advocating. however, there are almost one tree and dollars in new taxes -- $1 trillion in new taxes. we need small businesses and employees and not pay higher taxes. higher taxes are not helpful. i stand ready to continue to work on these issues, but i think >> but i think tax reform is fundamental to getting the economy moving again, getting the kind of job recreation we need to help grow, and that will assist in the difficult challenge we have about addressing our debt. thank you. >> i, too, was very discouraged this afternoon when the president gave his response. when he came to talk again about a budget after he had given us a budget just a little over a month ago.

i was excited to think that perhaps we would have an opportunity to have some new and creative ideas. i was excited when i first came here as a freshman to hear the president in his state of the union speech, knowing that this country is in a debt crisis. but we didn't hear any solutions in that speech, and neither did we hear solutions today. what we heard was political rhetoric. we heard scare tactics, and i'm very disappointed, because i think we are all ready, both democrats and republicans, to get the country on the right track and get us back to prosperity. i know that during the times that i spent back in the district hearing from my businessmen and individuals, people are scared. they don't need the leaders here scaring them. we need to give them hope. and the path to prosperity budget gives them just that. i hope that in the upcoming weeks as we begin to talk about this budget, that we will have leadership from the president

on dealing with this issue in a very positive way and giving people hope rather than the same old political rhetoric and scare at that timics. >> questions? >> when you talk about this being rhetoric and scare tactics and not serious, it sounds like you are assuming he is not going to stand by this and that this will change at some point. do you agree with that? >> i have said the president is not serious because the proposals are a far cry from the problems we have to face. we have a detailed plan we will be voting on this week. the president's plan is not a fix. it doesn't address the entitlement programs. the only concrete thing he came out with again is raising taxes. this is the age-old warfare of pitting one class of society against another. we are serious here.

we have put forward our proposals, and we would like to have the president join us in a serious discussion to adepress the problem. >> so you think he is going to come off of this like an opening gambit? >> one time two months ago, as was said earlier in the state of the union address there was lolvetty rhetoric without any follow-through. now we are getting into the partisan attacks and rhetoric with one concrete proposals on the table which is raising taxes. that is unacceptable. >> i would say this is not even a plan. this was a speech. this was a plan to have a bunch of other people set up a commission come up with a plan, and then to hit spending and deficit targets that are even less ambitious than the last plan. this wasn't a plan. this was punting. he punted in his budget. he is punting now to a new

commission to come up with smaller saving targets than the last commission that he has disavowed. >> what specificry are you proposing the republican party would do to fix security in the next few careers? >> well, in the path to prosperity budget, we at least force congress into a solution. different approaches have been discussed, and i will let chairman ryan speak to his budget. the president says it is not a problem. if it is not a problem, then you accept the status quo, and that is a 22% benefits cut to my children, and that is unacceptable to republicans. >> i talked to janet about this three hours ago. sorry, janet. i was excited because i thought he was going to give us something on social, the plan.

the reason we put a social security trying ner our budget is we wanted to be delicate, to get toward a bipartisan solution on social security. we have bipartisan opinions on health care. we don't believe in government rations and taken over of health care. what we wanted is to get an agreement on another insolve vent program like social security. so we put a trying ner there that says it is going insolve vent, then the president and the house and the senate would have to submit a plan. we thought it would help move it toward solutions. we dependent get that. that was the one thing i was looking forward to in the speech, but we didn't get that. when talking about social security reform, all we got was what he wants to do.

chalk that up as another disappointment. >> some have said you have taken this president to places he didn't want to go. he moved on the tax cuts. what makes you think that you can't take him some place different here despite what you heard at the white house today? >> the deal is this. why didn't the president take the opportunity once again that he was given? why didn't he lead? we want to go in and solve this problem. we have defied all political convention by laying out what we have done in the budget this week. paul and his committee are going to be on the floor advocating for these very specific proposals. why is it that we are leading and the president is not? >> to get back to the question of tax reform, there seems to be consensus of what you have said and the president has about broadening the base and so on. but in the fiscal commission,

some of that revenue was dedicated toward deficit reduction. what to you guys is a tax increase? is it more revenues than are allowed under current tax policies or increase in rates? >> let me let the chairman of the ways and means committee follow up. i will tell you there is an entitlement piece here that there is a disagreement on. we have laid out our proposals, and there is nothing from the white house. we are proposing a change and reform so we can grow this economy. it is not waving the magic wanted. it is putting in place an environment tax-wise so that businesses can begin to invest, create jobs and grow. >> the president never said he would lower rates. the only thing he said about taxes was he wanted to increase them on a certain part of the electorate. he wants higher rates, and half

that would be small business incomes. he did add the piece that he thought individual tax reform ought to be on the table i think largely because in order to get the economic growth we need, you have to include pass-through entities. the way much of business is organized in america, which includes partnerships and others, because they file as individuals. if you want to have a positive economic impact, you want that piece. he wants higher rates. he wants $1 trillion in revenue. we want revenue neutral tax reform, and that is the way you get it done. we had james baker and richard again heart -- again hard -- who said you both have the chance of getting it if it is revenue neutral.

>> so what he is calling for would be a tax increase? >> no. >> the president took some pretty hard swipes at chairman ryan's plan. you all are taking swipes at the fact that he wants to raise taxes. i talked to allen simpson son after the speech, and his statement was a pray for the gang of six. i know you had a lot of issues with bull simpson, but that was his statement. is he right, that the only solution here is to pray for the gang of six? >> i pray for many of my colleagues. [laughter] here is my point. the deficit is the symptom, spending is the disease. the president talked about shared sacrifice. the problem is on the spending side. in post war era, revenues --

spending has been 18% of g.d.p. but in all the models, revenues comes back with norge natural increases. it is spending that goes from its historic respect of g.d.p. to 40%. you would have to raise taxes, crush the economy and jobs and lose the american dream. if you define that as your children having a higher standard of living than you have had. when you say sharing sacrifice, all we see is massive tax increases. therefore it is a non-starter. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] >> on tomorrow's "washington journal," massachusetts government, a look at the federal budget with congressman kevin brady. and the president of the american hospital association. "washington journal" begins live at 7:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span. >> may 1st, in depth, your questions for chapman university professor and co-founder of reason magazine. tibor machan. he will take your calls, e-mails and tweets. live sunday, may 1st at noon eastern on use book tv. >> let's meet another winner

from our c-span student cam video competition. this year's theme is a top you could other event that helped them better understand the role of our federal government. today we go to knoxville, tennessee, and we talk to andrea. hello and congratulations. >> hello. thank you. >> why did you choose to focus on home foreclosures for your documentary? >> we realized that home foreclosures were everywhere. we were reading the newspaper and listening to the radio, and we heard a lot about home foreclosures, so we understood it was a big topic. >> how have you been personally affected by home foreclosures? >> my family and i, we were fortunate enough to never experience a foreclosure. but it could happen any time. >> had how has your community be affected?

>> knoxville in general, it is not one of the states with the bigger foreclosure rates, but the numbers have gone up. it is going to be a big issue. >> in your opinion, who has been hardest hit by foreclosures? >> in the united states, i would say california. and from my research, in 2009, irvine, california, had around 900,000 home foreclosures, which is really high. >> you interviewed claudia zalling -- stalling, who sells homes. what did you learn from her? >> while she talks about home selling in knoxville, and she told me that 6% of homes in knoxville that are for sale are home foreclosures, but 24% that are actually selling are home foreclosures. i learned that people in the market are really interested in home foreclosures and buying

them. >> what has been the impact? >> it is pretty bad because people are losing their houses, and people are homeless. i think it is a really big problem that our nation is facing right now. >> what are some of the things that people about do to prevent home foreclosures? >> the biggest thing is to analyze your financial situation. that is the biggest thing. i think that people nowadays are spending money carelessly sometimes. that results in big problems. it is like a domino effect. >> what was one of the things that you learned from doing this documentary? >> i have learned so many things, from learning how to deal with people, and learning how to research, and patience. i learned basically to stay positive. >> well, thank you for joining us today, andrea, and congratulations again. >> thank you. >> let's watch a portion of the winning video, home

foreclosures. >> foreclosure is when a party cannot repay the bank for the loan that the bank gave them. >> the bank will file a petition to foreclose on the property. after that, the bank has to prove it is the holder of the note and mortgage that they are foreclosing on. the person will go to court. wops that is proved, then the bank will issue an order of foreclosure. broadcasting live with katie. foreclosure rates has been alarmingly high. in 2010, one in 380 homes. it is not as much a nationwide number, but the numbers continue to add on. >> this has been affecting neighborhoods due to the fact that people dope want to live in neighborhoods that have

foreclosure signs. >> it is a huge problem not only for the family, but for the lenders who get them back. they have to sell the property. the main persons it is affecting is the family because they have to leave the house and the home is taken over. >> you can see this video all winning videos at studentcam.org and continue the conversation. >> the house rules committee today worked on bills for next year's budget ahead of tomorrow's floor debate. the leding republican and democrat presented their own budget proposals. this is 2:20.

>> we welcome the sting >> distinguished chair mr. ryan. is mr. van holland not going to join us? he is still the ranking member? >> yes. >> mr. ryan, please proceed. any prepared statement will appear in the record in its entirety. we welcome your summary.

>> we can have a debate that can be civil and orderly. we have had that in the budget committee, and i expect we will continue that going into the floor. as you know, we have an enormous challenge on our hands. i am going to dispense with my prepared remarks and ask that it be included in the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. we are heading toward a fiscal crisis in this country. that fiscal crisis is because we have a mountain of debt that will crash our economy. the numbers are pretty clear. we hear it from independent, non-partisan number crunchers all the time. whether it is the g.a.o., congressional budget office or what not. the question is what are we going to do about it here in congress? we believe we have a moral obligation to our constituents, to our country, to the future generations of our country to get this under control.

there are four things that guide us, four objectives we are trying to achieve with our budget. number one, get job creation back on track in america. get this economy growing again. that's why we call this the path to prosperity. there are a number of economic reforms in here. number one, getting the deficit and debt down itself is job creation. every year you have a big deficit. that means more taxes and interest rates tomorrow. it is telling businesses don't do anything because your taxes and interest rates are going to be worse tomorrow. we also propose fundamental tax reform. a lot of people say these are tax cuts. we are talking about keeping revenues right where they are and reforming the way reraise them. get rid of and clear out the loopholes, deductions,

distortions in the tax code that have been put there by both parties that distort taxes. lower tax rates in exchange. we have got some massive corporations in america making billions of dollars in net income, paying no taxes legally, and then some businesses struggling and paying a loft taxes. that is not fair. we want a flatter, fairer, simpler, more internationally competitive tax system. that gives us growth. the second thing we need to do is fix that social. you can't look anybody in the eye and say that is not the big driver of the problems. ask any person on these programs, doctors aren't taking

as many payments before because of price controls. when america -- medical care and medical cathe was created, they were living to their 60's and 70's. now they are living longer. when it was created, baby boomers were kids and teenagers. now they are retiring and doubling the amount of people in the program. health care costs are skyrocketing, growing twice the pace of our economy. it is on a collision course with our budget. it is the reason we are going into a mountain of debt, and we have to address that. given the fact that the government spends 50 cents of every dollar on health care. tet the driver. the answer is not price controls. they don't work. the answer is what has always worked to go after price

increases, and that is competition, choice. so the kinds of reforms we talk about are the proven ideas, the medical care prescription drupping benefit came in 40% below cost projections. why? because it has competition. it puts the beneficiary at the center of the equation and all the providers have to compete for their business. it is the beneficiary, the patient, that has the power. mission two, fulfill the mission of health and retirement security and bring security to these programs. no changes for anybody in or near retirement. so by preserving and reforming this program for future generations, we can keep it intact. number three, i know you are waiting for me to get through this. number three is our social safety net. it is tearing apart by the seams seams.

it is on an unsustainable path. it is not working right. throwing more money at broken systems does not fix those systems. we want our social safety net to be a springboard to self sufficiencyy, not a ham ok to dependency. the reforms we put in place in the 1990's should be replicated to other areas for those in need so that we have welfare reform geared for the 21st century. that is adaptive, resilient, that is sustainable. not geared toward keeping people on welfare, but getting them back on their feet. we campaign it with job training programs, education, so they can get into careers that are good for the economy of the 21st century. the fourth and last point i will make is, this is a plan to pay off the national debt. every generation of america has

confronted its big challenges. my parents' challenge was world war ii. america has had its share of problems, and every generation has conquered those problems, taken them on, didn't duck from the problems. solved them so their children could have a better life. for the first time in the history of this country, we are on the cusp, on the brink of severing the legacy of leaving the next generation better off. the congressional budget office every year does long-term projections. they map the economy out further. two years ago they told us the economy crashes in 2054 because of debt. this year they are telling us the economy crashes in 2037, meaning their models can't conceive of a way it can continue past 2037. that is when my kids will be my

age. i say this a lot. one of the worst experiences i have, one of the most troubling things i have seen since i have been in congress was the financial crisis of 2008. to me it was like it happened yesterday. millions of people lost their jobs. twls of dollars of wealth vanished from seniors' nest eggs, from their savings. we are still reeling from it. none of us saw it coming, and out of that emerged some pretty ugly legislation, tarp and all the rest. a debt crisis is worse. a debt crisis would make that look like a walk in the park. here's the rub. we see this coming. we know it is coming. we know what is happening. and if we don't do what we need to do to prevent this debt crisis from happening, shame on us. if we can't get to go to fix this problem because of politics, then we are really

abdicating leadership. we are failing our constituents, our children, and failing to provide this country the leadership it needs in this hour of our debt crisis. i have seen a lot of political rhetoric just today. that is not going to fix this problem. so we want to come to the floor with a plan to do that. i appreciate your consideration, and i appreciate if you would consider the substituted amendments as well. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking members of the committee. i want to start by thanking the chairman for the conduct of the conversation, the debate and the proceedings in the budget committee. as paul indicated, we had a vigorous and spirited debate, but it was a civil debate. i think choices were laid out clearly through the amendment process that we had in the committee. i want to them them that. i want to thank all the members on both sides of the aisle in

the budget committee who participated as well as our staffs. we all love this country. every single person loves this country. we all believe this country is a special place. and we all believe it is exceptional. the question is how do we move forward in a way that keeps our country dynamic and makes sure that we preserve the exceptionalism that is at the root of the country. we have differences of views as to how we move the country forward. there are fundamental choices, but we all agree that we should come together to put a plan before this congress that reduces the deficit. the question is not whether we do that, but how we go about doing that. the democratic alternative that we put forward will strengthen

the american economy, and it will reduce the deficit in a steady, predictable way. it achieves a primary balance in the year 2018. it reduces the deficit over the 10-year period by more than $1.2 trillion beyond what the president's plan that was introduced, and we do it without creating disruptions in the economy and preserving what we believe are fundamental american values and priorities. i will take the same three sort of cat gathers that the chairman -- categories that the chairman just laid out to address the differences in our budget. we believe we have had a strong and dynamic economy for two reasons. one reason is the freedom the american people have to pursue their entrepreneurial dreams

and ambitions. that is a key driver in the economy. but it is also true that there are some things that no one individual or corporation can do alow and required strategic national investments. the united states has become an economic powerhouse in part because we have been able to come together as a nation and a people, to achieve position together that no individual or corporation can do alone. and we have done it since the creation of the republic. we have come together to go to the moon. we have come together to build an interstate highway system. we have come together to help create the origins of the conductor industry and the internet. those things were accomplished because as a country we decided to take risks that no corporation would be willing to

take. and that has been an important part of what has distinguished the united states of america to this date. we want to retain both those parts of the american success story. our budget invests in america. the budget put forward by the republicans in the house decimates in our view critical investments in the things that have made america strong and are necessary to make america strong going forward. educating our kid. everybody recognizes you have to invest in education, early education, k-12 and higher education. we need to invest in science and research. we need to invest in the other sciences to continue to make our economy grow. the spin-offs from those investments are incredible. we have a make it in america

agenda that says we need to continue to make those investments. the republican budget cuts deeply into those investments. if you look at the c.b.o. predictions that were done, the entire budget that we now have for defense spending is essentially wiped out. it goes to a lower berge of g.d.p. than defense alone today. it wipes out the rest of the government activities. that is in the c.b.o. report. we believe you need to make those investments. that is what we believe we need to do in this bill, while at the same time we say as you go through the budget, you have to make decisions to get rid of the duplication, to get rid of some of the wastes out there. the general accountability office did a report that identified some areas. we believe we need to tighten

our belt, but at the same time, not throw out the investments that have helped make us an economic powerhouse, especially at a time when our international competitors, china, india and others are beginning to emulate the model that helped in part power the american economy. that would be a big mistake, and yet the republican budget we believe slashes investment. if you project far enough out, it totally eliminates that whole portion of the budget, 100% eliminates it as you go into the future. number two, tax reform. we believe we need to do tax reform. we have tax reform in our budget. as the chairman said, we have to clear out a lot of clutter in the corporate tax reform. there are some things we can sign on today. we don't think there is any justification for providing the big oil companies with special tax breaks.

we have all filled up our tanks recently. gas prices are at a high, and profits are even higher, and they don't need, frankly, another give away from the united states congress. we believe we can immediately begin to close some of the loopholes that reward companies that ship american jobs overseas. we don't need a study to do it. but there are other reforms that need to be made, and we call for that in our budget. what we don't call for is another round of tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country. now our budget says that at the end of 2012, we should go back to applying the same tax rates to the top 2% income earners that were in place during the clinton administration, a period of time when we had very rapid economic growth. 20 million jobs were created

during that period of time. for anyone to suggest that relatively minor differences in the top mortgagal tax rates are the key economic drivers in the economy is teeing a few that is anti-historical. it is just counter to all the facts. we went through the tax rates in place now at the beginning of the year. we have seen a loss of 650,000 private sector jobs. so we see we need to have shared responsibility and that the people at the very high end of the tax ladder can contribute more to this great country. the chairman mentioned tax reform in the republican proposal. let me be very clear about what it does. it says to the ways and means committee you are going to lower the top rate from 35%,

where it is today, to 25%. almost a 30% tax break for millionaires, billionaires, whatever it may be. and here's the catch. it says with respect to that part of the budget, you're going to do that piece in a revenue-neutral way. that will mean tax increases on middle income americans to pay, to give additional tax breaks to the folks at the top. we don't think that is tax reform. we call for tax reforms that protects middle income americans, not tax reforms that benefits the wealthy at the experience of middle income americans. health care. we obviously had a very spirited debate a little more than a year ago over the affordable care act, the health reform bill.

>> there is a reason so many came before the budget committee. they said it would be a huge mistake to repeal the health care reform bill for a lot of reasons that we debated. it would get rid of the protections that are in place now for patients and consumers. but repealing it will have the effect of increasing per capital health care costs in the future because that legislation continues hundreds of different proposals for bending the cost curve in health care. medicare and medicade are not islands. they are part of the health care system.

you benefit if you bring down costs in the whole system. in fact. if you look at the rate of increase in health care costs, they have been similar. medicade's growth is slower than the national average. premiums more than doubled in the private mark. insurance industry profits more than quadrupled. we believe we have to continue to work through the changes that were made for the affordable care act. part of it was creating the ipad. the president talked about that today. the republican proposal eliminates that process, and at the same time it eliminates the process designed to contain costs. it shifts those costs on to our seniors and others who rely on medicare and medicade.

and it does it in a very clear way. it says we are going to get rid of the medicare program. seniors will now be required -- they will be forced to go into the private insurance market. they will be given a voucher, premium support, whatever you want to call it. henne aaron, who is the father of premium support, said it was more like a voucher. but no matter what you call it, it ends up saving money for the treasury by throwing the entire risk and burden on the senior citizen. seniors under this republican plan will now have to pay a huge amount of the costs. and the reason henry aaron and others who originally came up with the idea of premium

support said this is not premium support is because it doesn't support the premiums. when you go into that private health care market, the private insurance company is going to charge you whatever they want. medicare is not going to keep pace with the premium they change. that is how it saves money, shifting the money to seniors. i want to make this point, because it has been said by many people. that we are only offering seniors the same deal members of congress has. it is just not accurate. there is a political statement out today. a republican member made that comment on sunday. they looked at it and said it's false. and it's false for this reason. federal employees, members of congress are given what is called the fair share. we share the risks of rising health care costs. under the republican budget, they are not shared. under the republican budget,

seniors eat those costs. so this republican budget gives members of congress a much better deal than it gives seniors. so we believe that there are alternative methods, some of which the president talked about today, to reducing health care costs, and we believe it's a mistake to go down the road of the republican budget. so i would urge you to take what we believe is a more balanced approach, and i will end by pointing out that the co-authors of the fiscal commission said, and i quote, about the republican budget, "falls short of the balanced comprehensive approach needed to achieve the broad bipartisan agreement necessary to enact a responsible play." we believe we have a balanced and responsible plan that accomplishes the goals of job

creation, tax reform in a fair way, and addresses the questions of medicare and medicade without asking seniors and the most vulnerable people in this country to bear all the risks in the process. >> thank you both for being here, and thanks for your hard work. i will assure you that mr. van hollen you are going to have an opportunity on the house floor to make those arguments. there has been a lot of attention focused on the 96 newly elected members of congress. there are nine democrats and 87 republicans as we all know. last week i had a chance to meet with a guy called matthew hancock, who is a freshman member of parliament in great britain. he came talking to me about how nick and david cameron have successfully come together. the reason i was thinking about this was when mr. ryan

mentioned this notion of our headed twords the edge, and we see it coming, it is right across the pond is where we see it happening right now. these two have come together and very boldly tackled the issue of spending, and they have taken on this extraordinary challenge of painful cuts. and guess what? in years past we all know that the class warfare arguments, and the notion of saying -- with all due respect to my friend from worcester, take that they want to throw children out on the streets and things likes that. but there is support in great britain right now for what could be described as dradra

conian steps that are being taken because grease, portugal and other countries are being drawn into it. not only do we see what is coming, we can point to what is happening right now. i want to do everything i can to ensure the united states of america does not face a situation that is as difficult as the one that they are facing now. i also want to take a moment to touch on this issue of revenue-neutral and the ramifications. i saw mr. ryan shake his head, as i did, the notion that saying tax reform automatically means there is going to be a tax increase on middle income americans is a bit of a

stretch. i happen to be one who would argue that bringing about the marginal rate reduction we are talking about would, as was the case under president kennedy, actually not be revenue-neutral. i am convinced that if we have corporations today that are paying zero, all of a sudden taking on a responsibility, and corporations today that are struggling to keep people working and at the same time pay taxes, i am convinced that if we were able to reduce the top rate, it would actually create an increase to the flow of revenues to the federal treasury. while it may begin as a revenue-neutral proposal, these kinds of reductions have proven

successful in other administrations. let me also say that there is something i have addressed with both of you and have worked on for a number of years here, and that is the issue of budget process reform. when we went through several years ago when our former colleague was leading the budget committee, the overall global view of budget process reform, i had an amendment that got the highest number of votes of any process reform proposal that was out there. i got 202 votes for the amendment that i offered that would establish bi-annual budgeting, a two-year process. over this time, i and lots of members of this newly elected freshman class, including some democrats, have joined, make

this a very bipartisan effort. i would like to say that this, i believe, would go a long way towards dealing with going to a two-year budget process, contracting, which could save tremendous amounts of taxpayer dollars. and the ability to engage in planning would be greater. so i would like to let both of you know that i believe -- i am not letting up on this, having worked for years on the issue of going to a two-year process. i know there are many states that have it and that has led to members of this body, democrat and republican alike, to be supportive of this notion. i will throw those thoughts out there and thank you all know. we all know that we are going to do something that a number of members have not done. that is actually go through a budget debate on the house floor. i am going to recommend that this committee make an order of substitutes to be considered.

there are a wide range of substitutes out there. i count five or six of them in here. we have the democratic subs tule, progressive subs due, the republican study economy -- committee substitute, the black caucus substitute. we need to consider as many of these as possible so we can have the kind of free-wheeling debate tomorrow and friday and make a determination of where we are going to go. i was managing the rule on the c.r. just minutes before the president delivered his remarks and so was able to watch part of it. i was encouraged by virtue of the fact that he is talking about the need for entitlement reform. i know that has not been the case in the past. the budget presented to us by president doesn't touch the issue of entitlement reform. but i am pleased he is talk about that. i have come to the conclusion

that it is going to have to be done in a bipartisan way. the notion that one party controls it and passes it, the other party attacking it would be on the horizon. i hope just as we with a continuing resolution, just as we have been able to do in a number of things, i think the president will join us. i think the president realizes, as he said in his remarks today, how serious the problem is. so i hope very much these things can be addressed. if you would like to offer any reremarks at this time? >> i will be brief because i know there are a lot of people who want to ask questions. >> three things. i will save the responses for later. number two, i am glad mr. van hollen is putting out a budget. i want to commend you, chris, for doing this.

being in the minority there is always easy not to put a budget out there. it is easier to criticize the other party. it shows wisdom and helps the process, and it does showcase the difference of opinions in how to achieve the goals. it is my opinion that the committee will get into the budget process reform in the summer as we get through this debate. i want to do some hearings and get ideas on both sides of the aisle. >> i am very ope to the idea. >> there is something we need to work together in a bipartisan way on clearly. >> i am in favor of it. i know there are differences of opinions here. conrad is in favor of it, the democratic chair. >> and he was a virulent opponent. >> he was.

there is an opportunity here on budget reforms and bipartisan solutions. i will leave it at that. >> mr. chairman. >> yes. >> on the whole issue of the bi-annual approach, i am very open to the idea and look forward to debating you considering that. >> thank you. >> secondly, as you indicated, think the president is very interested in in obviously trying to find a path forward here. >> i think all americans are. >> everybody in this room would like to find a path forward. the question is what choices we make in that process. let me could, if i could, since you mentioned it. when tax rates went down in 2001 and 2003, the heritage foundation predicted that it would create huge job growth,

millions and millions of jobs they said. it just didn't happen. in fact, the opposite happened. now, the heritage foundation is the group that came out the other day and said if you pass the republican budget, you are going to create a lot of jobs. even republicans would concede that their projections this time around were wildly optimistic. i just want to say this about the tax reform. those are just the facts historically about what happened with the rate differences. you had a higher top mortgagal rate in the clinton administration, stronger economic growth, more jobs created. no one is arguing that by increasing the marginal rate, that increases jobs. the point is that is not the main driver in the economy. we do need to get out the

clutter in our corporate tax code. and hopefully we can move forward to get that done on a bipartisan basis. but the reality is corporate tax revenue is a very small slice of overall revenue. the republican plan doesn't just drop the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%, it drops the individual tax rate. if you do that, i believe it is mathematically almost impossible to do that without raising taxs on middle income taxpayers. >> i would disagree with that. >> we will have that debate going forward. >> obviously as members of the ways and means committee, that is an issue that will be addressed. mr. sessions? >> thank you for being here today. we have eagerly anticipated not only you being here. we have watched with great amazement and pride not only

your development of the plan for the republican majority but also your clear thinking, your thoughtfulness about how to approach the future. i would like to say that every singing one of us have a lot at risk by how successful we will be, but i believe every bit of that. i believe that what your process does is include not only this generation today, and those that may be ahead of us, but also those that are way behind us also. i think we can say that you truly have done a job well done, and i am proud of you. >> thank you. >> chris, welcome back. >> i note you brought the gentleman, tom kohy with you. i know you have heard he is welcome up here, today. i want to recognize the republican leadership, tim scott, and the gentleman, mr. price from georgia, our policy

chairman. >> i had just gotten the word. >> may i ask mr. price sit in my chair for a moment while i go downstairs to tend to some other business? >> i will add the adjectives to that. the member from georgia is very welcome, and i would incollude those same accolades i brought fost i would bring to the gentleman from georgia. i have a number of ideas. we are all up here to talk, as the gentleman, mr. van holle nench -- hollen has done. i worked in the private sector 16 years, where i had to worry about hundreds of employees with families, a safe work environment, looking forward to the future. i quickly found that there was

a philosophy that i developed, and that was that those families had a job if we followed a careful conscript of looking forward and making sure we subscribed to principles that would bring about the success of the business. i recognized that we had to have consumers or customers a that would buy our product, that the customer needed to be able to buy our product if we wanted to stay in business. i understood very clearly competition. i had competition in what i sold. consumers had a choice in what product they would buy. and the marketplace benefited very well with a set of principles that would work and move forward.

i have put those principles to the next a number of times, hundreds of times not only as i worked, but as i learned better how those principles to better everyone's life. i also learned when i became a member of congress a few years ago that the people who have the jobs and are trying to create more jobs, just like when i was in the private sector, tend to have an opinion about the factors that are laid out in front of them. i think they followed the same lines that i had learned, and that is about competition, about the marketplace, and about how to do things. i am repeatedly in awe of, stunned by, people who are in washington who fail to ask the job creators, the investors, the consumers and ours about how we really do keep this country on a balance with what

i would call not just the free enterprise system, but the marketplace. and how routinely we ignore their feedback about taxes, tax policies, about depreciation, which is included in those tax policies, but also about consumers. so i am remind today as i look at the document here about the budget, and i turn to page four , and it says this budget cuts $6.2 trillion in spending from the president's budget over the next 10 years, reduces the debt and puts the nation on a path to actually paying off the national debt. it brings federal spending to 20% of g.d.p., consistent with the post war average and reduces deficits by $4.4 trillion. page 22. under real pain for families,

u.s. households are still heavily spetted. the nation's households still owe $13 trillion in private debt, or roughly 120% of their total disposable increase. a lot chunk of that debt cob sixths of home mortgages, and the rest is credit cards and other forms of debt. i would probably venture to guess that my philosophy is so goes the american government, the same is happening to the american people, mr. price and mr. hollen. i am uni am preffed that the democratic majority that was in power for four years, over sold and underdelivered a promise to the american people that did not work. it caused an incredible change

in is not just the marketplace but in the outlook of this country. and so i believe, mr. van hollen that despite our opportunities as we worked together for two years, and despite those opportunities for you to sell what you believe and for me to sell what i believe, i believe that taking money from people and giving it to a government that does not create goods and services that will turn the cash register for the success of the american people or the government is at this time a waste, and rather, it should be turn back to the american people. we should reinvigorate the spirit of entrepreneurship, self-reliance, and perhaps more importantly an opportunity for people to have to dig deep within their own means to go make it work. >> would the gentleman yield when he finishes. >> i will when i finish, and i

appreciate the gentleman. with that said, mr. van hollen and i serve as co-chairs for something called the downs syndrome caucus. we have been together a number of times publicly. we do recognize that there are people who cannot take care of themselves. we do recognize that there are seniors, and we do recognize that there are poor people. my focus that i make today is not pop those who cannot take care of themselves, but rather a challenge to the people who are able-bodied. and i believe we need to bring a charge back, a challenge back to the american people, to those who can get up and push, pull or walk behind a wagon, to challenge them and give them not only the advantages through

the next generation that they will lead, but perhaps more importantly, to a successful way of life.

. .

the rule that is pending. mr. weiner: thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. dreier: i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from boulder, mr. polis, during which i yield myself such time as i may consume.

during consideration of the rule all time is for debate only. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the matter before us. the speaker pro tempore: the geleman from california is recognized for one hour. mr. dreier: thank you very much, madam speaker. this rule provides for consideration of three measures, h.r. 1473, h.con.res 35 and h.con.res 36. h.r. 1473 funds the government for the remainder of the fiscal year 2011. h.con.res 35 and 36 are enrolled -- are enrollment correction measures that end federal funding for the president's health care plan and planned parenthood. as these measures represent a final agreement on this fiscal year's funding on par with a conference report, this rule provides simple up or down votes -- simple up or down votes on all three of these items. furthermore, this rule directs the clerk of the house to

refrain from finalizing the enrollment of h. 1473 until the senate has acted on all three measures to ensure that the enrollment corrections resolutions get full consideration. h.r. 1473 will be debatable for one hour. h.con.res 35 and 36 will be debatable for 20 minutes each. now, madam speaker, it has been a long, difficult, ugly, messy process, but we have finally achieved an important victory for the american people. today's underlying continuing resolution is a step toward -- a step toward the fulfillment of a fundamental promise that was made to the taxpayers. we will halt the practice of reckless and unchecked growth in federal spending and cricketcally important, madam speaker, we will -- crickcally

important, madam speaker, we will re-- critically important, madam speaker, we will reverse the course we are on. it will impose the single largest cut in nondefense spending in our nation's histry. it also implements a number of reforms that will ensure greater accountability in how tax dollars are spent. madam speaker, this is not the end of our work to restore discipline and accountability to the federal budget. far from it. after fighting so hard to get to this point, it's important to point out that the truly difficult work still lies ahead for us. this resolution is also not the perfect measure we were all working for. many of us fought hard to have even greater cuts and more significant reforms. but today's action is so critical because it is the turning point. it is a turning point, madam speaker. it's th profoundly important first step.

the american people have said enough is enough and this congress is finally resonding. we're ending an era that has seen growth in nondefense discretionary spending over the past few years of 82%. under speaker pelosi, madam speaker, we have had an increase in nondefense discretionary spending of 82%. we are making serious, meaningful cuts in the size and the scope of government. but as i said, these are only just the beginning. when we conclude this debate, we will turn directly to the fiscal 2012 budget. our very thoughtful budget committee chairman, mr. ryan, has put together a bold budget plan that seeks to tackle the fundamental reforms that are absolutely essential to the future viability of our economy. if the process we have just

come through has been difficult, the task that lies ahead is herculean. a $1.6 trillion deficit poses an almost unfathomable challenge. it demands a tremendous level of seriousness and resolve that each and every one of us must rise to. the consequences of failing to do so would be both disastrous and predictable. we've already gotten a strong dose of the economic challenges that would ensue. for months and months on in we've dealt with a very painful lack of job opportunities. the stifling nature of the national debt, the tax and regulatory uncertainty, the policies that favor government intervention over entrepreneurial empowerment, all of these have contributed to our economic challenges. it is increasingly appant

that the recent positive movement on job creation has been fueled by our effort to rein in wasteful government spending and restore the certainty that businesses need to make new investment. as we continue our efforts to impose fiscal discipline, i hope and believe we will continue to see positive news on the jobs front. but these economic challenges are far from over for most hardworking americans. we know what difficult times we and the american people are facing. we know very well how painful these challenges have been, but they pale in comparison to the crisis that will come if we do not havethe courage to fundameally transform the way this government spends money. we need to look no further than the euro zone to see what's in store without a dramatic change in course. we've seen western european economies come to the brink of collapse, crippled under the

weight of their sovereign debt and nearly dragged some of the world's largest, most stable economies along with them. the coming budget debate will be a moment in which we must reject this failed economic model. today, with this historic spending cut, we are paving the way to do just that. now, madam speaker, this is not the end of our work, but it is, as i just, just the beginning. i urge my -- as i just said, just the beginning. i urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying resolutions. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? mr. polis: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: madam speaker, i thank the gentleman from california for yieldg me the customary 30 minutes. for all the talk of republicans' commitment to cutting spending, there were several odd things about this bill before us that would leave one to believe that it's more of a partisan political exercise, a serious attempt to

get the nation's fiscal house in order which deserve as americans. under this bill, critical services that many americans rely on to ecate our children, keep our streets safe, improve public health, keep our water and air clean, would face tens of billions of dollars worth of real and difficult cuts. times are tough. we know we have to cut spending. ok. so why does this bill then provide the pentagon with an additional $5 billion above the previous request at a time when the civilian and uniformed military, including thoughtful policymakers from both parties believe that we need to reduce spending across the board? admiral mullen stated that our national debt is our biggest national security threat. he also noted that the past duke aid's doubling of the department of defense's budget has led to undisciplined spending and waste thin the department. secretary gates concurs saying that we can't hold ourselves contempt from the belt tightening. despite our military and those

involved in the spending, two can't be spared. not only have they been spared by the republican majority but increased by $5 billion. the recenbipartisan commiion on fiscal responsibility, often called the simpleson-bowles commission, called for substantial defense reducons over the next 10 years. they had cuts that would have led to $60 billion in the first year and kept our nation safe. in fact, if we implemented the commission's recommendations around security spending we would save $100 billion in 2015 alone. but republicans didn't go after their favored areas of big government spending. instead, they went after our efforts to strengthen our schools, keep our water clean and keep our streets safe. and the rest of their so-called spending cuts don't seem to be saving much at all. in fact, yesterday we had an interesting discussion in the rules committee about whether this bill really even saves close to the $38 billion claimed. aarently most of the savings are from allocations of money that wouldn't be spent anyway. an associated press story

yesterday called this bill budget fricks saying $23 billion of the $38 billion aren't savings. this is unspent census money, the renewal highway programs that can't be spent because of restrictions at have already been set by other legistion. and one calls this bill a spending cut holcom. i would like to submit this for the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: it is $18 billion in cuts and $28 billion in fake cuts. i asked the chairman of the appropriations committee if he could explain that discrepancy and he demeasured on that account. so in the end what have the republicans accomplished? i'd like to talk about this graphically and sort of show the american people what we're talking about.

now, these charts -- i use "the wall street journal" which credits republicans on spending cuts than the associated press. out of caution, i want to trust "the journal" to use their figures even though they have less than the a.p. but "the wall street journal" says the majority the republican cuts are in fact holcomb cuts. this is the deficit. this is the deficit. ok. this is the c.b.o., congressional budget office's estimate of the deficit. $1.399 trillion. this is what we're talking about here. this is the continuing resolution savings. that's it. not one penny more. let me sort of take an example of an american family to kind of -- we have to take a few sdemrours off of it for most people to understand these figures. let's say the deficit i $139,000. so $139,000. in my business -- i was a small businessman before i came to

congress. i understand how to balance a budget. i know most american families are trying to balance their paycheck, make their mortgag payment. $139,000 you lose in a year. ok. that's tough. you have to take out a second mortgage, max ouyour credit cards. you try to cover that $139,000. ok. then you know you got to make some serious changes. what are you going to do? you talk to your credit card companies. you shut down your business. what do you do? yofigu out how to lose $137,000 the next year. you know what? that $137,000 is going to put that american family out of business just as surely as that $139,000, but that is the republican approach to this bill. now, let me talk about some of the alternatives we have before us. mr. dreier: will the gentleman yield? mr. polis: you can discuss this on yourwn time. i want to go through this excellent chart.

if we were serious about deficit reduction republicans could have supported several amendments offered by democrats and voted on in the house when we debated h.r. 1. the democratic amendments alone would have cut spending by nearly $129 billion, more than three times the amount that's even claimed in this bill. here's some exampl. congressman stark and congresswoman lee offered one amendment that would have deduced defense spending to its level three years agoment we were already in two wars at that time as well, saving $36 billion in the first year alone and that would have left in tact a defense budget of $688 billion more than enough to meet the security needs of our nation. congressman nadler offered an amendment that would have finally ended our support for the war in afghanistan, saving $90 billion. congresswom woolsey offered an amendment that would have saved $415 million by bending the b-22 osprey program. just yesterday in rules i also proposed an amendment that would have deduce -- reduced our troop presence in europe. our european allies, madam speaker are some of the richest countries in the world.

it's time they pay their fair way. what is the strategic rational for an ongoing presence in germany? the nazis are gone, the soviets are gone. even former secretary of defense rumsfemmed has questioned the ongoing presence of our troops in europe. i also proposed an amendment eliminating the drug czar. they spend $21 billion a year yet drug use has gone up since its inception. we're never going to ballot entire budget by reducing the funds. clearly we all can agree we need to look at revenues and entitlements but year you're not going to make even the slightest dent in the deficit. if you exempt defense spending from any cuts. in this continuing resolution before us, republicans have exempted more than half of the domestic discretionary spending from any cuts and it becomes very clear that the republican plan isn't so much about serious

deficit reduction than it is about protecting their favorite government, big spending, while simultaneously slashing away at their favorite targets like education, the environment and the safety net. here's what we can potentially accomplish if we work together. this shows the republican cuts in this c.r., we even added for the sake of argument the hoe come cuts -- the hokem cuts and we included the proposed democratic amendments. i think this is something that we can be proud of. and you know what, madam speaker? i think more democrats would support a program that didn't only cut the programs that many on my side of the aisle feel strongly about but also made some of the difficult decisions with where the real money is with regards to defense and security spending you have the. just like that american family that we raised digging its way out of a $127,000 a year loss, we need to make real impacts on reducing the federal budget deficit. this will take actions across the aisle to makeure that we can leave our country in a

better situation and help the next generation fight its way out from the burden of debt that we risk placing upon them if we continue the big spending policies of the republican party. i reserve the balan of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, let me begin by congratulating my friend from boulder, my rules committee colleague, for his very thoughtful remarks and i'd like to respond with a few important points. first, i was struck with the fact that he went through the litany of amendments that were debated on h.r. 1. underscoring again that we have for the first time in decades seen a fe and flowing debate and an opportunity for votes to take place here in this institution. it hadn't happened before on a continuing resolution as we saw it in our consideration of h.r.

1. i also want to say that ile my friend continued to point the finger of blame somehow characterizing this as a republican plan, i'd like to remind him, madam speaker, that this happens to be the result of a negotiation that has taken place with three democrats, the president of the united states, the vice president of the united states, the majority leader of the united states senate and one republican. the speaker of the house of representatives. by a 3-1 margin in the negotiating process republicans were outnumbered and so i think that it's a mischaracterization to describe this as somehow a republican plan that is before us. now to the issue that was raised about a cut being a cut. the former director of the congressional budget office made it clear answered called it that, a cut is a cut. i know this attempt is being

made to somehow characterize the fact that dollars have not been spent so that means you're not actually cutting them. well, last night in the rules committee the very distinguished ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations, my good friend mr. dicks, pointed out something that everyone in this institution should know and that is the process of reprogramming that takes place within government agencies. we know full well that the movement of money, since money is fungible, that takes place within these different agencies, is standard operating procedure. so, madam speaker, to claim somehow that if dollars haven't actually been spent that they're not being cut is just plain wrong. now, madam speaker, while i talked about the negotiating process that ended up with the president of the united states, the vice president of the united states and the majority leader of the united states senate and

the speaker of the house leading up to that, we had our very, very diligent and hardworking new chairman of the committee on appropriations, my friend mr. rors, who has stepped up to the plate and taken on the responsibility, in fact some call it tongue in cheek but he has been very serious about being the enforcer of ensuring that we cut spending and he's actually renamed his appropriations committee the disease appropriations committee by virtual -- disproportions committee by virtue of the fact, madam speaker, that if we don't get our fiscal house in order we are going to be in deep, deep trouble. and so, madam speak, i want to say that, again, he was one of the negotiators leading up to the final process here and i'd like to yield such time as he might consume to my very good friend, the chair of the committee on appropriations, mr. rogers.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. rogers: i thank the distinguished chairman of the rules committee for the time he. and to thank him for the diligent work that he continues to do as chair of the rules committee, the sort of traffic cop for the bills that reach this floor. i ant to expand a bit, madam speaker, on a point that chairman dreier alluded to earlier and that is the historic nature of the bill that we will be considering on the floor. as the chairman pointed out, under speaker pelosi discretionary spending in those two years increased by 82%, a record. with this bill we not only are arresting that growth but we are receding actual discretionary

spending by a record amount, nearly $40 biion in actual cuts in spending. that has not ever been accomplished by this body in its history, in the history of the country. the cuts in this bill exceed anything ever passed by the house. it's the largest cut ever by four times. the large of the previous single cut was in 1995 when we cut around $9 billion. with this bill you cut almost $40 billion. now, i don't understand sometimes my friends on the other side of the aisle when they criticize this bill. it's being supported by your president. he says, pass the bill. it's what we agreed upon.

it's being supported by senator reid, the leader on the senate side. it's being supported by the speaker of the house and it's being supported by an overwhelming number of members on this side of the aisle and i predict a great number of democrats will likewise support the bill. now on the defense portion of this bill, let me briefly refer to it. the provisions in this bill about the defense budget is exactly like it was when all parties last december on both sides of the aisle in this body and on both sides of the aisle in the senate body agreed to the expenditures for the department of defense. we simply lifted that agreed upon provisions for the defense department and dropped them into this bill.

ere are two people in this body that know more about defense spending than any of the rest of us. and that's the chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee on appropriations, bill young of florida, and my good friend, mr. dicks, the ranking member of that subcommite and the ranking member oned full appropriations committee, norm dicks. he worked long and hard with bill young for these provisions. and i absolute him for -- salute him for it. it's good work. it does the right things. it cuts back on the president's request for defense by some $7 billion or $8 billion. below what he requested. it does increase in real dollars about $5 billion over e current spending rate. but we're in three wars and there's no reason at all for us to shirk from the responsibility to provide adequate funding for

our troops in combat. and that's the reason why -- one of the big reasons why we support this bill, why the president supports the bill and why senator reid in the senate supports the bill. and so let's focus on actual cuts in spending. we all profess that we want to cut back on the deficit for the year and for the ensuing years. the deficit this year, $1.4 trillion in just one year, largest in history, adding to a debt that exceeds all of our fears of some $14.2 trillion. we all say, let's cut back on spending. here's your chance. here's your opportunity. if you profess to be a fiscally responsible member of this house , you have a chance, an

obligation, to vote for this bill. and support it. it's historic, we've never been here before. we've reached a pinnacle. and a great opportunity for us to show to the rest of the country that we're serious about controlling the free spending nature of this body. this is your chance. don't miss it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i yield myself a minute to respond. the gentleman from kentucky called this a historic bill. i think much more of this kind of history and we risk making our country solvency history by drowning ourselves in development for a family business that lost $139,000, losing $137,000 might be nice, but it puts you out of business just the same. i continue to express our wish that we included some of the democratic cuts in this. that added up to four times the amount of the proposed

republican cuts inhis bill. as the bar put it, the cutting of this bill is a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing with that it is my honor to yield three minutes to the ranking member of the rules committee, the gentlewoman fr new york, ms. slaughter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york vced for three minutes. ms. slaughter: thank you, madam speaker. and i thank the gentleman for yielding. and i want to talk about a different historic perspective. this bill is different, all right, and i want to try to explain that to you. but first i want to say, we weren't elected, any of us, to congress to prove that we can barely keep the government open and alive. that was never why we were sent here. we're here to make america stronger and looking at this bill we are utterly failing in achieving that goal. in addition to the unnecessary and politically driven cuts in the legislation, the process that brought the bill to the floor is a mockery of regular order. never before again, let me say

in this history of our nation has this rule -- what we're doing here today are three bills under one rule. we think we're going to vote for one, that would be the budget for the remainderf the year, but there are two other bills here to be voted on and i think you might be surprised at. it certainly took us by surprise. one them, completely defunds planned parenthood. having nothing in the wor to do about cutting the deficit. mr. dreier: will the gentlewoman yield? ms. slaughter: i will not. the second one takes away the health care bill. a matterf that importance is added as a correction onto this bill. what they said they'd like us to do is correct legislation that has not even been passed. that takes a lot of imagination. but what is more serious? and i believe what they have done here is add an unprecedented provision that

raises serious constitutional questions. under this rule -- now, may attention here because i don't want ildren to believe it. this is not the way we do things. after the house and senate have passed this bill and it comes back over to the house, the hoe will hold it and will not send it to the president. they will hold it themselves letting the government shut down again until the senate votes to defund planned parenthood and to kill america's health care. now, that is very similar to what we did here a few weeks ago. it may have been last week for all i can remember when you're working so hard. it wasrobably one of the silliest things we have done in any legislative process in the world. they really passed a bill on this floor that said we already passed a bill and sent it to you, senate.

the senate took the bill up and it failed. so then the house response to that failure was, if we don't hear from you by date certain then we're going to just say that the house bill is the law of the land. now, all of you that have been to school that the house passes the bill, the senate passes a bill. if necessary a conference committee recognize sides of the aisle the two bills, makes them the same, and it requires the president of the united states' signature. but not in this house. you can believe 10 impossible things before breakfast here easily because we do it every day. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume, and i'd like to engage in a discussion with my distinguished ranking member if she would like on the issue that she just discussed. i guess we won't be engaging in a discussion, madam speaker, on these --

mr. polis: will the gentleman yield? mr. dreier: yeah. mr. polis: i think what the gentlelady said is that the senate will have to vote on and not that they had to pass it. mr. drer: reclaiming my time. i had -- there are several things i'd like to aress. first, the gentlewoman's time has expired began by saying that never -- first the gentlewoman began by saying that never before we had things come forward in that matter. that is wrong. time and time again under both political parties we've seen the rules committee report out measures that do in fact cover multiple issues. and so this is not unprecedented, as the gentlewoman has just said. second, i think it's very important for us to clarify the fact that what we are voting on is an agreement that is supported by the president of the united states and the majority leader of the united stas senate. and part of that agreement is that the senate will not vote

to defund planned parenthood or vote to actually bring an end to funding for the health care bill, but it will consider these measures. and i think it's important, madam speaker, to make it clear. the only thing that we are doing in this rule is ensuring that that agreement is enforced. and so, madam speaker, i think that it's clear that many of our friends on the other side of the aisle are not happy with this -- with t fact that their president and the senate majority leader has negotiated this agreement. again, i don't like the agreement just like they don't like the agreement. i don't like it because i don't believe that it goes far enough, but it's very important for us to realize that this is simply a first step. it is a bold first step. as the chairman of the appropriations committee has just said, madam speaker, it's the step which in fact is the

largest -- four times the largest cut we ever had in the past. it is a cut of $40 billion. and by virtue of that agreement we are making that first step, but if you extend this out it will have cuts that total $315 billion. and as i said, we are st beginning the debate this week with this very, very important budget that will be considered in the rules committee today and tomorrow and friday on the house floor. i also have to say that one of the reasons that we're having this debate on the rule today and voting on thursday on the actual continuing resolutions that we put into place a very important change in the rules at the beginning of this congress that allows unreported measures, states that unreported measures must in fact comply with the three-deleover requirement that exists for reported --

three-day layover requirement that exists for reported measures. as we know this measure was filed at 2:00 yesterday morning here in the house and because of that filing, to ensure that it was put online as the chairman of the appropriations committee said so that the full membership and the american people, the media have the opportunity to see this measure, we have done that and that is the reason that we are going to be holding this vote on thursday and that's the reason that we're able to have the kind of free-flowing debate that we are. madam speaker, this is an agreement that no one is happy with. but it's an agreement that we've come to in dealing with the two political parties and i'm going to urge my colleagues to support it and with that reserve the balance of my time. -- with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: it's a first step towards bankruptcy with its cuts. madam speake i'm proud to yield three minutes tohe gentleman from massachusetts, a

member the rules committee, mr. mcgovern. the spker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. mcgovern: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this closed rule and to the underlying bill. and i want to re-enforce the comments of the gentlelady from new york when she said that the issue of defunding planned parenthood or what your opinion is about the affordable care act really has no place in this debate. it shouldn't be tied to anything, and the fact of the matter is that they're intentionally injecting these kind of polarizing issues and obviously all of my friends on the democratic side, that's the reason why you should vote against this rule. i'm pleased that the republican leadership of the house decided that it was not in anyone's interest to shut down the government. i'm also pleased th the leadership ignored the chance of shut it down coming from the most extreme elements of their party. but i'm not pleased, madam

speaker, with this so-called compromise. this bill cuts the wrong things too deeply and ignores some of the things that could stand to be cut. the cuts target the poor and the middle class, the very people who can least afford it as we struggle to recover from the great recession. anwhile, the very wealthy and the special interests get away scott fe. student aid programs get cut. children's health care would be cut. transportation funding to repair our roads and our bridges would be t. environmental protection would be cut. the cops program, which helps local communities stay safe, would be cut. investments in science and technology research would be cut. but the defense department, well, they get a $5 billion increa. oil companies keep their sweet, hard tax loopholes. big agriculture keeps their subsidies. that's not fair, madam speaker, and that's not right. i am all for a leaner government, but i'm not for a

meaner government. i'm for balancing the budget but i'm not for balancing the budget solely on the backs of the poor and the middle class. if you want to get to a balanced budget there needs to be some fairness in this process. and if you think that this bill is troublesome, just wait, because later this week we'll be debating the republican budget pposal for 2012, a budget that would represent the largest redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the rich in american history. it is a budget plan that ends medicare as we know it. it is a buet plan that tells our seniors, we want you to pay more and you will get less. well, there are some things worth fighting for, madam speaker, and the protection of medicare is one of them, so i look forward to that fight, but in the meantime i urge my colleagues to reject this yet again another closed rule and i urge us to reject the underlying bill.

we can do better than this. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, i yield myself one minute to say first to my friend from boulder that the notion of arguing that a $40 billion cut is going to take us down the road to bankruptcy -- mr. polis: will the gentleman yield? mr. dreier: will be absolutely prepostruss. mr. polis: it is in the $15 billion to $20 billion according to "the wall street journal." mr. dreier: madam speaker, reclaiming my time. a $40 billion cut or a $15 billion cut, or a $15 billion cut cannot be characterized of taking us down the road to bankruptcy. we all want to cut more in spending. i mean, it's very clear. now, my friend from worcester has just made this argument about the priorities we have, madam speaker, and i yield myself an additional minute to say that i think it's important for us to look at the preamble of the united states constitution.

whenever we're debating defense appropriations bills or the defense authorization bill, and i'm so happy that my friend, mr. dicks, the distinguished ranking member of the full committee and the defense appropriations subcommittee is here. i always argue that the five most important words in the middle of the preamble of the united states constitution are provide for the common defense. now, with all due respect of the priorities that we have, ensuring that we do care for those who are truly in need, all of thesehings can be done in other levels of the government. only our federal government can deal with our nation' security. as chairman rogers said we are now by virtue of the decision that the president of the united states has made in the midst of three wars. i want to bring about spending cuts and i believe that governor haley barbour was absolutely right when he says anyone that says you can't cut defense spending has never been to the pentagon. we want to encourage defense sharing, and in fact we are

focused on ensuring that we do get the best, the best bang for our buck. and so, madam speaker, recognizing the priority of the federal government -- priority the federal government has for cuts -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. dreier: i think this is the right thing for us. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i appreciate his willingness to look at defense spending. i know the gentleman from kentucky mentioned we're in three wars. perhaps part of the answer is to be in two wars or one war or perhaps we can be at peace in our lifetime. i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from district of columbia, ms. eleanor holmes norton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from the district of columbia is recognized for two minutes. ms. norton: thank you, madam speaker, and i thank the gentleman from colorado for yielding to me and for his work on this bill. madam speaker, the district of columbia has no vote on the rule or the bill under consideration, yet, the only controversial amendmes in this bill involve only the

district of columbia. the bill is remarkably clean. there are only four out of 50 or so attachments survived. not one -- yeah, there's the district of coluia. the only controversial amendments violate the district's most basic right to self-government. one has to do with private school vouchers. only for the district of columbia. a bill we didn't ask for, a bill we weren't consulted about and a bill we don't want. if my -- the rules committee refused to recognize my amendment which would redirect the money to the d.c. public schools ando our own public charter schools, 40% of our

children go to this alternative, it has a long waiting list, to our choice, not the republicans' choice. the second amendment would strike a shameful -the second -- my second amendment would strike a second writer that keeps the district from spending our own local taxpayer raised funds on reproductive choice for our low-income women. local money, local choice. the majority proposed to close down the government rather than pass my amendment to allow d.c. to spend its own local funds. now, the majority wants a rule with amendments that profoundly affect only the district of columbia. i will have no vote on this floor on any part of this bill. no wonder -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. norton: i appreciate the gentleman. the majority will allow a vote

on every other member -- i wonder if that's my district -- no wonder the mayor of the city council and residents have taken to civil disobedience. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, may i inquire of my friend of how many speakers he has remaining and also how much time remains on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 8 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from colorado has 12 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. polis: we have three speakers, possibly expecting a fourth. mr. dreier: i reserve the balancef my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, madam speaker. it's my honor to yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro teore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. r. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you, madam speaker. madam spea i rise that says to the operating departments of our governme, see if you can get by on 95% of the money you had last year. i think that makes good sse and i commend chairman rogers

and mr. dicks for making sure that pell grants, title 1, special education are fully funded and protected and frankly salute both sides for leaving aside extraneous matters like not funding planned parenthood and not funding the health care bill. i think this is a worthy compromise, i'm glad to support it. i do want to note my grave concern with the rule and the rather ambiguous position we find ourselves in with respect to the actions of senate. about 10 days ago the majority attempted to pass a bill where the senate would never have to act. now they want to say even if the house and the senate have both acted apparently the bill doesn't become law. maybe we should have put a few more education funds in for constitutional studies here because i think this is very unwise and frankly ambiguous. so i'm going to oppose the rule on the grounds that this very novel idea of giving the clerk

of the house the instructions not to enroll a bill that's been passed by both house and senate i think is very troubling. having said that, i think that the underlying bill merits the support of both republicans and decrats and i will be ting yes. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman from california continue trerve? mr. dreier: madam speaker, i'll continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, madam speak. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. doggett: as one who voted for cutting some opresident obama's spending requests last year and who has already voted three times this year to cut spending from the budget, i lieve we do need toerret out every bit of unnecessary spending, to demand greater efficiency and to seek common ground on securing our long-term

financial future of our national debt. but this resolution is only a belated companion to the deal that tied a christmas bow around another tax cut for the wealthiest few in december. it represents another unbalanced approach to achieving balance in our budget. there is no shared sacrifice here. and like that december bill, this concession literally sets up tomorrow's demand for adoption of the house republican budget, a pathway to less economic, educational and health care security. instead of asking for a dime from exxon mobil or other polluters, this deal makes severe cuts in the budget to assure us clean air and clean water. instead of asking for $1 from general electric or another of these giant corporations that won't pay their fair share of taxes this place the burden on hundreds of thousands of young americans who are trying to seek

a future job in the united states. almost 1/4 of the budget is eliminated for youth bill, a program that provides vital education in employment skills to young people. and i've seen this up close, seeing the difference that our local youth works makes, in trails constructed, in homes weatherized, in the vital employment and training skills provided with every energy efficient home that a foundation is laid for, a foundation is laid for the future of some enterprising young texan. and with another 100,000 young people at universities like texas state losing the counseling, academic instruction and tutoring -- can i have another 15 seconds mr. polis: i yield the gentleman another 15 seconds. mr. doggett: and encouragement from trio, that helps them achieve academic success. that's not balanced. fair and balanced, yes, i know it's a distorted slogan, but i think it could have real meaning

for our budget. buthis budget is balanced on our young people and our future. we need a budget that's fair. thspeaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california continues to reserve. mr. dreier: madam speak, i'll continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: madam speaker, i am proud to yield two minutes to the gentleman from vermont, a former member of the rules committee, mr. welch. the spker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for two minutes. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. america's in a very dangerous place on this budget and it's not an unsolvable problem. we can get from where we are to where we need to be and that is fiscal balance if we put everything on the table and have a balanced approach. if instead we limit our consideration to essentially 12% of the budget, the so-called domestic discretionary, things like low income heating assistance, the small business administration, scholarships for our kids wanting to go to college, scientific research, if we limit our attention to that

12% of the budget, even if we cut that entire 12%, we would have trillion-dollar deficits for as long as the eye can see. it won't work. there's a design defect here. we've aggravated it with the deal that was made to extend the tax cuts at the high end. when we were here in our special session after the last election, that's $750 billion that we have to borrow in order to pay for that's tax cuts for the top 2%. we have to put everything on the table. it has to clude the pentagon, it has to include revenues, it has to include eliminating wasteful and unproductive nonjob-general reating tax -- nonjob-generating tax expenditures. has to include eliminating the ethanol subsidy, something that was promolted the member from oklahoma, mr. sullivan. we put everything on the table, we can get from where we are to where we need to be.

one thing we also cannot do is start playing budgetary hostage taking and there is looming ahead of us the question of whether we will raise the debt ceiling or use that as a leverage point in some -- as some are suggesting. this is not a leverage point, it's a moral obligation. in the eight years in the clinton administration when he hand the keys over to the new president, mr. bush, there was a projected $5.7 trillion deficit and i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i'm prepared to close. mr. dreier: then the gentleman go aed heaand close and i'll do the same. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, madam speaker. i again want to bring it back to the hypothetical american family, small business we're talking about. here's the $1.399 trillion figure is boggling to most people. so lob off that zro and say, i'm a small business, i lost

$139,000 this next year. let me tell you, is losing $137,000 the next year a step toward solvency or a step towards bankruptcy? i would submit, madam chair, ask any small business man in america or small business woman, losing $137,000 instead of $139,000 is a step towards bankruptcy. just like that family we in the united states congress, we in this country, need to come together and make hard choices about where to find additional income, where to cut expenditures, how to get this budget out of red and into the black. that's the difference between where the democrats stand and the proposal of our friends on the other side. and another difference, a democratic president is actual -- has actually balanced a budget. that's a claim that the other side can't make for more than a generation.

it's clear that the republicans are not serious abt the deficit. if they were this would be a different bill. again, this is what we're talking about. taking our nation another step down the road toward fiscal insolvency and leaving a legacy of debt for the next generation. rather than holding the line on spending, the majority is feeding the beast. and yet what do the republicans cut rather than rooting out waste at pentagon? they cut $1.6 billion from the e.p.a.'s effort to protect public health and keep our air and water safe. $950 million from community development block grants to strengthen neighborhoods and create jobs. $815 million from fema grants that help communities prepare for disasters. $10 million to keep our food safe. when you look at the winners and losers in this budget, it becomes clear what the majority party does and does not value. and they clearly do not mind leaving the next generation a legacy of deficits and debt. what we're doing in this continuing resolution is

increasing the favite government spending of the majority party, running up the deficit, continuing big tax cuts for special interests while slashing theffort to educate our children, ensure access to health care, keep our air and water clean, oh, and while they're at it, taking away a woman's right to choose. this is where we could be by working together, democrats and republicans. this process, this rule and this bill are not examples of working together to solve our budge crisis. we can do better, we must do better to save america from bankruptcy. we must do better from sound and fury signifying nothing. we need to work togethero make the cuts we need to make, to increase the revenues we need to increase and to examine our entitlement programs, to put our nation on proper fiscal footing for the next generation and remove the mounting burden of debt that faces the next generation of americans. i don't see how anyone should

argue that somehow reducing again at the family level $139,000 loss to $137,000 loss while it might be a fine thing to do, leaves that family in every bit as dangerous and precarious a fiscal situation as they were before. ask any small business man or small business woman in this country. and after passing this continuing resolution and keeping our government in business another year or just punting further down the field about making cuts we all know we need to make to balance the budget, return to a surplus and help remove the next generation of americans from the legacy of debt that is threatening to crush them. i urge a no vote on the rule and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the geleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: madam speaker, according to the schedule in about nine minutes the present of the united states at george

washington university is scheduled to give a very important address in which he's going to talk about fiscal responsibility, the need to bring about spending cuts and all and how to get our economy growing. i want to congratulate the president, i want to congratulate the president for coming to this position and obviously it's much different than what we've gone through so far. as i said earlier, we've had an 82% increase in nondefense dcretionary spending, the president proposed a budget that has deficits in excess of $1.5 trillion and would exacerbate the debt. he came out a few weeks ago and proposed a freeze in spending. we know that if we'd not done what we're about to vote on here with this rule making or a vote that will take place tomorrow we would see an increase of spending of $78.5 billion, $78.5 billion more in spending if we

had not taken the action that this house in a bipartisan way is about to take. but the reason i want to congratulate the president is that i've just taken a look at the early reports of what what he's about to say in this -- of what he's about to say in this speech and he does call for us to look at the issue of titlements, he specifically says social security, not medicare or medicaid, but he talks about social security. but i believe that is again a first step towards what i believe is absolutely essential and that is for us in a bipartisan way to tackle the issue of entitlement spending. as mr. dicks said in the rules committee yesterday, at's 2/3 of the spending. we know that entitlement spending is something that needs to be addrsed and there is bipartisan recognition that we need to get our fiscal house in order. and, madam speaker, what we have before us is a measure that i don't like. i don't like it.

i don't believe that it does enough to reduce the size and scope and reach of government. i believe that we need to do more. but we have to remember that we've got to take that first step. now, last november 2 th american people sent a very loud and powerful message to washington, d.c. there are 96 wly elected members of this house, nine of them happen to be democrats, 87 of them are republicans. now, madam speaker, i think it's important for us to recognize that that's a pretty powerful message. they were saying, end the nonsense, bring an end to this dramatic expansion of government and that's exactly what we're doing with this first step. now, margaret thatcher, the great former prime minister of

great britain, famously said, first you have to win the argument, then you win the vote. i believe that we've won the argument, madam spker, because the message has come through. the message has come through that we are in fact going to have to get our fiscal house in order if we're going to ensure the strength and the preeminence of the greatest nation the world has ever known. and so, madam speaker, i'm going to urge my colleagues to support this rule and tomorrow we'll have a vote on the continuing resolution itself and then we will begin, tomorrow after we've had that vote, we will begin to debate the budget which is going to be far-reaching, it's going to be difficult but it i clearly the right thing for us to do and i will say again, madam speaker, that i do hope

that on these issues we will be able to continue to work gether in a bipartisan way to solve our nation's problems. and with th >> they will also work on a budget for the next year. you can watch all of the proceedings on the c-span. >> president obama presented his deficit-reduction plan yesterday in a speech to george washington university. his proposal has a four trillion dollars in cuts over the next 12 years. secretary trip -- tim geithner. including house budget committee paul ryan. this is 45 minutes.

[laughter] >> thank you. please have a seat. it is great to be back at gw. one of the reasons i work so hard is so i could show up here today. i want to make sure all of you had no excuse to get to class. you are welcome. [laughter] i want to give a special thanks to the president of gw. i just saw him. where is he? [applause] we have a lot of distinguished guests here. a couple of people i want to acknowledge.

first of all my outstanding vice president joe biden is here. [applause] tim geithner is in the house. [applause] the director of the budget. [applause] gene sperling is here. [applause] members of our bipartisan fiscal commission are here including the outstanding shares. -- chairs. we have a number of members of congress here today. i am grateful for all of you. what we have been debating in washington over the last few weeks will affect the lives of the students here and families

all across america in profound ways. this debate over budgets and deficits is about more than just numbers on the page. it is more than just cutting spending. it is about the kind of future we want. it is about the country we believe in. that is what i wanted to spend some time talking about today. from our first days as a nation, we have put our faith in free markets and free enterprise as the engine of america's wealth and prosperity. we are rugged individuals. a self-reliant people. skeptical of too much government. there is a thread running through our history. they believe we are all

connected. there are some things we can only do together as a nation. we believe in the words of abraham lincoln that we should do together what we cannot do as well as others -- as ourselves. so we build a strong military. public schools and universities to it to take us. we have laid down railroads and highways to facilitate travel and commerce. we supported the work of scientists and researchers.

part of this belief expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves basic measures of security and dignity. we recognize that no matter how responsive we live our lives, hard times, bad luck, crippling illness, a lay off, it may strike anyone of us. there before the grace of god go i, we say to ourselves. we contribute to programs like medicare and so security. the guarantee as health care and a measure of the basic income after a lifetime of hard work. unemployment insurance protects us against an expected job loss. medicaid provides care for millions of seniors, poor children, and those with disabilities.

we are a better country because of these commitments. we would not be a great country without those commitments. for much of the last century, our nation that the way to these parties with taxes paid. as a country that values fairness, what individuals have traditionally born a greater share of this burden and the middle class or those less fortunate. everybody pays, but the wealthier a little more. this is not because we deep grudge those who have done well. we celebrate their success. instead, it is a reflection of our belief that those who have benefited most from our way of life can afford to give back a little bit more. this belief has not hindered the success of those at the top of the income scale.

they continue to do better and better with each passing year. at certain times, particularly during war recession, we have had to borrow money. as most families understand, a low credit card debt is not going to hurt if it is temporary. as far back as the 1980's, america started amassing debt at more alarming levels. our leaders began to realize that the larger challenge was on the horizon. they knew that eventually, the baby boom generation would retire. that meant eight much bigger portion of our citizens would rely on medicare, so security, and possibly medicare. my parents with young children, america had to start barring more to prepare for the retirement of a generation.

to meet this challenge, our leaders came together three times to reduce our nation oppose the deficit. three times. they forged agreements the required tough decisions made by the first president bush, then by president clinton, by congress's and by the republican congress. all three agreements ask for a shared responsibility and shared sacrifice. but they protected the middle class. they protected our commitment to seniors. they protected our investments in our future. as a result of these efforts, america's finances were in great shape by the year 2000. we went from deficit to surplus. america was on track to becoming

completely debt-free. we were prepared for the retirement of the baby boomers. after democrats and republicans submitted to fiscal discipline, we lost our way in the decade that followed. we increased spending dramatically four two wars and a prescription drug program. we did not pay for a of the spending. instead, we made the problem worse with unpaid for tax cuts. tax cuts that went to every millionaire a billionaire in the country. tax cuts that will force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade. to give you an idea of how much damage this cause, consider this. in the last decade, if we had thought the way to pay for the tax cut that the drug benefits, our deficit would currently be

that low historical levels. but that is not what happened. by the time i took office, we found ourselves deeply in debt and a prepared for a baby boom retirement that is starting to take place. when i took office, are projected deficit was more than one trillion dollars. on top of that, we face the terrible financial crisis in a recession. we took a series of emergency steps that saved millions of jobs, kept credit flowing and provided families extra money in their pocket. it was the right thing to do. but the steps were expensive. the added to our deficit in the short term. that is how our fiscal challenge was created. that is how we got here.

now that our economic recovery is gaining strength, and democrats and republicans must come together and restore the fiscal responsibility the service well in the 1990's. we have to live within our means. we have to reduce our deficit. we have to get back on a path to pay down our debt. and we have to do it in a way to protect the recovery and the investments we need to grow and helps us win the future. before i get into how we can achieve this goal, some of you, you do not qualify jill, some of you might be wondering, why is this so important? why does this matter to me? here is why. even after our economy recovers, our government will

still be on track to spend more money than it takes in throughout this decade and beyond. that means we will have to keep pouring more from countries like china. that means more of your tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on all the loans we keep taking out. by the end of the decade, the interest we owe on our debt could rise to nearly one trillion dollars. that is the interest. just the interest. as the baby boomers start to retire, health care costs will continue to rise. the situation will get worse. by 2025, the amount of taxes we currently pay will only be enough to finance our health care programs, social security, and the interest we go on our debt. that is that. every other national priority,

education, transportation, even national security, will have to be paid for with borrowed money. ultimately all of this rising debt will cost us jobs and damage our economy. it will prevent us from making the investments we need to make -- to win the future. we will not be able to afford good schools, and to research, all the things that create jobs. businesses will be less likely to invest in a country that cannot balance its books. if a creditor start worrying that we may be unable to pay back debts, that could drive up interest rates for everybody. it will make a harder for businesses to expand and hire and families to take out a mortgage.

here is the good news. that does not have to be our future. that does not have to be the country we believe our children. we can solve this problem. we came together to meet this challenge before we can do it again. that starts by being honest about what is causing the deficit. most americans tend to dislike government spending in the abstract, but they like the stuff that baez. most of us believe we should have a strong defense and military. most believe we should invest in education and medical research. most think we should protect commitments like social security and medicaid. without even looking at a poll, might instincts tell me that

nobody believes they should pay higher taxes. [laughter] because all of this spending is popular with republican and democrat, and because nobody wants to pay higher taxes, politicians are eager to give the impression that solving the problem is a matter of eliminating waste and abuse. you will hear that phrase a lot. we need to eliminate waste and abuse! the implication is that it will not require tough choices. politicians suggest we can somehow close the deficit by eliminating things like foreign aid. foreign-aid makes at -- makes up about 1% of the budget. here is the truth. around two-thirds of our budget is spent on medicare, medicaid,

social security, and the national security. two-thirds. programs like unemployment insurance, student loans, veterans' benefits, and tax credits take up another 20%. what is left after interest on the debt is just 12% for everything else. that is 12% for all of our national priorities, education, clean energy, medical research, transportation, our national parks, food safety, keeping our air and water clean. you name it. all of that accounts for 12% of our budget. up until now, the debate has focused exclusively on that 12%. focused exclusively on that 12%.