mr. chairman? mr. chairman, no. mr. chairman: have all members voted? any member wish to change their vote? the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman, on that vote the aye's are 13 and the no's are 22. mr. chairman: the amendment is not agreed to. the next amendment is amended to seven. >> amendment number seven offered by ms. more related to the nutrition program. mr. chairman: the young lady from wisconsin is recognized for six minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman -- mr. chairman: i apologize, six

mr. chairman. this is an amendment to provide a deficit nature reserve fund to promote dt education cosponsored s. senators baldwin and portman. >> any opposition? seeing none. i sense we can do a voice vote. all those in favor say aye. opposed? it is passed. next, the transfix amendment and then a democrat side-by-side on this one. has to side-by-side being distributed? >> mr. chairman, can i move my vote after. we are waiting for a ruling from the parliamentarian. >> i couldn't hear you. >> waiting on berlin from the parliamentarian. >> okay. >> can i move my votes until the end of the tranche? [inaudible conversations] the next one is to widen rural schools and there is a side-by-side which has been handed out already. [inaudible conversations] so on a side-by-side, two minutes of debate. >> colleagues, my amendment creates a deficit neutral reserve fund to protect america's treasures and grow our rural economies in a balanced way. the side-by-side ties the well-being of rural economies and our

mr. chairman? mr. chairman, no. chairman: have all members voted? is any member was to change their vote? the clerk will report. clerk: on that vote, the ayes are 12 and the noes are 22. thechairman: the next amendment is number nine. clerk: offered by ms. castor. chairman: ms. castor is recognized for six minutes. rep. castor: it is through an expanded and sustained investment that i propose to hardwire into our nation's budget. it takes nih funding out of the annual budget battle and moves it from discretionary to mandatory, thereby providing certain see -- certa to medical professionalsint andy hope to families across the country. is it discretionary? no, it is not and it shouldn't be. my amendment recommence america's leadership to scientific euros and treatments. the sequester and segment funding for nih have taken a serious toll over the last decade and the nih's budget has not kept pace with inflation. this is led to a good decline and purchasing power. we have all heard dr. francis collins say this and it has been especially acute in the fas

mr. chairman. we are still working issues on that particular one i would has to move to the end of the? on medicare. >> so far the parliamentarian. >> i understand they're still working through some issues. if we don't do it here, will start they do it on the floor. >> we are striking a section as well. second amendment. >> moving to the next one we appoint the board are of course in the budget resolution on anything that would add to the deficit. we see when it comes to the group you are the affordable care act, there is not a point of order added to that which is allowed under that. in fact the affordable care act reduces the deficit according to the cbo. it is very clear that repealing the affordable care act will actually increase the deficit and it is acknowledged in here by accepting a point of order on anything that increases the deficit as a result of the affordable care act. we need honesty and budgeting. if this budget repeals the affordable care act all the services for 16.4 million men a

mr. chairman. >> senator wyden. senator wyden: because medicare is part of the federal budget, medicare savings and health reform extend the life of the insurance trust fund and reduce the federal budget deficit. the analogy i'd make is this is similar to a baseball player hitting a home run. it adds to his team's score and it also improves his batting average. neither situation would be double counted. so, you know, to me, we ought to kind of get on with, as i characterize it again this morning when we had a hearing on the affordable care act, bipartisan approaches that are going to protect the medicare guarantee and generate savings. but i'm opposed to this amendment because -- by the way i would say not in a partisan way, republican controlled congresses didn't object when c.b.o. projected medicare savings to both extend the sal -- solvency of medicare and reduce the deficit under several other approaches, the balanced budget act of 1997 thabbed deaf -- and the deficit reduction act of 2005. i ho

mr. chairman. senator enzi: sanders. senator sanders: i speak in opposition to this. no other bank is subjected to regular appropriations. it is one way of singling out the one regulator which is a consumer advocate and this amendment would weaken an important agency. the copd has been successful. it has helped consumers who will receive relief from unsafe financial services. it has ordered consumer relief. i would urge a no vote on this of amendment. >> mr. chairman. can i be recognized? senator enzi: senator toomey. senator toomey: i think the senator from georgia is correct. it is unaccountable. it is unique among powerful regulators and having no accountability to congress. it has exceeded its authority because it is not subject to congressional oversight. it is outrageous they are able to operate with the budget they have in the latitude they have without having to come to congress. i think the gentleman from georgia for offering the amendment. i join them. senator enzi: senator kaine has an am

mr. chairman mr. van hollen yes, of course. if you would like for us to explain more. >> we look at the macroeconomic feedback from the cbo as the kwif lent of what the president's budget and what the office of management and budget are able to do. the president's budget is a post-policy analysis budget. in other words they put various assumptions together as their starting point for their budget just as we do but as the president's budget goes through over the ten-year period they have the ability or the tools to adjust their economic assumptions, their interest rate assumptions, etc., to achieve their policy goals and they say the president's budget will drive the numbers to a certain point. the budget committee however, uses a different approach. we start with the cbo economic assumptions, interest rates, economic growth unemployment et cetera, and until we take that economic feedback approach then we are stuck with the positive things that occur from our deficit reduction efforts. we don't include

mr. chairman, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. bridenstine who is also chairman of the environment subcommittee of the science committee. . cope the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for two minutes. mr. briden stein: thank you for your leadership on this important bill. i think it's highly appropriate we ask our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to actually read the bill. if they did they would find out it prevents the e.p.a. from releasing any confidential information. it prevents the e.p.a. from releasing any confidential information. the idea you're using or somebody on this floor would use confidential information they are hiding behind that in an effort to hide the actual science. my children are in elementary school. they are required to show their work. if they don't show their work, their integrity could be questioned. which would be appropriate, by the way. mr. chairman, is it too much to ask for the e.p.a. to follow the same guidelines i give my children in elementary school? show your work. we need to see it

mr. chairman? >> no. >> mr. chairman, no. >> are that are any members wishing to vote or change their vote? hearing none the clerk shall report. >> mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes are 14 and the nos are 21. >> the nos have it, the amendment is hotnot agreed to. we're about to move into tier two agreements. it's further agreed to by the majority minority the time set for these tier two amendments will be six minutes, equally divided. the proponent of the amendment will have the first two minutes. the opponent or response to the amendment will be three minutes. and then one minute time per close. are there any amendments? ms. lou hahn grisham is -- excuse me. this amendment is number 15. offered by ms. lou hahn grisham. >> amendment number 15 offered by ms. lou hahn grisham related to medicare. >> ms. lou hahn grisham is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. now i've already spoke and bit about medicare, but this budget does more than turn it into a voucher program. it actually repeals all of t

mr. chairman? chairman: senator wyden. senator wyden: because medicare is part of the overall federal budget, medicare savings in health reform extend the life of the hospital insurance trust fund and reduce the federal budget deficit. an analogy i would make is this is similar to a baseball player hitting a home run. it adds to his team's core -- score and improves his average. neither situation would be double counting. to me, we ought to get on -- as i characterized it this morning -- bipartisan approaches that are going to protect the medicare guarantee and generate savings. but i am opposed to this amendment because, by the way, i would say not in a partisan way republican-controlled congresses did not object when cbo projected medicare savings to reduce the deficit under several other approaches. the balanced budget act of 1997. the deficit reduction act of 2005. i hope we will reject this amendment and get on. senator staff now and others were there. with bipartisan approaches in the areas of tackling chronic diseas

mr. chairman. thank you, mr. chairman. the description we've just heard -- and senator crapo and i have been having a conversation about it, is unrecognizable to the program as it exists. what is this program really about? it's this. that electronic transactions are occurring that pull money out of citizens' bank accounts without their permission. senator kaine: these remote transactions -- mr. merkley: these have been used. there is one bank which suffered an assault which $2.4 billion was taken out of their customers' accounts without their permission. and there was a case in california where a large sum was taken out of customers' accounts for services that they did not order. these type of remote electronic transactions have been a problem of theft, a predatory theft from ordinary citizens. so the department of justice put together a working group to say this must stop. now, there has been the allegation, as we've heard that legitimate businesses have been targeted. quite frankly, the evidence of that is extraordinaril

mr. chairman. >> no. mr. . >> mr. chairman, no. >> are there any members wishing to vote or change their vote? if not the clerk shall report. >> mr. chairman on that vote the ayes are 13 and the noes are 21. >> the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed popto. are there further amendments. >> i have an agreement at the desk. this is number 13. the clerk will designate. >> amendment number 13 offered by mr. ryan related to manufacturing program. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. ryan is recognized for six minutes. >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment accelerating growth in u.s. manufacturing. i think this is an issue that i hope we can establish some bipartisan support for this. manufacturing is critical in the united states and critical to our base. we know that one in seven u.s. private sector jobs depend on u.s. manufacturing. i think there's a general sense in the country we need to make sure we start making things again in the united states. we cannot have an economy based solely o

mr. chairman. i want to start by thanking my colleagues mr. lucas and chairman smith for their intention to improve the e.p.a.'s science advisory board and i especially want to thank chairman smith for working with me on other legislation that passed the science committee and the house on a bipartisan basis. members and staff on both sides of the aisle worked tirelessly last week and in fact since the last congress toward a bipartisan bill about the science advisory board that accommodated much, if not all, of the fundamental principles shared by both democrats and republicans. but unfortunately we were not able to reach agreement on some very critical provisions by this date and accordingly, i will be urging my colleagues to vote no on the underlying bill before us today. this bill has not changed meaningfully since we considered it last year, and i stand here today with the same concerns i raised last congress. my colleagues who support h.r. 1029 may describe this bill as an attempt to strengthen public participation in e.p.a.'s scientific re

mr. chairman. mr. rokita: mr. ryan is recognized for six minutes. mr. ryan: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to offer this amendment. accelerating growth in u.s. manufacturing. i think this is an issue that i hope that we can establish some bipartisan support for this. manufacturing is critical in the united states. it's critical to our defense industrial brails. -- base. we know that one in seven u.s. private sector jobs depend on u.s. manufacturing. i think there's a general sense in the country that we need to make sure we start making things again in the united states. we cannot have an economy based solely on technology or service. we do need manufactured products. every $1 in sales of manufactured products supports $1.33 in output from other sectors. it's the largest ripple effect that we can get and our nation thrives when we are leading the world in cutting-edge technology in manufacturing. accelerating growth in u.s. manufacturing attracts the kind of well-paying jobs that will help drive middle class economic security. i think a lot of the discussion to

mr. chairman, just don't by this overheated rhetoric. the problem is we've got to balance the budget, we've got to get this debt under control. we see the storm clouds on the horizon -- in the horizon and what this budget does is it gets the government to be honest with the taxpayers that give us the money in the first place so we can balance the budget and get this debt on the right track. we invest in the right way by giving people their own money so they can make decisions what's right for their family, instead of having washington run it all. now, there's one last thing i'd like to say. as i get carried away on the rhetoric, the c.b.o. is an agency we use quite a bit here. and the congressional budget office is a very important government agency that gives us all of our cost estimates. this budget is written on their estimates. and for the last six years we've had a director at the congressional budget office by the name of doug elmendorf who has done an outstanding job as director of the c.b.o. i've worked very closely with mr. elme

mr. chairman, and thank you, mr. chairman, for your leadership and all the members on this committee who have worked really hard as we work towards putting a federal budget together again. there's no doubt that america is experiencing serious financial issues. one of the latest polls showed that the greatest concern of american s americans across the country is the government and that should not be the case people should be proud of their government's operations and how we work together to accomplish and address the challenges that we face. our national debt has soared past $18 trillion. our entitlement programs are unfunded liabilities. and over 90 million people are not participating in the work force. it is our responsibility, not only as members of congress but specifically as members of this committee to produce a budget that will return washington to a time of fiscal responsibility and that will strengthen our country's economy unfortunately the president in his budget submission chose political short cuts over

mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, mr. chairman thank you for being here and thank you for all of your hard and diligent work. we're all very pleased and very happy that you're in your position. you do have very did i have couple difficult times. we need some plain answer and some talk. let me tell you where we are and why we need your help. right now the president had submitted a budget that had a base amount of 561 and our budget committee is coming up with 5233. the aggregate number would be somewhere around 613. you sort of said however you cobble it together. how you cobble it together does make a difference. i want you kbie guys to help us with this. i have told the budget committee that making up with occo does not work. 70 members of the house signed a letter asking the president to honor the 561 that the president asked for. what i have said to the committee is that they should ask you guys. mr. secretary, you said, one, it i e e effects because this is the basis upon which you build your next budget. that's certai

mr. chairman. the population of the united states continues to be on the verge of dramatic demographic shifts. since 2002 the number of americans age 65 and older has increased by 21% and the ageing of the baby boom generation will only accelerate this growth. only 15 years older americans will account for 20% of the u.s. population up from 13% today. by 2050 the population of older americans is expected to double by over 80 million people. by 2050 the population of americans age 85 and over is estimated to more than triple from 5.5 million in 2010 to 19 million in 2050. about 71% of these adults have a disability or will need assistance with at least one activity of daily living. so they can't feed themselves, dress themselves, or bathe themselves. as a former secretary of the new mexico department of ageing and long-term services, i understand the difficulties that older americans face. they often face a unique set of risks and challenges, including affordable housing access to social services an

mr. chairman. mr. chairman thank you for acknowledging that this has been a tough year already and we have some very severe budget constraints with respect to our resources here and how we allocate them for our military. you are right, it is in the purview of the congress to make decisions about where we place money. this committee has a difficult task ahead of it. i want to also thank our witnesses today. service chiefs and our secretaries in one room. thank you. today is i hope a hearing for constructive discussion about how to move forward, but i wish to acknowledge that it is nice to see where it on the panel so thank you for that. we're thrilled to have you. sequestration, i think it has become such a distraction for the congress. i believe we have to look at smarter and more efficient ways that we can adapt and save. we do not have the capacity as a country to hand anyone, even our military a blank check. i hope that apartment along with the congress works together to invest in resources that will

mr. chairman. and general dempsey, i join my colleagues in sending warm wishes your way and thank you you for your more years of serving o our great nation. mr. mccord, i would like to chat about the budget that's upcoming. the house budget committee chairman proposed boosting the defense budget with an increase of allocation. is an oko dollar just as useful as a base budget dollar? in other words, should there be limitations on funding that congress needs to be mindful of? >> both dollars are useful to us for purposes they are intended and needed. we don't need $36 or $38 billion in oko, but we need them in the base budget. both have restrictions in law and in regulation. >> so if you had your choice, you'd rather have the dollars in the regular budget as opposed to oko funding? >> that's where we identified the needs and this is very important, and this gets back to the earlier discussion of sequester. if it's in the base budget, it is the base upon which we build our future budgets. we need stabi

mr. chairman. mr. secretary section one to three of the atomic energy act as you know requires all significant u.s. nuclear and cooperation agreements must be approved by both houses of congress. last year congress approved to such agreements. one was south korea and the other one with great britain who are our allies. however, in this case what we're dealing with the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, the position of this administration is that that should not be subject to approval of the united states congress. i don't quite understand that distinction but can you explain that to be? >> thank you congressman. i think the issue is what is the best form of an agreement in order for us to have the flexibility that we need to make sure that iran is living up to its obligations and to be able to reimposed sanctions quickly if it's not. what we are seeking is, and is usually whether this is a legally binding agreement or not. if it is a legally binding agreement would be subject to the rules of r

mr. chairman. i knew you would find that answer. >> mr. fleishman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. director, thank you for your distinguished career in the secret service and for stepping up and taking over this agency at such a difficult time. when i was a young boy, i always looked up. i mean, the secret service, wow. that was it. i would just think about protecting the president and the important mission you all have. and i share the sentiments with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. we want you to succeed. this is something that is important for our country and it's a difficult time. we've heard about the different problems that the individual agents have had. i just after listening to some of the comments, want to ask you this. at the fundamental base of any profession when someone is going through training, we heard from one of our colleagues in the military. i was trained in the profession of law. a great judge, our chairman. there are certain fundamentals that are imparted in the recruitment process and in the training process. you've inherited this, sir. i guess my

mr. chairman. thank you, mr. wheeler, for testifying. you claimed in your opening statement, this was the most open and transparent rule making in fcc history. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> you've claimed in your testimony that awful your communications with the white house were properly accounted for with ex parte filings. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> would you put up the slide, please? can we have a slide? while they are working on that slide, i have here a copy of your ex parte filing for the president's statement on net neutrality. mr. wheeler, it's two paragraphs long. three sentences total. are we left to believe the entirety of the white house's involvement in this process can be captured in just three sentences? >> i'm now being passed. thank you. this is the letter november 10, dear miss dorsch? >> that's correct. >> i believe it has a two-page attachment with it that gets quite specific and says what brightline rules should be things such as that, wireless should be covered, things like that. >> do we have that? >> they

mr. chairman. mr. wheeler, chairman wheeler. is it unusual for an independent agency such as yours to communicate with the executive branch? >> no, sir. >> is it routine? >> yes, sir. >> does it compromise independence as you understand the word? >> no, sir. >> would you -- if we examined -- i mean, the chairman began his questions by reading off a list of meetings that apparently we're supposed to see as sinister. you or your colleagues meeting with various white house officials. would that be unique to your tenure as chairman? i mean we -- previous chairman never did that, is that correct? >> i haven't seen the logs. but i believe that every chairman has these kinds of meetings. >> is there something sinister in the timing of these meetings? so -- because i think the insinuation from my friends on the other side is meant to suggest that there is something really deliberately sinister here. you are meeting with them either to tailor the rule or to get your instructions or to have some kind of quiet sub

mr. chairman. mr. secretary, word of congratulations on your eitc proposal. mr. ryan have had extensive conversations already about this. reminder much of the fraud determined in eitc has much to do with lack of the professional standards for tax preparers. we've had conversations in the past with mr. camp's statute. and there seems to be consensus as well. if we we were to apply the logic of not paying things, perhaps we should just expand eitc and not have it paid for. thanks again. you acknowledge that ira that mr. teaberry and i worked with. i thought we were close in the last session. we almost got there. and i hope that when we consider half the people get up in america and go to work, half of america is not in a retirement plan, that we could expand more opportunity for savings. word of congratulations on the new market tax credit program and expanding that. that is an inducement to sound investment in urban areas across the country. and alan kruger was a terrific advocate along with that, along

thank you, chairman. >> mr. fattah. chairman rogers. >> biggest change that i've seen in my experience as far as the fbi is concerned over the years has been the graduation from investigating already committed crimes and preparing evidence for prosecution and then there is today's world, where you're working more in preventing trying to prevent events, including crime, before it takes place. counterterrorism trying to prevent terrorism, trying to keep spies away. the constant barrage of cyberthreats, foreign and domestic, prevention rather than prosecution, though it may eventually be prosecution. that's a significant change. and it has taken an effort on the part of the fbi leadership over these last few years to try to get it through the agency's head that -- about this new world in which we live. and the mission of the fbi, more in prevention actually than prosecution. do you agree with that? >> very much. the transformation that is happening in the fbi is one from a place where we were criticized, with some justifica

mr. chairman. >> thank you. dr. fleming. >> thank you mr. chairman and i want to thank our panel of service chiefs in your thank you for your service and all the critical work you are doing. i particularly want to cite secretary james and chairman welsh as well because you have put a nuclear triad in enterprise of such a high priority level that so important and i'm very concerned about our bombers and their b-52s and the fact that you have the strike by them -- strike bomber in your site. i really appreciate that. it's so important. i want to ask a general question and i'm not sure who is best qualified to answer this but it may more be the chairman question for the budget committee. but we are talking about oco used to supplement beyond those caps. the question many of us have is how much of that or in what way can that be used in useful ways beyond just the underlying purpose of oco? secretary? >> i don't claim any particular expertise but i can provide a response at lease from the army perspective. based on some of the articles i have rea

mr. chairman. mr. secretary, you said in your opening comments that you would never send our men and women into harm's way without the necessary readiness the necessary equipment, and the necessary docdoctrine. i think you would agree we not send nem in harm's way without the necessary strategy. i'm having a very difficult time in light of the six months during which we've been at war in iraq and syria against isis and in light of the president's authorization for the use of military force or aumf that is now before this congress for consideration, i'm having a very hard time understanding what the strategy is and i want to make sure that as my colleagues have said, that we fund our military well beyond the budget caps and the sequester levels. i agree with them there, but i think perhaps more importantly that we have the necessary strategy in place so that their efforts, those men and women serving this country and our interests overseas are not in vain. could you answer the strategy question for me?

mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman. >> i applaud senator johnson for wanting to educate the american people and i think as a nation we should not be fighting about big numbers. i urge senator johnson to add to his discussion of economic reality, not just deficits and debts, but the reality of what's happening to the middle class and the massive level of income and welfare inequality in this country. you can't just talk about a deficit without understanding that today, 99% of all new income generated goes to the top 1%. you can't just talk about a national debt without understanding that today, the top one tenth of 1%, more wealth than the bottom 90%. so, if your goal and i share that, let's educate the american people about economic reality. let's talk about how we create jobs, raise wages, deal with the deficit, but i am concerned my republican friends don't talk about the trillions of dollars and transfer of wealth that has gone from the middle class to the top one tenth of 1%, so if you want to include that

mr. chairman. this amendment is straightforward. the budget resolution presented by our republican colleagues has some language to establish a process that could fast-track social security proposals that could privatize social security cuts, social security benefits. what this legislation does is recognized that social security is a program that benefits more than 59 million americans currently, that has more americans -- that as more americans do not have access to benefit plans, social security benefits become even more important than they were before. it says very simply that we should not be cutting social security benefits. i yield a time to my colleague from new jersey. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i support the amendment and i am disappointed that this budget resolution seeks to manufacture a crisis in the social security disability trust fund by prohibiting transfers. social security is critical lifeline for the elderly and the disabled. they are not an entitlement. you pay in over your life

mr. chairman. ranking member serrano, very much would have liked to have been here today, but he could not and he sends his sincere apologies. i'm here in his place and i would also like to warmly welcome you both, justices kennedy and breyer, to our subcommittee. as has been said in the past years, this is one of the rare opportunities for our two branches of government to interact. because of this, our questions sometimes range beyond strict appropriations issues. and as our nation's highest court, many of us look to you for important insights and to issues affecting the federal judiciary as a whole, which can be especially critical in such a difficult and challenging budget times as we are experiencing. we have to be careful not to allow anything to affect the ability of our federal judiciary to hear cases and to dispense justice in a fair and a timely manner. we have to be sure also to provide the supreme court, at both the final authority on our constitution and the most visible symbol of our

mr. chairman. the world is a dangerous place. we talk about that in this amendment. it is imperative that we lay out a way to work through the sequestration. this is something the president wanted. it is something that he wanted and what we are doing is laying it have forward and saying, here are the funds. we are going to work with this. we are going to meet the obligations that we have to the troops. with that, i yield back. chairman price: the gentlelady yields back her time. i will claim that 25 seconds remaining. it is imperative for folks to recognize the contrast between the president's budget and this budget. our budget lays out a path to get to a point where we are able to change the sequester, which requires a presidential signature. the president's budget does not of that. it is a fictitious number. time is expired. the question is on the amendment offered by ms. blackburn. those in favor? opposed? in the chair, the aye's have it. a recorded vote is requested. the clerk will call role. c

mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman, it's a top party force on this subcommittee of keen interest to all of us in the congress but particular interest to me and work that you've done. i've had a chance to come out here in a classified setting. it's very impressive, and what advice before we move on very quickly if you could, tell the american public out there listening to some good basic rules to protect themselves, good hygiene practices against cyber attack on their own computers or smart phones at home. >> folks should exercise the prudence wandered around electronic neighborhood that they would want to rent any other neighborhood. i say people try to train my children on this come with across the parking lot at night in a shopping mall they are a look to think about what ago walking is certainly, they lock their car. people should be the same on the internet. it's actually a bigger neighborhood, a bigger parking lot and more dangerous. so what i tell folks is very simple. and e-mail is a knock on your front

mr. chairman? chairman wheeler: without objection.epresentative: let me for the record also make a statement that i will backup the reason why i did. the president was involved. it was not the president who saved the auto industry, it was the american autoworker. and is doing that to this day. i think it is also with the internet. the president has his right to make statements. many people have rights to make a statement. the question is, whose internet isn't? i contend it is the american people's pasta. -- american people's. mr. wheeler, on november 7 going back to some other questions, the day after he visited you, the open street -- "wall street journal" reported -- was there ever a point in time when the open internet issue was intended to be on the agenda for december 11? chairman wheeler: yes, sir. representative: what caused it to be pushed off the agenda? chairman wheeler: it was a bridge too far. you can whip the horse, but you can't make it go faster. representative: in whose mind was it a bridge too far. chairman wheeler: t

mr. chairman. mr. chairman, the thread that holds the tapestry of our country together is respect for and adherence to the rule of law. the law is the greatest unifying and the greatest equalizing force that we have in our culture. the law is what makes the richest person drive the precise same speed limit as the poorest person. the law is what makes the richest person in this country pay his or her taxes on precisely the same day as the poorest person in this country. the law, mr. chairman, is symbolize bade blindfolded woman holding a set of scales and a sword. the law is both a shield and a sword and it is the foundation upon which this republic stands. we think so highly of the law, mr. chairman, that in the oath of citizenship administered to those who pledge allegiance to this country, to their new country, it makes six different references to the law. so attempts to undermine the law via executive pheaa regardless of motivation are detrimental to the foundation of a democracy. president obama, af

mr. chairman. >> mr. knight. >> thank you mr. chairman. general, i'd like to talk about a couple other things. lea talk about readiness of forces. this has been a generation that could have gone into their military career in 1990 and now be retired and have been or have seen bat for the last 24 here's. so here in congress we worry about things like sequestration worry about readiness of force and worry about one-to-one ratios of young men and women being over there, and for a year and being back here for a year six months and a year or something of that nature. can you give us an idea of the readiness of force today as compared to maybe four or five years ago or even ten years ago? >> i can talk better and give you perspective on on the readiness of force is get from the services as they are service providers, a little bit different perspective when i was the vice chief over the army. but all the forces i get in afghanistan, particularly from the u.s. are trained at the highest level and are focused on their mission in afghanistan. snow is

mr. chairman. mr. secretary, you said in your opening comments that you would never send our men and women into harm's way without necessary readiness. i'm having a very difficult time in light of the six months that we've been at war in iraq and syria against isis and in light of the president's authorization for the yoous of military force or aumf that is now before congress for this krgsz. i'm having a very hard time understanding what the strategy is. and i want to make sure that, as my colleagues have said, that we fund our military well beyond the budget caps in the sequester levels. i agree with them there. i think perhaps more importantly, that we have the necessary strategy in place. could you answer the strategy question for me? >> certainly. first of all, strategy is does take in addition to geographic perspective, a multi-year commitment. which is why annual budgetary turmoil isn't consistent with our strategy in taking a strategic view. with respect to the strategy against isil, the first

mr. chairman, i yield back. mr. price: does the gentleman from arkansas wish to speak on this amendment? the gentleman is recognized. >> i would like to thank the gentlelady from tennessee for explaining what is in our budget proposal for medicare and how we are very much concerned about the future of medicare, my parents are on medicare and we know people who use medicare. and we want to preserve it. and as was just stated, it is due to go bankrupt in 2030. we have to implement changes now or this is going to get worse as we move down the road. it is not a voucher program. and if people choose to stay on the fee-for-service program they can stay on it. why are we afraid to give them the choice and options to choose something different, something that's proven to work, something that's projected to save money and provide more options for seniors, which means more market competition, which means lower prices and better quality? this is a great opportunity that we have to implement the ideas that are in this budget pr

mr. chairman, very much. may i ask you, mr. chairman did the fcc follow the processes used by both democrat and republican commissions when crafting these latest net neutrality rules? >> yes, sir. >> yeah. these are tough decisions. it's a process though. and out of the process came a decision. that i agree with. i think it's an historically correct decision. but i don't think there should be a question whether or not you use the process that allowed all voices to be heard in the final vote 3-2. it's based on the totality of everything that all five of you had the opportunity to hear, 3-2. it was a process. it gave everyone the ability to hear what they needed to hear. and i think you made just the right decision. and i think you made the right decision looking at the whole history of the fcc and what you've done for our country. back in the 1970s, you know, the ceo of sprint and mci came into my office and they had less than one-half of one-half of one-half percent of the market. and they wanted the fcc to change the rules so y

mr. chairman? >> senator whitehouse, yes. >> may i raise a point of order before we get to the voting other. i think it is an appropriate point of order. we'll find out. we have been presented for the first time as far as i know in the history of the budget committee, the spending mutual reserve funds and to my knowledge the committee made no definition of what a spending neutral reserve fund it. to we're being asked to vote with no definition of what it means and there is a theory at least that the offsetting spending that would have to be cut in order to make it neutral must come out of medicare and social security and other mandatory programs out of those core programs. if what we're being asked to vote on is cuts to medicare and social security have to fund all the things. that makes a difficult decision. i don't want to be voting for what i think about, a new term that the committee has put in place without the committee having to start a new turn. >> it was moved in 2013. >> as i understand i

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

mr. chairman. want to thank you and the members of this committee for their commitment to rooo produce a responsible federal budget that balances in less than 10 years and empowers all americans to build a better life for themselves and their families. i mean both republicans and democrats. this is my fifth budget that i've been proud to be a part of. and in all those discussions with the majority and the minority members i would say we get a better product every year. this is the quickest that the budget balances in the last several that weevel done. and it is in stark contrast to the president's budget. a budget that never balances, ever. this budget takes responsibility for actually addressing our $18 trillion national debt with another $100 or so on the way over the next 30 or 40 years. the president would like the american people to believe that we can continue down the path we're on spending money we don't have without any consequence. the average hoosier in my district understands that they

mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman. >> i applaud senator johnson for wanting to educate the american people and i think as a nation we should not be fighting about -- frightened about big numbers. but urge senator johnson to add to his discussion of economic reality, not just deficits and debts, but the reality of what's happening to the middle class and the massive level of income and wealth inequality in this country. you can't just talk about a deficit without understanding that today, 99% of all new income generated goes to the top 1%. you can't just talk about a national debt without understanding that today, the top one tenth of 1%, more wealth than the bottom 90%. so, if your goal and i share that goal, let's educate the american people about economic reality. let's talk about how we create jobs, raise wages, deal with the deficit, but i am concern eded -- concerned my republican friends don't talk about the trillions of dollars and transfer of wealth that has gone from the middle class to the top one te

mr. chairman. >> and if we have special agents on the grounds, at night in the white house, ramming a barricade drunk, it seems to me that the only discipline that you could exert would be caused by the ability of you and your staff to terminate -- as punishment, so that every other agent knows, boy, i don't want to go there. that director is going to fire me. that is what makes the mind work. what do you think about that? >> no i agree with you. i think deep down, within our agency as in others people want to see discipline. people want to be disciplined. they want to have people held accountable. i just want to respect the due process, as frustrating as that is. and then let my actions speak for how we're going to move forward in this agency. >> we'll be watching. >> yes, sir. >> and waiting. >> yes, mr. chairman. >> the secretaries and chiefs of staff for each of the military branches testified before congress tuesday about the risk posed by seek restoration cuts. this appeared before the house

mr. chairman. >> mr. knight. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general, i'd like to talk about a couple of the things. let's talk about readiness of the force. this has been a generation that could have gone into their military career in 1990, and now be retired. and have been or has seen battle for the last 24 years. so here in congress we worry about things like sequestration worry about readiness of force. and worry about one to one ratios of young men and women being over there, for a year and then back here for year, six months or a year something of that nature. can you give us an idea of the readiness of force today as compared to maybe four or five years ago or maybe even 10 years ago? >> i can talk better and give a perspective on the readiness of forces that i get from the services as their service providers. a little different perspective when i was the vice chief of the army before it went over the six months ago but all the forces i get in afghanistan, particularly from the u.s. from our trained at the highest level and our focus on