mr. manchin: i rise to highlight the air land subcommittee in the 2014 authorization act as reported by the committee on armed services. i'm very proud to be chairman of the air-land subcommittee and for the close working relationships that i have with senator wicker, the ranking member of the subcommittee. the air-land subcommittee has broad responsibilities for parts of the budgets. the air-land subcommittee also has responsibility for national guard and reserve equipment and readiness. as a former governor i know firsthand how effective the national guard is and they provide a great value for all americans. throughout this process, the goal of the air-land subcommittee has been to promote and improve current and future readiness of our military. all while ensuring the most efficient and effective use of taxpayers' dollars. this year the air-land subcommittee has jurisdiction over $49 billion of the defense department's base and overseas contingency particulars budget -- contingency budget, this includes $37.1 billion for procurement and $11.1 billion for research and development. the sub

manchin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, ms. yellen. i enjoyed our visit. you've done a great job today. let me say this. i look at you and think there's a person who was involved the last time we had a balanced budget, the last time that we would have been on track to be debt free. if you go back to those days, i'm sure there was naysayers then saying we couldn't do it. never happen. but y'all did it. and then we went off the tracks. what i'm asking is how we get back on the tracks. i know quantitative easing, you and i have a difference of opinion on this or concern. you have a broader view of what has worked and not worked around the world. i think we spoke about japan and why you believe that what we're doing needs to be done. i would only say this. if $85 billion a month in quantitative easing has not really given us the results that we desire, why wouldn't you recommend doing $200 billion a month? you know, why just 85? we know that hasn't worked. of course, i have concerns with continuing it because i don't think -- i think senator johanns had said,

mr. president, i so admire joe manchin for recognizing that this is an issue that's important to everyone. patchwork of state laws excludes tens of millions of americans from basic protection against discrimination. it is simply not good enough. it is fipple for done pass a federal thraw ensures all americans regardless of where they live can go to work unafraid to be who they are. as long as hardworking, qualified americans can be denied job opportunities, fired, or harassed because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, all workers are at risk. this week the senate will begin debate on the employment nondiscrimination act which would simple pli a ford all americans the same protection from discrimination based on prejudice. in fact, four out of five americans miss sustainly believe that these protections already exist. two-thirds of americans, including a majority of republicans, support federal protections against discrimination based on sexual ornts orientation on the one hand gender identity in the workplace. once again rs republicans in congress are out of step with the res

followed by a discussion with joe manchin and john hoeven. >> mrs. johnson love to show off her home. the guest of the ranch would informally gather here in the den. various heads of state came to visit. we have a few things that speak to her connection of the room here. she wanted to highlight the native american heritage and the hill country. we have a small collection of arrowheads. she had an eye for copper and collected various items and ideas from various friends. she gave a tour of the house in 1968 that was filmed. she spent a lot of time here at the ranch. it provided such a respite from all the turmoil from washington, particularly later in the presidency. they could make the connection back to the land of this place they valued though much. like lady bird johnson, monday night live at 9:00 eastern. also on c-span radio and c- span.org. on thursday, president obama announced that some people could keep their health insurance even if there plans to not meet all of the standards of the health care law. he also talked about the implementation

mr. chairmain, and thank you everyone. i want to follow-up on a question that heidi hyde cap brought up. i agree with senator manchin, it's not upgraded problem. our greatest problem is that middle-class incomes are declining. the amazing thing is that they decline not just because of the recession but they actually declined between 2001-2007. the person who alerted me to this was a professor at harvard law school was elizabeth warren who wrote articles about this one before being a senator was a gleam in her eye but it's one of our most serious problems. if middle-class incomes continue to decline and decline close to 10% between 2001 and today how much it's going to be a different america. what's all of this populism about? the american people are a generous people. they don't mind if the people at the top income goes up one percent of theirs goes up 3%-4%. my question to you is how concerned are you about this he? what impact will this have on growth and economic attention he? is the fed have tools to do this? i understand this relates to some of our republican colleagues's skittishness about maintaining growth b

mr. lott's rendition of statistics were pretty compelling. i do not claim to be an expert in this area. i guess my politician's point of view, when you have people like governor granholm and joe manchin, somebody i actually know, i do not believe in their mind at the time they signed these laws into law that they felt that that was what they were doing. can you understand how somebody could come to a different conclusion? >> of course. i do not think legislators sat down and said let's think about how we can prejudice minorities. sometimes, because this is a human enterprise -- juries are human beings. juries carry the baggage, unfortunately, this country has. sometimes, the laws express themselves in various sorts of ways. in terms of the specifics, i -- the statistics, i spent a lot of time, probably bore d your staff senseless in terms of reading the statistical analysis there. with all respect my friend, you ask 10 economists a question, you get 11 different responses in terms of what the data means. there is a lot of noise. there is a lot of noise in the data. but what you do see is examples like jordan and trayvon. my only point of this committee and to the american public is t