of that was untrue and they knew it at the time they passed this law that it was untrue. all of us want to take care of those who have pre-existing conditions. all of us want to provide insurance to the uninsured. we can do better. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: i continue to yield -- to reserve, excuse me. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. bryne: i'm pleased to recognize and yield to another freshman in this house who comes from the great state of washington, i yield for one minute to the gentleman from washington mr. newhouse. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. new new thank you, mr. speaker -- nuenue thank you, mr. speaker -- mr. newhouse: thank you mr. speaker. this has been detrimental to american families businesses and taxpayers.

americans were promised that they could keep their health care plans and see their premiums decrease. instead they've been irreparably harmed by the elimination of their existing health care plans and pushed into a one-size-fits-all health care system. a system that fails to consider individual needs and eliminates choice of physicians, while families are faced with soaring premiums. . the cost of implementing obamacare has crippled businesses. small and large businesses have been forced to pass increased costs onto their employees, resulting in a decreased work force, lower wages, and delayed hiring. obamacare has hurt economic growth at a time when we can least afford it damaging our fragile economic recovery. put simply a government-centered approach to health care is not the answer. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from virginia. >> i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i would like to recognize and yield to another freshman member of this house, a gentleman who brings great experience to his position in this house, i yield for one minute to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. walker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. walker: thank you, mr. speaker mr. chairman. middle class economics. it's the president's new catch phrase, a method to pay lip service to helping american families. more smoke and mirrors. in november, voters spoke loud and clear in sending 58 members to washington. i made a promise over the last two years that i would come to washington and stand up. today i'm proud to vote against, for the first time, i'm proud to vote for full repeal of this law. the a.c.a. has caused insurance premiums to skyrocket for working families in north carolina. it continues to weigh on our economy and job creators this law is seriously flawed and the

fact that the president's administration has overreached dozens of times trying to change and fix the law themselves. yes, the damaging effects of obamacare are so ingrained to the fabric of this law that fixing it is not an option. that's why i urge my colleagues to vote for h.r. 596 for full repeal. thank you, mr. speaker and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from alabama reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: i believe the gentleman is prepared to close? mr. byrne: we are. mr. scott: i yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for the remainder of the time, 1 3/4 minutes. mr. blumenauer: this is the 56th time we've gathered on the floor, talking past each other.

the legislation offered by our republican friends a repeal doesn't have any alternative and frackly, everybody knows it's not going to pass. if it were to be -- will not be enacted into law, the president would vee to it. the facts don't justify the rhetoric. we have 10 million previously uninsured americans, we have the lowest spending health care growth rate in years, and medicare premiums are lower than they were before the a.c.a. was passed. and it held steady for three years. what should we be doing? i'd suggest we deal with things instead of trying to make the a.c.a. worse and rail against it and get nowhere. i'd suggest we deal with things that we can agree upon. aye been working with my colleague mr. roe on bipartisan legislation to deal with providers helping with end of life care for patients.

a medicare common access card with representative rothman. bipartisan legislation to establish a smart card pilot project to eliminate medicare fraud. a value-based design for better care with representative black which would establish a pilot frodget test reducing or eliminating cost sharing for seniors with high value med cases. these are things we could do this month that would make a difference. i hope that we stop this charade and get down to cases. the american public deserve our best efforts not to debate but to make health care better and build on the foundation of the affordable care act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired, the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. byrne: i've been listening carefully to the debate, we've heard a lot from both sides. but this is not about anybody in this house, it's about the

american people. it's about something so very fundamentally important to them their health care. we took away the health care system that worked for 80% of the people in this country to fix a problem that we, today know we fixed for only 1% of the american people. only three million new americans have gotten on this new health care plan that didn't have health insurance before. that's 1% of the american people. so we threw out the health care plan that worked for 80% of americans to fix a problem for 1% of americans. and look what it's done. it's wrecked lives. i have here from my office a sampling of emails and letters which doesn't include the phone calls, people have talked to me at over 30 town hall meetings, women with tears in their eyes because they couldn't pay their health insurance because they couldn't pay the diductable when they went to the doctor or hospital. a man who fore went going to get a particular surgery needed because he couldn't pay the deductible. that's what this law has done to the people of america.

it has victimized the people of america. there's no way to fix this law. it's fundamentally flawed. we could go and do a piecemeal problem here, a piecemeal resolution there. we'd end up with another frankenstein. american people don't want frankenstein. they don't want groundhog day either. they don't want the president to continue to throw stuff at them that doesn't work over and over again. they deserve a health care system that they control with their doctors. picking the health insurance program they want that's not mandated by the federal government that fit into their budget. that empowers them. instead of having their power taken away by some faceless bureaucracy in washington. let's repeal this terrible obamacare law. let's put in process a place that will give us a solution that works for people for what they really need and let's get on with the business that we're here to do to make lives better

for the american people. i thank the majority leader. i thank the speaker. i thank the whip for bringing this bill to the floor. i thank them for allowing my bill to be the one to be the package that we used today. i ask all my colleagues to vote yes on this important bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 70 the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in feaver say aye. those opposed, no. ayes have it, third reading. the clerk: patient protection and affordable care act and health care related provisions and health care and education reconciliation act of 2010 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the current bill? >> i am opposed nits current form.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: moves to send the bill back to the committee and add at the end of the bill the following section four, protecting women, seniors, and middle class family from the harmful effects of repeal. >> i reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the point of order is reserved. the clerk will read. the clerk: the provisions of this act shall not take effect unless and until such date that it is certified that one, insurance issued on the basis of pre-existing conditions and gender including higher premiums for women including mammograms, cervical screenings and commonly prescribed for health care, two, higher costs for seniors for prescription drugs under the

medicare program under part d of title 18 of the social security act, 4 united states code, 1395w-101 et seq.y tur or three a tax increase on middle class families through the loss of subsidies to purchase health insurance coverage. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i have listened intently to the comments of my friends on the other side of the aisle and i must say it's not been my experience where i come from, but maybe that's different being from california. this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. mr. speaker, h.r. 596 would eliminate critical benefits and health care coverage from hardworking american families. mr. desaulnier: in addition to taking away americans' health

care security it would increase the deficit, make health care more expensive and degrade the quality of care pishts -- patients are receiving. if adopted, my notion recommit would ensure that some of the most important protections of the affordable care act remain in effect. yesterday, as others have mentioned, it was groundhog day. but today, we are bill murray -- murray, living the same votes other and over again. in fact, as was mentioned, 56 times over and over again this motion would protect existing law by continuing to, number one, prevent insurance companies from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions and gender or cutting health benefits for women number two, prevent increases in medicare d prescription drug costs for senior and number three prevent a tax increase for middle class american families by taking away subsidies to purchase health insurance. mr. speaker, i am a former republican and a small business

owner who supports the affordable care act and has seen the benefits for small business. i've also seen the benefits for the economy and the seven million californians who do not have health insurance. many vims who wanted health insurance were unable to obtain it either because it was too expensive or because they had pre-existing conditions including nearly 126,000 people in my home county in the bay area. one of these individuals in my district is a young woman named emily. emily was born with a general heart defect and as a result she'll need regular monitoring and treatment by a cardiologist. were it not for the affordable care act, emily would have been left without critical health care and necessary treatment the remainder of her young life. her situation is not unique. approximately 130 million other americans no longer have to worry about being denied health

care coverage because of their health status. additionally, mr. speaker, under the affordable care act, almost eight million seniors have saved nearly $10 billion on prescription drugs. and under the affordable care act, many people pay less for their insurance in 2014 than in 2013. before the law was enacted, health care premiums were increasing exponentially, must faster than college tuition and worker wages and inflation. once the law took effect premium increases were died down substantially. simply, this law is saving americans money. in california this year, with two weeks left to go in open enrollment, more than 273,000 californians have joined the nearly one million covered california customers enrolled in 2014. nearly nine of 10 enrollees rere-seve some kind of financial help in 2014, ensuring that

californians can afford the kind of coverage they need and want resm peeling the law without including these three protections will cost more than we can afford. $100 billion over the next 10 years until 2022, and more than $1 trillion in the following decade. mr. speaker, it would also discriminate against women. in the form of higher premiums. and make it impossible for many women to get the care they need. every american family deserves a plan that covers essential health benefits. like hospital care, emergency care, care for pregnant women, and a plan that won't bankrupt them or this country just because an illness or accident occurs. and every american family deserves to know that they won't be kicked off their insurance far pre-existing condition or be subjected to lifetime caps that take away their benefits when they need them most. health care, mr. speaker, is not a democratic or republican issue. it is an american issue and a

human issue. we are here to ensure that every american continues to have access to quality, affordable health care. if we can produce a bill that fulfills the goals set out by the affordable care act, it doesn't matter who wrote or signed the bill, but repealing the affordable care act without including these important protections for hardworking, american, middle class families is irresponsible and reckless. i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from utah seek recognition? >> i would like to withdraw my point of order and claim time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from utah is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker ms. love: i would like to ask a few questions of my colleague. has congress made health care more accessible and toy aford snble has the quality of care improved? no. do hardworking families and our children deserve better?

absolutely. now is the time to repeal and replace this disaster of a law. this law has hurt more poor and more middle income families. i received a letter from a constituent and the letter states, i wonder if you would like a real-life example of what obamacare is doing to families. my daughter and her husband are expecting their second child. they were planning on moving from their small apartment to a small home. their insurance has doubled under obamacare and they will pay $500 a month their deductible will be $10,000. they will have to pay each doctor for a phone call plus $50 co-payments. no specialists are covered. they barely are getting by as it is. because of their insurance costs, there is no chance of getting into a home or even a

bigger apartment. how can insurance for everyone be of help if it causes such a financial burden on families? my daughter is so depressed she isn't even excited about her upcoming child because she's so worried about their future. if we had the means to help, we would, but we don't. my heart breaks for her. how can congress help? sincerely, paula. now, people talk about tweaking obamacare. i ask, how do you tweak that to help that family? the american people deserve better mr. speaker. imagine a health care system that is centered in service. imagine a health care system that is measured by outcomes, not by washington dictate. i know that it is hard for some of my colleagues to contemplate, but imagine if you will for me mr. speaker a health care system where dollars and decisions are left with patients their families

and their doctor. i see an american exceptionalism at work where families and innovation and compassion drive the highest quality of care. members of congress representatives of the people do not set -- people, do not settle. do not settle for tweaking a bad program that hurts more than it helps, that controls more than it empowers. there are too many members of this body that content with just getting this health care law to be good enough. i'm here to tell you that for the american people, good enough just isn't good enough. i reject the downward spiral of mediocrity and government takeover of health care. i refuse to pursue the administration's path of fear, blame and failure. i oppose this motion to recommit, a bad health care law. it is time for us, this body, to advance the policies and the principles that -- which have

lifted more people out of poverty, fueled more freedom and driven more dreams than any other set of principles in the history of the world. i ask this body to come with me boldly step forward and unleash that american exceptionalism that produces the health care solutions that this family is worthy of and every hardworking american in this country is worthy of. may god continue to bless this great exceptional country. thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from utah yields back the balance of her time. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. the gentleman from california is recognized. the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes

by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20 the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage of the bill. 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 speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 179, the nays are 241. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentleman from virginia. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. 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 239. the nays are 186. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, by direction of the democratic caucus, i offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate

consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 77, resolved that the following named members be and are hereby -- mr. becerra: i ask unanimous consent that it be considered as read and printed in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces the speaker's appointment pursuant to house resolution 77, the 114th congress and the order of the house of january 6 2015, of the following members to the

house democracy partnership. the clerk: mr. roskam of illinois chairman. mr. fortenberry of nebraska, mr. boustany of louisiana, mr. conaway of texas, mr. buchanan of florida, mr. crenshaw of florida, mrs. brooks of indiana, mrs. black of tennessee, mr. ribble of wisconsin mrs. walorski of indiana, mr. zeldin of new york. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for ms. chu of california for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6 2015, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60

minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. garamendi: madam speaker and members, wow, there are actually people in the audience and members. we talked a lot about middle-class economics, but why, why is it important? why did the president raise his issue in his state of the union? what's this all about? we're going to spend some time here today working our way through middle-class economics and some of my colleagues may join me and i ask the republicans if they want to join they could too. it's ok, mr. speaker that they're not listening but this is really an important issue. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. mr. garamendi: thank you. so why is middle-class economics important? what's it all about? it's really about driving the economy. if you want to create jobs in

america, if you want to have economic growth in america, the middle class of america the great middle class, the millions upon millions of men and women that are working families, they need to grow, and so middle-class economics is all about growing the american economy because that's where demand is created. we often to talk about the job creators and businesses really create product and they create profit, but it is the middle class that actually creates the growth in the economy by creating the demand. so if we are able to grow the middle class, grow the paychecks increase the vast number of americans that are in the middle class, we will create the jobs. so that's why middle class economics is on our agenda. there are other pieces of this. it leads to higher wages, improving -- so when you increase the middle class, you increase the higher wages and creating the demand.

that's what this is all about. it's about opportunity. it's about growing the ability of the working families in america to make it, to have a shot at education, have a shot at home. and so that's what we're going to talk about today in this next 46 minutes is about middle class economics. the president brought this issue to us. we're going to spend some time discussing this. . mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding and reason i wanted to yield, i wanted to thank him i don't know if there is any member of this body or the other body who has spent more time talking with the american public to let them know how focused we are on making sure that americans can make it in america.

and the middle class, of course, are critically important. i tell the gentleman from california he and i both traveled outside this country. i think i have probably been to 60 nations and every nation has its rich people and every nation has its poor people. america's genius and success was posited on the broad middle class that made america. they are the ones on whose work intellect and createist and sbrurel energy made america what it is and it has been. i want to congratulate the gentleman from california mr. garamendi, for the fidelity that he has shown over the years to this critically important object jecttive of making sure -- object i have that middle-class

americans have the ability to increase their standard of living that over their parents. that has been the general just of our country and needs to continue to be. and the president has offered as the gentleman points out, an agenda that is focused on working men and women in this country, making sure they have the ability to live quality lives and have their children pursue education and do even bet better than their parents and this country will do better than their parents. i rise to thank the gentleman for his fidelity to this objective, which is the critical agenda for our country, and i yield back. mr. garamendi: nobody has been at this longer than you. you have been working in the halls of congress and across this nation advocating for the

middle class. both democrats and republicans now agree that the middle class of america has stalled out. they have not seen the increase in their paychecks. there has been a decrease on the average middle-american paycheck. what we are all about and what the president proposed is middle-class economics. it is critically important, if we want to grow the jobs in this nation, we have to pay attention to the middle class and how they can improve themselves, how they can have a higher standard of living, have greater paychecks and in doing so, we will be able to grow the economy and reduce the deficit and there are numerous ways this can be done. higher wages, infrastructure critically important. in the budget that the president put forth yesterday, there is a major advancement that he is proposing for infrastructure. a six-year program, over $600

billion in that six-year period $673 billion. rebuilding our roads bridges, our ports, our communication systems, when you do that, you shall actually going to grow the economy and it's the middle class that will have those jobs. this is all about growing the middle class, otherwise known as middle-class economics. we are going to spend the next several months as we put together the budget first and the appropriation and the various pieces of legislation for example re-authorizing a surface transportation program. we want to structure that, we the democrats want to structure it in a way that the principal benefits flow to the working families of america so they can see debater wages and greater opportunities. there are many, many pieces to this puzzle that we need to pay

attention to. so we want to grow american jobs. mr. hoyer was just a moment ago, and he talked and has been talking about this theme of making it in america, which builds on the buy american laws, which have been in effect for 40 years. our taxpayer money must be spent, should be spent on american-made equipment. these are the fundamental parts of growing america jobs. so you make things in america. whether that happens to be a movie, or a new app for your iphone or a trainor a plane whatever it happens to be, make it in america, use our taxpayer money to buy american-made equipment. this one one here, a american workforce fundamental to growing the economy. whether it be in bangladesh or

the united states is a well educated workforce. america used to have the best education system in the world. we're not there anymore. we have fallen way off the power curve. we have to re-establish america's position as the best educated workforce in the entire world. now, the president in his state of the union and part of the middle-class economics, spoke to this issue when he talked about community colleges. all americans being able to get two years of education at a community college perhaps to pick up an aa degree or some skill set that it be free. what an important element that is in having a well educated workforce. many, many other pieces to this educated workforce and we'll over the next several weeks and months be talking about this as we go forward. research and development.

i'm from california. and i represent a major research university, university of california davis, and you can just see spreading out from that university, new businesses in biotechnology, biomedical, biopharmaceutical. we are seeing energy programs and new companies being created from the research at the universities. and it's not just davis, california but silicon valley is a prime example. and other research institutions around the nation. these are the ways in which you grow american jobs. we talked earlier about infrastructure. we'll come back to that. trade policies are also critically important. we will be debating the transpacific partnership here and the european trade agreements. in those trade agreements, it's vitally important that we don't give away american jobs. it will be a great debate.

very important. we have seen what happens with nafta and other trade agreements when we allow the offshoring of american jobs. these are six pieces of how you grow american jobs. i notice my colleague is here from vermont. if you care to join us in this conversation i would be delight delighted and i yield my time to you, peter. well well one of the things we have to -- mr. welch: one of the things we have to recognize, wages have stagnated and people haven't had a raise in 15, 20 years. there is a reason for that. part of is globalization and weakening power of unions. others comben fitted by the commitment of unions of good wages and safe working

conditions. there are pressures with globalization that has reduced the bargaining power, made things cheaper to buy but has helped contribute to lower wages. and the bottom line is that we need policies in order to focus attention as you're saying on the middle class and improving their purchasing power. giving them what the middle class has had, a wage or salary where at the end of the month, pay their bills and set aside a little money for college, set aside a little money for vacation, set aside a little extra money for retirement. and that's a basic contract that we should be making. and we have a variety of things where we have created policies and undercut the capacity of the middle class to sustain itself. the tax policy is out of control and outrageous when we have been passing these bush tax cuts that are skewed heavily to high-end

folks with the notion it will create jobs through trickle-down economics. it hasn't worked. when we enter into trade agreements, didn't take account environmental and labor standards. american workers are willing to compete but has to be on a level playing field. but on things that a confident nation invests in, like education of the future. we grew up and those ahead of us had the g.i. bill, came back from serving their country and got a free education. but they paid it back and then some with their productivity. where we establish medicare and social security. provided a safety net for older people and trying to make in roads now in providing a secure health care system through the affordable care act, but we have a big challenge in bringing down those costs.

where we have the opportunity to invest, as you're saying, not just the higher education, but job training for people so they have the skills they need to compete in a modern economy. the infrastructure that you mentioned how is it that in this country, where we have extraordinary engineers, extraordinary needs and bipartisan agreement, that we have to rebuild our roads and our bridges extend broadband throughout the country including in rural areas of vermont, and by the way rebuild our schools, rebuild our hospitals. all of these are institutions that are essential to the well-being of local communities that are where middle class people live. so i really appreciate your focus on this. what's frustrating for america and a lot of us in congress is that our focus on policy is how much more tax cuts should we

give to folks who don't need them how much more should we spend on things that don't reward investment and hard work and for how long are we going to start to continue this disinvestment in science in research medical research, in infrastructure, and in education? i'm pretty amazed, as i know your that young people getting out of college on average have a $30,000-plus debt and have debts in the range of $100,000 and those debts are shared by their parents who co--signed and high interest rates and those who paid down their house and looking to take a two, three-week vacation, maybe a crews, find themselves with high monthly payments for education. so, you know there is a bipartisan desire to help the middle class.

but we are in a debate about what the solutions are. and essentially is no taxes, no regulation, will somehow lift all boats i don't think i have seen evidence that's the case. another argument is you have to make sensible, prudent disciplined decisions about how and where to invest in the future of this country. so, mr. garamendi i salute you for your advocacy here and speaking so eloquently on this issue that i think is the issue of our time. mr. garamendi: your representation of the state of vermont is unparalleled. you have been at this for some time and you so correctly pointed out all of the various policies that are either in law today that hold back the middle class. you talked about tax policy that supports those the 1 percenters and the 10% and focuses the

burden on the middle class and the poor. the president is shifting -- suggesting a shift on that. and we will debate that. this is one more piece of the middle class economics, grow american jobs. these are public policy issues, make it in america, buy america. education. you raised something that is very much on my mind. i have kids that have school debt from going to medical school or nursing school or just four years. and i often wonder, great majority of the student debt was actually owned by the federal government. i think it's 60% of the trillion-plus dollars of student debt is owned by the american public. we have refinsed everything. we refinance our credit cards our home. why don't we refinance the

student debt? mr. welch: that is exactly right. mr. garamendi: we can borrow money for 2% for 10 years, maybe 20 years. why don't we borrow at 2%, loan -- refinance that debt and pay 2% rather than 6%, 7% or 8%. mr. welch: you are so right. interest rates have gone down and folks have been given breathing room by reducing their interest rates from 7% to 3.50%. that is real money. why not allow students and parents who have signed on student loans that same opportunity and they'll pay the loans back. mr. garamendi: refinance your home and refinance your student debt. it's a bookkeeping issue at the

federal level. they are paying a high interest rate to the u.s. government and they're held back. this is a major part of the middle class. mr. welch, thank you so much for joining us. we will talk about a few other things that go into this -- that previous plaquered had the make it in america as one of the principal ways of growing american jobs and it really is true. i want to give you just two examples of how make it in america and buy america creates american jobs or not. two bridges, one on the west coast, the san francisco-oakland bay bridge, and one on the east coast new york actually, the tappan zee bridge in new york. i got to talk about this, this should be a y rather than a w. the new york tappan zee bridge.

this bridge in san francisco bay was supposed to be about a $3 billion. turned out to be over $6 billion. instead of buying american steel, they went out and bought sustains steel. supposed to be 10% cheaper. turned out to be far, far more expensive. it became overbudget. it did create 3,000 jobs in china and serious problems with the quality of the steel, the welds and other problems. anyway, it wound up $4 billion overbudget, more than 100% more expensive. now, new york, this is my state. this is a major controversy and if you will, a major scandal in california. in new york -- excuse the w. that's a y. in new york, the tappan zee

bridge is now under construction. it's 100% u.s.-made steel. it's coming in at about $3.9 billion total and underbudget and there was 7,728 american jobs as the direct result of the demation made by new york to -- decision made by new york to buy america, to make it in america. this is the most clear example that i've been able to find west coast-east coast and the east coast making the right decision of buying america, using the american taxpayer dollars. in case of both, the commuters in new york or the commuters in san francisco bay, paying their money to china, in the case of san francisco by bridge, or to american workers and american steel companies.

a prime example of why make it in america is so critically important, because it is all about those middle class jobs. it's about the steel workers, the ironworkers the men and women that are doing the welding, that are in the shops, in the steel mill harvesting or mining the coal and the iron ore to make the steel. keep this in mind, america. when we talk about make it in america policies, when we talk about middle class economics, we're talking about bringing it home, keeping it home building our own economy. china can do what they want to do but let them do it with someone else's money, not with american taxpayer money. so we're going to push this policy hard, and i want to give you another example and that is at this moment amtrak -- amtrak, we know what amtrak is. this is the american passenger

rail system, is requesting a waiver from the department of transportation on the buy america requirements for the purchase of 28 new high-speed rail train sets for the east coast corridor. amtrak correctly wants to make the trip between washington, d.c. and boston a whole lot faster. to do that, they want to transition to a whole new type of freezing rain not the excela, which was the last version of high speed. they want to go to a real high speed system here on the east coast. however, we're talking about tens of millions of dollars to be spent on these high speed train sets 28 of them. they want to waive the buy america requirements. waive the buy america requirements. what happened with the bay

bridge, the san francisco-oakland bay bridge when they did that? the jobs went overseas. and i'm saying, no way, no how are you going to waive the buy america requirements. oh, but you don't understand. america doesn't make high speed trains. yes, that's correct, because we've never had them in the united states and we never will if we waive the buy america requirements. both for the high speed rail on the east coast or the high speed rail on the west coast, no way, no how should we apply america taxpayer money to be spent overseas. build it in america, make it in america, hold onto those buy america requirements. they are legal, they've been in law for nearly half a century. keep them. amtrak i'm sorry, but i've talked to the companies that could manufacture these trains and they say of course we can make them in america. it's going to take a little

while. we have to build the factory and we can do it. if it's required we'll do it. i'll give you an example of how it actually happened. in the stimulus bill, the american recovery act, there was a provision, some $700 million for amtrak to purchase 100% american made loke motives. -- locomotives. these are the locomotives that will be in the east coast corridor. $700 million. about 80 different trains, 80 different locomotives. semen's looked at that and -- siemen's looked at that and said, 80 trains, locomotives and said, we can do that. they took their factory in san francisco california, a few miles from my district, a few

miles from my home expanded it and began the process of making it in america. and those new locomotives are 100% american made by a german company operating in the united states. so don't tell me you can't do it. don't tell me that you cannot make aluminum frames for these trains, that you can't make wheels and brake systems in the united states. this is the united states. we used to be and we must be at the top of the pack. we can be if we bring it home, if we keep it home, if we make it in america. remember -- remember this fiasco in california. remember what happens when you went to china to buy steel. 100% overbudget and a lot of ongoing problems as to the safety of this bridge going forward.

remember new york. they said they were going to buy america. comes in under budget 7,728 jobs in the united states built by americans. i'm not proud of california in this situation. couple of other things that are on my mind. as i said, what's -- why middle class economics? it's about growing the demand. it's about rebuilding the middle class giving the purchasing power to the middle class, growing their wages, grow the paycheck, grow the paycheck grow the jobs grow the paycheck. and these are all ways in which we can raise the wage. and there's this little hashtag, raisethewage. so if you see that out there on your twitter account you know what that's about.

grow the paycheck. buy american, job training and education. this one this is a big one. more than 50% of women in the united states are working and they're working at the same job as a man for about 75% of the wage. you want to grow the wage, you want a bigger paycheck for american families then pay attention to the law that's been in effect in the united states since john f. kennedy signed it in the 1960's and that's equal pay for equal work. and this one down here at the bottom the men and women at the bottom at the minimum wage, we've been calling for a raise in the minimum wage for months and years here. you want to help out the american economy, you raise the minimum wage -- we excuse me. not you. we, us, members of congress, the senate, raise the minimum wage and we'll see a growing

purchasing power and a growing economy as a result of that. you don't lose jobs. the economic studies are clear. you aren't going to lose jobs by raising the minimum wage. hasn't happened in california. the minimum wage has gone up a year ago. we've seen job growth. we didn't see less jobs. so what we're seeing is greater purchasing power by the families of america. fewer people on food stamps, fewer people on welfare as you raise the minimum wage, that's what happens. so this is what we call grow the paycheck, raise the wage. i'm going to let education go. we'll pick that up later. and i want to pick up one of my current challenges. i think anybody that studies american history will know that america was the greatest maritime nation in the world.

we were contending with the united kingdom, england, as to who was the best maritime nation and we surpassed england. we've lost that. we've seen our maritime industry, our mariners, our ships decline. we have very few ships flying the american flag anymore. all of the cruise ships that are advertised even on the super bowl last -- two days ago, those were flagged overseas. they didn't have american crews on them although all of their passengers seem to be american, or at least many of them. what we need to do is find ways to rebuild the american maritime industry. these are the sailors the merchant marine, the american mariners the captains, the sailors, the engineers. it's also the shipbuilding, the great shipyards of america are in need of business. we do a lot of naval ships.

this is a fundamental national security issue. the shipyards of america, the ability to build ships for the navy for our domestic trade, critical as a security issue. obviously critical as a jobs issue, and we can do this. we are in the process of exporting natural gas with liquefied natural gas. a new terminal by the shenear company in texas will need 100 ships or more just for that one terminal. and what i'm saying is that if we're going to ship a strategic national asset, natural gas in the form of liquefied natural gas, if we're going to export that, then we ought to use that export to secure a second

national security issue and that is our merchant marines and our shipyards. so when this tanker, which happened to be built in japan finds its way to an american port will it be american sailors? this is a very dangerous thing. you're talking about millions of gallons of natural gas in liquefied form. will it be american sailors and will this ship be an american ship? india wants to buy natural gas from the united states. they have a tender offer out. that tender offer says we want to buy x gazillions of cubic feet of natural gas. good. and three of the ships that transport that must be built in india. i say to india, great. the other six or seven ships must be built in the united states. you want our gas, terrific. and we want to have the ships built in the united states with american sailors. this is a fundamental national

security issue. i just noticed that my good friend, paul tonko from new york, came to join me on the floor. probably because i was praising new york so exceedingly with the tappan zee bridge. mr. tonko, good for new york, a shame on california for building a bridge with chinese steel. mr. tonko, please join us. . mr. tonko: thanks for this special order on middle-income economics and growing jobs and the economy. that must be our top priority. making certain that the dignity of work and the strength of drawing a pay check is the american dream. we want to help individuals and families across this country to move forward to utilize their

skills, talents and passions to be able to maintain a household, raise a family, and again, provide for that american dream. it's always a pleasure to join you when we're speaking to these issues so forcefully and know there is a solution out there there is a way to grow this economy and looking at some of the items mentioned in the budget we should pay attention of. thank you for leading us in a recent motion to recommit to make certain that those who will stack those votes, supporting cargo of l.n.g. create american jobs. we need to be very, very much disciplined as to how we create a working agenda for america's families and that is one step in the process. but to the greater issue of

infrastructure, i would suggest that we are well beyond that deadline when we should have responded to america's needs. we have a very deficient infrastructure. many bridges r-rated deficient and weak. there are number of situations with the grid system that was designed for a monopoly system and we deliver electrons from region to region, and state-to-state and country-to-country. it requires an upgrading investments in our electric utility grids and broadband for our communication sake. we need to wire neighborhoods in remote areas to enable us to strengthen the outcome, the commerce end of it all, to give businesses those needs that are so important.

let me close with this because i see our friend from the state of ohio has joined us. let me make this mention. i recently held a press conference in my district on the return home after a week of being on the floor here and it was about the child care tax credit. it was araising to hear the stories of parents struggling trying to work and need two incomes and impacted by the high cost of high quality child care. as a co-parent with a given agency they are in that sense of a secure setting, so they can be productive at work and know that their children are well cared for. and it brings benefits. social and cognitive and

educational skill sets that are introduced into the lives of those children, that makes them all the more ready for that pre-k to elementary setting and it has great benefits. when you think the average cost out there is $10,000 per year for child care and when toddlers can be as high as $16,000 and a five-year-old as high as $12,000. that's immense. the president triples that benefit to some $3,000 per child under five per family. and families making as much as $120,000 they can get the full benefit and there is a scaled down benefit for families making as high as $210,000. there are efforts to grow the economy. the middle class has taken it on

the chin for far too long. we have seen the growth of this economy post-recession and since the upward movement, has gone to a relative few. and now it's time to share the wealth with the great numbers of us in the middle class. and that's the engine that runs america. if you give more purchasing power to the middle-income community give it to the working poor and give it to those looking to spend it in the middle class, that will drive it. even more powerful than what we have seen since the president took office back in 2009 when we hit the lowest part in 2009. since that point we have done well. we could have done better with infrastructure investments and put people to work in the trades environment and would have had more purchasing power.

representative garmeppedy, it is a pleasure to join with you, to make certain we bring to the public's attention, direct assistance we can provide, items that have been introduced in bill format that can make a difference in the fabric of this community. where we can have that american dream in more nobel and measured terms and make certain that we not only drive the climate production and grow the economy. it's within our grasp. we have to be bold in our attempt to go forward and go progressive in our thinking and in our policies. mr. garamendi: mr. tonko, you have been with me on the floor for the last few years and keep beating this drum about american jobs. we have a policy from the president that has all of the elements many of which we talked about on the floor, the research issue, the education issue, the job training issue,

the infrastructure, all of those things. it's all pulled together in middle-class economics. another piece of that puzzle is trade policy. and if we are going to grow american jobs as i put it up before, buy america, make it in america research infrastructure and then one down here trade policy. ms. kaptur has spoken to us many times. she is passionate about it and right about it. we have to be careful on how we do our international trade programs so we don't hollow out the great american manufacturing sector in american jobs whether in manufacturing or agriculture. ms. kaptur, i know you are passionate about it and well informed. ms. kaptur: i thank you for bringing us together. you are truly a leader on growing american jobs, growing

more american jobs all the way from california, way on the west coast to congressman paul tonko's community in new york on the east coast, and to commend both you gentleman for your dogged determination to keep expanding the recovery and doing everything we can to help the american people have inkeysing paychecks and fulfilling work. and a good family life, where they are able to raise their children, fulfill their dreams. i wanted to come to the floor to talk about america's trade policies for a brief moment here. and the record statistics don't lie and our trade policies have been costing us more jobs than they have been yielding us for a very long time. and the trade policies that have been enacted have actually cost the united states to accumulate

since 1976 a staggering number, $9.5 trillion in trade deficit. that means more imports coming in here than our exports going out. and translating that into lost jobs foregone jobs 47500 people say why do we have a budget deficit? when you lose that productive wealth inside your country to other places, our people begin to back slide and they have been doing that since the 1980's despite our hard work to make a difference. trade policies have an enormous impact on the ability of the american people to maintain a standard of living and to both remain in the middle class or aspire to it and earn their way

forward. it now takes two in a family to earn enough where when i grew up our father worked and that was enough to support our family, until he became ill and that's a whole other story. but today, it is so hard for people to have two people working in the family and hold their household together. they are scrimpping every week where they are going to put their limited income. how did america get in this deep a hole on trade? before we sign any more trade agreements, we ought to fix what's wrong with the current one. wouldn't that make sense? they promised us with korea, one of the most recent agreements, we would be exporting 50,000 automobiles over there. it hasn't happened. it hasn't happened.

we lost 17,000 additional jobs because of the korean agreement not being in balance. i think we have to be rigorous and ask ourselves how do we fix this for the sake of the future not just this generation, but the next. i have a long list and i will be coming to the floor talking about companies we have known in this country and where they have relocated and i know the workers in those places and the executives who used to run those companies i know how hard they worked to create great american products. if i look at lima, ohio handcuffy bicycle, -- huffy bicycle was known in ohio and became a wal-mart supplier and well over 1,000 people lost

their jobs in the late 1990's, 1998 and the plant first moved from ohio to missouri. then it moved from missouri to mexico. and then it made its final move from mexico to china. so if you look at the huffy bicycle today, you will see the paint job isn't the same. you will see the tires aren't the same, the quality of the metal isn't the same. it isn't the same bicycle that was made in ohio that used to last a lifetime. decreased quality has come with that manufactured product, which is then shipped back here to the united states and sold in different locations. it's kind of sad really what happens. i love chocolate. and i used to like to buy hershey bars and still do eat

hershey. but hershey always manufactured in pennsylvania. when you walked through hershey, you could smell the chocolate in the streets. but if you noticed, the recipe has changed. they'll deny it. a large part of their production was moved to mexico and had to change the wrapper to withstand the warmer temperatures. and the recipe changed and all those workers in hershey, pennsylvania, that happened in 2011. these are brand name products that we know in our country. dell, dell had been located in the carolinas and in 2009, they moved to mexico too. so you think about the manufacturing -- manufactured products that we have known, but companies like bank of america that had offices in cincinnati, ohio, independence ohio, they moved production to mexico too,

in 2013. if people think they are safe in their service jobs because they are not in manufacturing, they will be very surprised to learn that the service jobs will follow. how many phone calls have you gotten in your home from a call center located in -- it could be anywhere in the world but here. and i ask the person from the call center where are you calling from and how much do you earn and i find their earnings are so low, they can't buy the very products that they are selling over the telephone. what kind of a world are we creating? and the markets that exist in japan, korea and china are close to us. we are wracking up these trade deficits because we can't get our products in there and the people in those places don't earn enough money to buy some of what we export. it is a vicious cycle. i'm not going to take up much

more time, but i have to say that america went wrong 30 years ago. we should have signed a trade relationship with europe, which shares our political and legal values. they ascribe to -- subsubscribe to a rule of law. we can do business. though their markets aren't completely open they are pretty open. and we could work with them and then should have invited into that structure, which starts with a belief in democracy and representative government, these other countries that are aspiring to be better than they are, but without the political advancement, their economic system will not work for them without the rights that the american people have. and we could have invited mexico or the cafta countries and

korea, et cetera. to that union of democracy-loving republics. we didn't do that. and what worries me over time is, in the end, we might be cashing out our very liberty because if you look globally what's happening, you will find in those places, the people are not treated well that are doing this work and and other time what kind of residue does that leave toward our country and toward those who are their new overlords. how does it -- i walked through some of these places. i walked through some of these countries. i remember walking through with our mother, god love her, when she was still living, through a company in mexico, she said, marcy, look at the women's faces. and i did. they were so afraid. they were afraid of their bs. they were afraid of us. they were afraid of losing their

work because there was no worker representation. what kind of world are we contributing to in these other places that most americans will never visit? i thank the gentleman. as i see your title there, grow american jobs i want to say grow american democracy. grow representative government at the same time as we do trade. i think we really got way out of kilter back in the 1980's when these agreements began to be impewed with the kind of power they have. mr. garamendi: you're very very correct about the role of trade policy and hollowing out american jobs in almost every sector. you mentioned several sectors and in every one of those we've seen this happen. we're going to be engaging in a debate this year about whether we're going to extend trade policies to what's called the transpafpblg partnership and also very, very soon whether we will give away our constitutional obligation to

write trade policy, whether we're going to give that away to the administration. for me this is extremely important. we've seen this year after year. we've seen this problem. and i do not want to see a repeat of it in the new legislation. i'd like to just move to a couple of other issues. we've got about seven minutes left and perhaps mr. tonko if you would take a few of those minutes, wrap up keeping in mind what -- this is all in the context of middle class economics. how the american family that is struggling to make it in america how they can do better with a set of policies we are proposing to the american public, tax policy, infrastructure educational policy, research, all these things that are part and parcel of middle class economics. mr. tonko? >> thank you, representative garamendi. if i could just associate my comments with the representative

from ohio. marcy kaptur talked about the impoverishment factor around the world. these negotiated agreements are much more than just trade barriers and tariff they become public policy. when you lose american jobs that's only the beginning of the store rhythm so we've made a situation very critically tough here and resulted in impoverishing workers around the world. so that's an undoable unsustainable outcome. i think back when ms. kaptur spoke of the exodus of jobs and the incremental steps that took them eventually offshore, i think of the entire passageway of the erie canal system, reached to ohio and eventually allowed for development of the west coast. and you think of that and many a person, many a worker, hethered the american dream to those

milltowns that were given birth to by the erie canal system. that was the empowerment of this nation. and to think that that whole history has been rejected a lot of the create i genius came from the emigrants working on assembly lines. we need to remember that history. we must have it speak to us and this whole idea of inserting public policy into these agreements or circumventing our responsibilities here in the house, people who we represent at home need to ask us where are we on fast track? do we want to give up that congressional responsibility and just do thumbs up or thumbs down on a negotiated agreement? the other items that i'm concerned about are items like the earned income tax credit. that's part of the budget request made by the president. i spoke to a number of people in my district who rely on that. others weren't even filing for

the earned income tax credit and they qualified. this is not a tax loophole. this is economic and social justice. we take folks who perhaps might not even make enough to file a tax return, to get an earned income tax credit. this is one of the greatest anti-poverty agents we have in the budget. we need to make certain that that earned income tax credit is available when the final intunlt completed and we need to make certain we get the word out. this is about empowering those who are at the lower strata of income. we want to make sure that programs like the earned income tax credit speak to those who are working. it's encouraging people to work. it's trying to bring again some economic justice and social justice. so many of these communities have benefited when we allow for -- when we remind people that they're available, these tax opportunities are available for them. it empowers the regional economy and so many times there's poverty clusters in some of our

urban cores system of the social justice that comes with an earned income tax credit is that millions of dollars are now brought back into the community. on those budgets where our lower strata income qualifying folks are, they're going to spend those salaries. they're going to. an earned income tax credit dependent child care tax credit. these are important items. fair trade. infrastructure improvement. there are a great number of things we can do to muscle up the outcomes here and it begins in these hallowed halls of government where you can, through these efforts in the halls of government, make policy happen. and we need to take heed as to what needs to be done for our middle income communities. mr. garamendi: i thank you so very very much. ms. kaptur, we're in what we call the rapid fire. got about two minutes and then i'll wrap it up with another minute and we're out of time.

if you would, please. ms. kaptur: i appreciate your focus on growing the middle class and helping those who aspire to be in it to be successful in that journey. there is no question that when you have a robust middle class, it creates the demand that then buys the product from the corporations across this country that want to earn dividends so that they can share those with their shareholders. and so growing middle class drives our economy and it creates the jobs. and the people who do those jobs really create the company. they make the company work. it isn't the shareholders who are down there on the lines, although i believe very much in shareholder equity for workers. i wish i could encourage more of it. wouldn't that be great if they could have a part of the indexes that the wealthy invest in. because they certainly have earned it. through good jobs with decent

ages, through the transportation and infrastructure bill, i hope we can pass this year, which would be one action we could take that would help give big boosts to this economy from coast to coast, all of that can help lift people's boat across this nation and i join in alliance with my two dear colleagues, cookman tonko and congressman garamendi who are down here all the time, such good represents from your -- representatives from your respect i states, most of the rest of the place has gone home. mr. garamendi: i want to thank you and mr. tonko for joining us. i've got ohio and new york, mr. hoyer was here earlier from maryland, mr. mel. from vermont. we covered a lot -- mr. welch from vermont. we covered a lot of the united states. we were talking about what the president put forth as national policy ofed my 8 class

economics. how we can grow the american economy. why it is so important for the middle class to succeed. that creates demand that then american businesses can fulfill in many, many ways. i notice that the esteemed chairman of the rules committee is here and i suspect he wants to present us with some information so mr. sessions, if you're ready -- then i'll continue on until you are ready. in the meantime, the elements of middle class economics, we know why it's important, it builds the demand that the businesses can then fulfill, american business and so you eely create the jobs with that demand. and it also gives us higher wages, strengthening the middle class with higher wages. we talk about infrastructure, we'll spend a lot of time talking about infrastructure as we come up to the may deadline where we must renew the infrastructure law, the highway -- surface highway transportation. so all these are pieces of the

puzzle. we're nearly out of time. but i see the esteemed member -- chairman of the rules committee mr. chairman. i yield. mr. sessions: i thank the gentleman very much. my fellow eagle scout from california. in fact, i did walk on the floor here and i noticed that ms. kaptur is here, mr. tonko is here and you're having a vigorous discussion, which is important, with the american people, and i am about to be in receipt of a bill that will come down that will be presented to the floor here in just a minute so if i keep talking here for just a minute. mr. garamendi: if i might interrupt for a second. mr. sessions: i yield back. mr. garamendi: thank you for the courtesy you provided me and the rule committees when the l.n.g. bill came up and we talked about how we could use that strategic asset to enhance another

strategic asset, the american shipbuilding industry. you were kind we had a wonderful discussion in the committee and then again on the floor. it's another way in which we can grow the american economy by using public policy in this way. there are many, many other pieces to it. i think your staff has just arrived with the papers that you need. i yield to you, mr. chairman. mr. sessions: i appreciate the gentleman yielding. i would say to the gentleman that his ideas that he brought to the rules committee in fact were received well. the ideas about shipping in american ship, building of american ship the opportunity for american ships to employ people as they transported american products around the world. and we will be ready in half a second. mr. garamendi: mr. chairman i have always looked forward to a dialogue, a bipartisan dialogue on important issues and i didn't quite know we would come to that

at this moment while we await your staff bring do you think their papers. in the meantime, i suppose if i were to yield back -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california's time has expired. mr. garamendi: it's time for me to yield. thank you for the discussion. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. sessions: i thank the gentlewoman, the speaker. madam speaker i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 78, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 527, to amend chapter six of title 5 united states code, commonly known as the regulatory flexibility act, assure complete analysis of potential impacts on small entities and for other purposes and providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 50, to provide for additional safeguards with respect to imposing federal mandates and for other purposes.

the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6 2015, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, madam speaker. i do appreciate my friends' discussion today. in fact there's an article i'd like to move right into regarding the president's proposal to help middle america by going after corporations this is an article money news, from news max. this points out that posturing as a champion of needed public investments and fairness president barack obama wants new taxes on the overseas earnings

of american businesses. that would kill jobs, punish retired americans. although special deals permit some corporations to pay low taxes, most pay a heavy burden. the estimated effect of u.s. corporate -- effective u.s. corporate tax rate is about 27%, well above the 20% imposed by other industrialized countries. the united states is virtually alone by taxing the overseas profits of -- profits of its multinationals when those are repatriated. this has encouraged u.s. firms to invest nearly $2.1 trillion of their earnings abroad instead of bringing some of that money home to create jobs in america. . now the president wants 14% levy on those and impose a 19%

tax on future earnings to finance infrastructure and investment. madam speaker, we've heard this before this mantra how we are going to build infrastructure if you just give us $900 billion, we are going to rebuild the infrastructure of america. what happened? well we got some democratic friends who got lots of monies in grants and all kinds of benefits and we didn't get the infrastructure we were promised. so every time the president wants to trot out a new program, he throws that in, because it worked. seriously, it worked six years ago. americans bought into it. majority bought into it. let's give him the money so we can build infrastructure and we

saw that that was a word that was not kept. and the point that many have made about the president's new proposals -- he brought up in the state of the union address to help the middle class to help the nation's poor we've seen how the middle class had been helped under this president. the middle class has gotten smaller. the gap between the ultrarich and the poor has wider and we got more poor. we have more people on food stamps in in history than anybody could have ever imagined when that product was started and continues to be a massive problem for much of america. trouble getting a job -- oh, i

know, we keep being told that cook numbers america is doing so well. americans say i'm not doing well. if they have been able to keep their jobs wages haven't kept up. at the same time, the administration is trying to convince middle class and the nation's poor i'm taking care of you. what has actually happened behind the scenes. we know for the first five six years of this administration, for the first time in our nation's history 95% of the nation's income went to the top 1%. before this administration, the obama administration, that had never ever happened. it's tragic when you see the

effect that it has on families. it's tragic when you see people had such hope for this president helping the poor not adding to the poor. that hope for climbing up through the middle class, maybe one day having a shot of being wealthy. well, unless you are president or former president, kind of tough to make that kind of move, because not everybody gets paid a million bucks or $100,000 for giving a speech. so most of america that was suffering before, is still suffering. in many cases, it's much worse. so the people that really understands -- that understand money management are pointing out, wait a minute if you break

what the president is proposing to help supposedly the middle class, and he's going to tax these evil corporations on money they've earned overseas when they have the corporate presence here and there, well, some of us have been proposing if you just eliminate any penalty, then they will bring that money in to the united states. they'll use that capital here in the united states. jobs will be created, plants will be expanded. there will be more people able to join unions of non-government working people, because those are the kinds of jobs that would come back if you lowered the tax on corporations down to what

china has it. you would see companies flooding come back to the united states that built their plants in china. as arthur laffer has pointed out, the rich will move. they'll change the way they make income. and i know people like the democrat warren buffet like to say i would like to pay more taxes. it's one thing to say it, it's another thing to write the check. if he wanted to pay the same income tax rate that his secretary pays, then he could write the check. you don't have to keep it all. it's ok. you can send it to the government if you want to.

but when you tax corporations as much as we do in the united states and that tax gets passed onto the consumers because if it doesn't, they don't stay in business, then it's back to the middle class paying those taxes. and if you start taxing these multinational corporations for money they've earned in another country and paid taxes on in another country and you are going to tax it to bring it into the united states, then they're not going to bring it in. if you are going to tax them for even having a presence here, then you will find the presence will go. the jobs that are here in the united states will go, because the multinational corporations, like the richest people in the world, you are going to have trouble every taxing them

because they will move and change the way they do business to avoid that tax. it's the middle class and those in the -- amongst the poor that actually pay tax, income tax, that is, who end up taking the biggest hit. so you want to make taxes fair let's go to a flat tax, across the board, you make more you pay more you make less, you pay less. i like a deduction for home mortgage interest. i like charitable deductions. otherwise, let's just drop all of that. and if you make more, you pay more. that would be fair. but instead, if you want to look around to what has done massive damage to the ability for middle class and the nation's poor, particularly african-americans,

there's been a tremendous problem getting employed, staying employed having higher wages because this administration keeps bringing in people giving them work permits, people that have come in illegally and now we know that the big corporations they are given a $3,000 bonus if they will hire someone who came here illegally. one of the five million. now, texas has created most of the jobs that the president stood right here and took credit for. rather interesting. i know people in this administration like to make jokes about texas, but it would have been nice if when he took credit for creating jobs, that he would have thanked texas for

being the place that really bailed him out and kept him from having to stand up and report a net loss of jobs. we're glad to help out, not because we are helping the president, but because we are helping real people in america. if he wants to help the nation's poor, the working poor, those few that are left in the middle class, quit giving people work permits who have come in illegally, which actually incentivizes more people to come in illegally. and then there wouldn't be any need for him to come in and say we have to raise the minimum wage because we know, there's no question when you raise the minimum wage, people that are trying to break into the working of america, they don't have jobs. people lose their jobs. businesses that are barely

getting by at a profit when you force a higher minimum wage then those people that are brought in at the entry level they're already -- they naturally don't produce as much as people who have been there for a while because it takes a learning curve. but the minimum wage is the entry level if it's even a minimum wage. most businesses i talk to around east texas, they'll pay more than minimum wage even for start-up employment. once you raise the minimum wage, someone will have to work harder, because they cannot afford, like the government, to be operating in the red. they'd grow broke because they don't create their own money or monetary system. so i see here another article today.

this is from neal monroe, "daily caller." this should be great news for the economy, but since there haven't been 5.46 million jobs created in this administration, that means that they're going to take over jobs that americans who emgrated legally, are going to lose their jobs. and when you take on that you get a $3,000 bonus under obamacare if you hire somebody who came illegally and got one of these work permits, they aren't required to have obamacare and don't have to provide health insurance and therefore the companies don't have to pay the $3,000 penalty

and gives incentives to people who got the work permits. we had before our judiciary committee today some witnesses and i greatly appreciated chairman goodlatte to calling the hearing. it was very enlightening and had a sheriff, a law professor, a couple of people who work on immigration shoes and i didn't realize until the testimony -- immigration issues and i didn't realize until the testimony that about 50% of those people who have come here illegally and commit a crime when released, about 50% commit another crime. i had someone else explain it to me after the hearing. if you come here than have no

respect to the law of the united states, isn't a mystery that you are going to disregard the criminal laws as you have the immigration laws. unfortunately not everyone sees it that way. but it is a problem. and if you are a 21-year-old store clerk that's just trying to make it, not making that much money, but trying to make it. you are working tough hours in a thankless job and there is a 21-year-old store clerk the obama administration, homeland security has followed the lead of the president not been deporting people that came illegally.

committed crimes. so unknown to you the 21-year-old store clerk, that man who has committed crimes before and has not been deported because this administration is not following up to the oath that was taken and you are about to have your life taken away from you by someone that should not even be in the country. i was with another member of congress today when staff came and notified him that one of his staff had been hit by another car, the fault of the other car, and yet -- and the people in the other car got out walked around, and then by the time the

officer got there, they complained one of their group couldn't walk, couldn't use legs, so here comes the ambulance and who knows, maybe they figured out our system well enough to know you just file a lawsuit, even though you were at fault for the wreck file a claim against the insurance company. but there are people who are here in this country illegally who would like to be here legally and we ought to help and encourage them to do just that. come legally. follow the law. make application. there are those of us whose offices help those who come legally. we've been helping people who have immigrated legally to try

to get their spouse into the country. and we find out that actually this administration, by the executive amnesties and decrees has apparently used the fees that were paid by people who came legally trying to bring in others legally, trying to do everything right, some paid a higher fee to try to speed up the time with which they could get their spouse or loved one in the country, and with a stroke of the pen, this president apparently put those on hold, said we're going to take those fees that people who are acting legally and within the law paid to get their loved one in, we're going to put their applications

on hold because aye got a whole bunch of people over here who entered illegally that i want to come in, i'm sure they'll vote democrat when they get the chance, but i need them beholden to the federal government, so we're going to bring in these people that didn't believe in following the law give them an amnesty and work permit, allow a $3,000 bonus under obamacare to businesses that hire them get rid of their american workers their legal immigrants, and hire people that came in illegally. and the question' l arises and it's -- and the question arises and it's a very important question because it has consequences, if anyone within the united states government, executive branch particularly takes money that was ordered for

one purposes under the law and converts that money's use to another without getting permission of congress, without jumping through the hoops that are required to use that money for another purpose, and you use it for a purpose such as getting a lease in crystal city so that you can set up your amnesty mill , you've got a problem. and so do we. because you may have violated the law and it may be a crime. so i'm hopeful that we're at the early stages of getting to the bottom of that so we can find out whether somebody broke the

law. we know that there are criminal statutes regarding government workers if they use their position, particularly at the i.r.s., and yet lois learner -- lois lerner basically got caught redhanded, took the fifth amendment, even still the president -- the executive branch didn't want to get rid of her so paid her to stay home for a while. but nobody has been prosecuted, nobody has been pursued out of those laws that were broken in the internal revenue service to go after conservative groups. no question, we don't know the full extent, but no question, it had to have helped the president in the election of 2012. all you've got to do is keep your opponents from being able to form groups like the

democrats have. of course a lot of the democrat's funding comes from government money, it goes through unions and ends up helping democrats. but these are groups that were raising their own money that they had earned wasn't money received from the government. people that actually did build that they did earn that, and they were wanting to pull their money for political purposes but the i.r.s. put them on hold for long enough, some of them for years, so that they could not play any role in the 2012 election. this administration was able to use the laws, the cacks code use the i.r.s. in ways richard nixon could have only dreamed of. he had an enemies list but he was not able to carry out the

vendetta like some in the i.r.s. appear to have. so that's here in this country as people are suffering. workers struggling. especially african-american, minority workers. their unemployment rate so dramatically higher. and i've had people ask me, and i'm not really sure of the answer, but if president obama actually should get all the credit for the jobs that have been created in the united states then why in the world was he creating them all in texas. most of them in texas? seems a little strange. but i would think his supporters would certainly fall away from supporting someone in the democratic party that creates jobs mainly in a very red state.

but if that's true and he gets the credit for creating all the jobs in texas, over a million, then he's to be congratulated on his bipartisan nature of that effort. although the cynic would wonder whether or not he actually participated in that. but at this point, mr. speaker i would like to turn to one of the more horrendous acts that man has inflicted on man, the islamic state, and that first record is islamic -- first word is islamic released a video

that shows or purports to show jordanian pilot al kasaba prior to being burned alive. the video released today, appears to show him being burned alive. some say how could they do such a thing? it seems to me that if one human being can take a dull knife and jaggedly cut off the head of another human being he's probably pretty capable of burning another human being alive.

there is evil in this world. adolph hitler man test -- manifested pure evil. it's the only way he could have been responsible for the mass killings six million yous -- jews in europe. and it is unbelievable but when the united states fails to lead, fails to point out the horrors and the ideology behind it and goes to war against those who invoke this kind of evil and push it and use it against human beings at a time when the united states is called the lone superpower, then the vacuum in

the world of power is filled by the most evil among us. and that's what's happening. it's unbelievable and yet this is who these radical islamists are. one story after another in the news about that pilot being burned alive. and yet we come to the story of the president addressing this today this one from -- entitled to "obe ma comments on jordanian pilot burned alive" doesn't know what ideology islamic state follows.

the president is quoted as saying, you know, i just got word of the video that had been -- should it in fact this video be authentic it's just one more indication of the viciousness and bar barity of this organization. wouldn't even call the organization the islamic state, which is what they call themselves. the president said, i think -- and it i think, will redouble this vigilance and determination on the part of the global coalition to make sure they are degraded and ultimately defeated. it's interest, the president doesn't say we are going to defeat this radical ideology this islamic state. we will defeat them. we will stop them. bringing to mind the response of

winston church hill, he was making sure everyone knew -- winston churchill makinging sure everyone knew britain was not going to let evil win, they were going to fight them on the beaches, fight them on the land, fight them in the air fight them wherever they found them. our leader in this current world crisis here in the united states , a position some say is the most powerful leader's position in the world, says and it, i think, will redouble the vigilance and determination on the part of global coalition to make sure that they are degraded and ultimately defeated. but it doesn't stop there. our president goes on to say, it also indicates the degree to which whatever ideology they're operating off of, it's bankrupt.

whatever ideology they're operating off of? it's called the islamic state. so i've seen amazing prosecutors at work trying to pull together a case. i've seen incredible law enforcement minds at work as they try to put together peetses of the puzzle to figure out some law enforcement mystery, figure out the source of some crime. but i don't think it would take the more brilliant law enforcement officers in our country, so many that i've met and come to appreciate their intellect, i don't think it

takes them to figure out what ideology they are out of because the first piece of the puzzle when we're looking to determine what ideology these evil men are working out of, let's see what do they call themselvess? we'll start with that clue. they call themselves the islamic state. well, that would seem perhaps the ideology they are out of would be an islamic ideology. and since these people get real upset if anybody makes dr draws a cartoon for example about

the prophet muhammad as they call him, then perhaps it's people that hold muhammad as a prophet that that is another unifying clue to the ideology. and perhaps since they're willing to kill people, as they did in afghanistan when korans were being burned because they had been defaced by muslims using them to pass messages and the proper remedy for defaced korans is to destroy them like that, but nonetheless, they killed people, because they didn't like americans, people

they consider infidels, burning the kora nmp s that were defaced by muslims. these seem to be clues that keep bringing us back to the fact that the most evil people in our world today appear to claim radical islam as their ideology. and i know there are muslim brothers who have made clear they will a caliphate, the one who was one of the top advisers in the homeland security department here tweeted out back last august, i believe it was, that the caliphate is inevitable and people need to get used to the idea and in fact, as i understand it, he put together a long message in recent days that went on a

terror after christians and as i understand basically pointing out that maybe the islamists should be called evangelical islamists. that has a different meaning and i'm sure he doesn't understand the term evangelical, because evangelical christian means you bring peace to the world and you introduce them to knowledge of jesus christ. but to bring them knowledge of jesus christ as a man of peace and you don't kill them if they don't accept jesus as their satisfy i don't remember. there have been christians during different historic times in the world that were barbarians and deserved to be

put to death for being so barbaric. but the current state of the world is that the most evil people in the world are not christians. and the amazing thing, as one of my republican friends and i were talking about earlier today, you know, i'm a baptist. baptist church, westwood or any other, does things despicable, we call them out. he said if the catholic church does something improper, he calls them out. we also understand that there is a reluctance among moderate muslims to stand up and condemn the ideology of radical islam that is so barbaric, because they know that if they do that,

they shoot to the top of the hit list of people to be taken out. they understand that. they become horrific apostates in the eyes of the radical islamists and hub taken out in the minds marred by this radical islamic thinking, to have their head jag he hadly cut off or put in a cage and set in fire. to whom much is given, to whom much is required. we believe that we are going to have the president's national prayer breakfast thursday morning. there should be people from over 140 countries there, leaders

from these different countries. and that is one time i'm greatly appreciative of the president's faith and put politics aside. we're supposed to. we did last year when i i -- when i was co-chair and janice hahn was co-chair. radical islamists can't put aside their evil ideology because they want to force it upon everyone and they're not going to rest until they're dead and they take as many of what they call infidels, as possible. so it shouldn't have been a big surprise to see this story from

black bart isis members marched into a syrian town on friday demanding that all crosses be removed from the churches or have the buildings be completely destroyed. and a-- that's according to the asyrian patriotic party. 20 trucks carrying members marred into the predominantly syrian town and forced the residents to remove the cross from the main church tower. and made up of five villages located on the kabul river. that's radical islamic ideology mr. speaker, for those in this town who are not aware.

but i guess if you are part of this administration, you shouldn't consider that to be all that radical because this administration, under their watch with commander in chief barack obama, had orders given to remove crosses from the chapels on our military installations. so maybe, is it possible that radical islamists could just be following the example that was set by the top commander in our united states military? we want the crosses removed from our chapels? unfortunately, the radical islamists in the middle east go further. they want all americans dead.

they want all jews dead. they want israel wiped off the map. they want the united states, great satan, to pay whomage. that's an afront to the constitution and anyone who has taken an oath to support and defend the constitution should fight shari'a law supplanting our constitution. i was also talking today with someone who works with victims in nigeria. boko haram remains not only unapologetic for the death, torture, suffering that they have caused to christians in nigeria, but they are emboldened.

no one from the united states with power to stop them has lifted a finger other than to tweet bring back our girls. and having been over there, talked to victims' families and had it reafffirmed today, the twitter campaign that was started by this administration against boko haram has not been effective. again, they have been emboldened. and i was advised that there are christian children in northeast nigeria who haven't been to school for two years because they know if they do, they will be killed. if they are boys, they will be killed. if they're girls they will

normally be made sex slaves or sold sboor sex slavery or made into wives, who are basically slaves. they're told to convert or be killed. in meeting with parents, whose hearts are broken, they've heard that the united states is the most powerful country in the world, but they don't know that because they can't understand if the united states is so powerful, why -- and if it was powerful and good and not evil like boko haram, then why wouldn't we lend something more than a tweet to stop the evil.

i also did note, there's a story of french planes helping with intelligence on the nigerian border. that's encouraging. the united states does not have to send boots on the ground to nigeria in order to help defeat boko haram. and yes, i understand and people i know respect nigeria, that boko haram has infiltrated the main government and hard to do anything effectively as the nigerian government of boko haram becoming more and more powerful each week. but because this country has been given so much, if we don't

lend a helping hand to stop the most evil entities and people in the world, there will be american lives lost in big numbers in this country. and it's not going to be in the distant future. in africa if boca haram takes over nigeria, as they're well on their way towards pushing to do then no christian and no jew in all of africa is safe. and in fact, they will seek to help establish that caliphate that the obama adviser, homeland

security has tweeted out last summer, was inevitable. well, if boko haram is not stopped, they will be inevitable in africa. radical islam, the ideology that the president is not familiar with, radical islam will take over africa. god bless the yiptians. they stood up against the muslim brothers. muslim brotherhood has been labeled as a terrorist organization. care is part of the muslim brotherhood. some countries consider care to be a radical islamic terrorist organization, but not here in america because the president

relies on them for advice. muslim brotherhood in the united states has not been labeled a terrorist organization like it has in our ally, the u.a.e., egypt, other places, because here in the united states, the muslim brothers' leaders are sought for advice by this administration. . if we don't stand up against radical islam, as president bush talked about, i'd rather stop it over there than have to stop it here well, it's here. there are cells here. there are people that have been radicalized here. there are people who have been

born here like al-awaki who have their american citizen passport and have grown up hating america from wherever they were raised and they have free access in and out of the united states, because their parents, or at least their mother, came here. i thought a few years ago it would be years before we saw that kind of effect here but we know al awaki, who the president blew up with a drone in yemen was helpful in radicalizing people here. and although the president's now familiar with the ideology that was at work at fort hood in that act of war at fort hood, the act of war in killing a military recruiter in arkansas, the acts of war that have been taking place as they did in boston.

it's radical islam. and yes, you don't have to qualify that. we understand that most muslims do not believe in radical islam. we got that. we don't need the qualifier every time something is said about radical islam. but radical islam should be identified for what it is and it breaks my heart to say it. but it is a fact if we don't do more to stop radical islam in the world there are large numbers of americans that are going to die. that don't have to. it doesn't have to happen. but we have to have an administration wake up to the danger that faces the world's

christians and jews and people who believe in democracy and who believe in representative government and not sharia law. because if we don't act as leaders on the world stage and positively point out that radical islam and we are going to stop radical islam and the moderates of the world understand, we're not talking about them. they understand radical islam is a threat to them and their lives if they stand up against it. they get that. but i have met moderate muslims around the world that are willing to lay downer that lives because they don't want radical islamists controlling their country and they hope and they do pray that the united states

will wake up and recognize what ideology the president knows not of and finally see it's radical islam and we are going to stop it. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. you should the speaker's announce -- under the speaker's announced policy of january 6 2015, the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks is recognized for 30 minutes.

mr. frank: mr. speaker, there is nothing that i fear more for america than that as a country we might allow ourselves to grow numb to atrocity in our observe country and around the world.

eight years ago, president george bush warned that, quote to begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are ready would mean surrendering the future of iraq. he said, quote, it would mean that we'd be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. it would mean increasing the probability that american troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous, unquote. mr. speaker, many of us in congress warned president obama both in a private letter and in open declaration of the danger that isis represented as it began to rise in iraq. we also warned the president that negotiating with terrorists by trading high level taliban leaders would lead to an

increase in terrorists trying to leverage america and the world by taking hostages. yet this president ignored this and so many other commonsense warnings. and atrocity after atrocity has occurred since. today mr. speaker, the world watched in abject horror as 26-year-old jordanian pilot first lieutenant al kasaspa who was taken captive by isis was doused in gasoline placed in a cage, and burned alive. mr. speaker, this horrifying tragedy is the natural end to the tim rouse policy of a-- to the tell rouse policy of -- to the temerous policy of having a

gutless response to this mindless, heartless evil called isis. and the question occurs, when will this president respond decisively to this healthish evil? will it take a direct attack on american shopping malls? will it take a direct attack on an american grocery store or school or an american magazine or some other venue where american blood will have to be spilled before this president calls the evil of global jihad for what it is? it has been a full year since isis retook fallujah and wiped out america's blood-bought gains. and it has been a full seven months since 55 of my colleagues and i beseeched the president to prioritize security and humanitarian support for religious minorities in iraq,

including the uzidi people, a people, group, that has new been nearly wiped out completely by isis. mr. speaker this administration can no longer claim ignorance. this nation is at war with islamist groups like isis that support and perpetrate the terrorism of global jihad. terrorists understand it all too well. the american people understand it all too well. and it is time that this white house begin to understand it as well. mr. speaker if the obama administration continues to sit on the sidelines and allows this unspeakable act of terrorism, we have all -- terrorism we have all witnessed today to go unanswered as it has so many times before we invite that sinister malevolence to our own shores.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now recognize for a motion to adjourn. mr. franks: i move we 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 adopted. accordin

on the agenda tomorrow, a bill that aims to impose stricter requirements for how federal agencies disclose the cost of federal mandates. follow the house live here on c-span when members return. and earlier today, president obama criticized house republicans for once again repealing the health care law. he made those comments at a meeting with a group of people who have benefited from the health care law. this is 15 minutes. >> we are here with a bunch of folks who took the time to come to washington, d.c., and tell me face-to-face stories that

they have told me in letters they've wriden over the course of the last year -- written over the course of the last year. everybody here has directly benefited from the affordable care act. and it's a pretty good representative example of people whose lives have been impacted in powerful ways. you have folks like tania and regina and don who had cancer in some cases before the affordable care act was passed and were having trouble getting insurance, and because we no longer allow insurance companies to bar people because they've got pre-existing conditions, they were now able to get health insurance and have the security and relief that was needed. regina said for the first time since she was 12 years old, when she was first diagnosed with cancer, she felt free.

and now's planning her wedding with her fiance. tania, who shortly after signing up for the a.c.a. had a checkup, was diagnosed with a brain tumor, would not have even discovered it had it not been for the affordable care act. and certainly would not have been able to afford treatments. the same is true for don who as a consequence of regular checkups and a cloneoscopy that was part of the prevention of the prevention regiment in the affordable care act was able to catch a tumor early and is now cancer-free. we also have people who were able to benefit from medicaid expansion under the affordable care act. and in connecticut derek -- anne in connecticut, derek in california both were able to get on a plan that they could afford. even as they're working, even as they're taking care of families.

and as a consequence are healthier for it and was able to catch breast cancer early. we have small business people likely net over here and darlene who -- like lynette over here and darlene who because they weren't work for a company, had a tough time affording the premiums and lynette saved herself about $300 and something dollars a month in premiums. when that was able to cut her premiums in half, she's got a cupcake company, i think. [laughter] she said she brought some samples but secret service may have gotten them. [laughter] maria, a teacher in fairfax virginia, anyway homey a farmer -- naomi, a farmer down in roberta, georgia. both of them were able to benefit from greatly reduced premiums and as a consequence are able to maintain their health and pay their bills at

the same time. and then suzanne's got a wonderful story. she's a doctor in rural virginia. rural west virginia. not only are her and her sister able to benefit from the affordable care act, but more importantly for her, patients that she had been seeing for years who would forego critical treatments are now able to pay for the tests and the medication that they need to maintain their health. so the bottom line is that the affordable care act is not an attraction. the debate about making sure that every person in america is able to get basic, high-quality affordle health care is not -- affordable health care is not some political identifylogical battle. it's about people. and for someone like regina who

was diagnosed at the age of 12 with cancer to have a sense of security so that she was able to finish college and is able now to plan her life, that is something that we should expect a country as wealthy as ours to provide to every person, to every citizen. and the idea that we would even consider taking that away from regina or tania or suzanne's patients makes absolutely no sense. now, the good news is that we have over 10 million people who have now signed up under the federal exchanges and millions more who are signing up from the expanded medicaid that's taking place in states all across the country.

those are millions of people who are saving money, millions of people who are getting preventive care, millions of people who feel for the first time in some cases the security of knowing that if something goes wrong in their families or with them that they're covered. that somebody's got their backs. but they're not going to be bankrupt. that they're not going to have to split the pills that have been prescribed in half because that's all they can afford. they can continue with the repercussions or with the schooling and it makes this -- professions or with the schooling and it makes this country more productive, it's good for all of us. so my understanding is the house of representatives has scheduled yet another vote today to take health care away from the folks sitting around this table. i don't know whether it's the 55th or the 60th time that they are taking this vote, but i've

asked this question before. why is it that this would be at the top of their agenda? making sure that folks who don't have health care aren't able to get it? it was maybe plausible to be opposed to the affordable care act before it was implemented. but now it is being implemented and it is working. and people are being covered just as anticipated. the premiums on average are less than $100 when you take into account the tax credit. so it is affordable for the people that it was designed to help. health care inflation is at its lowest rate in 50 years. the overall tan for the affordable care act -- tab for the affordable care act is costing less than the original projections.

in every respect this is working not just as intended but better than intended. and so the notion that we would play politics with the lives of folks who are out there working hard every single day trying to make ends meet, trying to look after their families, makes absolutely no sense. that's a message that i want to send very directly today. i've got a second interest here and that is that we still have the opportunity for millions of more people to sign up. the deadline for signing up for 2015 is february 15. so we've got a little over a week for people to sign up for the cost of less than your cell phone bill or your cable bill, you can have the same kind of health security that the folks

around this table do. around i want to remind everybody, anne told this story that she really didn't think she needed health insurance. ended up getting it because she heard that there was a fee involved if she didn't get it ended up purchasing it or ended up getting -- finding out she was qualified for medicaid, the expanded medicaid in connecticut, and it was only after she signed up that she discovered through a mammogram that she had breast cancer. so it turns out that even if you think out there that you're not going to need health insurance, you very may well need it at some point in your life. and here's an opportunity to sign up. so i want everybody to get on health care.gov -- healthcare.gov find out what option are available to you in your state and your community. we have people in this -- around this table who are paying as little as $30 or $20

a month for premiums. some are paying more. but again the average is less than $14u7b a month. -- $100 a month. and that is something that a lot of folks out there can afford. and we've got millions of people who are still qualified who have a chance to sign up, but you've got to do it by february 15. so get on healthcare.gov, look at what your options are. don't take my word for it. but understand that this is something that can give you the kind of security and peace of mind that is priceless. and to my friends up on capitol hill, i would just ask them once again to consider why they would think an important priority, to take away health care from some 10 million people. people who are working hard and

in many cases through no fault of their own got dealt a bad hand. regina at the age of 12 wasn't asking to have a series of cancers. and anybody who has a chance to talk to her would know, we want her to succeed. she's overcoming incredible odds. why would we want to take health care away from her? why would we want to make it impossible for her to live out her life? with some sense of security and peace of mind? it doesn't make any sense. so, i just want to thank everybody here for sharing their stories. i'm very proud of them. and proud of the work that they're doing to help spread the word. but i hope all of you since you got a lot of cameras and microphones, spread the word as well. got to sign up by february 15. thank you very much, everybody. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its

caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> you know, i just got word of the video that had been released. i don't know the details of the confirmations. but should in fact this video be authentic, it's just one more indication of the viciousness and barbarity of this organization. it, i think, will redouble the vigilance and determination on the part of a global coalition to make sure that they are degraded and ultimately defeated. it also just indicates the degree to which whatever ideology they're operating off of, it's bankrupt. we're here to talk about how to make people healthier and make their lives better.

and this organization appears only interested in death and destruction. thank you very much, everybody. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> back on capitol hill late in the afternoon, the house did pass that bill 239-186 that repeals the health care law. while also calling for house committees to develop replacement legislation. there have been some 60 attempts to repeal part of the law. but this was the first time a replacement had been called for. the house is back tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern for general speeches and noon for legislative work. on the next "washington journal," congressman gene green, democrat of texas, will be talking about republican efforts to repeal the affordable care act. we'll also look at the president's proposed budget for 2006 and the issue of -- 2016 and the issue of childhood vaccinations and rob wittman, republican of virginia, is here to talk about the president's defense budget which is

proposed to be $38 million over sequestration levels. and later c-span's tour of historically black colleges and universities kicks off in washington, d.c. our guest will be university president dr. wayne frederick. "washington journal" live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. you're welcome to the conversation on the phone and on facebook and twitter. >> the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress. not only are there 43 new republicans and 15 new democrats in the house, and 12 new republicans and one new democrat in the senate, there's also 108 women in congress including the first african-american republican in the house and the first woman veteran in the senate. keep track of the members of congress using congressional "chronicle" on c-span.org. the congressional chronicle page has lots of useful information there, including voting results and statistics about each session of congress. new congress best access on c-span, c-span2, c-span radio and cspan.org.

>> next up here on c-span, from today's "washington journal," a conversation about paid maternity leave. president obama's recent state of the union address is the maternity leave policy, or lack there of. claire suddath is a writer for bloomberg business. her new article is titled -- “can the u.s. ever fix its messed-up maternity leave system ." you argue that the maternity leave system is not only failing women, but children as well. guest: the u.s. is one of two countries in the world that does not offer any federally funding -- funded partial maternity leave. it is pretty crazy when you think about it. there are a lot of studies about

the benefit to children's of maternity leave. they take the more frequently to doctors visits for checkups. and make sense. they would have time off work to do so. also women, when they get maternity leave, they tend to keep their jobs in higher numbers. they have higher salaries when they return to work. also, that affects the family as well. host: lets talk about the state of the current system in the united states. what is the current federal policy and what states obion the federal policy on maternity leave? guess them what we have right now is called the family and medical leave act. it was passed in 1993. it grants people up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year. they can use it for a number of things like if they were to get sick.

there are a number of regulations, such that you have to work for company with 50 or more employees. you have to have been there for over one year and be a full-time employee. if you are contracted or freelance, it does not apply to you. that means that less than half of americans qualify. the other half would be entrepreneurs, small business owners, they do not qualify and have nothing. also if you talk about paid leave -- that is completely unpaid. only about 12% of american workers have paid leave. that is usually because they work for companies that voluntarily offer it, or they live in one of three states. that would be california, new jersey, and rhode island. those are the only states that have a paid leave policy in place right now. host: what are the policies in the states?

guest: california is the first one ever passed anything. they passed in two dozen to -- 2000 and two. if you are in california, you get 55 percent of your paycheck for six weeks up to a certain income limit. i think it is $6,000 per week. it does not include job protection. if you are not covered by fmla you do not have job protection in california. this puts people in california in a weird position. when i wrote the article, i talked to number of women who lived in the state and qualify but since it did not give job protection, they did not take it. then, new jersey and rhode island looked at their policy and tweaked it a bit. the percentage of pay is a little different, but it is premature same. host: we will be talking up his

topic for the next half hour or so before the house in. i want to let you know that our phone lines are open. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 745-8002 for independents. i special line if you're currently on maternity leave (202) 748-0003. as we said, president obama mention this in a state of the union address. he said we are the only advanced country in the world that does not guarantee paid sick leave or paid maternity leave. i'll be taking new action to help states adopt paid leave laws on their own. what can we see on the horizon? guest: he first mandated that federal workers would get six weeks of paid sick leave. he has at -- ask congress to

pass another six weeks of that. he has also allocated about $2 billion to help states assess their own paid leave programs and start their own. that is great and it made headlines, but is actually something he has been pushing for since 2007. he has included various amounts of money in his budget going back to at least 2011. it always gets written out before it is ever passed. while it is great, i'm not clear on whether or not congress will actually do anything about this. host: why have congress not pick this up in the past? how have they treated this in the past? guest: it is very interesting. it is something i looked into a lot and talked to a lot of people about. when you look at the number of voters eventually support this, it is widely supported. men and women, democrats and

republicans. i think about 70% of the and 80% of democrats say they would support a candidate who supports paid leave. it is generally understood that this is something that people want. they understand that the system we have in place right now is not very feasible. whenever you get to a point when you're talking a specific bill you have intense clinical fighting. small business association chamber of commerce, the usually come out against the spirit this is not been something that congress is willing to pick up and fight. i think it is really a shame. it is at least the conversation we should be having. host: we are with claire suddath for the next half hour or so. we will go first to steve who is waiting in california. republican. good morning. caller: i just want to find out what sort of maternity leave

does communist china offered citizens? host: he is talking about comparing leave policy around the world. guest: i do not have china's number specifically on hand. i can tell you that most countries offers six months to one year. generally at least partially paid, or fully paid. host: we won't share a list of countries that have paid leave policies from around the world. you can see, the green bar being paid leave and the total number of days going down from estonia to poland, spain lithuania. the united states all the way at the bottom with zero leave -- zero weeks of paid leave. you can also check out claire suddath's story from bloomberg businessweek. marianne is waiting on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning.

i would just like to let you know -- first of all, i would like everyone to be paid to stay home for any reason. that is not practical, obviously. i would like to point out that the workload does not decrease. that workload, that is not being performed by the worker who is offer many mode -- months, falls upon their coworkers. it is very difficult for coworkers. most companies are not going to hire people to fill in that boy. it just falls on the coworkers. that is my only point. it is part of the equation that has not been mentioned in most of these discussions. g hos and -- host: do you talk to coworkers in your story?

guest: i have sought to business owners as well. that is something that comes up often. it came up in california when they were talking about what they wanted. the california chamber of commerce called it a job killer. they said it wouldn't be impossible, -- it would be impossible, especially for small businesses. it is something that really concerns people. there have been some studies done to see what it is really like now that it is in place. it is something along the lines of 99% of businesses that have said it has not hurt their profitability or productivity. it does seem to have an expect when you have an extremely small business, like three or four employees, there is just not much you can do about it. for the most part, work it shifted to other colleagues. work is put on hold, if possible. obviously, if you have a place like a hospital where you really

have to be fully staffed at all times, it is a bit of juggle -- of a juggle. regardless, if you are a business, you have to come out with -- come up with a contingency plan whether people are out paid or unpaid. it is a problem and something that should be talked about. i think the answer depends on your business. host: if you want to join the conversation, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 745-8002 for independents. a special line for those of you if you are currently on maternity leave and want to talk about this policy in the united states and at your job. (202) 748-0003 is the number for you. matthew is up next, tennessee independent. caller: good morning.

i think it is odd that you cite communist china as someone who provides maternity leave. i just thought that this is what we went to war for so that we would not have kings and have -- and be servants. i get that people would love maternity leave, and have someone to pay for it, that is the point of being free. someone does not just take care of you constantly. that is a price that we pay for living in america. i do not get why everyone konsyl he want someone to take care of them. host: i will let you jump in. guest: i think that is one way to look at it. i think another way to look at is the fact that women make up 40 -- 47% of the workforce. you have two thirds of women with m children under the age of six. another portion is the sole

bread earner. i think if you look at our workforce, what we have now is different than what we have had in previous generations. whether or not you will leave the workforce, i think the problem will become more diffuse. it is not just women. most of these laws are gentle neutral, four mothers and fathers. i think as a society we have come to the realization that new fathers need the time to just as well. especially if you have both parents working, parents need to be old to adjust their home life and work life and figure out what they need. whether or not they should be -- the level at which we want to paint below while they are out or support them in any way at least guaranteed job protection if they take time off, and expanded to more than 50%

of the workforce is an option. i think there are number of different solutions that we can have and we need to figure out exactly what we want as a country. as it stands right now, the women who i've talked to, and i talked to a little over 2000 women who recently went on maternity leave within the past six or eight years they said that they did not realize that it was this way. it was much harder and much less useful for them to continue their jobs at the same piece. host: the story is in need bloomberg businessweek. the headline -- “can the u.s. ever fix its messed-up maternity leave system." we're talking with claire suddath, the author of the article. our next color is from florida democrat. caller: good morning. first of all the first caller

on your program, to try and impair the united states to china only exemplifies the ignorance of some people in this country. first of all he is practically proven wrong because probably china gives their women who have children far more benefits than he would be willing to give people in our country. i think that is pathetic. in the year 2015. how austere do you want to be? you want to punish women because they had the brilliance to give earth the children? it is really ridiculous to listen to people speak that way. i thank you very much. host: that was sewing at -- sonja from florida. jim is up next. caller: first off -- our funds,

are taxed funds are paid by working americans are wasted on foreign aid. also on welfare and illegals. a whole generation of people are being raised on welfare when that money could easily be going to people who earn that money. but people who have jobs. they should have maternity leave. they could help those people who are working. more people are on welfare now than working. that is the problem. everyone who is working should benefit from those tax dollars that they are paying. go over the welfare and foreign aid. host: i want to ask you, how is california funding their

maternity leave program? how will it be federal government funded if it were to move forward on it? guest: that is a great question. when california first started talking about this, they propose a tax that would be a payroll tax those on businesses and on employees. when it was ultimately passed, because of such of a pushback, it was just on employees. right now, in california, if you are an employee, you have a payroll tax and that goes towards funding the california maternity leave program. what has been proposed, proposed in 2013, is something called a family act. it would be eight point 02% -- .02% tax. it would be funded through the

social security administration and go into a pot, and pay for parental leave for men and women. i think what the senator has opposed is 56% of people's current pay for up to 12 weeks. that is the proposal. it has been sitting in the senate on debate, for over one year. it has not really been taken out or change. that is currently what we've got. it is the most confidence of solution at the federal level. host: what committee and the senate would take this up if it were to start moving? guest: right now it is in the senate finance committee. it has been sitting there since the and of 2013. it also covers a number of other things including sick leave. for the most part, it is for parental leave.

host: that he up next from louisiana. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to comment first time in my 70's. the young lady who is talking i remember when there was a pot for social security. i remember there was a pot for transportation. there was a pot for a lot of things. there are holes in those spots. they take money out and spend it which ever way they want to spend it. later on down the road, you have shortfalls. like the transportation fund right now. all of a sudden, all of that money that was put in there we cannot maintain our roads with that money. we need more money to do it. do you think in 10 years or 15 years, all that money put aside to help women take maternity leave, that money will not be there. you have to deal with the system

you have. if you talk about california, look at the state of california them. -- then. you learn a lot of things in my life. you do not always get things and you have to figure out ways to do what you want to do around some of the problems. society right now has so many problems. all the answers are let's pay a little more. eventually, no one has anything. guest: i think that is a good point. i think the answer to that is sort of a giant overhaul of the way the government works. i will say that what we have right now -- women do take maternity leave. it is often times unpaid and through a patchwork system of using vacation time, sick days

-- . if they live in five states, there is disability insurance programs so that they can have partial wage replacement in the weeks immediately after giving birth. that is physically giving birth, so any other sort of parent would not be covered. they do take it. i talked to a number of women who take six weeks off unpaid because i is all they can -- that is all they can afford. it would dip into their 401(k) and into savings. one woman essentially put her maternity leave on her credit card. they were married, their husbands worked. they had pretty solid middle-class jobs and this is what they had to do. that is what is happening right now. host: we have a special line in the segment for people who have taken paternal leave.

that line is (202) 748-0003. otherwise, we will run through our standard lines. carol is room -- waiting on the line for republicans. caller: if you cannot afford to take time off to have your children, i suggest that you do not have any. the government cannot pay for you to take time off to have your children. the government cannot pay for all of this giveaway. you need to grow up. you need to realize the you can do without a lot of things in this world. host: claire suddath, in your story you talk to a lot of women who wait until they can afford to have kids. talk through their expenses. guest: it is interesting. there are a couple things.

if you are talking about people who can spit -- specifically not afford it, they figure out a workaround. they dip into their savings or put on their credit cards. honestly, if you want to start a family, you will figure out way to do that. also, a lot of women who have careers that they love work really hard to get to a certain point in their career. it would then be more feasible for them to take time off for work fewer hours when they would have children. it is very common in the legal field. the general rule of psalm is to work hard and find a partner first, then have kids. the problem with that is that people often meet their partners in the late 30's. that is often too late for women. i talked to one woman who knew that was what she should do, but when she was 34, she was still a

mid-level associate and decided that she be at the start. she didn't. she works really long hours and suffered from exhaustion. she worked for a nice law firm and the idle and ask a got decent maternity leave, but it was still a huge struggle to come back after a few months. and figure out how to have this high-powered job and raise children. part of this is not feasible that is part of how life is. also, i think that we should reckon is the fact that this is something that a lot of women struggle with and do not always find a solution. host: again, if you want to read the story in bloomberg businessweek, the story is -- “can the u.s. ever fix its messed-up maternity leave system ." nancy is up next. caller: good morning. this is another part of

government overreach, again. these people should land for their kids. we should not have to pay for them. the working people should not have to pay for them. this government has too many of these programs that we do not need. we do not need to be spending our money foolishly, especially when we are $8 trillion in t debt. welfare and stuff, disability has to stop. host: claire suddath was talking at the beginning of this conversation about comparison to other countries around the world. and the fact that the u.s. is very low on the list that we are showing our viewers now of countries that have paid leave policies and protective leave policies, and the number of weeks. does that matter to you, nancy?

the comparison to other countries. caller: it doesn't. if they can afford to do that, go forward -- go ahead and do it. we cannot. we are in debt. what are we thinking? we are a baby state. everybody wants a free handout. stop this. host: nancy from texas. our next caller is from marilyn's. caller: i do not understand why people are so irresponsible to have children when they are not in the position to have them. other american citizens have to pay the bills for that decision. also, i question what the constitutional position of the u.s. is being used to pay for these personal decisions. it does not seem to be a

legitimate function of the central government. finally, there are many people that are unable to work because they are sick. that is not a decision that they make. whereas, becoming pregnant is a personal decision. for people who are sick and you are unable to make money because they're sick, nobody is reaching out to them. you heard a couple of concerns the last two callers. any thoughts? guest: i think a couple of things. if you do not think that people should be paid while they are out of work, that is perfectly fine. i think the conversation that we need to have -- it is a conversation that we need to have. what we have now includes unpaid leave for sick people. the fmla law applies to people

who are parents people who are caring for a sick person, and people who are sick. people usually take off a few weeks, not months at a time. it is unpaid. it still only applies to half of all up workers. you still have the other half of workers who get nothing from the government and are unable to take time off to take care of this. there is a lack of some sort of support for people who have these family and personal problems. whether or not we want to pay them is something we need to talk about. unpaid leave is not even available for many people. there is that. on top of that, i think we need to decide what we want to do and how we want to support our workers. ideally, as a country, everyone

would once and be able to afford to have children. if they have a good job and are working, and that seems to be very hard for many people. we need to figure out why and what we want to do about that. host: we have about 10 minutes left before the house comes in. we will get a few more calls. our next caller is calling from connecticut. good morning. guest: -- caller: we have added new workforce of women out in america working with men and in every company so that they can make art companies and economy go forward. a lot of people do not seem to understand that. these are benefits that should be paid by certain companies for employees. i would appreciate if people could be more appreciative towards women.

they are trying to help us out in everything. guest: i think that was pretty well stated. i will say, to go back to what the previous caller had said i thought to several women who could afford to take time off but actually able to take time off because it did not exist for them. i thought the woman in california who worked in the television industry and she was a contract worker. even though she worked in major television studios for several years and was paid well, she actually did not get maternity leave. she cited time it so that she would have her kids in between tv seasons. she succeeded to out of three times. the third time, she had a c-section and had to be back on the set. if you have had a c-section

that is very strenuous. she said she did not know how she got through it but she did it. i doubt to some women who did not have any leave it all. i talked to one woman who was a lawyer. she owned her own business and represents clients in court. she scheduled her own maternity leave for six weeks, unpaid because she owned her own business. then, she got called into court because one of her cases was not postponed. she had to show up in court with her baby because you cannot find any day care center that would take such a young child because it was unvaccinated. it is not just a question of how much we want to pay people out of a pot of money. it is why we cannot take time off work for something like this. host: for companies that provide paid maternity leave on their own, what industries are most likely to do that than others? guest: if you think about it, it

was mostly business finance jobs. even so, it is 26% of workers in those industries who get it. in silicon valley, things are doing very well. facebook google, those types of companies have very generous policies. the highly competitive and for the most part fully paid for men , women, and adoptive parents. sometimes, i would have to look, by think google's policy is over four months fully paid. they ask he started -- or, they changed it when he looked at the number of new mothers who are leaving the company. they noticed that a lot of women -- new mothers were leaving, so the update. -- they upped it.

hosthost: next caller. caller: i have a 10 month old myself. many have -- of us have worked in our positions for a long time. if you have a health issue after taking maternity, you could possibly lose your job. more than the pay, i think we should focus on the extension of those 12 weeks of job protection. host: adding on the line for a second. claire suddath, you said you would talk to many women who took maternity leave. what kind of questions would you have for a color like jennifer. guest: when you take maternity leave, if you work for company

you have to figure out what your company offers. you have to figure out what your state offers. most women tend to know if they are planning. they know in advance. maybe one year or so in advance. they stop taking vacation, forge sick time, and lump all their days together. then, you have to look at your personal finances and whether or not you can afford to be unpaid for -- three months is a long time to go without a paycheck. if you are married can you rely on one paycheck. if you're by yourself, how will you fund that. these are the questions that women asked. a lot of women that i found grew up in an age where was expected that they would go to college and take a career. they thought all of this was taking care of. maybe they should not have.

but they did. a lot of them talk to me about how they were surprised about how there is no system for them in place. when they get to this place where they're looking for what is available to them at whatever company they work for, they are often shots. -- shocked. or they find out that in six weeks or 12 weeks of maternity leave, they think is paid or partially paid. they find out later that it isn't. i had someone call me at work the other day, in a panic after reading the article. she said that she was four months pregnant and that she thought she had maternity leave, it turned out she didn't. she asked me what do i do? i told her, i wrote the article i cannot change the law for you. i walked her through what it is like and who she could talk to to get a handle on what exactly she should be doing.

host: jennifer, are any of those experiences that claire said familiar to you? caller: i was familiar with it. i was familiar with my company's policy on leave. my first pregnancy -- i have other children also. i was surprised the first time around there only 12 weeks. i was very lucky that the company i work for offered to pay me during my leave. that was very helpful. that relieves a lot of stress. i was very fortunate to have that. again, as you have a problem with the pregnancy, or you need a longer amount of time after c-section, that you can possibly lose your job or position after 12 weeks is very stressful.

host: thank you for the caller. just a couple minutes left in our show today. jim is waiting from florida republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i am actually surprisingly for it. you know, if they cut out the amnesty, they could pay for it. my wife and i tried to work until we could afford it. it ends up being too late. a nurse in my doctor's office got an attitude because she had to go on maternity leave. i think the woman should be able to get maternity leave. these people who say we should not pay for it, it is wrong. thanks for taking my call.

you guys have a good day. host: can you talk through the expense of the fathers here. what the policies are for them. guest: almost all the policies passed in the u.s. and in other countries are gentle neutral. they apply to women and men. in sweden, for example, which has the most generous policy they have certain numbers of months reserve for men. in canada, they have a certain number of months reserve for women. the time for men is created to encourage them to take leave. if you are an employer and thinking of hiring someone if you hire a woman of general childbearing age, would i have to offer this to her. it levels the playing field a little bit. even so, most of the leave that is taken is taken by women. in california, we're talking 10

years out -- about 26% of women who apply for paid leave our men. even so, they may be only take one or two weeks, when women take multiple weeks, i think six weeks is the maximum. men, it is generally understood that this is something they need to. it is hard to be a parent. regardless of who you are. you go to work, your tired, you come home, maybe don't sleep very well at night. this is not something that is specific only to win it. there are obviously added problems for women in terms of they are the ones who give you -- give birth and breast-feeding. it is something we need to think about her father's as well. since we have the majority of

two-parent households have both there to work. host: the house is getting ready to come in. can the u.s. ever fix it's best that m > the u.s. house debates about to it repealed the affordable care act. later, house minority leader nancy pelosi talks about proposals to help the middle class. from military news, stars & stripes in today's senate armed services meeting. they had a plan to cut defined pensions by 20% which will not reduce long-term retention in the military. a panel told lawmakers today. instead small retirement betterment -- benefits over troops career will result in the

same number over two decades. a study by the commission is the most comprehensive review of pay and benefits since an all volunteer force was created in the 1970's. they went on to say the panel has proposed modernizing the aging retirement system offering 80% of the current defined military pensions paid after 20 years. in return, every service member will be automatically retired -- enrolled in the savings plan. the military will match contributions similar to a 401(k) account. they can collect after they turn 59 years old. here is the armed services committee hearing from earlier today.

> i want to thank each commissioner. eyewitnesses are the commissioner chairman, alfonso multimedia in your, stephen boyer, the honorable -- mr. michael higgins, general peter

terelli. i understand senator bob kelly is snowden in new york. this year's issue for this committee will be thoughtful consideration of the commission's recommendations to modernize military compensation and retirement benefits. as we do i encourage the members of this committee and my colleagues in the house and senate to keep an open mind. we are also here to hear from any military or other organizations that have constructive ideas to improve the current system. no one has a monopoly on good ideas and we all come to this debate as patriots who love our nation and its armed forces. we want to improve the quality of life for all who serve and their families. we honor the service and sacrifices of service members and their families, active duty, guard, and reserve, and we pledge to keep their well-being foremost in our thoughts. as we deliberate the commission's recommendations.

upholding our sacred obligation to them is not mean resisting -- does not mean resisting change. we must not shrink from the opportunity before us to create a modern system of compensation and retirement benefits that would provide greater value and choice for those it serves. congress established a commission in the national defense authorization act of the fiscal year 2013 to conduct review of military compensation and retirement systems and to make recommendations or modernization. we asked the commission to develop recommendations that would one, ensure the long-term viability of an outline to -- all volunteer force to, improve quality of life for service members and families to ensure successful recruitment retention, and careers for those members. and three, modernize and achieve fiscal sustainability for the compensation and retirement systems in the 21st century.

the military's current compensation and retirement systems are decades old. in their current form, they would be less than suitable for modern-day military members. today we have been nearly 70-year-old military retirement system. the military health program was implemented in the mid-1990's. before the retirement system and try care where appropriate for their time both where appropriate for their time but clearly times have changed. we are here today to learn how the commission's recommendations could make compensation and benefits better for the military members and families of our current forces and forces of the future. we are in a world of multiple threats and increasing danger and we count on young americans to enlist or commit to serve in an all volunteer force that protects us and our families.

if this committee evaluates the recommendations to modernize military compensation, we must carefully consider any changes and how it will motivate them people today to serve in the 21st century in a constrained physical environments, we must consider how best to achieve the proper balance between providing attractive compensation and benefits for our troops. and paying for military modernization and readiness effective equipment, and advanced training i will enable military to respond in moments of crisis and keep our citizens safe. we can make both of these objectives and we must. clearly we will not have enough time today for a complete and thorough review of every recommendation. that is when asked senator graham, chairman of the personnel subcommittee, to hold a series of hearings in the near future to explore all of the

commission's recommendations in greater depth. especially in those areas of retirement and health care. i think senator graham and gillibrand for their leadership on these important issues. finally, we look forward to the testimony from the commission today. their recommendations come to us unanimously after nearly two years of hard work, research, and debate. i encourage the commissioners to speak freely without reservations. some of them i know i am sure it will do that. thank you again, commissioners for your extraordinary efforts. senator reed. >> -- oh sarah -- senator kerry arrived. inc. you for writing. -- thank you for writing. thank you mr. chairman didn.

> i think it is extremely important to have this meeting today. this comes after yesterday the budget for 2016 was submitted. while we await the full details there are a few immediate notable requests. first, the request for $35 million above the control act spending cap. it was 499.8 billion dollars. it represents no growth. that is $35 billion more. it shows how deep the funding was overrun. particularly in the modern training accounts. the department summits these proposals last year. congress reported some an elected for others to have this recommendations. both sides of the aisle have been reluctant to support compensation reforms requested

by the past several years while this commission deliberate and suggests we sit way until this report was submitted. this is the context in which today we hear from this very distinguished panel. these issues are of paramount importance to the nation and military members and families. we charge the militarily fighting and winning the nation's wars. any person in that responsibility is recruiting and training the best in military service. and ensuring their trained and equipped for the missions and arduous duty we ask of them. usually willing talk about caring for men and women in uniform, discussion is focused entirely on their pay. but these other elements are equally important. if we want service members to a come home alive. it is important to save the goal of this commission is not to save money. it is to strengthen the all volunteer force. it is to modernize a retirement system that is 70 years old.

and importantly, it is to ensure that service members and their families and giant quality-of-life and service that will enable the services to recruit and retain the best men and women needed to meet national defense objectives. under the current budget situation, i fear we had quickly pricing ourselves out of having a military sufficiently sized and adequately trained to meet the myriad threats we face. as we heard last week, the budget caps currently do not allow services need national defense objectives. these recommendations are enacted and do provide savings. since -- such should be used to address structure and we invest in modernization. finally, i would like to highlight one inequity of the current system. only 17% of all service members will leave with any retirement benefit under the current system.

officers are more than twice as likely to leave with these benefits. even while i listened is now have always included the most recent conflicts and the vast majority of casualties. under these recommendations, as many as 75 percent of all service members will leave the services with some retirement benefits even if they do not serve the full 20 years on active duty as most 7 -- service members do not. think you mr. chairman and panelists. i would like to thank all the members of the panel. click to their valuable time and effort to bring what i think is an excellent comprehensive report which i hope will -- i hope -- no will serve as guidance for us as we move forward with a much-needed reforms. i think all of you again -- i think all of you again and we are ready to move forward with your statement.

thank you for your chairmanship. >> thank you mr. chairman. distinguished members of the committee. i am honored to be here today and we thank you for the opportunity to testify. we also thank you for your support of the commission in the last 18 months and leadership in protecting service members compensation and benefits. as chairman alibi to request that our report be entered into the record. -- i would like to request that our report be entered into the record. there are unwavering commitment to excellence in the service of our nation and never been cleared then the last 13 years of war. as commissioners, we recognize our obligation to craft a valiant compensation system that is relevant to contemporary members and able to operate in a modern and efficient member. we are unanimous in our

recommendation. to strengthen the bond -- the foundation of the force and ensure national security, and truly honor those who served and their families to support them. now and into the future. our report is informed by our own experiences with military service and public policy, and as public servants, however our recommendations are most informed by the insides of service members, veterans, retirees and families. the commission and staff visited 55 military installations worldwide. they listen to the views and -- decent hundreds along the way. more than 150,000 current and retired servicemembers provided thoughtful responses to the commission's survey. we developed a working relationship with more than 30 military and service organizations. additionally, the commission received input for more than 20 federal agencies, several department of defense working

groups, research institutions, private firms and not-for-profit organizations. the result of this process included 18 months of comprehensive independent research and analysis, 15 unanimous recommendations that will improve access, quality and value within the compensation system. i will work to represent the most comprehensive resume -- review of military commendation and benefits since the inception of the volunteer force. consistent with the mandate, we reviewed each program to determine how an organization might ensure long-term viability of the all volunteer force and enabled the quality-of-life for service members and their families and achieve a greater fiscal sustainability for compensation and retirement systems. our recommendations do this and more. improving choice access, quality, and value within the compensation system.

our retirement recommendations propose a blended plan that extends retirement benefits from 17% to 75% of the force, as ranking member reed has already stated. it leverages the retention power of traditional military to maintain the current profile protect assets of servicemembers who retire after 20 years, and reduces annual federal outlays by $4.7 billion. our health benefits recommendations improve access toys, and value of health care for active duty, reserve, and retirees. while reducing outlays by $3.2 billion. our recommendations on commissaries maintain grocery discounts while also reducing the cost of delivering benefit by more than 500 -- $500 million annually. with these savings but -- while

these are significant, the commission does not engage in cost cutting drills. in fact, our recommendations to improve service members financial literacy support families, and transition assistance, require additional funding to ensure program efficacy. in summary, our recommendations represent a holistic package of reforms that modernize the structure of compensation programs to adjust the level of benefits delivered to servicemembers. they sustain the all volunteer force by maintaining or increasing the overall value of compensation and benefits for servicemembers and families. they provide additional options for service personnel managers to design and manage. this approach creates an effective and efficient compensation of benefits system that after full implementation,

saves taxpayers more than $12 billion annually. while sustaining the overall value of compensation benefits of those who serve, and have served, and families to support them. my fellow commissioners, i think you again for the opportunity -- i thank you again for the opportunity, and we're honored to present unanimous recommendations. we stand ready to answer questions. >> thank you for your statement. i'll have a couple of brief questions because i was briefed i you already. if any of the members of the committee wish to respond to any questions, just signifying we -- you will be recognized. to brief questions. how do you know your recommendations will provide the same for structure to the service? >on the issue of the proposed compensation system?

in other ways, right now there is an incessant -- incentive to remain for 20 years. in this present plan there will be retirement compensation literally throughout. how does that -- do we have incentive for people to remain in for a career or not incentive? >> we do indeed mr. chairman. in our recommendations, we do a blended plan that we already have defined benefits. we added a defined contribution to make sure that we can do the retention or provide for the retention if they wanted us to. i'm going to have commissioner higgins to talk to the specifics of that. >> thank you mr. chairman.

and chairman mccain. the system we have devised includes the incentives flexibility, and choice that people want in the force. we feel at its essence, it is going to be a very powerful retention tool. when we look forward at how this system will operate over time, our belief is supported by our analysis. in this case it was a model which was the dynamic retention model used. we believe this will -- our proposal will exactly model the current force profiles and we will have the tools within it including a continuation page, thrift savings plan, which is currently not offered today. it will include the tools that will draw people through the 20

year career, much like the defined benefit as today, and into a large extent because defined benefits is retained under our proposals. about 80% of that. these new tools and flexibility along with defined benefits, we believe we will operate very effectively and the modeling we have done will support that. >> on the issue of health care, how does this incentivize beneficiaries to seek most cost-effective means of getting health care. >> mr. chairman, thank you for the question. i was very important to us as we took a look at the programs that are providing benefits to our servicemembers. as we travel across the country and talk -- talked to

servicemembers and families, listening very carefully to the conversations in terms of what people said they wanted, they preferred access and value with the things that kept coming time and time again. i will ask the commissioner to speak specifically to that. >> chairman and members of the committee, cost-effective means look at it from two ways. one is the government and the others to the families. when we look at this as how can we achieve both? presently under tri-care, we don't because there is insufficient utilization management tools.

it is a limited network because of low reimbursement rates and how the tri-care contractors actually recruit and pay below medicare rates. so we said, can we do better -- also with regard to the families and improve quality of care. given the choice they want and get better access. we found that if we moved to a system whereby we have what we call tri-care choice, which is very similar to an old model where they can select from available plans in a geographic region it does call for more empowerment of the individual. we are asking that that individual is able to select the plan that best fits their family. when we do that, the plans that are administers -- administered

by opm, those plans will have effective mentioning utilization tools and it becomes more cost-effective, not only to the families but to the government. >> thank you. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. let me direct this to anyone who would like to respond. part of your recommendation is that health care will strengthen the facilities. the additional facilities that have to be ready to deploy if we deploy. part of that is that a will be part of the health care systems. can you comment on this will issue of strengthening the military medical infrastructure along with giving individuals more choices? >> i'm more than happy to. i think we are in a death spiral right now from the standpoint

of, we don't have the number of reps they need to keep doctors. -- keep doctors up to standard. this is a way we can bring into our military treatment facilities and kinds of cases that contribute to battlefield medicine. that is what makes this system so different than any other system. we need well-trained doctors not only to treat patients in hospitals, but to be ready to deploy wherever we send them and provide that same kind of treatment on day one of the conflict. this allow us to attract the kind of cases that will keep those skills of and were so absolutely crucial to our -- to our wounds rate in the last 14 years of war. it'll do that on day one -- it will do that on day one. i really believe this is something that is going to

ensure we have that combat medical readiness capability we need moving into the future. if we don't do it, we are going to have a very difficult >> if we don't do it we'll have a difficult time being able to provide that. >> this is not just about the benefits to the individual military personnel. this is about the overall viability of the healthcare system in the military. >> absolutely. and that's one of the reasons why we look so strongly at a readiness command because we really believe there's going to have to be somebody who's keeping an eye on this system to ensure that the services are doing the kinds of things that are necessary to keep those m.t.f.'s viable training grounds for our physicians. >> let me direct this to the chairman. i'm sure i'm not alone. but when we mobilize national guardsmen, women and reservists,

they're the ones sometimes with the most difficulty getting into the health plan, getting benefits, making sure their family who's not close to a facility, who may be far removed, it seems to me that this approach that you're suggesting choosing among a set of private insurance plans would be much more easily accessed by reserve components. is that accurate, mr. chairman? >> that is correct, senator reed. one of the things that happen with our proposal for the reserve components is any time they're mobilizing or they're being activated, the family members normally would go without coverage. there's a period of time that they just don't have coverage when that happens. this will solve that problem for them because it won't have to worry about losing going long periods of time without coverage, coverage of healthcare, when the reserve component member activate and

deactivate. >> senator reed, that's an excellent question. that strategic reserve that we built over time really wasn't prepared operationally. we know that. you funded it. you did a lot of things to bring it up, round to out, to make the total force that better in the 13 years of war but with regard to the undesirable choices that reservists and their families had to make upon those mobilizations to be part of the contingency operations, you're absolutely right, senator. so when we looked at this and said with regard to that total force, even though we really pressured the chiefs, do we really want an operational reserve versus a strategic reserve? they really do but they don't want to call it that because they don't want to fund it but what is realistic because when we talk about the war after next and how to fund the war after next and caring for the people, when it comes to healthcare, that benefit needs to be for the

total force. for the reserve components, the continuity of care that your question goes to, it is so disrupted from the family. if we say from day one when you join the reserve component that healthcare is part of that benefit, you can select the type of plan that best fits your family, your premium is 25%. we cap it at 25% for the premium and then there's no disruption in the continuity. they like their local providers and then if they're on for a longer period of time, meaning they've gone on active duty, they're part of the contingency operation, then they go on to the active duty plan, they receive their basically allowance for healthcare that takes care of the premium for that of their family. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> mr. reed, if you don't mind, i'd also like to have another member of our commission to speak to that, he's a reservist please. commissioner kerney. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. reed, those of us who lived in rural areas, when we were on

reserve duty, it wasn't tricare exactly, it was more like try to find care and this takes care of that. what we're offering now is a system that provides a network that is robust enough to care not only for the member when they are on their civilian side but also for the families when the member is deployed and that is exactly what we're trying to do here and do it in a way that is fiscally sustainable. medical readiness as well as dental readiness are critical aspects of the overall readiness mission and if we can do that with this kind of a system of a tricare choice system, then i think this is a good step forward. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. say to my good friend steve buyer that i used to sit next on on the house armed services

committee that i agree with you except i'm more concerned with today's war than i am with the war after next. right now is when we're having the problems that we're having and we had a hearing last week. we had less schlesinger, george schultz, madam albright. and they reminisced over what our abilities were, capabilities at it and what is expected and even read the charge that president reagan had made at one time in determining what a defense budget should be and the reason i'm saying this is i look and i agree with senator reed who talked about the inadequacy in meeting the threats. i agree that director clapper when he says looking back over my more than half century in intelligence i've not experienced a time when we have been beset by more crises and threats around the globe than we are right now that and in light of the fact that we also have

the forestructure problems that i'm very proud of all of our chiefs. general odierno has been before us and all the rest of them talking about how significant this is and it's unprecedented. the reason i bring this up, we got a quality group here, i say mr. chairman, and i just think that after this is over, you should reconvene and get into this thing as to the current threat that's out there and the inadequacy that we're facing. it's one thing for the chiefs to come forward and talk about what's going to happen with sequestration but when you folks with your backgrounds come forth, to me, that gives a different sense of meaning and i would hope we might consider that. i was a product of the draft and look at things a little bit differently than others. i was one of them who was not at all optimistic that the all-volunteer force would be the quality force that it is. i was wrong. although there are some advantages to the draft at that

time. i think that when you are examining the charge that was given you, you would say, and i would ask you the question, what have you decided motivates the young people to serve in the all-voluntary force, and then why are so many of them leaving? what is -- if you could zero in on two or three reasons as to why they don't stay on. you know quite often, we go back and talk about how much cheaper it is for us to retain than retrain. the extreme example is to get a pilot to the point where they can do an f-22 quality and the re-enlistment bonus is $215,000 but the cost to retrain is $17 million. scale that down to whatever forces we have here. what is the major reason that they come in and then they

leave? >> thank you for the question, senator inhofe. we spent a lot of time looking at that specific issue that you address and it's a very important one. as we think about how to modernize the compensation programs compensation programs for tomorrow, we are thinking about exactly what is required for the military to be able to recruit and retain people and we have to think about the way the new generation think, what they value, what they prefer. those are the kind of things that we listen to and we heard as we talked to people. and as it was already indicated the other day, 83% of the enlisted force actually wind up leaving without any kind of retirement benefits which is one of the reasons we made the recommendation that we did to be able to extend that, some of the

retirement benefits, for those service members who will serve and then move on to do other things from 17% to 75%. and i'd also like to point out that a couple of things that we were told specifically about service members is that there's -- they're concerned about the service to the country and the g.i. bill. those were two of the things that were very important to them in terms of why they would come in, what they were looking for. get an education benefit, be able to take advantage of that, which is a strong recruiting tool, and then move on to something else. >> very good, thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you all for being here. i guess this would be to anybody that wants to answer the question. but my thing is, is that it's very difficult position you're put into and we all are because i don't think anyone questions the commitment the service people and all military people

are to the united states of america. in west virginia, we feel very strongly about that, people able to take a bullet so i would always explain when i was governor when they would explain or complain whether it be state police retirement or fireman's retirement, they're willing to put their life on the line to you. i'm saying, do you all look at that from the standpoint -- because most all state budgets or municipality budgets, the firemen and police retirements are out of whack and under water. we have to recognize the sacrifices they're making for us. how do you balance this out? what would i tell the national guardsmen of my state deployed three and four times, and we're looking about changing some of the compensation and what type of literacy training are we giving them to help them on their retirement and why do we have so many that leave with 10

years of service in the military to go into private contracting for the extra pay overseas in afghanistan and iraq? what's the magic number of 10 years? because i find most of our soldiers of fortunes that leave our military that we've spent an awful lot of time and energy training them, leaving, going for the higher pay. can you give me that magic thing of 10 years what they lock in and what gives them the freedom to do that? whoever wants to chime in on this. >> thank you very much for that question. i'm going to ask commissioner kerrey to answer that. >> we've had a very difficult time retaining men and women of the military had congress not made all the changes we've made

since we have been fighting this war the last 13 years. if you look at what you've done with paying compensation, it is now better than market and it needs to be. the changes that have been enacted have not been given enough praise in my view. had those changes not been done -- given the stress on families today -- i'm a proud geezer father. i've got a 13-year-old and if we think about having to move our son once every four or five years, it's like a traumatic thing inside of our household. that's way more stability than anybody in the military gets. the stress in the families has increased over the past 14 years and thanks congressional action the paying benefits are quite strong and they need to be in my opinion otherwise we'll have a difficult time retaining men and women in spite of the fact the seconded thing has happened. senator, fellow draftee referenced the good old days. the american people are quite proud of their military and

they're quite confident that they're getting the kind of support that they need but americans are a lot more patriotic and care deeply about the men and women who are serving and i think that attitude makes a big difference to people's willingness to serve so i would say the combination of payoutism -- patriotism and paying better make a big difference. when i looked at the recommendations, the questions i ask are, are we keeping faith with the men and women who have served and those of you who have understand what happens, you give up your freedom. if you get ordered to do something or go someplace, you do it. so are we keeping faith with those who have served and who are serving and i answer emphatically, yes. and secondly, do the recommendations we make enable us to continue to recruit and retain in the all-volunteer force and again i answer emphatically yes but it is something i think you constantly

have to pay attention to and i think there's a qualitative difference between the public pensions at the fire and police level than you have at -- as you know, the firemen and police can got ornery and they don't have a commander or chief to tell them exactly what to do. i have orders to report to so-and-so location, i say, yes, sir, and go. in negotiations with the police union or fire union, you have serious negotiations with what they'll do. there's a qualitative difference in the relationship with the american people and the men and women who have sworn that oath and put their lives at risk. >> it's not a hard sell. in my state and states around the country are very committed to our military force and they want to make sure they're compensated and taken care of and given the care they need. they just want to make sure we're doing it in an efficient manner and if we're giving them the training and expertise and literacy training they need to make decisions. >> i would say i think the moment that ends no matter what

you pay men and women, they're not going to sign up. the moment that that attitude changes, as it was in the 1970's, it's going to be difficult to recruit people to service. >> on our indian reservations, a lot of people serve three or four years and very rarely go for a career and i always had a difficult time getting our native americans to go to the military academies but it seems that aside from whatever we do, there is a tradition in our country of a lot of people wanting to serve three to five years and not -- of course we need those people -- and that's particularly true in rural areas in states such as mine and with native americans. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you senator mccain. mr. chairman, you've mentioned flexibility a couple of times here in your statements, and in the report it says that the force may benefit from a

flexible retirement system that incentivizes them to remain in service longer than other occupational specialties, with regard to doctors cyber personnel. do you have specific proposals? i'd like to dig down a little bit into this. do you have any specific proposals that the commission recommended? and do you see each service setting different requirement there? and if so, do you anticipate any problems? do you see competition among the services? >> thank you very much, senator, for the question. i'm going to ask commissioner zikime to respond to the specific of your question first. >> thank you mr. chairman. senator, as you know, each of the services already has different types of bonuses to keep people on. for instance, nuclear engineers and specialists get special

bonuses from the navy and so on. our proposal does not tell the services how they should do it. what we're trying to do here is give them maximum flexibility so if there are as you pointed out, certain specialties that frankly, like doctors, you actually get better with more time in your practice, then the services up front can decide that they want to recruit an individual and have that individual stay on longer than the normal term. essentially -- but it works both ways, actually. it's not just to keep people longer. they can sign up for somewhat less. we wanted to give them maximum flexibility so at the same time we're giving the individual choice, we're giving the services flexibility and again it goes back to the question about what kind of a force do you want to shape. the services are the ones who know that best, of course.

>> when you looked at the surveys, were there any issues identified that the commission did not make recommendations on? i guess i'm thinking specifically of the housing allowance and that has been such a big issue in the past. the president has made proposals. but yet it was not addressed by the commission. are there other instances there? and really why didn't you address the housing? we hear about that a lot. >> senator, thank you so much for the question. we indeed, took a very, very hard look at the -- at housing b.a.h., and we actually looked at the pay table and we looked at the structure of all of those programs and we clearly asked ourselves three questions. number one, were these programs delivering the benefits that they were intended to. number two, were the benefits

being delivered in the most cost-effective way possible. and thirdly, could this commission design a clear path for modernization in terms of improving those programs and after looking at those, we did not feel that we could design a clear path to modernization for those programs and instead we could do -- provide a much better benefit to the service members and do it in a most cost-effective way by making the recommendations that we've made. >> would it be fair to say that the commission supports what the congress did, then, with the housing allowance? or do you support the president's proposal? >> senator, again, thank you for the question. i'm going to ask commissioner higgins to respond to the specifics of that question. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman, senator.

clearly, b.a.h., in our view, is operating effectively to provide the housing that our service members need. there are a number of the elements of the compensation system that drew our attention very dramatically that we did not elect to meddle in, if you will, because we believe they are operating effectively. others would include the pay raise mechanism, the pay table itself, we believe is operating correctly. special pays and allowances, and b.a.h., i think, along with that. now, on each, if you believe you need to save money then obviously the congress could act to produce programs. and that's your choice. we were targeting our objective was modernization and systemized

modernization where we go into the structure of a program. we do not believe that the structure of those programs were deserving of modernization. if i could go back to your other question, as well, senator. the service chiefs asked for flexibility. one of the primary complaints about the retirement system as it exists today is that it is overtly rigid inflexible. service chiefs implored us to seek opportunities for greater flexibility. and we delivered that section you're referring to. are there some potential frictions between the services? would it cause some concern? do we believe it's going to be used instantly? no. there will be uncertainty and i think that will keep that

proposal in check perhaps for years but there will come a day when greater flexibility in the retirement system will be needed and that provision will be there to deliver that to the managers. >> and it would also allow the services then, to compete for the men and women that they need to perform in different areas correct? >> always a difficult issue controlling competition between the services. the service cultures are indeed incredibly strong. you always want to enduver -- endeavor to limit competition and create systems that operate for the best interests of the total force but there will be some insecurity there and i think that will cause this. as enticing as it may be to some

people inside the pentagon, whether or not it rises to a level where it's implemented, is a serious question that's going to take time to resolve. >> thank you, sir. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator gillibrand? >> thank you mr. chairman, for this hearing and thank you to all of you for your very hard work. one of the most important considerations for me in terms of potential changes to benefits and compensation is that the approach be holistic and we ensure the lower enlisted troops and families do not disproportionately feel the impact. can you please walk me through why you believe this is a holistic approach and how it will impact lower enlisted troops and their families. >> thank you, senator, for your question. going to ask commissioner chirelly if he would respond to the question. >> i think we've done everything we possibly can to make it holistic and apply to everyone. we've got two charts that go into retirement. one listed e-7 to show what his

retirement is under the current system and what it would be under the new system. and i think you can see that it's clear that he or she would do much better under our proposed system than they would under the current system. we have one per officers it shows the same thing. i think when it comes to -- and i don't think just the retirement system you should look at. i think you should look at what we're doing with healthcare. we're giving them the ability in healthcare to go out and immediately go to see a private provider that's in their insurance network or if they would rather choose to go to the m.t.f. because that's where they feel they can get the best care, they can go to the military treatment facility. today, under most of the tricare programs it takes a period of time before you can get the tricare referral and it's up to

30 to 40 days from the time you want to see somebody until you can see them if you can find a provider. this applies not only to officers and warrant officers but to our enlisted soldiers so i think everything in our recommendations was geared to enis that your whatever we recommended was holistic and applied to both officer and non-commissioned officer in the same way. >> in a holistic sense, we included exceptional family provisions and childcare issues in our report which normally might not be in such a report but a lot of the lower ranking service members have a hard time with waiting lists on childcare and so forth so we tried to be holistic in that sense. >> ma'am holistic was not only of the moment. we were reverent to the past for our military traditions and heritage. >> thank you. >> if i could -- >> please. >> there's one area where we're

not talked about. you've completely destroyed me because i tried to get the chairman and the rest of the commissioners to stop using the word "holistic" and obviously i failed in that effort. among the things you really need to think about is all these men and women at some point are going to transition back into civilian life and the changes that we're recommending in the healthcare side and the changes we're making on the retirement side make it easier to do that because there isn't a differential between what we're recommending and the civilian population. >> i'd love to understand better the healthcare proposal. i understand part of the recommendation is to create a basic allowance for healthcare based on the average family's out-of-pocket cost to cover the costs of premiums and co-pays. how do you account for families with extraordinary needs? will they pay more? and i'm especially concerned about families with special needs dependents, children with special needs specifically. >> senator, thank you for the

question. we spent an inordinate amount of time talking to families across the country about the challenges that they had with exceptional family members, and i'm going to ask commissioner buyer to please speak to that question, the specifics of that question. >> two parts to the question. i'll do the healthcare and then the extraordinary families piece. to the basic allowance for healthcare you're correct. in order to take that determination, it will be decided by o.p.m. o.p.m. of whom will manage the plans and they will take the average of those premiums of the plans that were selected in the prior year. they also then will look at the average to come up with the co-pays and the deductibles and then that will set that -- >> does o.p.m. help families navigate it? this is a new system for them.

>> part of our recommendations with regard to literacy training literacy is not only for financial training because now as we move on to the thrift savings plan and government contribution there's a literacy piece but also a health piece pohelp -- to help people navigate going to more empowerment of the individual. we're used to our military being paternalistic so as we look at what's happening in society and how dynamic these -- i want to say the new generation is not that they're the selfie generation. they are the generation, they want to make greater controls about themselves. they watch their peers making contributions in the 401-k. how about me? i'm in the military, i want to participate, too. so we've come up with that blended. but with regarded to healthcare

we're making that empowerment of choice and educating them how important it is to make the best plan for themselves and their family. when we give them the financial literacy and the health literacy, when they leave the service, it is a better individual and it's a better family. >> senator if you don't mind, i'd like to have commissioner higgins to follow up on the latter part of the question. it was two pieces. >> my time's expired so it's up to the chairman. >> that's ok. go ahead mr. higgins. >> thank you, plantar mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman chairman mccain. senator, we had a great deal of concern about exceptional family members and how we would care for them. we have a proposal, of course, that would add a new level of benefits for those families and we would -- one of those areas where we would increase costs so we were not all about cutting. we were about making life

about making life better for service members. if you had a catastrophic situation in the family where you had extreme costs related to an exceptional family member there is also a fund that we would propose to ensure that those out-of-pocket costs did not get excessive. we plan on that for about 5% of the people. so there is help their. -- there. >> thank you, chairman. i want to thank all of you for the hard work and thoughtfulness that you put into this commission and for having this important discussion with us. today, i am walking back and forth between this committee and the budget committee. as i look at where we are, to use the word holistic in a