the an average of $2500 per yeae see that this has not occurred. so mr. chairman, whatever concerns our members may have, let us agree on this. it is the right thing to do. i am pleased that we are given this budget proposal. thank you and i yield back. >> while you may not recognize what seems to be a strident

partisan that started here today we get a lot of things done in this institution together. and we had the longest thing since we did it together. we talk a lot about not keeping the promises that we make with this budget for pills that promise. for the first time we are trying to align those revenues coming in for transportation, telling folks that you have to pay for those services that you want and those services are going to be delivered on time and under budget. mr. chairman, constituents do not mind paying for the government services that they use. what they don't like is paying a dollar for government services and only getting the defense where those services back. as my great state of georgia has, we have aligned the incentives for the states to begin to play a larger

partnership role, a billion dollars of our state money to match the federal money so that we can bring products to conclusion faster. it would've been easy in these tough budget times to have abandoned our commitment to transportation and it would have been easy in these times to have tried to dial back some of those agreements that we made together. but that is not who we are as an institution or as a committee. there's a lot to be proud of in terms of transportation and we are now moving forward. >> i thank you. i am pleased to recognize the gentlelady. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it would be unwise to date with more than 19 trillion-dollar debt, the unsustainable spending or the looming deficit. we can never forget our primary obligation to provide for the common defense. that providing for the security at home and strength of god comes with a heavy

responsibility. our defense budget has sunk to levels where we are struggling to try to run the manpower and this is happening is that are expanding. that means being able to fully respond to the world's threats and likewise we must provide the financial security here at home. crucial mandatory programs are driving mandatory spending and they are in jeopardy depriving mail enchant millions of benefits. we must do what needs to be done to preserve and protect these vital programs while still getting our fiscal health in order and we can do both. this provides for strength and security. it is responsible and forward-looking budget that balances and advances the right priorities and that includes to provide security at home and strength abroad.

>> i think the gentlelady. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your hard work on this difficult task as we move into a very uncertain time in the future and of course the economy continues to slow down as we see less dollars coming to the u.s. treasury. i was struck a little bit by our colleague from maryland and her comments about all of the necessities of the federal government needs to provide for the constituents. i was wondering if maybe we didn't have a state government in maryland anymore. maybe they don't provide for the visit made that are in their constitution for their constituents. i know that in indiana the budget is about $15 billion.

and we are making sure that we are focusing on education. and we are seeing economic growth but we continue to see the federal government suffocating the economy. i know that is happening in many other states as well and we better keep our focus with what is this budget that aims to do that. thank you and i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. he leaned lean over to a returning member to a budget committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm happy to be back where my time in executive office where i hope that we can be useful to this process. because in manchester we cut taxes and rebounds each budget and we brought the city back to life while growing the economy. benefiting doncaster city but state. and i think that that's what we hope to do here. we mark up the budget resolution

with the shortsighted proposal and i echo the concerns of my colleagues. the debt is unsustainable and according to the cbo government spending will reach 21.2% of the gdp in 2016. this threatens important health and retirement programs and funding for national defense. but this has not worked to revive the economy. in fact, this is the worst economy in recovery on record. we need more opportunity. we need more jobs and higher wages and more freedom to make their own decisions in their best own interest. wasteful spending on overregulation seems to be this administration's focus on prescription. creating economic opportunities is at the heart of the budget we are considering today.

this committee wants economic growth, good jobs, higher wages, greater access to capital, regulations like those in dodd-frank have made it harder for the community banks and credit unions to serve their customers. families that want to earn a business or buy a car or a home are finding it extremely difficult. in new hampshire we lost 20% of our small community banks since dodd-frank was enacted. a record number of regulations have led to less financial innovation and fewer choices for americans in today's budget i believe changes that course. it empowers our constituents and our communities and i want to thank the chairman and the entire committee. and i yield back. >> thank you, kindly.

we now recognize the gentleman from arkansas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. budgeting for the expenditures of our nation is one of our most fundamental duties and i think thank you for your diligence in bringing us together to consider this balanced budget. then everything single one of us took an oath that we will support and defend the constitution of the united states than there is a debt that has eclipsed in $19 trillion. and we are less able to ensure the safety and security. so not only does this budget provide an essential roadmap to wean america off of our fiscally reckless path by cutting

$7 trillion in spending, repealing obamacare making critical reforms to mandatory programs and ultimately balancing in a decade while raising no new taxes, equally as important as it ensures that the nation's capacity to defend itself remains uncompromised. mr. chairman, america is engaged in a confrontation against terror around the globe. looming threats from iran, a russia, isis and north korea. we face new uncertainties daily. american military strength and leadership has become indispensable foundation of global stability and relative ease throughout the world. now is not the time for us to be weakening that concept. i commend this committee in you for your leadership leading from the front. this budget is until to our safety and security i yield back my time.

>> thank you for all of your hard work on the committee. i apologize for the baritone voice and so this budget is very symbolic of what direction we want to head in and we heard some comments on this and i think everyone knows if you read all of this, all of the yachts are heading over ireland. we are not competitive, we are not doing our job on education and getting the kids competitive because half of the politics are morally bad.

i don't know where the kids go and i don't know what kind of education you will be motivated to spend every waking hour in business. it is the only entity that creates revenue for the government. so we are creating opportunities for these kids or we are not. we are talking about horrible kids on both the right and the left. and it appears the middle class is very upset about something so we've had an executive in charge for seven years and the country is going in the wrong direction and i wonder why that is. so then how do you cut through and see who is talking the truth and who is not. we talked about him cuts and sequester and let's provide the context. going up to $540 billion.

that is half a trillion dollars. in the decade it will be a $30 trillion. i can go back home every week. i told them you have $30 trillion in debt and unfunded liabilities. medicare, social security, both of them are in solomon in 2034 and i wrote $93 up on the board to a fifth-grade class. i said you think you should do more or less. guess what the fifth-graders now. what direction should we be moving in. so this budget gets us moving in the correct traction and there is no perfection on the planet.

and unfortunately we don't have a balance in the history of civilization so i push them to give them going in the right direction and with that i move forward. >> thank you. i now move over to the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you. >> we have more than 19 trillion in debt. even though it is collecting record revenue, the american people want to restore the trust in government and also in critical government programs. it will increase dramatically like national security and protecting our great lakes. these programs need to be reformed. so that they will be there for our children and grandchildren. this budget also promote

affordability and patient centered health care require americans to buy health care policies with premiums that make it too expensive to maintain health. a permanently and what helps americans live longer and the health insurance tax that eliminates and costs employers hundreds of dollars per year. this budget addresses our country's fiscal problems in a responsible way and puts our nation on a brighter path for our children and grandchildren. thank you and i yield back. >> we yield over to the gentleman from ohio. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> it is a labor that has produced resources. the money belongs to those old to efficient and accountable

government. as a business owner for nearly three decades and a mayor that requires to balance the budget is like hard-working american families have to balance their finances, i understand the importance of having a fiscally responsible budget that promotes effectiveness and accountability when you set a budget you need to abide by it. the annual budget process is often not completed. that includes the fiscal practices opening up the authorization process for more wasteful spending. supporting the budget resolution for a complete overhaul of it budget process to include transparency and oversight. and respecting fiscal limits.

the budget is meaningless if not followed in washington continues to spend money that it does not have. mr. chairman, i look forward to working with you and other members on budget process reforms so that we can better ensure the policy set out in the budget resolution to become a reality. i yield back. >> some things have been said about who this vision benefits more. in the next 10 years we will wind up with a balanced budget. he does not. but even more he seems proudly introducing a document that is going to introduce over $6 trillion over the next 10 years as we work towards a

balanced budget that will increase by 1.5 trillion. so i think that this is the party that cares and the other party is the one that seems more of an instant gratification. one thing i like about this budget is that there are horrible incentives today. we are much more in favor of this budget for work requirements and a variety of welfare programs. it seems to be content to continue a line down the path. we are making an effort to solve the problem that we have. right now in this country in which we all created equal we have people that have decided to raise their children while married areas i'm proud that we are doing now. we also look at people who are trying to break the law in the system that requires social

security for the child tax credit. over the last 10 years it has doubled and that has got to end. in conclusion i would just like to say that this is a budget that benefits particularly children and policies on welfare and increasing government debt. thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. >> pleased to yield to the gentleman, mr. johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am proud of this committee's work to balance within 10 years without raising taxes on hard-working americans but achieved deficit reduction. americans have to live within their means and it's past time for the federal government do the same. the foremost responsibility is

to ensure the security of citizens and provide for the common defense and in fact that is the primary element of the oath that we swore to when we took the office. i am proud that this budget provides what is consistent with fiscal year 2016. we are living in a dangerous time. gathering interests than threats to our homeland and interest abroad and now is not the time to question whether or not to provide these funds to our military leaders. what we cannot afford to do is jeopardized the strength of our national defense. we owe it to the men and women who put on a uniform to ensure that they have the resources that they need to be successful in their mission and doing so will also provide assurance to allies and send a message to our enemies that america will not be from behind. rather we will remain a force

for peace and stability. this will also include the bureaucratic mismanagement at the department of veterans affairs. america has an obligation to ensure that the nation's heroes are receiving care, benefits and services that they have earned and are entitled to. and so it is our responsibility with congress to ensure the vigorous oversight to force the va to do their jobs in an accountable and transparent manner. i yield back the balance of my time. >> i think the gentleman and all the members on our side for this thoughtful presentation we have a lot of conflicting scheduling items this morning and a number of members who have not been able to make it here to make their opening remarks and so i

will close with a few remarks to just summarize. so i think that the sense from our friends on the other side said that basically everything is just fine except we are not spending enough money and that the only way we can improve things is to spend more money and as many of my colleagues have said that we believe that it's important to measure the output of government programs. how we lift people up, how do we make certain that folks are receiving the kinds of services that they need in the health security area. as opposed to simply measuring the amount of money going in. if all we are doing is measuring this, then the sky is the limit. you ought to be spending more. that is the only rational response. and so the american people know that that's not true. they know they can't do that in

our own personal lives or do that in her businesses and we believe it's important to be much more responsible with their hard-earned taxpayer dollars america is the greatest nation in history the world and there's no doubt about it. if we're honest with ourselves and we look at the finances and the fiscal state of our country, any honest individual has to look at the numbers and say that there are some red flags on the horizon. we may believe that it is okay in total debt, and about 75% of debt to gdp ratio held by the public. but these are stark numbers when compared to history. they could be okay if we were moving in the right direction.

if we were decreasing the amount of money that the american people. because every time the number goes up what happened is that the interest on that debt goes up. we now have the congressional budget office telling us that we are approaching a point where we will be spending nearly $8 billion per year on interest on that debt. what it really is, these are not just numbers but affecting people and their lives. it cannot be used to buy a house, it cannot be used to pay the rent or to start a business or to cover health care costs. all of the things the american people desire to do are harmed by this trajectory that we are on. it makes sense to be responsible and look at the challenges that

we have and preferably work in a bipartisan way to dissolve the challenges and get to that point where we are actually don't sing the budget, get to the point where we are going to pay off the debt so that our kids and grandkids will not be saddled with that kind of incredible burden that will make it so that they have fewer opportunities in their lives. some of my colleagues have been issued the whole issue of federalism and doing what they can do and my state of georgia has about 1.8 million recipients. two thirds are healthy moms and kids. the federal government hangs around the neck of the state and of those individuals a system that makes it much less likely that they are able to access quality care. why wouldn't we be? why would we not embrace a

system that allows the state so much more flexibility to be able to fashion a program that is much more responsive to those folks. the average across this country is that for one out of every three physicians in this country no longer sees medicaid patients. one out of every three that is eligible by virtue of the kind of practice that they have and that's not because they have forgotten how to practice medicine but because the rules and regulations and reimbursement rates that the federal government sets make it impossible for them to see medicaid patients. this is a system that is not working for the very individuals that we say we want to help. why would we not look at an opportunity to be able to solve that problem socially in terms of medicare. it's moving in the terms of accessibility. the number of physicians now is

at an all-time low. if you are a new medicare patient and moves into the medicare program and you are currently seeing someone that is not a position of medicare, it's impossible for you to find a new medicare patient. and again, that is not because the doctors found forgot how to take care of them because of the program itself. we think that it is incumbent upon each and every one of us to work to solve the challenges that we have. it also makes you think that we are simply not collecting enough money. we have to raise taxes on these folks and those businesses and we have to spend more. the fact of the matter is that

it was the most run to win in the history of the government coming into the federal government. so what is the way forward? you can raise taxes as our friends have said we could do. decreasing the ability for the economy to grow. punishing the very people that are trying to expand and decreased spending and that is where we talked about the need for automatic spending reform and congress has actually done a really good job the last five years or so. a lot of money but relatively flat. the best way that we believe is growth. if you look at that trendline we would urge the college to do so.

they have told us that the growth over the next 10 years is going to be an average of 3% growth annually and 2.5% growth growth annually and now 2.1%. which is a 30% reduction in the projected growth in the last five years under this administration. what does that mean? it means that there are fewer jobs, less opportunities for folks all across the economic sector. >> it would result in a $300 billion decrease in the federal deficit. if we were just going out our average, what we would see is over $3 trillion decrease in and these are big numbers. we believe the way to get the economy to grow is to make

certain that you get social security on a sustainable path. make sure that you have progrowth tax reform that frees up the kind of resources and only people to be able to realize their dreams and create the greatest amount of opportunity and success for folks to realize their american dreams in a fair and compassionate system and that is what we believe. that is what we believe this budget is going to do

>> >> as i said at the beginning this budget is not a balanced budget but what is interesting is despite that they are not willing to close a single special interest tax break. not one of for a hedge fund managers for corporations that have been incentives we need to close those tax breaks and invest in our economic future isn't innovation. the republican budget

doubles down on the economy that works great for those who are already at the top but leaves everybody else behind. to talk more about that i will yield. >> this is the sixth year i have been a part of this process is essentially it is like a groundhog day we hear the same arguments year after year based on the same budgets and this is what the american people are demanding. i am not sure who the majority party is listening to other than each other but to that presidential candidate mitt romney had to disavowal he didn't think it was very popular so failing to meet the desires of the american people while two-thirds say the gap is

only getting larger this does nothing to close the gap or with tax expenditures including that preferential tax treatment were the 150 billion per year. the only benefit the extremely wealthy. those including their presumed nominee donald trump and that will allow a hedge fund managers to pay a minimum rate of 20% this budget protects them. americans are working harder than ever but their paycheck does not reflect that. this budget doesn't call for an increase of the minimum wage it doesn't invest in job training programs and 83% of employers support.

with a compensation and bonuses. with the 70 percent of americans this budget protects them. to incentivize and reward companies overseas to end it ignores the democrats and republicans to. at 56 percent of republicans in primary ford boaters for those making with intuitive 50,000 in deficit reduction should have spending cuts i would say they're republicans are the only ones that support this. so measured against the priorities to fail across

the board and i hope it fails to pass the house as well. >> i will now yield. >> good morning colleagues. please put up chart number 12. it does feel like "groundhog day" to me also. the greek philosopher plato said there should exist among since this is extreme poverty for both hour productive of great evil. if you look at that peak at 1929 with the great depression with incoming quality if you move over

further to the right it is 2018 b.c. that climb in our country. we had the deepest and longest downturn in history and those that do not learn that lesson are doomed to repeat it. i yield back. >>. >> first of all, i have to disagree with my last two colleagues i think there is the better day on april fool's day. listen to those comments to be said with tongue in cheek if anyone believes anything

they have said. with 9 percent approval to even get the courtesy public at the presidential primaries. projecting every single officeholder and instead have as you know, phobic billionaire to be in charge or anyone that spouts those policies i do believe there is of better day it is april fool's day. the american people are still far more upset than anyone else. to talk about this trillion dollar unauthorized spending

almost $1,150,000,000,000 largely unpaid for was decrease those expenditures to never put money into i haven't done the job as we supposed to in 62 percent goes to the corporate tax rate but that is what people really care about the average person is getting the shaft to retaking care of the 1% that is the real issue by a trump has the appeal new republican officeholder does and i hope we can come up with the budget that is responsive to the middle class. i yield back.

>> i now yield to the gentleman and. >> the fact that we have this committee hearing today and to entertain the of budget i know you're all busy but is no secret about the tax code it is legendary for all the wrong reasons. we were sent to washington for those advocates for everyone but how can we go back to tell them this? to incentivize the tax system of multinationals to

take the jobs of hard-working americans. to be measured in these terms 1 trillion of expenditures and we just saw that. and to set the rules. in the outcomes of but we do less my. and more rich people in so we hear to say yes we are transferring the budget from the wealthy from those at the bottom stallone's

quarter of a million dollars. i know. everything we say we should do here in washington we're forcing ordinary americans. we deliver full and fair playing field. and i yield back. >> and it is no surprise to put forward a budget with those earned benefits to make america strong. with that crashed and burned

budget better proven to grow the economy very similar to the rise in budget. it undermines those harmful sequester global funding. and it includes devastating cuts for more families and for example, well rest of the republican colleagues pretend to care about the task force it would cut a stunning 3.$5 trillion to eliminate 40 percent of federal resources to create more poverty also to have

lifted millions out of poverty to have real impact from headstart and meals on wheels to experience the real effects the individual affects cannot be over estimated. to maintain those special interest tax breaks there is enough resources left to educate they deserve a better education to get good jobs that have that unemployed rate are much lower rate than those that do not. why do colleagues insist on cutting mandatory spending by a to launder billion over 10 years?

why would they eliminate that congress is already enacted and paid for it to allow access to a college education? we already know there is some major gap of skills if foolishly cut its investment of scientific research and development at uc-berkeley with biotechnology and advanced manufacturing with tremendous am positive impact spending hands to keep us competitive in the global marketplace. it also pays dividends in in economic growth for new products and jobs.

to support innovation and science is the 1, 2 punch for the industry is an already suffer from a lack of diversity and people of color. we need to prioritize spending to create opportunities for all americans not just the wealthy to take your real look at long-term solutions edits in effect the next fiscal year. >> i will yield two 1/2 minutes. >> at a time when the americans and the economy is recovering and deficits have declined as the share of gdp

house republicans are pushing a budget from job-creating programs. almost to the injured billion of mandatory hiring talking about freezes of those that tries to go to school. it fails to improve with the transit system and i am worried of the likely impact of the national laboratories in the national security especially at a time when members of those parties are concerned about the threats abroad more than twice the size and will only worsen

the problem is congress needs to address not everyone has benefited equally. in fact, many are still struggling with high unemployment including my home state of new mexico the highest in the nation. most workers have not seen there paycheck move significantly and the poverty rate remains above pre-recession levels and many middle-class americans have been left behind to continue to partner between the federal government and every major sector to solve these problems. in fact, no place for collaboration rather it in health care or national defense or a construction.

with private sector investment and to promote with new technologies so if congress fails to partner with middle-class families to fall behind those of the very top so i yield back. >> mr. chairman you use the

term a couple times i have heard from the other side as well. the way for word is working together. is up path you have not chosen. what we are dealing with is budgetary hypocrisy at the worst. while calling for the complete and total repeal you may not want to listen to in this but assume that $2 trillion of increase of medicare savings if that isn't hypocrisy then what is? i like to talk about the social safety net that keeps our country's most foldable out of poverty. this budget swashes spending and more.

with the up primary-care to result in the long term educational benefit. but as children is a group earn higher wages more in federal taxes they continued to argue for the above lot agreement. such a funding stream like a recession in every town budget. dash with the block grant proposal for medicaid and to

reduce funding levels. so reduce benefits that is what we will do to cut pavement grades that is what we have to are out of cop pocket cost for beneficiaries but it is targeting seniors and people with disabilities to satisfy the extreme agenda block grant medicaid while reducing the base lending as a result of fewer people getting health care period. >> i will now yield to the gentlemen from washington. fifth.

>> the republican has left him by himself which shows there is a much bipartisan exchange of ideas in the room. to offer her kudos to the genius to decided to have this hearing in this budget proposal the day after mr. trump took the republican nomination for the republican party. it is clear the tea party revolt is pretty strong to watch the republicans with those saving tired ideas and not do one darn thing except $17 trillion debt. to make even more ironic

while we're sitting here the hearing is called strengthening in in preserving medicare. and to offer the venture system because you don't want somebody in your piece of paper to say go find insurance company. and it you are not looking for that uncertainty that comes with that. end they can't accept the fact with the pharmaceutical cost is absolutely immoral. 13 years ago medicare part c

to spend all the money that we don't allow the secretary to negotiate at one single reduction? the veterans administration can get a reduction. then do seniors there hasn't been one single hearing in the ways and means committee on that proposal to make the secretary except whatever they put up in we have seen in the price of pharmaceuticals going up and up and we sit here to say we want to protect the seniors. and this budget i have been

on the committee since 95 office and on i have heard the same rhetoric since republicans took over and then you have to ask yourself are they serious about anything? the tea party says they are not. i yield back. >> i now yield two 1/2 minutes. >> i have no voice. to be michigan strong but i want to ruth appeal today. because the budget worries me so much with such a

profound negative impact it hurts children and the uninsured in the elderly and the hard-working men and women all over the country. we have to do better to give the people opportunities as they continue to work hard and raise a family. one of the greatest achievements with those critical programs we have woven into the fabric to not destroy the liver damage these programs. once again as eloquently stated in their own brand of dialogue to put medicare into a voucher program for

the seniors who cannot afford any additional burden. they are begging me not to touch medicare it is all they have to rely on and not to dismantle the program as we know it. how many times to we have to consider the same tired idea? with deficit reduction on the most vulnerable americans. those that for those in need. and to jeopardize coverage almost half of this net beneficiaries are children i

am looking at these kids will only get nutrition from the snap program it will push people at of the program to reduce benefits. nearly $1 trillion means the states would limit eligibility to reduce benefits for increase out of pocket cost in the time of economic uncertainty. if they unexpectedly lose their jobs later in life. and next week we will offer our own budget and to be responsible for it is

imperative we take action and afford to working with my colleagues as we consider our amendments of the safety net it is what we need to do as americans who love our country. i yield back. >>. >> colleagues the republican budget seems to balance but it doesn't with actium accounting saying it will balance within 10 years but it doesn't i know you are still going through it over the last day here to we have been through it and it does not balance in one of their dirty little secrets it relies on revenue from the affordable care act but they claim to repeal it.

this wording they said this budget repeals the affordable care act but here is what is really in the budget it relies on all $2 trillion of revenue of medicare savings from the affordable care act. honestly reflecting the true full cost of the repeal would mean they would have to show deficits of several hundred billion dollars. it is actium. in addition the republican budget instead of real balance they are falling in line with the trump and cruz agenda to pay for trillions of dollars of tax cuts of the top 1 percent i heard that in the remarks last night on average they will grow the deficit by a 1.

$3 trillion over the budget window of $9.9 trillion to protect the wealthiest in the corporations and who were they asking to pay? working families and all those across america. to pick up the slack in the budget. watch out. they say one thing led to another. it is a hypocrisy. when you say we are repealing the hca in here is another example, at the end of the year attacks package was passed of $700 billion and paid for. there were some good things in there and some democrats supported it but it wasn't paid for.

and the president of the committee for responsible spending said we're doing damage to health of the country to borrow this amount at a time when the debt is so high. it is absolutely at cause of the priority of the republicans when they are out campaigning in they say they care. they pass a budget that says we will cut then at the end of the year the past $700 billion that are not paid for and that will be one of the new drivers so this shim accounting is not serving us well and people are not fooled at home just because she passed a budget in the past $700 billion that makes us crazy. we have to work together it is hard.

but the issue and accounting in the gimmicks the hypocrisy your not serving the americans and i yield back. >> appealed to enough minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i would like to take this moment to highlight the overseas contingency operation by my colleagues to use the back door proposal to circumvent from the bipartisan budget agreement act undermines the integrity of the budget process. in fact, in the house report from this majority its stated with the adjustments is the back door loophole to undermine the integrity of

the budget process. this is not marco rubio speaking, what the majority said in a weird doing it again. the republican budget provide 74 billion of overseas contingency operation the total amount of the bipartisan budget agreement but it receives 23 billion will be used to supplement the dod base budget leaving 51 million to cover all the things we're doing overseas either it under funds the request for an international and defense budget or is understanding how much oco will be funded at a time with global threats grow from isis to russia and syria is unfortunate and surprising

concession to the two-party instead of a $5 billion waterfront for regular military purposes, this budget proposal allows 23 billion to be used for regular budget needs leaving open the possibility the president needs to ask for another emergency supplemental budget for war operations overseas. having been deployed myself this shortchanges the men and women serving on the front line in the most dangerous places in the role that perpetuates the process for too long. i yield back. >> thanks to all the members and mr. chairman, we were here to listen to your

budget proposals. i wish we had an opportunity of but we will put forward our own alternatives going forward but it is our strong view the republican budget is wrong for america but it is right for those who are already at the top 1% but for everybody else it is bad. the reality is it disinfest in america and dramatically cuts our investment to protect our seniors health through medicaid and medicare and goes after students at a time when they cannot afford college so this republican budget is unfortunately very bad news for you of your at the top of the latter this is great for right now our country needs to grow in this takes

us in the wrong direction i a understand we will have though walk through but i want to take the opportunity to make clear this budget after all that does not reach that balance because of all the accounting gimmicks we will now proceed to the next stage of the markup. >> time has expired for opening presentations we will now proceed with the walk through of the concurrent resolution of the budget coming to the witness table is the staff director on the majority side and our

policy director we got the best way to proceed would be allowed questions to be asked so they are available to answer any questions i would remind members of the committee the goal for the staff is to provide factual questions there will be a lot of time to debate the merits for the amendments that will be offered. and the floor is open. >> raising the issue of oco

but i will start with the parts that deals with education and the social services function so we can better understand some of the assumptions the numbers in that category. mandatory spending is cut by 202 billion the a baseline and indicates the maximum pell grant is frozen over those 10 years does that mean it will eliminate the previously enacted mandatory funding for the pilgrims? plan -- that pell grant. >> and the maximum pell grant will be kept at that level. >> when a stand we will not debate but that of the

previously enacted. >> we are proposing that the pell grant be funded on the discretionary side of the budget. >> the answer is yes. >> we're proposes to be funded on discretionary. >> now you have an estimate how much is eroded by freezing? >> i don't how that estimates. >> previous budgets say you eliminated the undergraduate loans for needy students have you done that again? >> we are proposing between the graduate and undergraduate so we would not propose continuing that for undergraduates the same

as they are treated today. >> we would treat them the same. >> with respect to the block grant i assume it is the elimination? >> correct. >> there are remaining 80 billion of mandatory cuts of the changes that were just described to the pell grant and a the block grant the you know, that savings consist of? >> bolton of the the savings are up to the authorizing committee one additional option is the scaling back of income based repayment on student loans.

>> in other words, under the current program you'll have to pay back based on your income coming in indy will scale that back? chemicals eligibility requirements have been greatly expanded in the proposed pay go back to what they were prior to the expansion spiritous to translate, that means students have to take on a higher burden. so with that health care function? this budget assumes the creation of medicare voucher or premium support for everyone who enters medicare? what is the dollar savings to estimating?

>> congressmen and our medicare savings is a collection of several reforms in the changes to the medicare model is just one of those. >> do you have an estimate? >> we don't isolate the effect of just that we show the entire effect of all reforms. >> what was the basis of that piece? >> you have that separately calculated how much savings you will get. >> you cannot break that out? >> we have identified approximately 487 billion of that total militants of medicare savings. >> what cbo estimates in terms of long-term savings

you were right to determine how much you will save? >> over a the which window? >> the five-year window after implementation. >> there is a number of estimates, it could be saved has that been built into this? >> all options are mostly based on cbo estimates we work with them closely but the medicare number we are proposing that is the total package. >> can you tell day-to-day which premium model you are assuming? the market is based on the average base model that is what the cbo looked at. >> but which model and how

much degenerated? >> i don't have that specific number. >> with respect, looking at the medicare savings is as a net savings of 449 billion? or 487 billion? >> that figure that you referenced that includes the medicare savings better part of the affordable care act we don't show that double accounting but we show the effect of repealing the affordable care act in savings over 10 years in

medicare savings. >> and i think we will get into that. i have one last question. you assume increase of the eligibility age? >> yes. yes we do. >> when? >> that decision is up to the authorizing committee within the context of the goals on. >> can you indicate how much savings? given that is part of that entire $487 billion. >> i yield. >> that wasn't very clear. the republican budget has an increase of the medicare eligibility age can he be more specific and how high

did you take that eligibility age? >> bad assumption would be eventually make medicare on par with social security retirement age. >> that retirement ages 67. medicare would eventually hit the same retirement age. >> in three months increments every year. >> so an increase of the eligibility age would start when? >> it is up to the authorizing committees. >> it will obviously start within this 10 year window with that is up to the committee to make that determination. >> so you said we will do this you assume that age

would increase every three months to get it at age 67? >> yes. that would be on par with social security. >> all of the components that make up the $487 billion. >> the key fundamental reforms with the budget is proposed in the medicare function the premium support model that was identified another to combine the medicare and deductibles. >> is the increase medicare eligibility age in the premium support part?

>> it is separate as part of the structural reform. these illustrative examples are part of the structural reform. >> ag in premium support and restructure both parts? >> also savings achieved from increasing the bipartisan proposal in the past of parts a and b. >> does that include malpractice reform? >> traditionally has been part of the budget summit that is not contained in the $487 billion? >> it is but it is not part of the structural reform is not consider that. >> thank you very much. >> i would like to ask a

couple questions with regard to the overseas contingency as the war funding. gore the slush fund. [laughter] in 2017 the deal provides 59 billion for defense the total of $74 billion. it includes 74 billion with oco now in your description it says 23 billion of the 74 billion will be used to supplement the pentagon's base budget meeting the remaining 51 billion. that seems to be a big change from the president's request that budget assumes

5 billion of the 74 billion to supplement the base budget and the remaining 69 billion is to fund the deployed troops and international programs so as i calculate that 23 billion from the pentagon base budget of slush fund the republican budget is $18 billion short of the president oco request for the deployed troops. even if we assume the remaining amount goes to non-defense as envisioned what is still be $3 billion short to cover what dod says is needed or do we open that possibility to put it oco spending above 74 billion? either way it is still a slush fund.

can you explain your numbers? >> the budget on the defense side reeler -- were very closely with the house members' services committee and house appropriations those two committees believed part of the bipartisan budget agreement was an indication the base fiscal year 17 should be 574. what this does is to fills the interpretation or understanding of the defense authorization and appropriations subcommittee of the agreement last year to have that base amount of 574. i guess we disagree with the chairman's mark in the president's proposal but the of the riser is in

appropriators believe that was a very strong agreement last year to use 23 billion of oco and that is the budget resolution within that 74 billion whatever the mix remains is up to the of the risers to determine what is the final mix of the 74 billion and if it is short that theoretically could be addressed in the future. >> i thank you explained why i call it a slush fund. >> if i made this budget to fills the bipartisan budget agreement fiscal year 17 for defense and nondefense and that is exactly what the chairman's mark provides. >> but that does not reflect the budget of the

president's request. >> probably not because we go back to the original agreement that the author risers' believed was the agreement in the base amount >> but once again that is why i consider it the slush fund. >> if i could just follow-up , if he is that 23 billion for defense your shortchanging the president in what the military requested for the overseas operations. >> it could be the case it depends on how the of the razors utilize the money with those oco funds. >> if that is the base budget clearly it does not available for the overseas

contingency request the military is asking for. right? you either are not providing what the military has said they need for overseas contingency or increase oco. is it one of the two? >> again that is up to the author risers to decide how they will utilize those funds. it is impossible for us to make a decision today. >> i stepped out of the room but was it answered or identified? the president's assumption from oco from base defense spending? so i think it is true for a factual standpoint that the discrepancy is in how much

money is utilized to fill the needs as opposed for those base needs. >> if you find those then the money is not available for what is necessary to protect our troops overseas. this is math so this uninteresting continuing discussion. >> am trying to figure if i vote for the budget but there are some questions that i have that can't quite figure out some i understand every right in agreement -- provided for sequester relief?

>> yes. both of those bills raises those caps. >> what does this budget do for sequester relief beyond? >> this budget refers to the allocations fiscal year 17 her gore makes no final determination and allocations for the appropriators for the eight fiscal year 18 but it does make the assumption of a mix between defense and nondefense. >> it does not reflect the snapback at the sequester levels? >> no. it doesn't make any assumptions with fiscal year 18 through the bipartisan agreement it is the number

that is independent of that. >> what does it mean for non-defense or non discretionary spending? does that go up or down? >> so loewi nih funds would be driven down by the budget? >> we disagree with that characterization that there are sufficient areas in the appropriations authority that still continue but there are other ways. >> give me specifics there are other ways? give me specifics of where they will get the money not

to cut nasa and nih and other research aspects. >> we are proposing elimination toward the construction of a department of commerce and a number of changes of programs ruth argue our corporate welfare. >> tell me what they are. >>. >> things he would say white the in this extension in partnership program innovation international

trade administration. those are illustrative examples when not binding but that is how those reductions are made. >> see you give us a stack of money to say you don't give them any direction or who was the recipient of all of the cuts if they didn't get rid of the corporate welfare provisions is that the way this works? >> the chairman's mark makes no assumptions. so it is up to the appropriators. >> it doesn't protect n i h? so it is down to the appropriators?

is that a fair description? >> it is fair to say the budget does with it is supposed to do to provide a blueprint to the author risers and appropriators how to achieve a balanced budget and that is the role of the budget resolution to provide those dictates. >> you are saying it does not go back to the sequester level. >> it is not designed for that. >> obviously the best way to describe that is more of a fundamental question i you put it together it is based on cbo economics to get the balance, if those change for the good then future reductions are less if economics go the wrong

direction there may have to be additional changes to get to the balance it is just a snapshot today of economics as well as the technical factors and baseline assumptions. >> that is the same answer that you say that there is no real base budget for any issue it is a stack of money would never happen as they decide at that time. >> that is the premise of every budget resolution ever coming out of this committee you were given a pile of money as you say for the appropriators have to utilize. >> thanks to their ranking member and the staff. i have a question.

nasa and other income. in the past budgets proposals last year, the budget proposal proposed that we provide savings of $125 billion to block grant this now program. -- the snap program. there is a big difference from savings can you share your assumptions and where they come from? >> one of the new things we are recommending the work requirements be required without dependants or children the does have additional savings.

>> there are already work requirements so this is a new class? >> this is for able-bodied adults without children or dependents. >> can you give me a number about your assumptions how much this will save with those that are required in the new people that will work? >> that option could save 14.2 billion over 10 years. >> but that savings of 783 billion where is the rest coming from? >> there is a number of

other options over the last five years for the block grant other things is reforming social security income and also requiring the requirement for the child tax credit falls into this as well and also the tax revenue. >> it could affect anybody to have a social security number to claim that credit. >>. >> there is the recommendation with snap if

you get the li-heap payment if you are eligible for one you're eligible for all of them this option would recommend phasing some of that eligibility out. >> with military retirement retirement, it would you take out? >> we don't take any out of military retirement. >> federal employees? >> as in past budgets it is recommended an option the federal government in the employee each contribute an equal amount toward the pension payments. >> you say you have delayed savings from the proposal?

is that still the assumption? >>. >> before even starts? >> thank you so much. >> i have a question, a category 600, what is the total amount that budget provides for spending for section 600 over the next five years? >>. >> approximately 403 billion. >> on table one.

>>. >> it is close that trillion dollars. >> correct. >> you have the number over the next 10 years? to read the chairman's mark provides 4.2 trillion dollars. >> that is the mandatory side there is this additional on the discretionary side the budget authority over tenures would be 710 billion on the discretionary side. >> with $5 trillion of the grand total. so keep that in mind then regarding the federal employees in pensions, the average% the private sector employee gets to their pension. >> it depends because many

private sector don't have pensions and all the 401k federal employees are unique because they have the 401k and pension plan. >> dissented true the gold is to equalize what the federal employees make to those of the private sector with the pension? >> that is correct to win from a defined contribution plan which ever is a get confused we try to go to the private sector based. >> we will not get into a conversation in how federal employees are under compensated compared to their counterparts there is very clear evidence of that but i have one question you're asking federal employees to put more into

their retirement plan but they will not get one additional penny out? >> we ask them to contribute the same amount as the government. >> if we were told they would put another 5% of their paycheck into retirement we would call that a pay cut. >> with the medicare peace with the reasonable assumption as to what type of savings and the medicare proposal. to mention in a particular plan getting savings in those two years with that combination the deductible

is $110 billion the reasonable means testing around $40 billion there you have $260 billion of savings where you talk about $480 billion so there are cuts not covered by any of the policies so we can only presume you are cutting medicare beyond those policies that you talk about. or do you say go find another 200 billion? >> it is set to the authorizing committee. >> with two very specific questions on medicare. >> eight understand or assume that you understand

the opportunity to ask questions but function and 570 is medicare how much we projected to spend over the next five years? >> mr. chairman a have a five-year number but 10 years is 7.5 trillion on the mandatory side. >> an important point to make our number is very close to the state never in the president's budget related to medicare savings is almost identical. >> the president has

significant savings where we negotiate drug prices for the rebates for the medicare prescription drugs. and the committees to do with the ranking member said >> bay could still dash veterans function in $776 billion of cuts over 10 years? >> most of those savings are designed to improve the efficiency of veterans' benefits with the exception of one policy of the president's budget they do not go after anyone in the

benefit. >> their administrative improvements to ensure those veterans get the benefits that are supposed to. >> 46 million of function 700? >> in the past you have given additional detail with respect to the functions that have mandatory proposals. >> will you do that again? >> would be glad to and give the staff a chance to look at the report before we filed the report which we traditionally do. >> i would like to go back to the discussion of my colleagues with regard to snap what is the total amount of cuts?

and with the additional work requirements you eliminated about 35 job-training program so what happens if they cannot find a job do they go hungry? >> representative the first question with the changes come in numerous assumptions are based upon the ig report or gao or other watchdogs and federal agencies to determine the duplicative programs that job-training programs fall within those categories according to the gao studies. we don't believe we're eliminating any job-training it just eliminates duplicative programs.

the other question we believe the work requirements are in central as the chairman mentioned earlier to get people off of public assistance to instill the work requirement to help people move off of assistance. >> you have to have a job to qualify if you eliminate. >> you said training programs but what about the ones you think works they put these requirements on to have access so they can eat? >> we're not making any assumptions of the job-training programs.

>> this is outrageous we're talking about fighting a pathway out of poverty and you talk about the line item for job training to put more work requirements on snap benefits. this shows how real my colleagues believe. >> will you yield? >> i am glad you raised this again because i did not get a good answer. am i wrong we require work requirements now under the snap program? am i right? the these people are that will generate the savings because we require them to work when we already require people to work? explain that to me. >> the chairman's mark

reflects the fact there are a current work requirements and in many cases those are waived by federal agencies so they're really not in effect this budget assumes that the waivers will be no longer available so they will be forced if you will for those work requirements better on the books today. >> your budget proposal contains significant social security which i and stand there will be a proposal to take that out that we will agree to but it will still include a remaining cut to social security. what is that? >> this option would assume

you cannot get unemployment and disability at the same time your water the other. >> that is the reduction? >> yes. >> turning back to medicaid medicaid, this resolution assumes the trillion dollar cut? could you break that down? is it the block grant to the state? is that how or what assumptions do you make of how you cut that billion dollars of the health care program?

>> mr. chairman it makes the assumption states will have a choice to decide to have the traditional state flexibility front of a block grant or through the per-capita flexibility fund with the per-capita amount based on those four categories the states have a choice to decide a traditional block grant or through her capita in the policy has additional flexibility provided as the medicaid programs to provide those state specific programs. >> one way or another you cap the way it gets you have reduced it.

>> with a medicated assumption it is closer at 850 billion i don't think it is quite that taibei yes. >> it is capped by a traditional block grant. >> so do you make the cuts from medicaid? where do you get to those other 200 billion? is it through chip? how do you make that other assumption through the health care plan? to metallurgy portion also comes for repeal of the affordable care active a good portion was through medicaid expansion. >> so this 1.saves by

repealing the hca? >> that is part of it is repealed of the ac a. >> that is made in the face of efforts we have done it 56 times we make that assumption in this budget again that will happen? >> yes, sir,. >> mr. a ranking member listing to our discussion the staff is doing a great job to be honest but block grant is simply kicking to the state without doing anything to reduce health care costs. by the way i hope you are

informing the governor's what is available in their lives for this budget so they can prepare themselves for the shock to say is this a need or not or to hell with those people block grants to not solve the problem and i hope you have a plan technically speaking to tell the governor's democratic and republican to have the choice to expand or not. >> you will be pleased to know the majority of governors both republican and democrat are desirous to have that flexibility of the medicaid program they feel they can better handle their population than we can from washington. >> are they prepared to deal with the revenue issue how

you come up with the money to supplant those programs? those very programs so we're talking about. >> you make a pertinent point and they are desirous of that flexibility because they know they can be more responsive to their citizens >> can raise the money on their own? >> is that we were saying? >> that is not the case. >> i would like to ask a question. are you familiar with the cbo analysis to show the republican block grant proposal is even bigger the scheerer that would result in either state medicare programs have to increase funding and to increase the burden non-citizens or face benefit cuts are you familiar with that 2012

analysis? excuse me medicaid. >> we don't have that with the. >> area happy to provide that it goes to exactly this discussion between the to the reality is i would rock debut to distribute the report that either states will have to or the medicare beneficiaries have the benefit cuts that make sense when you take the $1 trillion out but this $1 trillion cut will result in some they pay more or somebody getting less. >> by providing the states of greater flexibility. >> let's go back at function in 600 can you tell me those

proposals and what assumptions you are making to generate savings and how much can we get? >> again it is important to note is an assumption made by the budget committee. >> what is your assumption and how much? >> we believe when we consider approximately 7 billion over 10 years. >> that is based on what? which data? >> basically improvements in employee benefits. >> there can be economies of scale achieved it isn't like

other programs that if you have more members in your household you have greater economies of scale and therefore pavement could be proportional to that. >> i don't know what you mean by that so far person is on ss i could reduce benefits based on a somebody else lives in the household? >> a greater amount of money so if you taking in a cousin who is on the ssi and rent him a room if you were working every day that would deem their income? is that what you say? and openly it is up to them to implement the policy be you can achieve those economies of scale in this program with the members of

the household. >> there is other recommendations by other organizations by the commission of childhood disability of the scaling of the benefits under ssi within that benefit community. >> forgive me for not understanding i yield back. >> again on the impact of the budget they say even with significant gains the magnitude of the reduction means states would have to increase spending on these programs and make

considerable cutbacks, that might involve reduced eligibility for medicaid coverage coverage of your services, lower payments to providers or increase cost sharing by beneficiaries that would reduce access to care. are you familiar with these findings with the medicaid cap proposal? >> we speak with cbo numerous times for the chairman's mark i cannot say for certain our staff read that particular report but as a chairman mentioned the chairman's mark disagrees with that analysis with the benefits of going to the block grant system. >> i would like to submit

the cbo report. >> just a minute. you were talking about consolidation. you mentioned two or three programs that would be cut could you repeat? >> they are illustrative examples again. . .