he gallup poll looked at -- said what is the most important issue for the american people. three, four, five six, seven -- there were eight issues. of those eight issues seven out of eight have to do with the economy. number one was economic problems divided into the economy and unemployment and jobs. . federal deficit and debt were there. but everything was about jobs. the gap between the rich and poor and lack of money that's how they put it, wage issues and the high cost of living. there you have it. well what's the best way to do that? we had a good hearing this morning, but i wonder if both of you were surprised there wasn't

a lot of talk about jobs and this relationship this very bipartisan hearing we had. but i think there is a reason for that and that is that we can't get past the first hurdle how are we going to pay for it. it costs money. rail, buses, ports, bridges, highways not free. so we are so hung up on trying to do the impossible fund all of those without money that we can't get to what the money will do. we are approaching the absolute deadline, may 31. the construction season is already here. it's 65 degrees in d.c. today. i wonder if people even in congress know that very first bill, eisenhower bill in 1956 had a 13-year authorization,

because the republicans in the 1950's were attuned to how long it takes to do exactly the kinds of things, mr. garamendi that your chart points to. and you need an authorization more than a few months or even a few years. 13-year authorization. no wonder that those post-world war ii years were the very best years for the american economy. the states simply cannot make capital improvements. that's what your charts speak to, every one of those is a capital improvement. you can't do it without capital funds that come in bulk. the states have thrown up their hands. we just can't go on with this.

of course, they are foregoing the projects they most need because no state has those kinds of funds. 11 states don't even have the option of putting up their own funds which they depend on so heavily on federal funds. the jobs, the occupations with the largest growth today would make the american people cry. and personal care aids. we are having a big rally here in the district because of the low pay there. but at the bottom is construction laborers. the personal care aids make $19,000 almost $20,000. the construction laborers make almost $30,000. that's the difference -- those are the kinds of jobs you are talking about mr. garamendi,

and the low-wage jobs and we are not, in fact, funding bills that would not only deal with rail, buses, ports, bridges and highways, but the other part of the transportation and infrastructure bill and my good friend has also mentioned. the fastest growing occupations, the top 10 only two of those has to do with would grow america insulation stone mace ons and we need that to be much higher up and we need more of those. only two of the top 10. in my own district the district of columbia, i would hate to ask you to guess what is the occupation with the largest job growth, security guards. and we need security guards and we welcome security guards, but

i want my two friends to know that not one truly high paid job except nurses and lawyers, is on this list. i come to the floor to thank both of my good friend to the conversation you have been having and to link it to what worries the american people. they can think about nothing these days. and don't think about isil or the department of homeland security bill that we just got past out of here last week and can't think about anything that we say rightly that there is a growth in jobs and yet their wages stagnate because the growth is not where the wages would show up. mr. garamendi: you hit right on your closing sentence. it's about the middle class.

it's about middle-class jobs and about growing the economy and laying the foundation for present and future economic growth. we can do that. the president's plan last year, which he called the grow america act and we say grow america act 2 is $478 billion. that's a lot of money and we put that into the surface transportation. i was thinking about as you were talking about the surface transportation mr. tonko over there and about the new amtrak bill that just passed out of our committee, it calls for a lot of investment for amtrak on the northeast corridor so you can go from washington, d.c. to your home up on the hudson river. there is a rail line that goes up there. mr. tonko: certainly is. mr. garamendi: they call for a big investment there. one of the things we think

should be in this bill and is in the bill is a very strong buy america provision. this is a loco motive for the electric line from washington, d.c. to boston. and this locomotive is 100% made. it is made in sacramento, california by a german company, who looked at the american recovery act and there was $700 million in there to build these locomotives and they looked at that and said $700 billion, make it in america, we can do that and they are doing it. and they are now being deployed on the east coastline. but the next phase is a high-speed line between washington and boston. and that high-speed line calls for new kind of terrain

high-speed train and out of our committee, we said it's going to be built in america. mr. tonko, here's where i turn it over to you. one of the foreign companies which is a french company has a manufacturing plant in upstate new york. may be near your district. and if so, you are going to have middle-class manufacturing jobs when this bill passes with 100% buy america provision. mr. tonko: interestingly, when i was on a recent trip south of dds into the southeast of the u.s. i got to tour a brand new car that is a luggage car-storage car and includes racks for bikes and storage on that car itself. and they want to share with me it is made in upstate new york, state of the art design brand new vehicle just put on i

believe that week that i was on the train. so you're right. this translates into jobs of all orders, from manufacturing of these cars, these train cars, to innovation and research that's required in our electric utility infrastructure. you know, i think delegate holmes norton struck something that speaks to our senses and that is history dictating to us when we were at our best when we had this dip in our economy and needed to recover, we invested in jobs and invested in infrastructure. you look at the building that came to those late 1920's and 1930's, that are still standing not only as hard as a rock and speak to a great pit of cityscape that added to the look

of the community and we can take it back even before that in the history of our time when as we talked on this floor before when the barge canal was instructed and it was governor clinton had this goal and the economy was in tough shape, too. he drove this idea through tough times when people said we can't afford it and elements in history, chapters in history repeatedly remind us that we are replete with these bits of evidence that tell us that when things were tough when the economy was really really weak we pulled ourselves out of those pits, those financial downfalls and did it through investment in infrastructure. and here we not only have the opportunity to pull us up and have a stronger economic response, but it's always enabling us to utilize the

intellectual capacity that grows innovation and ideas and lighter -weight materials all the greater. the bang of the buck is all the stronger. there are elements to lower that to that effective bit of planning that can take us through the tough economic times and respond to the crumbling infrastructure and build the new state of the art elements into our nation, be it communication utility, transportation-wise or water or sewer-wise. there are golden opportunities to add to the work force and then utilize the best opportunities out there technologically that have been developed through the soundness of american know-how and this gives birth, it coaxes from us the strength that we have as a

nation to rely on that creative pioneer spirit that builds america in the truest form and fashion. coaxing that kind of activity, america needs to be coaxed by that push to embrace the pioneer spirit. go forward with these opportunities to make us a strong voice that will resonate with all communities across this country because they need the need for infrastructure is strong. it is really beckoning our leadership to go forward and commit to the soundness of that infrastructure investment. and we see it in so many aspects of the work done here. mr. garamendi: we know one of the key opportunities that presents itself to congress in the next three months is the surface transportation bill. we know we have to have it out of here, renew it by the end of may. if we do that the construction season, while being a little bit

of rockiness, we will be able to move through the summer and into the fall. and that is going to follow one of the tasks that our delegate eleanor holmes norton has, to push that out. and if we maintain the buy-america provisions it's not just the construction jobs, it's going to be the manufacturing jobs, the men and women that build the late rail that will build the buses that will build the metro systems, will put together the pieces of the port, the bridges wherever they may be and of course, the highways. if you would like to share some additional thoughts. ms. norton: you spoke about manufacturing. one of the reasons -- one of the first things that occurred as we got out of this recession is

manufacturing coming back in america. and now corporations are finding good reasons to manufacture in america and particularly at a time mr. tonko when, in essence, you were talking about stimulating the economy and the best way to do is is to build something. you mentioned the buildings in washington. we are the cornerstone of all the public buildings downtown the buildings that people come to see they have a 1930's cornstone because that's when we stimulated ourselves out of the recession. mr. garamendi mentioned amtrak. this is the hub of amtrak, my own district. and i must tell you, and i think about high-speed rail, speaking of amtrak and we haven't put the first high-speed rail

online. not the first, which puts us behind not only all of our allies, but even some developing countries. it makes me almost ashamed to be on this committee that we're so behind. and we really want to get the economy going, we give ourselves a deadline for high-speed rail. we'd understand that if you want to move your economy quickly, you do not do something like cut taxes. you build things. you build america. i don't know how much time you have left. i just want to thank you for your leadership, mr. garamendi that you have taken and to say to you that i am with you that this should be one of our foremost tasks. mr. garamendi: your leadership on the subcommittee of surface transportation is very important and we look forward to your success and the success of all

of us of building america's infrastructure. . if you want to take two, two and a half of our last five minutes then i'll take the time two to close this evening. mr. tonko: it's a pleasure to be here with you, we have talked about the present moment and talked about being inspired by the past but let's look to the future. not only do we owe it to the present moment to embark upon some of the newest options and alternatives and innovative concepts but what about the impact on future generations? if we don't do what's required of us in this present moment, we're saying we're willing to survive on that fat of the land that we take all that thoughtfulness and all the sense of progress an the pioneer

attitude of generations before us who said we're going to leave a sound bit of infrastructure and we're going to know we did the most we could in our moment that generations to follow will be able to live and live strongly and be able to prosper from that and perhaps further stretch the thinking of america. well we haven't done that we've taken that opportunity and utilized it in a way that serves our present moment needs and the the demrect here, i think the sinfulness of this outcome, the moral compass that should guide us is that you leave a better world for those to come. and the payment mechanism isn't going to get cheaper, we know that the need is inordinately high and the sense of vision that we need to share as leaders of a nation that is so great as the u.s. needs to provide for a soundness of planning and

cutting edge opportunities and infrastructure that is strong and vibrant, that allows for job creation, for commerce and its needs for individuals and families across this nation system of representative garamendi this has been a very sound way to share with people across the country what the thinking is of the democrats in the house. democrats believe in the soundness of infrastruck churk they believe in investing in job, they believe in investing in a better tomorrow, investing where you rightfully anticipate lucrative dividends. it is not spending foolishly it is investing soundly in a way that speaks to documented need and then encourages and inspires taos speak in boldness in bold terms that will take us to cutting edge opportunities that we will leverage in the appropriate moment so that generations to follow will say they got it. they tackled the problem they

responded to the challenge, they were bold in their attempt. let's leave that as our message. let's leave that as our legacy. with that i thank you for the opportunity here this evening. mr. garamendi: thank you for joining us tonight and for your leadership on this range of issues. it's about tomorrow. tomorrow will be solid for america if we build a solid foundation and that foundation is the infrastructure, it's the research facilities, the san days water facilities, highway, rail facilities. the president has made a proposal, it's up to us to respopped to that. six years fully paid for new york increase in gasoline and diesel tax, it's all there all we need to do is grab it and grab the future in the process. i thank the speaker for the opportunity to share this evening on building tomorrow's future. i yield back our remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced spoil of january 6 2015, the

chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you mr. speaker. it is interesting these days to hear our current secretary of state someone who as a congressman went to central america and basically was negotiating a deal with a communist leader, corrupt criminal communist leader, at the same time the reagan administration was conducting negotiations. so i'm very proud of my senate friends down at the other end of the capitol here who sent a letter to iran, since the former

constitutional law instructor, not professor but instructor, from chicago was -- doesn't seem to realize he needs the senate advise and consent in order to create a binding treaty with another country, especially one that actually has a major impact on the ability to continue to exist for israel and the united states and that actually, the deal -- i mean if this president and this secretary of state get the deal that includes everything that we could want, that this administration's not already taken off the table overtly then it means nuclear proliferation in the northeast

our allies in the northeast, so-called, saudi arabia qatar, u.a.e., egypt, well new york fact, most of the nations in the northeast jordan, perhaps they're all going to need nuclear weapons to protect themselves. so if this administration continues to persist with anything that does not require dismantling and stoppage of the spinning of the centrifuges in iran that continue to develop nuclear material for bombs, then the whole world is going to be in trouble. in fact the negotiations have become so desperate on the part

of our own administration that though congressman john kerry would try to negotiate and actually sit down with and negotiate with a communist criminal lead for the central america and undermine the efforts of the reagan administration, our friends down the hall 47 senators, were completely above board, said nothing inappropriate no crime new york treason. just advising people to the negotiations that here's what the u.s. constitution says. apparently they had not been so advised by our constitutional law instructor commander in chief so it's important that somebody did and i'm pleased that my colleague friend, tom cotton did just that.

but here we are and i think this article from townhall.com by katy pavlik illustrates very clearly how desperate this administration has got ton get any kind of deal. they -- just any kind of deal so they can say they got a deal. yes ok, iran, so they have an agreement that will allow iran to continue to cheat as they have been found to have done a number of times. so it actually doesn't allow them to have a -- not just a nuke in 10 years, they could covertly develop a nuke within the year if they so wished. i was with some others who met with, dana rohrabacher, steve king, we met with iaea

representatives, inspectors who have been inspecting iran and it left me extremely concerned about how quickly easily, and covertly iran could go ahead and move to the next step even beyond five or 20% enrichment as iran has got . but here's this article from katy pavlik. march 16. in part she says, according to a report in the times of israel the national intelligence agency delivered a report to congress that scraps iran and hezbollah from the terrorism list citing the country's work against isis as one of the reasons why. mr. speaker, if this administration is scrapping taking iran and hezbollah off the terrorist list, then the

last thing we need this administration doing is negotiating with these terrorists. the terrorist regime trying to work out a deal because anybody that would say iran and hezbollah havest not a terrorist country and terrorist organization should not be negotiating anything for the united states of america where the vast bulge, thank god, of the american people -- vast bulk, thank god, of the american people do not want to support, lend credence to or in any way help a terrorist country a terrorist organization like hezbollah. but goes ahead and quotes from the national intelligence agency

article from the times of israel , and then ms. pavlik asks the question is isis a threat? absolutely. should we align ourselves with or appease iran because of their work against isis? absolutely not. as a reminder hezbollah, funded by iran, is the largest terror organization in the world. before 9/11 hezbollah, not al qaeda was responsible for the majority of united states terrorism deaths. including the 1983 bombings of the u.s. marine barracks and u.s. embassy in beirut. in addition to a series of attacks in the 1980's. hezbollah is also responsible for countless attacks on israel.

in 1992 hezbollah withheld -- with help from iran bombed the israeli embassy in buenos aires and then bombed the jewish community center in the same city. those are just some examples that don't even account for the thes -- thousands of rockets hezbollah has launched into israel for years. so what's going on? why strip hezbollah of their terrorism label especially now? it all points back to getting president obama his deal with iran at all costs. this classification of iran and hezbollah, without the terrorism label is a certain warning sign the deal the white house is working on to appease the rogue regime does not have the best

interests of the united states as a top priority. and then this is from just since apparently this administration is not aware, i would hope, mr. speaker, our colleagues here in congress would want to be aware of what the administration isn't, maybe that comes from not reading the intelligence reports but you don't even have to get an intelligence report from an intelligence agency this for example comes from the committee for accuracy in northeast reporting in america and it's a timeline for hezbollah violence. 1982 israel invades lebanon to drive out the p.l.o.'s terrorist army which had frequently attacked israel from its informal state within a state in southern lebanon. hezbollah, a shiite group inspired by the teachings and revolution of iran's ayatollah khomeini is created with the assistance of iran's islamic

revolutionary guards corps. it's called hezbollah or party -- or party of god. some thought that was the republican party but actually it's hezbollah that is the party of god. after initially taking responsibility for attacks under the name islamic jihad. in the president of american university in beirut is kidnapped. hezbollah is believed to be behind this and most of the other 30 westerners kidnapped over the next 10 years. april 18, 1983 hezbollah attacks the u.s. embassy in beirut with a car bomb killing 63 people, 17 of whom were american citizens. october 23 1983, the group attacks a u.s. marine barracks with a truck bomb killing 241 american military personnel

stationed in beirut as part of a peacekeeping force. a separate attack against the french military compound kills 58. mr. speaker, i understand that to the obama administration, the killing of all these marines, the killing of all these american citizens in beirut and the kidnapping of americans and other diplomats by hezbollah would be considered workplace violence. i get that. but to most people in america, they understand these are acts of sheer terrorism and need to be called what they are. september of 1984 ks the group attacks the u.s. embassy in beirut with a car bomb killing two americans and 22 others. more workplace violence. march of 1984, william f.

buckley working at the u.s. embassy in beirut is kidnapped and later murdered. april of 1984, hezbollah attacks an air force base in spain. the bombing kills 18 u.s. service members and injuries 83. hezbollah terrorists hijack a kuwait airplane. i don't see how this administration would be able to classify tcha hijacking and murders as workplace violence but you never know. february of 198 , hezbollah publicizes its manifesto and notes that the group's struggle will continue until israel is destroyed and rejects any ceasefire or peace treaty with israel. the document attacks the u.s.

and france. june, 198 hezbollah terrorists attack t.w.a. flight 847, the hijackers severely beat a passenger a u.s. navy diver before killing him and dumping his body onto the tarmac at the beirut airport. other passengers are held hostages before being released on june 30. i'm hoping mr. speaker, that many americans will remember these events and know how strongly we felt about the terrorism being carried out by hezbollah that this administration would like to call a peace-seeking organization. yeah it's a peace-seeking organization, just like a heat-seeking missile is a peace-keeping missile.

they'll blow up anything they can get ahold of that's american. december 1986 under the alias of organization of oppressed on earth, hezbollah announces that it had kidnapped and murdered three lebanese jews. the organization previously had taken responsibility for killing four other jews since 1984. february of 1988 hezbollah kid naps colonel william higgins serving with the u.n. truce-monitoring group and murders him. october of 1989 members of the dissolved lebanese parliament ratify the agreement, although the agreement calls for the disbanding of lebanese and non-lebanese militias. february of 1992, one takes over

hezbollah after israel kills the group's leader. march of 1992, with the help of iranian intelligence, hezbollah bombs the embassy in argentina, killing 29. july of 1994, hezbollah bombs the jewish community center in argue again tina again with iranian help killing 86 and injuring over 200. november of 199 , hezbollah bottom bards towns in northern were volies with rockets. march of 1996, hezbollah fires rockets into northern israeli towns. a week later they fire 16 rockets injuring 36 israelis. israel responds with a major offensive to stop hezbollah

rocket fire. august of 1997 hezbollah opens fire on northern israel with dozens of rockets in one of the group's numerous attacks on civilians. october of 1997, the united states lists hezbollah as a terrorist organization. and we myself insert, this is october of 1997. this is the clinton administration. this is the clinton administration that heard cries of muslims in other parts of the world and it seemed that despite the fact that the clinton administration rushed sent military to assist muslims in other parts of the world all the while islamic terrorists were plotting to blow up the

world trade centers by sending planes crashing into them. now, it would seem if these were peace-seeking organizations like hezbollah like the nation of iran, the administration of that nation at least, they would take note, that, gee, the clinton administration is reaching out every way they can to help muslims in the world and we should take note of that and ease up. but that was not happening. not by a terrorist group, like hezbollah. no. in may of 1999, hezbollah opens fire on northern israel with dozens of rockets, one of the group's numerous attacks. june of 1999 hezbollah opens

fire on israel killing two. may of 2000, withdraw troops. strip of land in the south of the country. security zone was set up to prevent attacks on northern israel. june of 2000 u.n. secretary general kofi a nmp nan. and the nuft security council endorses a report that hezbollah nonetheless that hezbollah occupies israel. it seems leb none or hezbollah was so intent on being a terrorist organization even when israel handed over land that it was claiming they still were

not content. they wanted terrorism and actually they want israel and the united states eliminated. but october of 2000 hezbollah attacks israel. military posts and raids israel, kidnapping three israeli soldiers. march 2001 the british government adds hezbollah to its outlawed terrorist organizations. april 2002, hezbollah launches rockets into an israeli town. and the the assault comes almost daily against israeli troops. december of 2002, canada lists hezbollah as a terrorist organization. august of 2003, hezbollah shells and kills a 16-year-old boy. wounds others. june 2003, australia lists

hezbollah as a terrorist organization. september, 2004, u.n. security council resolution 1559 calls for the disbanding of lebanese and non-lebanese militia. december, 2004, both the united states and france bands hezbollah satellite television network. a u.s. state department network says it preaches violence and hatred. the european parliament passes a resolution stating that clear evidence exists of terrorist activities by hezbollah. the european union council should take all necessary steps to curtail them, unquote. the european union refrains from placing it on its list of terrorist organizations. july of 2006, hezbollah attacks

israel with rockets. crosses the border and kid naps two israeli soldiers. three are killed in the initial attack and five more killed as israel launches an operation to rescue the soldiers. and doing the ensuing war, hezbollah launches rockets. august of 2006, the united nations security council adopts resolution 1701 which calls for a cessation of hostilities and deployment of u.n. forces into southern lebanon and the disarmament groups of lebanon. any body in this administration here in the u.s. or elsewhere who thinks that hezbollah is not a terrorist organization then clearly thinks that every place

that hezbollah has killed innocent people is just another workplace where violence occurred, a random act of violence or violence in the workplace because it is insane to think that iran is not a sponsor of terrorism that iran has not killed more americans than any other country in the last 15 years. it's incredible. now that's outside of 9/11, the killing of approximately 3,000 americans on 9/11 between the pentagon and new york city. but as far as american service members fighting in iraq, it was

iran who was behind the killing of most of those american service members. iran has fought to eliminate the united states presence from iraq . if we get to the bottom of why there was not a status of forces agreement, you find that it's because the the president at the time, said they believed that the 12th amman would rise back to power amidst chaos. and as i understand their beliefs and their beliefs in profess if i would come to rain

from the town of kufa, which the way the lines were drawn in the 20th century kufa in iraq. unfortunately, the state department, the justice department, the intelligence agencies under the obama administration have had their training materials regarding the beliefs of radical islamists purged, so they aren't allowed to learn what our enemies believe and what they have believed, so it's hard to anticipate what our enemies want to do and perhaps all the purging has led this administration to the idea that if we purge all the educational material about what radical islamists believe, then maybe it won't be actual and factual. yet "new york post" says -- we

have an article in the last recent weeks where a catholic bishop, i believe he was from nigeria, had indicated that the obama administration was basically indicating that if nigeria did not amend their marriage laws to go against the laws of nature and nature's god as christians believe, then as the bible teaches, then the obama administration would not help them at all against the terrorists' activities of boko har all. i don't know what kind of blindness it takes or prejudice it takes to see the suffering in africa and in a place like nigeria and hold the hands and weep with the parents of daughters who were kidnapped by boko har all that -- ha rmp am,

that understand the suffering. these christian girls that boko haram has kidnapped and forced into sexual slavery. what kind of callousness does it take to see that suffering and say, no, you don't go against your religious beliefs in marriage between a man and a woman, we're not going to help you and we're going to let boko haram continue to terrorize you and rape your women. talk about a war against women. but i asked these mothers of girls that were kidnapped there did they initially attack your daughters' school because it was -- because it was a girl's school in they said no, they had girls -- they hate girls they

consider them nothing but they attacked the school because it was christian. there's a report from "investors' business daily," march 13, that says islamic state recruits could enter the united states via the caribbean. that's not really a news flash. another story written by thomas d. williams ph.d., march 17, isis kidnaps 20 doctors and nurses in libya. story from charles spearing, 17 march, president opa ma blames bush the rise of isis. actually you want to talk about class, despite my disagreement with some of george w. bush's policies and despite what some said he, had enough class that after 9/11, he never pointed the finger at the clinton

administration. he knew that even though 9/11 was being plotted and planned during the clinton administration and there was an opportunity in the clinton administration to take out osama bin laden that was not seized upon, that there were so many things that might have been stopped along the way, he didn't blame president clinton because he had enough class to know that it was an attack by terrorists and they should be made to pay. because if you really want to point the finger, it would go clear back to the late 1970's, during the days i was in the united states army and we had what was considered under most everybody's version of international law, an act of war against the united states in iran when our embassy was attacked and our people were taken hostage and we didn't help.

and you go back before that, this the carter administration, turning its back upon the shah of iran, not a great guy, not a good man, from what we understand, but able to keep radical islam contained. but after the carter administration turned its back on the shah encouraged his overthrow you had the coming from exile of the ayatollah khomeini and president carter welcoming him as a man of peace. and as a result radical islam once again raised its ugly head as it does time to time and it's only -- and it's only all-out war against razz call islam that puts it in abacks, sometimes for 50 years, sometimes for 100

years, it depends on how staunch the fight is against them. but president bush did not blame president carter. there were mistakes all along the way when the marine baraks in beirut was hit, the democrat controlled congress made clear that they were not going to fund anymore u.s. peacekeeping troops in beirut. reagan brought them home he should have taken them out. but -- and done whatever it took, but he didn't. and now this administration, in order to get any deal that's a terrible deal is willing to turn its back on the fact that iran and hezbollah have terrorists in their league and they should not be recognized as anything but terrorists.

with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6 2015, the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko, for 30 minutes. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. we're going to use these 30 minutes to speak to fast track in a process on trade agreements that are developed. and i believe it's so important for the american public to understand exactly what fast track is all about. i also ask, mr. speaker that the unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the subject of my special order. i know that ept arive louise slaughter was going to join us and she submitted some comments in writing that will be incorporated. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. tonko: thank you mr. speaker. tonight we're here to discuss

as i indicated, trade promotion authority. also known most commonly known, as fast track. and free trade agreements that would be accompanied by fast track process are a way to bring about devastating outcomes, if not done correctly, to the american economy and most importantly to the american worker. d of late, most notably, that free trade agreement of which there is much concern expressed is the transpacific partnership, the t.p.p. which by the way would speak to a great number of nations that encompass about 40% of the international g. deform p. it is no small compact here of which we speak. fast track as a concept would constrain congress' ability to

conduct oversight. restrain oversight that congress should provide so as to be the voice for the people who elect them to place their given concerns in the discussions here in the house. it would delegate congress' constitutional authority over trade policy in a way that would provide for no solid debate no sharply restricting debate and it would prohibit amendments. so basically congress would be limited to a simple up or down vote. thumbs up, thumbs down, to what could be a devastating outcome for the american economy and most importantly the american worker. these so called free trade agreements have far-reaching impacts on american life. it may address dynamic like food safety or affordable medicine or financial regulations system of we cannot be reckless in our attempt and we must make certain

we move forward deliberately to make certain it's a good outcome for trade. we're not against trade. free trade, as it's been described in the past and afreed to in the past has hurt the economy but we want fair trade. in exchange for fasttracking bills, congress is suppose to set negotiating objectives. but let's face it, sadly these objectives are not -- they are nonbinding. and so they can be rendered meaningless. and in the case of the t.p.p. which is nearcally -- nearly complete, setting them at this point is somewhat late in the process. we know also that the t.p.p. is going to model itself after nafta the north american free trade agreement that dealt with canada and mexico, and also the korean agreement. and the bottom line is those deals have not been good for the american middle class, for working families. and certainly, we would be

giving up a golden opportunity to exercise our responsibilities here in congress to make certain it's the best outcome for america. promises of new jobs here in the u.s. are one of those promises of which we take great concern. decreased trade deficits. it can be said that trade deficits have provided the greatest debt in the american economy. they are huge deficits. that have staggered the efforts to grow american jobs and improve labor and environmental standards. these are promises that have failed. jobs to be produced, standards environmental standards and labor standards never really come to be. even if they're written on paper, they're not with the enforcement requirements have not reached their potential and certainly the job count is not what it should be. so as we continue to lose, as we have lost manufacturing jobs,

millions of manufacturing jobs, one in every four manufacturing jobs it was a devastating outcome. three of every five american workers who lost those manufacturing jobs ended up with pay cuts. and one of three of those in the three out of five category ended up with more than 20% of a paycheck reduction. this is not what we want in order of progressive policies that will speak to a stronger economy. so i have a grave concern for the fast track process, those joining us tonight, those like representative slaughter who will share her thoughts in writing that will be incorporated in the annals of this proceeding for this special order there are members that are very concerned, and chief among them, one who has led us in this effort to increase public awareness is noh none other than representative rosa delauro, our colleague from

connecticut who has done a stalwart job in bringing to everyone's awareness attention that the fast track process is the first step in a process that could be devastating as we authorize this transpacific partnership with the potential for job loss that we can ill afford work the potential for abuse of children in the labor force and beckoning us to bring about a situation that finds vietnamese workers, for instance, working for 50, 55 cents 56 cents an hour. it's dumbing down. it's weakening the work force across the world as we lose these american jobs. representative delauro, it's great to have you on the floor, great to have you join us for this special order. please share with us your passion, your concern for what could happen here to the american worker. ms. delauro: i want to thank my colleague from new york, thank you for leading this effort tonight and for being

shoulder-to-shoulder with so many of us both inside the house of representatives and the large, vast coalition that's outside of the house of representatives that says no, no to fast track, we're not going -- we are not going to do this. so i applaud you and all of your efforts and for standing up here on the floor most nights and talking about this issue so that the american public knows what's going on here. it is our responsibility to let them know. they're not following fast track trade promotion authority or the transpacific partnership every single day the way we are but it is our responsibility to know that how in fact it is going to affect their lives. i also say to you that i know you and i know so many of our other colleagues we're not opposed to trade. we're not. we are in favor of fair trade. that's what we're about. i believe you are and i am a strong proponent of the

export-import bank, helps american businesses compete around the world for 70 years. that's the kind of trade plcy we need resm authorize -- trade policy we need. re-authorize the ex-im bank for seven years before its charter expires. what we must not do is sign up for another bad free trade agreement a deal that subjects american workers to competition that is neither free nor fair and far too many of these trade agreements particularly as you pointed out in the last 20 years have done nothing but deepen our trade deficit, lower our wages and send american jobs overseas. an example, three years ago we signed the u.s. korea free trade agreement with the bells and ruffles, the drums and all this effort that we are going to create jobs. increase wages. yes, we are going to have more exports. well, you've got to know how to

add and you have to know how to subtract. we've got exports, but look at the flow of imports. which is hurting american workers. since this trade agreement three years ago, our trade deficit with south korea has gone up 71% and given the administration and the way they calculate their -- the job loss using their metrics we're talking about 74000 american jobs. and the transpacific partnership is built on that template of the u.s.-korea free trade agreement. so it follows the same failed model but it is on a much, much larger scale. it forces our manufacturing and technology based -- base into unfair unequal competition with other nations throughout the asia pacific region. you know there are 11 countries

so as you pointed out it takes good -- it pits good-paying american jobs against vietnamese workers who make 56 cents an hour. it asks american exporters to compete against japanese producers who are propped up by currency manipulation. and abuse. that has cost our economy almost six million jobs in 2013 alone. . what happened? these countries japan, singapore, china they deval their currency -- devalue their currency, their goods become cheaper ours are more expensive, it puts us as a serious disadvantage. as you know my colleague this trade agreement contains nothing that would disallow

currency manipulation. and we have been told by the administration that there will not be a currency chapter in this bill. so we're going to go down the road where these countries can continue to put our workers and our products at a disadvantage. but, you know, you got a predictable pattern here. cheap foreign products flow in, american jobs flow out. and our wages are on a downward spiral. the ill effects don't stop there. most of the 29 chapters are not about trade at all. they're about rolling back laws in a way that place directly into the hands of -- plays directly into the hands of big business. the former director of the national economic council, larry summers, has highlighted corporate efforts to use the trans-pacific partnership to, quote change health and safety regulations, extend and strengthen patent protections, and deregulate financial services.

and you know larry summers, former secretary of the treasury, national economic council, is no left-wing radical. that's the way they would like to portray those of us who oppose t.p.p. he's a thoughtful individual. that's the conclusion he comes to. changes health and safety regulations, extends and strengthens patent protections deregulates financial services. a nobel prize winning economist points out that quote, the overall thrust of the intellectual property section of the t.p.p. is for less competition and higher drug prices. t.p.p. can weaken our environmental protections, can opens the door to unsafe food, it could raise the cost of medicine, it can make it harder to defend against financial risk. the truth is, proponents of the t.p.p. know that their economic case has fail and lately we've heard them try another tact.

they tell us that t.p.p. is going to help america counter the rise of chinese power in the asia-pacific region. and if we pass t.p.p. we will be able to set the rules. it's absurd. it really is absurd. and quite frankly you want to do something about china? do something about currency manipulation and what china has been doing as regular policy. and buying up our reserves. it is their policy currency manipulation. rules that encourage offshoring. gut our manufacturing our technology base. and compromise the health and safety of our consumers are not american rules but rules that favor big corporations at the expense of everyone else. you know, you know as well as i do, congressman tonko, who is in the room and who is out of the room, who's in the negotiations, who's out of the negotiations. there's a rule at the table of a long list of multinational

corporations wal-mart, verizon halliburton, dow, general electric, caterpillar dupont intel lockheed martin and many others. but you know who is not the -- not at the table? the american workers who are going to be forced to pay the price in lost jobs and low wages. and there is no room for members of congress. we have been systemically frozen out of the process. you know, for months i pressed to get a copy of the negotiating draft and i was told it was classified. but now i've seen pieces of the text. when i got into the room, with a small part of the text, i discovered that it was not classified at all. that -- they said it was classified, but it was classified as a confidential document. it's not secret, it doesn't have a top secret

classification. you know, they just don't want us to see it. they have placed every single restriction on our ability to read this agreement front to back to ask questions, to know who said what, what countries said what and what the u.s. position is about all of this. they have been working at this for 4 1/2 years. and now they have come because they know the fast track is in jeopardy. this he know this treaty -- they know this treaty is in jeopardy and say, oh, we'd like to have you read the text. but it's classified. and you can't have any staff there. except for someone who has a security clearance. they are holding us to a standard that the treaty does not impose. let's stop playing the games, jobs are at stake. workers have a right to know what is being done in their

name. representatives in congress, we are their representatives. we have that responsibility to ensure that t.p.p. either protects jobs or does not happen at all. now, you talked about trade promotion authority fast track, what is it? it's a rubber stamp. it says, ok trust us. you can't see the document, only can see bits and pieces of it. it's classified. but give us fast track, where there's no public scrutiny of the document, limited congressional debate, and no ability to amend the document at all. just vote for it and we will take care of your interests. you know i believe it was president nixon who said trust but verify. we are trying to verify. you know, to give them that fast track authority, in my view, your view, this coalition's view, it would be a

big mistake. the potential consequences of the t.p.p. are simply too great. we cannot surrender our constitutional authority, our ability to scrutinize disagreement and to amendment. working americans are in trouble today. their paychecks have been stagnant or in decline for over 30 years. they're struggling to put food on the table, to heat their homes let alone take a vacation or send their kids to college. bad trade deals have played a leading role in creating this situation. bad public policy. and these trade agreements have been bad public policy. good, stable manufacturing jobs used to be a bridge to the middle class. until they were sent overseas to places where labor is cheap, only to be replaced with poorly paid service sector jobs. workers who are laid off face an uphill battle to get rehired. if they find new jobs, three out of five are forced to work for lower wages.

that's the reality of what happens when we sign these ill-considered free trade agreements. why would we volunteer america and american workers for yet more punishment? why would we do that? if we want to help the middle class, if we're for middle class economics why would we do this? why would we make it easier for big business to send their jobs overseas? the time has come. enough is enough. no more low wages, no more lost jobs, no more bad trade deals and that's where we are now. the congress the house of representatives, has woken up. they're stirred up. they believe this is a bad deal . they haven't been allowed to investigate it, to read it, to read the bill as the public asked us to do with the

affordable care act. those years ago. and then they want us to put our stuff on this effort. that's why there's so much consternation. that's why the members of congress, the members of the house of representatives are saying no. and i believe we will defeat fast track because the american public doesn't want this treaty the american public doesn't want to see their representatives unable to talk to them about it, and the members of congress are reasserting their responsibility and saying, unless we see it, unless we read it, unless we ask the questions, unless we know who the negotiating partners are, unless we say yes that our answer to the administration is no. and i thank you for organizing this. mr. tonko: let me just state that the people of connecticut are so fortunate to have you bring your voice to this

chamber, to speak so effectively and so nobly for the workers of this country. the people of this country, beyond connecticut, prosper from your advocacy and your passion. we respect that. but you know, all people who are tuned into this discussion those who have heard about it in other dialogue, need to call their representatives. where are you on fast track? a great number of us, democrats in this house, have come together saying, we're for growing paychecks. we want to strength that paycheck. we stood for increasing the minimum wage. but we talked about the median wage. let's strengthen that. let's make sure there's an opportunity to say, here's how it could be better. here's what you're skipping. you're walking past the currency manipulation issue, which is one of the biggest concerns right now. as you pointed out, trade deficits have put the biggest

dent into the american economy and if we continue this, you know, those who don't learn from history are bound to repeat it. and what we have here is an opportunity to learn from history. that there have been all these negative outcomes, we've flattened, if not gone south, with the middle class income all because we've sent out of our country's borders these sound manufacturing jobs. you talked about all these impacts. and i know where your heart is on social and economic justice. what are we doing to people with four t.p.p. negotiating partners in vietnam, malaysia, mexico and peru, we're using forced labor or child labor in violation of international standards, as reported by the united states department of labor in their report of lists of goods produced by forced or child labor. vietnam, a communist country, if it's allowed it's done with government sanctions theshes can't speak outside of --

sanctions, they can't speak outside of those standards. if they do they're persecuted or jailed. others have died. we have documentation of how many union activists have been murdered and how many of those issues have been resolved? how many of those reviews by the judicial process or whatever system in their country would prosecute, none of these, a very few have been resolved. so it's not just the economic consequences, it's the social unjustice that we can allow with these contracts. so i thank you, i know we've been joined by -- ms. delauro: i want to make one more point. ms. kaptur is here. the other side tries to portray us as, well, if you don't want us this fast track authority, what would you want? there have been, over the years particularly over the last several months, the last year and a half, democratic members of the house of representatives have written to the administration, to the u.s.

trade representative, and we have made suggestions of how we could increase congressional input into this process, by looking at who the negotiating partners are, what the objectives are, and the enforcement of those objectives, and how we have a chance to certify that the objectives have been met and say yes and then we move forward, the administration moves forward. we have been -- said -- we have been said no to over and over and over again. there's been no congressional input. though we have tried. for a very, very long time to do that. the public needs to know that. because we are just not having our heads in the sand. mr. tonko: you use that technical term, i've used it. currency manipulation. let's just throw an example out there. it's a $6,000 edge for a competing automobile imported into this nation against what's produced by our home-driven

auto industry. well, that's going to upset the whole economy. it's going to impact consumers. so currency manipulation has given a $6,000 edge, by giving them a check saying, put more conditions or more opportunities into the consumers' pocket to buy more features on a car, of course, you know $6,000 is going to speak to their senses. so we need currency manipulation to provide for fair trade. as you indicated we're all for trade, but not this manipulation that has hurt the american working families. . representative kaptur is here, i believe we have five minutes remaping. so ms. kaptur, i'm going to allow you to share your thoughts for five minutes and again i thank both of my colleagues for joining us here this evening and representative slaughter for sending in in comments that can be added to the record.

ms. kaptur: thank you for bringing us to the floor. as congresswoman delauro completes her remarks i want to thank her for leading all of us in this great quest to move toward trade agreements that create jobs in our country and trade balances rather than trade deficits. i thought that if i could contribute anything to the conversation -- mr. tonko: and you always do. ms. kaptur: when any administration says what do you want, i can tell you what we don't want. we don't want agreements like this, this was hawaii the agreement with korea where they said the united states would be getting the ability to ship all these cars over to korea. what actually happened was the reverse. we get a trickle in there, they get a deluge in here. and our trade deficit with korea has gone 84 -- gone up 84% since the agreement was signed. so we say to the administration give us a trade agreement that

gives america not just a trade balance, which would mean -- which would mean we wouldn't lose any jobs but a trade sur plus. not a trade receive did which costs us $5,000 for every billion dollars of trade deficit. so we want balanced agreement well, want agreements in surplus not in deficit. every american knows what i'm talking about. they've experienced it in their own communities. the other thing we want is we as a congress want the ability, when an agreement deals with so many different aspects, to treat trade like a treaty. not an agreement where it's sent up here and we're told, you can't amend it, you can't read it, everything is in secret, the administration is coming up here but it's secret. i guess we look through a keyhole and we can see 10 words or something, that isn't the way this country should conduct business my own feeling is, until we fix what's wrong with past agreement, why would she

wine -- why should we sign any more? i have many stories i'll put in the record tonight about people in ohio who have lost their jobs due to backwards trade agreements that ship our jobs out, not our products. and i want to thank you for helping to be here tonight, long after hours, you don't have to be here but you are trying to say to the american people, this is really important ewith -- we understand what the american people are saying to us -- how fortunate the people of new york have sent you here and you are nobly carrying their cause against forces on this efface of the globe that don't care what happens to the people of the united states. they have a much nor rower agenda they don't care about liberty when it come downs to it. thank you for holding to a higher standard and for trying to heal our country and to create jobs in america and opportunity in america and respect for liberty on the face of this earth first.

because that's what america is supposed to be about. i don't want to take up the remaining time. i want to make sure you have opportunity to conclude. ms. tonko: you're fine, representative kaptur i thank you for contributing as you always do in such meaningful measure, but i think you agree with me i'm certain you do, that congress and the american workers deserve a meaningful role in these debates to make sure that our trade policy reflect ours values as a country. as a people. and those include middle class prosperity, workers' rights, consumer safety, and environmental sustainability. when we have those rights guaranteed, when we have those ideals protected and advanced and -- and enhanced we are a great, great nation that comes out of trade negotiations even more powerful. and we are a great nation. we need to stay great. we can't give away all of these folden opportunities simply by trade agreements that are unfair.

that provide an unlevel playing field for the american worker. it's about those values that we're meeting tonight speaking tonight advocating tonight and encouraging that hope be brought to each and every worker, working family out there across this great nation in a way that reflects a sound bit of dialogue on this house floor. ms. kaptur: this is one of the most important elements of america's economic policy and we are at a critical moment to change what was wrong in the past. we have an opportunity to fix these trade agreements and to reshape the way we handle trade with the world, beginning with those partners who share our value of liberty and then inviting in the other nations of the world that want opportunity for their people and they want a chance for rising living standards. not to be turned into more sweat shops with no environmental standards, with no worker standards work no hope for a better way of life. just moving from one exploit

tative country toite exploitative country. i -- i know the american people are going to win this fight because they have suffered far too long with job devastation from close to coast. for the sake of workers in other places in the world, we are standing up for their opportunities and rights as well. i'm so privileged to join you this evening and thank you for setting aside time for this special order tonight. mr. tonko: thank you so much. ms. kaptur, let's move forward with social, environmental and economic justice. with that, mr. speaker, we thank you for the time and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker house of representatives, sir. effective today, i hereby resign from my assignments to the house committee on ways and means, house committee on the budget, and the committee on house

administration. signed respectfully, aaron schock member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the resignations are accepted. the chair would entertain a motion to adjourn. mr. tonko: i move that 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. accordingly the house stands

mr. price: happy st. patrick's day to all. i'm very, very proud to join my colleagues, members of the house budget committee to present a balanced budget for a

stronger america. when i talk with folks back in my district, back in georgia and talk with folks around the country, they are very concerned. some are angry. some are really frustrated about the direction of our great country. they feel we are adrift. that washington seems incapable of addressing their concerns. that the federal government is getting in the way and impeding the very spirit of the american people. and the president's response in his budget, more taxes, more spending, more borrowing, more debt, more stagnant growth. remember that every single dollar, every dollar that's taken for taxes or borrow money is a dollar that can't be spent to buy car, pay the rent, to send a child to college, or to technical school, to buy a house, to expand the business, or grow a business, create jobs. we think there's a better way. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral mullen, said a few years ago, when asked what the number one threat to america's national security, the number one threat, he said the debt. the debt.

what he knows and what the american people know is that unless we have economic security we cannot have national security. instead of the insecurity and uncertainty of the president's plan, we think there's a better way. we believe in promoting the greatest amount of opportunity for the greatest number of americans so that the greatest amount of success can be realized and the greatest number of american dreams can be found. in doing so, in a way that demonstrates real hope and real optimism and real compassion and real fairness without washington picking winners and losers. our balanced budget for a stronger america saves $5.5 trillion. gets to balance within 10 years without raising taxes. we responsibly lay out a plan for a healthy economy. an opportunity economy. one that opens the doors for people not subjects them to the dictates of washington d.c. we save and strengthen medicare and medicaid instead of allowing them to continue on the path of insolvency which is

what the president's plan is. we recognize the imperative of providing for the military men and women and their families the resources needed to protect our national security and respect their service. in fact, our budget spends more on national defense than the president's and we do so in a responsible way that addresses current law and lays out a path to address the ongoing concerns of the military so that they are better able to plan and prepare to meet current challenges and those in the future. we believe in america. we believe in americans. we understand our problems are significant and we hear the people of this nation crying out for leadership here in washington, d.c. this balanced budget, this balanced budget, for a stronger america, will result in a government that is more efficient and effective and accountable. one that frees up the american spirit, american optimism, and enthusiasm to do great things and to meet great challenges. and we encourage our colleagues and fellow citizens across this nation to join us in this exciting opportunity.

go to budget.house.gov and download our blueprint budget. got a few members of the house budget committee who will make some comments about some specific areas of our budget. first up is the gentleman from indiana, the vice chairman of the budget committee, mr. rokita. mr. rokita: thank you, chairman. vice chairman of the committee. i want to first say how proud i am to stand in front of my fellow colleagues here. we have taken our job very seriously. hours of member meetings putting this responsible and accurate document together. not hours of staff meetings, hours of member meetings. we each have been actively engaged in this process. i think that's worth noting.

first and foremost it's important to know that this balance, this budget balances within 10 years. now, that is the quickest of any of the recently passed house budgets. and it's also important to note that it's a very stark contrast to the president's budget. that never balances. how can we begin to pay our debt if we can't even get to balance under the president's plan? our plan does that. it does it in a responsible way. after that, after we balance we begin to pay down our debt so that future generations aren't saddled with irresponsible decision that is have been made in the past. a balanced budget is crucial to giving individuals, families and businesses greater certainty for the future and it shows the american people and frankly the rest of the world that we are ready to make the tough decisions and hold government accountable in how it spends our hard-earned tax dollars and why america should be the financial leader for years to come. thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. woodall: thank you mr. chairman. my name's rob woodall, from the seventh district of georgia. i want to talk about the job opportunities in the budget. the budget a moral document t talks about where your values are. and what this committee values what this conference values is the opportunity for job creation. i happen to be with a group of manufacturers this morning completely unsolicited, well you can give us bad news or give us good news, but what we need is certainty. if we can have certainty, then we can get back to the business of creating jobs. in an uncertain economy, in a world where the president's budget purports to borrow not just next year, not just 10 years from now but 20 years from now, 30 years from now, and 40 years from now job creators know there is no certainty. this budget balances in a responsible way. provides certainty on issues of interest rates and borrowing because we know america's government will no longer be that dominant borrower.

provides certainty from a tax code. how many state of the union speeches have we all sat through where we talked about the importance of reforming the tax code in order to create american jobs? how many proposals have we seen come forward from downtown? this budget, this budget anticipates that fundamentally structuring of the tax code that allows us to be the absolute magnet for job creation around the globe. from streamlining regulations to focusing on energy production, item after item you will see that commitment to certainty. i'm very proud of what budget committee has done. i'm proud of what the last four budget committees have done. but we never had an opportunity to partner that the senate provide that certainty for good. i hope you look carefully at what is different this year when folks are playing with the opportunity for the first time in my short congressional career to actually bring a budget to the united states of america. i'm grateful to the chairman for his leadership.

i look forward to being a great part of it. thank you very much. mrs. black: thank you, mr. chairman. good morning to all of you. let me say that it is an honor to be here with my members of the committee and each of you as we unveil this, a balanced budget for our stronger america. i'm pleased to tell you this budget repeals all of obamacare. the taxes, the mandates, and regulations that are wreaking havoc on our health care system and our economy. we additionally end obamacare's $700 billion-plus raid on medicare and we put forward a proposal to save and strengthen the program for today's seniors and future retirees. further, our budget empowers

states by giving them the flexibility that's needed to tailor their medicaid programs that fit the unique needs of their populations and we call on policymakers to start over with with health care reform that puts patients, families, and doctors in charge not washington bureaucrats. i'm very proud of this budget and i look forward to future action to put this budget in action and pass it into law. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. price: we are enthusiastic about the future of our great country. we recognize there are huge challenges and know that economic security is the key to national security, and the key to a brighter more hopeful future for all americans. again, our budget, a balanced budget, for a stronger america is a bath forward to that brighter future. for government lives within its

means, for washington is efficient, effective, and accountable. we embrace the challenge and opportunity and we call again on our colleagues and our fellow citizens across this great country as we move forward together. a balanced budget for a stronger america, budget.house.gov. i'm happy to take a few questions. >> dr. price, which committees do you intend to issue reconciliation instructions to and what do you plan to use reconciliation for? mr. price: the great opportunity we have with a senate that is now in republican hands is that we have an opportunity to have a unified budget between the two chambers and do something called reconciliation, which is an opportunity to pass a piece of legislation out of the house and out of the senate with just 51 votes in the united states senate and put it on the president's desk to put forward good policy and to provide a contrast for the american people to see who's trying to solve these challenges and who might be standing in the way. our reconciliation directives will direct eight or nine different committees to identify areas of savings and have the flexibility to be able to address the issue of

obamacare repeal, has flexibility to address other items should the conference desire to do so. we have specific language that identifies calls on the committees of jurisdiction to identify ways in which obamacare might be able to be repealed. >> to follow up on that. looking at the instructions it looks like it's about $5 billion which comes a lot short than the $5 trillion are you talking about. why not go for a hire number on sec reconciliation? mr. price: the amount of savings we find in the budget ourself and demonstrate over a 10-year period of time are two different things. the reconciliation instructions given to the committee are put an appropriate level that allows them to go above it. that's a floor not ceiling. so we are able to address the kind of deficit reduction that we might desire. again, it's also an opportunity to provide a positive solution that the american people desire, put it on the president's desk and encourage him to sign.

>> you say the budget doesn't raise taxes but it assumes the c.b.o. baseline which assumes the expiration of tax extenders which would amount to a $900 billion revenue increase from current policy. secondly, you claim that you're repealing all of the obamacare taxes, but you have a baseline on revenue. can you square those two things? mr. price: we believe in the american people and believe in growth. the amount of spending that's done here in washington we believe to be at a level that we can rein in, just decreasing spending or reining in spending will not get us to the kind of economy we want or allow the american people to get back to work and realize their dreams. the tax reform we have identified and the proposals we put forward we believe will result in significant increase in growth. it's important for people to appreciate this. the congressional budget office has decreased its estimate on growth in this country from 3% four years ago to 2.3% annually over the next 10 years.

2.3%. recognize the average for the last 40 years has been 3.3% growth. what's that difference mean? what's that 1% difference mean? that means over $3 trillion, $3 trillion over that period of time in greater revenue to the federal government because of the greater increase in economic activity. so as i mentioned before, we believe in the american people. we believe in the vitality of their enthusiasm and the vitality of an economy. if you let it loose. if you let it go. that's what we embrace. >> are you claiming that economic growth just magically matches the c.b.o. baseline and that that $900 billion for the extenders -- mr. price: we not only believe it will, we believe it will exceed it. it isn't accounted for in our budget in numerical values because we believe if you increase growth the increase will be over $3 trillion over that period of time.

more than covering the baseline of the c.b.o. estimate. >> over the $5 trillion in savings, could you -- is -- [inaudible] mr. price: let me encourage you to take a peek at a balanced budget for a strong america, i encourage you to go there and courage the american people to go there, budget.house.gov. mr. price: there are very specific notations where that comes from. the welfare programs. the mandatory programs. we encourage working as a component of participating in a welfare program for abled body adults. the snap program we believe is better run at the state level rather than federal level. each one of those things gets

you a good amount of savings. the good news over the constellation of all of those results in significant savings for the american people so we can get it rolling again. >> on tax reform. your intention that tax reform will be revenue neutral. you wouldn't be capturing any revenue from closing any of those loopholes? mr. price: we don't account for any revenue because of the question that andy asked. how can you plug a number in there when you don't know what's exactly going to be? we however feel strongly and confidently, as has happened every time that federal government reduced taxes for the american people it's increased revenue to the federal government. so we believe that a strong and vibrant economy rests are on progrowth tax reform. >> why does the c.b.o. only give you $147 billion in sort of deficit reduction effects from the economic growth, why is that number not bigger? mr. price: because the process

they go through to score is by and large static scoring which doesn't recognize the feedback that happens in the dynamic way that our economy works. we're excited about the opportunity that we have. i can't tell you how proud i am of the men and women standing behind me and the work they've done in the budget committee. we look forward to having it in markup tomorrow and having it on the floor next week. thanks so much. god bless. [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] >> and reaction from -- on the republican budget today from the top democrat in the house, nancy pelosi. saying --

>> from nancy pelosi. that same committee, while all 40 or so members of the house budget committee will be meeting tomorrow to mark up the fiscal year 2016 proposed budget, a measure that would spend some $3.7 trillion in the next fiscal year. we'll have live coverage of that markup session beginning at 10:30 a.m. eastern and that will be on cspan.org. >> now isis rearings their ugly head and this army is very shaky. we shouldn't be surprised by. that you can't undo decades of soviet-era and saddam-era stuff, you know, with eight years. especially when you taught them on a motto where they're going to have u.s. advisors and partners with them. afghanistan, according to the president's announcements we're currently about 10,000 troops there in a train and advising role but we're going to draw down to 5,000 next year and down to almost zero the year after. that i would warn that we'll probably see a similar result

to what we saw in iraq, when isis attacked. that afghan army's going to be very shaky without u.s. help. >> this sunday on "q and a." the failed u.s. strategies in iraq and afghanistan. and what we should have done differently. sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> this weekend, the c-span cities tour has partnered with media comto learn about the history and literary life of columbus georgia. >> right here inside the museum is the remains of a con federate ironclad, the css-jackson. and this is an ironclad that was built here in columbus during the war. those oval shapes that you see are actually the gun ports of the jackson. and the jackson is armed with six brook rifles. the particular brook rifle that we're firing today is one of the guns built specifically for the jackson.

it was cast at the selma naval works in selma, alabama, and completed in january of 1865. the real claim to fame is directly connected to the fact that there are only 4-iron clads from the civil war that we can study right now. and the jackson is right here and this is why this facility is here. it's first and foremost to tell the story of this particular ironclad and to show people that there are more than just one or 2-ironclads, there were many. >> watch all of our events from columbus saturday at noon eastern on c-span2's book tv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3. >> on our next "washington journal," new jersey congressman scott garrett talks about the republicans' budget blueprint for 2016. congressman garrett serves on the budget and financial services committee. then reaction to the g.o.p.

budget plan with democratic representative mark pocan of wisconsin. and later on our spotlight on magazine series, a look at a recent article on alternatives to locking up juvenile owe fenders. christian science monitor staff writer joins us. plus your phone calls facebook comments, and tweets. "washington journal" live wednesday morning and every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. and next up, part of today's "washington journal." booktv. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now representative brad sherman, democratic from california. good morning to you. guest:est: good morning. host: can you talk a bit about the role of congress in foreign affairs. what are your thoughts?

especially as these talks continue to go forward. guest: it might be more efficient if we had an emperor. we have a constitution. we have a constitution. other countries would prefer to just deal with the president. if you actually look at the constitution, the policies in foreign policy is vested in congress especially when it relates to economics and economic sanctions. the only clause in the constitution because the federal government the right to vest that power is in congress. this differs from the way that people have heard -- steve king was on saying, i thought the constitution vests foreign policy in the president -- no that is just the way we have done things for the last 30 or 40 years. i think we ought to live by the constitution. even if it is inconvenient, or are for and prayed -- our

foreign trade partners would rather just deal with the executive branch. s would rather just deal with the executive branch. policy is vested in congress. host: the statement made by those signing that left in the senate, what do you think about the statement? was the appropriate? guest: first, the letter should have never been sent. the letter should have been sent, perhaps to the president. the president and the secretary of state are negotiating. that the inside, under the agreement on the meaning of treaties ands would rather just deal with the executive branch. policy is vested in congress. host: the statement made by those signing that left in the senate, what do you think about the statement? was the appropriate? guest: first, the letter should have never been sent. the letter should have been sent, perhaps to the president.

the president and the secretary of state are negotiating. that the inside, under the agreement on the meaning of treaties and international agreements, we would be in violation of international law is the president was able to full a foreign country into believing that he had the authority to do something, commit to do it, and he did in fact have that power. it is incumbent on all american presidents to make it clear, although they might prefer, to have bigger powers. and other country might prefer that the president has larger powers. that, the powers of the congress and the congress are described in the constitution. the constitution was never written with the idea of being a worldwide superpower. if the president wants to come to congress and asked us to amend the constitution, give him more power because we need more mp or form if we are going to play and a bureau role, the president is welcome to do that. host: what would you like to see, of the talks? guest: we made the tremendous mistake during the first eight years of this century, we had zero sanctions. congress had aspassed sanctions, and george bush refusedcongress had aspassed

sanctions, and george bush refused to enforce them and violated the law everyday. any hearings, we asked why he was violating, he said, we did not get official notification. they did not want to act. george w. bush said he was israel. are these the, he hates iran. these sanctions were against oil companies and multinational corporations. what we got into the obama these sanctions were against oil companies and multinational corporations. what we got into the obama presidency, he has taken the most brilliant and totally effective sanctions strategy. sanctions move slowly. centrifuges move quickly. we finally got serious about sanctions of around 2011. they have had a bit of an effect. not enough of an effect to really take that iranians off their nuclear weapons program. we are in a bad situation. there is no good outcome from where we are now.

that being said, we have to look at the deal and see what comes out of it. my guess is that there's not going to be a deal so complete that the next president is in dealing with this issue. the big problem that we are giving up is even if we try to -- the sanctions we have now, people think, just turn of the sanctions. we are already doing it 100% when it comes to u.s.-iranian relations. we are trying to get other countries to follow our example. if the president wants other countries to impose sanctions, he will have to use threats because it will be very hard to persuade them to do something if this president told him not to

do to u.s.-iranian relations. we are trying to get other countries to follow our example. if the president wants other countries to impose sanctions, he will have to use threats because it will be very hard to persuade them to do something if this president told him not to do that. the big thing that iranians get out of this is the unraveling of international sanctions. they difficult economic threats. host: i guess, representative brad sherman talking about matters of foreign affairs. (202) 748-8000 our life for democrats. (202) 748-8001, line for republicans. (202) 745-8002 independents. go ahead. caller: i want to ask you, do we have a president that walks around on his hands and knees, going around countries and apologizing saying what we've done in this world to make it better? and then, comes back and sanctions are allies -- our

allies and pays money to our terrorist? you have nancy pelosi paying millions of dollars -- what kind of country are we turning into? guest: you know, i didn't hear all that, by think we are turning into the greatest country in the world. i think we are the greatest country in the world. it is very easy for us to argue about this policy, or that policy. i think that when you look at the economic and scientific think we are turning into the greatest country in the world. i think we are the greatest country in the world. it is very easy for us to argue about this policy, or that policy. i think that when you look at the economic and scientific it and technologogical advances in the united states, we have a lot to be out of. host: collin from ohio, you're next. caller: good morning. stephen king was asked whether or not he trusted the president of united states more than he

than he trusts and yahoo!. -- netanyahu. he based his answer on the treaty. i want to know whether or not you, as an american, trust the , as an american, trust the president of the united states more or less than you trust netanyahu? don't predicated on the treaty that has been sabotaged. i want to know whether or not you have more faith in the president of the united states than you do it netanyahu. guest: look. president obama is my president. obviously, it he is our leader. the idea that this is a personality contest, or it issues of favorsits, or trust, i

have a record of voting with the president. i voted with the appropriations bill, the last big moment this boat in congress. the word trust, in terms of this trusting someone, i disagree with just about everyone including my wife. i trust her, but that doesn't mean that if she says this is a good tv program, that i trust her judgment. she may be wrong. the fact is everyone in public affairs is wrong some of the time. as to their position on how to negotiate with the iranians, i think that i would come out probably between the two of them. the biggest problem we have is sanctions work slowly. we did nothing for the first 10

or 11 years of the century. host: is sanctions work slowly and nothing comes out of the deal, aside from sanctions, what other options do we have? guest: you could go to massive sanctions. this is where the letter makes a harmful. if the deal goes nowhere, then you have more persuasive power together with, hopefully more unity to take more economic risks to make more sanctions. they need their spare parts from germany. baby their spare parts from england. if you're going to go to germany and say, you better not sell one replacement part for mercedes truck, or you can't sell mercedes in the united states, you might see how germans would take offense to that.

peoplepeople who like mercedes-benz automobiles here and united states might take offense to that. there may be support any united states. you may be able to have massive additional sanctions. the president says that all options would be military options on the table. iran is pretty close to a nuclear weapon. all of the good ideas they had to be adopted in 2002 and 2000 and 2003. we have a variety of ideas that have allowed them to have obama or are dangerous, either economically or militarily. host: michael is up next. from california. independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning, pegida and represented sherman. representative sherman, if we are tight about middle east

policy, what are your thoughts on us, the united eights teaming up with saudi arabia who beheads people on a monthly basis to fight isis, who beheads people. it sort of seems awkward doesn't it? what do you think? guest: isis, through their videos, have asked us to bomb them. we couldn't resist. we did. who beheads people on a monthly basis to fight isis, who beheads people. it sort of seems awkward doesn't it? what do you think? guest: isis, through their videos, have asked us to bomb them. we couldn't resist. we did. the greatest threat to us in the middle east is the shiite alliance. in iran, most of the government in baghdad, trusts aside and hezbollah in in southern lebanon. as to the beheading, it is indeed gruesome. i am certain that every execution has a gruesome element to it. there is something mid evil about the heading. saudi arabia, most of the time,

punishes murderers and others who have gone through the court system and are guilty of ask that they may be executed in some states in the united states. whereas, isis is executing have gone through the court system and are guilty of ask that they may be executed in some states in the united states. whereas, isis is executing people because they happen to be christian, or sunni -- rather, shiite muslims. it is not the gruesome this of the execution, it is the execution that is the issue. host: one of the headlines from "the new york times" this morning -- does that, gay issues? guest: it has been, give for a

long time. we install them, and god knows we could have made a mistake. the fact is, the government in baghdad is very close to being an iranian satellite. the shiite alliance, iran, most of the forces in iraq, certainly in the southern half of the country, assad and hezbollah has killed hundreds of thousands of people. isis has beheadedkilled hundreds of thousands of people. isis has beheaded some and a very gruesome way. hundreds of thousands of deaths. that shiite alliance has committed terrorist acts on every inhabitable confident on this world. that shiite alliance has killed thousands of americans. we are focusing, instead on isis. i thought netanyahu had a good line. in your enemy. i think the biggest enemy here is the shiite alliance, four more so than isis. host: from louisiana, gerald. caller: good morning, senator. why are americans, republicans,

so hell-bent on board. that's all they talk about. war, war, war. netanyahu came down to the united states, in front congress -- why can't they forgive iran? why do we have to go to war. ? why can't they let president obama restore peace? why do our people always have to step out for the europeans? what are the european people going to step up for themselves? we have been in this war for centuries. all we get out -- all we get out of this is death.

that's all we get out of this war. the only thing republicans want to do is go to war. guest: asthat's all we get out of this war. the only thing republicans want to do is go to war. guest: as americans, we want this to be over with. there is a cry from republicans, it ought to be like world war ii, we gear up, we go to war, we get a complete victory. they were demanding a strategy that achieved total victory over isis, and all other enemies without american casualties. that cannot be achieved. we are going to be facing problems. we are going to be facing

terrorism for quite some time. i wish that i could tell you we just have to work hard for a couple of years and every thing will be fine. that is not the case. the kind of peace that we >> on our next "washington journal" republican scott garrett. the reaction to the budget plan with democratic representative of wisconsin. and a look at a recent article on alternatives to locking up juvenile offenders. plus, your phone calls facebook comments, and treats. "washington journal" live each morning and 7 a.m. on c-span. congressman