mr. van hollen: mr. chairman, when president obama was sworn, in fact, before he even put his hand on the bible a little more than four years ago, we were losing over 700,000 jobs every month. the economy was actually spiraling downward at a faster rate than it was at the time of the great depression. and thanks to the resiliency of the american people and the emergency actions taken by the president and others we stopped the freefall, we turned the corner and there have been 36 consecutive months of private sector job growth, more than 6.4 million jobs created. we didn't get any help from our republican colleagues. when we had to make difficult decisions to prevent the total collapse of the economy. now we've seen some momentum in the job market and we have a republican budget that's going to put the brakes on that growth. that according to the congressional budget office and by the way their budget includes the assumption of those continued sequestration levels into the next year. so, let's talk about

mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i would just ask our colleagues to take a look at the latest analysis put forward by our own budget office, the referees here. what they tell us is half of the deficit in this year is a result of the fact that millions of americans are still looking for work. three quarters of the projected deficit next year is for the very reason which is why we get to the heart of the issue by going after the jobs deficit and then reducing the deficit in a balanced manner over a long period of time. the issue isn't whether we reduce our deficits dramatically, it's how we do it. we call for a balanced approach that, yes, asks the very wealthy people to get rid of some of their special interest tax breaks which our republican colleagues concede they have but get rid of them in part to reduce the deficit. our colleagues refuse to take one penny from closing tax loopholes, not one, to help reduce the deficit. they'll only do that to help finance tax breaks for higher income individuals. so mr. chairman,

mr. van hollen: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. rokita: i rise in support of this important legislation offered by my good friend from indiana. for more than two years now my colleagues and i have led a family discussion across this country about our debt and deficits. our current national debt stands at over $16.5 trillion, and increases by $4 billion per day. we have $100 trillion, mr. speaker, in unfunded promises coming down the pike. many americans, including some members of this distinguished body, fail to understand is that these numbers have consequences. our debt and deficits are not simply a series of numbers, they are a reflection of our morality as a people. and what our debt and deficits reveal that for the first time in the history of this country, this generation is preparing to leave the next worse off. i always seem to be able to talk about on one side of this body is how many times something was introduced last year versus this y

mr. van hollen, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank my colleague, mr. mcgovern, and thank my colleague, mr. cole, for his efforts. but this bill falls short in a number of areas, but most of all it falls short because it does nothing to prevent the loss of 750,000 american jobs that will result because of a sequester. sequester is just a fancy washington name for hundreds of thousands of american jobs lost. that's going to squeeze middle-class families. it's going to squeeze small businesses. and that 750,000 jobs lost number, he has not the president's number. that's not my number. that's the number from the nonpartisan congressional budget office who have told us that if the sequester stays in place until the end of this calendar year, you'll have 750,000 less americans working at a time when we have a very fragile recovery going on. just last week, the chairman of the federal reserve said that it w

mr. van hollen: i thank you, mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the ranking member of the commall business committee who recognizes how important it is to keep our economy moving forward, not backwards. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. velazquez: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived budget. for working families this tax of uld mean a $2,000 making it harder for families to aed for rent and put food on the table. the dwmplet o.p. plan also shortchanges seniors, ending medicare in 10 years, equally problematic, the affordable care act will be repealed, reducing health care assistance to 176,000 families in my district and preventing 68,000 young people in my part of new york from staying on their parents' insurance. we can also expect our economy to take a hit. with two million jobs vanishing next year alone. is this what we need to get this economy growing again? and for small businesses, this budget will mean losses. 16,000 small firms in

mr. van hollen: i thank you, mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the ranking member of the commall business committee who recognizes how important it is to keep our economy moving forward, not backwards. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. velazquez: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived budget. for working families this tax of uld mean a $2,000 making it harder for families to aed for rent and put food on the table. the dwmplet o.p. plan also shortchanges seniors, ending medicare in 10 years, equally problematic, the affordable care act will be repealed, reducing health care assistance to 176,000 families in my district and preventing 68,000 young people in my part of new york from staying on their parents' insurance. we can also expect our economy to take a hit. with two million jobs vanishing next year alone. is this what we need to get this economy growing again? and for small businesses, this budget will mean losses. 16,000 small firms in

mr. van hollen, this from a man whose home state voted for the president. even his hometown voted for the president. if he won the argument, why did the majority vote against him? >> well, if you remember last fall, martin, mitt romney and paul ryan both said that the american people had a fundamental choice. that they had a choice between two fundamentally different paths with respect to this budget. and that they would have an opportunity to choose. and guess what? they chose. they chose the president's approach which calls for a balanced approach to reducing the deficit. so that we all share responsibility. they totally rejected the uncompromising lopsided approach that we saw once again today from house republicans. so, look, we're in a time warp here trying to pretend the election didn't ever happen. even though they said one of the fundamental choices in the election was about exactly the debate we're having right now. >> it's extraordinary. this budget could have been conceived by harry potter. the president was on capitol hill today meeting with sen

mr. van hollen: all right, mr. speaker. again, i have to remind people as they listen to this debate, that this bill does nothing, zero, reduce the deficit. nothing. all it does is ask for a calculation which we said we welcome, which one of our members actually did on the floor of the house here as she gave her presentation and that we can all do. but by all means let's say to the president, put that calculation in your budget, even though that calculation is out of date three days after the budget is submitted if we don't get control of the deficit and do in it a smart way. now, i agree with the gentleman when he says the best way to deal with the deficit is to grow the economy. that's what we should be focused on which is why we're asking today for the fourth time for a vote on our proposal to replace the sequester so that we don't lose 750,000 jobs. 750,000 jobs is the number of jobs created between october of last year and january of this year. according to the chairman of the federal reserve, if we continue to allow t

mr. van hollen: i'm the only speaker. mr.n: at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the peaker of the house. the chair: the speaker of the house, the gentleman from ohio, is recognized for one minute. mr. boehner: let me thank my colleague for yielding and congratulate mr. ryan and our members on the budget committee

mr. van hollen: i do. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes. mr. van hollen: i actually have been prepared to come to the floor of this house and say this was a refreshing moment. this was going to be a moment of bipartisanship. i can commend the gentleman from south carolina, mr. mulvaney, for finally offering a balanced plan to reducing our long-term deficit and a plan that will make sure our economy grows rather than a plan that results in over 750,000 fewer american jobs by the end of this year, and i hope that the gentleman will demonstrate his sincerity in support of his own bill by voting for it. we'll be able to tell whether this is simply some kind of stunt or a genuine effort. mr. chairman, let me say with respect to the comments about the president's budget. i think everyone in this country knows that this congress was here until january 2 of this year trying to work out a compromise to avoid going over the fiscal cliff. and until we resolved that, the president had no idea how much revenue would be available for the budget. i think most

van hollen, we will go with you. mr. van holland, you are recognized. i think you for the opportunity to be here. the last time i made a proposal that i thought you should take me up on, which is it you made an amendment to replace the quaestor in order that i would not be back to the rules committee for a very long time. you only have yourself to blame for the fact that you have to listen to me here today. listen, this is not the fourth time this year that we have asked for a simple up or down vote on the house of representatives on proposal to replace the sequestered. the sequestered kicked in on march 1, and unless we do something about it, it will progressively create more and more disruptions in the economy, and according to the independent non-partisan congressional budget office, if left in place throughout the calendar year, will result in the loss of 750,000 jobs. we will have 750,000 fewer american jobs in this country by the end of december than we would otherwise if we do not replace this sequestered. in addition to that, last week the chair

mr. van hollen aye. ms. schwartz. mr. ryan aye. ms. moore. mr. mcdermott. ms. lee aye. mr. cicciline aye. mr. jefferies aye. mr. hudson aye. mr. blumenauer aye. mr. schrader aye. ms. moore aye. mr. mcdermott aye. mr. chairman no. mr. chairman, on that boat the ayes are 16, the noes 22. >> are there other amendments? it is closed, i apologize. had he been present, you would have voted aye. i apologize. mr. blumenauer? the clerk will report the amendment. let's ask unanimous consent that the role of the previous vote be open and record the vote as aye. mr. blumenauer has an amendment at the desk. >> mr. chairman, an amendment offered by mr. blumenauer, an amendment related to transportation. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we have had some spirited debate about the national budget deficit. one area that we really have not addressed is a threat, i think, that is affecting all of our communities. i think each of us have heard about it. that is the infrastructure deficit. it is no secret that the american society of civil engineers has been doing its by- your scorecard of the status

mr. van hollen aye. ms. schwartz aye. mr. yarmuth aye. mr. pascrell aye. mr. ryan aye. ms. moore aye. ms. castor aye. mr. mcdermott aye. ms. lee aye. mr. cicilline aye. mr. jeffries aye. mr. pocan aye. mr. hoffman aye. mr. car difficult. mr. blumenauer aye. mr. schrader aye. mrs. blackburn no. mr. chairman. mr. chairman no. mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes are 16, the noes are 22. >> ayes 16, noes being 22, the amendment is not agreed to. are there further amendments in tier 1? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment. >> the gentlelady from wisconsin. the clerk -- does the gentlelady from have an amendment? the clerk will designate the amendment. the staff will distribute copies. >> mr. chairman, an amendment offered by ms. moore to protect our vulnerable. >> the gentlelady is recognized for nine minutes. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. you know, it's always great to serve on the budget committee and it's oft repeated mantra is that budgeted are -- budgets are statements of morality and our principles. i was really happy to see, starting on page 27, that we had a section called sa

mr. van hollen, who's the ranking democrat on the budget committee, has asked three times, mr. leader, to bring a bill to this floor, an amendment to this floor to provide an alternative to sequester. it seems strange that when both of us agree that sequester is wrong, irrational, will have adverse effects, ben bernanke said it would substantially hurt the economy, that we don't provide alternatives, and all we talk about is something we did yesterday -- actually more than three month, four months ago, that is dead and gone. we need to do something now, and we need to come together in a bipartisan basis. i might say to the leader, we've had four major bills signed into law in this congress by the president. every one of those bills were passed in a bipartisan basis with an average of 168 democrats voting for it and an average of 124 republicans voting for it. we saw a perfect example, mr. speaker -- mr. leader, on the floor today of making very good policy. how did we do it? we did it in a bipartisan vote. and i suggest to my friend, the majority leader, that we could do that a

mr. van hollen: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from maryland reserves his time. mr. ryan: i reserve the time since i have the right to close. we have no more speakers. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker -- mr. chairman. i'm going to urge our colleagues to vote against this republican budget for a variety of reasons. first of all, this is an uncompromising ideological approach to our budget issues. we've just been through a major national campaign. where both presidential candidates, president obama, governor romney, agreed on one thing and that was that the people of this country faced a fundamental choice in the direction we were going to take. and the american people voted and they resoundedly rejected the approach that is now taken once again for the third year in a row in this republican budget. this budget, as we've heard over the last couple days, fails on a number of counts. number one, it adopts the european style austerity

mr. van honl of maryland had an alternative -- mr. van hollen had an alternative that four times he's brought to the community, four times the leadership here has said, you can't bring it to the floor, you can't debate it, you can't deliberate it. my friends on -- on the other side have offered zero. they're totally content to let the sequester go into play, 750,000 jobs at stake. i think that's what we should be doing here, mr. speaker. and as i yield back the balance of my time i would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to suspend politics for just a little while so we get a few major things done. we do the politics next year when it's campaign time, but now it's the time to achieve results. we can come together on a lot of these issues. i hope that that happens. but if this is any indication of how we're going to proceed, it makes me less hopeful. so with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized. mr. c

mr. van hollen for any comments or questions he may have. >> thank you, mr. president. this committee has had i think a tradition of very tough argument on the issues. but focused on the issues. it's a way to get at the differs that is we may have on our overall approach but doing it in a civil and constructive manner. i want to thank the chairman also for working with us in terms of how we structure the entire day's hearing. >> we have a conference in the early afternoon. i think we're going to have two series of votes that does complicate the time a little bit but we will do everything we can. hopefully we'll get to the staff walk thru before that conference and we can proceed with amendments afterwards. that's the intention. i now recognize the gentleman from georgia. >> because of that meeting with the president scuke that consistent with clause 4 of house rule 16 the chairman be authorized to declare a recess at any time. >> wousmed. all right. welcome, everybody. i want to start by thanking the members of this committee. as you know, writing a budget is a tough jo

mr. chris van hollen our ranking member on the budget committee. mr. van hollen's proposal is responsible, fair, and balanced. it cuts spending responseably. it ends unnecessary and wasteful tax breaks for special interests, which i just named. it advances the buffett rule, ensuring that millionaires pay their fair share. i mention that because this is over and above, i mean i mention it because it's yet again another time where the republicans, at least on four occasions, shut down the opportunity to debate an alternative to what the republicans are proposing. this is on top of all that we are already trying -- already agreed to. many of nuss a bipartisan way voted for the budget control act which cut $1.2 trillion in spending. that was in addition to over $300 billion already cut last year. that is in addition to the president and members of congress saying we are prepared to make further cuts, waste, frud, abuse, and some things maybe are not wasteful, they have just not a priority anymore. we found a better way to do it. so maybe they're duplicative

mr. van hollen. we make in order a budget introduced by mr. mulvaney from south carolina that tries to capture the essence of what the senate is working on right now and we make in order a budget produced by the republican budget committee, all of those exist as an alternative to the budget produced by the budget committee. i have the great pleasure of sitting on the budget committee. what you see here in my hand is the budget committee report. we produce this on march 15. it's bound, it's published, they did a nice job, it's been proofread, the minority has had a chance to add their views. that was march 15 we produced this budget. but as we sit here today with march quickly leaving us, what we do not have yet is a budget from the united states president. i only point that out, mr. speaker, to say, i understand that it's hard to produce a budgetism know because i produced one in this cycle. i had the great pleasure of working with a team to produce the republican study committee budget and the house budget system of in a time period where the

mr. chris van hollen our ranking member on the budget committee. mr. n hollen's proposal is responsible, fair, and balanced. it cuts spending responseably. it ends unnecessary and wastefulax breaks fospecial interests, which i just named. it advances the buffett rule, ensuring that millionaires pay their fair share. i mention that because this is over and above, i mean i mention it because it's yet again another time where the republicans, at least on four occasions, shut down the opportunity to debate an ternative to what the republicans are proposing. this is on top of all that we are already trying -- already agreed to. many of nuss a bipartisan way voted for the budget control act which cut $1.2 trillion in spending. that was in addition to over $300 billion already cut last year. that is in addition to the president and meers of congress saying we are prepared to make further cuts, waste, frud, abuse, and some things maybe are not wasteful, they have just not a priority anymore. we found a better way to do it. so maybe they're duplicative or obsole

mr. van hollen, for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. again i want to thank all the members of the committee as we gather here and what is a very important moment for our country. thanks to the ingenuity and resilience of the american people and the emergencies actions taken by the president and the congress four years ago, we are continuing to recover from the worst recession since the great depression. momentum in the job market continues to grow, but we still have a long way to go to help put people back to work, to accelerate economic growth, and to boost small business hiring. yes, we must and can steadily reduce our deficits and reduce and stabilize the debt. but we should do that in a way that immediately reduces the jobs deficit rather than a budget that immediately makes that job deficit work. unfortunately this republican budget fails that very simple test. the nonpartisan, independent, congressional budget office has shown that the approach taken in this budget will result in 750,000 fewer american jobs just by the end of this

mr. van hollen will come up for the fourth time and try to get his amendment made in order. that would do away with sequester and save us an awful lot of money with regard to oil companies and instituting the buffett rule. i hope we can find in our hearts today. the [inaudible] thank you fo >> did the light just got out? [laughter] 10% of the light. >> i told you to stop talking about sequestration. [laughter] >> i am glad to see you both. >> that may be a precursor. we were before the committee this morning asking for a budget for this year. we may have gotten an answer. i hope we paid our bills. zation. mr. bishop? >> thank you, mr. chairman. before i engage in the political spin of the day, would you mind if i asked you some specific questions about the bill that's actually before us? i do have about three. actually, i have the first is the most important question. mr. chairman, i would wonder if your friend and acquaintance from back in the good old days, if you have any stories we can use and be successful here. >> the gentleman does, i'm not sure how successful those w

mr. van hollen and the house democrats. i reserve the balance of my time. and i have two additional speakers. the chair: the gentlelady her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from wisconsin, a key member of the joint economic committee, three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for three minutes. >> i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. i want to shed a little light on what's been discussed on the floor tonight, mr. chairman. we hear a lot of conversation about medicare. mr. duffy: we have to be clear that in obamacare, this bass the -- this was the longest health care reform bill this bill has ever seen. it's going to spend $2 trillion of deficit spending over the next 10 years. and with that massive new health care reform bill, guess what? medicare is going broke in 10 to 12 years. so with this great health care reform, they didn't have enough foresight to save our seniors medicare -- our seniors' medicare program. the program they've actually paid for over the course of their lif

mr. van hollen, who's the ranking democrat on the budget committee, has asked three times, mr. leader, to bring a bill to this floor, an amendment to this floor to provide an alternative to sequester. it seems strange that when both of us agree that sequester is wrong, irrational, will have adverse effects, ben bernanke said it would substantially hurt the economy, that we don't provide alternatives, and all we talk about is something we did yesterday -- actually more than three month, four months ago, that is dead and gone. we need to do something now, and we need to come together in a bipartisan basis. i might say to the leader, we've had four major bills signed into law in this congress by the president. every one of those bills were passed in a bipartisan basis with an average of 168 democrats voting for it and an average of 124 republicans voting for it. we saw a perfect example, mr. speaker -- mr. leader, on the floor today of making very good policy. how did we do it? we did it in a bipartisan vote. and i suggest to my friend, the majority leader, that we could do that a

van hollen. last night, mr. obama threw a two-hour dinner for 12 republican senators at washington's jefferson hotel. according to nbc news, they focused on the on-going battles over the debt ceiling the budget and the sequester apparently without throwing any cutlery. two well-fed republicans senators john mccain and mike johanns seemed pleased. >> all i can say is we had a nice evening. >> his goal is ours. we want to stop careening from crisis to crisis. >> john: the senators may have even learned something. because according to nbc news, again, when the dinner was over and i quote... >> john: to think just like bill o'reilly, all they had to do to find his cuts was just look at the white house web site on the fancy internet because some republicans might like what they see. progressives should really take a look at that, too, because the president's proposals don't necessarily show the balance he insists is necessary to deal. the president is offering republicans $930 billion in program cuts plus another $10

mr. chris van hollen is taking a lead on, our ranking member from maryland, will make a clear distinction vis-a-vis what is proposed by our republican colleagues. one of the words that could describe -- one of the big differences between the two budgets is economic growth. it's jobs. if you want to know about values and our different view of our national values, that's for sure, it's about figures and how they add up. but again the values and what reaches the american people, that's what is important. one of these bills creates jobs. the other loses jobs. tomorrow again chris will present a budget that cuts spending responsibly, increases revenue fairly, strengthens the middle class and creates growth with jobs. infrastructure funding, innovation, energy, and manufacturing initiatives. today as you know we'll meet with president obama. we look forward to that meeting to lay out our shared vision of economic growth in a balanced approach to deficit reduction. we need to reduce the deficit. we all agree on that. democrats for decades have been saying pay as you go. republicans repealed that

van hollen, democrat of maryland and ranking member of the house budget committee. good afternoon, sir. >> good afternoon, martin. >>> are you able to explain how republicans spend their time repeatedly voting through mr. ryan's budgets that don't add up, that strip 40 million people of their health care, yet they are virtually silent on the issue of gun violence, they expend all their energy on something that will never become law ever, yet do absolutely nothing even after 20 babies are murdered in a classroom? >> well, martin, you're absolutely right. today we voted once again on the republican/ryan budget that was thoroughly rejected by the american people last election. mitt roll any and paul ryan talked about the approach to the budget issues, the people in this country clearly said they didn't want to go in that direction. yesterday there was a vote on the house floor for that, unfortunately it passed with a lot of tea party members in the house. at the same time we still have not gotten a vote on common sense gun safety measures, the most obvious one being universal background checks, and as you said, speaker boehner had to walk back a proposal which called for the common-sense solution, becaus

mr. obama will have the toughest time getting an agreement. republicans there want to use increased tax revenue only to lower tax rates. maryland congressman chris van hollenudget committee and then next week, the president goes up to capitol hill to meet with republicans on their own turf, the first time he's done that since 2010. gretchen? >> gretchen: wendell goler live in dc, a lot of action going on. thanks much. now the rest of the headlines. they knew an attack was coming. libyan officials warned the obama administration about our consulate being in danger just days before the benghazi terrorist attack. that's new news. and it's according to documents the administration just released to the senate, apparently. we're also being told white house and c.i.a. press officers were the ones responsible for removing the al-qaeda references in the very important talking points. >> steve: meanwhile, thousands of hugo chavez's followers line the streets for a procession. we're being told the socialist president dictator died from a massive heart attack as he was battling cancer. the head of their presidential guard also revealed chavez, when he died, couldn't t