fundamental reform of the welfare state in our century. he signed what amounted to the biggest capital gains tax cut in history on home appreciation. he delivered the only four budget surpluses in last 40 years and a period of pronounced economic prosperity. and by contrast, george w. bush is worthy of criticism, but again we have to look at the policies to be critical of. he recklessly increased federal spending, he boosted federal spending by 2 1/2% of gdp. he re-introduced the discredited folly of stimulus spending. he approved the biggest expansion of entitlement spending since the great society. he produced massive budget deficits. if entitlement spending and stimulus programs and crushing deficits and massive spenng increases were the road to prosperity, i submit to you that the bush administration should have produced a new golden age for the economy. so let's put partisanship aside

today and concentrate on policy. in the mid-1990s, a republican congress and a democratic president following precisely the approach outlined in this measure before us today balanced the budget, reformed entitlement spending, plac us on a path to pay off the entire national debt and produced a period of economic expansion and prosperity. this budget before us today turns us away from the policies that we know do notork for policies that we know do work. it brings federal spending back under control. it puts medicare and medicaid on a sound financial foundation. it produces a million new private sector jobs next year through economic expansion. and it places our nation on a path so that when my children retire, the retirement systems they'll have paid into during their entire lives will be safe and secure and their nation will be debt-free and prosperous.

yield back. >> thank you. at this time i would like to yield five minutes to mrs. black. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this has alrdy been said. we all know what we're here today for and that is to coider a budget draft that i believe is a courageous first step in getting our country back on a sound financial footing. the fact all of us know but some of us are denying is that our nation is on the brink of a financial crisis. america is $14 trillion in the red, and thanks to the big spending of washington, d.c., the tidal wave of debt is coming unless we stop it now. i came to washington not to score cheap political points or throw bombs. i came here to find solutions to the problems that threaten the very greatness of this country. i look at my six grandchildren, and i want them to have the same opportunities that i had growing up. and i believe that this budget

is a start on getting us there. but the truth is if we don't leave our grandchildren and our kids a better future unless we act like adults today and have a real conversation aboutour future economic growth. let's start with the basic premise we all should be able to acknowledge. and that is that no budget can sustain itself by spending more than it takes in. it applies to the family budget and it needs to apply to the washington's budget. this plan applies to that principle. our budget locks in savings with affordable spending caps for 2012 and it lays the plan for spendingaps for the next decade. we address not only what washington spends but also how our tax dollars are spent. keeping in mind that our current $14 trillion debt, this budget

requires any increase in debt levels to be accompanied by serious spending reductions to levels set in this budget resolution. it's time to get serious about the culture of big spending here in washington that's brought us to the edge of this financial cliff. and i challenge everyone, everyoneere today to have a serious discussion about the future of our country and what we can do to fix this fiscal mess that we're in. thank you, mr. chairman. and i yield back. >> at this time i'd like to yield five minutes to mr. hillscamfrom kansas. >> i appreciate the opportunity to speak today about one portion of the budget. i willwant to note that yesterday when thebudget committee, at least our side, unveiled to the public our vision for the country, one thing was evident. washington has to change the way it does business. it has to stop thinking that all

problems can be fixed with more money, more federal intervention or a combination of the two. one item i'm particularly supportive of in the budget is the change in the way stas receive medicaid funding. if left untouched the cost of medicaid will soar out of control and the program will continue to overtake a large share of the budget with little regard to efficiency, effectiveness and innovation. medicaid spending the spinning out of control. some say that the way to make sure that medicaid continues to exist is just throw more money at the problem. from my experiences in dealing with medicaid in kansas, i know that is not the solution. when serving on the kansas senate in 2003 i had the privilege of co-chairing a medicaid task force. we looked at ways that states could prove medicaid services as well as spend money pore effeively. but one of the challenges we

continually encountered was the state of kansas, among many other states, are limited with what we can do with money from the federal government but also the state share. specifically, we were looking for a way to keep frail and elderly persons on medicaid from having to go into nursing homes. a worthy goal. be wanted to find a way to provide health savings accounts to beneficiaries so they can stay in their homes and still receive the medical care that they needed. and we did construct a plan that improved care and saved money. amazingly as well even our democratic governor kathleen sebelius at the time, now secretary of hhs even signed on to that plan. but our requests for a waiver was rejected here in washington. indeed, today, 451 waivers have been granted in the medicaid program but there e perhaps untold waivers like that in kansas that were rejected. we tried to find out actually how many have been denied over the years but cms didn't want to

tell us, probably for obvious reasons. and our rejection was one of them. it's disappointing that so much authority can be wrapped up in the hands of some federal bureaucrat at the centers for medicare and medicaid services who may have never been to kansas or any of our states or even to a nursing home. it is disheartening that kansas and other states haveo battle washington when trying to do good things for the people of our states. too much red tape kept us from improving medicaid in kansas. and 49 oth states are also locked into the same dictums from washington when it comes to this program. instead of having the essential flexibility, we need to administer the program in our states best and unique interests. we all know that governors from across the entire nation on a bipartisan basis have expressed their desires to have more flexibility with medicaid funding. and this budget offers exactly that. in converting federal spending on medicaid to block grants, governors, state legislators and other state level administrators

will have the ability to direct funds in a manner that works best for their states and their citizens not for the washington status quo. finally this budget assumes a complete repeal ondefunding of the present's health care plan, and that is a good thing. obama care also left untouched places an even larger burden on states. it forces sates to expand medicaid eligibility, leaves it up to them how they will find money to pay for it. this was a bad policy to begin with and proposing that we just spend more on medicaid is simply not the solution. there are those who will oppose medicaid reform and try to label these changes as uncang about low income americans or those who find themselves on hard times. t such a judgment couldn't be further from the truth. by lifting the heavy hand on washington on these programs, we actually make them more effective and more efficient for the states but better for the recipients who tly need assiance.

doing nothing about medicaid is no longer an option. real change is desperately needed and this path to prosperity is a real solution to the changes that we need. i yield back my time. >> thank you. at this time i'd like to introduce the gentleman from indiana. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have appreciated being able to work with you on this budget as well as working with the other members. for years around here there's been a failure to lead. with this plan, we've shown the courage to tell theamerican people the truth about the debt crisis. and we've proped honest solutions that are required to fix it. in short, we are leading. the 2012 budget resolution is a significant first step forward toward restoring financial responsibility and stability to our nation, and it also guartees that my children, your children, our grandchildren will be able to inherit a strong nation instead of a bankrupt one.

this budget secures medicaid by converting the federal share of medicaid spending into a block grant tailored to meet each state's needs. i understand the importance for states to have this kind of flexibility, and this reform ends the liberal and misguided one-size-fits-all approach that's tied the hands of so many of our state governments. it gives states the flexibility to tailor a medicaid program to fit their needs. this would naturally improve the health care safety net for low income individuals and improve the access to care. medicaid recipients, like all americans, deserve to choose their own doctors and make their own health care decisions instead of being put under the control of nameless, faceless washington bureaucrats. this budget also makes significant strides in streamlining other government agencies. as a secretary of state of indiana, i know something about government dgeting. i operated my office in 2010 on a 1987 budget unadjusted for inflation.

however, since 2008 spending on nonsecurity federal government agencies have increased by 24%, a number that jumps to 84% when you include the false stimulus funds. this budget brings spending back to prestimulus, prebailout levels and builds upon the cuts passed by the house of representatives in early february. it puts a cap on spending for 2012 and tlines a path for statutory caps for the next decade and eliminates hundreds of duplicative federal programs and takes overlappingob training programs and turns them into productive scholarship. i also know a little bit about government agencies. i used to run one. one that had no more employees in 2010 than it did in the early '80s. since the president took office, however, he has increased the size and scope of the federal government and added 155,000 new bureaucrats. our plan will boost private sector empolite by reducing the federal work force by 10% over the next three years by attrition. it places a freeze on federal

salaries for the next five years. this budget also puts an end to the practice of corporate welfare by ending taxpayer bailts of failed financial institutions. it privatizes the businesses of government-owned housing, giants fannie mae and frdie mac so they're no longer exposing homeowners to risks. it stops picking the winners and losers across all the sectors of our economy. look, the u.s. borrows 42 cents of every dollar it spends. then it spends nearly two-thirds of those dollars on the interest caused by that borrowing and on the social entitlement programs like medicare, medicaid and social security. all of these programs are insolvent or quickly becoming so. when the federal vernment borrows money to pay for today's benefits we're passing along a tax increase to our children and grandchildren. in fact, i call it a birth tax because every baby born today owes $45,000 as his sharef the

public's debt. every taayer alone owes $127,000 of a public debt. and as the chairman pointed out and as everyone honestly knows it only gets worse, much worse. this budget addresses these problems with real reforms that are big enough to make a difference. americans are finally getting an honest and fact-based budget that has eluded them for years. and i look forward to voting on it. i yield back. >> thank you. at this time i'd like to yield to mr. lankford for five minutes. >> thank you. it has been an honor to be a part of this process. not coming from a political background, i work with a nonprofit in directing that, i understand that every decision made on every part of the budget has to be done based on efficiency and effectiveness. if it's not effective and not efficient we can't continue to

do it that way because we can't afford it. as we all know extremely well, america is a great country because of america's passion for their own families and for their community. we love to invest in each other. and we love to engage each other in a very personal way. that does not necessarily true through only the government as we like to get involves with families and individuals. p we have very different views of what grows jobs and provides stability. the question that i bring to the table, that all of us bring is when are we going to get serious as a nation and deal with our national debt? this is not a partisan sunshine. it's an american issue. one party didn't bring all this to the table, bh parties did. butty have to work together to solve it. democrats and republicans have appropriated money for programs designed to help america but they've also created a situation where the leaders of today are saying times are tough. i think i'll make it easier on me by making it tougher on my children and my grandchildren. and that is not a way for us to run a country and to be able to lead. we have 14 trillion in debt and

we'll have to look at this debt like a mortgage. we can't pay it off in a year, but we must get started. we can't even get to a balance in a year, but we're so far out of balance, it will take several year just to be able to get back to that point. but we must get started. many areas of this budget find their origin in the president's debt commission or from cbo reports on reducing the debt. i know some people have said that this budget is extreme. i would have to tell you that i agree. it's extremely overdue. as both sides of the aisle understands, this is a budget framework that will set the table for the budget conversation in the next seral months. the details of this framework will be determined by the specific authorizing committees. this budget is focused on promoting growth, job growth, protecting critical government functions, cutting out inefficiencies and getting us on course to pay back the daet. it focuses on a real plan for real solutions. americans want to know that their government is coming up

with solutions to involve the problems about. not just talk about the problems. security security is what i hear time after time. it doesn't force a bipartisan solution. it states that real stabilization of social security will ce when all sides work together to resolve the issue. but first we must have all sides at the table actually saying yes there is an issue we need to work on developing a plan to resolve it for the future. if the program is paying out more than it's taking in, the president would work with the trustees of social security, the house and the senate would work with their members to create a plan that we would all come to the table and be able to work on. mr. chairman, we'v been spending money to bail out our economy saying some day we'll pay this down. this budget just says that someday is today. with that i yield back. >> thank you. i'd like to yield five minutes to the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for holding today's markup of the proposed budget resolution for fiscal 2012. this is a pivotal time for everyone in this room because it

allows us the opportunity to reshape the direction our country will take from this point forward. i'd like to thank chairman ryan, my fellow colleagues and the budget committee staff for working tirelessly to produce a plan of which we can all be proud. it is not only innovative and thoughtful, it is bold and it is honest with the american people about the tough decisions that lie ahead. coming from the private sector is the ceo for a bid-sized business to congress has confirmed my previous analysis that washington doesn't understand how the real world works. furthermore, when i was running for this office, i knew tat the country's fiscal situation was precarious. however, after being sworn in to this office on january 5th, i was disappointed to learn that the country's fiscal situation is much worse than i previously thought. our country has gotten to this point through reckless and unrestrained spending, blatant disregard for actual real world budgeting and the short sighted

and unrealistic acceptance of terms called primary balance and sustainable deficits and those terms are called the norm. i'm a cpa. but it doesn't take a cpa because america knows these are not the guidelines under which we can operate. our new budget comes at just the right time because we can no longer afford what has rapidly become the status quo. we can change the country's head-long rush towards insolvency and the bankrupting of the futures of our children and grandchildren. the real spending cuts unprecedented reform of entitlements and to our tax code, this budget resolution allows us to stay true to the pledge to the american people to remove us from a debt driven economic crisis, to earn back the trust of the american people and to restore the private sector and spur job creation. a few weeks ago the president issued this budget. and this budget i think should be returned to sender insufficient funds. we've heard talks today from the

other side about how bad this budget is that we're proposing to introduce on our side. but it comes -- that's a very disingenuous comment because the otr side issued no budget last year. they must have opened it u and seen the graphs that you saw today and said, that's too ugly to show the american people. we're not going to be honest with the american people. we're going to hide the trut from the american people and not show them. so again, return to sender. on the other hand, i think this budget should have been entled restoring america's promise and prosperity and security for future generations. because that's what it does. that's why i was elected to this office. and that's what we owe the american people. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> at this time i'll just yield ifs the remainder of the time unless another member on our side wants recognition? look, we've had a lot of testimony here this year.

we've had expertwitness after expert witness from all sidesf the aisle come and testify. we've learned a lot about what other countries haveone through when they've had similar experiences. this is not the first time we've had a worldwide recession this is not the first time countries have experienced debt crises. so there's a lot to learn. and what we've learned from looking at all the experiences of all the different countries over history is that if you try to tax your way out of a debt crisis, it doesn't work. it slows down your economy. that the successful countries who have got themselves out of a ditch that we're walking ourselves into did it through controlling spending. through cutting spending. through reforming the way their government spends. that is at we are proposing. time honored solutions that have work in the past. now, what are our values, what are the principles that we're using in applying to the problems of the day to try and preempt a debt crisis here in america?

first, let's get the government focused on its critical missions. those of us who believe in limited government don't believe in bad government. we believe in limited but effective government. so let's get the government focused on its core mission so it does them well. becae when the government does so much, it doesn't do anything very well. so what are the things we think we ought to achieve and what are the values and the ideas brought forth in this budget? number one, we believe there ought to be a safety net. now, l me explain what i mean when i say that. there needs to be a safety net for people who cannot help themselves. there needs to be a safety net for people who are down on their luck. all of us have constituents who are in that category because of this last recession that we've been going through. but we don't want to turn the safety net into a hammock that lulls people into lives of complacency and dependency and a permanent condition whery this never get on their feet. we want this safety net to result in a job.

we want the safety net to result in people becoming independent and self-sufficient. our safety net is tearing apart at its seams. our safe net has perverse incentives wch are encouraging people not to go out and get up and stand on their own and be self-sufficient. so we want to fix that. one of the things we do here is we have 49 different job training programs spread across nine different government agencies. we don't even measure whether they work or not. we don't even know whether they're actually getting people into careers that are getting them on to lives of sufficiency. so what we're trying to do here is not say that all the best answers come from washington, d.c., not that we can just give it to a bureaucracy down the street and they can micro manage society. no, not all the best ideas are here. our communities know how people are suffering. our local and state governments have a better idea in some cases abt how to fix problems. you know wisconsin is a not lott

different than -- similar to ohio, a lot different than pennsylvania a lot different than oregon. let us fix problems in our state and you fix yours in yours. that's the idea here. federalism. another point. is that we want to make sure that this safety networks, that it's sustainable, that it doesn't go bankrupt and that it gets people on to live of self-self self-sufficiency. let's talk about things we shouldn't spend ney own. we shouldn't spend money on corporate welfare. crony capitalism is not capitalism. picking winners and losers in washington with favoritism through spending or tax giveaways or rigging the rules and regulations to protect for special interests, we've got to stop doing that. that is not economic growth. governments who try to pick winners and losers in the marketplace don't work. why is japan in its second

recession of a decade? they tried the path of industrial policy. they tried picking winners and losers in the marketplace. it doesn't work. entrepreneurialism works. free markets. free enterprise works. getting the barriers away from men and women who have ideas who want to take risks who want to prode and achieve, become successful, that's how you create jobs. that is how we get prosperity. so when it comes to corporate welfare, we want to get rid of it. when it comes to tax reform, you're going to hear a lot of stuff about tax cuts for the rich and protecting oil companies and thk things like t. we don't want a system where if you're in the right alley, the tax code, you can manipula ip exceptions and loophole. people ought to pay their fair share of taxes but let's do it in aay that we have predictability, certainty and

let's not lose sight of the fact that we're an international economy. we have the second highest tax rate in the industrial world which is about to become the highest because japan lowered theirs. we're pushing jobs overseas. if you look at the trend of takeovers, of foreign companies of american companies, moe of these american companies are becoming foreign companies because of tax policy. we want to make things america and sell them overseas. we want compans to headquarter here. our tax code is a jalopy of the 20th century. it is not making us growth, it is not making us pro growth and it is not creating jobs. that's what we need to do. let me talk about debt. take a look at that chart. this is where we're going. this is the congressional budget office. by the way, their interest rate assumptions i think are pretty darn low. they're assuming 4 to 5% for long bonds. who here believes that that's going to be the case? even if our economy grows, our

debt crisis occurs or qe-2 goes as perfectly as planned, we'll see about that, there's no way interest rates will stick like this. so that's the rosy scenario, that red debt line. the world is watching. the credit markets are watching. and what they're watching is to see if the americans see this coming and if they're going to stopt from hitting us. we have got to put out a plan that gets this debt under control. that what the green line does. and the reason we have to do this is we have to show our constituents, our children, the economy, the bond markets that we're not so broken here in america and we're going to get this thing fixed before it gets too late. a debt crisis is going to be painful. we don't want to have a debt crisis. you know, we had all this expert testimony here, xhieconomists, d market specialists. what do they all say? they all say we've got two to five years.

let's hope it's that long. so the point i want to make is, yes, we're going to hear a lot of political rhetoric today. yes, we're going to have different ideas and different values, but at the end of the day, we all represent the american people. we all want our constituents to prosper. we all want people that have lives of self-sufficiency, of up ward mobility. we want to prevent a debt crisis from happening but now we've got to start doing it. we can't just keep using rhetoric. we can't use accounting tricks. no more budget gimmicks. we have to actually just do it. that's what we're trying to propose to do here. if a debt crisis hits, you know what's going to happen. higher taxes, cuts that are indiscriminate and across the board hitting the most vulnerable, and inflation or a combination of all three. what we're showing here is we can address the drivers of our debt, the entitlement programs,

in a smart and gradual way right now. no changes to people who have already retired or people who are ten years away from retirement. that's smart. people have already organized their lives around these programs. they've already banked on these promises. we want to be able to keep these promises. and mark my words, if we don't fix this fast, those promises will no be kept. these programs are growing themselves into bankruptcy. so what about my generation, the x generation, my children's generation? weant to make sure that these health and retirement and secure there when they retire. nobody believes in our generation we're going to have these programs. let's prove them wrong. t's put them on a sustainable trajectory so they'rthere. you're going to hear a lot of mediscare stuff. we're saying take the model that works for us as members of congress and federal employees

and deliver health care through medicare like that. name me nor government program that was created in recent history that came in 40% below costs. medicare prescription drugs. why? choice and competition. the power should go to the senior. the power should go to the patient. not the government. we want providers, doctors, hospitals, insurance companies competing against each other for our business so that we are in control. the only alternative to that, to saving these health care programs, saving medicare -- i believe this is the path of obama care -- is t have the government run it and ration it. no way. we don't stand for that. at t end of the day, we're probably going to have a disagreement about these things. that's fine. that's what this is all about. but at the end of the day we'll probably have a disagreement about what is the role and goal of our federal government. and that is completely legitimate. that is why we're here.

we believe that this government was created very special. america is not just a place, it's an idea. that idea is our rights come from nature, from god. they don't come from government. they come before government. so we think the role of the federal government is to protect our rights. we think the rle and goal of the federal government is ovide equal opportunity so people can make the most of their lives. we do not believe we should transform the role of the federal government into equal iegz the resu equalizing the results of our lives. we believe in equal opportunity, not equal outkomz. because if you transform the federal government to that role, then it's going to t awhole lot bigger and you've got de and delegate to unelected bureaucrats a lot of power. a lot of power to micromanage our economy, to be meddling in the affairs of our lives, and what does that get us? that gets us stagnation. look, we are at a tipping point

in this country. we're at a turning point in this country. we have a choice of two futures ahead of us. are we goi to reclaim the americaned idea, have that opportunity in society with a reliable safety net, or are we going to transform this country, like so many other western democracies have done, and become a social democracy, become a cradle to the grave welfare state? that is the path we are on right now. that is the path we don't want to be on. america is still here. america can still grow. america can still be prosperous. america can still be america, and that is what we're proposing with this path to prosperity. with that i yield. >> i'll recognize the minority for their closing -- i don't know how much time they have left after mr. van holland's numbers. but it's the minority's time.

>> six minutes. >> i'd like to yield six minutes to alison schwartz of pennsylvania. >> well, thank you very much. we begin our discussion here in talking about a variety of different issues and ways we clearly have a significant disagreement with the other side, not about some of the basic concerns that we have facing our nation but how we meet our obligations to our seniors, to our children, to our future. how we actually act in a common sense fiscally responsible manner and how we grow our economy. the federal budget is a statement of our priorities and our values as a nation, and we will present our position as to why we disagree with the way the republican budget fails in all three efforts, again, to meet our obligations, to be fiscally responsible and to grow our economy. instd, we do need a sensible,

responsible and targeted solution to our nation's challenges. this means cutting spending strategically and not politically. making government more efficient without hurting economic growth, investg wisely in america's economic competitiveness, not cutting ducation, innovation or scientific research. the contrast is clear. republicans are slashing education while protecting tax breaks f big o and gas companies. republicans are gutting medicaid and dismantling medicare while protecting tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of americans. republicans are cutting infrastructure and innovation while protecting tax loopholes for the wealthiest corporations. this is not good for american businesses or for american families, for now and certainly not into the future. the republican budget will move us backwards 3 million jobs are project to be lost, middle class americans will see lower wages and seniors will lose their health security. so let's take a quick trip down

memory lane. president clinton le republicans with a robust economy, 3.9% economic growth and 21 million private sector jobs created during his administration. but the republican squandered it. they pushed through massive tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of americans and expanded new government programs without paying a single dime for it. for those who don't remember how the story ends, economic growth averaged an anemic 2.1% as the economy proceeded to lose 650,000 private sector jobs over the next eight years of the bush administration. and understand that the principles that they used then were based on the heritage foundation projections that cutting taxes for the wealthiest would lead to 11 million new jobs. the reality? 650,000 private sector jobs

lost. and they' they're using the exact same model. they didn't learn any lessons from the recent history. here we go spending millions for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. spending more to protect the wealthiest estates in the country. rugs the tax rate for top earners and subsidizing special corporate interests. all while slashing seniors' health care, our children's education, and innovation and technology to grow the economy. the republican budget proposal fails america. privatizing medicare and capping medicaid won't reduce costs. it shifts the financial burden to our seniors and families. slashing spending through education and innovation won't create economic growth. it just makes us less prepared for global marketplace. tax cuts for millionaires won't reduce the defici it just adds to theounting debt. so this budget is a blatant attack on seniors, children, middle class families and our

future as a nation. we can and must do better. i would like to with that yield the remaining time to paul tonco who will talk more about how this budget hurts american families, american businesses and job growth in this country. >> thank you, congresswoman schwartz. the republican budget is no -- let me start again. the republican budget is no path to prosperity. rather, it is a road to ruin. for america's middle class, this plan lays out cuts to education at a time when we are falling desperately behind commitment to our children and historic attack on seniorshealth care and hundreds of thousands of jobs eliminated. all in the name of austerity. meanwhile, fat cats in the oil industry, corporations that ship our jobs overseas and america's very wealthiest citizens would see a road to riches paved in the golden sheen of even bigger

tax breaks and special interest handouts. make no mistake, this has thing to do with a balanced budget. this plan adds, adds, $8 trillion in the national debt. it's about paying for special interests handouts on the backs of the american middle class. this proposal would make permanent th policies tt have created a disparate and growing inequality in america. in 40 years, top executives have gone from making 30 times what their employees make to more than 250 times the pay of average workers. today the top 1% of americans owns 90% of our nation's wealth. imagine at a table of ten, one person gobbles up 90% of the pie leaving the other nine to fight for the scraps. according to cia data, our drastically skewed economy has left t united states in the same ranks as uganda, iran and nicaragua for income inequality. maybe it's unsurprising, then,

that our leaders would enshrine a budget of caronyism, not capitalism that steals basic services from the poor and gives handouts to the rich are. this road to ruin budget would drastically grow the gap between the rich and the poor, further wooping out our middle class. this budget is a threat to our national economic security. decades of experience have taught us that the best way to reduce the deficit is to put americans back to work. there are five people out there looking for work today for every one job opening. colleagues acrosshe aisle have claimed significant gains in jobs and wages based on the analysis of an organization that once told us that the national debt would be paid offy 10. but the republican proposal doesn't create a single job and will put hundreds of thousands more out of work. it is a fantasy and a fallacy to claim otherwise. i could feign surprise today at the lack of wisdom and humanity evident in these proposals, but quite frankly it's nothing new.

this proposal is based on an ideology. this house is back in the hands of a party that has quite the track record of squandering historic opportunities and the only two times they have taken control of the house over the past six decades they have attempted to shut down the government on both occasions. i'll say that the republican budget is road to ruin that inflicts tremendous damage on the economy and deep pain into the lives of many americans, some call this leadehip. i call tis not only a dereliction of duty but a betrayal of the public trust. >> thank you, mr. tonsko. now six minutes to ms. captor. >> thank you, mr. chairman. once again the republican budget has made it clear that they don't think job creation matters. i'm wondering if my republican colleagues who are supporting the resolution have actually read it because it doesn't create jobs and rips more skin off our middle class and working class. first of all, the republican budget increases the deficit

with more tax breaks for the super wealthy. even david stockman has observed that these are terribly irresponsible when 1% of the earners in our country now ntrol 25% of the wealth of our nation. isn't that enough? on the issue of tax reform, the republican budget doesn't go after tax cheats nor close loopholes. instead it calls for more tax brea for companies like ge who aren't paying taxes now ond in fact claimed a $4.1 million refund off the hides of the american people. so they actually make money off of the tax system. second, wall street needs to be regulated. les t forget what got us into this worst recession since the great depression when wall street forced its losses on the american people. the moral hazard that preceded it was conceived, born and delivered by wall street. rather than recoveringhat was taken from the american people in the republican plan, they

basically cut the arms offhe tiny agencies in washington, they're cutting $100 million in the securities and exchange commission, the consumer financial protection board and the commodity futures trading corporation that have the hope of getting some of our money back. instead, what they're doing is increasing our deficit as they allow wall street banks that walked away with our tasury to take their huge bonuses and pay taxes that only one-third the rate of businesses in my district. you know, when you have these kind of tilted policies where six big banks, wells fargo, citigroup, jpmorgan chase, goldman sachs, bank of america and morgan stanley walk away with billions of dollars, you can't really balance the dget. where is the shared sacrifice? these ceos aren't using their tax breaks to invest in america. they're actually taking themg away from our country and they have all kinds of foreign havens where they avoid paying u.s. taxes. it's quite clear that our nation

needs a pro-growth budget. mr. chairman we need a budget that puts everything on the table and everyone on the table doesn't tilt to those who rig the tax system and we need a budget that creates jobs and doesn't stall th recovery. americans want jobs first, not tax breaks first. and i would be proud to yield to my colleague from california, mr. honda. >> thank you very much. let's leave the slide up ere. let start out thanking the chairman for framing the issues for us but defining us as demagoguery and dog mat ick and scary. we're not demagoguery. this is not dogmatic but it is scary. for years republicans have been trying to sell us the idea that cuttg taxes f the wealthiest 2% will somehow improve things for working families. when they finally got a chance to enact it under president george bush, the results were not surprising. in 200, republicans inherited a $5.6 trillion surplus.

eight years later president obama took office with an $8 trillion deficit. democrats did the hard work cleaning up the mess and the whole time republicans demagogued us for spending. then as soon as they took over, they seized the long-term unemployed for hostages to force the president to pass another huge round of taxes for the wealthiest 2%. next slide, please. no sooner was that money spent on tse egregious tax cuts than republicans started clam boring for cuts to spending programs for women, children seniors and working families. republicans want to have it both ways. they claim by rugs deficits by tting spending but really they are justpaying for tax cuts for rich on the backs of the middle class. next slide. americans want a system that is not stacked against them, but look at the distribution of wealth in this country. next slide, please. you can see that this table that the top 10% of the population

parole creole controls 90% of the wealth. and the bottom 90% the median is $31,000. is not fair. it is not right. look at what the inequality has gotten us. next slide, please. now, the united states is a clr out liar in terms of income and inequality and has worse social problems than every developed country in terms of life expectancexpectancy, liter imprisonment, obesity, drug and alcohol abuse. the list goes on and on. it is for all these reasons that even ronald reagan's budget director called the millionaire tax cut unconscionable. i think this quote speaks for itse itself. where is the sense of fair play? where is the shared sacrifice? this not a budget. it is a dogmatic attack on the middle class. i yield to my esteemed colleague

from texas, mr. doggett. >> thank you very much. this is not a path to prosper y prosperity. it's a path to mediocrity, it's a path to insecurity. it's the wrong path. we welcome a spirited debate about our economic future. mr. ryan fails to offer a balanced approach to achieve our shared objecti of a balanced budget. you might say, in short, we democrats just don't think this republican budget is our cup of tea. yes, this is a choice of two futures for our country, but the choice that this budget presents isreally one between their ideology and reality. it's between a fact-based analysis of our economic future and a fiction-based mythology and ideology. the only thing that is really about this budget are the harsh cuts that will bring real

insecurity to the many while providing large's for the wealthier americans who have been taking a bigger and bigger share of o national wealth. in this budget, wherever you read the terms "modernize" or "reform," just understand that these are republican you'euphem for a three-letter word that hurts, less. less retirement security. less educational security. less health security. less economic security. this budget does not share the sacrifice, but it certainly does spread the pain. we get less of what matters not because they tackle our soaring national debt in a courageous way, but because of how they choose to tackle that debt consistent with their ideology. this roposal, i believe, makes very wrong choices for our future. there is, for example, a much better alternative than eliminating, say, $4 billion

from early education and student financial assistance that will only deny students the means to get all the education for which they're willing to work to achieve their full god-given potential. instead of cutting that 4 billion, i would cut the $4 billion that is being spent every year, through the tax code, to enable wall street financial enterprises to avoid taxes on profits from loans and financial activities overseas and which are at the same time encouraging the export of american jobs. instead of eliminating, say, $500 million in cancer research and other scientific research that saves lives and creates jobs in america, i would eliminate the 500 million a year spent through the tax code in what's called the look through provision that enables multinationals to shift income earned abroad through their foreign subsidiaries. and instead of eliminating $3 billion a year from our

crumbling roads and bridges, i would eliminate the $3 billion loophole in the tax code that grants a corporate tax deduction on interest charges when you borrow money to build a factory overseas without having to pay taxes on the income you earn from that factory. we need to stop exporting american jobs, exporting american manufacturing, exporting americ tax revenues, and start developing a competitive workforce and rebuilding america. and we can choose to have the same effect on the deficit by choosing to close harmful loopholes instead of yielding to harmful republican kutz. i yield to my colleague from florida, ms. caster. >> i thank my colleague mr. doggette. we need a realistic and fair debt reduction plan. unfortunately, the republican proposed budget is not it. one of the problems is that the republican budget is bui around protecting the rich and powerful, the subsidies to the

big oil companies, and corporations that ship jobs overseas and it oes not fair that you do that at the same time that you dismantle medicare, as we know it, you cut support to our students and teachers and education and diminish our scientific research. these are the wrg priorities. now, one of the issues that gone unnoticed is thepending programs through the tax code. mia maginnis, an independent budget expert and testified in front of our committee advised us that the tax code is littered with exemptions, credits, special credit, deductions, and exclusions, and she said, if you're going to be realistic in debt reduction, you have got to reduce if not eliminate a lot of these. the republican budget doesn't touch it. these are those special interest -- the preferential

treatment for those who can afford the high-paid lobbyists here in washington. they're easily hidden. the government now spends $1.2 trillion through those tax expenditures. that's more than half of what we raise through revenue. those tax expenditures should be subjected to the same scrutiny as appropriations, as earmarks, but they're not. i want you all to think about the company in your community over the past decade that has closed down and moved those jobs overseas. i bet ms. kaptur can give us a few. i bet m. tonko can tell us a few no new york. i bet mr. doggette can identify the companies who closed down but they just didn't eliminate those jobs. those jobs popped up in mexico, in china. well, largely that is because of this perverse incentive in our tax code that provides a large tax advantage for building and moving factories to low tax

countries. the gao has advised that 83 of the u.s.'s top 100 largest companies have subsidiaries in other countries, these tax havens that encourage the moving jobs overseas. know the latest "new york times" article got a lot of attention because ge, one of our greatest corporations in america, it was revealed that they have declared 14.2 billion in profits but it paid nothing in u.s. taxes. we have got to work on a fair and balance approach. america's budget should be one that encourages jobs in america, where we make things in america again, where we support teachers and students, innovative research and guards financial and retirement security. >> thank you. i now yield 12 minutes to ms. mccomb to talk about the cuts in the republican budget. >> thank you. the number one focus for congress must be getting america

back to work, and keeping our economy moving forward. ducing federal deficits is a necessary step to restore america's economic strength. the fastest way to shrink deficits is to grow the economy and to get americans back to work. but if america isn't leading the global economy, we will not be able to sustain economic growth and job creation. last week the pough charitable trust released a report titled who's winning the clean energy race. this report found worldwide investments in clean energy technology and finance have grown 630% since 2004. last year alone private investments in clean energy technology grew by 30%, a record $243 billion. clean energy technology is one of the fastest growing sectors of a global economy. the real path to prosperity for erica is to compete and win

this race. but the report has some bad news. america's losing ground, and it's losing it fast. in 2008, america was number one in the world in private clean energy instment. by 2010, america has slipped to number three behind china and germany. why is america luosing the clea energy race? the director of the report explained, quote, the united states' position as a leading destination for clean energy investment is declining because of policy framework being weak and uncertain. budgets are about choices. republican budget's choice is to slash investments in clean energy research, development, and implementation. the very policies america needs. america companies need.

clean energy companies need to compete. instead, the american budget chooses to protect $46 billion in taxpayer subsidies for oil and gas companies. this chart clearly shows a republican preference for spending oil and gas subsidies while other investments in clean energy don't happen. and what does that mean? it will cost america jobs. with gas prices at nearly $4 a gallon in minnesota, why are republicans choosing subsidies for big oil companies, corporate welfare you might say, instead of research for alternative energy sources that will crease america's energy security? i have to believe that this morning government officials in china, india, and brazil are smiling. they know that the republican love affair with fossil fuels is

taking america's clean energy technology out of the race. they know that republican's cuts to clean energy amount to unilateral disarmament. these countries are looking forward to selling wind turbines, solar panels, environmentally efficient technology to americans developed and manufactured i their countries overseas. this is a path to pain for american communities, for working families who will bear the burden of republican cuts. thiss just one example of what i believe are very harmful cuts in this budget and so now i would like to yield 2 1/2 minutes to congrewoman debbie wasserman-shultz. >> thank you, ms. mccollum. >> we have heard one recurring theme from our experts, chairman bernanke said, director lieu said it and secretary geithner reaffirmed that the draconian reckless cuts proposed by the majority and made evident in their budget proposal today will

create an enormous head itwind for our economy. but the harmful spending cuts incorporated in this budget proposal go further than simply damaging a fragile recovery. these cuts pull the rug out from under our most vulnerable, seniors, children and those with serious illness. in a few hours i plan to offer an amendment that no one on this committee or in this body should even have to offer. my amendment would prevent harmful cuts to the national institutes of health for the research for cures to cancer, stroke, diabetes, hard disease and all of the other illnesses that fall under the jurisdiction of the nih. mr. chairman, every member of the committee recognizes the importance of debt reduction but we simply cannot accept achieving this goal on the backs of our seniors and children especially while protecting billions of dollars in tax cuts to millionaires billion iras. in fact, for just half a percent of the cost of extending tax cuts for llionaires, we could completely reject the republicans' cuts to medical research for next year, cuts of this magtude will slow research progress while

squandering critical scientific opportunities that may one day save lives. yet beyond the dangers posed to the nation's health, these cuts restrict our ability to continue leading in global innovation. after all, nearly one in five medical advances approved by the fda between 1990 and 2007 was invented in a federally funded lab. this progress includes 40 new drugs for cancer and research to prevent or delay alzheimer's disease. it is bad enou that the budget proposal manifesteds a single minded focus of saving small amounts of federal spending while lavishing enormous tax breaksn the wealthiest. when it comes from vital research that could reduce health care koflts while saving the lives of everys day americans, it is morally bankrupt. thank you. >> i would like at this time to yield two minutes to the gentle wom woman from wisconsin, miss moore. >> thank you. i certainly welcome the call for an adult conversation for the

fact, the truth. for no gimmicks. while we're admonished to not scare seniors into demagogue and entitlement reform, we've already seen the mountains of debts in the medicare, medicaid and social security programs warning us of the burden that the aging baby boomers impose upon the hapless taxpayers unless we adopt the pathway to progress ending entitlements and capping medical benefits. while let's have that truthful, factual adult conversation and, yes, let's not employ gimmicks. experts across the political spectrum tell us that the truth is that the unsustainable growth in hlth care is not in medicare and medicaid but in the private market health care costs. it's unfettered, impersonal health care costs grow faster than the gdp, look at my chart, and premiums increase by double digits every year.

where medicare recipients, unlike other large groups, are unable to benefit from group purchasing power and fall into a doughnut hole because the law prohibits the government from saving money by negotiating with pharmaceutical companies. as insurance companies are overpaid for medicare, not bringing any greater eality health care outcomes or efficiency, the truth, the fact is that large employers, small businesses, people in the individual markets, seniors on medicare medicaid, no one can afford to fuel the profits of drug companies, insurance companies and ceo $20 million compensation packages. but of course the majority calls reining in these profits as x increases. solvency for social security is within our grasp. can raise payroll taxes beyond the $106,800, but of course aversion to shared sacrifice by upper income individuals will prevent this common sense fix from being

considered by the ways and means committee. and let's talk about gimmicks. such as medicare premium supports or giving governors more flexibility in the medicaid program. let's ca it what it is, folk. rationing health care, destroying the entitlement to lifesaving health care to seniors, sustaining an unsustainable profit trajectory for pharmaceutical companies insurance companies and shifting the costs to seniors for premiums an drugs. long-term care for low income seniors will be nonexistent and the most cynical thought of all is, don't worry those of you 55 to 65, you're okay, just destroy medicare, medicaid and social security for future generations and somehow these future generations will be better off without the retirement security in insurance and health programs that ended poverty for seniors in our generation. and i yield back. >> i would like now to yield

2 1/2 minutes of ohio, mr. ryan. >> mr. chairman, we're all for deficit reduction. we all believe this is an important endeavor for our country. and at john f. kennedy high school, one lesson drilled into us is the lesson to whom much is given, much is required. and this budget fails to acknowledge the fact, as has been mentioned here a couple of times, the top 1% 30 years ago accounted for 9% of real income of the country, today it accounts for 25% of real income and we put forth a budget that does nothing but ask the poor and the middle class to make the sacrifices to balance this budget. we all know we have a debt problem, but there is a way to get there. and to do it on the backs of the medicaid recipients and those people in early childhood care, these things are going to go to

our ability to compete globally. the chairman said earlier he wants a limited but effective government. well, we have programs that are effective. early childhood care, high scope educational foundation, published a 40-year-long report that demonstrat that for each dollar we spend on high-quality early childhood education $17 was returned to society. the rand corporation has a similar study. for every dollar, $5.30 was returned. and for every dollar we invest in the head start, we get $7 to $9 back. these are the kind of investments that we need to make and not cut. and we're not making these investmes, quite frankly, because we have to give the $700 billion in tax cuts to the top 1%. now, these fks living in the hamptons that got two, three, four houses that fly around on corporate jets, the people who helped collapse the economy in 2008, the people who own the coal mines that fall on top of

the coal workers, the people who make the decisions to go ahead and drill even if we think it may cause a leak, are all going to get a tax cut. and at the se time this is going to be done at the expense of these younged kids and for our future. the pell grant is going to get a 60% cut. it's going to go from $5500 to $2100. do we really think as a country we're going to be competitive if we make it more expensive to go to college? these cuts are ridiculous, and to those of our friends over there who think that asking the wealthiest to pay more but yet worship at the altar of ronald reagan where they light candles and burn incense should know that 1982, largest tax increase on business in 1982 by reagan, payroll tax increase in 1983 by reagan, higher energy taxes in 1984 by reagan, 1991 taxes on higher income by herbert walker bush, these are sound, prudent decisions to make sure we can

reach those goals but still make investments. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. as you can see, the republican budget is a road to ruin for america's leadership in this global economy. i yield back. >> we have -- i yield now six minutes to mr. bloomen hour to introduce our democratic amendments. >> thank you very much. i'm glad we're moving to the step where people can actually compare our visions. althou sadly it was quite a letdown to have such a negative view of america's future where we can't make fundamental changes. americans are already paying more than enough for health care or defense. we're sidestepping reform here. i've worked with my good friend the chairman of the committee on agricultural reform in a bipartisan form in this committee and past, i see reservation references to it, but then we hear from the chair of will ag committee, we'll, we're going to write this and unlike what's happened in education, what's happened in

transportation where there are reauthorizations and massive cuts are proposed, there are no cuts here. we're going to wait until after reauthorization. a seous missed opportunity for bipartisan reduction in unnessary agricultural supports. there's nothing new or unique or visionary about vouchers for insurance companies or a downward, ever downward block grant to the states for medicaid. these have been trotted out time and time again. what's new is that it's much greater burden that will be placed on the poor, on the elderly, while it shifts more of the costs on others. we're going to have 231 million americans, 55 and under, who are going to be involved with an interesting experiment at how rapidly we can ramp down their costs for health care, but by all indications it's much more dramatic a cut than we were

assailed for in the health care reform. and then, of course, there's the interesting thing that they're going to have a two-tiered -- they're going to keep for 80 million americans the medicare system and, in fact, in 2050 there will be almost 8 million americans 90 and over who will still be chugging along on an unreformed medicare system. it will be ever more experience to implement. they don't just ignore the infrastructure deficit, the cuts to transportation make it worse. and as any member of this committee can verify, if they choose to talk to their contractors at home, their construction unions, their local governments, it's a bad policy. well, the good news is that we will be offering less than half the amendmes that you folks offered last year. so maybe we will get out p by

midnight. and the amendments that are offered up will be sustainable and equitable. we are proposing to make modest adjustments in areas where we can make reform, that we can embark on a path to keep health care reform moving forward, not bifurcate it, complicate it, and turnt over to private insurance companies. we're happy to work together, as has been -- will be demonstrated, as we move forward with the amendments on our side with the vision that is sustainable. and i am pleased to yield the remainder of the time to my good friend and colleaguerom los angeles, congresswoman bass. >> thank you for your presentation. i believe you captured the values and principles by which the democrats stand, by highlighting the amendments that our members onhe democratic side of the aisle have introduced today. to the republican path to

prosperity, we offer a conscience in the form of meaningful substantive amendments. our proposal seeks to rebuild what the majority is looking to tear down. the majority talks about defraying seams of the social safety net, but their budget takes shears to that net, cutting gaping holes to it. this budget takes the promises of entitlements and turns them into privileges for the few that deny rights to the many. this is an i'd logical document. it gives lip service to our values while covering up a radical agenda that would alter the ality of life for so many working families. the republican majority expressed their disapproval at the thought of kicking the can down the road when tackling the economic and fiscal challenges that are before us,ut they have no problem kicking seniors and children to the curb. the democratic amendments introduced by my colleagues offer a much different vision of

america than what appears in this ideology callie driven document. tax loopholes will be provided for american companies that ship jobs overseas. the oil industry will be a winner while our environment will be a loser. i have to y, mr. chairman, this is a new definition of corporate welfare. mr. bloomenaur has skillfully addressed the vision the democrats believe in and the amendments offered by my colleagues on this committee give purpose and meaning to those values. ms. schwartz from pennsylvania will speak about the devastating cuts that would be felt by our seniors in nursing homes and her amendment gives voice to many in our mucommunities who are voiceless. ms. wasserman-shultz talks about her research to cures to cancer, strokes, diabetes, heart disease and other illness. ms. mccollum warns against cuts

that jeopardize the safety of our food safety. mr. pasqual has looked in the eyes of police officers and firefighters who put their lives in danger for us and his amendments say no to the cts that would devastate the ranks of first responders in our communities. the amendments offered by the democrats on this committee say no to the path of prosperity that the republican majority is offering. thank you very much. yield the remainder of my time. >> thank u. before we go on to our last presenter for this section, i believe the chair marn has had been announcement. >> there's a vote we did not anticipate. you have ten minutes left, there's -- would the minority be okay going to the staff walk-through an having people vote and come back, or do you want to recess for the vote? >> what i'd like to do is just have -- we just have one more speaker. >> let's start the walk-through. >> let's just have our one more speaker in this secon. >> then we'll talk. >> that's only six minutes.

that will finish our time. then we can vote and do the walk-through. i yield six minutes to mr. yar muj. >> i thank my colleague. mr. chairman, thank you for this budget. we a know that budgets are a reflection of our values and i think today we have seen very different approaches to both reducing our deficit long term and also with helping grow the economy and primarily making this an economy that works for everyone and not just the wealthiest few percent of our country. there's a great deal of difference in what promotes job growth and what actually motivates entrepreneurs and businesspeople. my brother is a very successful businessperson. he runs a chain of barbecue restaurants. he's done very well. when i asked him years ago about whether it would make sense to return the highest tax rate to

its clinton-era levels, he said, you know, i finally figured out after years of thinking differently that if people can't afford barbecue, it doesn't matter what my tax rate is. and this is where we are as a country. as we've seen from many of my colleagues, the disparity of income and wealth in this country has grown to outrageous and disgraceful levels. we have 90% of the people in this country whose combined income doesn't equal the top 1%. that's frightening. and it not only affects whether people can buy barbecue, it also affects whether people can buy the ford products made in my district and the general electric appliances that are made there and the products that are made in virtually every district in this country. what we need to do is enact a budg that recognizes the importance of growing that 90% and not further enriching the top 1%.

i will offer an amendment later in the day that will raise the tax rate back to clinton era levels on people making $1 million or more. it will be interesting to see how that vote turns out. the other day i was in a meeting in my district in louisville. a ite house business roundtable in which business leaders joined in the chamber of commerce to talk about what they thought the federal government should do to generate jobs and grow the economy. the answers were consistent -- education, more funding for education, more funding for research and development, investment in infrastructure. couple people mentioned taxes in a very vague way, but mostly they talkedbout these fundamental investments that ll help grow the 90% of the american people and improve their futures and thereby improve the future of our economy. this is the approach that

democrats will take and our budget and through our amendment processes and it's clearly the approach that republicans have rejected. with that, i'd yield three minutes to my colleague mr. pasqual. >> thank you for yielding. mr. chairman, i note many of you on the other side of the aisle, as it's been referred to and i don't look at it that way -- i know that you're not numbers people, and that is you care about americans in the anecdotal stories that have existed. now, what this, our side, believes is that there is hope for the future for america. i found what you have presented, my good friend, mr. ryan, your outlook is sour, dank. you've imprisoned us in numbers. democrats look at the glass as

half filled. always have done that. you're presenting a budget where the glass is half empty. that's the difference in our parties. we love america, but we have a different perspective, both of us. between 2001 and 2008 where you folks have some amnesia, your party pured a deregulation and privatization regime that resulted in a loss of 3 million jobs. a rate of 700,000 a month. figure it out. i don't think you can compare that with our efforts in what we've been talking about in the first two years of the administration when we were in the majority on our side, when we've insisted upon investments for job creation, educational

opportunity for all, an alternative energy policy to get us out of the fossil fuel addiction, and health care for our citizens who deserve the best, and research and development that would help all of those five objectives. this budget is unambiguously a doubling down, the same failed policies that brought us to the brink. everyone here believ in tting our use in order. you've heard that time and time again. but i think that your budget needs a gps because it's a road map into the woods and we're not going to be able to get out. we believe in providing health care security for more than just the next decade, and we reject the notion that we can balance the budget by privatizing our safety net for seniors, the poor and the disabled. the type of slash and burn

cutting in this budget puts our recovery at risk. we believe in funding the fiscal safety net. that includes everyone from the police and firefighters to food inspectors. mr. chairman, i don't want to taste tainted meat. and what you're doing as a specific anecdote in this budget is providing less inspectors that i need to doubt that every time i cut with my knife and my fork. so we believe in this great country. we believe we should be a world leader in research, innovation and investment. and this belief is achieved by funding our children's educational opportunities, investing in scientific research, and improving our infrastructure. we could say this is a difference of priorities, but we believe in america that protects our seniors and children and the

disabled, levels the playing field and invests in future generations. i urge you to stand with us at the end of this process. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. pascrel. just to sum , i think we've had a goodback and for back-and. there's no question we are need to reduce the deficit. we need to do it in way consistent with our values and priorities and i think we're providing the american people with a fundamental choice between two different directions here as you've heard from our colleagues, mr. chairman, with we believe the approach that you put forward is unbalanced, it asks middle income and working americans to make sacrifices by cutting deeply into areas like education, like into research, into cures for diseases that plague every american family and

continues to give a free ride to the very wealthy in the country and special interests. so we lookforward to a vigorous debate. i gather we're going to take a little are break and then we'll be back. >> since we have a vote on the floor, we will recess for ten minutes and then we'll come back and do the staff walk-through.

>> be alternative under this amendment is to have the state to take on more money out of a tuition or transportation and raise taxes. this will undermine our fragile economy. many fail to realize this is a shared program where the states are required to put up additional dollars. this is just one of the reasons why governors, republicans, and

democrats alike have asked for more flexibility to better serve their states' needs. medicaid is already a growing patchwork of medicaid waivers and demonstration projects in state after state as the amendment's sponsor has indicated. there are currently 451 waivers for medicaid. that does not count the hundreds or thousands of waivers that are denied. as i discussed in my opening statement, when i worked in the kansas city legislature, we were denied a waiver by the bush administration. it is not a partisan issue. i think we need to ask how is medicate doing now? 10% error rates exist for

medicaid payments. that does continue. with that, i will yield three minutes to my colleague. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the real purpose of this amendment is to undermine the block grant proposal. let us be clear. medicaid has fostered a two tiered structure that has stigmatized beneficiaries. with administrators working to control costs, medicaid beneficiaries are left navigating in an increasingly complex system for the most basic procedures. after reform, the medicaid program would not be able to be able to -- not be able to deliver on its promise to

provide a safety net. i have some experience routine out fraud in the social security industry. the fraud and abuse in medicaid but seniors and the most vulnerable of us in serious jeopardy. in 2010, the department of justice investigated numerous cases involving nursing-home abuses and fraud. here are some of them. on january 13, 2010, there was a $1.6 million element in -- $1.6 million settlement in missouri. on april 6 of last year, three nursing homes were charged with $30 million in medicare fraud by buying homes while their residence at the nursing home when without food and medicine. it was a physician tar's with

making false claims to medicaid for -- a physician was charged with making false claims. if this money was block granted to the states, we would be able to look out with this thought in much more effective and the addition fashions. the money does not need to be sent to washington, d.c. to do a few laps only to be sent back to the states with no local control. states and localities can do it better. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will close with a few additional comments. this amendment says one thing. washington knows better than the states how to take care of our people. states do much more than the minimum that is required under medicaid to provide services for our seniors and the disabled and

elderly. this approach offered in this amendment, spending more money, taking authority away from the states, has created this financial mess in washington. our plan of prosperity presents an alternative to start climbing out of this whole. i urge my colleagues to vote note on this amendment to avoid -- vote no on this amendment. with that, i yield back.

>> in pennsylvania, our governor has decided to do, not what every other state has done, he has decided to cut $333 million out of medicaid. you are suggesting, under the republican plan, that we encourage this choice, make sure there are cuts in medicaid and seniors do not have access to nursing home care. these are the most fragile nursing home seniors. that is what we are talking about. we want to take money from the oil and gas industry, subsidies we get to the five richest oil companies. instead, we are going to make

seniors pay for their nursing home care, seniors who have already spent all of their resources. states wants to continue to be partners under medicaid. >> it went on the record, right? >> yes. >> all those in favor say eye. aye. those opposed say no. elite the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. roll call vote]

madam chairman, how am i recorded? is there anyone else who wishes to vote or change their vote? >> mr. chairman, on the recorded vote, the ayes are 14, the no's are 21. clerk will designate the

amendment. the staff will distribute copies. >> amendment designated as north 5, offered by mr. ryan, protect working -- designated as number 5, offered by mr. ryan. "protect working americans." >> we spent a lot of time on the title of this amendment. after a couple of the other amendments and the way this budget has been proposed and the bigger risk protections of no tax increases at all for the top 1% of those people making more than $1 million a year, we would like to get our colleagues an opportunity to show that same in defendingr the middle class. this amendment is simple. it is a resolution that would not allow taxes to be raised on individual with a gross

income of less than $1 million. it is revenue neutral. we want to assure the american working class that they will not have to foot the bill on this. american families lost ground during the 2000's. median income slipped 4.9% in real terms between 2000 and 2009 according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office. in 2007, all after-tax income in the economy going to the top 1% attained its high level, -- high level, 70%. the share going to the middle 1/5 of americans sank to its

lowest level. between 1979 and 2007, average after-tax income for the top 1% rose by 281%. inflation,sting for an increase of income of $973,000 per household compared to increases of 25% to the middle 1/5 of households. mr. chairman, this is about shared sacrifice. this is about everyone in this country saying we have two wars going on. we have an incident in libya, which we do not know what to call it yet. we can say up to 1 million -- up to $1 billion. we have three wars going on in the united states of america. we have things dealing with the financial crisis after 2008. states are increasing tuition

and decrease in local government funds and decreasing community development block grants. we see the pell grant is down. firefighters and police across the country are being asked to make a cut. it would be beneficial to us to ensure those people, singles making 200,000 goddess or less and couples making 250,000 or less -- let's put into this bill that they will not have to pay increased taxes. if they want to have more police and taxes for their communities, they are going to have to vote locally. many of the committees i am representing not have the tax base to raise local taxes to try to deal with some of this stuff. this is sang two things. let's ensure the -- this is saying two things. let's issue in the middle class does not have to deal with this and that we evaluate our position on this extreme growth

and wealth for the wealthiest 1% in the country. this has been significant. these people are doing just fine. as i said earlier, if the tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 -- its supply-side economics work, we would not be in the position we are in today. let's let these people make some sacrifices. we see the houses in the hamptons. let's let them sacrifice. this amendment is to focus on making sure the middle class does not have to foot the bill. with that, i yield to my friend, chris van hollen. >> i add my support to this amendment. hours of -- our republican colleagues have just voted against two amendments. one said people working and making over $1 million should

help bring the deficit down. they said no to that. the other one dealt with cutting loopholes. what this amendment says is, let's make sure that we do not raise taxes on middle income americans, couples up under $250 million. in our proposal, you bring down the top marginal rate to 25%. for a millionaire, that is a $100,000 tax break. you say you will not lose revenue from that particular change. that is $2 trillion in revenue. how are you going to make it up? you are going to make it up by going after many of the deductions. the way you are going to do it by bringing the rates down that far is that you are squeezing

middle-class taxpayers. that is mathematics. that is the way it goes when you get at $100,000 marginal tax break. you can take some of their exemptions away. there is no way you make up that revenue without taxing the middle income americans. you have said no. the taxing millionaires to help pay for the important choices we are talking about. let's not cut education. let's make sure in the process that we are not raising taxes on working americans and middle- class americans. that is what this amendment does. i yield back my time to the maker of the amendment. >> i thank the gentleman for those comments. again, this is straight forward. we had a vigorous debate about not placing taxes on millionaires. we can go on the record in saying we are adamant about making sure the middle class

gets protected as well. i hope we can agree on something here this afternoon and this evening. i think this may be be amended to do it. >> does the gentleman yield his time? does anyone sixth time in opposition? > -- seek time in the opposition? i do not think this amendment is necessary. it is not the intention of this bill to raise taxes on anybody. we have a delicate balance in the continuing resolution. our job is to get some general direction. we had a tax bill last year with a top rate of 25% and a middle income rate of 10%. it lowered the tax rates. you can do this without raising taxes on the middle class. the top two bracket payers are

the ones who enjoy all of the deductions. with that, i yield. >> i that mr. ryan for the yield. when i got the text on this this morning, it sounded familiar to me, the concept of promising not to raise taxes on people making less than $250,000 per year. it sounded familiar to me and i thought about where i had heard it before. i thought it. "the family making less than $200,000 -- "no family making less than $250,000 per year will see a tax increase. " that was president obama in 2008.

the democrats have made this pledge. when they were in control of the house, they violated that pledge. i have a list here of every single tax increase that was approved in the previous congress that violates the exact same pledge that the gentleman from ohio is asking us to make today. there was a new tax on individuals who'd did not purchase -- who did not purchase individual health insurance. there was a tax on high-cost health plans. with a ban on the purchase up over the counter drugs, there was an increase of the threshold by which individuals could be got over the -- out of pocket medical expenses. there was a new animal attacks on brand name pharmaceuticals. a new -- it was a new pharmaceutical tax on brand name

pharmaceuticals. the 1099 tax, which we have all talked about this year. that is part of the list. -- ink my point is this go back to something mike binder told me when i was little. cannot believe what people say, believe what they do. you had the chance to do with the gentleman from ohio is adjusting to that when you were in control. you violate it the same pledge he is asking us to make. our budget actually does what he is asking us to commit to do. that action speaks much louder than any words could in his amendment. i would strongly urge that we reject this amendment. with that, i would like to

yield three minutes of time to my colleague. >> thank you. i would concur. if we are looking for confidence, we want the nation to have confidence that the taxes will not be increased on the middle-class. we have made it clear we will not be raising taxes on people. that becomes a clear statement out of this. everyone in this group is aware that the function of the budget is not to set tax policy. it is to say, these are the assumptions. while we are talking about all of the preferences and all the things being thrown around in this budget saying he is going to give preferences to this group and this group based on tax policy, none of that is written into this document. those are not assumptions made here. the goal of this budget is to be able to balance and to be able to work down our debt long term and to be able to provide a path to prosperity for our

nation. it is not to take from one group and give to another. it is not to decide that one groups too much money and to take it away from them and give it to another -- one group has too much money and to take it away from them and give it to another. that is not the goal we are trying to accomplish as americans. when i try to say, this is america. have a great business. do it ethically and follow the rule of law. make all the money you possibly can and provide for your family in a great way. the more money they make and provide for their family, the less government assistance they will need. we want all our families to do well and to be taxed as little as possible so they will continue to do well. we are working on the basics of this. i understand the role of the minority policy at every point

of this. it is to make great talking points for press conferences. the role of the majority is to establish the policy. it is my hope that we will be establishing deposit with this. with that, i yield back. >> let me close with this. i respect the amendment. obviously, i agree with the amendment in principle. i would suggest to the gentleman from ohio that you had the chance to do exactly what you suggest in this amendment. you have the opportunity to make up for the fact that you broke your pledge to the american people. you have a chance to make up for the fact that you actually let -- you have a chance to let your actions speak for you. vote for the budget that does not raise taxes on anybody. it is an opportunity for you to let your actions speak louder than words.

with that, i yield back the balance of my time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> we are going to make it by midnight. mr. ryan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the republican party rejected the tax amendment. we had 18 different tax cuts within the stimulus bill that would cut, including a reduction in the corporate tax rate. all kinds of tax cuts. we take a backseat to no one as far as cutting taxes when it is necessary. as far as some of the comments about, we are just here to hammer business. we are not. we have to fund the navy ships that protect the oil coming in and out of the gulf. the people who make money off of businesses and by the houses on the hamptons and use the

airports and use the court systems and provide the military for us to be able to secure these things. all we are saying on this side -- you have made it quite clear. you are not willing to go on record to say a couple making less than $250,000 a year will not see a tax increase. you vigorously defend the top 1% in getting that tax decrease. it is all on the public record. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the amendment has not passed. the clerk will call the roll. [taking roll call vote]

>> are there any members who still wish to be recorded?

>> on that vote, the ayes are 15. the no's are 22. >> are there any further amendments? mr. tonko. the clerk will designate the amendment. >> and then met designated as number 6. "protect health care for seniors, military service members and their families." >> mr. tonko is recognized. >> the republican amendment will end medicare. it is made more egregious and offensive by the fact that it is being done not to balance the

budget, but to guarantee even bigger tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires and to give new tax breaks to some of the world's most profitable companies. this budget is more like the road to riches, a road paved with gold on the backs of senior citizens who will see their hard earned it is rationed more year after year. i have heard a lot of talk about the need to make tough choices. the average singer on -- senior on medicare aren't just $19,000 per year. many seniors suffer from a collaborative or mental impairment. i asked my republican colleagues, what exactly is a about shipping these americans of their health and economic security back qualifies as tough. there is nothing about taking from the week to give to the rich.

americans know all about making tough choices. do i pay rent or medical bills? it hurts, but how much will it cost. ? these are life and death choices. with the passage of medicare in 1965, we entered a covenant with every american citizen. this budget breaks that promise and brings us back to square one. the republican budget plan and medicare. seniors will be on their on with a measly bowsher and forced to buy health care on the private market. more profits for insurance companies. it sounds like a republican plan to me. this about your program amounts to a ration card. the cost of private health insurance has risen over 5000% since the creation of medicare. 5000%. the analysis of the nonpartisan congressional budget office has estimated that in less than 20

years, the doctors under the ryan plan would pay just 32 cents on every -- the voucher under the rights plan would pay just 32 cents on every dollar spent on health care. according to cbo, the voucher program would provide a voucher up $8,000 to seniors. members of congress that a voucher of $9,000. according to the wall street journal, the average cost of health care for seniors over 65 in 2009 was $11,743. it's an insurance company were

to take on $11,743 of risk or $8,000, they would be out of business in short order. the republicans do not believe their insurance company but is will offer insurance for $8,000 or four $11,000 just to break even. they know seniors will have to dig into their own pockets. the thousands of dollars this plan has to private insurance companies will make even more profits. this budget takes trillion's from seniors and rations their care. where does it shift the savings. if you get permanent tax cut for millionaires and billionaires? you guessed right. after more than one year of hurling lies and demagoguery about that panels and rationing care, the republicans on the panel demand that we restrict seeing is to a health care rationing cards and assure that those who cannot afford coverage on their own will be left to

die. they steal from those who cannot afford an expensive lobbyists and give to millionaires and billionaires who can afford much more. i was educated at an engineer. i have a deep appreciation for numbers and calculations. i know our budget is a statement of priorities and values, not purely dollars and since bang. cent. i am offering this pro-medicare amendment today. it expresses the sense that quality health care programs for seniors, members of the military and their families should be protected. my amendment states that these programs should be excluded from any legislation that would replace the quality care and security that they provide with vouchers, rationing, or premium support. it also states we should not be setting arbitrary caps on spending for these programs. it will ensure that congress

will not turn medicare, tricare into a voucher system that rations care to our seniors. i would now like to yield to our ranking member. >> thank you. i want to be clear about what the republican budget does. it ends the medicare guaranteed. what does that mean? it means seniors will be forced to go into the private insurance market. as costs rise, they will bear the risks of those costs. everybody's payroll taxes for medicare and the premium that people pay for medicare will go to the private insurance industry. what this amendment says is, we are not going to do that to seniors. makes the point that this is a great idea for seniors. why aren't you doing it to our

veterans? to aren't you doing it active duty personnel? ebay trends program is a government funded program. the as my colleague said, the federal employee health benefit plan has a fair share formula. it has a set percentage that goes to beneficiaries. in other words, the risk of rising health care costs are shared equally under the federal employee program that every member of congress is on. we heard earlier the testimony from the staff. if the -- this budget does not change that. but it does set up a different risk for people on medicare. in fact, people on medicare will

be getting the higher risks and costs when members of congress are not. you're not giving them a fair share under this budget. you're saying, you're on your own to handle those rising health care costs in the future. in fact, that is how you save money in the future as opposed to taking the broader approach that we have taken in the past. it is terrible. if you like it, take it government-wide been given to veterans and federal employees. if not, why would she not? -- why would you not? >> i would like to yield the

remaining time to my colleague. >> this is the most devious part of the budget. you folks ran ads against people on our side during the campaign that we would cut $500 billion from medicare. here is the $5 billion -- the $500 billion. you are assuming that come in your budget, in order to get from 2012 to the 2022 when this takes place, you have it in your budget. so you take the savings we got from the affordable health care act after you slashed it, after you crossed every name in the book, and you use it in your budget. i rest my case. let them answer that. >> mr. young is recognized for 10 minutes. >> for decades, medicare has blessedly guaranteed a measure of health care --

>> will the gentleman yield? >> i will not. >> order. >> we will get along really well today if we do not start pointing fingers. >> it is dishonest. >> let's direct our comments to policy. >> for decades, medicare has explicitly guaranteed a measure of health security to our nation's seniors and two americans with disabilities. this program must be preserved for future generations and in a way that does not adversely impact those in or near retirement. we satisfy those different standards in our budget. inaction is not an option. it is also not a plan. it is a false choice. we are headed toward the purpose of a fiscal crisis here.

in order to preserve medicare under such circumstances, i can conceive of a few different policy options. we're headed in this direction. one policy option would be to cut current seniors. i am not contemplating that. hopefully, those on the other side of the aisle are not contemplating that. we make sure that does not happen in our plan. another possibility would be to cut provider payments. we tried that. it does not work. the affordable air at -- the board will carry it, that is its fatal flaw. -- the affordable care act, that is its fatal flaw. the so-called productivity adjustments, fortunately, we eliminate that plan in our budget. history also suggests that squeezing providers nearly leads to an increased service provision, driving health care inflation. we can jack up taxes.

that seems to be what many on the other side of the el proposes to do -- on the other side of the aisle proposes to do. they say taxes, "would reach higher levels relative to the size of our economy than ever recorded in the nation's history." that certainly will not facilitate job creation. that will not lead to jobs like in southern indiana. we're not taxed too little. we're spending too much in washington. therefore, we need to change the structure of these programs. but we get to the specific points of this proposal. let me point out that the other side seemingly has no plan here, neither the president nor the democrats in congress have proposed their method of making medicare sustainable. either you or our present have no solutions to our nation's current challenges or you lack -- either -- neither you nor our

president have no solutions to our nation's current challenges or you lack the will to do so. it has been styled by mr. tom go as a so-called voucher plan. cbo said that it is a premium support plan, very different. it is akin to what we enjoy as members of congress. our plan makes no changes whatsoever in the medicare plan for those aged 55 and older. we actually increase spending for medicare in future years of the budget. we essentially apply the very popular medicare prescription drug model to all of medicare. we give future generations of seniors the same health care options, again, that we enjoy. we give beneficiaries' premiums support equal to 100% of the cost of benefits on average. we means test the program,

giving support to those with higher health care costs and reduce subsidies for higher- earner americans. this is a well-thought-through plan. it is your move on the other side of the aisle. i will give four minutes to my colleague, mr. forest, to speak to the veterans component of this egregious amendment. >> thank you, mr. young. i want to talk about veterans. fully funds's mark medicare for the needs of military service members and their families. there are 9.5 million health care beneficiaries. utilization rates and care is higher than other health care plans, primarily because it is a rich health care plan. the budget preserves these benefits, unchanged from the current structure for active

service duty members and their families. it has been unanimously endorsed to modestly increase cost sharing by 52 cents a month. that is for enrollment fees and $3 to the two dollars for pharmaceutical co pays. these are reasonable adjustments of levels that have not changed since 1995. for veterans as they hold, for veterans medical care, it provides complete access to medical services for the 6 million patients that the va expects. in both areas, this budget implements policies and keep faith with the men and women who risked their lives to serve us and were currently risking their lives to protect our freedom. this continues to honor the sacrifice of service members.

our budget has suddenly been called the road to ruin budget. i would ask the democrats what is your budget? in the four years that you gov. prior to this, you had your chance. we lost 7 million jobs and we added $4 to international debt and we have millions more on both ends. -- $4 trillion to the national debt and we have millions more on both sides. i yield to the rest of my time. >> let me get in a few things. from the letter of the cbo -- medicare is unsustainable unless changes are made. "medicare's financial troubles

could diminish quality of care for medicare beneficiaries. cbo says medicare will better than two thousand 21. medicare is going bankrupt. so the question is do we fix it now so that we can preserve benefits for people near retirement or do we ignore the problem and do rabid surgery on it at the last minute and cut everybody? that is not the smart thing to do. the premium support is $15,000 per senior. on top of that, given that we should not be comparing ourselves to some mythical unsustainable program, even obamacare says it is unsustainable. we're coming up with a system that makes it sustainable. or to the point, medicare will not be able to grow like it is in the future because it

consumes all federal revenues, all, at the end of the day. that is unsustainable. so why not make necessary changes now to make it work better? we have experience with these models. the prescription drug benefit, it came in 46% below cost because it harnesses departures and competition to give the senior wardresses. millions of more seniors are on the medicare plan. if you're saying that this privatizes medicare, then it is already privatized. medicare already delivers medicare through private companies, even through part a and part b. what we think for the future, given eluded dollars we will have, -- given the limited dollars will have, give everyone

total coverage, pull out of pocket coverage. the wealthy do not need to be subsidized as much as everybody else. more for the poor, more for the sick, less for the wealthy and we grow these unsustainable rate. we harness the power of choice and competition. we bring the program to solvency and we save medicare. you not only save medicare, you help prevent the country from going off a death cliff. you help pay off the national debt. that is what this is about dead at the end of the day, i have to tell you, we have to stop the demagoguery and fix this problem. if we keep kicking the can down the road, it will be really ugly. that helps nobody, especially seniors among them. i yield back.

>> you ask what our plan is. on the screen here, we have our plan. entitlement reform, extend medicare, provide a million dollars in savings. bottom line, it is more profit for the profit-rich insurance company's parent do we really think it will do it -- companies. do we think it will do it cheaper? i do not think so. more pain for our seniors at the expense of those with deep pockets. it is for these reasons that i am offering this pro-medicare amendment today. i ask for support of this amendment. we set the cbo findings. they have also indicated in their findings -- this is just that, by 2022, beneficiaries will pay more. their costs will double. by 2003, their costs will

triple. -- by 2030, the costs will triple. it is really showing priorities here from the other side that are wrong. >> all those in favor? all those against? >> mr. garrett. no. mr. simpson? no. mr. campbell. no. mr. calvert. no. mr. aitken. no. mr. kohl. no.

mr. price. no. mr. mclean talk. -- mr. mcclure and talk -- mr. mcclintock. no. mr. susman. no. mr. langford. no. ms. black. no. mr. ripple. no. mr. flores. no. mulvaney.e no. mr. young. no. mmosh. no.

mr. rokita. no. mr. kinta. no. oodall. no. then holland. aye. ms. captor. aye. mr. dodd ggett. aye. menhaur.m an aye. armith. aye. paskerell. aye.

mr. ryan. aye. ms. wasserman-schultz aye. ms. moore. aye. ms. castor. aye. mr. schuller. aye. mr. tanko. aye. ms. bass. aye. chairman ryan. no. chairman, on that vote, the ayes are 16. the nos are 22. >> the amendment is not agreed to.

doggett'se on to mr. amended. >> designated as no. 2 offered by mr. doggett, of shoring of u.s. jobs with de "make it america" agenda. >> i think that most americans are recognized that, if you want a slice of the american pie, you want to help bake it. but there are certain corporations that seek to a justice of american courts, the protection of the american military, and all the other rights and benefits of being an american without paying their fair share for that right. indeed, a number of our largest corporations pay an effective tax rate that is lower than the janitorial crews cleaning their offices. that is not right. while this budget document that

republicans have advanced today cite the 1986 reagan tax reform as a model, they actually reject the leadership of president reagan. in 1986, he signed into law a measure that actually raise tax revenues on corporations in order to help pay for tax cuts for individuals. this budget, in contrast, appears to propose a net reduction of the type that has been urged by a number of corporate interest to the ways and means committee already this year that would be paid for either by shifting the burden to individuals or borrowing more money from the chinese or both. today, we have seen our republican colleagues refused to name even one tax loophole that they would close or one tax expenditure or that they would terminate. for those corporations that are not paying their fair share today, they seem to be offering all sugar and no medicine. they insist upon a statutory tax

rate cut for corporations while implying that it would be paid for without explaining exactly how. these are multi-nationals, like general electric, which continues to use existing loopholes to make, as it did in a recent year, $40.2 billion on its worldwide income without paying tax -- $14.2 billion on its worldwide income lopping taxes. pharmaceutical companies who deal directly with those who are ill may be paying two times to three times in an effective rate. at the expense of working families and small businesses, the republican approach gives the largest corporations a statutory rate cut and leaves them with their big tax loopholes as well. i believe that this republican plan simply encourages the continued export of jobs overseas.

a business that is deciding -- will we build our factory in ohio, texas, wisconsin -- they know that their profits in such endeavor will be taxed immediately. or it can choose to build overseas willaert it will not face any immediate taxes. -- overseas where it will not face any new taxes. this amendment would close the international tax loophole that encourage companies to invest abroad rather than at home. it would prevent general electric from avoiding taxes on its financial activities abroad. it would stop multi-nationals from moving american intellectual property, such as formulas anmarch trade -- and trademarks. it does not report any income immediately on the very factories that it borrowed the money to build a broad.

when some talk of maintaining global competitiveness, they mean slowly the multi-nationals bottom line. i believe that we need to focus on making america competitive, on having a tax system that encourages jobs being created here in the united states. our nation is competitive not just because of its tax system, but because we have an education system that fosters successive generations of great thinkers. we have a stable business environment, adequate legal protections, and we are competitive because we have the military second to none. but it costs money to have it that way. and those who benefit from it should share in the cost. this amendment, in essence, closes those loopholes and uses the funds that are generated by closing those loopholes to expand our investment in education, in addressing the crumbling infrastructure of our bridges and roads across the

country, and then it uses some of the proceeds as we should to actually reduce our national debt. with that opening, i would yield the two minutes to my colleague from ohio. >> i thank the gentleman for his excellent amendment. i would like to say that the best solution is his amendment for creating jobs in america. when people are working, they're paying their taxes. it does not take a mental giant to figure that out. we just endured the largest transfer of wealth from main street to wall street. we see corporate profits are at an all-time high pi. they are hiring people, but they're not investing in this country. citigroup is looking at the future and they want to invest everywhere else in the world other than here, even though the american people have just bailed them out. it seems to me that 75% of the

goldman sacks securities trades that got us in this fix that we are in were traded through -- guess where -- the cayman islands, that great tax haven. it seems to me that this should have some muscle and brings to try to help the american people. i think that is what the people were elected to come here for and represent. i want to complement the gentleman for wanting to cover those tax breaks and loopholes that the international corporate track stuck -- tax structure uses to ship our jobs overseas. each one of us represents companies who have done exactly that. and those could come back here and our unemployed workers are stuck with the bill to bail out the very same banks that have financed those corporate relocations. all the numbers show that investment and improvements in our streets and education streets for jobs and education for future, there the two best investments we can make. i think the gentleman has hit the nail on the head. he recognizes that the only way

we will balance the budget is to get job creation in this country. everybody has to be at the table, including those who really gain from the system on their own behalf and not on the republic's they have. >> mr. chairman, in short, we seek the same objective of debt reduction. but we believe that to sustain a competitive economy, we need to be a dancing our investments in education, from pre-k to post- grad. that means rewarding the cuts that are proposed in your budget for pell grants, for head start, for their educational programs. we can have the education to strengthen their work force at the same time that we address our national debt by closing these loopholes and ensuring that everyone contributes to the cost of the world's greatest democracy. with that, i will reserve -- >> you have a minute conclusion.

>> i yield back. >> i will yield 10 minutes to myself for opposition. i will share it with mr. floors. first, let me talk about the infrastructure banks. aside from having fiscal concerns about starting a new program, concerns of using 10 years of taxes for when you're spending on anything, these things are said to be fiscal time bombs. the gentleman an eye on the ways and means have gone through lots of things. we have done years and hundreds of hearings on international tax code. it is very complicated. there are problems with the allocation rules. there's no two ways about it. this side of the tax code is a mess. it is just a mess. so why not make america a tax haven? if you are encouraging all of these companies to do all these things overseas, put the money

in the cayman islands, why not have the park it in america? our tax code is one of the reasons they do not. here is the problem. the rest of the world is on a tax system that is territorial. you pay that jurisdictions taxes and no girls. we are on a worldwide tax system can when an american company makes money overseas, it pays the american tax and the overseas tax. let's take harley-davidson, a great milwaukee company. we export them all over the world. they're made in milwaukee. we make a hog that will topple line in milwaukee. if we sell it into chicago, it pays the u.s. tax rates. if it goes to germany and it is competing against a honda motorcycle and we sell it, we pay the german tax and the u.s. tax. the japanese who make the honda only pay the german tax. what does that do? that means we get double-taxed on our products and competitors

get single-tax. we lose and they win. you have to remember, with 95% of the world's consumers outside of this country, if we want to have a prosperous and growing economy, we have to have a robust and effective sector. we ought to make them here and sell them there to have prosperity. high living standards. this is set up to make sure that, when we sell that harley- davidson in germany to compete against that the cycle from honda, it can be taxed only once to be able to compete against it. but then, when harley brings the money back, then we tax it again. yet, we have these different kinds of rules that the gentleman is getting at. let's scrap that whole system so that we're incentivizing making more harley davidsons in milwaukee and selling them in germany to compete against honda on a level playing field. most other countries' border-

adjust their products. we do not. when we make something here and we send it over there, they tax it as it goes into those countries. when they send something here, it does not get taxed on the way in. so we are double taxing our exports and single-taxing imports. we're putting ourselves in a disadvantage. there's no wonder that there is a trend of foreign companies buying u.s. companies because of tax laws. we tried doing this. we try going after these loopholes. what happened? there was no american shipping industry. all of these foreign companies bought u.s. shippers because we took away deferrals. is toal of this marke instruct the ways and means committee to clean this mess up. let's have a tax system that encourages companies to be headquartered in america. let's have a tax system that

encourages companies to build things in america and sell them overseas. right now, because of all the loopholes in the deferral, because some people want to take more away from the ability to defer, you had -- taxing our exports. you end up making harley pay double taxes on their foreign sales than honda does on their spirit and we lose exports, which means we lose jobs. we have to lower our corporate tax rate could the fiscal commission agrees with that. they agree with the territorial system. i was part of all those meetings. i think all economists would agree that you have to lower the corporate tax rate. you have to take on the territorial system if you want to survive.

>> this graff says it all right here. the top one, the red line, that is the u.s. corporate tax rate, 35% from the bottom line represents the average tax rate of oecd countries. as you can see, we are going in the wrong direction when it comes to competitiveness. if you want to have fewer u.s. jobs, vote for the amendment. if you want to see a perfect example of this -- look at what is happening among the states of non-international companies. uc the state's move from high- cost/high-tax states like texas. we have an attractive environment in which to do business. the same thing happened in the international company environment. companies are moving. in the last four years, there have been three international companies that moved their headquarters from houston, texas to overseas. they took jobs and billions of

dollars of payroll and millions of dollars of taxes with them. that is not the direction we want to go. we want corporations to in- source into our country, to move to our country. if you adopt the amendment, we will continue to accelerate the process of people moving out. i could not agree more with mr. ryan's recommendation that we go to ways and means, scrap our current corporate tax system, and start over with a competitive tax system that offsets the problems we have here. if we do that, we will have a great growing economy, more tax revenues, and have the ability to find our infrastructure improvements that we need and the educational improvements that we need. i am not a big fan of general electric, but why did the president put the ceo on as the

chairman of the competitive council? do you all like him or not? i'm curious to know. i yield back the balance of my time. >> wheeled back the balance of our time. >> you have one minute -- we yield back the balance of our time. you have one minute to) >> one of the companies that decided it did not want to pay for any of that success is trans ocean, the world's largest trade-bill that did such a great job last year in the gulf. it kept its employees in houston. it just moved its entire corporate charter to switzerland so it could avoid paying its fair share and renounce its american citizenship. the solution that mr. ryan advances for multiple tax loopholes in our code is to create a bigger one, called the territorial tax system. what that means is no incentive to create jobs in the american territory and a great incentive,

since you pay no taxes on foreign earnings, to create them abroad. i do not believe that anyone supports double taxation. that is why we have a system of foreign tax credits to avoid it. this amendment is a simple way of closing loopholes and asking general electric and everyone else to live better by contributing their fair share, by paying the same effective tax rate that their gender and their distributes pay. >> the question is on agreeing on the amendment. all those in favor? all those opposed? the opinion of the chair is that the nos have it. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. garrick? no. mr. simpson. no. mr. campbell. mr. calvert. no. mr. reagan.

-- mr. aiken. no. mr. cole. no. mr. price. no. mr. mcclintock. no. mr. chaffitz. no. mr. susman. no. mr. langford. no. ms. black. no. mr. ripple. no. mr. flores. no. mulvaney,. mr. hughelscamp. no. mr. amash. no. mr. okita.

no. mr. ginta. no. mr. woodall. no. mr. campbell. no. mr. van holland. aye. ms. schwartz. aye. ms. captor. aye. mr. doggett. aye. mr. bloomenhaur. aye. ms. mccullem. aye. mr. yarmouth. aye. mr. paskarell. aye. mr. honda.

aye. mr. ryan. aye. ms. wasserman-schultz. aye. ms. moore. aye. ms. castor. aye. mr. schuller. aye. mr. tonko. aye. ms. bass. aye. german rhine. -- chairman ryan. no. the ayes are 16 and the nos are 22. >> the amendment is not agreed to. next, we're going to the amendment offered by the

gentleman from california. >> of men and designated as no. 7 offered -- amendment designated as number seven offered by mr. honda, elementary and secondary education into head start. >> i got it. the budget should not just the exercises in accounting. they are an expression of values. budgets articulate a vision. chairman ryan was right to call this budget a patch. but it leads us astray. how can we leave if our children are not properly educated? if we drill down to what this means for our students, the results are even more disturbing. regardless of which metric favor, only a third of our

children are able to read on grade level when they reach the 12th grade. when you combine this with the fact that a child who cannot read in the third grade has only one in five chances of graduating in high school, the picture gets even worse when we look at mathematics. in a world where we know science technology, engineering and mathematics are a key to success, only a quarter of a -- of our students are in a position to pursue college studies when they leave high- school. we know what drives this problem. it is poverty. students from high-income schools have the highest reading scores in the world. students from our low-incomes will have the lowest achievements in the world. republicans and democrats work together to pass no child left behind and the individuals for disabilities act. but we have never kept our

promise to fund them properly. and now, starting with hr1 and continuing with this budget, republicans have further cut education, turning their back on our children and our future, economically and jobs. i implore my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to do the right thing and join me by passing this amendment. look at the jobs it has cost your states and what it has cost the children in your district. the number of children in your districts that will lose title won support if the cuts you voted for in hr1 take effect. you can find your own districts in each one of those columns. these slides show the number of poor children in your districts who will lose slots in head start.

it is because of because you voted for. this slide and the next slide will show the cuts and the loss to a head start slots in your district if you go for the cuts. next slide. next slide, please. ok, now i would like to yield 90 seconds to my colleague, ms. moore. >> thank you so much, mr. honda. and thank you for offering this amendment. folks, the research is entered the data has been calculated. the debate is over. first through three is critical for brain development and critical for learning. that is why parents spend so much money box, it takes, and beethoven.

they spend billions of dollars on learning for their preschool- aged children. that is why head start has enjoyed by sombipartisan suppor. we should not cut this program if we expect to have a competitive work force in the future. giving kids and educational opportunity before age 6, before kindergarten, is scientifically important. i yield back. >> thank you. i would like to yield 90 seconds to miss caster. >> it is wrong. colleagues, it is wrong to cut back on the investment in america's students and schools. while the republican budget guards and protects the special- interest tax break to those that have the ability to hire high-

paid lobbyists here in washington, d.c. it is wrong to eliminate education jobs and protect those tax year marks. earmarks.rc we have a greater benefit in america and our families and communities when we invest in our students in school. let's continue to invest in them. it is also important that we restore the republican cuts to a head start. head start works. this is an initiative that has proven successful all across america. it requires parents to be involved and ensures that students get a nutritious meal. they have books in their home from why would you want to cut back on something that has proven to work while saying that it is more important to provide big tax breaks to special interest? this is a very modest investment

in our students that pays great dividends over time. in america's economic fight for global competitiveness, we have to ensure we have an educated work force. the most important thing to do is to focus on those kids in early childhood. because it ensures student achievement in later years. it ensures that we have the work force to compete with anyone else in the world. rather than protect these special-interest tax earmarks and loopholes, i urge you to support the honda amendment and stand on the side of our students, our schools, and our teachers across america. i yield back. >> i yield one minute to my yarmouth., mr. g >> one of the things we know that is one of the major crises in this country is the high school dropout. those that are likely to drop

out of high school are those lacking literacy and early childhood development. this threatens programs like "striving readers" which has proven to be one of the most effective ways to improve literacy in our students. what we do if we keep these students in school, get them through high school, we essentially reduce our long term deficit by billions and billions of dollars. as one estimate, there are 1,002,000 students per year that dropped out of school, costing $319 billion over their lifetimes. by making sure that we sustain the investment we have begun in literacy programs -- if we do

not, nothing we do in this congress will make any difference. >> these are the simple things that we have been talking about. we will not do anything to us late top 1% to pay a nickel more. we're cutting programs that we know, as i stated earlier, for early childhood care, for every $1 we invest, we get a $17 return back to society. for every $1 in headstart, we get $7.90 dollars back. there are many who say, business people, that that is a clear investment. we will not as a millionaire to pay a nickel more. but we will cut these programs that we all know, when we make the investment, we get a $17 return for every dollar we spent. how will we compete with rendered million people in the united states against $1.3

billion in -- 3.9 billion in china if they're not willing to make basic investments in early childhood? it does not make sense. >> let me close with this idea that we will be funding this with the major integrated oil companies money. instead of making the egregious tax year marks and tax deductions for corporates and duties. >> he is recognized for 10 minutes in opposition. >> i heard earlier that our budget is all sugar and no medicine. here comes some medicine. budgets are about choices. we have to make choices. it is time that finally a congress will begin to make choices that really matter for our children. we talk about u.s. students not been globally competitive and i

agree. they have not been globally competitive. yet we're spending more money than any country. if money were the solution, if money really is what matters in all of this, we would be ranked no. 1 or no. 2. yet money is not the solution. holding teachers, schools accountable for performance will help. i will talk about this a little bit as a closely, but i would like to yield a minute of my time to mr. mcclintock. >> i was looking at the distance chart about the horrible condition of our schools and it struck me that our test scores are higher, our academic achievement far greater, and our global competitive far stronger than before the federal government decided to help out in the classroom. i'm starting to wonder if the most important contribution the federal government can do to education is to get its nose out of the questions, but the teachers back in charge of the

students, but the principles back in charge of the teachers, and say to these massive and expensive and oppressive state and federal bureaucracies that have grown up over the classroom that, if you're not actually educating a student or supervising a teacher, maybe you should not be in the public- school system. i yield back. >> i would like to yield four minutes to my colleague from tennessee, ms. black. >> thank you. i want to take a look at the amount of money that we are currently, in this marked up as well as in hr1, with the reductions will be to the 2008 levels. let's turn our attention to how much money we're spending and let's also look at the kind of return on investment we are getting for those dollars. currently, the funding for at least the part that i am talking

about, the elementary and secondary education act, this program spends about $14.5 billion a year making grants to states and local school districts to help close the achievement gap of our children that are disadvantaged. full districts receive funds from this -- receive grants from this fund. that is where the reading and math testing are done through eighth grade and again in high school. we do have statistics to show us how our children are doing. despite this huge increase in these programs, of the overall achievement test stagnated or declined. listen to the results. math and reading scores in high schools are unchanged over the past 40 years while science scores actually saw a slight decline through 1999, the last time this test was administered.

in reading and science, the gap between wealthy and poor students have not narrowed in 40 years. in math, it has only narrowed barely 1%. title 1 has received $10 billion in the stimulus bill, an increase of 2/3 of the program's total funding. and the education jobs bill passed in august provides another $10 billion for school for the use of teachers, including teachers of disadvantaged students. let's also look at, in addition to that, $7.2 billion of the state fiscal stabilization act which was set aside for education state grants. it is still available for states and schools to use in support of their teachers and education programs. i know that the language in this amendment, these dollars are supposed to not only bolster student achievement, but also support tens of thousands of teaching jobs. yet we have money that is sitting and still unspent.

nearly $550 million are still available under the school improvement grants act. the point i'm trying to make here is that is it not sad that all the students that we want to help are in places where they are not progressing? something is not working. it does not matter how much money we're putting their if there is no result. it is unconscionable to continue down the path of just throwing money at something and not getting results. we're putting these children that are at risk and in disadvantaged situations into terrible situations where they will fail in school. i have seen this in my own state. we're not holding accountable those institutions that are receiving the money to be sure that these students are getting the best that they can get. i hope that, as we get ready to look at the reauthorization of

no child left behind, that they will look at some of the islands of excellence that are around this country. and to look at those programs that work and stop the old rhetoric that we just need to spend more money to make this happen. i think it is unconscionable that our children who are at risk in these situations are not getting the best because all we're talking about is dollars. >> with the gentleman yield? >> not right now, ma'am. i recognize mr. akito for 2 minutes. >> i want to make some comments about the headstart program. a 3-year-old asof and a 1-year-old, i agree that that is the best time for brain development and organ development. the last thing i want for our kids, regardless of family

income, is for them to rely on the federal government for their well-being. the fact of the matter is that the federal government is a bad nanny. time after time, the colleagues on the other side of the room stole the virtues of this incompetent, immoral false solution known as the federal government. yes, there are kids who need help and there are many good parents, neighbors, and nonprofits, and, if needed, local governments that can help these kids more efficiently, even more aggressively. we do not need nameless, faceless washington, d.c. bureaucrats and laps around the city with their money to get the job done. also, as a magnet -- as a member of the education committee, i say that. since 1974, we have raised spending on education 188%. as your own information shows, since 1974, we have seen no scholastic improvement. i yield back. >> i said at the beginning that

budgets are about the fiscal choices. education is a hot-button for every single american parent. i have raised two children and i have two grandchildren. it is important to me. it is important that we look at our educational system in this country. we can have an honest dialogue of where we are at. we have to begin at some point to no longer except the status quo. the status quo is not working. at some point, the only way that we can have the medicine for the status quo is to first recognize that we have a problem, that there is a sickness in our system and it does not work. and the idea that modest cuts to one program will jeopardize the entire education system is just not true. what it will do is begin to send a message to those running those programs that they have to fix them. the result of an independent

head start impact study indicates that the benefits of access to head start by age four are absent by first grade. it is worse for the 3-year-olds who go into a program. the study cited that it had negative impact on 3-year-olds. the time to begin to chose the status quo is now. the time to send manages -- to send a message to managers who are mismanaging is now. >> will the gentleman yield? >> we will have a minute at the end. if we did not do better, if you did not do better and you add additional changes until you had some improvement to the program -- we are not advocating no money here. we have been spending $7 billion a year. we're just advocating that no

longer will the status quo be acceptable. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> will the gentleman yield? >> the gentleman gives back this time. who is the author of this amendment? >> i am. >> honda is american, not germany. ok, we're talking about choices. we're talking about change in this country. the feds got involved when there were certain kids and our country believed in equal but not suffer. but the supreme court said it does not work. choices? yes, i am making choices. my children did not need title one and they did not need head start. we're talking about youngsters who do not have parents or do not have the income to be able to afford it.

we are responsible. we make the choices. but when we talk about curriculum, we look at policy makers to determine curriculum and policymakers to not know diddly about curriculum or what goes on in the classroom. yes, let's make choices. those classrooms reflect your students in your districts. make choices are not. >> the question is on agreeing to the amendment provided. all those in favor? all those opposed to? the nos have it./ a roll-call vote is requested. >> mr. garrett. no. mr. simpson. no. mr. campbell. no.

mr. calvert. no. mr. aiken. no. mr. cole. no. mr. price. no. mr. mcclintock. no. mr. chaffitz. no. mr. susman. no. mr. langford. no. ms. black. no. mr. ripple. no. mr. flores. no. mr. mulvaney. no. mr. hulescamp. no.

mr. young. no. mr. amash. no. mr. rokita. no. mr. ginta. no. mr. woodall. no. mr. van holland. aye. ms. schwartz. aye. ms. mccollum? aye. mr. yarmith? aye.

mr. castro -- pascarell? aye. mr. honda? aye. mr. ryan? aye. ms. wasserman schultz? aye. ms. moore? aye. ms. castor? aye. mr. schuler? aye. mr. tonko? aye. ms. bass? aye. chairman ryan? >> no. >> german rhine and -- now. >> any who went to change their mind? 16, no's 22. >> 22-16, the amendment is not

agreed to. any further amendments? >> i have an amendment that the desk. >> the clerk will designate. >> amendment aid by ms. wasserman shultz, stop cuts to research for cures for cancer, strokes, diabetes, heart disease, and other diseases at the national institute for health. >> ms. wasserman schulz's recognized. >> this will prevent harm from cuts -- harmful cuts. they want to find cures for cancer, strokes, heart disease come and other ailments. the republican budget has a devastating cuts that would decimate support. this inviable research saves millions of american lives. it is no coincidence that our country has been at the

forefront of improved health outcomes for chronic diseases. our nation has prioritized stable funding for decades. so many breakthroughs for cancer or other common diseases would not have happened without this support. this is at the core of white fatality from cancer and other diseases have declined. republicans want to derail the conference -- the real the funding to the nih. we agree we need to make the needed cuts, but reckless and shameful custom medical research is absolutely the wrong approach. democrats have pledged to measure all by the yardstick of creating jobs and keeping down the deficit. unfortunately, by blasting the funding for disease research at the nih, the republicans plan fails on all accounts. the republican cut to nih kills jobs. this support more than 350,000

highly skilled jobs in all 50 states plus an additional 800,000 support in jobs. republican budget cuts over 1 million jobs at risk from pharmaceutical to medical device manufacturing, technicians, and labs. this threatens the recovery of local economies across our country. the nih funding support programs of 3000 local universities, medical schools come and research institutions. these communities depend on the jobs and economies that the nih provides. blasting funding has we whether this recovery would be devastating of across america. finally, these cuts to the nih increase the deficit. each dollar of the investment generates for than twice as much in business activity. it's $2.21 return for every single $1 spent. at the same time as the work of nih is revitalizing the economy,

the results of their research is reducing the cost of a chronic disease. for example, important investments could save our budget billions of dollars. an estimated 5.4 million americans have alzheimer's and caring for each of these patients cost an average of $5,000 per month. treatments that delay the onset and progression of this disease by as little as five years could save $50 billion per year in health costs. hygiene's rediscovered as being tied to alzheimer's. but these cuts were in place, would that have been possible? it is not just advancers in alzheimer's treatment. smart investments in prevention and care can drastically reduce the huge cost of caring for terminally ill patients. not only can leave -- can we save this money, but we can make smart investments in our nation's medical and fiscal health. we must make these kinds of investments so we can stem the

tide of future diseases. cancer incidence is projected to nearly double by 2020 particularly among the aging baby boomer population. it has never been more vital that we continue to develop increasing early detection and ultimately cure. treatments developed for nih- funded research for breast, lung, and prostate cancer is reducing trout had mortality and is making strides in the epidemic of cardiovascular disease. we must redouble our efforts to eliminate these afflictions once and for all. as a breast cancer survivor, understand the importance of strong and successful medical research. i'm thankful for the hundreds of thousands of people working tirelessly to and this disease yet for all this progress, we have a long way to go. in your own state of wisconsin, 29,610 people will be diagnosed with cancer. each day, 81 people from wisconsin will hear the words

that rocked my life, "you have cancer." cancer will kill 11,000 residents of your status. thousands of your constituents are working around the clock to be the deadly diseases. wisconsin receives money from the nih and the support of medical research. i ask you, do you want to eliminate these jobs? as one of the 11 million cancer survivors in the united states, i am living proof of the vital gains made by research. we cannot rest on our laurels. to many still suffer the complexities of premature birth. too many children still face a world that has grown accustomed obesity and diabetes. to many women lose hope to disease without a cure. do not turn your back on millions of americans who are desperately holding out hope that treatment is coming to them soon. support amendment 8 to protect these from endangering our country and our lives. i yield 1.5 minutes to the

gentle lady from florida. >> i think my colleague. america is the world's leader in medical research. let us keep it that way. let us continue to invest in medical research, cancer, diabetes, alzheimer's to grow the higher wage jobs and benefits all of our communities across the country. jobs in scientific research at our colleges and universities are benefited greatly by nih grants. biomedical research is the wave of the future. now that we can map the human genome, i am convinced that we will find the cure for cancer. with the very least, we will save a lot of money because we will have more structured and effective treatments. this afternoon, i spoke with the ceo of a cancer center in my

district in tampa, fla., one of the premier cancer research institute in america. he advised me that china and india are going to eat our lunch. why? they are investing more, and more, and more in scientific research. we cannot take a step back now. we have got to continue to fund our public laboratories and our private laboratories. this is something that the government does better than the private sector because we coordinate. we are more efficient. we can guide the appropriate research. we have no more time to address the deficit and we have to act now. i urge my colleagues to do this in the right way. do not vote for jobs in india and china. the firm ms. wasserman shultz amendment 84 jobs here in the usa. >> i yield to the gentleman from

oregon, mr. bloom and our -- mr. blumenaur. >> we are sliding in a direction i do not think any of us want to. one of the legacies of the economic recovery act was significant recovery, but if this were a secret ballot, this would pass overwhelmingly. i hope that we could take comfort in the fact that it is not a secret ballot but something that each and everyone of us should be supporting, should be proud of come and defend to our friends at home, something that will pay dividends for generations. >> to close out our time, i yield the rest of the time to the gentleman from kentucky. >> i think my colleague. first of all, there is a great

deal of human cost here. we know that the human cost of disease is monumental, but let's talk in terms of numbers. we spend over $98 billion per year on treating cancer. we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars for cardiovascular care. these are the things driving our long term health care costs. the way we can solve the long- term health care crisis is to invent our way out of it and to reduce funding for the nih is counterproductive in every way. i urge support for the amendment. >> time expired. does anyone request time in opposition? the gentleman from georgia, mr. price, is recognized. >> i want to thank ms. wasserman shultz to ascension as the head of the dnc.

we are falling for the looking glass again and we do this on every single amendment. devastating cuts, shameful, killing jobs. what if i were to tell the committee that there are no cuts to the nih in this budget? that is right. the decreases are in the budget function 550. any cuts that amount for a specific program will be carried out through the appropriations process which is exactly where the arguments that you made right now belonged, in the appropriations process. i can tell you the his bid -- the importance of funding and research at the nih without a doubt, the cdc, and on and on. if one were to believe the other side, this is what the chart with look-alike with money going down and down for nih.

mr. chairman, this is the chart for the funding for nih going from $11 billion in 1995 to $30 billion in 2010. that does not even count the $10 billion increase from stimulus. $40 billion for nih? if money were to solve all of these things, then we should spend an unlimited amount to. the resources that the nih has in the 2009 gao report cited a "gaps in the extramural funding process the goes so there is a question on whether they can identify where the money is to be spent. even if you believe all of what my friends say on the other side of the aisle, this amendment that was offered says that we would block of cuts to live

saving research and all other illnesses. the problem with that, mr. chairman, is that means we are making the decisions about where research money ought to go? when i speak to the people at the nih, cdc, and as a physician and a clinician, what they tell me is to give us the resources but to let them make the decision about where the money goes. do not decide for them. with this amendment would do would be to preclude the ability of the clinicians and scientists to make a decision about the room -- about the biggest bang for their buck. i think that there are some incredible assumptions being made and remarkable hyperbole, but the fact of the matter is that the funding for nih has gone up over 150% over the last 15 years with significant

increases. i would like to yield to the gentleman from idaho, dr. simpson, for the time that he may consume. >> i think the gentleman for yielding. i pretty much agree with everything my colleagues said about the nih, and let me add my congratulations to ms. wasserman shultz to your new appointment. i wish to moderate success. [laughter] i have spent more time at the nih than anyone else. i look at the 27 institutes and the nih is the best kept secret in washington, d.c., which is a problem. they let -- they need to let the

american people know what they do. i wish we did not have to cut or reduce spending to any program that i like. unfortunately, there's one thing driving this budget resolution more than anything else that we have to address. that is a $1.60 trillion deficit this year and $14 trillion in debt. if we do not have the courage to stand up and address this which means tough cuts and, sometimes programs that i like, there is going to be no funding for nih in future years or any other discretionary funding or any other biomedical research. that is just the reality. we have to stand up and make the tough decisions. as dr. price said, there are no cuts in this budget to the nih. there are no cuts in this budget to the nih. this is not the appropriations

committee. the appropriations committee, once they get the 300 to be allocation -- 302b allocation, labor/hhs will make tehe decisions on appropriations within the labor, health and human services, and education budget. i do not know what that will look like. i hope we can keep it to a minimum, the -- because the nih does great work. are there going to be cuts? i do not know of an agency that will not suffer cuts through this budget reduction because of the fiscal situation we find ourselves in and we ought to be honest with the the american people and let them know that. i give speeches across the country and the two chambers of commerce and so forth just like you do. i ask everybody when i start the speech that how many of them think the $14 trillion debt that

the country faces is a serious threat to our economic future and a national security? every hand goes up. i then ask them how many think at least a portion of the problem is the spending that the federal government does and that we need to reduce spending. again, every hand goes up. by the time we are done, if we do what is right for the future of this country, everyone of you are going to be mad at us. we have to have the courage to cut some things that you're going to like. that is the reality. what i am saying to you is to have the courage to stand up and do what is right. do this appropriation -- or budget and that the preparation committed the get when you have given us and then we will make the tough decisions and will have the floor of the house when we bring down the preparation bills. again, there are no cuts for nih specifically in this budget.

i yield back. >> i am pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from california. >> i just wanted to comment on the irony that they're used to be tremendous investments made by the production sector. drug companies invested in the pharmaceutical research, on and on. why? because there was profit in it. the policies of this government have been to take the profit out of health care. we heard this again today with reference to an earlier amendment. it is underpinned by the notion that all profit is wasted if we can only remove waste of profit to lower costs. they do not seem to understand the profit is not wasting the profit is the incentive that drives efficiency and innovation and research, development, quality, and courtesy to clients. once you remove profit from the equation, you have just demonstrated the difference?

it is not my time to yield. >> i know he will let yield. that is why i asked you. >> i have not finished saying when i came to say. a couple of points out of like to make, and gena. the republican influence doubled nih funding in the 1990's as inclosed by this chart and it has gone up three times since 1995. i would just remind people again that there are a lot of accusations going back and forth across the table. this budget does not say anything about any age. under this budget, funding under the nih could increase. that is a decision the appropriators will make. they will get a bucket of resources, money that they will divide appropriately as the appropriations committee sees the fed to put the resources

committee hard-earned taxpayer money that they send to washington to do the work that needs to be down. no cuts to the nih in this budget. if you think you are voting on cuts to nih or an increase in the nih with this amendment, that is not true. the decisions will be made by the appropriators. 300% increase over 15 years, double the republicans over a five-year period of time when we controlled the house in the 1990 proxy. no specific cuts to the nih in this budget. with that, i urge defeat of the amendment. >> the gentleman yields. the gentle lady from florida gets one minute to close. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the republicans say we are not cutting nih, will function 550 covers not only engage by a lot of other important services, so what are we cutting? state children health insurance

program? center for disease control? there are a variety of important vital services that are in function 550. i was appropriate, mr. simpson, as you know and i remember standing on the house floor a few weeks ago committing to majestic mr. price has committed that the republicans would never cut and i age. taking a look at h.r. 1 a. it has dramatic cuts to nih. i am sorry, but the track record is clear here. republicans are not committed to make sure that you maintain the agreed amount of health insurance funding. you are warning to support special-interest tax breaks which is how we pay to make sure we do not cut nih funding. the proof is in the pudding in black-and-white. i yield back. >> the question is on agreement from the amendment from florida. and in the opinion of the chair, the no's have it.

do you want to recorded vote? it has been requested. the clerk will call the world. >> mr. garrett? no. mr. simpson? no. mr. campbell? no. mr. calvert? no. mr. aiken? no. mr. cole? no. mr. price? no. mr. mechlin talk? -- mcclintock? no. mr. chaffetz? no. tutzman? no. mr. lankford? no. ms. black? no. mr. ribbel?

no. mr. flores? no. mr. mulvaney? no. mr. huelskamp? no. mr. young? no. mr. omash? no. mr. okita? no. mr. ginta? -- guinta? no. mr. woodall? no. mr. van hollen? yes. ms. schwartz? aye. ms. ckaptur? aye. mr. doggett? aye. mr. blumenauer?

aye. ms. mccollum? aye. mr. yarmuth? aye. mr. pascrell? aye. mr. honda? mr. ryan? aye. ms. wasserman scholz? -- schultz? aye. ms. moore? aye. ms. castor? aye. mr. schuler? aye. mr. tonko? aye. ms. bass? aye.

chairman ryan? no. >> does anyone else wish to record a vote? 15, no'st vote, aye's 22. >> 22-15, the amendment is not agreed to. next, an amendment from ms. mccollum. the clerk will designate the amendment. >> lawmakers and announced an amendment to the budget which provided a one extension of federal funding allowing more time for passage of a 2011 federal spending measure. watching the u.s. house of the gavel in at 11:00 p.m. for a pro forma session to begin work. the house begins tuesday to

continue to debate. they will take of the republican proposed a dozen 12 budget later in the week. you can watch live house coverage on c-span. the u.s. senate returns on tuesday at 10:00 a.m. they will begin to consider two judicial nominations. in later this week, voting expended for planned parenthood and repeal the health care law as well as the 2011 spending bill. live coverage of the u.s. senate on c-span2. tomorrow on "washington journal," a discussion on federal spending with reid wilson and maya macguineas. that and look at cyber security with randy sabett live at 7:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. today on "newsmakers," rnc chairman reince priebus.

that is at 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. now, remarks from the irs commissioner and the future of the u.s. tax system. he talks about the possible federal government shut down avoid debate friday night after the announcement of an agreement on a budget. this is about one hour. >> we are the world's leading professional organization for journalists committed to our future through programming events such as this while fostering a free press worldwide. for more information about the national press club, visit our web site at press.org and to donate through the eric free

time national journalism library. you can receive more information at press.org/library. i would like to welcome our speaker. the head table includes guest says was working journalists who are club members. if you hear a clause, we would like to let you know members of the general public is here as well, so it is not from lack of journalistic integrity. i like to welcome c-span and public radio audiences. available for free download don itunes. you can follow the action on twitter using #npclunch. we will have a q&a and i will ask as many questions as time permits. a time to introduce the head table and i ask each of you appear to stand briefly as your name is announced. we begin from your right.

the editor of "to a blender. reporter for "the fiscal times." investment news reporter. washington bureau chief. i will skip the podium for just a moment. newshook media and chair of the speaker committee. press secretary for the natural resources defense council and a committee member who organized today's events. tax policy team leader with a bloomberg news. linda stern, from thompson- reuters. er tax of the kipling

letter. and now you can give your applause. thank you. [applause] as talk of whether the congress and the administration can reach an agreement on how to spend the taxpayers' money, our guest today is in charge of collecting those dollars. in his third year, he is the 47th irs commissioner responsible for collecting $2.40 trillion in tax revenues. with more than 1000 employees and a budget of $12 billion, and they are preparing for the april 18th tax deadline and a few days later because of emancipation and day that falls on april 15th and the rest of the nation falls in line. with belt-tightening already

felts, the ira's budget is also facing cuts. our guest speaker to the house ways and means committee of proposed a $603 million cut and will lead to the collection of $400 billion less in taxes and lower compliance long term. however potential shutdown would affect filing and refund checks remains to be seen. this is a new challenge, like many in washington these days. the gao has reported they have the-- gone over 3% of the filings. private from finra, the

regulator of financial firms. he served in the same role where before it's consolidation with the nyse which resulted in the formatino oon of finra. he has a bachelor's from williams college, a masters of the game from the john f. kennedy school of government. he was a guest at the white house correspondents' dinner. it was a pleasure to visit with him in a more congenial setting when you introduce a the irs commissioner to them. queen latifah bowed to him. [laughter]

rachel ray said, and i quote, "i'll cook for you anytime." he commands a lot of respect. give a warm national press club welcome. [applause] >> i had forgotten about that. thank you for the gracious welcome. thank you for inviting me back to the national press club. a few weeks back, i celebrated my third year, the anniversary of my third year of being in the irs commissioner. milestones like that are a good time to reflect, think about what you have gotten done, what you have accomplished, what you have learned, and what lies ahead. it has been an interesting journey so far.

some things i expected, others i did not expect. one of the most pleasant surprises, and you might be wondering that there are pleasant surprises when you are the irs commissioner, and one surprise was that this large organization is so agile and responsive. the irs turned on a dime multiple times during the worst recession in our generation. when we were called upon to help millions of distressed americans get money, down money, and make it through some tough economic times, we sent out hundreds of billions of dollars on short notice to help jump- start the economy. we played a major part in the recovery, which i and my team are quite proud of. we accomplished a bunch of other

things in the last three years. we have improved service to taxpayers. we have inundated in technology and on the web. we have cracked down on offshore tax abuse. we have launched a major initiative with the return his community to make sure that we boost compliance and service to the american taxpayers. i am certainly learned a great deal. that is a process that will never stop in this position. i have learned about the inner workings of the tax system. what we expect of tax payers and, more importantly, what taxpayers expect of us. this strikes me as a good moment to open the aperture and reflect about what the tax system could look like in the future. i want to look out on the

horizon of the system and let me quote hall allen, the microsoft co-founder who once observed, "i tried to anticipate what is coming over the horizon, to hasten its arrival, and to apply it to people's lives in meaningful ways." that is basically what i would like to do today. look at the horizon, see how we could make a meaningful difference in both our tax system and in the tax payers lives, and to begin a dialogue with our staff, the practitioner community, and other people affected and part of the tax system about how we can secure lasting change. ever since i have been commissioner, one of my priorities, and one of my core leadership principles, has been about continuous improvement. i am a big believer that institutions, if they are standing still and accepting the

status quo are falling behind. in the world behind us is always moving forward and moving in what quicker than in the past. we should reform the best we can today, but we need to embrace change and perform even better in the future. when you talk about the future and have a vision of the future, that does not mean you need to be futuristic like in a science- fiction novel. we can challenge ourselves individually and collectively to seem how far we can go and how far we can push the system to make a real impact on taxpayers. president kennedy once said, "i am an idealist without illusions. with a bit of irony, of what i want to pause at today -- posit today is that for the irs to

move a forward, we need to examine what has been woven into the dna of the tax system since its inception in 1862. that is looking back at the core business model. a cigna didn't amount of resources are devoted to helping taxpayers understand the law and providing taxpayer service, the compliance side of the irs operation is largely predicated on looking back on. a taxpayer prepares his or her returns, files it with us, we process it, and we issue a refund if the taxpayer is owed one or redeposit -- we deposit money if it is owed. for the irs, the complaints were to begin is now.

we held to identify returns that are most likely to show compliance problems. although i sometimes hear people talk about the audit lottery, the process is far from random. the irs uses cumulative knowledge data to model and a target activity that has the highest probability of tax avoidance. was to identify a taxpayer where the probability may occur, -- once we identify, with follow-up to veteran disdain the issue, request documentation -- to better ascertain the issue, requested documentation. the look that is the model of most major tax systems and how the major economies do have some flaws. the biggest deficiency in this

is that it does not deal with taxpayer problems up front. an irs audit often appears years after. by law, we have three years to audit an individual return, more time if there is a 25% ommission or fraud involved. as i speak now, we interact with tax payers at the time i became irs commissioner. this after the fact compliance approach can create problems and frustration for both taxpayers and as at the irs. it can be a real dilemma for taxpayers who may no longer have the money that was refunded to them, but as it turns out they were not entitled to that

refund. there is also possible sticker shock. interest and penalties can accrue during the time it takes us to get to them. it may had been accruing for up to three years. they often ask why they were not notified it sooner. this hurts the image of the irs and contributes to the "gotcha" perception of the tax system. we all know is much easier and much cheaper to resolve problems up front and not let the investor. i spent time with my employees and a senior staff. when we identify a problem, it is human nature to put it off, but we try to address it right away. festering problems did not become better oliver time. that is why consumers get a call from a credit-card company as soon as you miss it came in. you do not get into debt over a

multiple years, at least not inadvertently. taxpayers can rightly wonder with us why they cannot receive the same time the response from the irs and not get stuck down the road with interest and penalties. i have spent a lot of time thinking about this and the whole concept that our tax system is run after the fact and could we move it forward. we have been accelerating our program to flag issues up front and avoid the the back problem altogether. we have increased our compliance activities that happened in front before we finish processing a return. most of that increase, since i have been here, has been around the unit that analyzes tax returns and that claimed a substantial tax refund. and our system cists through millions of returns and literally billions of the data

points to identify a question overturns and to flag them -- identify questionable returns. we also consoled other data bases to spot inconsistencies. as a result of these efforts, we're actually block of billions of dollars in returns that could be going out the door fraudulently and verify the accuracy of those returns. in some cases, the taxpayer simply forgot to attach the required documentation. in that instance, once the intermission is given to was, we released the return, we get the refund out to them. in some cases, they are fraudulent organized by rings of tax cheaters. our success rate in finding and locking these schemes is a very

high and only getting better as we improve our capabilities to stay ahead. as we think about the future in ways that we can more aggressively move to resolve the issues upfront, at the time of filing, and there are a number of complicated issues that arise. many of them involved information returns that the irs receives every filing season. you probably know these returns by their form number. the most ubiquitous are the w-2 and the 1099. to give you some perspective, 40 years ago greece -- we received a 360 million information return documents. today, this filing season, we will receive two billion information returns. think about a typical taxpayer who works in an office or a

store and owns his or her own home. he or she has been -- has teh w- 2, a form for interest in the mortgage, interest dividend from a credit union or bank, or other securities. there may even be a k-1. the average taxpayer today receives 10-15. you use them when you are putting your tax return together. of course, the information returns foster voluntary compliance since they are filed with the irs and people know that. it is often overlooked what a real time saver these can be for taxpayers. indeed, the standardized formatting for information returns and the data that people received and transcribe makes it possible for today's robust tax

software industry to work. that me give you a look behind the curtain of the irs to see with this looks like for us. first, in many cases, we receive the information returned after a taxpayer files their return. we then go through a lengthy process of collating and matching all the documents we get with taxpayer returns. this can be further complicated if it is a joint return where we have to marry the separate information returns on to the one jointly filed return. while these information returns have made the tax system a lot more efficient than in the past, i also believe that they are the source of the next generation of innovation. that is what i want to elaborate on today. a new structure, or a potential

new structure for tax administration, one that i think is brimming with opportunity and would be a fundamental shift in the way that we run the tax assessment system. in essence, i believe that taxpayers, third parties in the tax system, and the government would be better served if we tried to move as many of our processes forward as we could and reduced the need for after the fact looking back interactions as a basic mode of operation for the agency. division is relatively straightforward. the irs and would get all information returns from third parties like the w-2 and 1099 before filing returns. the tax payer, or their professional preparer, could access the information from the irs via the internet and

download it into their return using commercial tax software. taxpayers would add into the information down loaded any self reported and supplemental information to their return and they would file with us. we would then take the information sent to us before that information never came in, and we would embeded that information into the court pre- screening filters. we would immediately reject any return that did not match up with our records. that is right. we would reject the return and ask you to fix it before we process a. we then have more accurate returns and deal with many more problems of fraud. we could shift resources and shift more money trying to get it right in the first instance and do less back and auditing.

let me say that vision is much easier articulated then executed. it could not be pulled off overnight. in order to execute, there would need to be some fundamental changes both to our operations and to private sector processes. let me speak for a minute about what would have to change as a prerequisite to moving the tax system in this direction. first, it would take a major reworking of our core technology systems. i will tell you that we could not have even thought about this, and i would never have articulated a vision like this come a few years back before we were on a solid path to complete our core customer account database. over the past few years, we have been working to get all of our individual taxpayer accounts into a modern database that

process is on a daily rather than a weekly or biweekly cycle. this new database when complete will allow taxpayers to received faster refunds and eliminate some of the structural technology problems that could lead to timing problems with the notices sent to taxpayers. even once we get this database dawn, we would have a lot of work to do in the technology arena. we would need to load and be ready to run matches with all of the w-2 data that we receive from the social security and administration months sooner than it now. we would also have to load all 1099 data before the return is filed. then we would need to be able to match, in real time, the 1099 and other documents with returns being filed.

again, much easier said than done given both the budget constraints that we face and the real production issues that we faced during the peak filing season, between january and april. performing in major technology enhancements to the system of the u.s. government that processes all of the tax receipts and about $2.50 trillion to the system every year is a very complex endeavor. to be blunt, it is not a cheapened ever. we are making investments in our technology now, a technology infrastructure that should set the stage for us to be able to think about these major kinds of shifts in the future. in all honesty, there is an under investment in a lean irs technology for the past 20 years. which has left us in a very deep

hole. starting with the 2011 budget proposal, this trend has been reversed. i also say given the current budget debate in congress, we if weoing to have to dsee get the resources we need to build the basic technology infrastructure to position us for the future. in order to execute the more real time tax system that i have laid out before, we would also need to push to get information returns like 1099 in the system earlier. this require a change of behavior in the private sector part as well. our partners, whether they are payroll processors or practitioners, would need to work with us to make sure that the dates we have worked on actually work for the american people. the date like february 28th, the

due date for 1099 returns are built into the operations in the tax community. if we want to move to an up front, real-time tax system, a traditional time lines would need to be on the table for discussion. division i am articulating is a potential win-win for honest taxpayers and the government. it would streamline the tax return process for the vast majority of americans who play by the rules and just want to get a ride. and also minimizes interactions with the irs, which is what most taxpayers want. as i described earlier, this would not only change the face of taxpayer service but also compliance. unlike today's look back model,

we would do 180 degree turn animist basic compliance activities would be done up front. we would reject a return right away and the problem was detected. that me give you a simple illustration of their real-world example we face on a regular basis that the irs. and taxpayer mistakenly enters into thousand dollars in dividends -- enters in $2,000 in dividents. our 1099's show them to be $3,500. because of the mismatch, we follow up with the taxpayer well after the taxpayer has filed to address the and reported income. -- the unreported income. a taxpayer would begin the filing process with access to

all of the information that has been reported to the irs. any discrepancies that the taxpayers seas between the information reported to the irs and their own records could be resolved before filing the tax returns. when the records are fresh and also when these transactions and the activities the taxpayer had are fresh in the taxpayer's mind. the taxpayer with to get it right the first time with no risk of getting a letter from us later about the mismatch and with no risk of interest or penalties on the delta. to better use this information and data has been been a priority of mine. the payoff is a huge. taxpayers avoid the hassle factor in the back and audit is much more focused on issues that require real follow-up.

we would see significant gains in both service and compliance that actually have the potential to save billions of dollars across the public and private sectors in reduced administrative burden. some people, including me, ask the question, if we let taxpayer know what we know, would there be lower compliance rates? there are two answers to that question. first, of course there will still needed to be after the fact auditing and other types of after the fact compliance activities to make sure that we maintain overall lack bills -- overall levels of compliance. we could do more work of front, less auditing at the back and come and we will still have a compliance boost.

an organization and comprised of tax commissioners from around the globe, many countries now actually make information that they have available to taxpayers and none have reported a drop in compliance. where do we go from here? first of all, at this early juncture, i do not see this as a plan or a blueprint with proposed structures, time lines, and deliverables. what i am offering is a vision for a journey that is firmly grounded in reality of but brimming with potential. i cannot tell you when this will happen. i do not think will happen overnight. it is certainly not too soon to start a dialogue on the vision and engage the business community in that dialogue. it is certainly not too soon to start scoping out the technology

were that we would need to do to make this next big lead, a generational leap in how the tax system fundamentally works. this is all about working smarter. in the case of the irs, it means involving to keep pace with change, constantly looking ahead, and trying to be more innovative and managing have -- imaginative with the resources spent on the tax system. we are now of the point where we can lift our heads above the fray and begin a dialogue about the shift in the tax structure. as the new account engine goes on line, we have the key foundation for this. as our efile rate goes up, last year we crossed the 70%

threshold, we now have data coming to us in a digital format. that is a prerequisite to quicker populating of systems and moving toward real time. modern technology can move much quicker than before. it can process exponentially more information than it could just a generation ago. both our internal and an external factors make the time right for big and long-term thinking about the way we do business. let me wrap up by saying that this is not a plan, but it is not a drain either. what i have described today, a vision for a more real time tax system for the nation, israel and durable. it is something we are going to discuss with affected stakeholders and our internal team.

my goal is to keep pushing the agency to imagine the future and make the tax system work better for the american people. let me leave you with some final words that franklin delano roosevelt wrote shortly before his passing in april of 1945 for a speech that he never delivered. he wrote, "the only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our delts of today." thank you for listening. -- the only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be doubts of today. " thank you for listening. [applause] i think we will get to the content of the speech before we get more questions of the way. i think on everyone's minds today is the risk of an imminent

government shutdown. it could not have caught the virus at a worse time. -- it could not have caught the irs at a worse time. let's do a few minutes about the nuances of that. i imagine this is something you have been working on up until leaving your office this morning. many people have either already filed or are in the process of working up to the deadline. they may be waiting on a tax refund. what can people expect right now? >> it is a good time to step out of the daily forray of operations. it brings us right back down to the daily fray. the president has made it clear

his goal is not to have a shot down. a shutdown would not be good for the american people. i know the budget negotiators are working hard to avoid a shutdown. april 8 is not a great day for the potential of that. we have been doing some contingency planning around this. the most important thing for me to communicate is that the american people should file their taxes. the deadline is april 18 this year. people should file. they are required to file by april 18. we will not have the full complement of operations. if the government were to shut down, the irs will be accepting tax returns. the due date will remain april 18. i want to encourage people to

file electronically. in the event of a shutdown, people really should file electronically. most of these returns are processed automatically and will not experience any delays. however, taxpayers who file paper returns will experience some delays if we end up in a government shutdown. the goal of everybody is not to have the shutdown. these are all contingency plans. >> the processing continues. there is a delay in the processing of refunds, is that correct? >> electronic returns, people should expect to see no change in processing. it is an automated system. unless the return is flag for some reason, people will expect to seek refunds quickly. paper returns, there probably

will be a delay in refunds. >> i apologize for having to go real time. we have journalists who have stories to write. i am the president. i have to represent them a bit. will any chief counsel work on pending regulations continue in the event of a government shutdown? what regulations might be the focus? >> i think the most important thing for me to communicate to everyone is to file your tax returns. [laughter] we are going to be accepting returns electronically filed. you will not see any delay. we have 100,000 employees. not all of them will be coming to work. we will have a compliment here.

the nuances of who will be doing what, i am not ready to get into. the important thing to know is we will be expecting tax returns and people should file. >> do you think it adversely affects the the job you want to do on an ongoing basis with compliance? >> i will not speculate on the future. i am hopeful that negotiators work something out in the next few days and we do not have a shut down. we are involved in the running of the government not in the policy-making of government. we run a huge financial services operation that has 140 million individual clients. it has tens of millions of non- profit businesses we interact with every day. we have $12 billion budget.

funding the government two weeks of the time is not a great way to operate. we need to plan for hiring, attrition, travel, training, systems. not knowing what kind of resources we have is not helpful. the president has articulated clearly it would not be good for the american people to have a shut down and have this kind of disruption. >> you touched on something i thought we might get to anyway. at the end of the day, are you essentially agnostic to tax policy? is it all about enforcement and customer service? we will get a lot of questions about this or that kind of tax that we might get to later. if there were a flat tax and it

was your job to a minister that, would you say that is our job and what we have to do? >> congress writes the laws. our job is to take the laws and make sure they did administered in a fair way for the american people. i am very focused on running fair, balanced programs. the vast majority of americans have experiences with us where the file returns, the refund directly deposited, or they get a check and that is the last they see of us. the unique perspective we have that the irs is because we interact with the american people every day, we can see where parts of the tax law treats them up, were honest mistakes are made, where there are grey areas in the law. our job is to administer along

on the books in a balanced and fair way. i consider the agency and non- political agency. we try to stay out of the fray of what policy will be. we try to make it as easy as possible for the american people to interact with the tax codes. >> let's use the hypothetical that there were a flat tax, would that require less resources to process returns? your agency could theoretically be at risk. we go to the goal of greater compliance of the same time? -- would it go to the goal of greater compliance at the same time? >> congress gets to decide what resources we give. my job is to tell you the consequences if we do not get

the resources. if we're given a smaller job, i would not advocate for a bigger budget. my job is to serve the american people and the public service. we have a staff appropriate for the size of the task at hand. if the task changes, we would change that. i would not be concerned if our budget got cut if our talks was -- tax was shrunk. we see a lot of taxpayers who get caught up in the nuances of the taxol and the changes. they get caught up in the complexity of the tax law. we'd spend a lot of time trying to help congress and the administration find places to simplify the code to make the experience better for the american people. >> do you really expect the tax

code to become simplified at some point? >> one of my favorite statistics is that the tax code is four times as long as "war and peace" and only getting longer. every year, i have someone count of how many tax law changes there are. it is hard to count because it depends on if you change a word or more. there have been about 3500 changes to the tax code. i do not have a crystal ball. but we have been going in the wrong direction of simplification. the president talked about this.

the treasury secretary has been spending time on this. everybody would like to see a simpler tax code. it is complicated. there are lots of stakeholders. there is real money at stake. >> we did not have a round of applause in the audience. i would like to move on to other topics. here is a question from the audience. are we going to witness a broad inquiry regarding tax evasion? the u.s. ambassador to switzerland told the swiss media that was his understanding. is this anything you are aware of? >> i am prohibited by law to talk about any specific taxpayer. as commissioner, is a good idea for me to abide by the law. i will not comment on any

particular taxpayer. since i have shown a but the irs, i have made cracking down on offshore tax abuse a priority of mine and the agency's. when president obama and secretary geithner came in, they focused a lot on the issue. the president did this more resources to pursue international tax evasion. the secretary has put this on the agenda of the g-20 meetings and has made it a focus to get more cooperation. we have come a long way. we had a major case against ubs. it is in the public record. it brought in an unprecedented 4000 names that switzerland sent to us. is the first time switzerland has broken bank secrecy and cent real names to any government.

we created a voluntary disclosure program. we told people we're getting better at finding you. we're putting more resources against it. come in voluntarily. pay your taxes. pay a stiff penalty but avoid going to jail. we thought 2000 people may come forward. we had 18,000 and counting in the door. we have another voluntary disclosure program coming now. over 20,000 names have come in. we have a few into advisers, banks, and accounts. we are using the data to pursue the next wave. this is a multi-year effort. it is not going to stop. we do have other banks, individuals, and promoters in our sights. there are active investigations. we want to make sure people keep coming in.

the opening goal is to deter the behavior from happening and shift its own people do not even think about parking assets overseas and not paying taxes because the risk of getting caught is so great. >> there does seem to be some concern exposure. it does involve a long nation. does the irs have cooperation with chinese authorities to get assets back into the u.s. system? i and stand there are more complicated issues involved as well. >> i am chairman of the forum on tax the administration. it is the main body that organizes the tax commissioners. we have gotten more cooperation and information exchanged with other governments.

we have a washington and london office. we have staff to look at schemes, scans, and flows of information using the appropriate documents. i think sometimes countries and up in tax competition. either they get the money or we get the money. we have treaties to make sure there is not double taxation. when it comes to citizens parking assets overseas and basically committing crimes, i think there is a commonality of interest. there has been a lot more information flow in recent years. i anticipate this will continue. >> i did see a release on your website about this the other day. i am not sure this question is on the mark.

why has the virus not been more forthcoming in the delay of processing first-time buyer credit refunds? some delays could be happening in some circumstances? >> let me give a little information for people who do not check out our website that often. congress passed three different first-time home buyer credits. the first was a loan using the tax system. you got $7,500. you had to pay it back $500 a year over 15 years. the next two or actual credits. -- were actual credits. these were passed of a time when the track on the housing market was a major factor contributing

to the economic downturn. we put $27 billion of tax credits out to help people buy homes. that was a major factor in helping to stabilize the housing market. it has not come as long as people with light, but it has stopped falling off the cliff. we have played a big part of the economic recovery. that is an important piece of it. as creative as it may have been for congress to make it alone so it will not cost us money in the long run, it presented us with unique challenges. our system and the way we think is that you owe taxes. you pay it to the government and we put it in the treasury. we are not a loan operation.

here was a unique change that have different processing where we had to set it up like a loan operation. i would encourage congress not to do that in the future. that is not how we are structured. we have a lot on our plate. when we set of something new, there will be kinks in the system. we had an issue with married filing joint who often got the loan or first-time homebuyer credit when they were single. we had a problem matching it in our systems. we delayed some refunds. we were made aware of it recently. we fixed the problem. in the next week or so, all of the refunds are coming out. >> it is a great website. i love the youtube channel. you have that. [laughter] we had a report about the

significant data breach involving a number of retailers and banks. it seems to be significant. we do not know that there was any money stolen yet. it would seem like the federal government and irs would be the holy grail of a hack attack. what do you have in place to avoid something like that? >> great question. taxpayers and individuals in the u.s. are asked to send some of their most sensitive information to us. how much money you make, your investments, etc. we take day that security very seriously -- we take the data security very seriously. i told my staff that a major data breach was something we did not have any desire to have. i want to identify all potential

issues and put it first and foremost on our agenda. we attack it from all perspectives. we have a cyber security unit always monitoring the web. they are stopping the fishing sites. they're blocking what is happening. we coordinate with other parts of the government that have critical infrastructure so that we've block things. we have stringent policies and laws to track internal threats. we have 100,000 employees. they are great employees, but we need to make sure none of the preachers would ever come inside. we have no tolerance for anyone accessing the database that they do not have access to. i make sure and will not approve a technology that does not have appropriate data security. we have not had a major breach.

we take it very seriously. it is very complicated. we are very much on top of this. it does have attention from the agency all the way to the top. i have spent personal time on this. >> i want to alert you to a big anniversary coming up. july 1, 2012. you probably know about it. it will be the 150th anniversary of the revenue act in which the office of the internal revenue was established. is there going to be a big party? what is planned to mark the event? >> we take very seriously the mandates that tighten our belts. we make sure every dollar is spent wisely. there will be no party. [laughter] >> you are nearing the end of your term. would it be a pleasure to serve another term as irs

commissioner? >> i tell everyone this is an incredible opportunity. it is an incredible institution. it is an honor to serve the american people doing this. rather than answer you, it is the president's call. the first conversation if by and asked -- the first conversation, if i amounts to about it, will be with my first wife who i intend to keep as my first wife. any discussion will have been there first regarding a second term. >> we have a couple basic housekeeping matters to take care of. i like to remind the audience about upcoming speakers on april 19. i think this will be a fun one. ted turner and t. boone pickens will talk about the energy situation. we might even get a question in

to mr. turner about how he thinks cnn is fairing. the former marine corps commandant and supreme commander of nato will be our guest later. later in the month, the president of the afl-cio will be here on issues facing organized labor. we have a couple of housekeeping issues to take care. i would like yoto present you wh our traditional coffee mug. it is below $25. i had understand you do not have to report it in terms of an ethics violation. typically that would be the end of our presentation. because of a special situation with tax season, we do not know what our elected leaders will do with the budget situation. we have some special national press club aspirin i would like to present to you as well. [applause]

it is a new market for us. we are very excited about it. to the best of your knowledge, has an irs commissioner ever been audited? >> as you become the almostioner of the ira's, every competent tax lawyer and professional in the government takes a very close look the returns to make sure you do not embarrass the president and treasury secretary. i do not know about audited, but you get a lot of people in the government looking at your tax returns. been there and done that. >> how about a round of applause for our speaker today. [applause] thank you all for coming today. i would like to thank the national press club staff including our library and broadcast center for organizing today's event. you can find more information

about the national press club on our website. you can get a copy of today's program at the website. thank you. and we are concerned. -- we are concerned -- adjourned.

>> today the gop chairmen at 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c- span. from today's "washington journal." this is about 30 minutes. day roundtable with joseph schatz, from "cq." lynn sweet, of the "chicago sun times."

we want to welcome both of you. we want to begin with the budget debate that started this week. who came out ahead? who came out behind? guest: john bowler and president obama can both claim success. just a few months ago president obama was talking about increasing spending. the republicans did not get everything that they wanted on the so-called policy writers that they were asking for, but they did get the spending cut totals that they were working towards. harry reid in the senate was able to stand firm on core issues for democrats. not allow republicans to cut off funding for family-planning clinics, environmental regulations, things like that.

president obama was able to say that we are not shutting down the government. it was pretty unpredictable, what would happen. what the fallout would be from shut down. looking at public opinion polls, the blame might have been spread pretty evenly. host: by all accounts, this was the warm-up act? guest: absolutely. the real battle is coming from the paul ryan fiscal 2012 budget. republicans were very successful in this round because they put social issues on the table and now they have these democratic interest groups that have to play defense. they forced the democrats to make deeper spending cuts than they intended. whether it or not we look at the top end s to comes out looking like a leader, ok, but that will last very long because we of

come right into the budget debate. it is important to understand that the discussion that was just under way in washington, this entire shut down issue, which over the six months remaining, that is all that it was. a warm-up act to another flight that is starting now, it actually started last week with the fiscal 2012 budget. this was just a dress rehearsal. host: you have been talking with key committee members. in essence, to summarize what of your pieces, this was the harry reid, barack obama, john boehner show. guest: indeed. a test run for the coming debate over the fiscal 2012 budget. ultimately congress needs to vote to increase the debt limit.

having that relationship work is the key. host: people like hal rogers, what is his role? guest: his role is to carry out what he is told by boehner. he is in charge of the minutia of what goes on in that budget for the rest of the year. but it will be moving in a very high level. host: the relationship between the speaker and congressman eric cantor, how would you describe it? guest: you have a situation where boehner is more of an older, more mainstream member and then you have there a cantor, taking a look at his power. boehner has been able to keep

the caucus behind him so far, but there's always the possibility of a challenge. eric cantor was top -- telling him about conservative lines. i think you see boehner coming out pretty well right now. host: the letter going out to congress, raising the debt ceiling, jimmy diamond saying that his company was already working on a contingency plan. guest: i saw that. it is prudent. that is what bankers do to make sure they do not get into trouble. the banks do what they do. at the same time, the debt limit will be another fight. each fight, each chapter that is developing in the budget seems to be a dramatic showdown.

i think we have five weeks left before we hit the u.s. that limit. something has to happen. it is not as if the democrats want more debt. but if you have a certain amount of revenue and spending, that is where we're heading. the issue for republicans is that the discussion comes on when some have elected to have firm commitments not to do that. it will be hard to see what a compromise could be. host: two secretaries of state, jim baker and henry kissinger, the piece from "the washington post" this morning, spelling out the details about whether de u.s. should get involved or not.

host: this comes at the same time we are dealing with budget cuts. guest: this is exactly what the president said in his address on libya the other night. about how the u.s. has to take this country by country. the issue coming just as the president announced a reelection campaign last week. the president was elected on the backs of democrats, attracted to him because of his opposition to the iraq war, he now finds himself the overseer of the war in libya.

the vote -- the word, war, something that the obama white house is very hesitant to use. host: we spoke to a woman this morning to said that she would not be voting for him again in 2012, that he did not live up to his goals. guest: we will see that as a story line developing. the obama campaign recognizes that people were putting their own aspirations and hopes on him, even though it was stuff that he never talked about. you will see it with people that still vote for him but without the excitement that they had in 2008. people that were just so enthusiastic about him. they are not about to vote republican, but the goal of the

campaign is to try to recapture that energy. guest: you are seeing that on capitol hill as folks tried to figure out how much sway the president has. particularly in these budget negotiations. there is a sense that he stepped into the fight late. a lot of folks were not clear where his bottom-line priorities for on the spending side. guest: i think that is part of negotiations. you never get things done until the last minute and to show your hand earlier would have messed up the deal. host: as usual, please join us in the conversation. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for democrats, 202-737-0002. for independents, 202-628-0205. you can send us an e-mail, journal@c-span.org, or join the conversation on line, twitter.com/c-spanwj.

walk us through this week on capitol hill. the government running through the end of the week, the house budget committee taking the agenda to the floor. guest: lawmakers will be writing the broader deal that will be getting us through the end of the year, coming to the house and senate floor on tuesday, wednesday, thursday fraught -- time frame. then the house will vote on the budget plan that you mentioned before. a budget plan that would set up a blueprint, which is out how ryan and the republicans would like to see it go this year. including not only budget cuts in discretionary spending, but also a framework for major spending changes and medicaid.

but we have been talking about up until now has been the unfinished business of the last year. host: the president made a surprise visit to the lincoln memorial. is this the picture that the white house wanted? guest: absolutely. the family was supposed to go to colonial williamsburg this weekend. the trip was called off because of the last minute budget negotiations. a brief visit, it got the job done. it gave us some great video that everyone is playing. the ability of the president to commend the bully pulpit is always there, but if you want an example of how woodworks, looked at yesterday. host: what is on the agenda? guest: for obama? he kicks off his campaign fundraising in chicago on april

14. depending on your pocketbook he has a series of events. anything between $100.30 $5,000 to go see him, based on your means and appetite for it. this last week, obama opened up his campaign to filing with the sec. the papers that you need to collect money. they will start collecting it. in joint fund-raising with the democratic national committee. after chicago on the 20th and 21st, he goes to los angeles and san francisco. the need for money is the first priority of the obama 2012 campaign. his campaign is running in a skeleton form in chicago. this will be his first visit back to the city since his

headquarters has been established. host: you mentioned this week, the press secretary of the campaign. guest: well known to reporters that cover washington. perhaps very well known to reporters in chicago, he was the mayoral secretary for rohm emmanuel. rohm emmanuel will be among -- inaugurated in the middle of may. soon, ben will transition into the obama, 2012 campaign. amy hogan, known to everyone covering the campaign and white house, is also going to the campaign. host: on to your phone calls, jeanne, tulsa, okla.. thank you for your calls, good morning. caller: good morning. in a child of the depression.

i wanted to make some small contribution to my country. i want to challenge other seniors to do the same that can afford to. giveback half of my social security that i get every month. also, to pay for my doctor's visits and to help medicare. also, i challenge others to think about what they can do that is very small. i love my country. i would be willing to pay on my capital gains. the same rate as someone that risk their life for this country in coal mines, being a police man, being a fireman.

i would also like to know if anyone has compared the paul ryan proposition with [unintelligible] host: thank you for the call. the president referred to the president's budget by senator simpson and erskine bowles. which the president has not completely embraced. guest: the main difference that you see between those plans is that the debt commission basically puts everything on the table. they talk about the budget tax code on the table. eliminating so-called tax expenditures and cutting defense spending on the table. mr. ryan's plan would get into discretionary spending and does not get into the tax overhaul in a big way.

the main criticism from democrats and other critics. that it deals with only half of the problem. as mentioned, it could more of everything on the table. host: this story this morning, the finding being liberal in the years of debt. guest: i think that he is -- i disagree, respectively,hihihihin pressed to find anything. i think that president obama has defined himself in his own politics outside of the context of the different movements within the democratic family. one of the reasons that

president obama, even as a senator, was successful, is that he never tried to fashion himself as the liberal or the progressive. i do not see how it helps them to be seen as progressive -- as the leader of one movement within the democratic family. host: peter, good morning. go ahead. caller: with every discussion that i watch, and i watch a lot of them, i have heard people bringing it up but no one ever answers it. the gentleman that called earlier from tennessee said that we need to talk to each other. obviously, he is a man of wealth. i am 60. not retired yet. my wife is retired. we do ok. simply because we have some benefits.

but many people, the majority of people, do not. i do not see how everyone can ignore the fact that under president bush there were so many loopholes and tax breaks, giving to the wealthy people, the rich. the corporations that have the luxury of doing business in the united states but have moved out of the united states to avoid paying their fair share taxes. until people address that, how can they even suggest taking more money from the middle class? taking away programs that benefit people? i do not understand that. can someone make sense of that to me? host: thank you for the call. to further illustrate your comment, jeff says -- host: how would you respond to

those points? guest: you are seeing the president play a fine line in terms of how he deals with congress. when it comes to dealing with congress and being a liberal champion, he is trying to look at it as though he is staying above the fray right now. positioning himself, going into the re-election. on the tax point, there have been a lot of calls from democrats to put taxes on the table. so far in these budget discussions, it has been a non starter with republicans. the president has not pushed that tax issue very far. host: another viewer says that her main issue with president obama is that he is just like president bush. host: let's go back to frank barnes and the great debate.

he says that paul ryan would add incentive for individuals to create a more dynamic country. is that what this debate is all about guest: the debate over the future is there. that is why obama has a slogan, winning the future. again, i think it is an unfair comparison for how you phrase the issue. both are well-intentioned about trying to help the economy. you have different visions and it is not the way that michael barnes but it. the way that -- the question of government spending is at the core of what makes government work. people have to realize that no president can make it work solely on their own power. president obama, even when he

had the democratic run house and senate could not even get a budget passed. that is why we were at the brink of midnight, showing how difficult is to get, but even a majority, but a consensus in this town. host: some calling it a goldilocks budget. not too hot, not too cold. if you want to read it in advance of her appearance on c- span, it is in open "the washington post" today. dan, good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to say that the budget is out of control. i am a 22-year-old iraqi veteran. i went there and had one future. i came back and my son has completely not as much opportunity that i had.

it is ridiculous. the entire idea of america blaming the rich. i am 23. i make less than $20,000 each year. one day i would like to be the next billionaire, a millionaire, the next opportunist. that is the idea of america of. the idea is to blame the rich is ridiculous. corporations overseas, cheating, what not, get that in line. but this idea is ridiculous. why not try to be the next millionaire? what do something for this country? like jfk, as not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. guest: it is a fairly common feeling.

the idea that upper-income folks pay the majority of taxes, but folks want to believe that they could be next. so, tax increases, they do not favor that. it is always easier for congress to pass tax cuts. last year when the bush tax cuts were about to expire, president obama and congress came to eight years -- came to a deal to extend everything for two years. it is one of the reasons that tax increases have not gone on the table in a real way. host: from nick christopher this morning, "our caught -- our cowardly congress."

host: bid was not the height of -- guest: it was not the height of responsibility. but there were uncertainty plans for federal workers this week. lots of energy in planning for an orderly shutdown. but the way that the system is set up, it works towards having this showdown with deadlines. it is not the most appealing part of the system, but part of it is to let the voices of the representatives and power groups within parties be heard. that is what you saw. one of the reasons, in the end the two had three principles negotiating, as each hour when but and the need for a deal was there, the realization came in the final week that she cannot do this as a committee.

host: david, hudgins, kan., independent line, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am 60. my wife is 49. i am worried that they are coming to collect for what she will never see. what are they going to do when this ryan gets ahold of medicare and social security? whether the people on that now supposed to do? curl up in the corner and die? guest: he does have an exemption that will exempt everyone over 65. host: are you with us? i think the hon up. guest: i hope that gave him some comfort.

one of the reasons that provision was put out there by paul ryan is that he knows there are a lot of people like the caller who are dependent on this money, who planned their retirements based on the promise that this kind of money would be there. seniors often vote more consistently in elections. paul ryan knew that to the frame lists, it would have been politically silly. coast to listen to what he said it this past week. the house budget committee released this 3 minute video. let's show it again and get your reaction to what he said in specific detail about what his plan will do. >> here is what would happen under our proposed budget. we call it the path to prosperity. we will not come anywhere close to the tipping point. how will we do it? we will cut spending.

washington's unsustainable standing is driving the nation's plunge into debt. look at the growth of government under the current path that we are on. by the time my children are my age, the government will be twice the size for them as what it is for me. our plan brings spending back down to the historic level of 20% to the share of our economy. washington has not been telling you the truth. if we do not cut spending on government health and retirement programs, we have the zero hope of getting the debt that crisis under control. next year the government will spend 68 cents of every dollar in taxes to pay for health programs. by 2025, they will consume every penny of every tax dollar that you send it to washington.

flaws in medicare and medicaid have been rising costs and possible to check. guest: -- host: that begin the discussion point of where democrats and republicans will be voting this week. caller: -- guest: exactly. one of the biggest challenges that republicans face in this plan -- keep in mind, they have been pushing him to take a hard line when it comes to mandatory spending. one of the big worries is that seniors over 55 are not going to understand that this would not apply to them and it will quickly become a campaign issue. many democrats have already said that republicans are destroying medicare. republicans are behind this right now, but the political

fallout are not entirely clear to everyone. host: from "chicago sun-times," lynn sweet, the outcome of the showdown? guest: i still think that john boehner, making his public appeal in a tough situation, had the edge. he came across well. he was able to deliver more spending cuts -- savings cuts than the democrats wanted. he did not get the figure that some members of his caucus wanted, and he was able to put social issues on the table. host: eric, democratic line, good morning. caller: how are you? i am a pour american and i have an idea that would be a good compromise to both parties. we have corporations owned by

the employees instead of a couple of rich people. we could cut spending in the government. then they could use the profits from all of the employees to purchase their own health care, their own retirement, and they would have less that they would need from the government. balancing the budget, everyone would be happy. host: thank you for the call. either view? no? jones, perry, ohio, go ahead. republican line. caller: almost $40 billion was cut from the budget. i read where we spend 40 cents of every dollar on interest. that would be about $16 billion in interest, if by math is correct. i am wondering, how much money would we have to pay to get that

interest rates down? how much money would be saved? guest: a lot. guest: i do not know the calculations, but yes, darling less saves on interest. host: chris rights -- host: going back to that issue that clearly the democrats and the president or when to be fighting over, the tax rate. guest: only in the context of a broader reform in the tax code, if you started eliminating taxes from corporations. once you get into specifics, the different groups of people are going to fight back. guest: it was all very dramatic

last week because the three principals were making the deal. you have a different set of characters now. not only paul ryan in his details of tax planning being brought to the ways and means committee -- this is what they do. figuring out other ways to make our tax is so complicated that you have to hire people to do them for you. the other issue that the commission put on the table was something called -- i think that this is the phrase that the senator used, corporate welfare. talking about safety nets for individuals. also on the table for the fiscal commission were cuts in corporate entitlements, which is what some of these taxes are.