cannot think about the numbers that sit on a piece of paper. we need to think about the human meaning behind the numbers. we need to think about the child who will go hungry, the student who can't afford college and the senior who won't be able to pay their medical bills. we need to invest in economic security for everyone. i urge my colleagues to oppose this budget and instead pass a budget that lifts people out of poverty, invests in hard-working left behind by the economy and provides for shared prosperity. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: i yield three minutes to the senior member of the budget committee, the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: mr. speaker back on january 20, 2009 the day president obama took office, the federal debt and as we stand

here today, that's an increase of over 70%. debt now represents 101% of the g.d.p. let's put this in context, americans owe more money than the value of all the goods and services that are produced right here in the united states in one year. that level of debt quite honestly is unsustainable. is nt just me saying that. c.b.o. says our high and rising debt would have serious negative consequences on the economy and the federal budget. admiral mike mullen said, the single biggest threat to our national security is the debt. america is faced with two paths. one to continue down the path of blissful neglect or on the other

path to seek an honest solution to it. instead of solving our debt problems, president obama has committed to exacerbating them. the president's budget would add $8.5 trillion to our already staggering debt. but despite new taxes in addition the obama's budget never ever balances. it is a vision that confines our children and grandchildren to heavy debt and tax burdens. the republican budget is a stark alternative. instead of ever increasing debt and ever higher taxes, republicans will balance the budget in less than 10 years without raising more taxes on you. instead of pretending that medicare is sound, republicans will strengthen the program by making much needed structural improvements to it. instead of dictating that

washington knows all the answers, republicans will promote by innovation and also by flexibility for medicaid, for education and other programs by restoring local control. mr. speaker, i urge today all members of this body to stand up to support the budget and to support the american taxpayers. to stand up for strengthening our social safety nets and to stand up for our children and grandchildren who did not deserve to be handed a bill for irresponsible spending today. i urge a yes vote. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you l speaker. i don't think that huge disinvestment in education starting with early education going through k through 12 helps our kids and their future. i don't think that the efforts that strip away at a lot of the

job training programs help hard-working americans. the president's budget priority is to accelerate economic growth and have more broadly shared prosperity. i would remind my colleagues, the day the president was sworn into office, we were losing 800,000 jobs every month in this country. the bottom was falling out. now we've seen over the last 60 months, 12 million jobs created. we have a long way to go, but we are certainly on the right track. and the president's budget provides for additional economic growth in a fiscally responsible way. the president's budget reduces the debt-to-g.d.p. ratio. the president's budget does not do is disinvest in our kids' education. it does not increase the costs

to seniors or prescription drugs and co-pays for preventive health care and it doesn't get away from a lot of the important tax credits or relief for middle-class americans and those working to join the middle class. no, it does not do that. i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california who knows a lot about the importance of economic growth especially as it relates to small businesses, ms. hahn. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. hahn: i thank my colleague, chris van hollen, for the opportunity to speak today. i think a budget is a reflection of our priorities. the choices we make about how to invest and spend have an impact on our american families. we must make it easier for hard-working americans to own a home, to send their kids to college and have a secure and enjoyable retirement.

that's why it's so important that we invest in our nation's ports, which create good-paying american jobs and sustain american businesses. providing our ports and waterways with the funding and support they need is a high priority for me and one that's shared by many of my colleagues especially the almost 100 members of the bipartisan congressional ports caucus. we know that america must invest more in our ports to remain globally competitive and prepare for the expansion of the panama canal which will impact international trade and shipping routes. the budget we are considering today, however, does just the opposite. cutting funding for programs that support american commerce is both shortsided and harmful to the competitiveness of american businesses. i applaud the congressional progressive caucus budget because it meets the targets we

have set for the harbor maintenance funding, using more of the revenue collected at our ports for its intended purpose for improving ports and navigation channels. let me emphasize that the harbor maintenance trust fund is self-funded. this is not new spending or new fees. shippers already pay this tax to fund improvements that congress is refusing to authorize. the trust fund now has a surplus of $9 billion in fees that america's ports have collected. but unless we act, these funds will not be used as intended to improve our ports. . . the chair: the gentlelady is yielded 30 seconds. ms. hahn: i call on my colleagues to vote on a budget that return this is tax to the ports where it's collected.

i want to thank the bipartisan group of members who signed the letter congressman boustany and i sent to the appropriations committee last week to call for funding to be restored to the wrrda level. mr. price: i thank the gentlelady for her comments. the budget is about priorities. and the priorities we have in our budget, we believe addressed in a very response -- address in a very responsible way the challenges we face in this nation. what's the president's priority? well if you look at where his budget would take us, it's debt. this again is the chart that demonstrates the debt that this nation has held since 1940. that's the dark area here. you see the debt that's increased since this president came into office at virtually the highest level it's been since world war ii. where does his path go? where does the democrat's path go in their budget? higher than ever before.

ever before. that's their plan, apparently. that's what their budget outlines. that's what the president's budget outlines. what does that mean? what that mean is that the interest on the debt, paying the debt service, everyone knows what interest means. they pay it on those in favor say aye credit cards, pay it on their home mortgage, pay it when they buy a car. interest. that's money you pay just to be able to borrow the money that you're using for whatever it is. in this instance the interest on the debt when we get to numbers not too far away, consumes the entire federal budget. entire federal budget. that's what we're talking about. and in a very short period of time within the budget window this 10-year period of time, interest on the debt rises to over $1 trillion a year. more than the amount spent on defense, more than the amount spent on medicare more than the amount spent on medicaid, on education. all the priorities that the

american people have. it's going to be spent on interest, on the debt. that's why we believe it's so -- that is a moral question. are we going to leave our kids this kind of debt? are we going to destin them to a life that has no opportunity? have them be servants to the federal government just to work so they can send their tax money to washington to pay the interest on the debt? mr. chairman, you know that's not the america we want to leave our kids and our grandkids. i don't believe it's the america our friends on the other side of the aisle want to leave our kids and grandkids. but sadly that's what their budget does. that's what the president's budget does. that's why we're so excited about a balanced budget for a stronger america a budget that puts us on a path to plans within a less than 10-year period of time that saves $5.5 trillion. our friends on the other side say, oh, no, it really doesn't get to balance. even if you conceded that, and i don't, but even if you did, our

goal is to get to balance. theirs never is. it's more and more and more borrowing. more debt, more taxes, more spending. that's not what the american people want. what we need to do is to come together and address these challenges that we have in a positive way, a real way, an honest way. get real results for the work we do here. we're proud of the work that this budget does lays out a palt, a positive path of real solutions, saving and strengthening and securing medicare and medicaid. tax reform that actually works, gets this economy rolling again so we can grow the economy in this country. put people back to work. this is the positive things this budget does. the safety net programs are vital. they're important. we protect those programs. we actually make them work better for the individuals that are receiving those moneys. and we encourage them in a moral way to better their lives and get back on their feet.

assist them in getting back to work. that's positive solutions, mr. chairman. positive solutions. balanced budget for a stronger america. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. as i said at the beginning of this debate, the one thing that the republican budget unfortunately will do immediately is make life harder for hardworking americans. how does it do it? as i indicated, actually increases the tax burden on working americans, middle income americans people working their way to the middle. while providing another tax rate cut for folks at the very top. so people who are working harder than ever and feel that they're just on a treadmill, it doesn't help them at all. in fact, they're going to move

farther behind in addition to the fact they're going to pile more costs onto students by increasing the cost of student loans. it's right there in their budget. they're going to start charging you interest while you're in college. they're going to start charging seniors with high prescription drug costs even more because they're going to reopen what's called the prescription drug doughnut hole. i don't know how that's good for seniors in america system of hard on seniors, hard on students, hard on working families. the democratic budget, like the president's budget meets those priorities. for example working families are facing huge child care costs. so we propose a significant expansion of the child and dependent care tax credit. make it a little easier for those families who are working but want to make sure their kids have quality childcare, make it easier for them by providing them a significant tax credit

for that cost. for couples who are working, we scale back the marriage penalty, right, so it's the second worker doesn't begin work at the same higher tax rate as the first worker in the household. that's the kind of important relief we provide to middle class families and those working to join the middle class. republican budget actually gets rid of some of the important provisions that are already there to help those families. and our budget does this in a fiscally responsible way, as we've seen. the republican budget doesn't balance, not by a long shot. i'm going to quote i mentioned in my opening remarks, i'm going to quote the chairman of the senate budget committee, mr. enzi, who said, quote, one of the problems i've had with budgets that i have looked at is they use a lot of gimmicks. now, when there was anticipation

that obamacare would go away and all that money would still be there that's not realistic. i'd like to see us get to real accounting with the budget. that's what senator enzi said. yet this budget assumes the revenue from the affordable care act at the same time it says we're repealing the affordable care act. but the democrats' budget and the president's budget put us on a fiscally re-- fiscally responsible path, reducing the debt ratio, and provides economic growth. not a budget that provides another round of tax cuts for folks at the top with the hope it will trickle down and lift everybody up. somebody who knows a lot about these areas is someone who is both meab of the budget committee and a member of the ways and means committee. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes.

mr. mcdermott: thank you, mr. speaker. a budget is a statement of values and priorities. you've heard people standing out here talking about what their priorities are we don't want to load up our kids with debt. we don't want to do all this kind of stuff. but the budget that is put forward by my republican colleagues is shortsighted -- is a shortsighted statement that has no view of the future. it gambles away the future of the next generation in order to supply business and the ultra wealthy with near-term gains. what's made this country great is the strategic federal investments in health care, roads education bridges research the type of investment that build the middle class and america. now the republicans say their budget plan balances the budget in nine years. but they don't bush what they

don't tell you is that they do this at the expense of medicare medicaid, snap, pell grants, everything in the social budget. what you learn from this budget is that when they say they're balancing the budget, they mean we are cutting domestic programs. we're cutting anything that helps hardworking families in this country. it also fails to cut one single dime from the military. not one single time. they actually want to give the military more than they asked for. now despite raising taxes, you would think -- not raising taxes, you'd think they could at least cut a time from the defense department. by now, people's eyes are kind of glazed over at home thinking about this, but let me talk to one group of people. anybody who has a student with student debt. it is the largest debt load we

have in this country. it is -- we've made our kids indentured servants of banks and of the federal government. this budget contains $127 billion over the next 10 years that we've extracted from students in interest on their loans to give cuts in taxes to the wealthy. to lower the rates, to make it better for the rich. they have a loan a student loan you know anything about loans, those loans can't be renegotiated. you can renegotiate on your house or you can renegotiate on anything else but not a student loan. so when a student at his mother and -- and his mother and father, or her mother and father, sign up far loan and put their house in the teal and put their future and their 401k and everything behind that kid's education, they are stuck with

that loan rate. you've got people in this country who are paying 6%, 8% 9% as high as 13% on loans. and they can't renegotiate them. is that fair? is that the future you want? to stick the kids in this country with those kinds of loans? in my view, this budget has no humanity and no view of the future for our kids. i urge you to vote no. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. moolenaar. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. moolenaar: thank you mr. speaker. the federal government has a spending problem. last week, the government accountability office released a report estimating that the

government made $124 billion in improper payments during 2014. spending like this is one of the reasons the national debt has skyrocketed to $18 trillion today. divide among 320 million americans, a child born today inherits $56,000 -- $56,250 in tet or $225,000 for -- in debt or $225,000 for a family of four. americans work too hard to have the government waste their tax dollars. it's time to start our country on a new course. this republican budget puts america on a more sustainable and responsible fiscal path. in my district there are over 130,000 medicare eligible residents and over 169,000 social security recipients. this budget keeps the promises that have been made to our seniors and those near retirement age by stabilizing the social security trust fund.

it also grants flexibility to state ops medicaid, allowing them to craft their own -- states on medicaid, allowing them to draft their done programs to serve the needs of their state and local communities. this budget also enhance ours national security. former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff admiral michael mullen, said our debt is the single biggest threat to our national security. over 20% of it is held by foreign governments. by balancing within 10 years this budget ends deficits and slows the amount that will have to be paid to other countries. with less spending needed for debt payments, more future funding can go to our national security. this is a budget for solving problems and creating a better future this budget addressing our country's fiscal problems in a responsible way, without raising taxes, and puts our nation on a broither path for our children and -- on a brighter path for our children and grandchildren. i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. the the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: i do want to say the impact on seniors. we talked about the fact that the republican budget will immediately increase the costs to seniors and increase co-pays for preventive services. let me say what it will do to seniors who are in nursing homes and other settings that rely on medicaid and the previous gentleman just mentioned the number of people in his district on medicaid. let me just say seniors and people with disbilities account for 85% of medicaid spending. 65% of that spending is to the aged and the disabled. 20% to kids. now, here's what the

congressional budget office, the nonpartisan folks, said about the medicaid cuts of this magnitude in the republican budget and the impact that they would have on states. here's what they say. even with significant efficiency gains, even if you imagine that the states are going to somehow come up with incredible efficiencies, even with that, the magnitude of the reduction in spending relative to such spending in other scenarios mean states would have to increase their spending on these programs, make considerable cutbacks in them or both. in other words, passing the buck down to the states. either they raise taxes to make sure that folks in senior homes seniors in nursing homes don't take a hit or seniors in nursing homes take a hit through fewer benefits. you can't have it both ways when you are cutting $900 billion out

of the program that helps seniors and the disabled. ok, here states, you do it on your own and we are going to give you $900 billion less. any nonpartisan person looking at this would arrive at the conclusion that c.b.o. concluded that states are going to have to increase their taxes to maintain those services or those people are going to get less services. and that's why this republican budget is hard on seniors just like it's hard on students and why it's hard on working families around the country. as i said, it's great if you are already at the top. if you are a millionaire you will get green lighted by the romney-ryan plan. that's just not right. i reserve the balance of my

time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. price: we heard our friends on the other side talk about gimmicks, let's talk about the president's budget and defense. he comes out and pounds his chest and says i'm a big defense hawk and going to give our defense folks more money, protect us from the threats today. and the president says i believe in our budget we'll put $566 billion in our budget in the base defense budget. the president knows and the friends on the other side of the aisle knows, this is fiction. the president doesn't lay any path to deal with the sequester cap, to deal with the law of the land that that says that number is going to be $523 billion unless the law is changed, which is why we positively honestly,

sincerely bring about appropriate increases for our men and women who are in harm's way defending our liberty and freedom. if this house actually stuck with the president's number and the president lays out no path to be able to change the law that number would snap right back down to $523 billion as soon as the next fiscal year begins. we believe it's appropriate to lay out that path, lay out the path to be able to solve the challenge and we do that in our budget. you talk about gimmicks, the president's budget is full of gimmicks and what it isn't full of is responsibility. increasing the debt beyond where the eye can see. we have a positive budget. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to my colleague from the

great state of georgia, mr. woodal, to talk about the -- woodall, to talk about the responsible things this budget can do. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. woodall: mr. chairman i thank my chairman for yielding me the time. it has been a great privilege to work with tom price here on the budget committee. i was bringing the rule to the floor but i was trying to defend the rule that was going to allow all the ideas now we get to talk about which ideas are the good ideas. i heard my friend from maryland speak with passion and conviction on medicaid, and i share his passion and i know his conviction to be true. but if we do nothing, interest payments alone are going to be larger than the entire medicaid budget. we have six different budgets that we can consider down here on the house floor, three of them balance three of them never ever do -- i was listening

to what the chairman said earlier, i do not concede any of the discussion from the other side about whether or not this budget balances or not. but the point is at least we are trying. even if you're right that the numbers don't work out, even if the economic circumstances change we have as a goal ending this wasted taxpayer resource, which is interest to our creditors. it dwarfs everything. everything. it's larger than the defense budget. it's larger than the medicaid budget. it's five times larger than the education budget. five times larger than the transportation budget. whatever it is you care about, whatever investments in america you want to make by failing to commit yourself to a balanced budget today, you are trading away those opportunities. every dollar borrowed today is a tax increase on children and grandchildren or a benefit cut

for children and grandchildren. i could not be prouder. when faced with a deteriorating economic situation, where every year the c.b.o. says we are con training growth. the hardest year since i have been here to balance the budget. and our chairman said if it's a big challenge i want it in my committee and he's done it. it's a partnership in that committee and i have great respect for the ranking member and his leadership in that committee as well. we are trading all away. balance this budget. let's do it together. let's do it responsibly, but let it not be a question of whether or not we do it. let it be a question of when we do it. and we will have that debate together. i thank my chairman and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker.

just a couple of points. again -- and we keep hearing that the republican budget balances. it does not balance. it's interesting that instead of having the priority right now the accelerated economic growth, with rising paychecks and rising wages for americans our republican colleagues have made the absolute priority a balance which their own budget doesn't achieve. in fact, the republican budget that was brought to the floor just three years ago didn't balance until something like 2047 20747. and yet now instead of having the priority growing the economy in a way that raises wages for all families, they've got a priority which their own budget doesn't meet. now, american families who are

focusing in on their pocketbooks know from time to time they do borrow to invest in their future. they borrow to buy a home sometimes borrow for education because they know it's a good investment. actually, interest rates are very low right now. we should be investing in our national infrastructure so we don't become a pothole nation in the days ahead. you know, the chairman of the committee mentioned again the transportation trust fund a little bit earlier today. the reality is that the president's proposal puts forward in the budget a six-year transportation plan that avoids the shortfall and actually helps to boost our national infrastructure, investment in roads bridges and modernizing our national infrastructure so that we can remain at the

cutting edge and don't fall behind. the republican budget has no plan more than these 10 months and in this budget, nothing real at all. now, i do want to say one word about what the chairman said about the president's defense spending and the way the president did it. the president did not put it in the slush fund. he put our base defense needs where it has always been, in the defense budget for the defense department. in fact, i was surprised to hear the chairman say that because the republican study group budget, i believe the republican study group budget represents the majority of republicans, i'm not sure, they did it the same way the president did it. they put the funds that the joint chiefs of staff say they

need for our base defense needs they put it in their budget. they do exactly what the chairman said the president was doing in some indirect way. look i'm pretty surprised that our colleagues keep coming back to this point because it is a total violation of what they themselves said and wrote down on paper a year ago that you shouldn't be funding our defense needs as part of the ongoing defense budget but putting them in the slush fund for the oversees contingency account when the military says they don't need that money for that purpose. so i'm pleased the president did this in a straightforward manner, in a manner that the joint chiefs of staff and the military leaders said and turns out the same way that the republican study group did but not how the majority wants to do

business anymore. i am pleased to yield three minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the financial services committee, who understands the impact that the republican budget decisions are going to have on every day americans, including in their pocketbooks, ms. waters of california. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. waters: thank you, mr. van hollen for your leadership. as ranking member of the financial services committee, i would like to express my serious concerns with how this budget resolution undermines our financial stability, protection for american consumers and the entire housing market. it is now seven years since our country's financial system was rocked by wall street, greed and predatory lending. all of our constituents bore

witness to an economy where family members lost their jobs friends were made homeless and everyone's savings were depleted in all, trillions of dollars of wealth vanished in a span of a few months. and when some of the money returned it was not shared equally. democrats in congress worked to prevent a repeat of this disaster by among other things, putting in place, the tools necessary to prevent bailouts of mega banks and creating an independent regulator solely tasked with defending consumers from financial harm. rehashing failed policies, the republican budget resolution would repeal these tools and bind the hands of the consumer financial protection burro. the republicans would return us to a system where a company like

a.i.g. would once again threaten the entire financial system. the republicans would return us to a system where lenders can make predatory mortgages to some of the most disadvantaged communities including communities of color. this is not all. this budget resolution goes even further, it would privatize fannie mae and a terrible piece of legislation rejected by housing advocates, mortgage banks, academics and i might add a majority of members in the house. why did we all reject it? we fear it would be the end of safe mortgages like the 30-year fixed rate mortgage. we fear it would favor only the big mega banks hurting community banks. we fear it would widen the wealth gap in this country. this budget resolution is built upon a flawed foundation that harms some of our most vulnerable communities. i urge that the members of this

house oppose the republican budget resolution. i thank you so much, mr. van hollen, and i yield back. . . mr. stutzman: i rise in strong support of the balanced budget for a stronger america. mr. chairman as we have seen the tax and spend policies of this president has made our economy very sluggish. a very slow recovery. our wages are stagnant. our national debt has increased to more than $18 trillion. this is 70% -- this is a 70%

increase since president obama took office. if the president had his way, we'd actually add another $8.5 trillion of debt over the next 10 years. mr. chairman, if we look at this chart here, it shows the interest versus other spending. in this line right here, net interest is the one that we should all be very concerned about. because this is something that we have to pay for. this is not a line item that we can all of a sudden say, no, we're not going to pay as much on net interest as we're going to maybe on defense or education or transportation. this is something that we as an american people have to pay because of the interest on our debt. this only gets worse if we don't do something sooner. so today in contrast to the president's budget that increases taxes and increases spending in his budget, it never, ever balances. we as republicans are putting forward a responsible budget, a balanced budget, one that i

believe is critically important for the future of our country and for the future of our economy. our budget balances in 10 years, so mr. chairman, if you look at this chart, it doesn't take an economist to see which plan will ultimately lead to debt and decline and which will lead us to growth and prosperity. the house republican budget begins making payments on our national debt in year 2024. the president's budget just digs us deeper and deeper into the hole. i can tell you, mr. chairman, i have two sons, payton and preston, 13 and 9 years old. we cannot continue to hand them the bill and expect them and future generations to pay for the spending of washington that's out of control and that's why we have to get to a balanced budget sooner rather than later. on top of balancing the budget, this plan calls for a fair and simpler tax code. it ends obamacare, broken promises, and stredgens our entitlement programs for --

strengthness our entitlement programs for current seniors and future beneficiaries. in light of current threats, this budget also increases defense spending, which is a priority for us, so that our military, our men and women in uniform can defebled this country at a very -- defend this country at a very dangerous time. this plan is an opportunity for us to stand together and show the american people that we are committed to a balanced budget for a stronger america, start paying our debt down to make sure that future generations don't have to pay for those debts. and that we can work together on commonsense reforms. thank you, mr. chairman, for your work on this particular budget and i'm proudly standing here today in support of that hard work and ask my colleagues to support it as well. with that, mr. chairman, i'll yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you mr. speaker. not only does the republican budget not balance but it doesn't eliminate one special interest tax break for the purpose of reducing the deficit. not one.

these are tax breaks that powerful interests have put into the tax code over many years. apparently it's ok to deeply cut our investment in our kids' education apparently it's ok to increase the cost of prescription drugs to seniors on medicare. but for some reason we're not going to get rid of one corporate tax break for the purpose of reducing the deficit. those are not americans' priorities. someone who understands the importance of moving america forward is my colleague and friend from the state of maryland and a member of the transportation, infrastructure committee, ms. edwards. i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from maryland. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. edwards: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague from maryland and my friend from maryland in his leadership on the budget committee and the democrats on the budget

committee. because, you know, mr. speaker, congress is really tasked with, at this time of year, developing a budget that lays out our nation's priorities in spending. but those priorities really should reflect our values. as hard as it is to imagine, and it is hard, this price budget resolution is actually worse than the previous ryan budgets for hardworking american families. once again we see how little republicans value protecting critical priorities that actually help americans live a healthy life and enjoy a secure retirement. in fact, the republican budget would force working families to pay more in taxes. it would make college education less affordable. it would force seniors to pay more for their health care and prescription drugs. it would end the medicare guarantee by turning it into a voucher program. and, lastly, mr. speaker, it would block grant both medicaid and supplemental nutrition assistance programs. the fact is that this budget would decimate our nation's

already crumbling infrastructure by reducing funding by 19% over the next decade. if you would imagine that, that means that every road that needs to be repaired, the bridges that are falling apart, the mass transit that needs investing in, and this budget would actually cut our spending by 19% over the next decade. and it would require an additional $318 billion from federal and postal employees and their retirees. hardworking people who have given all that they can to deficit reduction. in fact, that's a constituency that's already contributed $159 billion in deficit reduction. mr. speaker republican priorities are making tax cuts for the wealthy permanent and they're shrinking the size of government, regardless of the damage, great daniel that it would cause -- damage, that it would cause. house democrats i believe, are investing in hardworking americans. we've said, it's important for us to improve access to high-quality education and

child care. it's important to end the draconian across the board sequester cuts. may i have an additional 30 seconds? mr. van hollen: i yield the gentlelady another 30 seconds. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. ms. edwards: thank you. the democratics' budget -- democrats' budget really would create jobs in america through rebuilding our infrastructure and supporting jobs by making sure our nation's manufacturers get to invest in the research and development that they need. in short mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote down this draconian republican budget and support each of the democratic alternatives. i know i'll be voting for them. because each of them even though they're different, would be way better than the draconian budget that's been proposed by republicans. and i thank my colleague from maryland for his leadership. we need to invest in america's future, including our hardworking men and women. with that i yield. the chair: the gentleman from

georgia. mr. price: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to yield three minutes to a member of the budget committee the gentleman from south carolina, mr. sanford. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. sanford: i thank the chairman. i heard the budget described as draconian. i would say that doing nothing ultimately is draconian. with the number -- what the numbers show is that if we do nothing, roughly in 10 years we'll be spending about $800 billion a year in interest alone. more than we spend in all of our nation's defense. i could give any number of different indicators that say, if we do nothing, we're headed for a train wreck that will have real impact to the very constituencies that my democratic colleagues were just alluding to. it's not a perfect budget. we're having an intense debate, whether it's on the democratic side or frankly even within the republican family. i just had a conversation with my colleague, mike turner from ohio, who's really passionate about the need to spend more on defense. we're still working out those wrinkles. but what i do know in fairness to the chairman, and what he's

tried to do in managing the different folks that are affected by this budget, is to say, you know, if you're in a hole, you quit digging. fundamentally, if you look at our nation's budget trajectory, we're in a hole that's going to get far worse if we don't do what the chairman and the committee have suggested. i'd say, one, we're spending too much. and yet the president's proposal is to go from spending roughly around 20% of g.d.p. up to 22% of g.d.p. from a historic average of around 18%. we're taxing too much. we're going to go from spending in the president's proposal around 18% to around 20%. a little bit over that. that doesn't sound like much, but you take two points of a g.d.p. in 2025 and you're looking at more than $500 billion. i mean, more than again, roughly what we spend in defense of our entire nation on a yearly basis. and we have a budget trajectory wherein we're handing too much debt to the next generation and

we're headed for, again, this unsustainable train wreck. think about it this way. you take our country -- it took our country 200 years to accumulate $5 trillion in debt. over the bush administration in fairness to my democratic colleagues, it went from $5 trillion to $10 trillion in the course of about eight years. and then under the obama administration, it's gone from $10 trillion to roughly $20 trillion. i mean, the growth is becoming gee metric and the question is -- geometric, and the question is, what are we going to do about it? what we can do is what the president has proposed, which ising nothing. adding $2 trillion in new -- which is nothing. adding $2 trillion in new taxes and going from a $500 billion deficits to $1.1 trillion deficits. i think that, you know, what we're talking about here is ultimately made important by what admiral mike mullin had to say on the subject. he said what's the biggest threat to the american civilization? his response was the american debt and deficit. we're reaching this tipping

point. if you look at the numbers by 2025, we'll only have enough money for interest and entitlements and nothing else, without raising taxes substantially or cutting those benefits that my colleagues have just been talking about. i'll leave with you one point. and i think it's this. sir alex francis tyler studied history for the whole of his life. he got to the end of his life and the quote that was attributed to him at life's end was -- mr. price: 30 more seconds to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sanford: that a democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government, it can only exist until the voters realize they can vote for themselves. it's generally followed by dictatorship. the average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. great courage to liberty, liberty to abundance abundance to selfishness, and then dependency back into bondage. ultimately what i think that this budget is about is avoiding that very bondage that

that historian and many others have talked about over the years. the chair: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you mr. speaker. i now yield five minutes to someone who understands the importance of a growing economy, a growing economy with shared prosperity and a growing economy with fiscal responsibility, i'm very pleased to yield five minutes to the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, my friend, mr. hoyer. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for five minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the chair: without objection. mr. hoyer: i thank my friend, mr. van hollen for yielding. i thank him for the extraordinary job that he's done as ranking member of the budget committee. my friend from south carolina has left the floor. i regret that. he was the governor of a state. this budget would not have been tenable during his administration or frankly the

administration of my own governor who happens to be a republican. we've had democrats in the past. the gentleman ended with a number of cautions about the path of fiscal irresponsibility and what it would lead to. i agree with them on that. but i will tell him, it is indeed unfortunate that once again we have a budget that does not put us on a path of fiscal sustainability. we have a budget that is not real. we have a budget that pretends. that's what "u.s.a. today" said today. mr. speaker, i rise in opposition therefore to the budget resolution offered by the chairman of the budget committee. mr. price. for whom i have great respect. i say budget resolutions, plural. because there are two of them. one was reported by the committee that channels $36

billion in overseas account. disguising it as emergency war funding as a way of getting around the defense sequester caps. while offering token language providing about $20 billion of that increased to be offset at a later date. the other budget was unveiled by republicans yesterday. it includes an additional $2 billion on top of that $36 billion in overseas contingency operations and removes any mention of paying for this effective mitigation of the defense sequester. the gentleman from south carolina referred tody vices like that -- it -- to devices like that. this came about because republicans didn't have the votes for their own proposal. yet again. so they're offering their members two options. blow through the defense

sequester ceilings by $36 billion or blow through it by $38 billion. . apparently going to mask hawkish perspective on defense or on the deficit by a vote for either a or for a. while they blow through the cap on the defense side, they continue the cap on the domestic side before cutting dramatically below that level in future years gutting priority investments in education job training, innovation, research and other pirates -- priorities of this nation if it is to remain competitive in world markets, if it is to remain a growing, thriving nation. this budget is a severe

disinvestment in america's future. and our long-term economic competitiveness. this approach is not a blueprint for growth and opportunity for america's businesses and workers. it is rather, sadly a recipe for economic and fiscal disaster in the years to come. mr. speaker if we fail to invest in the next generation or to continue the war on poverty in this country, we are doing a grave disservice to our children and our grandchildren. by not giving them the tools they need to secure the jobs and opportunities that open doors to the middle class. like the ryan budgets, which were never implemented by the majority party at any point in time from this house, forget about blaming senator rid.

they were not implemented in this house. hiding the specifics behind $1 trillion in cuts in order to appear to balance in a stated goal of nine years. so no one, no one knows exactly what programs republicans would cut or by how much. that is not being honest with the american people. would turn medicare into a voucher program and access of affordable health care from millions of americans by repealing the affordable care act. make no mistake, the republican budget alternatives are political documents -- may i have one additional minute? mr. van hollen: yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, make no

mistake, these budget alternatives are political documents that are unworkable and not serious when it comes to governing. like previous republican budgets that rely on sequestration, i have no doubt that the majority will not be able to enact appropriation bills that adhere to whichever version that you will pass. you have not done so in the past and you will not do so this year. they will continue to be as republican chairman of the appropriations committee, mr. rogers, said, unrealistic and ill conceived. budget committee democrats the congressional progressive caucus and the congressional black caucus have all put forward alternatives that are far better than these dueling republican budget resolutions. democrats prioritize replacing the sequester, which mr. rogers

believes should be done on both the defense and domestic side, so we can make investments in america's future that are fiscally sustainable. i urge my colleagues to reject the two republican budget alternatives and their strategy of selective sequester. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: he yield three minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. roth must. -- roth moss. mr. rothfus: with all the difficulties, chairman price and the committee have managed to find savings of $5.5 trillion and balance the budget in 10 years all without any new taxes.

this budget resolution stands in stark contrast to what the president sent us. the president's irresponsible proposal makes no attempt to balance the budget, leaving future generations with even more debt. his plan proposes returning to returning to trillion dollar deficits and further eroding our standing in the world. for decades, americans have been told spending things that is in good fiscal policy. president obama believes that maxing out the federal credit card and using more of the taxpayers' dollars to pay interest on the debt is good for our economy. well it's over. families aren't buying it. the charge now and pay later is no longer affordable. families understand that debt

knows when the basement floods. what is true for american families is true for the federal government. purchases we can't afford need to be put on hold until we can afford it. tough choices must be made. every day families make responsible financial decisions to sign up the kids for little league or buy the bigger van. the simple principle must apply in our government. this budget, mr. chairman, acknowledges that addressing our debt is a national priority. it puts forth parameters that will force the government to make reforms and live within its means so we can start to address a debt that now exceeds $18 trillion. this budget eliminates all of the obamacare taxes and p mandates that are costing businesses tens of thousands of dollars and driving up health care costs for the american consumer. importantly, mr. chairman, this resolution sets the stage for us

to pass real health care reform that will address costs and coverage and help american families in their health care choices with more freedom more choice and less bureaucracy. this budget respects the rights of conscience for our nation's doctors and people of faith. this budget will result in a leaner and more efficient government that is more transparent and accountable to the american people sm the budget committee's resolution makes the hard choices needed to move the country forward to make increases in our defense budget needed to address the threats in our world and set us on a path to a balanced budget. i thank chairman price and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. the republican budget makes bad

choices. it doesn't cut one single special interest tax break in the code, while it makes deep cuts to our kids' early education. that is a bad choice, not a tough choice. i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia, distinguished member of the oversight and government reform committee, my friend mr. con ellie. mr. connolly: i thank mr. van hollen. thank you soich for your leadership. mr. chairman, this year's republican budget resolution is titled a balanced budget for a stronger america. but by every measure the draconian cuts proposed in this budget would severely weaken america's innovative advantage and competitiveness. it might as be called dis

investments in america. research, once a bedrock of federal priority that spurred new discoveries that are now vital in our daily lives and the economy. it is critical in my district where the technology community is driving innovation. but this republican budget would slash r&d funding by 15% to its lowest level since 2002. that is a retreat from america's role as the global innovation leader and essentially cedes the playing field to our international competition. the republican budget would disinvest in our classrooms. to achieve their ruse of balancing the budget they would cut nondefense spending 24% below the sequester level. for k through 12 education, that translates into $89 billion over

the next decade and would surely leave every child behind and put higher education further out of reach for low and middle class families. america did not come to its role as the world's leading economy by quashing innovation from leaders. our republican leaders are showing they know the cost of everything and the value of very little. i hear my colleagues lament we should run government like a business. if that's the case, perhaps we should start listening to the business community which is to invest more and not less in r&d, education and infrastructure for the future work force of america and the building blocks of a competitive economy. these are investments that yield tremendous returns for our families, for our children, for our future and the republican budget would take down those

pillars of american exceptionalism. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. price: i thank the gentleman for building up jobs in america. i ask unanimous consent that a letter of support of our budget from the chamber of commerce be included in the record. the chair: it will be covered under general leave. price prays a letter from national federation of independent business in support of our budget. i'm now pleased to yield three minutes to a senior member of the republican conference from the state of virginia, commonwealth of virginia, mr. forbes. mr. forbes: i thank chairman price for doing such a tremendous job and yet with the great job he has done it is confusing to people listening to this debate at home, throughout

the day we will argue. but when all the voices have silenced and everyone sits back down in their chairs, we know it will come down to two choices, those two choices is price one or price two. and mr. chairman, we also all know that the difference between those two bills is going to be how much we're willing to spend for the national defense of this country, to defend the grittest nation the world has ever known. and in addition, one of the things that will be clear is not that we will be spending what we need to defend the country, but will be spending the amount we have to spend to keep from putting our national defense in a crisis situation and a devastating situation to the men and women who serve this country around the globe. just two points i would like to leave members with as they cast their votes and the first one is this, the difference in the amount of money we will be

spending in national defense if the budget were a dollar, would be equal to half of this penny if i could cut it in two. half of this penny. yet as small as it may seem, it makes the difference between a crisis in national defense and devastating situation to our men and women in uniform. last thing i would like to everyone with when they cast their votes is this, it will not be about the men and women who make speeches in here but about men and women who wear uniforms because they will fight regardless of what we do. the question is whether we will leave them in a crisis situation and a devastating situation and that's why i hope this body will vote no to price one and yes to price two and if price two passes, vote for final passage of this budget, which is a well-done document by the chairman. and with that, i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i thank you, mr. speaker. and just for all members listening the last gentleman was talking about the differences between the two versions of the republican budget. i want to point out that the president of the united states funds our defense budget in the straightforward way and in the way that the joint chiefs of staff have asked for, funding the base budget as it should be and funding the o.c.o. budget as it should be. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia, somebody who understands that growing our economy depends on our kids getting good education, the ranking member of education and work force, my friend, mr. scott. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. . scott scott -- mr. scott: thank you. i rise to commend the gentleman from maryland for his strong opposition. mr. chairman, this budget is not a serious plan.

it contains trillions of dollars in tax cuts, but it doesn't show a dime worth of tax increases when they say it's going to be revenue-neutral. it includes trillions of dollars in unswessified cuts -- unspecified cuts that will not be made. are we really going to repeal medicare as we know it? if you actually believe that the republican majority will carry out this plan, it would actually devastate our economy by balancing the budget on the backs of students workers, seniors the disabled and vulnerable communities across the nation. the republican budget assumes that sequestration cuts will be enacted. and then adds an additional $759 billion in nondefense discretionary spending cuts. the budget -- that's part of the budget that invests in education, work force training, scientific research, transportation and infrastructure. with those cuts, the budget would be funded at the -- at

40% below the lowest level in the last 50 years as a percentage of g.d.p. those cuts will not be made. but if they are, that would be devastatinging. as the ranking member of the committee on education and the work force, i'm particularly concerned about the cuts in education. education fundinging would be cut by -- funding would be cut by $103 billion over 10 years. that's a 22% cut in federal aid to teachers principals, school districts colonels and universities -- colleges and universities. that would include significant cuts in file the one funding, resources that go to areas of high poverty school districts. it would cut individuals with disabilities' education act, which supports education services and resources for students with disabilities. and significant cuts to head start. college students are having trouble paying for tuition, room and board. well, this budget cuts pell grants.

in the area of job training and employment services, the budget would result in two million fewer workers receiving critical support that does nothing to help long-term unemployed get back into the work force. mr. chairman, the republican budgets sends student, families and workers down the wrong path at this important crossroad. we need a strong budget that reflects the values of all americans and makes necessary investments in programs that we know will expand the economy for all. the republican budget fails to do this and debate continues on wednesday. live coverage of the u.s. house always here on c-span. >> john shaw joins us. he is a senior correspondent. he is here to talk about the

budget plans for the house and senate. what are the main details for this plan guest: well, they are both ten-year plans that purport to balance the budget within a decade. both plans by tom pryce in the house and mike enzi in the senate effective he get about $5.5 trillion in ten-year budget savings. about half of that comes from -- a little less than half -- comes from repealing the affordable care act. there's other large sums that come from unspecified savings in entitlement programs such as medicaid and medicare, and also there's going to be some discretionary savings. so it's $5.5 trillion over a decade.they reach balance at

republicans were determined to have a balanced budget plan. budget experts are skeptical that it will reach balance. host: one of the main sticking points seems to be the department of defense and current wars. how are they dealing with this issue in the house? john: well both -- one of the big debates is whether they should adhere to the budget enforcement agreement and particularly the caps on discretionary spending both , defense and nondefense. what republicans have said is they will adhere to the defense cap, which is $523 billion. but they're also using what actually house minority whip steny hoyer called a slush fund. and this is a special fund that was created to fund the wars in iraq and afghanistan. it has been used fairly

aggressively in the last couple of years. it's sort of a separate defense budget where they can tap into to pay for other defense operations, outside the base budget. so the house and senate republicans use this overseas account, it's called o.c.a., that's the acronym. they use it pretty aggressively. democrats argue that this is effectively a second defense budget, as it were. and they say that republicans are using that while purporting to adhere to defense caps, so they say it's a shell game that's sort of disguised as what they're really trying to do. host: we also heard that the house is going to use a procedure called the queen of the hill to consider amendments on the floor on thursday. what is queen of the hill and why do they need to use it? john: what they're looking to do is to have votes on six different alternatives. three democrat plans, three republican plans. they're doing this process called queen of the hill, which i've seen done a couple of times before, in the early 1990's i

think the democrats did a few times. it a allows people to vote on multiple budgets, actually vote for multiple budget. it's usually set up in such a way that the budget that the leadership wants to have pass is reserved for the end. and so what the house republican leadership is doing is having the final vote on a budget that is very similar to the budget that was passed in the house budget committee last week, by tom price, but it also will have two additional -- excuse me, $2 billion additional for defense programs. and this one is being set up for the one that the house republican leadership wants to have passed. the speaker has said that it's the version that he wants to sea approved by the house. so i think the notion is it would allow people to vote on various alternatives but structure the votes in such a way that the final vote is on the plan that the leadership wants to have prevail. host: and then in addition to the two republican plans, you mentioned some alternatives, four alternatives. including one from house democrats.

how does their plan differ from the g.o.p.'s? john quite substantially. : the house democrats don't even try to balance the budget. in the last year their plan, they used to have a deficit of $700 billion. they have some significant tax increases. they have lots of spending on investments. and they say that the focus of their budget is more to generate growth than it is to actually balance the federal budget, so this is a plan that is sort of the democratic agenda, it's based on what they call the architecture of president obama's budget. which was introduced in early february. host: we're going to be keeping tabs on you up there on capitol hill. thank you very much. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> this morning afghan president

addresses a joint meeting of congress. you can see his remarks live at 10:45 a.m. eastern here on c-span. live today on c-span, a senate hearing on the use of commercial drones. then president obama holds a conference with the visiting afghan president. then, washington journal. on tuesday, lawmakers examined issues concerning the commercial use of unmanned aircraft systems known as drones. the subcommittee on aviation operations, safety, and security is one hour and 45 minute.

ms. ayotte: before i offer any opening statements, i want to acknowledge the tragedy in europe this morning. my thoughts go out to the friends and families of those affected. we will be monitoring this as the situation develops. i know all of us are very sad to hear about this tragedy. with that, i appreciate all of you being here today. i want to thank you because

today's hearing represents the second of an active spring schedule including a series of hearings in preparation for this year's federal administration reauthorization effort. it expires in september of this year. for years, unmanned aircraft systems, or popularly called drones, have been identified with fighting terrorism abroad i have appreciated the important work this technology has done to protect our country. today's meeting is not about the military use of drones, but the commercial, recreational, and public utilization of a new technology that represents promise. there has been interest in this technology and its potential on the home front. for example, unmanned aircraft

have countless applications. to name a few, they could assist with agriculture, conduct routine operations like utility operations, they could in fans -- enhance law enforcement and homeland security. they could empower creative filmmakers. they could enable faster news gathering. they may save lives in search and rescue operations such as in new hampshire's legendary mount washington. there is a great deal of potential for unmanned aircraft in america. reports estimate that it could

yield tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. all of us welcome to our economy. we want america to be the location of innovation. at the same time, we have to look at this new technology and ability in balancing other considerations we have. we cannot sacrifice safety, privacy, or prudent use of this new technology consistent with existing laws. these principles are not mutually exclusive this hearing is an opportunity to learn more about how all of this fits together. we hear -- we have heard previously from eager operators that are worried we are falling behind other nations.

integration has been slow. the faa has granted exemptions allowing commercial use of unmanned systems. the list is still long. faa announced a new policy to speed up authorizations today. best practices for testing are incomplete. the faa's designation test sites have potential that have yet to be realized. this involves caution particularly involving our nation -- national airspace. it must be managed correctly. the faa's proposed rules are a meaningful step in that direction. potential operators may be

disappointed by limitations however it is important that this rule is designed to be the next step and the faa is looking ahead to identify future areas to enable usage. at any stage, a primary consideration has to be safety. we have all seen reports of them being flown recklessly including the airport i regularly use. no doubt as this industry expands, there will be more growing pains. thoughtful policymaking can ensure the lowest risk to people. in addition to safety rules, it is important to have an open dialogue about how it will impact our lives.

the national telecommunications administration is encouraging stakeholders to address issues of privacy transparency, and accountability. there is no easy cure all. mr. morris is here today to provide information on this process. it is no surprise, as we can all understand, one of the primary concerns people have about the use of these unmanned systems is privacy. unlimited surveillance is not something that our society is ready or willing or should -- except. the risk of abuse increases from

the government and in a way private infant -- individuals can interact. their application to unmanned aircraft pushes boundaries. i look forward to hearing from all of you. i also want to point out that unmanned aircraft are not unique in their ability to observe. we have other means like where people are using telephoto lenses to allow observation a great distances. here today we want to hear about how we can best address the privacy concerns with these unmanned systems. this hearing is a chance to explore these questions. i look forward to hearing the testimony today. i want to thank my ranking member senator cantwell and

turn it over to her. cantwell: i too would like to offer my condolences to the loved ones, passengers and crew to the flight 925. our thoughts and prayers are with them. i would like to welcome our witnesses today and thank them for testifying on such a important subject. certainly appreciate the breath of the expert case -- expertise represented. i am reminded of two discussions ago, where we had discussions of defense and other applications as it related to faa and unmanned vehicles at that point

in time a small company was trying to figure out how to move forward. today that company is more than 800 people. this industry has continued to grow. today we are here to talk about integration of unmanned systems that in acts the safety of our skies and the possibilities enabled by unmanned systems such as finding wildfires, aiding farmers, monitoring our borders or delivering something as important as a seattle jersey. we have heard of innovative solutions to problems. unfortunately many of us have heard from companies that had to move research or testing overseas. they were unable to receive permissions in a timely fashion.

we could lead the way and i hope this panel can help us move forward on how we do that. the rule proposed by the faa in february is an important step. technological advancement will not slow down until we determine how to address the challenges. for the most part the challenges come in maintaining the safety of airspace, people, property. while the faa proposal includes an analysis of concerns. and there are issues involving noncommercial users in the recreational community. the number of pilots recording near misses with the unmanned systems around airports at altitudes above 400 feet speaks

to the existing problem which will only grow as technology becomes more available. someone suggested that we allow technological solutions meet technological problems. this approach would change the paradigm of aviation, it is something that will be explored. there is good news for safety because unmanned systems have the potential to save lives. virtually all industries, such as assessing damage of a fire could all be aided by these technology solutions. according to the department of labor, 4004 hundred workers died on the job in 2013. not all of these deaths could have been prevented by unmanned

systems, but we have a responsibility to improve worker safety. some of these tasks could be performed in other ways. many of the commercial unmanned systems that the faa has already approved are for uses that promote worker safety. i encourage the faa to look at that in particular with this rulemaking. as the chairwoman said, today the faa advanced an interim policy. that link it certification of the section 333 would streamline the process so that 200 -- below 200 feet would be easier for people to proceed with technology. while we await a final unmanned system role, which i am not sure how long that will take, i'm sure we'll have questions. i want to make sure we're

keeping that timeframe in mind. i do think american companies are faced with competitive disadvantages of the slow pace of regulation. several companies across the world are already working with unmanned system operators to find solutions where businesses can thrive. i want to make sure the u.s. stays mindful of that. another subjects i look forward to discussing is the issue of privacy, including how this new technology will fit into our existing laws and how it will protect right of citizens from this unwanted surveillance. some of the privacy debate is intertwined with larger discussions about data protection. i hope we are able to address these issues today. i believe this hearing is an important step towards the authorization bill.

i hope that we can continue to move bills forward. ms. ayotte: i want to thank you for being here and taking the time to talk about this topic with our committee. i would like to welcome miss margaret l again. -- miss margaret gilligan. gilligan: i would like to thank the chair and the ranking members for the opportunity to be here today. before beginning, i too would like to express our condolences to those affected by today's tragic accident. both the faa and the national

transportation safety board are standing by to assist. we are here today to talk about the safe integration of unmanned aircraft systems into the airspace system. the technology introduces new risks into the aviation system. as they continue to advance, the challenge is to it developed a regulatory framework that will allow for continued innovation, while allowing safety to people and property. since the 2012 faa reauthorization act, we have made progress. the faa put forward a comprehensive plan and a five-year road make -- roadmap to integrate the safety. we have an aggressive research program. to overcome barriers.

the six u.s. test sites are fully operational and have established their research agendas. the technical city -- center is receiving data from the test site that will help answer key questions about how unmanned aircraft can interact with control. to facilitate commercial integration, we have issued over 60 exemptions under section 333 of the 2012 act. these operations do not pose a risk to others operating, to national security, or the general public. they can be safely conducted. we have learned a lot in the process of proving exemptions. the faa has also issued restrictive category certificates so they can conduct

flights. we have issued 176 certificates in the experimental category for civil operations. 34 of those approvals are active today. these approvals facilitate research and development, crew training, and market surveys. last month, we propose a rule that would allow routine use of small, unmanned aircraft systems for commercial purposes. the proposed rule would cover many potential small u.s. operations and offers a flexible framework for the use of these systems. with this proposal, the united states would have one of the most flexible u.s. regulatory frameworks in the world. as operations increase, we are reaching out to educate the public on the safe and responsible use. the faa provided guidance on the

dues and downs of aircraft operation. we have partnered to initiate the know before you fly campaign. the faa is also working to position law enforcement to deter, detect, investigate, and report unauthorized or unsafe operations. while our first action is to educate operators about compliance, when appropriate we will and we will use administrative legal action. issuing a final rule for small uaa operations is a priority. we are already on that rulemaking to identify operations and what test -- technologies we may need to certify. the faa has been making recommendations for the highest societal benefits. these will become a centerpiece

for u.s. integration. as it grows more complex, we must ensure our resources are directed at those with the highest safety risk. we will work to improve safety and streamline certification. to reach these objectives, we are developing a new circular on how to use risk-based decision-making. this is essential to enable larger you a s. as we do we continue to look to the future to make sure the proper framework and standards are in place to facilitate safe integration in a complex airspace system. we look forward to working with our partners in government to make progress towards that goal. we look forward to talking to all of you.

i would like to introduce mr. john morrison junior. he is the associate administrator of the national telik you vacation's and it administrative association. morris: on. let's start over. members, thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding the upcoming process to enhance privacy, transparency, accountability, and the use of private unmanned aircraft systems. in cia is the principal advisor. our focus is not on aircraft

systems, but on increasing broadband access. on expanding spectrum opportunities and ensuring the internet remains an engine for economic growth. increasingly our internet policy work has focused on consumer privacy in order to strengthen the trust and consumer adoption of new and evolving technologies. a critical aspect is through the multi-stakeholder approach. stakeholders work together to reach consensus on best practices that could be implemented in the marketplace. stakeholders can include private industry, consumer groups, academics, and others with those with an interest. the hallmark is that these are open and transparent. in cia's role is as a

facilitator of the stakeholder discussions. we are not a regulator in this areas. do not substitute our judgment for those of the stakeholders. we have used and are using the multi-cyclical approach to cyber security. the february presidential memorandum called for the in cia to convene with others to craft best practices that address important issues of privacy, transparency, and accountability. in early march, in tia issued a request for comment on ua f. in the rsc,nti seeks guidance on what you a us enable the most

pressing privacy challenges. what best practices with mitigate privacy challenges. what information would commercial operators make public. how can operators ensure that their operations comply with the relevant policies. importantly, are there different policy issues raised by different aircraft sizes. comments of ideas and questions are due april 20. we expect to convene later this spring. we will use the comments we risk perceived to help establish a structure for the multi-stakeholder engagement. we encourage all individuals with interest to submit comments. we will encourage them to participate.

we hope stakeholders will work collaboratively to identify skate -- safeguards that address the challenges posed by commercial and private use. we are pleased to be a will to contribute to ensure the integration takes into account not only public safety, and competitiveness, but also privacy issues. thank you again for the opportunity. ms. ayotte: thank you mr. morris. i would like to welcome dr. billingham. he is the director at the gao. gilligan: thank you madam chairman. since the early 1990's, we have

upgraded on the airspace system. primarily supporting porter security. the list of the potential uses is expanding. the economic impact has been estimated to grow to more than $82 billion by 2025. the faa has taken steps towards integration, including the six test sites, and recently issuing the new rules. first, the status of the sites. second, how other countries are integrating it into their airspace for commercial purposes. third, critical next steps for integration. regarding the test sites in december 2014 we reported

problems with the working relationships and three vacations between the faa and the test sites. for example, some of the operators reported they were not receiving guidance from faa on the kind of research needed to support integration, or how to report. officials at the faa tell us the situation has improved in part because the faa and the sites made a dedicated effort to work together through activities such as meetings and information sharing. continued coordination will be important to ensuring the test sites support standard development. with regard to the national activities, our work shows that a number of countries allow commercial you a us operations and has done so for years. for example, australia and

canada have had regulations in case for a decade or more. my written statement contains a table with the regulatory requirements among four countries and the u.s.. it shows common traits and differences. one difference, and other countries, they generally have a different legal structure than the u.s.. it could allow more flexibility with regulations. these countries have less general aviation and commercial air traffic and a less complex airspace. there is a lower risk of collisions. if we were to begin flying today, they would operate under restrictions similar to regulations in these four countries. with some exemptions. canada relies on a risk management approach to allow more operations in the u.s..

knowing forward, faa still needs to take several critical steps to maintain the current momentum towards integration. these steps include the following. first, faa must develop a detailed implementation plan which could also serve as a means to hold faa accountable. second, faa should continue to process the comments it receives on the in crm and issue a final rule is possible -- as soon as possible. to date there have been more than 1000 comments submitted. as a a estimates this process will not be completed until late 2017. third, faa must continue to make test sites useful. including working with the operators to identify incentives to encourage greater activity at

the sites. fourth, faa should consider expanding the public education campaign on permissible and safe operations. it could ease public concerns about privacy and safety. finally, faa will ensure the integration is closely coordinated with the development of the next generation. thank you madam chair. that completes my oral statement. ms. ayotte: thank you dr. billingham. i want to welcome professor john villasenor. thank you professor for being here today. villasenor: thank you very much. i appreciate the opportunity to testify today. i am a nonresident senior

fellow, and i'm a national fellow at stanford. the views i am expressing are my own. i'm going to devote my remarks to the issue of privacy. it is important to acknowledge that privacy is a legitimate concern. for the first time ever unmanned aircraft systems are making it easy and inexpensive to obtain overhead imagery. u.s. operators will monitor the need to respect privacy. as the number of users increase and technology improves, simple statistics make it inevitable that sometimes you a yes will be used in ways that violate privacy. to what extent are our legal frameworks addressing the task. i believe our legal framework will provide more substantial

protection. it means we have to have a full appreciation for the power of the law we already have. if framework for privacy depends on who is making the observation. if the government operates it, the fourth amendment. for privately operated, common-law privacy court and civil invasion of privacy statute. i will start with the fourth amendment and government, it is sometimes suggested that because it was ratified over 200 years ago it would not be effective in the privacy violations using this, i disagree. a review of the supreme court's rulings with regards to other technologies provides it would collide -- provide protection.

in 2001, the supreme court ruled against the government when the government use without a warrant, a federal imager to measure the temperature of the house to confer marijuana was being grown. again in 2012, the use of a gps tracker on a car was used. interestingly there were two conferences involving five justices in which the justices expressed skepticism about the constitutional concerns. they were skeptical of the government's behavior. they suggested that tracking someone with technology would raise constitutional concerns.

in 2014, the court ruled against the government and said when conducting a search, police did not have the right to search a mobile phone without a warrant. they explained, the fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand, does not make the information less worthy of the protection. thus, the court is recognizing despite the un-imaginable technological changes, the protection for the which the founders fought remain central. clearly, that has direct relevance. i will briefly talk about nongovernment aircraft. private entities have not been found. while the privilege is there

edit and's when it comes to invasion of privacy. there are both common law and statutory frameworks that would apply. in closing i would like to emphasize the importance of first amendment rights and consistency. consider a law that might prohibit an operator from flying without permission. it is easy to see how this could lead to some disturbing and unintended consequences. peaceful demonstrators might be told they are not allowed to use one during a demonstration. in closing without -- i think it is important to recognize protections we already have. some of the best protections might lie in the latest innovations, and constitutional drafts. ms. ayotte: thank you.

i want to welcome mr. paul meisner. misener: thank you. thank you for the your attention to this important topic. amazon prime air is a future service that will deliver packages to customers in 30 minutes or less. flying below 500 feet and above 200, and weighing less than 55 pounds, they will take advantage of sensitive technology and automation. to ensure safe automation, we are including a visual of 10 miles per -- or more. we will conduct flight testing. nowhere outside of the united states have we been required to wait more than one or two months to begin testing. permission has been granted for

operating a category, giving us rooms to perfect, without being required to continually obtain new approvals. our testing is going well, and we are pleased with our progress. no country in which we have distribution facilities has yet adopted its rules to allow for these deliveries. in addition to our testing, we are working with government agencies to develop appropriate rules. such rules must allow the applications to take advantage of technology. fly with minimal human involvement, and insight. safety is amazon's type -- top priority. i am delighted to report the aviation authorities are enthusiastically pursuing regulatory frameworks for u.s. -- uafs.

the rules should be simple and performance taste. they should be put into place without delay. american commercial entities want to immolate and perfect the technology. we must conduct rnd testing. amazon has the largest indoor facility. of course, we must test these outdoors. we are very grateful to the faa for granting us permission to conduct testing outdoors. this approval came last thursday. we are eager to get flying here. the permission granted is more restrictive than our rules and approvals by which we conduct testing elsewhere. it is more limited than rules given to amateur flyers may united states. obtaining permission took far too long. the good news is that while the

faa was considering our applications, we innovative so rapidly, things have become obsolete. we are already testing abroad on more advanced things. we are hopeful permission will be granted quickly. although the united states is catching up in permitting current testing, the united states remains the hard -- remains behind. we are grateful for the newly released mpr m so far as it goes. it is not go far enough. unlike europe, the faa is not drafting compelling applications. the mpr m only briefly address comments whether it should address comments in the way of light.

this is not to suggest regulators could quickly adopt actual rules for operations beyond visual line of sight. u.s. regulators should start proposing frameworks and roles now. because the united states remains behind, one might assume congress must step in. the fact is, the agency already has adequate statutory authority. the faa needs and presents. it should result in the agency commencing now to plan and develop rules for the u.s. operation. in conclusion, i look forward to working with you and your subcommittee to ensure important services become available the united states safely and soon.

ms. ayotte: thank you. i would like to welcome mr. jeffvanderwerff. vanderwerff: thank you. i am a farmer from michigan. i farm with my family where i raise corn wheat soybeans, and apples with my father, uncle and brother. i am the fourth generation of my family to work on the farm. today my wife and i are proud to be raising a fifth generation. within our farm, i am responsible for the day-to-day activities including agronomic's. as a farmer who uses precision agriculture, i am here to day to talk about benefits and pitfalls of unmanned aircraft systems.

last summer i attended a demonstration that included an unmanned aircraft gathering data. the demonstration included the data. i walked away knowing this was the next evolution of agriculture on my farm. as a farmer who relies on precision agriculture, i rely on the data to produce accurate information. accurate information is critical to the date of day business decisions i make. these decisions affect my yields, impact, and viability. using an unmanned aircraft has the potential to provide me with another accurate tool to make optimum decisions. one take away i had after seeing the unmanned aircraft demonstration was its ability to provide detailed information on insect infestations, and potential nutrient shortages.

while i walk the land, it is not very attend -- effective. using an unmanned aircraft would allow me to address that quicker. reducing environmental impact is another benefit of using unmanned aircraft. the imagery allows me to spot sections of my feels as opposed to watering or spraying an entire fill -- field. images from the aircraft would allow me to see specific locations where i need pesticide s. by spot treating crops, i lower the environmental impact. this technology has the potential to be another tool there are some pitfalls. the privacy and security and

that it collected is concerning to farmers and ranchers. even if an individual follows all of the rules, regulations, and best practices, the risk -- there is still concerned that regulatory agencies that unnecessarily target production agriculture might gain access to hard data for subpoenas. the biggest fear of farmers is that it's become women could gain access to our data and use it against us. questions abound in the agriculture role community about who owns the data. does the farmer owned the data or is it shared? do iv tenant, or does my landlord owned the data? this will be an important addition, but it is critical

that the data remain under the control of the is important that the information is not available to others without permission. the farm bureau is glad to see the rulemaking for uas. the farm bureau is in the process of submitting comments regarding the proposed rules. it is our hope that farmers and ranchers will be able to use uas as part as precision ag systems. ms. ayotte: thank you. i would like to direct my first question to ms. gilligan. what i wanted to ask you about with this nea -- new area of rulemaking and implementation of the small uas rule and subsequent rules how does the agency plan to fund this effort?