cities across the country, and there are still millions of more americans in risk of losing their homes. there are two important things that we have to do in the near term to reduce that problem and help repair. we have to get the economy stronger. the only way and the most powerful way to make sure that you bring the market back to a reasonable get more americans back to work to make sure incomes are growing. overwhelmingly they will dominate the outcome. it is also important to continue to make sure that we use all the tools that we have to make sure that servicers and banks are giving people a chance to stay in their homes if they can afford to do that. the programs reach millions of americans, but there are millions more at risk. we want to do everything to make sure that. if people can stay in their

homes, that is a chance, and doing those things are important. but the most important thing is to make sure everything we do is motivated by the challenge of getting the economy stronger and more americans back to work. that is the best thing to do for those communities still caught up in the trauma. it will take several more years under the best of circumstances to heal that. >> i will say briefly is that several years ago, i address the bankruptcy code as a way to have some reckoning in this process. mangas would know what they were about to foreclose -- banks would know if they were about to foreclose, that ultimately there would be a bankruptcy judge who would have power to take the terms of the mortgage and keep people in their homes. it was thought by the financial institution, it was not enthusiastically supported by the administration, and it failed. and here we are today in a

situation where i cannot reconcile in my mind how way baseball is a foreclosing on a home, boarding up, letting the weeds grow in the front yard, and the vandals come in and went out -- ripped out the copper plumbing said that it becomes a bird out hollow building and has to be torn down is in the best interest of the banks, let alone the country in the neighborhood. that is what is happening over and over again. i have lived through this in my home town of in illinois, and it looks like after the bombing for all the vacant land there. i've seen it happen in chicago and i see no end in sight. i know we have tried but i do not think -- i understand what you're saying, the overall economy as part of it, but i do not think we address the responsibility of the financial institutions in this situation. didn't you brought up something very important and i've been saying for a long time that the servicers have been a really terrible job of helping fix and repair and he'll and help people

through a mass that they help contribute to. and they're not putting up resources in this effort. they're not doing a good enough job of helping homeowners navigate through a very complicated process. they have to do a better job. we're a involved in a series of efforts to try to bring more force to a more rapid resolution of those problems. >> in closing, we have given them a lot of carrots. it is time to find a stake. >> let me follow up on a topic that you started down. when senator dorgan describe that neighborhood with the boarded up houses, it brings me back to the value of community banking in which i might -- human nature tells me there is a different reaction if you are the banker lending to the house down the street, down the road, you have a lot of caring compassion for your community a new drive by that house every day. you will have a response of

figuring out how to get this house backing to some owners hand. it gives me the opportunity to reiterate what i said in my opening statement. and the reason that the real estate aspect of this is so prevalent in my mind, i've had numerous bankers, half a dozen, telling me that with new regulations they are no longer making home loans. i think this is a terrible, sad circumstance in our country when your home town banker says it is no longer worth the regulatory costs of fingerprinting my employees to make a loan to someone who lives in our town. kansas and much of illinois, we have a large rural communities in which our bankers and other community very well. the idea that you can i go to your home town banker and get a home loan is trouble son. also a conversation with the regional banker telling me for the first time in their banks history, instead of the bank

calling a community banks saying we are interested in buying your bank. it is not a community bankers calling the regional banks and, i cannot afford this anymore. the regulatory costs have to be spread among such a large group of borrowers, that we are seeing in my view the demise of something that is very important to the life of a community. that is the local financial institution. and if that occurs as a result of market forces, that is one thing to me. but that occurs because we had an overregulated, lack of common-sense regulatory scheme, we ought to be able to fix that problem. >> i agree with you. but the associate myself with your central point. one of the great strengths of this financial system is that we have not some of the largest -- not just of the largest, most innovative global companies, but we have 8000 small community banks that provide a level of diversity, responsiveness,

customer service, care that is a huge asset for the country. we want to make everything that we can to preserve that. i do not believe that that is at risk in any meaningful sense. the financial reform the congress passed, when the -- it went the extra mile to make sure that that was not contributing to the problem. that they are not subject to a greater burden. they are protected from additional regulations which are really designed to get at the largest, most risky institutions and risky practices. most of what you're seeing happening in community banks today is the result of the fact that a number of them, not all of them, got to expose to commercial real estate risk. when ec bank examiners -- when you see bank examiners who got a little caught by excess is in the country, they are over correcting them. and the burden you here in banks across the country is the

concern that examiners now are becoming too aggressive and making it harder for them to do things that are economically sensible loan to a possible customers. that is important to counterbalance and resist. the chairman of the fed and the fdic and bank supervisors are aware of this problem, and they have been working to try to mitigated. they are independent of the treasury. i cannot control what they do in this context. but i know that they are concerned about it. i hear what you hear, too. community banks still saying that we're getting too much heat from examiners and we want to increase lending. we want to make sure that we can counteract that. congress did pass a very well designed set of programs to help banks, community banks get access to capital and help support lending and get more recess -- resources to small business credit programs across the country, which we are doing. we think that is a good sensible

response. i agree with your concern and i am personally completely committed to make sure that we preserve that great strength of diversity of a banking system that has thousands and thousands of small community banks operating on main street, trying to do a better job for their customers. >> i am never quite certain as to how much of the problem is additional regulation, how much of it as additional enforcement, and in part just the uncertainty of the enforcement. what is coming next? there is a reluctance to lend money and i have had this conversation with you previously and with chairman bernanke and sheila bair. we have been down the line. everyone is sympathetic. and yet the problem continues. i would say that i am not necessarily here advocating for my bankers. i am here advocating for what i think is important to the economy in putting people to work. banks that can make loans in communities across our country and kansas, access to credit is a determining factor as to whether or not you will grow and

expand your business. and we have reluctance on the part of bankers because the regulatory burden or uncertainty or enforcement that is making a very difficult for these things to occur. i do not know whether you have someone in the otc, firewall as part of the treasury, but you do not have direct control, but it would be great to have someone who is alternately sit down with community bankers and their customers -- ultimately sit down with community bankers and their customers. like the procuracy and paperwork. -- like bureaucracy and paperwork. if we could have a specific example of the rules and regulations or the enforcement action that can make no sense, we can address those individually as compared to the big pat -- the big picture of fighting the bureaucrat. you've heard suggestions of who i could get in a room with bankers and their customers to see if there are individual items of regulation or the

regulators that are not following the protocol of the exam process, so that we can get some certainty back into this process. >> i'll have to work with you on and and your right to call attention to it. i would point out that if you look at the broad measures of what businesses report in terms of credit terms and availability, and to look at the very broad measures of access to credit to businesses, types of credit, lending terms that they face, it is party to improve. not as soon as we would like or quickly as we would like, but much faster than credit to consumers or someone who wants to borrow to finance a house is improving. that is encouraging but we want to reinforce it and we have a long way to do. >> mr. secretary, one additional question personally if i could kick you for foam -- a few moments after this hearing. >> senator lautenberg. >> mr. secretary, it is estimated by the treasury that federal revenues lost due to

illegal tobacco trafficking may reach as high as $4.5 billion and european -- annually. congress provided more money for enforcement efforts. however, the president's budget next year would eliminate these. without filling these jobs, how would treasury have the resources it needs to carry out effective to back to taxing? >> i know is important to you and i am aware of your concern. i like to work with you to see if we can address it. the me tell you what is guiding our judgment. we're finding across the board that we're having to do more with less. we have limited enforcement resources and returned to devote them where we have the highest return in terms of revenues. that is forced as a cutback in some areas. this is an example. i know why you're concerned about it, because it makes it easier for the revenue base of

states. it is a born in this context and i would be happy to work with you on this. a of a lot in the last two years. we have been forced and efforts under way which have some deterrent value. -- enforcement efforts under way which have some deterrent value. how be happy to work with you. to do we need the people to get the job done. >> we do, absolutely. we have use those resources to hire higher-up's agents to help in this effort. >> and that imposes an extra burden on those who have audits. >> it does, and there are people who want to cut those resources to. we want to make sure the with the resources you give us, we allocate them to where they have the highest possible return. and i know why it is important to you. >> the administration has recommended in infrastructure bank of funding and national

transportation projects of significance. when budget dollars are stress so thin, how would they focus federal dollars to maximize our country's economic competitiveness? >> as you know, we face a huge long-term infrastructure deficit of this enormous burden, which hurts the competitiveness of but american businesses by raising the cost of doing business of bringing their products to the market. when you think about the long- term challenges, we have to finance responsibly much higher levels of infrastructure funding. we think it should be part of the solution. it cannot be the entire solution. what it does is give us the chance to get a better use of taxpayer resources to borrow from the market and bring private capital alongside what the government is directly, so

we get more power, more emanation behind these projects. there is a lot -- more ammunition behind these projects. will like to work with you to figure how we can get something done. one of the most importance we can do is have get more americans back to work. employing the people most affected by the crisis, like in construction, and for long-term competitiveness is to invest substantially more in construction projects with a high return over time. we cannot do that adequately to the traditional mechanism congress has used to fund for example the transportation budget. >> will we hear some of what my the considered -- might be considered so that we can get on with it? >> we have a series of detailed proposals to get more support in congress. there are a bunch of new ideas on the hill that we want to work with you on. this is something that we should be able to do. it is not a partisan issue.

it traditionally had a lot of bipartisan support, and it is a good efficient use of taxpayer resources. >> well, some companies are pushing for a tax holiday if they repatriate income currently invested overseas. these companies believe that it will boost the u.s. economy and create jobs. i am skeptical about it. some have suggested that the tax holiday made sense and the larger context of corporate tax reform. how do you feel about that kind of proposal or a margin that is something the that we would not consider outside the context of corporate tax reform for the reasons that you have said. on the basis of that hal it has been experience in the past, -- of how it has been experienced in the past, it has not produced an increase in investment, job creation, and it

is expensive. we will not support at time the context -- outside the contest, but there may be a way to be responsive to the broader interests of getting more resources backed. but not outside the context of reform. >> it is believed that by keeping these companies from bringing back the income that they have earned, they would not only lose revenues but we are also increasing competition for jobs within our own country. >> that is a very good idea to have comprehensive reform. it would broaden the base and include the incentives for people to bring back those resources. that is what our reforms would try to do. you will see in the proposal that we would find a way to be responsive to the broader interests. all want to do is improve incentives for people investing resources in the united states.

>> companies on the other side propose to cut the new financial protection -- consumer protection budget to $80 billion. -- $80 million. if the house republicans get their way, how's that going to affect the ability to start up and the fillets mission of protecting consumers? >> the purpose of those cuts are to start this entity of the resources it needs to get going. the will put it risked -- one example but i won't tell you another one. the most important priorities of this bureau from day one are to simplify and improve disclosure from people who wanted a loan to buy a house or to borrow against their credit card. providing more simple disclosure

to people so they understand how to borrow responsibly, can shop for a better deal, is an overwhelmingly sensible jet ever -- objective. you could lead banks with an unlevel playing field, but they're competing against non-. finance companies without constrained who might be trying to take advantage of their customers in that context. those are two examples. >> thank you mr. secretary. >> in my opening statement, i mentioned the financial crimes enforcement network which i do not know if many people follow it. it collects red flags on suspicious financial transactions for banks and other financial entities. hundreds of federal, state, and

local law-enforcement agencies access that data to track the financial paper trail of criminal financial activity including terrorist financing and drug trafficking. many places like chicago and new york city, local law enforcement entities, have direct access to this data. in illinois, 75 users ran over 25 searches -- 25 searches -- 25,000 searches. all the searches would have to funnel through just to staffers at the state level. treasury would save $1.3 million for the proposed cuts in this agency, and it seems to me that it has a significant role being played in dealing with the use of our financial network by wrongdoers, criminals, drug traffickers, would-be terrorists. this seems to me to be penny wise and pound foolish. can you comment? >> thank you for raising that. i understand your concerns and

will work with you to mitigate that effect. i appreciate much what you said in your opening statement that it provides as a whole. we're always looking for ways to make sure that we are directing them to things that can have the maximum positive impact in reducing the ability to take advantage of our financial system in this case. this is just one example. you're concerned about the effect it would have on local law enforcement officials, particularly in the major cities. i am optimistic we can find a way to address those concerns. we're proposing direct access for them to the resources, but they understand your concerns and i think we can work with you to mitigate those. >> senator moran. >> i think mr. kirk and his conversation with you was about the world bank. i did want to make certain that

you understand the importance of enforcement, strict and strong, of the iran sanctions. i s and did you tell us that you're taking your job very seriously. -- i assume that you tell us you are taking a job very seriously. >> i would. we have a program and the law that congress pass it as much more power and it has a dramatic effect to make sure that our other countries are joining us can tighten the constraints. but as senator kirk reminded us, this is an ongoing challenge and it requires a relentless focus to try to make sure your catch every opportunity for evasion and stay on it. we have some incredibly talented people with a great record in this area and will work every day to make sure we can do a better job. congress gave as much more powerful tools. >> there is no need for additional statutory authority here? >> i did not do so. the big challenges you know is

to get other countries to come with us. we do not do material business, really, now. but much of the rest of the world does. by we're tightening the net getting other countries to come with us. but we have some more work to do on that front. >> thank you for your help. >> thank you, mr. secretary. the record of this hearing remains open. members may submit statements or questions for the secretary to consider. this hearing stands adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [unintelligible]

[inaudible] [inaudible] >> this year is studentcam competition asked students to consider washington, d.c. today's third prize winner addressed an issue that help them better understand the role of the federal government. ♪

>> there is a new opportunity every day. he get your own place to stay. you can, on campus all day long and do whatever you want. and you do not have to worry about your health insurance. opportunity -- you can herd at any moment in a car wreck. if you do not have health insurance, [unintelligible] one of every five students gets

heard. that is the health care reform bill. >> if you do not have insurance, or if you're about to graduate in your not sure when your next job will be, all the plans will allow you to stay in your parents' insurance policy and to your 26 years old. [applause] didn't with all this new >> want to think that parents can provide this protection to their health insurance. the federal government recognizes that students and our communities were dropped off of their plans plans. they extended the limit to age 26. >> they cannot be covered and their parents insurance up to age 26.

before there were all these rules. i think the fact that college students can stay on their parents' insurance up to the age of 26, even if they graduate, is a big change. it used to be as it is a graduated, you know longer were allowed to be on your parents' health insurance. a lot of people take a little bit of time to get settled and a job after they graduate. or even to be able to find one and gain health insurance. now you no longer have that gap. >> the most significant in college students' lives. >> i can get my health insurance until at 26. that face me financially. and i have to pay for insurance right now. i am working a job to pay for school. i did not have to worry about

health care because i can deal with more important issues. >> not only does it help you when you're a student, but also after graduation looking for the first job. >> tens and thousands of uninsured americans and parents with children with preexisting conditions will be all the purchase the coverage that they need. >> insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to a child because they have a pre-existing medical condition. >> alone at the amendment comes another supported part. the restriction of health insurance companies turning away or not cover someone with a pre- existing conditions. this amendment is already in effect for kids and will be put into place for adults in 2015. the health care reform also intense college students to individual mandates. >> in 2014, there is a

requirement that everyone in the united states has to have health insurance. jindal will be a major change, that everyone will be required. they will have a significant impact on college students. >> the individual mandate makes its core requirement to have health insurance. you cannot meet it, you have to pay a penalty of $750 or 2% of your income, the greater. some have referred to this is unconstitutional and question its legality. >> i think it was an act that most americans themselves did not favor. certain congressional leaders decided that would pass that, notwithstanding the opposition. >> in the americans have far as their parents -- opinion on this, including a federal judge. >> he threw it at the individual

mandate as unconstitutional. >> the individual mandate is going to benefit tallest it is in the long run. >> done at all particular in their 20s's for affordability reasons, they have a sense of invincibility. they generally are not sick. they do not really see the need for health insurance. so a lot of college students or older go without health care insurance. it is quite gamble. a lot of times they did not have health care, and if they do have that, it is because of serious catastrophic accidents. >> one of the goals was to lower costs for people especially in need of financial aid. this could affect numerous college students. >> it is something nenni's begun to restrain that. >> and a couple of years, after we have set the whole thing up,

millions of families and small business owners will have more choice, more competition, and they will be able to purchase affordable care and get a better deal. >> it does come some downfalls. one of them is having to pay for other people's insurance. dealingis what you're with in congress. you can pay an average of 10% additional special income-tax to pay for folks that did not have insurance. so it would further drive the economy down. >> the doctor went on to say that of the pages of legislation, most americans are confused about what is in the bill. and no one knows what is in the bill, as you know. people voted on it. that is what is giving us such a hard time. what is the price tag going to be? nobody knows.

>> the health care reform bill [unintelligible] by early 2011, [unintelligible] [unintelligible] it would directly affect us. [unintelligible] >> 02 studentcam.org to watch all the winning videos. and to continue the discussion on our facebook and twitter pages. >> throughout the month of april, we will feature the top winds -- winners of this year's studentcam competition. many submitted documentary's on that theme. watch the winning videos every morning on c-span at 6:50 a.m. eastern just before "washington journal." during the program, meet the

students who created them. stream all the winning videos anytime online at studentcam.org. in today budget committee chairman paul ryan unveiled the republican 2012 budget. the 10-year plan calls for about $6 trillion in spending cuts. we will hear from congressman ryan next on c-span. then we will get reaction from democratic congressman chris van hollen on the gop budget. later, president obama talks about 2011 budget negotiations to keep the government funded for the rest of the fiscal year. on tomorrow's "washington journal," continue look at the 2012 budget plan. we will talk to house budget committee member republican jason chaffetz, and jim mcdermott. ulton on the continuing

mission in libya. earlier, house republicans unveiled their 2012 budget plan. nets, the budget committee chairman paul ryan lays out the details of that 10-year proposal and takes questions. his remarks to the american enterprise institute are just under an hour. >> paul ryan has just presented the house republican budget to his colleagues on capitol hill. budgets are not just financial documents. they are moral documents. it speaks volumes about our priorities about how we govern ourselves, how we see our future, and the country that we choose to pass on to our children. in short, they tell a story about our character.

paul ryan understands this, and today he understands to talk not just about the what of the house republican budget but more importantly the whys of that budget. he joins us in believing that freedom, the heart of america, is painted on many campuses and the government's budget is one of them. congressman ryan has been here many times in the past year, and as always, it is an honor to host him as he presents his courageous work for the future of our nation. it was big for about 20 minutes and then host his own questions and answers. please welcome called ryan. [applause] >> arthur, thank you very much. you have done a great job of taking after a great job -- a great guy. i want to thank you at the aei

for your warm welcome. budget debates that are circling around washington today, around our state capitals, especially the one we have right now, they seem disconnected from reality. the new stores are full of phrases like continuing resolutions and baseline levels, and the numbers are in millions and billions. the scorecard is these days about political posturing and partisan edge. this debate is stable. -- stale. today we are going to give americans the debate that they deserve. we face a monumental choice about the future of our country. for too long, policymakers from both political parties in washington have travel the path of least resistance. easy promises and into claims of progress. relentless spending in constant borrowing. this path has left us on the

brink of national bankruptcy and continuing down it will push our nation into a debt crisis characterized by uncontrollable interest rates, unsustainable taxes, and economic collapse. we would leave our children a very different nation than the one we inherited. highly centralized and highly bureaucratic, less self- governing and less free. the president whose budget punted on the drivers of our debt is not the first public official to direct is down that path. and the members of his own party who are defending his do nothing approach while demagoguing our solutions, they're certainly not the first either. in recent years, both political parties have squandered the public trust. the american people had a majority and they reject in to

promises from a government that cannot live within its means. they deserve the truth about the nation's fiscal and economic challenges. they deserve and demand on this leaders who are willing to stand for solutions. this new house majority which it is my privilege and pleasure to serve as the budget chairman has decided to do things differently. we have decided to offer americans the twist that they deserve. the stakes are very high. they transcend what fraction of a worker in madison continues to his benefit packages and the billions we finally settled on as we try to repair this year's broken budget process. at stake is the security and stability of american families. at stake is a potential prosperity of american workers. at stake is america. it is that that posing an existential threat to all that we hold dear, if we truly believe that our current path leads to a crisis and the

demise of america's exceptional promise, then let's dispense with all the triviality. let's confront the nation's most urgent fiscal and economic challenges. let's talk the path to a brighter future. but restore america's promise in ensure real security through real reform. the path to prosperity is the budget we are offering today. it represents our choice for america's future. it represents our commitment to the american people. we aim to restore the dynamism that is defining america over generations. on leasing the genius of america's workers, investors, and entrepreneurs, and strengthening the foundation of economic growth and job creation now and in the future. we reward work and effort.

which is about the idea of unlimited and unrestrained government. instead, we call for government limited to its core constitutional functions and faithful to its noble mission to secure life, liberty, and happiness for all. now more than ever, it is vitally important that we act. the governments and foreign predict unfunded liabilities which promises that they made to current workers about their health and retirement security for which it has no means to pay are projected to grow by tens of trillions of dollars in the coming years. every year that congress fails to act, the u.s. government gets closer to breaking promises to current retirees. while adding to the large and growing stack of empty promises to future generations. the flood structure of our biggest government programs is by no means the only reason the we find ourselves facing the crisis. the president and the last congress introduced current

agencies and they failed to deliver from their promise to create jobs. the biggest gap in the wrong direction of the last two years was the creation of two new open-ended health care retirements which would accelerate our path of bankruptcy. programs to make of this safety net for the poor are failing the citizens who rely on them and the taxpayers who fund them. in the tax code, it is riddled with inefficiencies creating a very drag on the economic growth is this -- needed for a sustainable future the president's proposal would celebrate a descent into a debt crisis. it doubles the debt held by the public at the end of his first term, and troubles of by the end of his first budget. it imposes new taxes, with spending never falls below 23% of our economy. it permanently in large as the size and scope of our

government. it offers no reform to help retirement programs and no leadership. our budget is different. first of all, it cuts $6.2 trillion from the president's budget over just the next 10 years. it does the nation on a path to actually pay off our debt. and it lowers the debt as a percentage of the economy now until we pay it off. our proposal bring spending on the federal government, the size of federal government, back to 20%, consistent with the post- war average and reduces the deficit by $4.4 trillion. our budget tackles the biggest fiscal challenges head on. it is a plan for job creation today, ensuring our children inherit an america that is more strong, more prosperous, and more free. as generations in the past to ensure for us, the four major aspects of this budget reform agenda -- first.

this budget reforms government to make possible more efficient and responsible government. second, it builds on the welfare reform efforts in the 1990's and strengthens the social safety net. third, this budget helps fulfill the mission of health and retirement security for all americans. fourth, it reforms the tax cut to promote economic growth and job creation. by removing the anger of debt that weighs down our economy and by advancing pro-group tax reforms, this is a jobs budget. it's a signal to all that a brighter future is still possible to invest in america. american can still be the growth engine that it ought to be. and that is from the heritage center for debt analysis, projecting 1 million jobs next year alone. bringing the unemployment rate down to 4% by 2015, and results

and additional private-sector jobs in the last year of the decade alone. according to this analysis, it spurs economic growth with over 1.5 trillion dollars in real gdp over the debt. this is that it will raise wages by $1.1 trillion, an additional family income each year. this is a path to prosperity. it began by reforming government. the role of the federal government is both vital and limited. when government takes on too many tasks, it does not do any of them very well. this budget restores limits to government in order to reduce deficits, said money for taxpayers, and focused federal the paw prints and agencies on the critical missions. the first job of government is to secure the safety and liberty of its citizens. defense spending should be executed with greater efficiency and accountability, no two ways about that. but our men and women in uniform should never be thought of as mere line items in a budget spreadsheet. it follows the lead of secretary robert gates, getting savings

from going after in efficiencies at the pentagon but reinvesting $100 billion in to keep military capabilities before putting to rest toward deficit reduction. other government agencies have important roles to play as well. but the budgets for many of these agencies have grown far beyond what is justified by their properly limited missions. domestic government agencies enjoyed a 24% increase in their base spending since the president took office. nearly 85%, when you include the stimulus funds, and the massive budget increases of a last two years has served not to help these agencies meet existing missions more effectively but to create things that lie beyond the scope of the federal government. whether an excess of epa over -- or the implementation of of disasters in health care law. this budget restores discipline to a government that badly needs

it. he returns spending levels to 2008 levels and freezing it for five years. it does this not through indiscriminate cutting up by proposing the elimination of dozens of wasteful and duplicative programs, identified by nonpartisan watchdog groups and government auditors such as the general accountability office. it does not just call for the government to spend less. it calls for the government to focus on creating the conditions for prosperity instead of micromanaging the economy. washington should not be in the business of picking winners or losers in the marketplace. jobs are not created when politicians reward the connected cronies with favoritism. and jobs are created when we choose economic freedom. our budget targets corporate welfare and proposes programs like privatizing fannie mae and freddie mac, costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. he gets rid of a permanent wall

street bailout of authority and rolls back expensive handouts for uncompetitive sources of energy. instead, it calls for free and open marketplace as for energy development and innovation. it proposes the role of moratoriums on safe, responsible energy exploration here in the united states and in washington policies that drive of gas prices and unlike some of america's vast energy royces up -- resources to help lower costs and create jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. if we want these reforms to last, then it is not just enough to change how much government spends. we must change how the government spends. this budget contains several budget process reforms, including real enforceable caps on spending double reorient -- double reorient government to spend only as much as it needs to fill its constitutionally prescribed rules. many of these companies fiscal

commission i took part in. the second part of our reform agendas seeks to build on success of a bipartisan welfare reform of the 1990's. in wisconsin we paid -- pave the way for this. we supported safety net for americans who through no fault of their own have fallen on hard times. however the government programs that make up the safety need are coming apart at the seams. it should come as no surprise that a system designed in the 1960's is not equipped to deal with any pressures of the 21st century. bipartisan efforts in the late 1990's transformed cash welfare by encouraging -- limiting the duration of benefits and giving states more control of the money being spent. but cash welfare is only one of 77 means tested federal government programs. others including medicaid, food stamps, and housing aid were left on modernize and on reform. this budget completes the work that was left undone with reform

centered on individuals and led by governors at the state level. predicate suffers from the same flawed structure that welfare used to suffer from. the federal government provides an open ended match on what the states spent on medicaid, which creates preserves incentives. states are unable to save money by tailoring the program to meet unique needs of its citizens. instead they must obey the one- size-fits-all federal mandate. the only way they can save money at all is by cutting reimbursements to doctors and hospitals. this is why so many doctors refuse to see medicaid patients. the payment rates are so low, they are losing money every time a medicaid recipient walks into their office. this budget of poses -- proposes and into the one-size-fits-all approach. it converts medicaid into a block grant and cuts the excessive federal strings, freeing states to design programs that work best for their residents, giving states

more flexibility, which will allow them to create more options to give access to better care. this budget process proposes similar reforms to the food stamp program. it ends the same incentive structure their reward states for signing up higher numbers of recipients as opposed to resort -- rewarding results. the best welfare program is one that ends with the job and a stable life for the individual. this budget and strengthen and streamline consolidating dozens of wasteful and duplicative programs into unaccountable, targeted career scholarships aimed at empowering american workers with the resources they need to pursue their dreams. the third part of our reform will put the end to the empty promises from the government going broke.

people have organized their lives around these programs. people have based their retirements around programs. we need to honor that. but we also need to make sure that future generations of seniors actually have something they can count on. i cannot tell you how many people at my age bracket just do not think any of these things will be around for them. that's fixes so that they are. we start with saving medicare. the open ended blank check nature of medicare subsidy mechanisms is threatening the solvency of this critical program and it is creating inexcusable levels of waste in the system. everyone who is on medicare or knows someone on medicare has stories about waste in the system. unnecessary tests, redundant treatments, the cost of time and money of mistaken billons comer misplaced records, and just outright fraud. this kind of waste -- let me be clear -- it is inevitable in a

top down, government-run system. and it translates into runaway health inflation. this budget repair is medicare costs broken structure and saves the program for current and future beneficiaries. the principle that government should reorient its policies without forcing people to reorganize their lives, the budget reform does not affect those nearing retirement in any way. instead, and people 54 years old and younger become eligible for medicare, they will be allowed to choose from a list of medicare-approved coverage options and pick a plan that best suits their needs. more individual choice, more competition. medicare would then provide a payment to subsidize its cost. this plan is a difficult to the system that members of congress and other federal employees enjoy today. it is similar to the drug benefit which worked very well. name another program that came in 40% below cost projections. because this one has choice.

it will preserve better care among health plans by the millions of seniors to get to choose and by trimming billions in waste and fraud. on this plan, medicare will provide assistance while providing more assistance to lower income beneficiaries and the with greater health care risk. reform that empowers individuals with a strengthened safety net for the poor and the sick will guarantee that medicare can fulfill the promise of health security for america's seniors. it is also necessary to reform so security to prevent severe cuts in benefits in the future. this we run out of iou's, budget for his policy makers to come to the table and work to enact common-sense reforms. it does this by requiring the president to submit a plan for restoring balance to social security trust funds and requiring congressional leaders to put forward their best ideas

as well. this process is designed to yield a bipartisan solution quickly and this is one area while i still hold out hope that there is a bipartisan agreement out there to be achieved. we know the way for a year. the president's bipartisan fiscal commission provided an example of what needs to happen to make so social security solvent. it is growing more slowly and those more vulnerable to economic shock in retirement. they also proposed will forms that a call for increases in longevity, to gradually reflect the demographic changes that are straining social security financing. although budget is sell -- i support both of these ideas. the goal of our budget is clear. we must save social security for current retirees and shrink it for future generations. this budget achieves -- strives to achieve retirement security,

economic security, and fiscal sustainability. but none of this is possible, you can i get it done, on as we have economic growth. this brings me to tax reform, the fourth part of our agenda. this budget recognizes that the nation's fiscal health requires a vibrant, growing, private sector and the tax code that is simple, efficient, and fair. unfortunately our current system fails on all three accounts. this budget attacks complexity, and inefficiency, and on fairness in a code with fundamental reforms drawn from a broad consensus of economic experts and based upon the principle that government should never take the dollar from one of its citizens and thus the dollar is needed for absolutely vital national purposes. it draws on the commonly held view that the key to pro-growth tax reform is to lower tax rates walt broadening the tax base. letting people keep more of the money that they have earned of getting rid of the distortions

and the loopholes that deferred economic resources from the most efficient uses. it starts out by asking the right mix of tax increases and spending cuts to balance the budget, and asking what is the purpose of government. then raising only as much revenue as the government needs to fund the things it is supposed to be doing. in 1981, president ronald reagan inherited a stagnant economy with a tax code that featured 16 brackets and a top rate of 70%. when he left office, the tesco had been supplied to three rates of the top rate of 28%. over time, brackets' became added. as with so many things, we need to get back to the reagan model. in this case, bayh implemented the policies of growth. this budget begins by lowering taxes, with the top individual

and corporate capped at 26%. it adopts a revenue-neutral approach by eliminating loopholes that distort economic activity. this budget takes is a major problem that has distorted economic activity over the last two years. it refers are -- its reforms ars in law, not every boosters. america's families and businesses need and they deserve certainty and predictability when it comes to their taxes. they need to be able to plan for their economic future. let me close with this. america is drawing perilously close to a tipping point it has the potential to curtail free enterprise, transport it to transform our government, and weakened our national identity is in ways that may not be reversible. it represents too dangerous. -- two dangerous.

-- dangers. has the power to make decisions to strip from individuals and their elected representatives and given an unelected bureaucrats. this chart a new path, a new federal commitment of assuring this nation's workers, investors, and entrepreneurs that we recognize the threat that unlimited government poses to the american way of life. it affirms our cherished ideal of individual liberty, and equal opportunity, and self-reliance. these of the ideals cultivated in the exceptional american character. aei has been a champion under leadership.ks' just as this budget seeks to make them the guiding light of

american fiscal policy once again, freeing individuals by restoring to the size and scope of government should not be a partisan issue. in his state of the union address on january 4, 1935, president franklin delano roosevelt road and the nation of a threat to america's national character from permanent dependency on the government. and let me quote -- confirmed by the evidence before me show conclusively that continued dependence on relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. to dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. it is in violation of the tradition of america to give -- of america." this budget offers america of mobled government that is guided by the timeless principles of the american idea.

this budget provides policymakers with a blueprint to put our budget on the path to balance in our economy on the path to prosperity. this budget assures a america's seniors from those currently retired and future retirees, that their health and retirement security will be strengthened and preserved. this budget provides parents with the hope that their children will inherit a strong, free, and prosperous america. it is a plan to give our children a debt-free nation said that they can realize their american dream. this is submitted for consideration of the u.s. congress and to the american people. this budget marks the new house majority of us answer to histories call. it is up to all of us to work together to keep america exceptional. thank you very much. [applause]

questions, anybody? >> thank you, chairman ryan. we appreciate your remarks. of work for a school that focuses on world schools, particularly high poverty place. i didn't hear you mention the word education once. we're in the process as you know of reauthorize the secondary and the expectation is investing in competitive grants. where is the majority in the house going when it comes to reauthorization? where does that fit into your principles? >> you will have to ask about half he plans on we authorizing.

they are working with arne duncan on that. we are setting a cap on discretionary spending. it is up to the committee to prioritize it. he did not get down to the mike carona specifics. we said the cap. then congress passed to prioritize that. of this is an area where the government is more deeply involved. only 6 cents on the dollar comes from the federal government. it is the constitutional responsibility of the states. we have 49 different job training problems. none of them are measured.

we do not know that they are working to get people into work and care rears. we are trying to do it consolidation. that is where we spend a lot of the time and education. that is more of a federal responsibility. >> reduce spoke about taxes. what can you tell us about what the ways and can means -- ways and means committee is likely to do? >> the tax reform was given to me by the member. we were closely together. what he is planning on doing is broadening the tax base, lowering the rate to a condensed

shropshire. it when you broaden the base, you have to get rid of some loopholes. we will figure out precisely how to do that. you'll see a broader tax base on that. the key thing is to not raise taxes on capital for investment. you get higher wages and more job creation. it is not inconsistent with the direction. they went to a little farther. they charge a higher rate than we do. they had $1 trillion in there. we do not raise taxes and back. we get rid of the obama care taxes. they are not imposing a $1.50

trillion tax increase that president obama is imposing. that is where we do our tax reform. the guy next to you. i do not remember your name. >> tom coburn has proposed raising -- removing a subsidy. would you be ok with removing it? >> i've always voted against it. it is 5 miles from my house. we do a lot of this. i do not think it is smart policy. the money did not go to the farmer any way. i've been it is the smart way to go. it asked me my opinion, that is a bit. >> congratulations on a lot of

hard work. during the worst part of the economic crisis, my company is one of the most important. they are invested deeply in research and development. we have to have the research. i am wondering what role you see for the continued federal investment. cracks in the particular credit? on the tax side, i hate to do it. they will decide the makeup of how broad the tax base is. on the spending side, we are going after corporate welfare. we are going after applied research in going after basic research. there is a basis. the applied research is the

government picking winners and losers. did they do not pick well. >> i will go over here. i apologize. >> are you counting on increased revenue from domestic oil and gas production? >> we basically open up the ocs and we do get bonuses. the royalties to not come in and out cited the tenure window. it takes time. we get bonuses up front. we assume royalties later on. that is not in our score. >> i do not know anything. >> a few people had their hands up. >> do you -- have you began your own plan to address such security reform?

is awaiting and other proposals that spikes we will have it -- or is it waiting on the other proposals? >> we will have it in the future. i do think there is a shot at some bipartisan agreement. we are trying to set the table for that. where tried to put in place a process that requires harry reid to own up to the fact that we do have a problem. many of us will be submitting a plan. we are talking about getting behind somebody's plan. i do plan on working on that. >> you did not put forward this? >> we went back and forth on this. we thought that if we put one out there it should be too tempting for the democrats to attack. this requires a submission of

plans to come with procedures to act on. we believe that this will give us the best chance. it is insolvent. we need to fix it. we do not want government help care. that is what obamacare does. map ways. that is a chance to come together. we are trying to advance it. >> on the medicare proposal, he had made -- you have made the

difference. while i get the mechanical difference, they are not be a voucher that people then purchased insurance with. it would go to the plans. though there there is a mechanical difference, at its is hard to see the this. >> they achieve the same kind of savings path. my road map does have doubters. i worked with the director in the clinton administration. i think she was chair of the fed. she and die with the chairs of the task force. we agreed on a structure. cbo called the premium support. it looks more like progress people are already familiar

with. it is a people do not inaccurately or incorrectly tried to tell us what we are doing. >> as long as this is not include comprehensive reforms. kenny talk about how we still have a health care system with the current tax code -- can you talk about how you still have the health care system of the current tax code? >> we are planning on moving through ways later on.

we have not come together to finish that yet. that is why he had help care for the over 65 population appeared we have a lot of other things in here. we are going to be working on our legislation together. i believe it is one of the drivers of help inflation. you are subsidizing the wrong people. you have a hard time getting insurance. you have that benefit wherever you go regardless of how you care health insurance. i think that is the best way to reform health care and get the consumer in the marketplace. i their health care will be run by 30,000 bureaucrats in

washington with price control or three and a million americans acting as consumers demanding performance for our business. i have lasik surgery 11 years ago. otherwise i wouldn't. i paid about $4,000 for surgery in the year 2000. it is now about $1,600. it is a better procedure. it is something that has market procedure. what we've what to do is apply this free-market principles so people can act on those things.

>> is to save more than $1 trillion. the cbs said it will cost more than $2 billion. >> we retain the savings. during this combined with eliminating all the spending get to the number. do we do repeal the price control mechanism that they put in medicare that ends of rationing care. >> first of all, thank you for

prioritizing the budget. if we do not mind, military families are concerned about the government shutdown and the bill that was proposed. can you give us an update? >> i can speak to the house. the democrats are our adversary. we are worried about this because you do not want to be affected are the it spouses. the bill will bring to the floor guarantees that they keep getting paid while we cut spending. this will be our third that we will have passed.

the senate has not done one yet. it has been 44 days since we passed our purse. nothing has come to prevent a shutdown. they are looking at to is moving as there it is the senate democrats and not the republicans. >> are you confident that you have a consensus for the medicare one? they are in groups of eight or 10 people. the biggest driver of our debt is the medicare problem.

there are the kinds of things that are needed to fix it. they are on board. look, it all comes down to this. he can guarantee people of yardy organize their lives. they get what they have coming to them. do nothing and kick the can down the road. the need to start cutting seniors. it is brought if we reform. the question is when and how we reform it. verys spending goes up quickly. do we say these programs now by engaging?

do we just worry about politics? do we worry about the next election. we see a real problem where we do indiscriminate cuts to everyone. we do not want to have european austerity in this country. the compassionate things to do is to fix this on our side rather than seeing more pain later. >> on the point just made, as you are speaking this morning,

he are retaining giveaways report -- before forcing seniors to clip coupons before seeing a doctor. but i did not even know what to say to that. >> do you think the ground as been prepared for republicans for this coming debate? >> steve israel is the head of the committee. is this a political weapon? of course it is. their scoring these political points. here is the decision may have been made -- we have been making. we nell are at the series will do it.

we have these halos over our head. there is the crash of 2008. there are hundreds of banks going down. what if your congressmen and their preneedy were coming? what if your president saw it coming? they know it in enough time to prevent it from coming.

what would you think of him? i do not think of this spirited this is wrong. this is the most predictable economic crisis we have ever had in this country. we owe it to our men and women to fix it while it is fixable. shame on people who want to demagogued and politicize this. our country's better than that. they have this budget gimmicks and county checks. is not what is really needed to save this country.

>> thank you very much for speaking. i know you are here. they are going to have to get the programs they like. to many people think these cuts will not hurt.

>> we are about to do a whole bunch. we are reforming agricultural subsidies. he is taking the lead in doing reform. we have people in congress now you are doing that. we have no choice. >> use said -- he said that the president is not leaving on this.

what do you do in the next year and have? >> as they said, we are going to do a budget. let's put the democrats decide. it will use this as a political weapon. look at the path they are on. we are on a path where i debt goes from about 68% of gdp to 800% of gdp. i asked them to run the model.

we have to go out and give the country a choice. we know the practice but the country on. it was in a welfare state. it is true to the country's founding principles that is prosperous and pro-growth. it has a resoluble safety net. at least the country will get to choose what country they want from 21st century.

we will put these decisions and place. they will determine what kind of country we will be. i feel like we have a moral obligation to our country and constituents to give them a choice so they can choose. at least in 2012 they will have a real choice. i have to go botvote. >> do you regret vot yorke on tarp? no, i >> hate it. i do not regret it. i do believe it is to announce a too unknown. we would have seen lots of

businesses could down. in the panicked moment we are in, but i think treasury and the fed did contribute to the panic. in the loma we are in, it had to pass it from taking place. was it administered correctly? no. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> now we will get reaction to the 2012 budget plan from crest van hollen. this briefing is 45 minutes. >> good afternoon. thank you for joining us. i am pleased to be here with my colleagues. we are here today to respond to the house republican budget.

we welcome an honest, respectful debate about the best way to move the country forward to keep our fragile recovery going and create jobs and reduce the deficit. we must act now to put in place plans to reduce our deficits and a steady and responsible manner. the question is how you manage to do that. any responsible effort to tackle the deficit requires a balanced approach that addresses spending and revenue. this house republican plan fails that very simple test. he just have to hear the comments just made today by both alice simpson and erskine

bowles. i read from there's demand. : the republican plan falls short necessary to enact irresponsible plan." republican plan largely exempts defense spending and would not apply any of the savings from eliminating or reducing tax expenditures as part of tax reform through deficit reduction." as a result, that the german's plan relies on much larr reductions in discretionary spending while calling on savings in safety net programs, cuts that would place a disproportionately adverse impact on certain disadvantaged population. so we have already had the verdict rendered by the leaders of the bipartisan commission, that the republican plan in the house fails the simple test of balance. in fact, if you look at the

republican plan, it is simply a recycled, rigid ideology that says we need to provide a tax breaks to the very wealthy and a very powerl at the expense of the rest of the country. it is dressed up in a lot of nice-sounding rhetoric about four, but it is the same tired old playbook. they preserve and in fact increase tax cuts for theery wealthiest americans. they keep in place a tax subsidy, taxpayer giveaways got to the oil and gas industries, and other special corporate interest costs, while it costuts education , research, in science, requires seniors to go into a prite insurance plan

and at the winds of the insurance industry with constantly luring amounts of support, all the risk goes to the seniors. the government is to choose and we believe their plan will weaken america and the long run. it is not courageous to protect the most powerful interest in the very wealthy at the expense of critical investments in our country. that is they do going forward. i want to turn to these charts here, because it suggests they are way out of the mainstrm when it comes to any responsible approach to deficit reduction. [unintelligible] you all remember david stockman, the budget dirtor during the reagan administration. he finds it unconscionable that the the republican leadership,

faced with a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit, could believe is good public policy to maintain tax cuts for the top 2%. it increases the tax breaks for the top 2%, because when you lower the top rate tonk, you'reg to be hitting middle-income tax payers to pay for the brakes at the very top. i listened earlier to the chairman of the committee, chairman ryan,when he was asked why they continue the tax breaks andthe folks at the pretop, he said that was necessary for economic growth of. the facts tell a different story. what this shows is that tax rates for the top income earners -- during the clinton

administration, a period of rapid economic growth in which 4% gdp growth, compared to what happened when you provided the first tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the folks at the very top. he felt it very strongly, only 2.1% real gdp growth during those years, even though you had the lower tax rates. the point is there are a lot of things that move the economy, and clearly that is not a primary factor, and anyone interested in his and the deficit as opposed to another ideological agenda recognizes you have to address that part of the equation. this is a similar chart. it shows job growth duringhe booming years during the clinton administration, when theconomy was boomin again, during the eight years of the previous administration, when you had a lower tax rate for folks on top, you actually

lost 653,000 private-sector jobs. the idea that those marginal differences tried major economic decisions is just this proven by the facts. here is the difference, when you look at the fiscal commission, in terms of balance. but the rest of the fiscal commission and the house republican plan when it comes to revenues over the next 10 years, $2.50 trillion. the commission assumed we would return to the clinton-era tax rates at the very top. when you make those significant cuts, as the representatives said, you are going to cut into important investments. they are important to keeping our economy strong. we recognize there are cuts to be made in -- and g has

identified many of them, and you hear in a minute about why iis important to maintain those investments, and then you will hear from john yarmouth about the tax cycle. i want to turn to the question of health care. there has been a lot of debate over the last many years on the health care question. every member of the budget committee, every member of the budget committee, republicans and democrats alike, understand that rising health care cost represent a huge challenge for the federal budget, as they do for every family budget, because the reality is the health care costs in medicare and medicaid have been tracking the health care rising costs in the rest of the health care system over the last 30 years. just the last 10 years, the growth and costf medicaid is much lower than the increase of

health care costs in the private sector. so when you look at this problem you have to recognize it is the challenge to get overall health- care costsown. and that is why passing the affordable care act last year was so important, because it is designed to drive down the costs per person of health care over the long run. in fact, we heard some talk earlier today from dr. rivlin's approach. when she talked a few weeks ago before the committee, she indicated it would be a huge mistake to repeal the affordable care act. and here is what she said. "repealing it would cause needless economic harm and would set back efforts to create a more disciplined and more

effective health care system." she also said, "i believe every idea about recalling about reducing costs was incorporated in some way into the affordable care act and we need to find it here " she said, "i believe the affordable care act as the potential to --" this is ahart put together by the medicare trustees based on their data that shows if you implement the affordable care act ait was passed, you will indeed bring down the cost of medicare over a period of time. i want to say a word about the so-called reforms in the republican proposal. and i want people to focus on this fact. you may remember that during the

last campaign republin candidates ran all sorts of ads against the democrats saying that these last $500 billion out of medicare. in fact, in an op-ed written for local paper, chairman of ryan said president obama broke his promises the seniors like cutting medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars. the reality, if you look at the budget, all those medicare reforms that we made, including ending the overpayments to medicare advantage, including othe reforms, to bring down the cost of health care during the next 10-your window, it looks to us like they have kept a very savings in their medicare -- in medicare that the railed against over the last couple months and years. in fact, that is the cause of

the medicare number they have in the budget. the health care reforms enacted in the affordable care act, which they say they are repealing, they are not repealing all of them. they are keeping as far as we can tell the savings in medicare, and the savings that were made with the democratic majority in congress rec rit -- represent a significant amount of the funds availab in medicare over the next 10 years. what do they do? the essentially and medicare as we know it. they do not reform it. .hey deform it they say you got to go into the private insurance market, and we will get a voucher will reduce

value over time, and all the risk of increased cost in health care system will be borne by the medicare beneficiary, the seniors. even as they get rid of the mechanism they kept, that they did not -- that they got rid of, and health care reform bill, which the creation of a commission, to help recommend and reduce costs. they got rid of that, which will lead to increases costs in medicare, and they put all the rest and burden on the senior citizen under medicare. it is a radical change, and it is extremely bad for seniors. finally, i want to say with respect to medicare, allison schwartz is got to talking about the medicare cuts. i want to turn briefly to medicaid, but simply p,

turning medicaid into a block grant program is just code for cutting deeply into supports for seniors in nursing homes, seniors in an assisted living facilities, low-income kids, disabled individuals, and a most deplorable population. it is the blank check the governs with a license to cut those individuals -- cut the support for those individuals in our society. it is certainly not courageous to pick on some of the most vulnerable in our society. finally, i will end by saying this nion, the orwelli notion that ending the medicare guarantee for seniors and block- granting medicare that will help hurt individuals in nursing homes and other settings, to suggt that that is done to

save medicare is a little reminiscent of that twisted saying that you have to this juror the bill in order to save it. this will do terrible damage to medicare and medicaid and everybody who has paid into the medicare system and relies on the system for their supports, and all of us know it was not that long ago that republican members of congress surely thought the estabshment of medicare, the establishment of social security, and certainly we are not going to stand by while they undermine the fundamental integrity's of those important supports for seniors and others in our society, which all of those seniors had paid into that system. with that, i'm going to turn it overo congressman john

yarmouth, a great member of the committee from kentucky, who is got to talk about the republican approach to tax cuts for the wealthy. >> thank you very much, crossbhris. i ran for congress in times during difficult circumstances for americans, and fighting two wars, and the notion we should cut taxes for the wealthy was offensive and demonstrated the wrong values, and that was at a time when the social safety net was much better than it will be under the republican budget. mr. ryan calls this budget the path to prosperity. is actually a payback for the prosperous. this is a budget that asks virtually all americans to suffer, to take a little pain,

but it has nothing -- it asks nothing of the wealthiest americans, the ones who have experienced the greatest in come and wealth in the last 10 years, at least in the last 90 years. what we have seen here under the ryan budget is a proposal that over the next eight years will reduce taxes for the wealthiest 2% of americans, by $870 billion, at the same time as crist mentioned and others will, cutting medicaid by $1 trillion, cutting education funding, cutting research and development, cutting support programs for low-income seniors and people with low-income families with children, all of the things that reflect well on how -- and our values as a nation. they do not ask the wealthiest pay a penny. they maintain all of the tax breaks for the oil companies in spite of the fact that they have

made $900 billion in profit over the last decade. they have maintained all the tax breaks, all the tax expenditures, which amount to one trillion -- $1 trillion a year, expenditures which if they were actually recorded on the budget as government programs, republicans would -- about, and there are -- as expenditures alone amount of all of the discretionary spending in the budget, including defense. they do not touch any of this. this is the most imbalanced, reckless budget that has been offered in modern history. it exacts a high price on virtually all americans accept the very wealthiest. this is $800 billion versus 707

$1 billion cut in medicaid. these are the wealthy. those are the people who need care and need aid. i want to say one thing about this notion that you can -- you need to cut taxes to generate economic prosperity. my brother was in the barbecue restaurant business. he does very, very well. i am an investor and that business. we would be impacted to return to the pre-bush tax counsel. my brother said i'm going to support barack obama this year even though i was always republican and always wanted to pay less tax. he said i finally realized if nobody can afford a barbecue, it does not matter what my tax rate is. this is a statement about where we are as a country. does not matter what these tax rates are for anybody if there is no business. business people recognize that. we had a meeting yesterday,

white house business council roundtable, all business people in the room. sponsored by the chamber of commerce. everybody in that roomas asking for more government support for education, for things like child care, research and development, and i thought i was in a progressive caucus meeting, and these were business people. they did not mention tax rates on the wealthiest people in the country. they need -- they know we need to make the investment in human capital. this budget does not do that. it imposes great pain on the people who can least the stand it and gives great benefit to the people who do not need it. >> thank you, john. next we are going to hear from a new member of the committee, who is got to talk about keeping investments to keep the coury strong. >> thank you.

i am impressed with the work of my colleagues in the democratic ranks have done in the last several weeks to bring some balance to the equation. i firmly believe that america needs and deserves a plan that creates jobs, not cost jobs. and that plan for america and her work -- and for working families requires that it be written with courage, not cowardice. i see this plan as a clarion wake-up call. working families across the country should have the sound alarm at home, bair belair. this is attack on midd- class families, working class families. it is an attack on programs that respond to growing jobs. undeniably, the meage that we have all heard, from the

republicans in alaskan town, jobs, jobs, jobs, professed by all candidates. where is the jobs package? i am not surprised that this reduces jobs because in the last three months of the 112th seion, we have seen no jobs legislation by the majority. the team continues. they want to disrupt the steady upward moving forward that has produced 1.8 million jobs since the start of 2010. private sector jobs, absolutely an incredible comeback from the painful, very long and painful recession that drank our economy of 8.2 million jobs. look at the steady, precipitous decline of american jobs. and then the turning point that

comes early in 2009. as we begin to climb upward. why would we want to disrupt, disrupt that steady progress? this is -- i've heard of vood jeff: economics. -- voodoo economics. this makes voodoo economics look pale. ness an attack that reduces jobs at a time that we need to invest in jobs. and we seem to defund with this plan. to be competitive. this dulls our competitiveness. it attacks our middle class. and it does not provide the investments that we need for a stronger economy. now, the economics we see on this bar graph, the assessment they have done on this plan and whether you buy the 200,000 or

975,000, everyone is suggesting that it's going to drain jobs. this is creating the slippery slope. while we climb the mountain to get to $1.8 million the slippery slope that enables us now with their plan to lose jobs. which is certainly the wrong direction to follow. how do we do that? well, they suggest that we drain $29 billion from education and training. $29 billion. they suggest $276 billion be removed for the se of transportation over a 10-year period. and then with science, and tech, a $50 billion reduction over 10 years. now, be mindfuls we engage in this global race on clean energy and innovation, i agree with the president when he says whoever wins this race emerges thgo-to nation. you will be the exporter of energy, intellect, innovation, and clean energy ideas. why would we want to put that

at risk? we have just received the news recently that we have dropped a third in private sector investment for energy transformation after, after china and germany. the america i know and love is number one. and that's what this democratic minority in the house is about. keing america number one. this is a slash on jobs. it will impact our economy tremendously. because it has been stated so many times by economists, the jobs issue, unemployment, is driving the deficit. if we invest in job creation and job retention, we can very much expect an impact on reducing that deficit. i think the road map here, the ryan road map, ishe way to the cliff. and then over the cliff. it will wreck our economic comeback. it will destroy the hope that we want to provide, should provide for america's working families.

it devastates the work force of the future by impacting on education funding and denies r&d, research and development, at a time that's most critical. think of it. we won the global race on spas because we commetted with passionate resolve to make a difference and we landed that person first on the moon. sily because we committed our resources, our energy, and our passions to making it happen. look at at we're doing here. we're chaenged to enter a global race on clean energy and innovation and our response from the ryan road map, from the republican majority in the house, defund. disinvest. don't worry about the r&d. don't worry about making it in america. invest in manufacturing, no such way. this is a dreadful outcome. it required courage. we got cowardice. as we go forward we need to fix this plan. a clarion we-up call for america and her workers. let's denounce this plan from the publican majority. >> thank you, paul. next we're going to hear from

karen bass who i said earlier is one of our new members who comes to us from state politics in california and knows very clearly the impact of the republican medicaid proposals as well as others. >> thank you. just like the road map to america's future, the republican path to prosperity a pathway to despair. the republicans are concerned about kicking the can down the road. but they have no problem kicking seniors and children to the curb. the 60-page document that we received today is an ideological statement that ironically captures democratic language and gives lib service to democratic values while covering up a radical agenda that would dramatically alter the quality of life for many working families. the america they paint with their budget prom is a country we wouldn't recognize. really look -- i really look forward to the details of the republican plan. what we need is a balanced

approach that speaker after speaker at the budget committee said we musto address the deficit through a balanced approach. in their proposal, they propose no revenue. they only propose cuts and schemes. giving lip service to democratic values and language, i want to give a couple of examples. they talk about ending corporate welfare. he thought that was pretty ironic and their couple of examples for how they want to end corporate welfare is to revisit the financial reform regulation. they want to praoistize fannie and fredi. and they want to lifmore torms on oil drilling. this is the way you end corporate welfare. they want to protect the safety net by massively cutting medicaid and having vouers for medicare. it's not enough toay that if you're over 55 you're protected. thank you. i know that i'm procted now. but the concern is about the future. but yet the republicans would leave future generations

without the resources for health care which ultimately on medicaid would result in a 35% cut. over half the users of medicaid are children. seniors use medicaid to pay for expenses that medicare doesn't cover. that's why i said the republicans are willing to kick seniors and children to the curb while expressingoncern for keking the can down the road. many governors have already wehed in on this proposal. and are objecting to the way they're talking about reforming medicaid. states should not be left to decide which populations are services to cover. under the guise of having flexibility for the states, if you look at it down the line, it really just resorts -- results in a cut. a significant cut to medicaid. i do have to hand it to my republican colleagues. because maybe the way they attempt to capture our language and give lip service to our values, i think we should spend

some time explaining what those terms mean. corporate welfare, concern about the safety net, is very transparent to think that you can use language to hide a very radical agenda and trick people into believing that the pathway to process tarot is not a pathway despair. the way that they are talking about medicare and medicaid, forces seniors out of the system and into private insurance. and leaves children and disabled without the safety net. thank you very much. >> thank you, karen. next we're going to hear from one. veteran members of the committee who knows all these issues very well. our colleague, allison schwartz. >> thank you. and i just want to i guess do a little bit of cleanup here. i want to speak specifically to seniors. before i do i want to share my -- associate myself with my colleagues' comments that budgets are about values and about our priorities. and to me, and i have served on

the budget committee for three terms now and my fourth term on the budget committee. and i have seen each year as we deal with the budget and the fact that the budget should be about three things. they are about meeting our obligations, as a nation, it is about being fiscally responsible, and that's particularly important as we have the challenge of the deficit before us. and it's about growing the economand preparing for the future. and this budget fails all three. i'm going to speak pecifically about the fact that this budget really puts seniors, american seniors, at great risk. they have as you may remember, that the republicans railed against the health reform law, that's now the law of the land. and yet they scared seniors into believing that they -- there would be cuts to their benefits. there were no cuts to their benefits and there were enhancements to their benefits and ail speak to that in a moment. but this is a budget and what they're planning to do on medicare and medicaid should

scare every senior in this country. and every american who someday they hope will be a senior. so within 10 years, we will not recognize medicare or medicaid. seniors will essentially be on their own. to find health insurance in an individual private marketplace that has fled most americans in this country. so this budget, as they have put forward, and seniorsnow this, understand that they are praoistizing medicare. 69% of seniors oppose privatization. the republicans are not listening. seniors know that dismantling medicare and replacing it with a voucher program means that they no longer will he access to a guaranteed set of health benets. there will be no guaranteed health benits under medicare. they know that the value of a limited voucher, one that's capped, will not enable them to meet the rising costs of health

care. they will know that they will have to pay more out-of-pocket and more in premiums. unfortunately, the republicans are proud of this. and they are telling their seniors that they are -- they will be on their own to deal with the insurance industry. that they will be on their own to deal with limits on benefits. they will be on their own on uncertainty of an illness occurs or if they need long-term care. that they may well be -- there may be seclusions for certain kinds of care. specialists or primary care or settings when you can get care. that the could be discrimination based on income and levels of illness and age. and i want to throw in medicaid. which is going to be block granted to states. understand that 62% of medicaid expenses are for long-term care for seniors. so we want to talk about women and children. i'm happy to do that. but for seniors, this is devastating. any american who has a loved one in a nursing home could well have to pay that

out-of-pocket in the future. because medicaid won't be there for them. and have to bring them home to care for them. so this is -- this same time that they're doing this for seniors, the -- there's no question that they are protecting -- you've heard some of this already -- they are spending the same amount of money if not more to protect tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of americans. that's $700 billion. they're protecting tax cuts for the oil industry. and they're continuing about guaranteeing not to deal with the issues of inefficiencies in the pentagon. there are all of us, and this was said before, all ous on the committee, republicans and democrats, believe very, very strongly that we have to deal with this deficit. and we should. but the way we do it matters. do we do it on the backs of seniors? or do we do it in a way that shares it across the spectrum and tackling not only spending cuts but tax expenditures and costs in other arenas?

and thats -- that is really the debate we're having here. and again, republicans chose last session to ignore the cost savings and strengthening of medicare for our seniors. they sit back and in fact demonize the plan voting time and i'm agn to end -- to stop improvements of mccrery for our seniors. -- of medicare for power seniors. and repeal the law that limits co-pamentse for preventative services for seniors and makes prescription drugs more affordable for our seniors and improves coordination of care and reduces errors and improves patient car and outcomes for power seniors. th want to repeal the law that curbs the growth and -- of medicare spending. and extends the fiscal life of medicare trust fund by 12 years. and it saves taxpayers $400 billion by ending overpayments to insurance companies. that's what they want to stop. instead, republicans here in washington want to end medicare

as we know it for siors. and ain, i will end with where i started. if siors were scared last year falsely by the republicans, this year, the republicans are right to say american seniors that you have every rit to be scared. becae you will be on your own. you're going to get a voucher that's limited. that won't grow. and you're going to have to negotiate with the insurance companies on your own. you tell that to my 91-year-old father who's right now in -- trying to get off a vent lator. how is he going to negotiate when his medicare benefits are up? to be able to find the private health insurance that he needs? he simply won't be able to do it. it's going to fall on all of us. ness a decision we have to make. this is a question of our priorities. are we willing to say we are going to balance the budget and actually our ranking member said it doesn't even do a very good job of that. are we going to take money away from seniors? and wheel we end medicare as we know it and medicaid as we know

it and protect the wealthiest 2% of americans and corporate america? that's our decision. instead, we ought to get serious and meet our oblitions to our seniors and our children and to our future and we can do that. and we should. we're not going to do it with the reinbudget. thank you. -- with the ryan budget. thank you. >> thank you, allison. happy to answer any questions you have. >> in the reinbudget, is there anything you can work with or do you have your on plan that you guys a putting forward or let's raise taxes on the top 2%? >> two things. obviously we've seen the major pieces of the republican budget here in the house. we haven't had a chance to dig down so far it's very hard to find something that meets the objectives that we've talked about. which is having a balanced approach to a deficit reduction. yes, the democratic caucus will have an alternative.

and the alternative will reduce the deficits in a serious and predictable and steady way. and it will demonstrate a very different approach going forward. yeah. >> mr. van holen, the ryan budget is already being cast as the platform for republicans' economic argument in 2012 including for thei eventual nominee against president obama. can you speak to the political significance of this document and how you think it can play next year? >> it's going to be up to every republican candidate for president to decide whether they want to run with thi particular republican plan or not. i would just suggest that they're going to want to take a very careful look at it. because in addition to slashing very important investments that are necessary for our economic growth, and the strength of the country, it also essentially undercuts entirely the bargain that we've made with senrs as

we've discued. and what it does is as that we're going to end the medicare guarantee, throw seniors over to the winds of the private insurance market, and we've already seen rates rising in the private insurance market and you the senior are going to bear the entire risk of that added cost. so it's a budget that as we said has just totally skewed a misplaced priority that benefits the very wealthy and powerful special interests at the expense of important investments. and at the expense of seniors. >> if i could just walk back a moment. you said earlier in your comments that to govern is to choose. and republicans have id repeatedly that democrats didn't pass a budget when you were governing. and the reason they have to do all this cutting snding is

because you put them there in the first place. >> well, two things. first of all, when you talk about the fiscal year 2011 budget, which is the debate going on right now over a very smal portion of the budget, the fact is that the democrats did pass last year a budget enforcement resolution that set out the targets very clearly as to what shouldovern this year. in fact, when you hear the debate, that republicans are making about how we have to make changes to that, that's because there was the other alternative out there. today, what we're talking about is really where the discussion should move to, which is taking a look at the federal budget as a whole. and part of the issue with the debate going on about 2011 is republicans only want to talk about specific cuts to a particular part of the budget. they don't want to talk about cuts that would involve taking the subsidies away from the oil

industry. they don't want to take away loopholes in the tax code that benefit corporations and result in havg many major corporations pay absolutely no income tax to sha in making sure that the country is strong. so look, that is the -- that's going to be the debate going forward. we're talking about th fiscal ar 2011 and 2012. >> so that's an old argument then? >> i'm sorry? >> that's an old argument? >> a totally old argument and ignores the fact that we did have the one-year blueprint there, yeah. >> can you give us a time line on when you plan to unveil your own budget alternative? will it be ready for next week when the committee looks to mark up mr. ryan's plan? >> we're marking up the republican plan tomorrow. certainly the democratic alternative will be ready for floor debate a week from tomorrow. yeah. >> on medicare, chairman ryan is saying his plan is not necessarily a voucher program because the government would be negotiating with insurers and

seniors have the option comparing it to the plans that members of congress have. but it sounds like you aren't seeing it that way. >> nott all. and whether you want to call it a voucher or whether he wants to call it a premium support program, it all comes down to the same thing the way he has it designed. which sayshat number one, seniors no longer will have the option of being in the medicare program that they're in today, the fee for service medicare program. they will be required to go into the private insurance market, number one. number two, the value of the voucher or premium support, whatever you want to call it, does not rise at the rate of health care inflation. and what the republican budget does is says to seniors, you're on your own. you got to pick up the entire cost of that instead of the approach we've taken which is in order to reduce costs in the health care stem touch treat

the whole health care system and get rid of the inefficiencies where so many americans were getting their primary health care at the hospitals, driving up costs for that. which is why dr. rivlin has said number one, me sure you don't dismantle that because it does help bend the medicare cost curve. but in short, what they do as i said is shift the entire risk to higher -- to seniors just a word on the federal employee health benefit plan. and the other analogies. under that plan, the employees get a fixed share of the cost. in other words, the employer, in that case the federal government, shares the risks of rising health care costs. under the republican plan, that's not the case. the burd of the rising costs is on the senior. you're on your own. >> and some of this, the details obviously have yet to be worked out.

and when you hear whether a voucher or premium support, that suggests that there will be a gap, right? and also, they also want to make it means tested. so where that break is could matter a lot. if you're saying ok, etc. seniors above $20,000 income. anare we only going to give -- going to get less and less support from the federal government at the higher you go above $20,000 income. that's a low threshold. we've heard some of those numbers. so it could well leave literally tens of thousands and millions of seniors at great risk for bearing the greater burden of both out-of-pocket costs and premium support. or buying insurance that really does not cover their health care needs. and that -- a group like this, all seniors, i always joke, my senior groups and say any of you on medication? and they all laugh. and any of you on two medications, three medications? and even healthy seniors actually are pretty costly to take care of. we've discovered that in government. that's why we've instituted a

whole variety of innovations to improve quality and improve outcome. but we're doing that by asking the payers and th providers, hospitals and doctors, nursing homes, to do a better job, spend ss money, make sure that people are getting the health care they need. not putting it on the backs of seniors. thank you. >> and it also will mean that you don't get to pick your doctor unless the doctor happens to be on the plan that you can afford. it rations health care this time by the income of the senior. because you're only going to be able to purchase what benefits are offered. for that price. you don't get your doctor, you don't get those benefits. >> we can take one more or two more and then we got to go. one and two. ok. >> the white house didn't address, the proposal, and are you going to do that or fall back on health care reform bill

as your statement on it? >> let me say something. the republican bill, i want to make this very clear. i want to make this very clear. in the next 10 years, the revenue they get from so-called medicare reform is the -- are the savings that were generated as a result of the passage of the affordable care act. i want to very clear about that. they demagogued those medicare reforms. they said we were just slashing medicare when enact we were removing the subsidies for medicare advantage plans, the overpayments. they were getting reimbursed with taxpayer dollars at 114% of fee f service. that is the primary sort of -- they've taken those savings, the same ones that they criticized, in their plan. so -- do we end the medicare guarantee for seniors? absolutely not. we got one more. >> one of the things mr. ryan

said in his presser was he was hoping that maybe on the social security portion of this bill that we can come to an agreement with the democrats. do you see anything like that with the social security language you've seen? >> well, we haven't seen exactly what they do with respect to social security. we'll have an opportunity to do that. our view is that you should not balance the budgets on the back of social security. that social security can pay 100% of the benefits up to the year 2037. after that, if you do nothing at all, those benefits will drop. so i believe that we should, apart from this particular dget negotiations, and the deficit reduction, apart from that, we should get together on a bipartisan basis like tip o'neill did and with ronald reagan, and trand address that issue. but again, we shouldn't be balancing budgets or reducing deficits by cutting social security.

>> will you vote on the short-term --ill you vote if it pops up? you won't shut the government down? >> have to tie a look at it. -- to take a look at it. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the house budget committee will begin work on the republican 2012 budget plan tomorrow. committee members will debate and offer amendments to chairman ryan house budget proposal. live coverage at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. now we will hear from president obama on 20 elevens federal spending in negotiations.

the current chart tom measure will expire on friday. the president spoke to reporters for 20 minutes after meeting with congressional leaders. >> as many of you know, this morning i had a meeting with speaker boehner, leader reid, as well as the two appropriations chairs to discuss the situation with last year's budget, and i wanted to give you in the american people an update on where we are. my goal is been significantly cut our domestic spending but make sure we're making investments in education, infrastructure, innovation -- the things that are going to help us win the future. over the course of the last several months, we have identified areas where we can make substantial cuts. " we have been able to do is to present to the house

republicans a budget framework that would cut the same amount of spending as speaker boehner and chairman rogers originally proposed -- their original proposal for how much would be cut. and several weeks ago, there were discussions between the white house and speaker boehner's office in which we said, let's start negotiating off of that number, $73 billion. we are now closer than we have ever been to getting an agreement. there is no reason we should not get an agreement. as i said before, we have now matched the number that the speaker originally sought. the only question is whether politics or ideology are going to get in the way of preventing a government shutdown.

what does this potentially mean for the american people? at a time when the economy is just beginning to grow, we're adjusting to see a pickup in employment, the last thing they we need is a disruption that is caused by government shutdown. not to mention all the people who depend on government services, whether you are a veteran or someone trying to get a passport or planning to visit one of the national monuments or you are a business leader trying to get a small business loan -- you do not want delays, you do not want disruptions just because of usual politics in washington. so what i said to the speaker today, and what i said to leader reid, and to the appropriations chairs, is that myself, joe biden, my team, we are prepared to meet for as long as possible to get this resolved.

my understanding is that there is going to be a meeting between speaker boehner and harry reid this afternoon at 4:00. the speaker apparently did not want our team involved in that discussion. that is fine. if they can sort it out, then we got more than enough to do. if they cannot sorted out, then i want them back here tomorrow. but it would be inexcusable for us to not be able to take care of last year's business -- we are dealing with a budget that could of gotten done three months ago, could have gotten done two months ago, could have gotten done last month -- when we are this close simply because of politics. and we're prepared to put whatever resources are required in terms of time and energy to get that done, because that is what the american people expect. they do not like these games. and we do not have time for

them. there are some things that we cannot control. we cannot and -- we cannot control earthquakes or tsunami is or uprisings on the other side of the world. but what we can control is our capacity to have a reasoned, fair conversation between the parties and get the business of the american people done. and that is what i suspect -- expect. i want to reiterate marion -- i want to reiterate, my understanding is that the speaker and the leader are going to have a meeting at 4:00. if that issue does not there resolved and we do not see progress, i want a meeting again tomorrow here at the white house. i will invite the same folks that we invited today. and if that does not work, we will invite them again the day after that. my entire team will be available to work through the details of getting a deal done. but right now there is no reason why we should not get this done. and we've got more than enough to do than to be spending our

time going back and forth, quibbling around the edges on something this important to the american people. with that, i will take a couple of questions. >> if it came down to it, would you approve of a short-term spending bill to avoid a government shutdown? and more broadly, as the american people are watching this, do you think that this is a test of your leadership? t you think the american people are expecting you to make sure this deal happens? >> let me take each question separately. on the issue of a short-term extension, we have already done that twice. we did it once for two weeks, then we did another one for three weeks. that is not a way to run a government. i cannot have our agencies making plans based on two-week budgets. i cannot have the defense department, the state

department, i cannot have our various agencies on food safety and making sure our water is clean and making sure that our airports are functioning, i cannot have them making decisions based on two-week-at- a-time budgets. i've been very clear that the last time we had an extension, it was to give the parties time to go ahead and get something done. there is no excuse to extend this further. if over the next 24 to 48 hours a deal is done and we just can i get the paperwork through congress quick enough and they want to do a clean extension for two or three days in order to go ahead and complete a deal, then that is something that we could support. but what we're not going to do is to once again put off something that should have gotten done several months ago. with respect to the second

question, what the american people expect from me is the same thing that they expect from every member of congress, and that is we are looking out for the interest of the american people and not trying to score political points. it is the same thing they're looking for -- looking from speaker boehner and harry reid and everyone else, that we act like grownups. and when we are in negotiations like this, that everybody gives a little bit, compromises a little bit in order to do the people's business. and i just want to set the context for this now. again, i am going to repeat. speaker boehner, chairman rogers, the republican appropriations chairman -- their original budget proposed $70 billion in cuts. we have now agreed to $73 billion worth of cuts.

what they are now saying is that we're not sure that every single one of the cuts that you have made are ones that we agree to. we would have these cuts rather than that cut. that is not the basis for shutting down the government. we should be able to come up with a compromise in which nobody gets 100% of what they want, but the american people get the peace of mind in knowing that folks here in washington are actually thinking about them -- because they are going to a whole lot of struggles right now. they worry about gas prices. that is what they want us worrying about. they worry about jobs and that is what we should be focused on. they are worrying about everything happening in the middle east, what does that mean for them? and that is certainly what i m spending my time worrying about. and i should not have to oversee a process in which congress deals with last year's

budget where we only have six months left -- especially when both parties have agreed that we need -- we need to make substantial cuts and we are more less at the same number. >> who should the american people blame if there is a government shutdown? and i was wondering if you could respond to the budget plan that the house republicans unveiled today? >> i do not think the american people are injured did in blaming somebody. they want people to fix problems and offer solutions. then not interested in finger pointing and neither am i.. what i wanted to is get the business of the american people done. will the time to have a long discussion about next year's budget, as well as the long-term debt and deficit issues, where we are going to have some very tough negotiations. and they're going to be very sharply contrasting visions in

terms of where we should move the country. that is of the lip project that is a legitimate debate to have. and it will be important because that is where 88% of the budget is. what we are spending weeks and weeks and weeks arguing about is actually only 12% of the budget, and is not going to significantly dent the deficit or the debt. so i am looking forward to having that conversation, but right now we of does some business in front of us that needs to be done, and that is making sure that we are cutting spending in a significant way, but doing it with a scalpel instead of a machete to make sure that we can still make investments in education, infrastructure, to put the american people back to work and build our economy for long term. >> what else does the white house have to offer to make sure that a deal happens by friday? and could you tell us a little bit about your meeting with mr.

peres? >> we are happy to listen to any additional reasonable proposals. but i want to repeat what i just said -- we are not the figure that was speaker boehner's our original proposal. speaker boehner originally called for $73 billion worth of cuts. members of his caucus insisted on making it $100 billion. what we have said is we are willing to go to $73 billion. composition of those cuts, where they come from, those are all appropriate subjects of negotiation. but by any standard, these would be reasonable cuts. if we made these cuts, there would be in absolute terms the largest cuts in domestic discretionary spending in history. and in relative terms, they

would be the largest cuts as a percentage of gdp since 1982. i do not think anybody is suggesting somehow that we have not been serious about this process. as i have said, there can be negotiations about composition. o we cannot be doing is using last year's budget process to have arguments about abortion, to have arguments about the environmental protection agency, to try to use this budget negotiation as a vehicle for every ideological or political difference between the two parties. that is what the legislature is for, to have those arguments, but not stuff the mall into one budget bill. and look, i think the american people recognize that we are in an unsettled times right now. certainly businesses recognize

that. families recognize it. we do not have time for games, for trying to score political points or maneuvering or positioning, not on this. when it comes to long-term debt and deficit, there is going to be a real debate on how we make sure we have a social -- a social safety net for the american people, how we make sure we are investing in the future, and how we pay for it. that is a legitimate debate to have. but now we're talking about six months remaining on the 2011 budget. we have already hit a figure that by any standard would be historic in terms of cuts, and what we cannot do is have a "my way or the highway" approach to

this problem. we cannot have a "my way or the highway" approach to this problem, because we apply that, where i have to get 110% of everything i want or i will shut down the government, we're not going to get anything done this year and the american people will suffer. most of the members of congress, they have enough of a cushion that they can probably put up with a government shutdown. but there are a lot of people out there who cannot. if you are a small business right now, counting on a small business loan that may make a difference as to whether or not you can keep that business going, and you find that the chicana process it for three or four weeks because of some bickering in washington, what does that say about our priorities? it does not make sense. i'm going to take one must question. >> i asked about peres.

in president peres is an extraordinary statesman. we had an extensive discussion about what has happened in the middle east. i think he and i both share a belief that this is a challenge and an opportunity, that with the winds of change blowing through the arab world, it is more urgent than ever that we try to seize the opportunity to create a police post -- a peaceful solution between the palestinians and israelis. he has a very interesting ideas around those issues. he also recognizes that in a country like egypt, not only do we need to be nurturing democracy, but we have to make sure that economic opportunity is growing there. we spores of ideas about how we can provide some help and make sure that young people there see a brighter future. and that is up in the secretary

clinton, during her trip in egypt, spoke extensively about and will probably be rolling out some additional plans on that front. last question. >> speaker boehner says it is not just the specifics of what you want to cut, but that your cuts or smoke and mirrors. how the u.s. to that? >> -- how do you answer that? >> i will let jay or jack lew or others get into the details, but here is a thumbnail of what happened. the vast majority of the cuts that have been put forward, just as was true in the republican budget, are direct cuts out of domestic discretionary spending. there are some cuts that we have proposed that have to do with mandatory spending. these are real cuts -- for example, pell grants. instead of being able to finance year-round pell grants so that you can get a pell grant for summer school as well, we are

going to have to cut that out. it is too expensive. and we want to make sure that we preserve levels for those on people or not so young people who are going to school full- time during the year. and the way they are categorized means that those are called mandatory spending cuts as opposed to discretionary spending cuts, but they are still cuts. they are still reducing the size of government. they get rid of those things the we do not need in order the pay for those things that we do need. if you ask the budget analysts out there, independent budget analysts including the cbo, about the composition of what we have proposed versus will was then hospital -- the house bill that passed a while back, h.r. 1, this is consistent with those basic principles. so this notion that somehow we

offer smoke and mirrors, try telling that to the democrats out there, because part of what we have done is that we have been willing to cut programs that we care deeply about, that are really important, but we recognize that given the fiscal situation that we are in, everybody has to make sacrifices, everybody has to take a haircut. and we have been willing to do that. but we're not willing to go out and say we will cut another 60,000 head slot starts -- head start slots. we're not going to be willing to go up there and say we're going to cut medical research. we are not going to cut those things the we think are absolutely vital to the growth of the american economy and putting people back to work. that means we have to make some choices. and that is not true for us just, that is true for the republicans as well. no one is what other% of what

they want. and we have more than met the republicans halfway at this point. thank you eric -- thank you very much, everybody. >> now house speaker john boehner on 2011 budget negotiations. >> good afternoon, everyone. we had a good discussion at the white house earlier today. there was no agreement reached. and so those conversations will continue. we have made clear that we're fighting for the largest spending cuts possible, real spending cuts here, no smoke and mirrors. we have also made clear that there was never an agreement of $73 billion. we will continue to fight for

again the largest cuts possible. we are not going to allow the senate nor the white house to put this in a box where we have to make a choice between two that options. -- bad options. following the government shutdown due to senate in action. yesterday, we did introduce a bill that would keep the government open, $12 billion worth of reductions in its there remains an option for us if we would like. i said many times throughout this process that we are trying to cut spending so that we can create a better environment for job creators to create jobs in america. this is an important step that we face today in order to get

real cuts. the white house is proposing cuts that are far beyond things that we would imagine. we want to get an agreement to we want to keep the government open. with that, i would be have to answer a couple of questions. >> is it you do not want to be put in a box with a bad deal. the white house said -- the american people starting right now, what is a fair deal for john boehner and the house republicans? what constitutes a fair deal? >> we want the largest spending cuts possible and we will continue to fight for those. >> if not $33 billion, what is the number that you can expect -- except for summer >> i will do my negotiations with the senate and the white house. [inaudible]

>> our goal is to keep the government opened. you have heard me say for the last three months that we have no interest in in government shutting down. but we are interested in cutting government here in washington, d.c. whenever revenue problem, we have a spending problem. and we think it will help us create jobs in america. [inaudible] >> we will continue to assess where we are in the next few hours and days. [inaudible] >> the conversations will continue. we will continue to insist that the policy riders are on the table. it is just important to many of our members as the spending cuts

themselves. one more question. [inaudible] they would like to insist that $33 billion as the top number. they want to use smoke and mirrors to get us there. that is not acceptable to our members and we will not agree to it. and we did not agree to it. we would continue to fight for the largest cuts possible including the policy riders passed in h.r. 1. thank you all. >> senate minority leader mitch mcconnell send members of the gop leadership discuss the ongoing negotiations over 2011

several spending as well as the 2012 budget plan released by house republicans. senator mcconnell spoke to reporters for almost 10 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. i have two observations. number one, the 1099 proposal passed overwhelmingly, the first repeal of a part of the healthcare law. that is an important step in the right direction, a lot more that needs to be done, that was shepherded all the way through to completion. with regard to the new budget in the house the congressman paul ryan has rolled out, i will call on jeff sessions, four ranking member of the budget committee, to speak on that. i would say that it has gotten a very good review in a whole variety of different ways, from columnists, editorial writers,

and others, a credible proposal to adept -- deal with the debt crisis coming rapidly our way. with regard to funding this year's budget, the house will be sending over on wednesday, we believe, a proposal that would pass -- a defense appropriations bill for the balance of the year, reduce spending to zero billion dollars. we think it is a credible, sensible proposal and i hope the senate will take it up rapidly and pass it before friday. with that, let me turn to senator sessions. >> thank you, mitch. the president's debt commission chairman gave a statement to the budget committee a weaker so ago in which they said this nation faces the most predictable economic crisis in its history. so where are request mark the budget law requires three budgets to be submitted.

at this point in history, i say that finances, budget, and debt of the greatest issues before our country and the door anything else we are doing. they dwarf anything else we are doing. the president has submitted a budget to raises taxes by $1.5 trillion, that increases the mission -- discretionary spending for the next 10 years. it increases debt every year, causing the interest on our debt to go from $200 billion last year to $940 billion, according to the congressional budget office. they will crowd out spending for things like highways, education, we will go to an $940 billion in interest? this is why we are an

unsustainable path as every witnesses said, every witness has told us that. what do we have? the president's irresponsible budget, the most irresponsible under the circumstances i think this nation has ever seen. we have the house presenting i think the most irresponsible, honest, long-term, tough, realistic budget we have probably seen since i have been in the senate. this is serious business they have done. they have honestly dealt with the most fundamental financial issues we have. so what is left? the united states senate. i believe, chairman, senator conrad would be you willing to move forward with a realistic budget. but majority leader reid and the president are not on board. we have already passed the

budget scheduling -- we are supposed to have voted on a budget in the senate by april 15. we are behind in every step of the way, and i have not yet been notified from chairman konrad that there is any plan to have a democratic budget presented or any plan for a markup. so the real question is, where will the senate democrats be? will they be with the president's budget, unacceptable? you remember erskine bowles said it was nowhere near what we needed to be doing to avoid a fiscal nightmare, that budget that the president submits it. so that is where we are. i am hopeful, because i know a number of my democratic colleagues in the senate believe that we do need to do more and we need to get this country on the right path. we're worried about our future, so we're watching with great

interest what will happen. >> i like to complement john boehner and paul ryan, the chairman of the budget committee, for being adults in this fiscal crisis that jeff sessions has just touched on. there has been an indication that people at the white house and democratic leadership are willing to let the government shutdown, calling to mind the statement that howard dean made 10 days ago. but john boehner has worked hard to avoid that, and to fund a military for the remainder of this year, and to continued the house's efforts to achieve significant savings. he offered, as the elder said, this continuing resolution that could be adopted by the end of this week. i hope that this people at the white house and the democratic leadership will pick up this idea of acting responsibly and

join speaker boehner in this effort. it appears to made up we could recognize that the two people working hardest. to do the most important work on the house side of the chairman of the budget committee and the speaker of the house. >> the house republicans are sending to the senate proposal to keep the government operating while we get busy doing our work on the most important issue facing us, to reduce long-term debt. on the question of long-term debt, most of the important players are on the field. the bipartisan that commission has made a recommendation for $4 trillion. paul ryan has made a recommendation of how to deal with the long-term debt. we had 64 as senators who say we are ready to go to work. mr. president, with you on a

long-term debt, we have a group of senators headed by senator chambliss, senator warren, working to draft such a thing. the only important player not on the field is the most important player, and that is the president of the united states. we urgently need his leadership in order to deal with the long- term debt. >> we will take a couple of questions that there are any. i was going to say, this is a first. [inaudible] >> i don't think this is designed to put anybody in a box. it is reducing spending in this year's budget as much as possible, and they avoid shutting down the government,

which nobody wants to do. and then move on to much more important things as several senators have pointed out. but up 14 trillion dollars in debt, we have over -- we have $14 trillion in debt, promises we have made that we cannot keep, a debt crisis looming -- it is time to get to work. we're proud of what house republicans have done, not only on the short-term issues, but in helping delay -- to lay the groundwork for long-term debt problems. we are ready to go and hoping the president will show up. some point. >> [unintelligible] >> in the house bill, we will fund the government for another week, and it is our hope they will wrap this up before april

15. thanks. >> now we will hear from harry reid and senate democrats on budget negotiations. >> we thought for several days that we were getting close to an agreement. at the meeting at the white house, and the negotiations over the weekend, the leader indicated to me and those people watching this that the leadership in the house is being guided by the tea party. they are saying they will not agree to anything unless they get 218 republican votes. we know that that is a nonstarter. we cannot pass the last short term continuing a resolution

that they were the case. we offered $73 billion but we cannot take that all in domestic discretionary spending. it was the republicans' original proposal, so i guess they were for a before they were against it. but now they're moving the goal post again. as you heard the president say, there will be no more short-term extensions. he said that, he told me that. it is clearly time to get the job done. the balkans need to stop clinging to a bill that has already been defeated here in the senate. -- republicans need to stop clinging to a bill already defeated in the senate. they have trouble divorcing themselves from that ideological-driven h.r. 1. we know the bill is awful. it kills 700,000 american jobs, but that is not all. hundreds ofk

thousands of preschoolers out of the headstock program which also is one of the best things in the country ever for the poor people. for kids. it would deny housing assistance for hundreds of thousands of homeless veterans, who are in big trouble or they would not be homeless. it slices cancer research by more than $1 billion. we give them many different alternatives, and in defense spending, we know it is available because secretary gates, mandatory spending the week it stick in there that would be easy. when we talk about defense spending, the person who put that forward in the white house is not to someone that listens to congress, but it is from dan inouye.

no one can question his patriotism. is a valiant war hero. he suggested there is that defense could cut. the commander in chief agrees with him. republicans are not bent -- willing to bend even on this. i am hoping to be a meeting at 4:00, an hour and 20 minutes from now, i'll look for the something done at that meeting. holder everything i can and i hope the republicans to the country needs, not what they believe the tea party wants. [inaudible] i am not really optimistic. i think the two-party is driving -- tea party is driving what goes on in the house of representatives, and we cannot do what they want done. i repeat -- $73 billion. we have been willing to do what

is fair in ratcheting down very hard on programs in domestic discretionary spending. we cannot do any more. so the extra money in there, we can get them their number. it is not a question of number, it is ideological with them. and i would also say this -- i know that my republican counterparts came here and talk about this great bill released early this morning, putting to the rules committee. listen to this one. they took all the dismast rigid domestic discretionary spending that we agreed to do, if it were in fact a part of an overall deal, but they in my opinion not in good faith took those dollars, stuffed them into this

short-term cr that they have for a one-week extension, and then they are trying to fund their defense department for the rest of the year when everyone else is funding for one week. and if that is not good enough, they stick an abortion rider on that. every step we take, something process and the guide. they are not trying to -- it appears that will do everything that they can to satisfy the tea party. >> will senate democrats but for your own alternative plan? >> the answer is there are things the we are -- we can do and we are considering that. >> is that dead on arrival of the kids here? >> absolutely. it is according to when we get it. how would be happy to send it over here if we feel that it would give us some time to amended.

we could do it as early as tomorrow. i guess there is a way that they could do it tomorrow. i think we have that almost were tough. i think we're very close. i've gone for a few hours, but i think that staff was directed to report a consent agreement to allow us to report on this bill. i have been invited to a meeting. we had not established much over the weekend. but the one thing we have established, i will not negotiate here what we're doing ultimately. pardon me? [inaudible] [laughter] that is not in my office. and of these appeared to do not think so.

-- i do not think so. it is not in my office. not on the senate side of the capital. [inaudible] the presence at an hour and 20 minutes with us this morning. -- the president spent an hour and 20 minutes with us this morning. he thought would be better to reach an agreement, but he agrees with me, there is so much that we can do. we have bent over backwards turn to be fair and reasonable. but when you have one party that cannot be fair and reasonable, it makes it real hard to push. he has been very engaged this morning, annie had up press conference afterwards, but i understand that he said there would be a meeting this afternoon with the speaker and with me, and if there's no progress made, he will back at -- have us back to the white house. thank you, everybody.

>> tuesday, tim geithner talked about the need to raise the debt ceiling. his remarks are next on c-span. u.s. africa commander testified before the house armed services committee about the situation in libya. later, we will hear about the house republicans 2012 budget plan and get reaction from democratic congressman chris van hollen, the ranking member on the budget committee. on tomorrow's "washington

journal," we will continue a look at a 2012 budget plan. we will talk to chase in chaffetz and democratic congressman jim mcdermott. later, adam boulton about the ongoing nato mission in libya. each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. to and the c-span video library has just won a peabody award for its contribution to history, scholarship, and public alike. now way year-old, you can watch every program aired on c-span 90 cents 87, over 200,000 hours watchable, cheryl, and free. it is washington your way. >> treasury secretary tim geithner said there would be global economic consequences if congress did not raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling limit

before may 16. he testified for an hour 15 minutes. minutes. >> good morning. i am pleased to open this meeting. i want to welcome my ranking member of kansas. welcome to your new position here. i am looking forward to working with you, and my colleague from illinois, senator mark kirk. let me start with an apology, but it is all the president's fault. he decided at the last minute to call -- to call in the leaders, so i apologize to all those in attendance. today we will