see nearly three to eight dollars in new revenue to the federal government. >> we are assuming revenue neutral tax reform. there will be other taxes, i'm sure, that will be done away with. a new tax system will be put in the punitive individual mandate penalizes individuals, american citizens to adhere to the strict mandate. the insurance policies. this is holding back our economy, holding back hiring, and causing our economy to struggle. the 30 hour limit that forces employers to move people from

full-time to part-time. people get moved from full-time to part-time, they lose a lot of their pay and then they are forced to abort by the all-powerful federal government with coverages they don't need with high deductibles and high cost that they can't use. the 2% medical device tax, which is a great idea, it is forcing our medical technology industry overseas, really well thought out tax is extremely punitive and is resulting in the loss of thousands and thousands of american jobs. yes, that would be repealed. then, the cadillac tax. this is a tax that you have to pay if you make the great sin of wanting to buy a policy then our all-powerful federal government.

you have to pay a 40% tax. >> i love what you said, i really do. let me tell you something about the medical device tax. do you know that many of those companies in those industries through the chair, through you rock doctors to use their utilities. you have no idea. >> the gentleman will suspend. >> may i finish? >> not yet. >> we have been here long time. >> not long enough. >> the committee has done extremely well but there's no reason to denigrate into

something that it hasn't. >> he brought up the medical device tax. >> there is no reason to have this denigrated. i appeal to my colleagues that we keep this collegial and cordial and respectful the remainder of the way and you have 40 seconds. >> mr. chairman, you are a doctor. rep. price: i would -- i have never been brought. rep. pascrell: those who have been bribed should suffer some kind of penalty. this budget with phantom revenue that may or may not exist and it assumes $760 billion in nondefense discretionary spending cuts.

despite the fact that the republican house of representatives could not even past an appropriations bill with -- rep. price: the gentleman's time has expired. >> mr. rokita, no. mr. garrett, no. mr. cole, no. mr. mcclintock, no. mr. woodall, no. ms. blackburn, no.

ms. hartzler, no. mr. wright, no. mr. sanford, no. mr. womack, no. mr. brat, no mr. blum, no. mr. mooney, no. mr. grossman, no mr. palmer, no. mr. moolenaar, no. mr. westermann, no. mr. buchanan, no. mr. van hollen, aye. mr. yarmouth, aye. mr. pascall --

>> mr. mcdermott, aye. ms. lee, aye. ms. lujan grisham, aye. mr. chairman, no. rep. price: have all members voted? a members want to change their vote?

>> the aye's are 14 and the no's are 22. amendment number 24 offered by mr. van hollen relating to overseas contingency operations. rep. price: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes. representative van hollen: the games that this committee plays with defense spending -- here is what the committee said last year. it said abuse of the oco adjustment is a backdoor loophole that undermines the integrity of the budget process. the budget committee will

recognize the responsibilities in regards to oco and will approve increases our leaders say are needed to carry out operations. that is this committee unanimously. what this budget does is say ignore what the committee told the whole rest of the congress last year. in fact, what we're doing my putting in extra money is precisely what we said we would not do last year. not only that, but this house went on as part of the national defense authorization bill to codify the regulations in the house version of the bill that says that we should be using these funds in this way.

i know our colleagues want to do the right thing will stop this is the wrong way to do it. this undermines the credibility of this committee. this amendment quotes verbatim from the committee report from last year. it simply says that this committee will exercise its oversight responsibilities as we said we would do this year. this undermines the budget process. vote for this amendment if you care about the budget process. rep. price: we will recognize the gentleman from arkansas. rep. womack: there has been a lot said about the military in this markup over the last several hours. the very fact is that this fund is a structured account designed

to provide our war fighters with the funding and equipment necessary to carry out their mission overseas while at the same time providing funds for once they redeployed. pretty timely, i would argue, in light of the fact that we can't seem to make up our mind -- this administration -- about what we're going to do in afghanistan, as one example. we were going to be out of afghanistan, now we're going to slow down the withdrawal. it seems we learned some lessons based on the hasty withdrawal in iraq. we left a vacuum there and now

we had a big mess from baghdad to damascus. the most important reason that we should be approving this amendment is so as not to create restrictions on our military with the increased volatility around the globe. unless someone here can accurately predict what the next threat should be, we should not be tying the hands of our military to give them what they need in a timely fashion so that they can succeed on the battlefield. if we restrict oco, what intern we will be doing is restricting our ability to fight overseas and defense security. i have about a minute left, so i don't know if my friend from oklahoma wants to make a couple of comments. >> i want to agree very much with my friend and i want to elaborate a little bit. i would remind our friends of ebola last year which i funded out of oco. isil was not even foreseen. we didn't spend everything we appropriated last year.

the mere fact that we have a figure does not mean we will use it. i do think it is a wise thing to do. >> mr. chairman, let me say this to my friend from maryland. perhaps there is a way that we could, through a broader strategy, get into a solution for this thing we call sequestration. but this amendment is not the right approach to do that. rep. price: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. representative van hollen: this is all about playing games with the budget caps. the president said he wants to increase defense spending by $35 billion.

the joint chiefs haven't asked for more money than the president is requesting for overseas contingency. they asked for in their base budget. that is what the president did. that is the straightforward way to do this. you know that. in fact, your budget after fiscal year 2016 breaks the cap for defense spending and under invests in everything else. you do it for nine of the 10 years. give me a break. we should adopt this amendment and make sure we uphold what credibility the committee has in this area. rep. price: the questions on agreeing to the amendment offered by chris van hollen. the clerk will call a role. >> mr. rokida.

mr. garrett, no. mr. cole, no. mr. mcclintock -- no. ms. black -- no. mr. woodall -- no. ms. blackburn -- no. ms. hartzler -- no. mr. sanford -- no. mr. womack -- no. mr. brat -- no. mr. blum -- no mr. mooney -- no.. mr. grossman -- no. mr. palmer -- no. mr. moolenaar -- no. mr. westermann -- no.

mr. buchanan -- no. mr. van hollen -- no. mr. pascrell -- aye. ms. moore -- aye. ms. castor -- aye.

mr. mcdermott -- aye. ms. lee -- aye. ms. lujan grisham -- aye. mr. lieu -- aye. mr. norcross -- aye. mr. rokida- no. mr. chairman -- no. rep. price: is everyone voted? >> the ayes are 14 and the no's are 22. amendment number 25 relating to overseas contingency operations. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we have been talking about the fact that the republican budget balances on the backs of the most vulnerable despite everything that we heard during our hearings. i'm saddened though not

surprised to see that another account that was subject to this committee's oversight, the overseas contingency account appears again in the budget. they included an extra 36 billion over the pentagon's request. that is $36 billion that packed the pockets of defense contractors. last year, many of our colleagues across the aisle agreed with our concern over this slush fund, and that is what it is. oco is a slush fund and should not be the source or long-term pentagon spending. my amendment would dedicate the savings to our deficit reduction.

oco has expanded beyond any reasonable measure of what a contingency fund should be and is a black box with no oversight. with another war on the way in iraq and syria, a war that has yet to be voted on by congress the oco account continues to grow. in recent years, we have paid most of our wartime operations out of a fun that was supposed to be a small emergency fund. this results in higher levels of waste. once again, we are misleading the american public just like the previous administration did when they told us there were weapons of mass instruction in iraq. the oco account no longer serves its purpose and it is time to close this loophole. and it is past time to audit the pentagon.

rep. price: the gentleman from florida is recognized in opposition. >> at a time when we are seeing the administration having second thoughts about policy in afghanistan, at a time when we hear the secretary of state saying he is confounded about venezuelan actions, and on and on, this is not the time to cut the funds that our military is using to fight the enemy. rep. price: ms. lee is recognized. rep. lee: the president and the defense department have provided congress with funding requests that they feel is justified to meet their needs. they fund the operations at a higher level -- funding the operations at a higher level

than asked for and from an account without oversight does a disservice to this country and this committee. i hope that members who are serious about wanting deficit reduction, a balanced budget and accountability in spending will support this amendment. once again, we have to look at auditing the pentagon. i urge an aye vote. rep. price: all those in favor say aye. >>mr. rokida? mr. cole? mr. mcclintock, no. ms. black, no. mr. woodall?

ms. blackburn -- no. ms. hartzler --no. mr. wright --no. mr. sanford --no. mr. womack --no. mr. brat -- no. mr. blum -- no. mr. mooney. mr. grossman -- no. mr. palmer -- no. mr. moolenaar -- no. mr. westermann -- no. mr. buchanan -- no. mr. van hollen? mr. yarmouth -- aye. mr. pascrell - aye. mr. ryan -- aye. ms. moore -- aye. mr. astor -- --ms. castor --

aye. ms. lujan grisham -- aye. mr. lieu -- aye. mr. norcross -- aye. mr. rokida -- no. mr. garrett? mr. cole -- no.

mr. woodall -- no. mr. mooney -- no. mr. van hollen -- aye. mr. chairman -- no. rep. price: at all members voted?

does any member wish to change their vote? clerk: the ayes are 14 and the no's are 21. amendment number 26 is relating to long-term care services. >> thank you mr. chairman. we have considered a lot of contentious issues today but this is one that i hope we can all agree on. long-term care is a concern that affects all americans and i know all of us have loved ones that have or will seek the possibility of long-term care and support. as our nation continues to age the demand for long-term care is expected to double in the next 30 years. the fact is, existing programs at huge gaps in access.

in the u.s., the costs of long-term care are covered by a patchwork of insurance, public programs, and family caregivers. the systems are not integrated difficult to navigate, and are designed for the 20th century. we spend a lot of time talking about medicare and medicaid, but the reality is that neither one is designed to help seniors deal with long-term living. medicare helps patients only for acute episodes and was not as designed -- was not designed for long-term care. it is clear that comprehensive

policy changes needed. this amendment allows but does not require the house to consider a deficit neutral bill on long-term care. this could be a pilot program, a change to medicare or medicaid or a truly comprehensive solution. this amendment identifies long-term care is a priority for the house. rep. price: the lady's time has expired. rep. black: i would like to remind my friends on the other side that medicare is on an unsustainable path, identified by both the cms actuaries and the cbo. at the current rate, medicare will go bankrupt in 2030. i think it is irresponsible to add any benefit to a program that is not able to afford its current liability. adding this new benefit without any structural reform guarantees that the program will be insolvent faster than anticipated. as plants compete for senior citizen business, they will be able to provide values for our plans -- for their plans. nothing in our budget will preclude these plans offering these services.

we see that in the free market there would be an opportunity for such plans to be offered. we also have seen from several states. under our budget, states would have the flexibility to fit the needs of their population. with state flexibility funds for medicaid, states would be able to do things like long-term care services. we know that 25 state governors have artie written to the house and senate in january saying "we are convinced that the states would be provided greater flexibility over the multitude of programs we would be able to better and more efficiently serve the needs of our citizens. "over the past several years

the government has passed laws that restrict the ability of states to innovate." they want the opportunity to offer these kinds of programs. i know this amendment is well-intentioned, but our budget includes reforms that would make these of -- that would make these additional benefits unnecessary. i would encourage my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. i am only going to give my colleague about 45 seconds. rep. blackburn: when ms. black and i were in the tennessee house and state senate, we did a dual eligible program for our medicare-medicaid eligibles. they wanted to look at at home care. flexibility allowed that program to take place. tennessee saw that problem and they will do the same thing with long-term care.

as we free up our states to innovate and as we get rid of some of these mandates and cost. i encourage a no vote. rep. dingell: thank you mr. chairman. rep. grisham: while i appreciate the dual eligible programs in states like tennessee, health care has been under constant litigation and has reduced services. the issue is, it is expensive. the issue is, it is expensive. there are 49 million caregivers spending more than $500 billion in care and support. states have the flexibility and they don't take it up because it means years of waiting for medicaid waivers or nursing home

bias. nursing home bias is 100,000 per person on average. we could do the right thing here by saving money. average home care is something more like $30,000. the support families to take care of each other. rep. price: question is about agreeing to the amendment put forth by this dingell -- by ms. dingell. all those in favor -- in the chair, the noes have it. recorded vote is requested. clerk: mr. garrett? no. mr. diaz-balart no. mr. cole no. mr. mcclintock, mr. mcclintock no. ms. black, no. mr. woodall, no. ms. blackburn no.

ms. hartzler, no. mr. wright, no. mr. sussman no. mr. sanford, no. mr. womack no. mr. brett no. -- mr brat, no. mr. mooney, no. mr. grossman no. mr. palmer, no. mr. molnar. no. mr. westermann, no. mr. b cannon -- buchanan,no. mr. van hollen, aye. mr. pascarella, aye.

mr. ryan aye. ms. moore, aye. ms. castor aye. mr. mcdermott, aye. ms. lee, aye. ms. lujan grisham aye. ms. dingell,a aye. mr. norcross, aye. mr. molson, aye. mr. garrett no. mr. chairman, no. have all members voted? clerk: the ayes are 14 and the

nos are 22. rep. price: the clerk will introduce the amendment. >> amendment by mr. norcross related to infrastructure investment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> this amendment would represent the commitment by congress to put people back to work and pay for it by getting rid of tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. we all agree that our nation's transportation system and infrastructure is the backbone of our economy. to facilitate economic growth. infrastructure investment goes well beyond just upgrade to roads and rails. it is about our air traffic control system, sewage, and water. bringing out broadband to world

class b. and most importantly, our electric grid. it took one sniper in california with a high-powered rifle to knock out that grid. folks were facing a major obstacle and security: in our country with the lack of heartening of -- hardening of our electrical infrastructure. we need to keep infrastructure strong. ira to support and yield back my time. rep. price: mr. palmer from arkansas is recognized. rep. palmer: we remember the american recovery and reinvestment act of 2009. president obama promised that it would rebuild america's roads, rails, and bridges. he said the 830 billion dollar stimulus would improve 6000 -- 42,000 miles of road, replace 2700 bridges, improve 6000 miles

of rail. do you know how much was actually spent? according to the administration a, less than 30%. but it did find these studies. $783,000 study on why young people consume consume malt liquor. student hookups. -- $230,000 to study student hookups. it helped drive federal outlays for less than $3 trillion in 2008 to $3.5 trillion in 2009 and it added to the interest that we are paying on the debt. when this administration had a chance to pass an infrastructure bill that would have created thousands of good paying jobs, the president vetoed the keystone xl pipeline. the objective that we have for this budget is to move away from the failed idea that higher taxes and government spending is what america needs. we need to reduce the size and scope of government and get our fiscal house in order.

that's why i pose this amendment. i yield to the gentleman from south carolina. >> i guess my only further comment would be that if we look at repatriation of funds, one thing and we should be careful about are unintended consequences. a company like boeing would in essence be penalized for being a good corporate citizen while other countries that may have moved profits offshore are rewarded with a repatriation processes. i would say, secondly, that i think we all in this room would agree on the need to improve our nation's infrastructure. but as was just pointed out from my colleague from alabama is that the operative question is how. do we look at performance within the system? about a quarter of the highway trust fund drawdown is based on mass transit that does not

contribute to the fund but takes out of the fund. a basic accounting rule would be, those who put into the pot should take out of the pot. we break that in the way the highway trust fund is configured. i yield back. >> i yield the balance of my time. mr. norcross is recognized for one minute to close. rep. norcross: that is exactly what should we should be talking about, and how we can work together. talking about an $830 billion program with a $300,000 grant is bait and switch. why are we having that discussion? let's talk about how we can put americans back to work. there is a need here. we are going to pay for it, one way or another. it is going to happen, and the only way to prevent it is if you are prepared for mass blackouts when these infrastructures take a hit, do nothing.

let's work together to get it done. i yield whatever time -- >> let me thank you for this amendment. i think we know that we need strong investments in our nation's infrastructure and -- from public transit, the electrical grid, high-speed cable. this republican budget cuts no way forward. we need to invest $3.6 trillion in infrastructure. >> the question is on a green to all those -- agreeing to the amendment by mr. norcross. in the opinion of the chair, the no ands have it. a recorded vote is requested. >> mr. rokida, no. mr. garrett, no. mr. diaz-balart, no. mr. cole, no.

mr. mcclintock, no. ms. black, no. mr. woodall no. ms. blackburn no. ms. hartzler, no. mr. wright, no. mr. sussman no. mr. csanford, no mr. brat, no. mr. mooney, no. mr. grossman, no. mr. palmer, no. mr. molinar no. mr. westermann no.

mr. buchanan, no. mr. the following -- van hollen aye. mr. yarmouth, aye. mr. ryan, aye. ms. moore, aye. ms. castor, aye. mr. mcdermott, aye. ms. lee, aye. ms. lujan grisham aye. ms. dingell, aye. mr. lieu, aye. mr. norcross aye. mr. molson, aye. mr. garrett no.

mr. german, -- chairman, no. on that boat, the ayes are 14, nos are 21. >> connect amendment, number 28. the clerk will designate the amendment. >> offered by mr. moulton, related to career and technical education. >> mr. moulton is recognized for two minutes. rep. moulton: my amendment will invest $2 billion over 10 years to provide education to help prepare students for jobs in the competitive 21st century workforce. the demand for skilled workers is increasing. a recent survey said a majority of manufacturing executives reported a shortage of qualified workers. they said they had difficulty maintaining production levels. due to work for shortages or

deficiency in worker skills. last week, i visited the regional technical high school in my district and discussed the positive impact the classes have had on students, teachers, and the economy. like so many vocational and technical schools across the country, it aims to educate young people for new and emerging occupations. in the life sciences mechanics and construction fields that are crucial to the growth of our nation. like many vocational schools across the country, limited funding has severely restricted the school's ability to meet growing demand. over the past three years, the school has been forced to accept only 50% of its applicants. despite the desperate need for financial support, career and technical education funding is still below the 2012 level of $1.1 billion. this is about doing the right thing for our students and children. more importantly, it is about doing the right thing for our economy.

it is about investing in america's competitiveness in the global economy. with that, mr. chairman, i yield. from arkansas, mr. palmer, for three minutes. rep. palmer: for the record, i am from alabama. but it is late. today, the united states spends more than almost every other developed nation, yet continues to trail the nations in education. a 2011 gal report -- gao report found almost 20 different programs at the price of almost $18 billion. that we have little -- yet we have little evidence of success. with all due respect, we don't need increased funding for technical education, but we need to reform the current system and return control to states and localities so they can decide what is best for their own students including deciding on curriculum and crediting.

the state should be able to count apprenticeships and nontraditional courses toward accreditation. if that is the best for training students for their work. a report published by the center for american progress stated that apprenticeships can help meet the demand of businesses while offering workers higher employment outcomes. the evidence for return on investment for apprenticeships is strong. they lead to significant increases in lifetime earnings. i know this from alabama, where our workforce development program has been ranked among the best in the nation year after year. this year in alabama, for the very first time, we took the top spot in the u.s. for automobile manufacturing. this is credited largely to our

state workforce training programs. alabama knows what best serves alabamians. raising taxes for a training program will not help anything. what will help is deciding what training will help employment. for these reasons, i do not support this amendment. >> mr. moulton is recognized to close. >> i agree, but that is not preclude wise investment. i would like to make a few remarks about my earlier amendment regarding funding our veterans. so many of you, my colleagues and friends, have looked me in the eye and told me how you want to be bipartisan in this committee. if we cannot be bipartisan about funding our veterans, i don't know where we can begin. frankly i share many of your criticisms about the administration and the current

state of the v.a. given that, i frankly expected you to request more than the president had asked for it is -- in his budget. we do need reform at the va, but spend some time there with the veterans were struggling to get the care that they deserve and need, and you will realize that we also need funding. if i can't look you in the eye , not just as a colleague, as a congressman, but as a combat veteran and know that you have my back, we will have a serious problem with the future of our volunteer army. and indeed, the defense of our nation. >> all in favor say aye. in the chair, the nos have it. recorded vote is requested. >> mr. rokida, no. mr. garrett no. mr. diaz-balart, no.

mr. cole, no. mr. mcclintock, no. ms.b black no. mr. woodall, no. ms. blackburn no. ms. hartzler, no. mr. rice, no. mr. sussman no. mr. sanford, no. mr. womack, no. mr. brat no. mr. mooney, no. mr. grossman, no. mr. palmer, no. mr. molinar no. mr. westermann, no.

mr. buchanan no. mr. van hollen aye. mr. yarmouth aye. mr. pascrell aye. mr. ryan, aye. ms. moore, aye. ms. castor aye. mr. mcdermott, aye. ms. lee aye. mr. poekcane aye. ms. lujan grisham, aye. ms. dingell, aye. mr. norcross, aye. ms.r. moulton, aye.

mr. garrett, no. mr. chairman, no. >> have all members voted? any member with the change their vote? >> on that vote, the ayes are 14 nos are 21. >> the amendment is not adopted. >> the clerk will designate the amendment, and the staff will distribute. clerk: republican amendment number one offered by mrs. blackburn, related to a policy statement on national security. ms. blackburn: thank you. i do appreciate that. yes, this is a policy statement. i look at it as a clarifying amendment as to where we are when it comes to our military funding. i have to tell you. being someone that represents a

major military post, it is imperative to me that we clarify and send a message to these troops that we are with them and that we are going to find what -- fund what they need for the readiness, for the redeployment, for their training, and make certain that we take care of their families. this amendment, as the chairman said, is a policy statement. i want to direct your attention to a couple of things that are in it. let's go to the third page. you are going to see after some of the appropriate designations it gets into talking about what defense readiness and modernization fund is. that provides clarity not only to us but to our colleagues. it has a name. as we work through clawing back and trying to get rid of waste fraud, and abuse in government. making sure that it addresses

our first principles, our priorities, which is what our budget is supposed to be about. a statement that allows for funding our priorities. as we talk about dealing with sequestration, dealing with oco all the funding for the military then it gives a name to our fund , and allows that designation and will thereby allow us to have a path for meeting our obligations in a more transparent manner. and i just appreciate this issue. read the language. you will see -- mr. van hollen: i thank you, mr. chairman. this does not send the message that you support our troops. this sends the message you are

totally confused about defense spending. i'm reading from the amendment number two all four current service chiefs said the current strategy could not be executed at sequestration levels. that's why the president asked for another $35 billion for defense in his budget. the next page, using the president's budget irresponsibly ignores current law and requests the defense budget $38 billion above the caps. guess what? the president asked for a change in current law because the joint chiefs said sequestration levels were not adequate to meet our defense needs. that's why he did it. he did it in a straightforward way. let's change the law. this amendment admits that it is not the president's file, online's 23 and 24, page -- on lines 23 and 24, page two, with no statutory change, the statute

would require limiting it to 523 billion. how is it the president's fault that congress has not changed it? that's what we are proposing to do in these amendments to do the right thing, to lift the defense cap and lift the cap to find important investments in generating economic growth. this amendment is a really good explanation of why the president did exactly what he did. it goes on to say, since we don't really like the cap but we don't want to tell anyone we are going to change the caps in a straightforward way, like the president does, we are going to put $36 billion into the overseas contingency account which last year this committee said was an end run around the budget process. this is a lot of mealymouthed works to justify an end run

around the budget process. i'm glad senate republicans don't play these games with the overseas contingency account. they take the president and the joint chief's level. this is a runaround. so no, this deos not send any messages certainty to our troops. in fact, our it tells troops that republican colleagues -- they are completely uncertain and am ready to meet commitments. the president does it in a certain way, we should, too. >> the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close. ms. blackburn: i appreciate the opportunity to bring the amendment. the world is a dangerous place. we talked about that in this amendment. it is imperative that we lay out a way to work through the sequestration.

this is something the president wanted. it is something that he wanted and what we are doing is laying a path forward and saying, here are the funds. we are going to work with this. we are going to meet the obligations that we have to the troops. with that, i yield back. i encourage a yes vote. chairman price: the gentlelady yields back her time. i will claim that 25 seconds remaining. it is imperative for folks to recognize the contrast between the president's budget and this budget. our budget lays out a path to get to a point where we are able to change the sequester, which requires a presidential signature. the president's budget does not of that. it is a fictitious number. it would be 523 on october 1. those in favor? opposed? in the chair the ayes have it.

a recorded vote is requested. >> mr. rokita, ayes. mr. garrett, aye. mr. diaz-balart aye. mr. cole, aye. mr. mcclintock aye. ms. lack, -- black, aye. mr. woodall, aye. ms. blackburn aye. ms. hartzler, aye. mr. rice aye. mr. sussman, aye. mr. samberg, -- sanford, aye. mr. womack, aye. mr. brat, aye. mr. mooney, aye. mr. grossman, aye.

mr. palmer aye. mr. molinar, aye. mr. westermann aye. mr. buchanan, aye. mr. bangle, -- van hollen no. mr. young, -- yarmoth. no. mr. pascrell, no. ms. moore, no. ms. castor, no. mr. mcdermott, no. ms. lee no. ms. lujan grisham, no. ms. dingell, no.

mr.leiu, no. mr. norcross, no. mr. moulton, no. mr. chairman, aye. >> have all members voted? the clerk will report. clerk: ayes are 22 adnnd nos are 14. >> the chairman has an announcement to make. our deliberations have been expeditious. the decision-making on our side of the aisle has not been as expeditious. consequently, this markup stands in recess until the call of the chair. >> tonight or tomorrow? >> tomorrow.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> the house and senate out today. next week, they will each pick up their versions of the 2016 budget plans. live coverage of the house on c-span, and the senate on c-span2. tonight, as part of our road to the white house coverage we will head to davenport, iowa to hear martin o'malley at the scott county democratic party dinner. ahead of his visit, governor o'malley wrote an op-ed published in the des moines register online, writing about banks. the largest banks, he says should be broken up into more manageable institutions. today, five banks control half of the financial industry's $15 trillion in assets. several numbers of congress,

reserved for governors, and major players in the financial industry recognized that industries too big to fail are too big to succeed. more in today's "wall street journal" and also here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span twos ""book tv" -- eric phoneoner. sunday night at 10:00, abu dhabi journalist on the rise of isis in the middle east. saturday morning starting at 9:00 eastern and throughout the day, "american history tv" is live from the ford theater. sunday at 6:00, on american artifacts, and visit to the

national museum. find our complete schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us at 202-626-3400, send us an e-mail or a tweet. join the c-span conversation -- like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. the director of the national economic council, jeff zients and brian deese talked this morning at a "christian science monitor" breakfast in washington dc.

dave: thanks for coming. i am dave cook from "the monitor." our guest today are brian deese and jeff zients. mr. zients is a maryland native, graduate with honors from do university. he worked for david bradley at the advisory board company . he is the father of four and has made challenges to govern roles. he has headed the effort to fix healthcare.gov. brian deese is a massachusetts

native, graduated from harvard law school, after stints at he worked on the obama campaign. at the age of 31, his first assignment after joining the white house staff was to restructure general motors. he went on to work on the national economic council. so much for the bu biography, as always, on record here. please no filing of any kind while the preface is underway, to let us listen to what the guests have to say. doubt few resist, we will e-mail several pictures of the session to all the reporters here, as soon as the breakfast ends. as regular attendees know, if you would like to acid question,

send me as subtle nonthreatening signal. we will start out with the opportunity to make some comments, and then we will move to questions. the floor is yours. brian: i will be very brief. i just want to give you a sense of how we are thinking of the state of affairs and where we find herself today. as we think about our position, economically, we are in the -- we are in a moment where we are seeing durable momentum in the economic recovery. one of our key questions is how can we, as in administration, the executive branch, and the president position itself to be maximally effective in

encouraging economic growth but growth where the benefits are broadly shared. that is the core behind the middle class economics that the president laid out at the state of the union. since the election, the president has had a pretty explicit strategy as to how to achieve that brought extract objective. -- that broad objective. it has consisted of trying to push where he can to move the agenda through executive action. you have seen that in places like climate change, immigration, the cuban announcement, but also in places like making mortgages more affordable through the hfa taking on conflict of interest to try and help typical americans a war money for retirement. he will keep seeing the president in that posture going forward.

the other component of this strategy is to lay out a broad expansive and ambitious vision of what middle class economics means, and how we as a country should move in that direction. that was the animating principle behind the state of the union and the principal budget, speaking both on concrete actions that we can take, but also on an aspirational vision as to where we need to take the country. i think the result of these two components of our strategy is what you have seen over the past 10 weeks, during this introductory. of the new republican -- during this introductory. of the new republican congress. you have seen congress responding to things the president is doing. we are looking for opportunities where we can work with congress

to move the agenda. one of the things the president will do is continue to be very clear about what his vision is, and where his priorities are. it is a question about whether or not the republican leadership can actually effectively govern, and effectively move to places where they are working with democrats to trying get things done pragmatically speaking. that's where we find ourselves in the current moment. let me just turn it over to jess and then we will take your questions. jeff: let me fill in him little detail on the economic front. the president said in his state of the union that 2014 was a milestone year in the economy. we are off to a good a star into as of 15. job numbers, almost 300,000 new jobs. importantly, 12 straight months

of more than 200,000 jobs. that's the first time that has happened in almost 40 years. if you step back and think about our position in the global economy, it is quite strong. we continue to be the world leader in innovation with our research universities, a large percentage of patents come out of the u.s., our workforce is the most effective in the world. a decade ago, we would have talked about vulnerability in our position in energy, and now we have an advantage as we accrue big benefits to manufacturers, in particular in the u.s. versus their global competitors. as brian said, there's certainly much more work to be done. consistent with middle class economics, a big focus on wages. several decades-old problem of stagnant wages did you will continue to see executive actions like the conflict of interest rule, that brian talked

about, which is good for middle-class people. the president announced a tech initiative. we have 5 million jobs over right now in the u.s.. 500,000 of those are tech jobs. they pay well. we are working with the private sector companies and mayors to take it manage of new training models that can get people into well-paying tech jobs in 10-12 weeks, rather than several years. we will continue to execute on the executive actions that have rolled out and do new executive actions, likely across the next months, there will likely be an update of the overtime rule which has not been updated and long time. right now, salaried workers have to earned less than $23,000 to qualify for automatic overtime. that is obviously too low in

this economy that there will be an update of that. on the legislative front, we will be looking at the intersections of middle class economics and where we can get things done on a bipartisan way. the president is very committed to trade, to trade agreements that good for american workers. on business tax reform. i believe that there is a growing co consensus that business tax reform is needed. some of the revenue of business tax reform should be used to find infrastructure. we have a clear, significant deficit. all of us agree and infrastructure, and this combination of the business tax x code and funding infrastructure has bipartisan interest. we want to capitalize that. the economy is solid. we have a strong global position.

at the same time, there's more work to be done both on eggs of actions and working together in a bipartisan way with congress. jack: let me start with questions. we will go around the table. let me ask you about the biggest economic challenge you see the country facing. janet yellen said earlier this week that economic growth had quote moderated somewhat and the strong dollar was hurting exports and keeping inflation too low. what are the things the keep you up at night in terms of the economy? what's the main one? jeff: i think that making sure we do the most on the wage front . that is a decade old problem. there are several levers that we

should pull. infrastructure is not only good for middle-class jobs, it is good for a longer-term competitiveness. we have seen positive movements at the state level on minimum wage, with 17 states moving forward increasing their minimum wage. we should do that across the board. congress should pass a $10 10 sent minimum wage -- $10.10 minimum wage. as i said earlier, job programs that works actually have well-paying jobs at the other end of the training. we are working at the same time with the private sector, in close partnership, with local employers and local businesses, community colleges, to ensure that we are taking advantage of new training methods and filling well-paying jobs on the other end. we need to continue addressing wages and make sure we have good middle-class top opportunities.

jack: last thing for me. in your opening remarks, you talk about the president, and seeing more of his posture. you have fracking roles coming -- rules coming up today. are there other actions on climate change coming? brian: if you look at the agenda around reducing greenhouse gas emo and missions, and encouraging a clean energy economy, this is an area where we have a very aggressive agenda. most of the actions that we are pushing forward our actions that we can move forward on through the executive space. the short answer to your question is yes. yesterday, we announced a new goal, and the president signed an executive order to reduce greenhouse emissions from the

federal government by 40%. there's a whole set of actions associated with that today where you mentioned, we're releasing updated standards for fracking on federal lands. if you look forward, core to our agenda is the clean power plan, which will reduce carbon pollution from the power sector. that role has been proposed. we will finalize that rule. we also have an opportunity in the international space for a viable global agreement. in the areas of methane, or energy efficiency, we have a lot more to do through rulemaking to both tightened down on energy waste and carbon pollution, but also provide long-term incentives to promote investment in the space. jack: cannot be done without

burning the constitution? brian: this is an agenda that actually land squarely within well-established legal precepts not only in the clean air act but in the clean water act and other foundational environmental laws. if you look particularly at the clean power plant, which is the clean power plan, which is what you're referencing this is a rule that its core is based on providing flexibility to states. the structure of the law, the clean air act, and the structure of the rule is about setting targets and giving states broad flexibility as to how they achieve that. what you have seen outside of washington is broad interest in red states and blue states around how to be pragmatic about creating plans that will actually work for the states. that is our focus and will remain our focus going forward.

tony: tony brown from politico. a two-part question. it has been a lot of talk on capitol hill about net neutrality, arguing that the white house improperly interfered on internet rules. i'm wondering you can comment on some of those allegations. jeff, you've, quite a lot in the conversations on e-mails and meetings that have been had. to start, can you comment on some of those allegations. jeff: to be clear, the sec is an independent agency. the president made his views known through the appropriate channels, including a video that was publicly release. again, the fcc is independent, and the president's views appropriately known through the appropriate channels.

tony: there was something filed at the beginning of november where the white house expressed its views. jeff: that is the legal channel which i am referring to in which the president releases views. as far as meeting with wheeler, they spoke about number of issues, net neutrality being one of them. tony: can you sketch out for us that work you may be doing over the next several months, or other executive actions that we can expect? jeff: we will continue to implement things like tech highere. we started out with a partnership in local cities with local employers to fill the over

half-million open tech jobs and take advantage of these innovative models. we will continue to execute on existing aggregate actions like public eyes and private -- public-private partnerships. mike: mike from bloomberg. on the trade agenda, are you said just now, the president is very committed to trade promotion authority, fasttrack. you talked about that. can you give me some sense of specifically what the president will be doing and when he will be doing it, and what portion of his time he will be spending on this? what kinds of commitments have you made to really have him do to handle things? how much of that is going to be -- will he be touring around the

country and making that the major focus of his public remarks for a period of time? or will this be something that he will leave more to cabinet members and lower ranking people and making the occasional remark like keep does? is it more a washington -focused rather than public-focused things? and then, very briefly brian you were talking about how you expect a lot of room for rules on energy efficiency and methane. can you give me a better sense of what you are talking about? brian: as i said before, the president is very committed to trade agreements. you are right, starting with the passage of tpa, i dig it is his top economic legislative priority.

you see that in the state of the union, and a full throated argument in favor of fair trading agreements that benefit americans. he did an address on a trade agreements, a few weeks ago. he is spending a lot of time in small group meetings with members of the house and senate. secretary pritzker, secretary gosar secretary lou and that's, he was in miami yesterday entree. the cabinet is setting time both on the hill and al in the country talking about the benefits of trade. most important here is ambassador froman, who is on the front line of the negotiations. this is a priority of the president, and therefore priority of all of us who work with the president, including

the cabinet. there is an all out effort here to make sure there is a full understanding of the benefits for the american worker of strong trade agreements. brian: on your second question, with respect to methane, we have announced a goal of reducing methane emissions by 40-40 5%. the way in which we will achieve that goal is through commendation of regulatory actions and voluntary actions. on the regulatory side, this includes metrics like the epa proposing rules for new sources on methane, which is something that we anticipate will come forward here in the neck several months. on the voluntary side, this includes work through, for example, usda, who is working with the agricultural industry

to get a viable long-term agreement on a mission. in the efficiency context, part of what the president did in the climate action plan was set bold goals in reducing emissions. the department of rulemakings to increase standards in building supply, and otherwise. i think you can expect that cadence to continue over the next two years. this is also place where we are looking to partner with the private sector, because the truth is that by providing the right incentives, this is a place where there is huge opportunity. i was with the president in a who's who of the fortune 100 yesterday, where the president made his federal government been house gas and mission reduction announcement. you have everyone from ge,

hewlett-packard, ibm, not only committee but setting their own greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. a lot of that being given by energy efficiency having short payoffs. this is the place where by being smart about how we partner with the private sector, we can actually leverage our impact substantially. >> [indiscernible] i was hoping you could give us some insight on how the executive actions come together. do you get the playbook on the offense? things like greenhouse gas omissions are big executive order's, other things may be multiple agencies package together by the white house to

give it more impact. in the fourth quarter of the clinton administration, there was project my desta -- modesta. is there a project dese, or project zients? jeff: there is a project zients but i told you about it, i would have to kill you all. this is a good question. this comes from leadership and direction from the top, and part of the tone of that the president said. many of you have heard this directly from him, but coming off the election and over the last couple months, we are in the fourth quarter. a lot of games get set in the fourth quarter. that has resonated with me as a pages fan. we need to be creative and stay at the effort to look for every

reasonable and creative way to leverage the assets that we have to help make progress on these broad middle-class economic themes. the way that gets manifested is you have the white house policy council, one of which jeff leeds, and the domestic policy council. it is a collaborative effort working with agencies trying to identify if there places where we have not sought at -- thought as creatively as we could. some of that is on rulemaking. some of it is on partnership. finding new ways to partner. and finding ways to -- the word pull pulpit is often thrown around but this is also a speaking very concretely and hardheaded on how to use of platforms that the president and also be first lady have to drive

progress. this is a wide-ranging effort, and one that frankly the energy and enthusiasm around it is largely coming from the president himself. jeff: let me add a little to that. i agree with everything brian said. there is a clear message from the president to his old team and his cabinet. getting stuff done falls into two broad categories when it comes to executive action. one is what we have artie announced in executing -- again, those initiatives. on monday and tuesday, we are holding sweat usa over at the national harbor. the president will be addressing over 1000 international investors. this is about having companies take the u.s. for their investments. this effort happen several

years ago at commerce, and has now grown to the scale and has real results in facilitating investments in the u.s.. constant execution against executive actions that have already been announced is as important, if not more important, as new executive action. we will continue to roll out new executive action, but the president is holding us accountable on strong execution of executive actions that have been announced over the past several years. >> [indiscernible] quick fast-moving questions. the labor department overtime standard. the number you are looking at is not as big a number as the labor advocates would like.

let's talk about what you are waiting against. what the trade-off you're looking at. i will say the tougher one for brian. one on autos. you had a great front page story in "the wall street journal" this week on mexico and the trade pacts. what can be done short of tba, what other practical steps could help to bring these auto plants that are going to mexico, or elsewhere, back. on energy, of what potential in exports. you think exports would create artificial shortages, or do you think oil export i need a? jeff: i'm not getting in the specifics of the role. it will come out in the next few months. it is $23,000 for and salary workers.

we think there is an opportunity to make a significant change there that will help many workers earn what they deserve. >> there's a trade-off in everything you do. what are you waiting? jeff: i want to make sure workers are earning what they deserve. at the same time, that we continue to have a competitive economy, in what is increasingly a global economy. the level is so outdated at this point, there is an opportunity to move significantly. brian: just briefly, on your two . i think reflecting on the american auto industry, it is really striking to me where the industry is today, given where we were in the winter and spring of 2009. even the optimist at that

even the optimists at that time weren't projecting either the pace at which job growth would return to the domestic auto industry or the pace at which the overall industry would recover. the second thing that people were not projecting, which probably goes to the competitive question you raised, is that in the last couple of years we've seen something striking which is that the detroit three have actually gained market share. against their foreign competitors in the united states. so the up swing is not simply that we're back selling, you know, a little north of 16 million cars a year, when we bottomed out at just over nine million. it's also that these companies are finding ways to actually out-compete and take market share from their foreign competitors, which was something that was absolutely not conventional wisdom or

prevailing wisdom and instead was a sort of slow march of losing market share for the american companies. i think the question going forward about how to keep the united states a competitive location for domestic manufacturing investment is broader than the auto industry alone. and it's an issue that we spend a lot of time on. we are seeing trends both in health care and energy and otherwise that have really helped change the game in terms of the competitive posture for manufacturing domestically. i think that there's more that we can do. jeff mentioned select u.s.a. on monday. it's an incredible event and initiative where we are bringing foreign investment to choose the united states. there's also more that we can do, and usgr has been aggressive in enforcing trade agreements, which is an issue that's important in the auto space. i think that continued vigilance on the enforcement

side is important as well. just very briefly on the energy side we have not changed the longstanding policy with respect to crude oil exports. the changes we've seen in the industry over the past several years, increase in production, changes within the industry itself raise a number of questions about where the industry is overall. and we are looking at that and monitoring the industry constantly. but we don't have a change of policy with respect to that. and don't have anything else on that. >> to add a little data to the position we have in the global economy, do to -- due to these strategic innovations we have. jeff: productivity in our work force and now energy. we're the number one place to invest, when you poll global

c.e.o.'s. and more than half of c.e.o.'s of manufacturing companies are looking to bring facilities or locate facilities here in the u.s. so that's part of why you have such strong interests in select u.s.a. next week. questioner: could you talk a little bit about the fiscal issues? it was clear this week from congress is that there are deep divisions in the republican party and there's a lot of chafing beneath the budget control act caps on the defensive side but also on the domestic side. when people talk about a ryan-murray type deal, there's no patty murray, anymore. it's the white house. the white house is the democratic side. what are you doing to try to drive the republicans to the table before there's a crisis at the end of the year? and what are the prospects of some kind of settlement that would get the president his

higher caps and satisfy the republicans on their deficit reduction? brian: there still is a patty murray. she's still a force to be reckoned with. i think overall on the fiscal side and then to the specifics of the, you know, of the discretionary issues that you're raising our hope, as we were moving into this budget season was that the changes that we've seen in the economy and in our fiscal position would actually help move us beyond the fiscal -- the old fiscal debates of the last several years. part of what we were trying to do in our budget was acknowledge that our fiscal situation and our economic situation have changed in important ways. both in the near term in terms of the rapid fiscal consolidation and deficit reduction we've seen, but also in the medium term, largely

around the reduction in the rate of growth of health care costs continuing to step down baseline estimates of deficits in the future. that's not to say that long-term fiscal challenges have been solved. but we are in a different position. unfortunately what we saw with the respect budget, we were hope -- republican budget, what we saw was largely the same approach prioritizing deficit reduction over shared growth starting principally with tax cuts aimed at wealthier americans and then forcing very deep cuts in order to pay for those and hit the fiscal objectives. one of the things that's interesting in that context is this debate that's occurred around discretionary levels in particular. i think that the thing that we can do to most helpfully encourage the kind of deal that

would be good for the economy and good for our national security is be very clear, both about where the president stands and about how you could get from here to there. and so one of the reasons why, if you go back and look when the president announced his budget he was very clear when he went out and he said two things. he said, i will not accept a budget that locks in sequester going forward. and i will not accept breaking the linkage that was enshrined in the bipartisan murray-ryan agreement between our national security and our economic security. he laid that as predicate and then put forward a budget that shows very concretely both how you could raise those caps and how you could pay for them. quite explicitly. it's all in there. we do not ascribe to the grassley theory that the right way to do budgets is to have a -- i think that's the thing we

can do to be most constructive. as you say, the republicans have a choice. we have done this now several times. they know where this play ends. and there is bipartisan support for coming together, recognizing that we can absolutely afford to invest in our economic security, invest in our national security, pay for it over the long-term, and we would be better off both economically and politically if we could get an agreement on that sooner rather than engage in a whole bunch of brinksmanship where we know where that ends up. so i think what we can do is be clear, be specific. and have the president drawing those lines, not as a way of foe meanting partisanship but as a way of trying to clearly indicate a path that, just to be clear, there is -- there are lots of republicans who support that path, just as there are lots of democrats.

jeff: if you look back across the last year or so, where we've had strong growth, it's been helped by the absence of brinksmanship, self-inflicted wounds, fiscal drama. in fact, if you plot consumer confidence or business confidence, the dips have generally been around things like government shutdown, so we hope, for the sake of the economy and the american businesses and american workers, that congress has learned that lesson. and that under no situation do we head toward another self--inflicted wound on the economy. questioner: who do you think are negotiating partners are and are you reaching out already to them? brian: i think that republicans introduced their budget this week. the committee process yesterday, they're going to get -- go through next week. and we have to see how that all plays itself out.

there is still an open question, you a you said this debate within the -- as you said, this debate within the republican party about whether they are actually going to fund defense at levels that are uniform military service would be devastating to our national security priorities. and so i think we need to see how that plays out over the course of the next week. we are and have been, over the course of the last several weeks, engaged with members of congress republicans and democrats, largely in that context around our budget and our budget proposal. but part of that was associated with what i was talking about before, which is wanting to make sure that people fully understand the approach that we're taking, and how we think we could find areas of compromise. questioner: i have a two-part

question. [inaudible] -- s.g.r. agreement that the house leaders are about to release. is this the framework you can live with or do you have any major concerns with? second question is, i'm curious what you make of the social security aspect in the house republican budget, it prohibits the reallocation of the disability fund to the retirement fund. is that something could you support on any level? if not, how do you believe this should be fixed, when it dips into the red next year? brian: on the first, as you say, it's about to be released and we haven't seen the details. so we're -- we'll be better positioned to make an assessment once we've had a chance to do that. i think that as some of you know, but in our budget we laid out a proposal for a permanent s.g.r. fix. and have a number of proposals in that space in our budget. that's something that the

president has been supportive of for several years. including doing it in a fiscally responsible way. but with respect to the details of this particular agreement i think we really need to see what they are before we have a better sense of where we land. your second question, social security. so, the house provision was unconstructive and at odds with how this issue has been addressed time and time again in a bipartisan manner. and we continue to believe that the right way to address this issue is consistent with what we proposed. and that we have always said as many of you around this table know and have been reporting on for years we have always said that we're open to having a conversation about

social security reform more broadly. we have laid out a set of principles that would be important in the context of that conversation. but it is just not tenble to walk away from what has been a very clear bipartisan approach to addressing the issue. so in terms of answering your question concretely, that's how we think this is going to need to get done. questioner: [inaudible] it's an internal debate among republicans. do you actually expect to play a role in the crafting of a republican budget? it seems at moment your fingerprints appear on it, it loses republican support. i'm curious whether the

strategy that you're employing in this aggressive way that the president is talking about the economy and you're talking about your side of the budget, is more designed to set the predicate for vetoes that will come if and when legislation that's crafted out of the republican budget comes your way. brian: i think we're going to need to let this process play out a bit to know exactly -- it's impossible to project forward on exactly how the mechanics will go. from our perspective our goal is absolutely to get to an agreement that reflects the principles we've laid out. we've laid out a menu of policies that would enable you to get there. and there is bipartisan support to lift the defense caps lift

the nondefense caps and pay for it over 10 years. that's a blueprint where there's bipartisan support. so our hope, and our objective, is for congress to come together around an agreement of that basic form and put it in place before we have to get into a situation where we're into brinksmanship, as jeff noted. and again, hard for me to say exactly how that process might unfold, let's get through and see where the republican budget resolutions actually land. but i think that there's -- our posture is one of trying to encourage good faith conversations, good faith efforts to the there. and that's part of why we're trying to be clear, is to facilitate that sort of thing. the one thing that i would add

is that the murray-ryan structure, this basic structure of lifting the caps on both sides, paying for it over a decade is one that was both good economically, took off the table, this constant set of brinksmanship, but was also -- worked politically. and there's a question out there that i think the republican leadership has to grapple with around do they look to find areas where there are areas of bipartisan agreement and move to those in the first instance rather than getting backed into them? and, you know, on the d.h.s. funding side, you saw the instance of them getting backed into an outcome where sort of knew where that story was also going to end. i think there's a question in the budget context of whether we can get to that outcome on the front end, which would be

i think, better politically, but also most importantly it would be better economically. questioner: if the domestic caps are lifted, do you still have a problem with using -- kind of boosting the overseas contingencies operations funding to cover defense spending? brian: what i find interesting about the overseas contingency operation is that it's traditionally republicans who have had a problem with this and have, i think, rightly referred to the inappropriate use of it as a slush fund. i think that one of the things that's important to understand with respect to funding for defense, is that providing some certainty, forward certainty is vital to them being able to prepare to execute missions. so part of why when you hear

the chairman of the joint chiefs or secretary of defense dedescribe why it's not a viable solution is because it creates constant annual uncertainty around funding levels. so we don't think that that is an appropriate approach or that it solves the problem. and i frankly think that, as you've seen from the war as lindsey graham called it between republicans, there is a lot of discomfort on the republican side around using it as a mechanism as well. questioner: you used the phrase cadence of rulemaking. i wanted to ask but that in regard to the overtime rules. it's been a year since the president called for those. every time i check with the labor department, they push off the target date. some month into the future. why is it taking so long and in

the fourth quarter do you need to pick up the cadence a little bit? jeff: we're a few months away from getting that out the door and that will lead plenty of time to -- leave plenty of time to fully implement the rule. questioner: why is it taking so long? jeff: you need the appropriate analysis to set the level and once the proposed rule is ready, it will be announced and that will be within the next few months. questioner: [inaudible] the rulemaking on existing coal fire plants. can you describe what the practical implications might be from the administration's vantage point to his efforts to enlist the help of governors to do that? to tie things up legally? and can you also describe your political analysis of it, is it smart politics for republicans

to take a stand? brian: i think this is another example of the president leadinging, the president setting clear objectives and pushing the policy agenda and republicans being in a responsive defensive posture. the truth of this rule is that, as i mentioned before, this rule is grounded in providing states flexibility to craft their own plans. and the environmental protection agency is working in a bipartisan, pragmatic way at the state level to help states understand the options and the opportunities. and this rule is not even a final rule. this rule is in the proposed stage. and they are working through that process. and you're seeing, across the country, very constructive and

pragmatic efforts in states across the country. in fact, just yesterday the national governors association announced a convening of their authority, a convening of their tools to try to work with states and do workshops to help states understand how they can work within this rule, how they can comply with this rule. if you look at the states that are leadinging that effort, again, they are red states an blue states and part of this is because there is incredible economic opportunity that states understand in driving the clean energy economy in these states. i think that, you know, from -- you know, so what you have is you have a republican leader in mitch mcconnell who is going way outside the bounds of his

-- the position that he was elected to. and i think that we all would be better served if he and others spent less time trying to lecture states about what they should be doing, when they themselves are focused on looking at how they can operate in their own best interest and more time trying to actually get some constructive things done in congress. like for example we could confirm a highly qualified attorney general nominee who has been sitting out there for more than 130 days. we're going to keep working on this exactly as we have. and i think that that's going to be the path forward on this one. questioner: your assessment is for the republican party, it is smart politics or not? brian: i think that addressing

climate change and putting the united states on the forefront of a clean energy economy is good substance, first and foremost because it's taking on the -- one of the most important issues of our generation. and i think increasingly it is good politics as well. because, you know, states should be given the flexibility to decide how they want to craft plans to have cleaner air and cleaner water for their kids. and address the fact that, you know that climate change affects how exposed kids are to asthma and has other important affects. -- effects. i think as the president said last week, when he was doing an interview with vice, eventually the republican party is going to have to change their position on this issue because the public opinion is moving on it. the posture of climate denial

is one that is increasingly not acceptable because it is so at odds with the science. i think that most importantly this is a very important issue for our economy and for the health of our country and we're going to keep pushing forward because of that. >> we've got only about 2 1/2 minutes left. there are seven people waiting. not everyone's going to get a question because i want to keep my deal with jen and end on time. michael warren, last question. questioner: how do more restrictive rules on hydraulic fracturing help economic growth? brian: we believe that in order to have a durable industry in the future you need to strike an appropriate balance between protecting public health and safety.

and allowing for responsible production. i think if you look at the rules that we will -- that the department of interior will put out later today, they appropriately strike that balance. and they are focused on pragmatic but very important steps like disclosing the fluids that are being used in the fracking process. that is a step that is very important for from a transparency perspective, from a public safety perspective, but it also is important in terms of having a template that this industry can work from given the degree of public concern and localized concern about the potential health and safety impacts. the last thing i would say about this is that these are rules for fracking on public lands. about 11% of the fracking that

goes on in this country happens on public lands. this is the portion of this issue that we the federal government have an obligation to set rules of the road for. but ultimately this is an issue that is going to be decided in state cap tals -- capitals and locates, as well as with the industry. -- localities, as well as with the industry. we feel comfortable that what we put out today reflects an approach to our obligation, to balance those issues. but one of the things we're going it see going forward is a conversation that will play out across the country about where to strike that balance. >> i want to thank both of you for doing. this i want to apologize to my colleagues for not getting everyone in. hope you come back. thanks for doing it.

[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] >> the house and senate are out today. and next week both will take up their 2016 budget plans. live coverage of the house is here on c-span and the senate on c-span2. tonight is part of our road to the white house coverage, we'll head to daskenport, iowa, to hear from former maryland governor martin owe maly. he'll be at the scott county democratic party dinner at davenport. our coverage begins at 9:00 p.m. eastern. >> 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 c.s.s. 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-ironclads 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 fist and foremost to tell

the story of this particular ironclad and to show people that there were more than just one or two 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. >> defense secretary ashton carter and joint chiefs chair general martin dempsey testified wednesday before the house armed services committee. lawmakers questioned them about the defense department budget, isis, and relations with russia and iran.

>> ask unanimous consent that noncommittee members be allowed to participate in today's hearing after all committee members have had an opportunity to ask questions. mr. thornberry: and by way of explanation, i might say that one of our committee members has tentatively been appointed to another committee and his replacement has tentively been named mr. russell from oklahoma, but it has not been ratified by the republican conference yet. and so mr. russell is with us today, but, without objection, noncommittee members will be recognized at the appropriate time. let me welcome our distinguished witnesses to today's hearing. secretary carter, thank you for being with us. you have been in this room in a variety of capacities over the years. but this is the first hearing

since you were confirmed as secretary of defense roughly a month ago and we are very glad to have you with us. general dempsey, thank you for being here. being here, and the fact that you would take time to come out here and meet with us and discuss some of the challenges that we face was asked really hope all and meant a lot and we are very grateful for that and for being here today and for your many years of service. as you all know, this committee has him things a little differently this year, rather than starting out talking about the president budget we have been looking at the national security challenges that we face around the world, and that has put us in a better place to be able to look