and needs to be corrected. >> jamesville, wisconsin. patrick? patrick, you with us? >> caller: yes, i'm here. >> go ahead. >> caller: two quick comments. assertion about, does this need to be privatized, gsa? and i worked in the private sector in management for a very long time. and i have seen a ton of it grafting options throughout that -- through the private side. that is i don't think that's going to clear it up. i do think our government agencies freed to need to be he higher standard. i heard somebody accuse the president of his travels and all that stuff. i'm a little disappointed in the representative, he didn't address that and say, there's no edged of that. it's been disproven and seems like we're so hyper partisan that he couldn't even just say, there's no evidence of that. other presidents have travelled and that's my two comments. thank you much. >> ah, i don't think i ignored that at all. i said that i believe that under

all administrations we've seen that happen. the expenses for those particular trips, regardless of who the president may be under what administration are open to public scrutiny, and i think that's transparency we absolutely need. >> louisiana. scott, republican. lafayette. there you go. >> caller: there you go. listen, why are we spending so much money? for years and years and years we've been spending so much money. it hasn't stopped. i agree that we need to spend money straight. either spending money too far and long. we're going bankrupt this country. aren't you worried about china and the dollar? come on. >> amen. i agree with you. again, we've had four years, successive years of over $1 trillion deficits. our spending too gdp is at 24%. ality of revenues we bring in is

14.5%. spending nearly 9 times -- 9% more than what you're taking in, nobody can operate a household or business like that. you are absolutely correct. we are going bankrupt. and we have to make these spending decisions and we freed to make them soon. because we can't sustain our government on the current course we are, ands going to be a painful process. but the american people deserve to be told the truth. the american people need to know that we are going to do what's necessary to reduce our spending so we can become again that economic world power we have always been. >> brockville, ind. tim. democratic caller. >> caller: yes. what i'm wondering is, has anybody of as far as your oversight goes, checked into combining some of your federal law enforcement agencies, the guns and drugs go in hand, and i would just about imagine, because i'm retired law ennoers forcement, they bump heads probably 95% of the time.

is there any consideration of combining the different law enforcement agencies? >> yes, there is, and there has been for quite some time. if you followed any of the hearings on the fast and furious with the atf, the fbi, under the department of justice you know, they're not always kuwacooperat. duplication of efforts and this led to the deaths of some people. i think consolidation is important. the duplication of efforts shown by the report last year is something we freed to take to heart. we could save 20% of expenditures by reducing duplication in law enforward mchbtd and other agencies of the government. >> amy, independent caller, jacksonville, florida. >> caller: hello. i know you are just an vi individual representative but i'll speak to you as representing the entire government and just want to say i am totally disgusted with the government. i don't really understand, why do government employees even

need conventions and retreats and why do they act as if they are a private company handling private funds that they have gained through their work? >> congressman ross? >> you know, as an employee of the federal government or any government, as on elected official, appoint the official, if you are involved in public service you have an obligation, a fiduciary responsibility to the american taxpayer to be good stewards of those dollars. unfortunately, that culture of being a good steward does not permeate as well as it should through all levels of government. you hit on something very true. why is the federal government doing that which the private sector would do, because the private sector operates off profits and the government produces nothing but a service and should not have profits? it's a question i think we need to answer and something we need to address. while i believe in performance pay, for exceptional work, i don't believe that the government and services administration or any other

agency needs to be doing what they did in the western regional conference event in october of 2010 which is the subject of this debate. we need to put a stop to that. >> this is a tweet here from one of our viewers who says, representative ross, why do you and your colleagues neat scored dant budgets to run your congressional offices. let's start there. >> we have taken an 11% reduction on our budget signs was elected. we are operating on fewer many employees than my predecessor, returning dollars back to the speaker of the house that we did not spend. i file add bill at the beginning of my term called zero-based budgeting, requiring other agencies to start on a baseline of zero instead of last years and requesting an increase. i believe we need to justify every expense we make. if we're going to be the true stewards of the american taxpayer dollar wes were elected to do we have to justify the expenditures we make.

our budgets are not set by us. just because we're given a budget doesn't mean we have to spend it all. we're doing our job to do responsibly in our office to make sure the dollars are pent appropriately, in spite of the fact we've had to reduce our budgets by 11%. >> we're talking about spending at the federal level. specifically that gsa spending trip to las vegas. the house oversight committee investigated it yesterday, held a hearing up on capitol hill. we covered that. go to c-span.org if you want to watch the whole thing. the hearings continue today, wednesday and thursday. today the house transportation subcommittee takes up the issue momentarily here at 8:30 a.m. eastern time. bonnie's a republican. lincoln, nebraska. go ahead, bonnie. >> caller: okay. my question here is, why we have so many departments of the government? this -- we need to cut their

salaries. everybody that works for the government. i don't care who you are. cut it down by 5%. and you'd be surprised how many trill trillions of dollars you would save. this is ridiculous. this government's completely out of control. and if anybody thinks it's funny, i'm sorry for you, because this is not funny. you were losing our government. we're losing our democracy. >> mr. ross? >> bonnie i couldn't agree more with you. i co-sponsored legislation to reduce the labor work force by 10% by way of attrition alone. for every three federal employees that retire or resign, we would only replace with one. you know, we have a federal government larger than it's of been before. well over 2 million employees. there are many out there. many federal many employees that provide a very valuable service and work very hard and perform

very well. but we have to take a look at what we're doing leer. when the rest of our country doesn't seem to be able to even find a job, we've got to make sure those that have a job are doing it well, appropriately, efficiently and economically. and our government has grown way too much. we do need to cut. even the president in simpson-bowles commission, his debt commission, suggested we reduce our workforce by 10%. that's a laudable goal we bipartisans ought to look at and accomplish. >> mr. ross if you cut the federal work force by 5%, 10%, if you looked into the impacts that would have on government services for taxpayers, what would it be? >> negligible, because we can take away those services predominantly nongovernmental and start cutting there. essential government services are exactly why we have the federal government fop provide those services. we don't need to be in the business of business. gsa is an example of that. you know, we can make these cuts. we can reduce our work force and do it by way of attrition so we're not laying people off.

it is something that we have to take very seriously. we have to address, because the size of government is becoming greater than the size of the private sector if we're not careful. >> carl, democratic caller in l.a. >> caller: yes. the republican party elected member, when it comes to the last four years. i don't think the representatives realize that before that, president clinton gave president bush a surplus, and we had two wars that we didn't pay for. so instead of just remembering those four years of obama, a democratic president, why don't you remember the whole eight years that bush was in office, and obama. because obama can't just erase the deficit, or erase the debt. >> all right. mr. ross i think you touched on it a little bit. >> i'll touch on it again. this president has increased our spending, our deficit by one-third. i'm not here to apologize about the bush administration. it, too, was not right for its

spending. i'm not here to point the blame to someone. we need to find solutions. this is san american issue. not a republican or democrat issue. the logical reason dictates expenditures need to be brought down within or reserve newers. that's what we need to address as a congress, as a bipartisan congress. not as a republican or democrat. >> congressman, one last phone call for you here. kevin, an independent in niagara falls, new york. >> caller: god bless c-span. i would like to ask the congressman. okay if you're talking about performance-based pay, then over 70% of the people in america did not want the oil subsidies to go through. the fact any congressman, most of you are rich, anyway, why should you get paid at all when you're not doing the will of the people? and talking about agencies that

basically pays for itself, all but 2%, and you guys are just -- the will of the people is not being done whatsoever. >> mr. ross? >> again, i understand your frustration. and i wouldn't suggest that you shouldn't have those frustrations. we need to correct those. as far as what we're paid, i, believe me, did much better in the private sector. i didn't do this more the money and won't do it for a career, but i will tell you that we need to be better stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. that's going to be our charge, that the american people demand from us and hopefully as a result of this gsa investigat n investigation, we will do something substantive for the way we spend money here. and a look at the shuttle "discovery" aboard a modified jumbo jet making its final voyage here to the nation's capital, departing from florida and arriving at dulles international airport a short

time ago. the shuttle flew around the washington area making several passes over the mall. the monuments, and reagan national airport. we're watching its final approach here where it will then be moved to one of the smithsonian mujahideen seseums northern virginia. >> okay. we can work pretty much anything out with them to get him a landing, but we'll just keep him in the pattern and get him in as fast as possible. >> repeat that, sir. can you tell us about the wind again? >> 34014. >> thank you. >> [ inaudible ]

>> a heads up so you won't have to -- >> delayed an hour. push back the landing of the shuttle. don't push back now, delayed an hour.

i may be moving you midfield right away after the 747 lands to get the t-38 on runway 30, just to get him down, because he's fuel critical. okay? >> we'll be ready. >> all right. we've leave this now and go live to senator kent conrad, about to begin speaking.

>> no. i was -- i grew up a new york yankee fan. i got over it. i got over it. you know, as i got to an age of maturity. >> we all do. >> you know, because the minnesota twins when i was growing up, there was no minnesota twins. when we got the twins, i was a twins fan. and when i came out here i got to be a baltimore oriole fan. which was 14 losings seasons.

>> the cubs have -- had kind of a rough go. all of these teams are are winning. nationals are winning. orioles are winning. well -- i guess we're tied now. association anyway, why don't we begin? i think we're right at the appointed hour. thank you all for being here. i appreciate people's participation. tomorrow we'll begin a budget committee markup of a long-term budget for the nation. as my chairman's mark, i will present the bipartisan fiscal commission plan also known as the bowles-simpson plan. it is a plan which i think best represents an opportunity and a blueprint from which to build a

bipartisan deficit reduction agreement. what i am proposing is not partisan. i'm trying to break the business as usual cycle that has been followed for so long here in budget matters. to be clear, we already have a budget in place for 2012 and 2013. the spending limits are in place. they are contained in the budget control act, passed last summer, that provided those spending limits and enforcement measure for the budget of 2012 and 2013. the law states very clearly that the budget control act, and i quote -- shall apply in the senate, in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget. that's about as clear as it can be. the budget control act stands in the same way, in the same

manner, as for a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal years 2012 and 2013. so we have a budget for this year and next. it's the law of the land. what we do not have is a long-term plan. that is what we must now work on. and that is what i will be proposing tomorrow. the fiscal commission budget plan provides a comprehensive and balanced deficit wreduction framework. it's not perfect but represents middle ground. it brings the deficit down and does so in a fair and balanced way. it protecting the most vulnerable. it phases in changes to avoid harming the economy and it includes savings from across the budget, including from entitlement reform and from tax reform that raises revenues while lowering rates. i know that taking this route

will disappoint some. certainly some on both sides of the aisle. some democrats will be disappointed that there's not another planned rally around and some republicans will be disappointed that there's not another plan to attack. but i am not interested in furthering the political divide. i am focused on trying to get a positive result for the country, because i believe it is critically important that we do. and i believe the best way to do that is to start in the middle. with a plan that already has bipartisan support, both in congress and across the country. so tomorrow i will lay out the fiscal commission budget plan in the budget committee. it is clear i believe that we have to act. we're borrowing almost 40 cents of nevevery dollar that we spen and are on what is clearly an unsustainable track. gross federal debt is expected

to reach 104% of our gross domestic product this year and continue rising to 119% of gdp by 2022. many economists regard anything above the 90% level as the danger zone, and the long-term debt outlook is even more dire. we face both a spending and a revenue problem. let me be clear. spending is at or near a 60-year high as a share of the national income. revenue is at or near a 60 year low as a share of national income. so i believe both sides of the ledger contribute to the problem, and both have to be part of the solution. we also know that the american people support a balanced approach to deficit reduction. in a recent poll by pew research conducted in november, people were asked what's the best way to reduce the federal budget

deficit? 17% supported cutting major programs only. 8% supported increasing taxes only. 62% said we should do a combination of both, and that's what this plan does. the fiscal commission budget plan cuts spending, and it raises revenue through tax reform. it does exactly what the american people are asking us to do. i believe it is the kind of plan that the american people will support. here is a brief overview of what is in the fiscal commission plan that i will outline tomorrow in the budget committee. it includes $5.4 trillion of deficit reduction over ten years, including savings from last year's budget control act and the final continuing resolution. it lowers the deficit from 7.6% of gdp in 2012 to 2.5% in 2015

and 1.4% in 2022. so it takes the deficit down well below the 3% level that most economists view as sustainable. it stabilizes gross debt by 2015, and then lowers it to 93% of gdp by 2022, putting debt on a clearly downward trajectory. it reduces overall spending to 21.9% of gdp by 2022, and it reduces discretionary spending to an historic low of 4.8% of gdp by 2022. it builds on health reform with additional health savings, and it fully offsets the doc fix preventing a dramatic drop in payments to doctors who treat medicare patients. it calls for social security reform that ensures the 75-year solvency of social security, and

it calls for social security savings to be used only to extend the program's solvency, not for deficit reduction. finally, it includes fundamental tax reform, tax reform that will make the tax code simpler, fairer and more efficient while raising revenue. here is the deficit trajectory under the plan. as i noted, it brings the deficit down to 1.4% of gdp by the end of the decade, well below the 3% level, which is this here, which most economists say is critically important to do. over the ten years of the plan, spending averages 21.8% of gdp which is below the level we experienced during the reagan administration. let me say that again. over the ten years of the plan,

spending averages 21.8% of gdp which is below the level we experienced during the reagan administration. it brings discretionary spending, those funds appropriated by congress each year, down from 8.4% of gdp in 2012 to an historic low of 4.8% by 2022. like the original fiscal commission plan, it does not reopen the health care reform debate. instead, it builds on health reform by providing additional health savings. it provides be a option to phase out the tax exclusion for health care, a step the congressional budget office has said would be one of the most significant steps we could take to bend the cost curve on health care spending. as i noted, it fully offsets the doc fix. to offset these costs it includes savings proposals such as medicare beneficiary cost-sharing, reforming payments to health care providers,

eliminating state gaming of the medicaid tax, and extending the medicaid drug rebate to dual eligibles in medicare part "d." while the fiscal commission budget plan calls for the same social security reforms as the original fiscal commission plan, it does not include in its numbers the savings from those social security proposals. that is because the congressional budget act of 1974, the law that established the budget process, prohibits the inclusion of social security in the deficit totals of a budget resolution, so social security reforms will have to be considered separately. however, the fiscal commission budget plan description does include a policy statement that supports the original fiscal commission recommendations regarding social security. it states, it is the policy of

this resolution that congress should work on a bipartisan basis to make social security sustainable over 75 years. legislation shall include the following proposals. one, move to a more progressive benefit formula. two, provide an enhanced minimum benefit for low-wage workers. three, enhance benefits for the elderly and the longtime disabled. four, increase the early and full retirement age based on longevity. five, provide flexibility for retirees to claim a portion of their benefit at age 62 and the remainder at their full retirement age and add a hardship exemption. six, gradually restore the taxable minimum -- taxable maximum to cover 90% of wages by 2050. next, adopt chained cpi for

social security, other benefit programs and taxes. next, cover newly hired state and local workers after 2022. next, direct the social security administration to better inform future beneficiaries on future options and, finally, to begin a broad dialogue on the importance of personal savings. the fiscal commission budget plan also includes the kind of fundamental tax reform that needs to be adopted. it eliminates or scales back tax expenditures and lowers tax rates. it promotes economic growth and improves america's global competitiveness. it makes the tax code more progressive. specifically, the commission's report included an illustrative tax reform plan that demonstrates how eliminating or scaling back tax expenditures can simplify the code while lowering rates. instead of six brackets for individuals, it includes just

three of 12, 22 and 28%. the corporate rate would be reduced from 35% to 28%. capital gains and dividends would be taxed as ordinary income, although a differential could be maintained if it were offset with a higher top rate. the mortgage rat and charitable deductions would be we formed, better targeting those tax benefits. the child tax credit and earned income tax credit would be preserved to help working family, and the alternative minimum tax would be repealed. overall, the fiscal commission budget plan would increase revenue to 20.5% of gdp by 2022. over the ten years of the plan, the revenue under the plan would average 19.7% of gdp, roughly the same level seen during the clinton administration, and i would remind everyone that when revenue was at that level, we

experienced the longest period of uninterrupted growth in america's economic history. with 39 quarters of economic growth and 24 million jobs created, the best job creation record ever. so that is a plan that i will lay out in the budget committee tomorrow. it is comprehensive. it is balanced. it is fair, and i believe it represents the best blueprint we have from which to build a bipartisan agreement. that said, i absolutely recognize that adjustments will have to be made for this plan to be adopted. as i noted earlier, it's not perfect, and it needs to be further updated to account for changes that have occurred since it was first proposed in 2010. for example, the budget control agreement. that said, i very much hope that this will provide a blueprint