leaves office and triples it within 10 years. this budget has a $1.60 trillion tax increase. not only did the president gets a lot of tax increases in the last 2 your years. he is looking for more on small businesses and entrepreneurs. spending goes up every year. $13 trillion in new borrowing over this budget. smoke and mirrors have been done by republicans and by democrats in the past. so we've seen budget gimmicks from both political parties, from white house is in the past. this year contains a pretty good doozie. a sense that we will be at afghanistan and iraq levels but

we are today. we will have a 10 year afghanistan surge. everyone knows that is not true. the american has already announced his withdrawal dates from these excursions, and he is basically saying if we're not there for 10 years, we will have to ram down spending spirit that will save as $1.1 trillion. when you pull aside the curtain and like all the smokes and the mirrors, it looks to me that this thing has about $8 of tax increases for $1 of tax which spending cuts. -- $1 of spending cuts. we'll look to these numbers and they are clear. you cannot borrow and spend and tax your way to prosperity. unfortunately that is what this budget does. let me simply close by saying this. i served on the president's fiscal commission that he created this last year. it was a pleasure to do so. i have problems with some of

the reports and findings, but i along with others put out alternative plans. the president in suggesting the fiscal commission gave people like me the idea that we're born -- we are going to move the ball in the right direction. that that was a constructive step in the right direction. this is a pun. this does not clued any of the -- include any of the significant recommendations from the fiscal commission. it is spending above the levels recommended in the fiscal commission. so the fiscal commission gave us hope that we were going to finally have an adult conversation in washington about how we preempt our debt and deficit crisis. unfortunately, this budget does none of it. this budget ignores the problems come more spending, more taxing, more borrowing, and at the end of the day, if we do not turn this around, it will cost us jobs and prosperity in this country its credibility. with that i will turn it over to senator sessions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. what us -- what a fine statement of the situation we

find ourselves in. i am very pleased in the country -- and the country should be pleased to have you in a key position that you now hold. the question to me with the budget always has been, will this change the trajectory that we are on? because every witness we have ever had -- they say that we are unsustainable path. it runs the risk of a cataclysmic event and they can happen very quickly just like it did in 2007, just like it did in greece, and they are in the direct -- responsibility of the elected leadership of this country. when you see a danger, it is a duty and responsibility of leaders of their country's to do the things they can avoid that -- that can avoid that danger. and we definitely are facing the danger. this is not being made out, it is not being exaggerated. everyone on the bipartisan that

-- debt commission believes that we are facing a danger. is it too much? when can something happen? we never know. some say that when you reach 90% -- when that leeches -- reaches 90% of gdp, then you lose 1% of growth, and a document over 200 -- they document over 200 years, country after country who have done that, and they have cataclysmic events in their currency. so the name of that will is -- their book is "this time is different," because the people in this country said, yes, we've heard about those problems but it is different for us. it will not happen to us. did the president change the trajectory? i do not think so. the assumes that -- he assumes that the war savings that we

hope occurs are $1 trillion in savings. he assumes and shows that he has accomplished another $1 trillion in savings, but those savings -- i discount the war scenario. dislike her came to training, we -- just like hurricane katrina, we hope it does not come back and you have another same type emergency expenditure, that is not a legitimate statement. so you have $1 and trillion in savings. we have identified $700 billion in gimmicks. that would reduce that and the actual reduction of our deficit trend to only $300 billion over 10 years. so in the sense -- in essence, is negligible. i saw this article in the "washington post," erskine bowles was so dramatic, he was chief of staff of president clinton.

he has been down the pike before. he has to know that his words with have significant meaning today. the chairman of the debt commission, co-chairman. he said, "nowhere near where they will have to go to resolve our fiscal nightmare." i consider that a major condemnation of what has happened here. there is no reform on the entitlements which of course consume more than half of the problems of the debt that we have. our chairman, chairman ryan, has proposed a solution and what does he get? he gets a tax. -- attacked. i do not appreciate that. i really do not. it irritates me. the one man who has had the guts to stand up and propose some things that could actually work its criticized by democratic colleagues.

particularly in the senate, i've noticed some of them. count me as your defender because we will have to talk about it. we can do this. let me to say that. i have been working on the numbers, we have added them and worked with them and seeing how to get there. we can get this deficit under control. it is not impossible. and if we do so, it will affect -- it will put the country on a better path, the path to prosperity. the greatest threat to our security at this point in history is our debt. i just met a group of german parliamentarians and that is what one of them raised with me. our security is jeopardized by our debt. i certainly agree with that. we will try to answer your questions. i will do my best. i know our chairman is able to handle anything you could possibly ask. and so we would be glad to try to respond.

>> chairman, when is your budget coming? when will you tackle a entitlement reform and military cuts? >> the way the process words -- works come many of you but the reporters know that we will send the president's budget to the budget office. they will score that budget using their set of numbers. after they do that, that will take them about three weeks. sometime in march we get their base line. then we begin our budget and it comes out later in the spring. april is usually when budgets come out. i can tell you what our budget -- that cannot give you what our budget will look like since we have not started writing it. we do not have our baseline to write it. i have to tell you, we are not interested in punting. we're interested in leaving. -- leading. we are interested in starting a different course to get this under control. i think we demonstrated this in the past. it is not too late for america to get things fixed. it is not too late to write our

ship and get our economy growing -- right our ship and get our economy growing. get our debt headed in the right direction and get america's fiscal problems solved. but if we keep opposing -- postponing this, there will come and if -- there will come a moment. that is why i am disappointed today. i really thought, given the president created a fiscal commission, that we would see and enhancement. -- and advancement. a step in the right direction and fiscal control. instead, we sought a go farther to the left and if we did nothing at all. that is what is so disappointing. i cannot tell you what our budget will be. you will find out when we write it. when we write our budget, we will show you our budget. that is in the spring. you know the process. the budget cements -- the president said his budget. we submitted to cbo. we get the baseline and then we write our budget. that is why -- that is how the process will occur.

that is the way the 1974 budget act that dictates the process. i cannot tell you what our budget will be because they have written it yet. -- we have not written it yet. >> there are some that talk -- some democrats that talk about the possibility of some significant deficit-reduction package. do you think those comments provide opportunities for bipartisanship? how they blend with what the president -- how do they blend with what the president has said with a margin steny hoyer is one -- what the president has said? >> steny hoyer is one example, but as democrats did not have their voices heard in the submission of this budget. this budget is a hunting -- punting budget. it does not address the drivers of our debt. because for more spending, which they call investment, and a lot of new taxes. $8.7 trillion in new spending? $13 trillion added to the debt?

we're. -- we are goingto spend $46 trillion of the next 10 years? this is not an austere budget. this is not getting the budget under control, keeping taxes low, and growing economies. these democrats, and there are democrats they want to tackle this problem, but their voices were not heard in this process. i hope to. >> i had made remarks at one of our budget hearings not long after the president's state of the union, and i agree that -- criticize the remarks as not leading. chairman konrad, it has been through this many years, he paused and said, maybe we have to lead. so there is some hope that we can come forth with some ideas an agreement that could make a positive difference. but with the senate being what it is, it will take a number of votes from the other side to pass something that would have

some teeth to it. >> your is today if the president's budget was doj in -- you were asked you yesterday if the president's budget was doa in the house. and you wanted to see it first. >> that was debt on arrival. he raises spending everywhere. he raises taxes everywhere. he increases borrowing. the trajectory of this budget is in the wrong direction. it would be better than we did nothing then pass this budget. i like to think there are some democrats in this town of want -- that want to get serious on spending. the debt crisis is caused by spending, not taxes. let us go where the problem is, spending. i like to think that there are some democrats out there -- and i know that there are -- to get an agreement to work on this. this required by partisanship at the end of the day, and we were hoping for a centrist budget today to a dance that kind of a -- to a dance that kind of the -- advance that kind

of dialogue. we get everything but that. >> why can republicans address entitlements? >> wait until our budget. >> what about the spending cuts announced this week? >> maybe not in the budget war. -- maybe you are not in the budget world. this is discretionary spending. we're doing a bill this week because for the first time since the 1974 budget act, the democrats failed to propose a budget this year. there was a lot run over this -- on finished from last year from last year because they did not pass a budget. after a fiscal year, spending, which took about discretionary spending not mandatory spending. the only purview for the march 4cr expiration is discretionary spending. what we're doing is having a great debate in congress and how much spending we should cut. how cool is that customer a year -- how cool is that? a year ago, we were talking

about how much more spending to increase. now we're in the debate on how much to cut. just in a few short months, we've done a great job in changing the culture of spending to reducing spending. by now that particular issue talk about is discretionary spending. in the spring, you can deal with all the other issues such as entitlement that you described. that is when we put our budget out. >> are there areas you would like to target? >> when u.s. what we're doing -- when you ask me what we are doing this week, that is discretionary spending. i can talk about what areas we will do it but we have not written a budget yet. it is premature to talk about what will be in our budget, given that has not been written yet. >> the me say one thing that is -- let me say one thing that is important in fair to say. chairman ryan has proposed a complex, far-reaching plan that deals with entitlements and brings this country on the road to a sound economy. he has been open about that. we're here today talking about president's budget.

i know the president is happy if you all ask, what is your plan? the law requires the president to submit a budget. he is one week late. we call on him to do it last week. this is the difficulty. now we are faced on something as complex as entitlements, as deeply as emotional as title months -- as entitlements, and the president is not even in the game with a mark suggesting nothing to be done? my wife said to me when i complained, do not blame me. you asked for the job. he asked for the job. i am sure that he would rather rigid rather not have the debt crisis that he is finding, but leaders have to deal with the problem is that they have got.

and we need his help. >> looking ahead your colleagues think that it would be foolhardy to propose entitlement reform if the president has not stepped up first. as the chairman of the committee, which you recommend that they go ahead? >> i have been proposing entitlement reforms for quite awhile. we have to have a family conversation to get consensus. my roadmap was written to get the consensus of one person, myself. writing a budget, you have to get a consensus of the least 218 people. we will go forward once we get our base line in march, to get a consensus as of tutored 80 -- a consensus of 218 people to write a budget. it is impossible for me to tell you what that is. but we did not ask people in wisconsin or around the country to send this to congress to represent big government. we asked people to send us here to fix problems and address solutions. but he put it this way, janet. i was involved in the tarp negotiations in 2008. senator sessions was. that was an ugly situation.

that surprised us. we did not see it coming. but the ask you this -- if you knew your president or your congressman knew it was coming, saw scope, timing, and nature, and knew it was important to prevent the economic crisis from happening, which wiped out savings for millions of seniors and put our economy and a great recession, if they knew it was happening and could prevent it but chose not to do so because it was not the politics, what would you think of that person would think of your leaders? that is an abdication. this debt crisis is coming. we know its timing, we know its nature, we know its scope. we know what is going to due to our economy. seedy hotels is without a shred -- cbo is saying this without a shred of doubt. giving the next generation of a lower standard of living. we're giving our children and grandchildren a diminished country. if we do not put up a solution

soon, we will compromise jobs and the economy today. by tackling this fiscal challenge, we can grow the economy today, create jobs, and give our kids a better country. that is what we're supposed to be doing here. and you see our leader, the president of the united states, seeing this, knowing that, acknowledging it, and ducking it, that is why we are so disappointed today. >> can you talk about broad brush what you are for? there are republicans that say, the president has proposed one year and 10 years. are you going to try have a balanced budget within the next two years? would you go beyond the $4 trillion of the fiscal commission? >> everyone wants to go into what our budget will be. we do not have a baseline. a lot to answer your question but i do not have answers for that. we're talking about the president's budget.

we just got that today. we're not just going through -- now going through that in looking at all of these numbers. a look at the fact that the: the baseline as $1.7 trillion in higher revenues because of economic growth. when cbo looks at this thing, i have no doubt in my mind, based on where cbo has, that the deficit and debt, interest on debt will be much higher than what even though in the inomb and the president -- omb and the president is climbing. -- claiming. we have to see what that looks like before we even begin to write our budget. >> the president is wanting to cut the joint strike fighter. the second engine. is that something you think -- >> people have difference of opinion. i've always taken that position. i have always had that vision -- position. >> i have, too. >> you have praised him for putting a comprehensive and title -- entitlement reform.

do you support his particular plan? >> i think his plan can work and would work. it is far better than we are today. i believe that we could achieve greater discretionary spending reductions today than even his plan calls for. i intend to give personal attention to how we work to put our great medicare, social security programs on a sound footing. that needs to be done carefully. we need the input of the president. he cannot just be thrown on the floor. we need to work together to achieve that. i am prepared to do that. >> can you comment on how coherent the republican proposal actually is? >> cut, which cut spending and grow the economy. next question.

>> you of referred to this not having any specific recommendations of the fiscal commission. speak more specifically to which things are missing from this that should be on the table. >> none of them are in here. there are $333 billion above discretionary spending we have not cut into the micro details of this budget. we just got it this morning. but none of the entitlement reforms proposed, none of the tax reforms proposed, none of the discretionary caps and cuts are in this. in the metrics used, that the president gave to the fiscal commission, they are not accomplish with this budget. >> for you saying that in your budget -- >> i have always said we do not need a second engine. >> i was not asking about the engine. on entitlements, are you committing to entitlement reform

in whatever shape it will be in? >> how many times? i am not talking about what we have in our budget because of the have not written that. obviously we think in time, reform, that is the biggest we think entitlement reform is the biggest slice of the pie. can i get into the details of how will work because we have not written it yet. everyone knows that we have to tackle entitlements. next question. jonathan. >> by going after non-defense, but are being so--- but are being so high on non-defense discretionary, will there be any appetite among your own conference to deal with defense? and secondly, about expedited decision bajaur >> -- expedited decision. -- expedited recision.

>> i would like to get something done around. i like something bipartisan. chris and i have talked about some agreement on how to do that. the president supported it version of this in the past. i would like to see some change to that, but that is a tool, not a big toe, but a tool in the step -- a step in the right direction. the number we brought to the floor is $60 billion below the obama request. the conservative republican house is bringing discretionary spending is throughout the year is $60 billion below where the -- $16 billion below where the president requested that ago. this budget has $70 billion below. we want to take that seriously. i think that is something we will take a look at. you cannot go $700 billion for an agency and not expect ways to occur. -- you cannot throw $700 billion

to an agency and not expect waste to occur. we do not have peace right now. it is a dangerous world that got more dangerous recently. there is room for savings within the section of our government. did you have one? i always want to give the milwaukee guy a chance. >> [inaudible] high-speed rail. >> we are not a fan of high- speed rail. we are sending a high steel rail -- rescinding a high-speed rail stimulus in this year's budget. a $53 billions initiative. that is something we disagree with. we disagree with high-speed rail. i can tell you about the wisconsin plan. to call it a boondoggle would be generous. we're rescinding funding this year. we do not think it is a good investment. >> i think it totals $120 billion over period of time. the president's proposal in the

state of the union to have it within walking distance of every american, 80% of americans, it is a bit ambitious. at a time when we have no money. and i raise that question about the thing that comes to my -- the train that comes to miny hometown of mobile, amtrak goes through three days a week at 1:00 a.m. going east and 2:00 a.m. three days a week going west. not a lot of people use it. so there are areas of the country that could use better rail. no doubt about it. we should move forward with that but this plan is way too ambitious. >> others have passed and oppose the program. the bill we are bringing today or tomorrow to the floor rescinds that money for ohio and wisconsin. we think that is the thing we ought to do in the future. thank you everybody. we appreciate it. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> secretary of state henry -- hillary clinton spoke about the budget. she said cuts proposed by house republicans would hurt national security. she began this 15-minute briefing with comments on egypt. >> first, let me say that i just came out of a very productive meeting and lunch with the speaker. i greatly appreciated his gracious hospitality and the opportunity we had to cover so many issues on the minds of members of congress, the administration, the american public, and indeed the world. as we discussed, this has been an historic several days. all of us have been inspired to see the egyptian people lay claim to their own future. it is also clear that egyptians

have a great deal of work to do in order to get the full promise and potential of their efforts realized as they look toward a future that will give each egyptian the right to the bill his/her god-given potential. and we look forward to working with the congress in the coming days to ensure that we have the funding and the authorities necessary to support the egyptian people. events in egypt show how important is that we have a global diplomatic presence, it presents the will be ready to handle crises, prevent conflicts, protect american citizens overseas, and protect american economic and strategic interest. now, you see this not just in egypt, not just in afghanistan, not just in yemen, but in mexico and so many other places around the world where our diplomats and development

professionals are working every single day to promote america's security, interests, and values. the state department and usaid are on the front lines of just about every national security challenge we face. and we are promoting american jobs and advancing economic opportunities for americans as well. to be successful at these vital tasks, we need the resources to do the job. otherwise, we will pay a higher price later in crises that are allowed to simmer and boil over into conflicts. whether it clear about the deep -- i was very clear with the speaker about the deep concerns we have regarding the fiscal year 2011 spending bill moving to the house floor this week and what those funding levels would mean for the vital work done by state and usaid. state and usaid would face a 16% cut from fiscal year 2010. we would be forced to scale

back significantly our mission in the frontline states of iraq, afghanistan, and pakistan, where we work side by side with the american military. we would also be required to roll back critical health, food security, climate change, border security, and trade promotion efforts abroad as well. we certainly understand the tight budget environment. i had the privilege of serving here for eight years in the congress. we have to undertaken over the last two years our own sweeping reform efforts to put taxpayer dollars to -- to work more effectively. but the scope of the proposed house cuts is massive. the truth is that cuts of that level will be detrimental to america's national security. and i shared with the speaker a letter i sent today to appropriations chairman rogers which lays out our concerns about the fiscal -- about the fiscal year 2011 bill.

i'll be meeting with members of congress and testifying on the hill to highlight the president's 2012 budget. how we reach 2012 is just as critical. we need to ensure that 2011 and the process surrounding it does not pull the rug out from under the civilian experts that are working in every corner of the world to pursue america's security and interests. i think the speaker for his leadership on egypt and in the very constructive advice and counsel that he has provided to the administration. i remain hopeful that when members consider the national security and economic consequences of these cuts, they will chart a different course. it is somewhat frustrating when what usaid and the state department are doing in these

frontline states is not classified as security. and there is a different category for security discretionary funding than what is called non-security discretionary funding. and of course, you talk to any number of a prt in iraq or moving in with the marines in can heart, and they clearly are part of our national security efforts in those countries. we can still reach a bipartisan consensus and move forward together. we worked closely with the last congress to protect our security and advance our values and interests, and i am confident we can work with this one as well. so happy valentine's day, and i would be glad to take a few questions. [unintelligible] [unintelligible] >> when you were first lady 16 years ago, we had a republican congress that imposed very deep cuts, particularly in the diplomacy and foreign aid sectors. is this reminiscent of that?

did you communicate that to the speaker in your meeting today? >> i think that what we learned -- and certainly i think the lessons from the 1990's are very important today -- is that we cannot recede from our presence anywhere in the world. what we are living through is a historic period where all kinds of changes, some of them in support of american values and some of them directly opposed to american values, are occurring. and i think it is important not to keep to have -- not to have to keep learning those lessons. one of the reasons we are in afghanistan today is because we left after the soviet union left and fell. and we learned that lesson. it is expensive. it is particularly painful when we see young men and women losing their lives. the injured -- being injured in

the pursuit of americans security, interests, and values. but we cannot go back to where we do not have a strong american presence in order to assert american leadership and influence the course of events. so i am hoping that we will be given the resources that we need in order to fulfill the missions. how would give you one quick sample. -- i will give you one quick example. in iraq, as our troops leave, there will be a savings in direct military expenditures that will total about $45 billion. we are asking about $4 billion to make sure we have a civilian presence to continue working with the iraqi government in order that the enormous sacrifice that our men and women in uniform made and that this country made to try to give iraqis the opportunity to chart their own democratic future is not lost, because we are not the only country that is going to be in a position to

influence what happens to iraq in the future. so i give that as one example because i think it is a stark one. we will be saving many billions of dollars, and in return, we need a commitment and investment of far fewer billions of dollars in order to establish the robust civilian presence that is required. >> we're receiving reports that their thousands in treats all -- there are thousands in the streets all around iran right now, the opposition party headquarters possibly under siege. there are thousands of protestors. all lines are being jammed. can you comment on iran, and what is your message to the iranians in the streets tonight? >> the me clearly and directly support the aspirations of the people who are in the streets in iran today. all to the crisis in egypt, we had three very consistent messages -- we were against violence, and we stated it often and we communicated it

directly to egyptian authorities. secondly, we supported the universal rights of the egyptian people. and third, we stood for political change that would result in positive outcomes that would give the egyptian people a better economic and political future. we believe the same for iran. we are against violence, and we would call to account the iranian government that is once again using its security forces and resorting to violence to prevent the free expression of ideas from their own people. secondly, we support the universal human rights of the iranian people. they deserve to have the same rights that they saw being played out in egypt and that are part of their own birthright. and thirdly, we think that there needs to be a commitment to

open the political system in iran, to hear the voices of the opposition and civil society. and i would add that what we see happening in iran today is a testament to the courage of the iranian people and an indictment of the hypocrisy of the iranian regime, a regime which over the last three weeks has constantly hailed what went on in egypt, and now, when given the opportunity to afford their people the same rights as they called for on behalf the egyptian people, once again illustrate their true nature. so our nature has been -- our message has been consistent and remains the same. we wish the opposition and the brave people in the streets across cities in iran the same opportunity that they saw their egyptian counterparts seize in the last week. >> can you tell us what the speaker said to you when you told and that these cuts would

hurt national security and the state department's operations abroad? >> the speaker has traveled to many of these places over the course of his career in congress and has kept up-to-date by consulting with our military leadership. he knows that we have to support our government's efforts in our frontline states, and those efforts are both military and civilian. our strongest supporters, as the speaker mentioned to me, are the leaders of our military and our defense department -- secretary gates, admiral mullen, general cartwright, and so many others. why? because they understand that if we do not have a robust civilian presence in these frontline states, we cannot make the progress that we're seeking. the strategy in both iraq and now refined and furthered in

afghanistan -- clear, hold, build, transition -- the military is responsible for clear. we are both responsible for hold. we are responsible for build and for transition. our colleagues in the defense department have been our strongest supporters and the speaker is well aware of that. >> a question on how the u.s. is going to keep the military from getting too comfortable and forgetting about democracy? >> one of the most important relationships that we developed over 30 years with egypt is the relationship between our military and the egyptian military. many of the officers have been educated in american military schools. there have been close collegial relationships built up over this period of time.

i think the egyptian military demonstrated its very strong commitment to the people of egypt in its restraint and its support of their right to demonstrate. they are now being asked to assume a responsibility that was not in the guidebooks for young officers -- how to lead a country through an orderly, peaceful, meaningful transition to a democratic future. the steps they have taken so far are reassuring, but there is a long way to go. the united states has made it clear that we stand ready to assist in any way appropriate. the ongoing dialogue between our defense and military leadership with theirs has been very fruitful, and i expected to continue. -- i expect it to continue. but this is a very challenging moment for the egyptian military. thus far they have demonstrated a seriousness of purpose and a commitment to pursuing that kind of transition that we hope will lead to free, fair

elections, but also in addition to elections, a broad buy-in to what democracy really means. as i have said many times before, democracy is not about one election where whoever wins never ones that have another -- never wants to have another election. you need an independent judiciary, a free press, an independent support for minority rights. there is just so much else that goes into what democracy represents. but we're going to continue working not just with the military, with civil society, with a broad range of representatives from across egypt's full breath and depth on the economy and academia, the professions, and every other aspect of their very exciting commitment now to a different future. thank you all very much.

>> president obama is proposing of 1% increase in state department programs, not including transition programs in iraq. republicans are proposing to cut the state department budget by 16%. administration officials will testify on capitol hill tomorrow about the proposed budget. jacob bloom -- jacob lew will be live before the house budget committee. 10:00 a.m. mr. live on c-span3. it is chaired by paul ryan of wisconsin. also live at c-span3, the senate finance committee will hear from health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius about her performance proposed budget. >> heard apartments for -- her department's proposed budget. democratic senator max baucus is the chairman.

>> jonathan l. on of politico, how are democrats reacting to the proposed budget? >> republicans are charging him with spending and borrowing. on the democratic side, there is mixed reaction. most democrats have praised president obama for attempting to address deficits in the future. at the same time, some of the planes has been lukewarm. -- praise has been lukewarm and targeted by criticism by some people. emanuel cleaver question why he was cutting programs, particularly those for the disadvantaged at a time when you have such high unemployment. >> now that the president has unveiled his vision for spending, when and how well congress began its work on crafting a budget for next year? >> the joke was that the

president's budget is dead on arrival when it gets to congress. the committees do not have to pay any attention to anything he puts out there. the budget committees will start getting to work fairly soon here, developing their budgets for fiscal year 2012 which begins october 1 of this year and runs through september 30 of next year. those committees probably will mark up their bills and let the public know what they want to do in march sometime, when that process will move through and make its way through. >> you mentioned that the budget's -- the president's budget is dead on arrival on cattle killed. are there areas of agreement between the president and republicans that can serve as a starting point for negotiations? >> there are things that everyone agrees on. i would say most of the budget in place every year is the result of some sort of

agreement. obviously there is an agreement that there should be funding for defense for people in harm's way, education programs, and there is some debate about that sometimes. it is usually about what programs are undertaken by the government, what the role of the federal government is, and whether the levels of spending are in the contract. there are some areas of agreement, but they spend most time talking about the areas of disagreement. they have little to discuss where they agree. >> the house is scheduled to begin debate tuesday on proposals for the rest of the fiscal year. why are they still working on this year's spending? >> congress did not do a budget last year and failed to do in an annual appropriations bills for all the agencies and programs. that past what is called the short-term continuing resolution that would fund the government into this year.

that runs out march 4. the republicans are -- they are cleaning up the work of last year's congress. the bill that the republicans will bring to the floor would cut $60 billion from current levels for domestic discretionary spending. basically, non-defense spending that is done on an annual basis over the seven-month period. there will but -- there will be a lot of yelling and screaming and hooting and crying on the house floor, but there will be some sort of negotiation between the house and the senate and the president on a final product which does not look quite as austere or they could pass another stopgap measure to keep the government funded for a short period of time. but they didn't do their work last year said they still have to do last year's work now even

as they work on this year's work. >> jonathan alan of politico. we appreciate your time. >> thank you. >> this year's deficit would be a record $1.6 trillion under the budget proposed monday by prison -- president obama. in the long term, mr. obama is planned to cut the deficit by $1 trillion over the next two years. in a few moments coming to hear more about their department's budget from defense secretary robert gates and then help and housing service secretary civilians. -- health secretary sibelius' in little more than an hour. and then information on the rest of this fiscal year. on "washington journal," we will take your questions and comments about the president's proposed budget for the next fiscal year. congressional debate about what to do for the rest of this spending it. -- this fiscal year. our guest will be john cranford, republican

representative jack kingston, a member of the appropriations committee, and representative allyson schwartz, and it is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. during the briefing on next year's proposed budget, defense secretary robert gates said temporary spending measures for this fiscal year are hurting the military. he also told reporters about the pentagon's plan to cut $78 billion from the 2012 budget. [no audio] these budget decisions took place in the context of the nearly two-year effort by this department to reduce overhead,

cull troubled programs, and rein in personnel and contractor costs, all for the purpose of preserving the fighting strength of america's military at a time of fiscal stress. the goal is not only to generate savings that could be applied to new capabilities and programs, but for our defense institutions to become more agile and effective organizations as a result. in all these budget requests, if enacted by congress, we will continue our efforts to reform the way the department does business, fund modernization programs needed to prepare for future conflicts, reaffirm and strengthen the nation's commitment to care for the all- volunteer force, including training and support, and ensure that our troops and commanders on the front lines have the resources and support they need to accomplish their mission. the department's comptroller, mr. robert hale, and attended -- lt. general perry spencer of

the joint staff will explain the components and particulars of these requests following my remarks. as we begin what will be a week of debate and assessment of this nation's investment in national defense, i also want to take the opportunity to touch on two related issues pending with the congress. first, this department has been operating under a continuing resolution going on five months, resulting in difficulties that may surge into a crisis, depending on what happens on the hill during the next few weeks. exactly a year ago, the president requested $549 billion to operate the department of defense during fiscal year 2011. if forced operate under a full- year continuing resolution, the department would only receive about $526 billion, a cut of $23 billion. the damage done across our military from that reduction would be magnified as it comes halfway through the fiscal year. i raise this today because i'm concerned that the debate of

the the defense budget in recent days and weeks is becoming increasingly distant from strategic and operational reality -- distant, in other words, from the real world. in fact, suggestions to cut defense by this or that large number have largely become exercises in simple math, divorced from serious considerations of capabilities, risk, and the level of resources needed to protect this country's security and vital interests around the world. i realize that in the current fiscal environment and political environment, it is unlikely that of the defense department will receive the full amount originally requested by the president for fiscal year 2011. based on a number of factors, including policy changes that led to lower personnel costs and reduced activity forced by the continuing resolution, i believe the department can get by with a lower number. however it is my judgment that

the department of defense needs an appropriation of a lease for $540 billion for fiscal year 2011, for the u.s. military to properly carry out its mission, maintain readiness, and prepare for the future. the second issue i would like to address is the ongoing debate over the jsf extra engine. as most of you know, the president and as they did the president and i as well as the department's senior military leadership, have consistently and firmly expressed our opposition to continuing this costly program. we consider it an honest -- and unnecessary and extravagant expense, particularly during this contraction. the congress has not spoken with one voice on this matter. the department has been operating this fiscal year under ambiguous guidance at best. given the situation, i decided to continue funding the jsf extra engine on a month-to-month basis. i did this not because we had to, but because we chose to give the congress the opportunity to resolve this

matter as part of its ongoing debate on the budget. however this also means that american taxpayers are spending $28 million a month for an excess and unjustified program that is slated for termination. the president, the military services, and i continue to expect -- oppose this extra engine, and when the current continuing resolution expires, i will look at all available legal options to close down this program. it would be a waste of nearly $3 billion in a time of economic distress, and the money is needed for higher-priority defense efforts. with that, i'll take a few questions on the budget, and then turn things over to mr. hale and general spencer. tony, this is your bread and butter. we'll go to you first. >> and my panini, sometimes. [laughter] >> on procurement, the budget last year projected $120

billion in procurement. this year's request is $113 billion, the same request as 2011. there is no growth there. worm dollars migrated to operations and maintenance and health accounts? >> know, you cannot just take the top lines and compare them like that. for example, there have been some procurement programs that have been cut, like the efv, like the slamraam. there are a variety of puts and takes, but there are a number of new investment programs, modernization and procurement programs that are in this budget that went above the original program of record. for example, a new bomber for the air force.

five new ships, five additional new ships for the navy. modernization of the ground vehicles for the army. there are a variety of new starts. in some of them, there may not be big procurement dollars, but they are big investment dollars looking to the future. we're going to provide, we are asking for $500 million for darpa for cyber-research. there are a number of new areas we are -- where we are beginning to invest. i would say that almost all of the $70 billion that the services kept, that they realized through their efficiency savings, are being put into modernization programs. >> even though there is not a major increase from the 2012 request to the -- from the 2011 request to the 2012 request. >> right, because there are some things in the procurement that were cut. that every procurement dollar was golden. >> speaking of procurement

dollars, and any possible slowdown in u.s. arms sales to the middle east amid the current unrest that brought down leaders in tunisia and egypt? >> is that a budget question? that is a very curious budget question. i don't think they have fms in the budget. nice try. [laughter] >> you met today at lunch with a number of congressional leaders on this topic. i am wondering if you would give us your assessment after that meeting, whether there has been -- whether you sense any movement toward some sort of solution on the budget coming out of this meeting that you had. and secondly, i will not be nearly as obtuse, but if you -- we cannot ignore what is going on the middle east. i'm gwen asked you to give us a couple of sentences on your assessment on the military taking control in egypt and what your comfort level is with that movement toward democracy. if it spreads across the middle

east. >> i will not -- i am really not in a position to characterize the views of the members of staff or at that lunch. i would note that for the most part, much of the information we gave them today, we gave them six weeks ago. i know there is a little discomfort in some quarters on the hill about these announcements and the question of transparency. the members of our committees get significant information on the 2012 budget six weeks prior to any other committees in the congress. there was a lot of information they were already aware of.

i would simply say that there was not much discussion at all at the lunch about the politics of the budget. there were -- as mr. hale went through the budget, there were a number of questions for clarification is say, -- clarification's sake, but nothing really beyond that. i have two hearings this week -- one in front of the house armed services committee on wednesday, one in front of the senate armed services carcanet -- committee on thursday. i have every confidence that i will have the opportunities to express myself in great detail about egypt at those two hearings. >> you are talking about the alternative engines. you so that you're one explore all available resources. what exactly are you talking about? is this the line in the sand? >> i will let the statement stand as i put it.

there are some of -- there are options available. my hope is, quite frankly, that there will be a debate about this on the floor of the house this week, and that members will address this directly and vote on it. and my hope is that, particularly the new members who are interested in fiscal responsibility will see this as an opportunity to save $3 billion for the taxpayers that can be put to better use. >> mr. secretary. i understand you want to speak to secretary, predicted congress, but we are in the news business here. i am going to try again. what can you tell us, if anything, about your role in dealing with field marshal tantawi over the last many days? people are extremely curious

because you may be the only person in the administration to our knowledge that has spoken to him. and believe it or not, this is a budget question. but it's still with the operational uncertainty that your troops face around the world, the middle east, a great uncertainty. it all comes together. what is in this budget that now deals with the middle east? what can you tell us about what you have been up to over the last many days? >> i would simply say the budget affects our operations and maintenance all over the world. and our activities. certainly the overseas contingency operations funds our efforts in iraq and afghanistan. but i will wait until wednesday to talk about egypt. >> one more budgetary question, please. the overseas contingency budget increases this year.

i was wondering how much of that forecasts the u.s. will in fact draw down in july in afghanistan. is this what this budget is trying to do with the mark or was this supposed to be based on the on the ground conditions at the time? >> there is a fairly dramatic reduction in the overseas contingency operations budget from 2011. 2011 was $160 billion. 2012 is just under $118 billion, so a drop almost $42 billion. was the second part? to get how much of this? >> what we have done is what we have done in the past. we have budgeted in 2012 for 98,000 troops. it is a conservative approach to budgeting, but since we do not

know how many troops will be reduced during the course of fiscal year 2012, as i told members of congress today at lunch, it just makes more budget sense to do this conservatively and budget on a straight line basis from fiscal year 2011. and then, depending on the size of the drawdown, that may be money we just do not spend. but because we have no idea what the size of the drawdowns will become of because they are going to be conditions-based, at least the pace will be conditions- based, we decided to budget conservatively on a flat level. but that is not to say that we will have 98,000 troops at the end of fiscal year 2012. in fact, it is a lead-pipe cinch we will not. >> alternate over to the experts now.

.

consid erof hr-1, the full-year continuing appropriations act of 2011. we're very happy to welcome as witnesses the distinguished new chair of the committee on appropriations, my good friend and assmate, mr. rogers, and, of course, my also very good friend, he's been here a little longer than mr. rogers and i have, but my fellow westerner, the gentleman from washington, mr. dix. let me say that without objection, if you have any prepared remarks, they will appear in their entirety in the record and we welcome your comments. mr. rogers. >> good afternoon, mr. chairman, and ranking member slaughter, members of the committee. and my colleague, mr. dix. i'm pleased to appear to present hr-1, the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution. let me just cut to the chase. i'm here seeking an open rule,

an open rule so that all members, republicans and mocrats alike, have the opportunity to try to put forward their ideas to cut spending or move money around in thec r. while open rules have not been common for appropriations bills over the last four years, i believe and i'm sure mr. dix would agree, it's time we return to the practice of bringing appropriations bills to the floor under regular order. he and i have talked about that and have agreed that's what we both will strive to do. this legislation represents the largest reduction in nonsecurity discretionary spending in the history of the country and is a massive down payment on the new republican majority's commitment to drastically dcrease discretionary funding in order to help our economy thrive and spur job creation. this will be the first of many

appropriations bills this year that will significantly reduce spending beginning a pattern of cuts that will help put our nation's budgets back into balance and op the dangerous spiral of unsustainable deficits and debt. this bold legislation reverses the trend of massive discretionary spending increases over the last two years. in total the legislation will save american taxpayers more than $100 billion compared to the president's fiscal year request for '11. of this amount, $81 billion has been cut from nonsecurity programs and security related programs have been reduced by $19 billion. these cuts are not ambiguous across the board reductions. they're hard-nosed, tough, line by line reductions in specific programs.

these cuts were determined through careful and fair analysis of all discretionary agencies and programs without regard to politicasacred cows. and they affect nearly every facet of the federal government. the cr also includes a provision to eliminate any unobligated stimulus funding approved in the american recovery and reinvestment act saving the taxpayers as much as $5 billion. in addition, this cr provides critical funding for our national defense giving our troops and commanders the resources they need to the maintain the security of our nation and advance our missions abroad. in total the legislation will increase funding for the department of defense by 2% over current year's level giving military leaders the budgetary certainty they need to continue

successful operations for the mainder of this fiscal year. the cr includes no earmarked funding. it elinates all previous earmarked funding from fiscal year 2010 saving the taxpayers approximately $8.5 billion. in aition, the bill includes languagepecifically negating any and all earmarks as defined by house rules. in osing, mr. chairman, this bill makes the tough but necessary choices to begin getting our fiscal house in order and fulfill our pledge to the american people to cut spending now. >> thank you very much, mr. rogers. mr. dix. >> chairman and ranking member slaughter, members of the committee, this bill, hr-1 is very unusual. it's a general appropriations bill but it's also a continuing resolution. we will be considering it under

house rules that are entirely new. the text has only been available since friday night. the tight time frame, the new restrictions on appropriations amendments, and the unusual form of the bill will, unfortunately, frustrate members as they try to draft amounts. if a committee considers a preprinting requirement for amendments, i would hope that the rule takes into account the short time frame in which members have to draft amendments. so if the committee does decide on a preprinting requirement, we request that the members be given the authority to make technical changes to their amendments after they've been submitted. i strongly support the defense chapter of this bill. chairman bill young and i drafted this bill last year with bipartisan support from the entire defense subcommittee and we believe it is a cost-effective response to our national security needs. let me speak about the bill more broadly. it is clear that a debt crisis is looming. there is no denying that we need a comprehensive plan to reduce

the debt over the long term. what the majority offers instead in this bill is a one-dimensional focus on the smallest segment of spending in the federal government budget. we believe that at this time we should be putting everything on the table, all spending, discretionary, entitlements, taxes, and without a more comprehensive approach to the debt crisis, we cannot effectively change the trajectory and begin to bring our public debt downward. without a more comprehensive budgetary approach, what we would be offering to the american people would be what senator allen simpson has called a sparrow's belch in the midst of a typhoon. as we address the debt crisis, it's fundamentalhat we should first do no hrm to the fragile economic recovery. i am just echoing what many others have said. as the bipartisan fiscal commission put it, in order to avoid shocking the fragile

economy, the commission recommends waiting until 2012 to ben enacting programatic spending cuts and waiting until fiscal year '13 before making large nominal cuts. mr. bernanke in his testimony last week to the house budget committee said to the extent you can change programs, that will have long-term effects on spending and revenue, that will be a more effectivend credible program than one that focuses only on the current fiscal year. the right way to do this doesn't put too much pressure on the ongoing recovery. my concern with this bill is its unintended consequences. i know my friends on the other side want to reduce the deficit, but if you jam on the fiscal brakes so abruptly, it will be counterproductive. you will slow economic growth, increase unemployment, and thereby increase the defit. we believe the president's approach is a better course to follow. it is a five-year freeze that will accomplish real savings.

more than $400 billion in five years. but it will do so gradually making deeper cuts only as the economy grows stronger. it will bring nonsecurity spending down the lowest share of gdp since the eisenhower administration. so that is our recommendation, and we would have preferred one of the fiscal options for the remainder of the fisal year 2011 that was offered to the house was a freeze. not only was that option not available to us, but after the appropriations committee met in open session debating the allocation levels and ultimately approving them, the house leadership -- the house republican leadership convened its members and unilaterally chose to cut $26 billionore om the current year's spending levels. with only about half the year remaining. the resulting cuts to programs that allow our government to function properly and respond to the needs of the citizens across america are by any analysis excessive. an $88 million cut to the food safety and inspection service.

a $1 billion reduction in the wic program, women and infant children which provides supplemental nutrition to pregnant mothers and young kids. the bill eliminates the cops hiring program and reduces funding for all state and local law enforcement by 35%. another $578 million is cut from the irs enforcement budget making it harder to bring in the revenue by going after the people that are not paying their xes that help reduce the taxes. head start is cut below 2008 levels. meaning more than 200,000 children across the country will be eliminated from the program. pell grants are reduced by more than $800 per student making it harder for traditional and older returning students to afford college. one of the most egregious examples is the termination of the housing voucher program for homeless veterans. the hud voucher program according to scretary donovan, there are still more than 30,000

veterans, many from the iraq and afghanistan wars, who need these vouchers. so my point is this -- we must be extremely careful at this time as we move forward with this appropriation bill for the remainder of this fiscal year. the economy is showing clear signs of recovery. there's some private sector job growth, an increased confidence among the business community that could lead to more hiring. but unemployment is still 9%. with many long-term and discouraged worker across the nation. state and local budgets are hurting. the safety net is stretched beyond its capacity. while we agree that it's prudent to restrain federal spending, we believe it must be done more thoughtfully than wld be accomplished by approve this legislation. we had urge a more strategic approach to reducing reductions rather than the approach drafted in this -- by the republican nference with little input from the minority. now, i will say that i completely agree with the

chairman that we want to go back to regular order this year, and we want to bring out -- go through the subcommittee, full committee process. we are prepared to work to see that that is done and we are going to cooperate and try to be reasonable on the number of amendments when we're on the floor. we think this is in the best interests of the house. we've gotten away from that. it's a big mistake. the chairman and i are trying to work together to get this thing moving in the right direction. >> thank you very much, mr. dicks, and i greatly appreciate the spirit in which you have just made the statement about the desire to work together. it's obvious that everyone shares this goal of trying to reduce the size and scope and reac of government and spending and we all want to do it without inflicting pain, but the fact is there is -- we're now dealing with budgets where we've seen a double or a tripling over the past few years. as we all know the last two

years we have seen 84% increase in nondefense discretionary spending. congratulations on your great work on that. now, i know that there will be an attempt made to characterize those of us who are making tough decisions as being inhumane and all. we've heard all those arguments, and i think that if you look at the issue of veterans spendi, it's my understanding from the consultations that chairman rogers and i have had through this is that there is actually -- there are areas where we are going to be focusing attention, including veterans, and i don't know if you'd like to comment on that. >> the chairman is right. there's only two items in this cr where there's actually increased spending. one is dod for defense. and the other is for veterans health care. everything else is minus. look, just this morning it was announced that the deficit this year is going to be 1$1.6

billion. we've got a problem. we're spending -- every dollar we spend we're borrowing 42 cents of it, and we can't go on like this. so we've determined to try to begin the process of bringing the deficit back under control, and it's going to require shared sacrifice. it's going to require sacrifice. but it's got to be shared. it's got to touch everybody and i think this bill does just that. >> well, thank you for that. let me just say in response to some of the comments that you made, norm, i know this will be an interesting debate that takes place on the floor, and as you know it is virtually unprecedented for us to continue a continuing resolution under anything other than a closed rule. every single member of this

house, republican or democrat, will have the opportunity to file on the record an amendment that meets the germaneness and other rules of the house. members will be able to file those amendments, and that's whate is we want a free flowing and rigorous debate. to your point on the issue of reducing spending as it relates to getting the economy growing again, it's interesting, mr. rogers and i were in a meeting earlier with the chairman of the joint economic committee, kevin brady, and he was talking about a lot of empirical evidence coming bore them showing that throughout history nations that have focused to debt redukts have more rapidly gotten to economic growth and job creation than those that have not. i don't mean to have the debate but since you just brought it

up, i thought it interesting to put forward. this will be a debate that will clearly take place on the house floor as to whether or not it's wise for us to proceed with this. i will say that the american people last november made a conscious decision, and it was it's been three-quarters of a century since we've seen my party have the kinds of gains that we did, and i believe that it came about in large part due to the fact tt we said that we were going to bring about reductions in spending, and this proposal that chairman rogers has come forward with is far beyond what was promised, and the proposals one that i think is a very positive one in our quest to do exactly what we all want to do, create jobs, get the ecomy going, and move towards a greater degree of fiscal responsibility. so i thank you again for your cooperation in proceeding with this, and i believe that, again, with this virtually unprecedented procedure for

consideration of a measure like this on the house floor, that we will have an opportunity for a great exchange. having said that you know that the idea of engaging in by ament kind of thingeally undermines our ability to get what we want too do as we look toward the march 4th date that is looming. >> last year we suffered under that problem. >> right. >> with a lot of amendments coming over and over again, and i hope both sides can be reasonable. i mean, that's how this process has to work. i mean, we have to have a number of amendments. one of the things we used to do around here is we used to once the bill got on the floor and you went thrgh maybe a dozen amendments the chairman and the ranking member would get together and work out a list. and then by unanimous consent get an agreement so we could finish in a reasonable way so we could move through these bills.

>> right. that's exactly -- that's very much what we're hoping to do. i will say that last year there was 20 minutes to debate before it was shut down, and every bill then was shut down beyond that. and it was a grand total of 20 minutes. we're trying very much to avoid that and we do want to get back to, again, regular orders. >> time committed to. >> yes. >> one point on hiory. >> sure. >> i was here in the '80s. i think you were. >> yes, i was. >> and of course we had kind of e tip o'neil/robert dole group that got together and worked on all aspects of the budget includingocial security. now, to be honest aout this, as we all know, we have to -- this s to get to theentitlements. this has to get to taxes. or at least tax reform. >> right. >> and in order to really get this deficit under control, we can't do it all on the back of one-third of the budget, which

is discretionary spending. >> you're absolutely right. >> but i will also say, as former chairman on the defense subcommittee, defense has to play a role here and gates has laid out a plan where we're going to cut at least 78 billion over the next five years. you shouldn't waste money anywhere. i'm pleased to hear voices on your side saying defense suld be analyzed. >> i think everyone concurs with that. i like the way chairman rogrs put it when he said there are no sacred cows, in fact, they died of gluttony, a perfect way to put it. only someone from kentucky could come up with something like that. ms. fox. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the chairman d the ranking member both. i think that your comments were very thoughtful, mr. dicks, i appreciate your talking about the fact that we have to do this. it's good to show that our callings on the other side of

the aisle recognize that. i do have a concern, though, when you talk about our slamming on the brakes on spending and recommending that we go with what the president has recommended. i was here six years ago, by the way, when republicans were in charge and we had the open amendment process, and the chairman and the ranking member did get togetr. and i saw that. en the last four years i've seen the process that has gone on, which has denied the minority the ability not only to offer amendments but as the chairman said even to debate the bill. and that hasn't been very good. but i find it really interesting that you talk about going with thpresident's proposal. 've had two years -- well, we've had four years of expanded spending. we know, as the chairman has said, 84% increase in

nondiscretionary spending in the last two years, and where did it get us? our unemployment rate has gone up, up, and up. and it seems to me that that would be a message to you all that continuing the way of the last four years is not the way to go. you all want to stop spending, you say, and it seems to me that our approach should be we do need to put the brakes on this. >> let me just give you my perspective. i'm not going to speak for anybody but myself on this. we lost 7.5 million jobs between 2007 and 2009. i believe that what we did with t.a.r.p., which was done on a bipartisan basis, and the stimulus package had a great deal to do with stopping the job loss and starting to lower unemployment. there are a lot of economists that say, had we not done the

stimulus -- and if i was doing stimulus i would have put more of it into infrastructure -- unemployment today would be at 12%, not 9%. the most important thing to remember here is the way to get the deficit down is to get people back to work and to lower the unemployment rate. that's what it has to be about. and what i'm worried about and i only took about two or three economics courses, but what i worry about is if we cut the spending too deeply that it will slow the recovery and we won't achieve our objective, which is to lower the deficit and get people back to work. i mean, this is -- you're rolling the dice here because there was a pledge made in the campaign that you were going to do certain things, but if that isn't -- every respected economist that i have talk to,

including beanke and members of the commission, they all say take this a little slower until u get unemployment moving down more rapidly and then we have to really come to grips with this and do the entire budget, not just the discretionary domestic spending. >> i think mr. rogers wants to say something. before that, mr. rogers, i'd like for you to sak, but i'd like to say, mr. dicks, have you read the book "the forgotten man". >> no. >> i would highly recommend it to you because i read it a couple of years ago. it's about all of the -- not all the mistakes but a lot of the mistakes that were made by both president hoover and president roosevelt in the depression. and the mistakes that they made then are the same mistakes that the democrats have been making since they've been in control. and it is -- i don't know about your respected economists, but

we have lots of economists -- i think 150 of them signed a letter yesterday that went to the president -- saying if we want to get this economy to recover, we have to slow down government spending, reduce the deficit, and reduce the debt. again -- >> and nobody disagrees with that. how you do it, a plan that you have to do it, and how you execute it is going to make the difference whether it works or not. you want it to work. we all want it to work. that's why we're worried if we're too precipitous we're going to slow down economic growth. we're going to increase unemployment. and the deficit will go up, not down. and so -- then we've harmed all these programs needlessly. >> i think just -- >> mr. rogers. >> -- the opposite, that the employers out there are waiting for a signal from washington that we're gng to get control of this deficit, becse they see nothing but problems in the

future if we continue down this course. and i think if they see we're deadly serious about cutting spending and getting the deficit under control they're going to invest their money, which they're holding back now, to hire people and build this economy back and create jobs. so i think just the opposite. the fact that we are taking precipitous, hard, tough choices to cut spending here i think will give great confidence to the employers to hire people and get back in business. >> and i want to say, mr. rogers, i agree with you because, as i said, we've tried the four years worth of other policies. where lots and lots of money has been spent. anit's tan us in the wrong direction. mr. dicks, i'd like to say i think we have a 17% real unemployment rate in this country, not a 9%. >> i agree with that. >> because you guys are playing fast and loose i think with the numbers. it appears as though

unemployment went from 9.4% to 9% when i think it really went up to probably 17.7% because so many people have been discouraged. but i think we tried it y'all's way for -- >> or underemployed. and minorities are twice as hard hit. >> right. >> so we better have this right. >> speaking of economists and people who know what they're talking about, chairman of the federal reser, chairman bernanke, he says that we have dire problems ums we get the deficit under control. same thingor from the chairman of the joint chiefs. we've got the chairman of the federal reserve and chairman of the joint chiefs saying, get your spending under control. >> if i could just have one buttal second. here's a direct quote from bernanke -- to a stint you can change programs that will have a long-term effects on spending and revenue -- i think he's

talkinabout the entitlements -- that will be more credible and effective than one that focuses on the current fiscal year. the right way doesn't put too much pressure on the ongoing recovery. i guess that's the issue that divides us today. and let's hope that whatever we do is going to work and help the people in the country who are unemployed. >> mr. dicks, then i think that you and your colleagues should make a presentation on how we're going to get the funding for medicare and social security under control. we're dealing with what we have on our plate right now, the continuing resolution runs out march 4th. we're dealing with that. that's what we're doing. that's what we've done since we became majority, dealing with each issue as it comes up. and i cannot wait until we see a recommendation from you and your colleagues on the appropriations committee as to how we're going

to really get this deficit under control by dealing with -- i won't even use the word because i think it's a four-letter word, that most people call it -- medicare, medicaid and social security. >> but you know this. going back to the example of t o'neil and bob dole, until both parties are willing to go in the room together and shut the door and work out a plan, that both parties are willing to support, this isn't going to happen. it's going to take that kind of cooperation. you've got a group of senators that are doing the same thing over in the senate, that the commission was doing. we have to get the same effort under way in the house. >> well, this is an open amendment process, and you all have that opportunity. we were not allowed in the la four years to even offer our ideas on the floor to be voted

on. and i think that we've really come a lodng way. you're going to have a chance to do that. again, i'd love to see the recommendation that's are going to come from your side on how to solve this problem. and when you say you'd better get it right -- >> we better get it right. >> that's right. that's right. >> together. >> that's exactly right. because you're throwing the gauntlet down to us in that respect, and hat's not being very bipartisan. i hope we do -- >> that's why i'm here in a very respectful way pointing out my concerns and i do it because i, too, care about this country. we all do. and we want to make sure that whatever we do is going to work. >> well, i care very much about the country, too, and -- >> i know that. >> historically, your methods has failed. >> disagree with that. >> this has not failed. >> president roosevelt did the

same thing and that's why the economy never recovered until world war ii. he was under the same pressure, hold down spend, hold down spending. didn't work. didn't work for the japanese. they had a decade. >> ten years of a recession in japan because of it. >> ms. slaughter. >> thank you. >> i too pray for bipartisan and hope to live to see it. how much input did you have on this cr? >> had a lot to do with the defense rt of it, but the rest of it was done by the new majority. they put together the cr. i had some -- i was consulted and talked to. i offered some ideas. they did this. this wasn't done in the committee of the appropriations. it was done by the majority members. >> we haven't had anything that came through committees up here yet. but we knew there with were going to be cuts. it's absolutely true. the people all voted for that in

november. the majority is right to do it. but it did strike me,he fact they were going to cut 32 billion, and then suddenly it becomes 100 billion and so what we were hoping they were doing judiciously became meat cleaver, just cut it out. >> let me correct that. >> let me finish, mr. rogers. i've waited a long time to get here. >> but i nd to correct something you said that isn't correct. >> that was somewhat troubling to me. but u know you said there aren't any sacred cows here. there sure is one. neither one of you will like this. if we really want to cut this deficit in half, what we're serious, what we never talk about is spending $8 billion a month in afghanistan. $2 billion a week in afghanistan for what? we've been there for ten years we've got, what, 36,000 troops up in korea on the dmz. we need to look at those things at ways we can save some money. but i would really love to str somebody really talk to me quite

honestly about, what is the end product of afghanistan other than making all of those people extraordinarily rich? but if we really wanted to cut the deficit in half -- and i hope everyone understands we can do that in six months simply by getting out of afghanistan. i know we won't do it, but i hope this works out. buff i must tell you, and i'm seriously hoping this works out because my district is hurting as much as everybody else's district. but what i'm afraid of is we're going to have a precipitous unemployment rise that we're not going to be able to do anything about. there are no jobs available in my district now. talking to a father this morg morning, his kids are lucky if ey can get a job at the burger joint. >> the state and local government are having the problems. >> new york state is about ready to cut thousands ost state payroll. then this comes along and i don't know where these people are going to work at all. i sure don't think we're going to have much luck trying to extend any unemployment

insurance. i think we are moving too precipitously on this without nearly enough thoht, and certainly what struck me -- one thing i've got a comment that really trouble me here. the oil business. they've got $5 billion worth of -- that's still in here. the oil companies, they're unnecessary, the former ceo of shell oil said, and i quote, the fear of low oil prices drives some companies to say it should be sutained. ex-shell ceo john hofmeister said, and i quote, my point of view is that with high oil prices these subsidies are not necessary. so i guess my question would be, why are the oil company subsidies still in this cr? >> well, first -- >> when head start -- >> first let me correct what you said. we did not increase the cuts

from 35 billion to 100 billion. >> 32. >> 32. we did not do that. >> well, that was all the talk. i know none of us were there, but that's what i read almost every day. >> what i'm trying to tell you is the truth. we're talking about two different things here, oranges to oranges here. the $100 billion cut is from the president's budget request of '11. we're cutting that much off his budget request. that amots to about $61 billion off of current spending. we first started out with a $35 billion cut to spending from current -- that's now at 61 billion. but from the president's request, it went from 78 -- 74 to 100. >> didn't you start by saying this was going to be a $100 billion savings? >> yes.

and it is. >> from the president's 2011 budget. >> from his request. >> and by the way we did cut defense $15 billion. >> what about this oil company subsidy? why are they getting 5 billion l? >> you'll have to ask the authorizing committee. that's the law of the land. we follow thlaw of the land. if you want to change it, go right ahead. >> if we all want to talk about taking away police and teachers and cutting headstart and college kids, why in the world would we give money to the oil companies? they're swimming in it. you know, i just -- i just don't see any reality here. it's sort of like "alice in wonderland" and i believed in impossible things before breakfast. afraid not. >> this appropriations committee inherited a fiscal year where your party had not passed a

single appropriations bill. >> and agree with you it was a mistake. >> and the cr that you passed, until march 4th back in december, included those oil subsidies. >> right. >> your party included those o subsidies in the cr. >> well, now -- >> we're left with a cr that we've got to finish out as quickly as we can, and we can't -- >> did the democrats make you do it? >> you gave us a cr that included it. >> it's in here? >>e'll take a look at this. >> i certainly -- wouldn't that be nice to cut 5 billion right off the top for people who don't need it? >> we'll look at it. we'll offer amendments on the floor. >> i'm not so sure there are going be so many amendments. i think the democrats have about two. it's techcally very difficult to amend this bill. well, it's not an open rule. i haven't seen the rule, but i expect there will be a time cap. it's modified to a great degree.

>> ms. slaughter, i recommend to you, if that offends you, offer an amendment to cut it out. >> no money shalling spent -- >> we can't. >> sure you can. you draft it. come over and see me. >> dicks will get you a hearing. >> we'd be working on this all day long. it's almost impossible. all right. >> no money shall be spent. limitation. >> bring it . >> if you could take it out, i'd really be happy about that. >> the congress -- if you want to do it, offer an amendment. >> i'd love to. no other questions. ank you very much. >> mr. bishop. >> mr. mcgovern. >> i thank you both for being here. and i want to associate myself with some of the remarks of ranking member ms. slaughter on a couple offiissues. she mentioned the war in afghanistan. i'm a critic of that war as well as the war in iraq. but i have on a number of

occasions tried to get members of congress of both part yits to pay for it. rather than have it be part of some emergency supplemental bill that is not paid for. last year alone -- in fy 2010 we spent $450 billion in afghanistan alone. 450 billion. i think it was a mistake, but if you think it's the best thing that we should do, then you ought to pay for it. because the way we're doing it now is we're just putting it on the backs of our kids. that's borrowed money, and to not even talk about that as an issue and then come in here and to cut programs like headstart and pell grants and infrastructure, things that think have a real impact on people here in this country, you know, i fiernd it a little

disconcerting. if you don't want a war tax, then find more offsets in spending. but if you're going to go to war, you should pay for it. the only people that are sacrificing in this war are the soldiers and their families. the rest of us have been asked to do nothing. nothing. we're not paying for it. it's going on our credit card. i have an amendment that will not -- i'm sure it will be ruled out of order simply says we should pay for the war. i think that's the right thing to do. and i'm a critic. but i don't want my kids to pay for it. ms. slaughter talk eed about th oil companies. i'll be interested to see if there's a way to get after the subsidies the way the bill is currently written without getting into this issue of legislating on an appropriations bill. to put something in perspective, you know, the oil companies have enjoyed a lot of special, wonderful tax deals, under both

parties. the president of the united states in his state of the union talked about ending those su subsi subsidies. these tax loopholes have helped bp, chevron, convioco and shello make near loy $1 trillion over the past decade. we're asking taxpayers to subsidize them and we're cutting headstart and pe grants and infrastructure grants and we're cutting the small business administration. it just doesn't make any sebs to me. it shows that our priorities are a little bit twisted here. in education, our estimates are that more than 200,000 children will be kicked out of headstart if, in fact, this bill were to go forward as is. and thousands of teach hers wou lose their jobs. mr. dicks is absolutely right, the way to reduce this ficit is to create jobs and put more people bacto work. you know, we're going to take an action here that's going to put

more people out of work. we estimated an $800 reduction per student in the maximum pell ant awd. you know, sometimes you have to invest to make money. and the reality here is that by not investing in education we are putting ourselves at risk of not being able to compete this 21st century economy in countries like china. investing in education and making sure that everybody who wants to get additional education can get it and that they're not somehow denied it because they can't afford it i think is something that we should actually in a bipartisan way want to come together on. cuts in nia, national institutes of health, you want to know how you can help keep medicaid solvent? he nd a cure to alwazheimer's disease. i mean, the cuts in nih the national institutes of health in this bill, as wliritten, represt

a significant setback for cancer research and other disease research. on the floor talking about the bill that we pass to instruct committees to find savings in their budgets and the chairman of the rules committee said, we're not talking about cutting nih or cops or foyer firefighters. but we are in this bill. co-ops are going to be cut. firefighters are going to be cut. and important research in the kwlas of cancer, alwazheimer'sa hiv/aids -- we used to come together in a bipartisan way to suppt medical research it's not just about finding cures, 'ses an incredible job creator all over this country. this bill would rescind $2.5 billion for high-speed rail projects that have already been awarded. a loss of over 25,000 new construction js and the

cancellation of 76 projects in 40 states. $234 million in cuts to improve our nation's air traffic control system. you know, cuts in the cops hiring program, consuluts in th safer grants which help fund our firefighters. i mean, when we talk about making cuts in those areas, we're not doi anything to help the economy. we're actually making reoveras mr. dicks pointed out more difficult, but we' also putting a lot of jobs at risk. and i want to just talk about another area that never gets talked about and it's probably -- it's an easy place to cut because not a lot of people raise their voices on it. but thats our food assistance programs all around the world. you talked about national security, mr. rogers. i will tell you i think helping to combat extreme poverty and hunger around the world, which we have been doing, actually

enhances our security. probably more than a lot of the programs that we have that send all kind of military assistance overseas to governments that don't respect democracy but somehow we consider them our allies. but under this bill, development assistance for programs like feed the future would be cut 40.5 global health and child survival programs cut 12%. the food for peace program cut over 40%. the mcgovern/dole international food for education program which feeds hungry kids in school settings is cut by 52.3%. and let me tell you what happens when you cut these programs. one of two things happen. either china is going to step up to the plate and start providing food assistance to try to enhance their standing in that part of the world or nothing will happen and people will literally go without food. literally go without food. you know, when we talk about

national security, i think these programs, to me, are more important than a lot of the things that get approved around here. mr. rogers, you talk about shared sacrifice. it seems the only people sacrificing in this are middle income families and poor families. couple months ago we passed a bill that extended tax cuts for millionaires. donald trump gets to keep his tax cut. but we end up cutting pell grants and we cut headstart here. we talk about shared sacrifice, ms. slaughter talked about the oil companies, their sbsidies are still in place. i think the way the bill is written it may make it impossible for us to go after these under the rules we're abiding by. programs like some of these farm subsidy programs, we have a debate on whether we should be funding corn ethanol. i think it's one of the biggest boondoggles in the world. we can't get at it the way the

bi is written. you know, i think this makes it more -- i think if in fact this were to become lawt would make the recovery that much more difficult, it would cost us a lot of jobs at a time we should be protecting and trying to create more jobs. and i think it nwould not enhane our security by decrease it. and i would just say, finally, you know, i hope -- i mean, i don't think i'll get the opportunity here. but i hope at some point in a bipartisan way that we will agree that if we're going to go fight wars we're going to pay for them. when george bush first went to war against saddam hussein, when they invaded kuwai he went around and got other countries to pitch in. paid for the war. we paid for world war -- we had a war tax during world war ii. we're asked to do nothing. you know, i say this as a critic of the wars in iraq and

afghanistan. i don't like them. i want them to end. but if you're going to do them, you ought to pay for them. and i think that's a better way to control our deficit and start paying down other debt. thank you. >> thank you. mr. woodall. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i appreciate you gentlen being here today and i appreciate the hard work you've been doing, mr. chairman, to take all the orders that you've been taking and try to do things as fair as you could. i did notice that as mr. mcgovern went through his list of things that he thought might have been cut too much there were only three things on his list that he didn't think got cut enough and he didn't think he could have gotten to this bill anyway. you didn't leave anything on the table and i'm grateful to you for that. that's the marching orders we got. >> we went into this with the idea that there should be shared sacrifice. we knew if we were to solve the problem of the deficit and the enormous dhaet we're incurring

on our children and grandchildr grandchildren, if we were to tackle that we had to cut spending. and we had to cut it fairly. and we had to have no sacred cows. and there are no sacred cows. we've touched everybody except defense -- well, we actually cut on defense. and veterans health care. we held that as a sacred cow. >> mr. dicks, i wanted to ask you -- i appreciated your offer to the ranking member to work with her to find a way to get at those subsidies. and i would -- she stepped out, but i'd like to commit my vote to her if you all can find a way to get to those subsidies, you'll absolutely have my vote on the floor of the house when that ailment comendment comes. i hope you can do that. now, it could be that some of those tinges -- i know some of the items mr. mcgovern mentioned were tax items. i'm new. do we ever have an opportunity to go after the tax side of the ledger in an appropriations bill like this? >> usually you do it in a tax

reform bill. 1986 was the last time we had a major tax reform bill where we went through the entire code. i think it's long overdue that we have -- that the ways and means committee, finance committee have another opportunity to do -- and present to the congress a tax reform bill that hopefully will close some of the loopholes and help bring revenue in. every time we have the big tax cuts, you know, that cos money, too. >> right. >> because we don't get the revenue. >> i appreciate that. i happen to have a tax reform bill hr-25, the fair tax that would abolish every corporate subsidy that exists today, every loophole, every exemption, every lobbyist engendered preference that has accumulated since 1986 and even before. and i would welcome anyone's support in working on that because i believe that you can't compete on your own merits then you don't deserve to compete. but i appreciate you saying

that, mr. dicks. i see how hard chairman rogers has been working. i couldn't believe he would have left something on the table if it would have been available to him. >> that's e-third of the budget. i mean, if we're serious, we've got to look at entitlements, social security, medicare, medicaid. we've got to be concerned about this debt because of the interest payment. it's huge. and we've got to look at taxes. we've got to look at these loopholes that have been there. ife do all of that, we have a chance of turning the corner. we have to do it in a birtisan way so both parties will feel secure as they did in the '80s last time we did it. >> you say bipartisan. as i see you and mr. rogers do things together, i think nonpartisan. it's about love of the country and folks in your neigorhood and responsibility to your constituents and partisan doesn't come into it at all. now, i share some of your frustration. i want to get into medicare and medicaid because i know that's where the dollars are. i want to get into social

security because i know that's where the unfunded promises are. i want to get into the tax code because i think there's some real economically destructe things going on there. but you're saying that it would never have been your expectation that an appropriatio bill like this the rules would have allowed for that? >> no. that is ways and means and senate finance. they're the ones that work on that part of it. sometimes people put certain things in our bills as riders. sometimes the committees agree it's an emergency. but we try to avoid legislation in appropriations. >> well, i want to associate myself, mr. chairman, with mr. dicks' desire to get into not just discretionary spending but entitlement reform and tax reform. but give" that the only thing it appears we're able to work on today is discretionary spending, i want to say thank you for both coming -- >> and we did defense as well as dmes stick. i think that was important and we couldn't have done it without

mr. rogers and mr. young. agreeing to do that. >> to see you all work so hard to have an oen process here, that was one of the things that i heard over and over ain, how in the world can my congressman represent me if they don't have a voice on the floor of the house? to see the two of you working together, i know we have time constraints and all sorts of other challenges on the floor, but to make that commitment, make that work, i sure would like to serve in a house where we can do that over the next two years. i appreciate your support of that. >> tha you very much, mr. woodall. we do appreciate that and hope this can be a step toward entitlement -- >> on a bipartisan basis. >> absolutely. mr. hastings. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i thank chairman rogers and ranking member dicks for their work. all the years that i'm here in congress, both of them have been appropriated in different

capacities and i recognize, as i'm sure all of us do, the difficulties that exist at this time in our country. every day that i'm here and every day that i have been here, i've thought about what we do from the standpoint of trying to protect the least of us in our society. chairman, when you speak of shared sacrifice, let me share with you -- i apologize to my colleagues for being late getting here. i spent 30 minutes with congresswoman captor with the foreign minister of ukraine who is here in a joint program with the united states and ukraine

dealing with security matters. he was put a question by our ways and means colleague sandy levin about what he's -- what is his had government going to do in ukraine to equalize the circumstances of the citizen. a part of his response covers a rt of what you and i, i believe, and the rest of us believe, and that is that in his country he says they come from 20 years now of having been away from the yoke of their 0oppressr and that the people paid no taxes. corruption was re throughout their society, and the establishment of democracy is and has been difficult there.

but what he said struck me, and it comes to mind here. and that is, in the establishment of taxes and teaching people that they are going to now need to look at it differently than they did when everything 0 steostensibly was care of by government, he said there needs to be equality of shared sacrifice. and i borrow from him in that regard now. it is easy to demagogue the best off in our society. and to talk about what they can and i believe should do. but how can we, honestly, say that we, through this particular cr and the budgetary process as it goes throh here and the senate and the negotiations with

the executive branch, are now asking for the nation to have shared sacrifice and then have continuing resolution reductions that address, in large measure, the middle class and the poor? now, i have to echo what my colleague mr. mcgovern said. it hasn't been just too long ago that we gave rich people who had already received every kind of benefit for all the 18 years that i'm here some more benefit. and then we come to without enumerating a gain of the various programs, how do we call that shared sacrifice, mr. chairman? >> well, let me just say to you.

if you look at the 12 appropriation subcommittees who will be presenting later in the year, their individual bills for '12 funding, in this cr, for example, the agriculre rural development fda part of the budget will have been cut 22%. the commerce justice science part of the government, none of whom deal with the poor, if you will, will be cut by 13%. the energy and water development, corps of engineers, and all of that will have been cut by 15%. financial services would be cut by 19%. interior department and the environment will be cut by 14%. labor hhs and education cut 14%, like the others. legislative branch, we cut

ourselves, 13%. you and i are sharing in that sacrifice. state and foreign operations, cut 21%. transportation and hud cut 24%. so the cuts are alst consistent to a t across the board. >> i understand what you're saying. >> and it applies to everybody. that's why i say in solving this national crisis that we're in all of us have got to sacrifice and help pay for it. >> mr. chairman, most respectfully, i'll disagree with "all of us are sacrificing." when you get granular and go inside the cuts that you just enumera enumerated, you will find programs that add up to those percentages that impact middle class people and the poor more than they do everyone else. now, let me ask you another

question. did the committee -- i'm not into process here. you had the right to exercise, the prerogative, the continuing resolution is neededo be done. those dynamics a s i readily understand. but was there any analysis in the continuing resolution reductions as to just what the projections would be in ss of jobs if in a perfect world this continuing resolution were to become law? >> yes, absolutely. we took the words of chairman bernanke, federal reserve, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff that, in essence, said that the -- that we were facing a real problem as a nation.

and that has precipitated i think the voters last november saying, cut spending, we're broke, we've got to do something about it. that's why we wanted to tryo be fair in these cuts and i think by and large we have. there are going to be instances i'm sure where one item or another may need to be exained, but bear in mind there are literally thousands of accounts in the government that we're trying to deal with here. thousands of peopthem. >> i understand that. >> it's not a perfect world. >> the two people that you cited i've only met the joint chief of staff. i don't know him personally and i don't know mr. bernanke and i don't serve on either of the committees of jurisdiction nor have i or that caused me to come in contact with them. but just in reading, th would

be two of the last people that i would rely upon for overall judgment. now, i don't have the same confidence that everybody else does and all of these marvelous economists. i think that they are in some respects just like lawyers. you put two of us in a room and we'll give you 2,000 opinions in two minutes. so i'm not one of those that buys into the notion. as a matter of fact, i think they've been a part of the problem. not the joint chiefs of staff but the federal reserve and those associated with them. i sincerely think that they are a part of the problem. and i might add, every treasurer in the 18 years that i've been here i think has been a part of the problem. so i don't want to get caught down that road. i didn't serve on ways and means. i don't want to occy much more time. you've answered my question. you all did an analysis, b

you're not coming down to the point that, if in a perfect world all of this were to take place, thousands of americans would lo their jobs. and when they lose their jobs, the residual is a multiple that it dsn't take me, a liberal or conservative economist, to clearly understand. i'll return to the notion in just this one point. you and mr. dicks had a very brief discussion on mr. dicks asserted that if you were to cut the homeless program for veterans, that it would have an impact. your response to that was that veterans health care is going to be plussed up. well, in my state last week my

governor offered closing the homelessness office of the governor. florida is one of those states, because of its weather, that attracts significant number of people not only veterans but others to live outdoors. i began by talking about the least of us. i don't want to participate in no program that's going to hurt the least of us when the best off of us in society have gone about our buness ordinarily. and something is wrong with this picture,ot your responsibilities in offering a budget, but i just don't see how you're going to take police officers ost streets and expect crime to go down. how you're going to eliminate the most successful -- not eliminate but cut the