the house is back in session at 9:00 to complete the budget for the next fiscal year. our guests are members of the house energy and commerce committee. republican tim murphy of pennsylvania and new york democrat and in weiner. "washington journal" is next. guest: good morning. it's friday, april 15. to day normally but tax das has been extended this year by the i.r.s. today on the floor of the house of representatives, the members are set to vote on the paul ryan g.o.p. budget plan and a number of other proposals. and we're going to focus in on the budget but on a specific area of it, that of defense

spending. the president earlier this week in his major address about budget priorities calling for an additional $400 billion in defense savings over the next 12 years. there's a big debate over what the size and scope of the u.s. military should be. you inoing to engage that discussion this morning. defense spending, cut, grow, or maintain. we also have a phone line for members of the military. we'll give that to you later on as our program begins on this friday morning. and i also should tell you it's a two-hour program this friday morning because the house is coming in early, 9:00 a.m. eastern time, to get back to its budget debate. before we get into the question of what appropriate size of the military and how much money this country should spend on defense, i want to get an update on the budget discussions.

and the congressional correspondent is with us. richard, thanks for being with us. guest: thank you. host: new calculations about the compromise came out yesterday. what did we learn about how much effect this spending cut compromise will really have on federal spending? guest: well, the estimate shows that they would actually be -- if you look at it one with a, they would actually be much smaller for this year, the remainder of this year. maybe like 1% of what they thought they were getting. you also have to look long term. and over the long-term, i believe c.b.o. did say that it does achieve some significant savings, and those savings would snowball over the years.

host: i read it would be 60. what does that mean for the speaker going forward on the next round for the debt limit and also the future budget? guest: well it could go a couple of ways. one way to look at it is he needed to rely on democrats to get that bill passed yesterday. and so he might have to keep that in mind as he goes into negotiations on both the debt limit and a bigger budget deal. on the other hand, most speakers do want to keep control and have the support of their membership. and it might cause him to work harder in future bills to gain the support of his entire conference so that he doesn't lose that many or any members. host: with that in mind, give us a preview of the vote today on the so-called ryan budget. guest: yeah. well, there will be five

different alternatives offered, including a conservative republican plan. so he could lose a few votes. some republicans, a few already have announced, that they're probably not going to support it. i think the expectation is that he won't lose anywhere near the 59 that he lost yesterday. he could lose a few. but generally, this is, in some ways, an easier vote for members. there isn't a government shutdown on the line. it could be that just about all democrats vote against it and just about all republicans vote for it. host: thanks for giving us a briefing before the day begins in the congress at 9:00 a.m. eastern time. guest: you're welcome. host: appreciate it let's move on with the discussion about what you think is the appropriate level of spending this country should make on defense. we're going to begin by letting you begin with the president's remarks. they were brief about defense spending in his address on wednesday of this week here in washington. let's listen. then we'll come back and show you some of the articles about it.

>> america's debt. as we must find more savings in domestic programs, we must do the same in defense. and we can do that while still keeping our self safe. over the last two years secretary bob gates has courageously taken on wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and future spending. i believe we can do that again. we need to not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness, but we're going to have to conduct a fundamental view of america's missions, capabilities, and the role in the changing world. told you we would have a line in addition to our phone lines. we also have an active duty military line for your thoughts as you are inside the service

about what the size and spending should be. are there areas that we can cut? are there area that we should grow? or is it about the right size? the line or active do you thinky military -- we look forward to hearing from you. just to get a sense of what the federal budget looks like, this is the budget pie. this red area right here is what is currently allow indicated to defense spending. defense spending, department of defense is in the vicinity of about 14% of the budget overall. that's a look at the f.y.2010 spending. to show you an article, as we're waiting to phone calls, this is "the new york times" today. when defense secretary robert gates disclosed his military budget he ordered $78 billion in

cuts over five years on top of several hundred billion dollars in savings. president obama called for tightening the pentagon budget again, ordering the national security establishment to place $400 billion in projected spending through the 2023 fiscal year. the decision was real estate laid by the white house to mr. gates one day before speech on wednesday. i'll read more later. let's get to your telephone calls. we begin with a call from baltimore. valerie, you're on the air, democrat. caller: yes, hello. good morning. host: good morning. caller: yes. i think the democrats and the republicans and congress need to get together and compromise to find the best way to deal with the defense and any of the other that come before them for a vote. because the vote yesterday in the house proved one thing, and that's that the tea party republicans are irrelevant. not only were they not able to muster enough votes to keep the

legislation from passing, they were not even -- their votes were not even needed to pass the -- host: let me move you from what happened to this morning we're asking people to focus in on how much the country spends for defense and whether or not our priorities are correct. what are your thoughts on that? caller: i think they should come together to decide what is best for this country. host: ok. calling for compromise, valerie from baltimore. next, this is from ithica, allen, an independent. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i've been an antiwar activist since after i got back -- shortly after i got back from vietnam in 1966. looking back on the history of the last 40, 50 years, i'd have to say that the only way we're going to be able to deal with the deficit is to take the

profit out of military production, that is nationalized military production. you know, whether it's been korea, vietnam, iraq, it seems that the desire for profit on the part of certain corporations in this country has driven foreign policy. so i really think that we need to take the profit out of war and nationalize military production. host: thanks for your call. we're showing you some budget statistics. one of the moatable things is that since 2001, before the september 11 attack, defense spending in this country has roughly doubled. and that's just for department of defense it doesn't include the other national securities such as homeland security, c.i.a. and the like. in 2001. $296 billion in the budge eliminate. and the continuing resolutions, for this year's federal spending, d.o.d. is funded

at $513 billion. do we spend about the right amount on defense? do you advocate spending more given the security priorities in the world? or would you see areas for cutting, and what would they be? ohio is next. christine, a republican there. good morning. morning.ood i love c-span. host: thank you. caller: for our defense, that's what our government is supposed to be doing. they're not supposed to be saving life, saving turtles or sending welfare to pakistan and everywhere else. our defense is to defend the united states. they should not even be talking about military. military should be paid from, from the beginning. there should be no questions. they should be starting to reform welfare, reform some of these other things. don't attack old people. don't attack our military. why don't we start getting these young people off welfare and back to work? i don't understand why we keep attacking our military. i really don't. host: all right, christine.

thank you very much. supporting defense spending by the federal government. eerie, michigan. tom is a democrat there. good morning, you're on. caller: good morning susan and c-span. the republican kind of stole my thunder a little bit. if you took the profit out that would be the end of it. but we're maintaining military bases all over the world. some of them have been since world war ii if these countries want our defense, i think they should pay for it. host: thanks for your call. a tweet, "get rid of the foreign bases. if we didn't need it during 911, we'll never need it." and back to the "new york times" in this article obama puts defense ball back in pentagon's court. but some budget analysts argue that while the president's directive, another $400 billion over 12 years, sounded sweeping, the pentagon could save that much by limiting its future spending increases by the white house. this is easily absorbable and is not really a cut, said gordon

adams of american university who oversaw military budgets in the clinton white house. work last year with a bipartisan group led by the republican of new mexico and the former budget director in the clinton administration, recommended reducing the pentagon's projected spending by $900 billion over 10 years. president obama's deficit reduction commission called for saving $1 trillion over that period. mr. adams said the $400 billion was less than half of that and about 7% of what the administration had projected spending on the military over the next 12 years. it goes on to say military grown at an inflation-adjusted average of 7% a year in the decade since the terrorists attack of 2001. the rate is nearly 12% a year before adjusting for inflation including the wars in iraq and afghanistan. tuesday congress set the base budget to $530 billion. unless pentagon reduces some of the duties it planned to expand,

it could still face difficulties. they've already done a lot of the easier things in programs, said one analyst. back to your telephone calls. springfield, ohio. this is charlotte, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i think they should support the military. host: so increase or stay at about the same size? caller: well, if they need an increase, they need it. i think that obama, he's just not capable of running the country. i'm sorry, but you don't talk about your president, but i think he's about the worst president we've ever had. host: charlotte, thanks from springfield, ohio. next up, a telephone call from alexandria, virginia. this is john, a democrat. go ahead, please. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. and thank you for c-span.

in my opinion, the united states spends much more on defense than is really required. if you look at how much the united states spends compared to the rest of the world, we spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined on defense. i don't think that's necessary. i don't think that that level of spending is required to keep our country safe i think that we could do with significantly less spending. we spend probably two to three times more than china and russia combined who most people would think are our major potential enemies. i just don't think that that's required. i think we could do with a lot less and either take the savings in taxes, cuts, or use it on other programs. host: thanks, john. we did pull a few comparative numbers globally. every year there's a think inarching sweden, the stockholm

group, which puts out a comparative of spending by countries on their military globally. and cnn.com did a story about it, led by u.s. world, military spending rises 1.3%. here's a bit of what they say in this. the world's government shelled out $1.63 trillion in military spending last year, an increase over 2009 according to a swedish institute. forunited states accounted nearly all of the increase. but stockholm international peace research institute noted sharp increases by south american and african countries as well. by virtually every measure u.s. military leads every other nation in the dust. the $698 billion spent accounted for 43% of all the military spending in the world. six times the amount is spent by the number two country, china. military spending amount is 4.8% of the u.s. gross domestic product compared to the world average of 2.6%. next is a call from seattle. this is gary, an independent. you're on.

morning.ood thanks for taking my call. host: sure. cloim i agree with some of the other previous callers. take both of profit out and pull bases out. put some of this money back in social programs back in the united states. we got enough defense spending to defend ourselves. i don't think there's any worry about that. host: when you say take the profit out, how would that work, really? caller: well, the amount -- if you look at our situation, are we defending an empire or what? i don't quite understand the level of spending to keep these bases that just don't do us any good anymore. i think it's a waste of money. and i think if we become less of a police force and just defend our country, i think we could take care of ourselves. i just don't think people around the world spending this kind of

money is the answer. particularly when you look at the middle east. are we building there? what's the situation with afghanistan? to draw is this going out? all the states in the country have needs. i just think the military, i think we could make some real cuts there and save some money. host: thanks for your call. this was a schardt done -- chart done by military expenditures from the c.i.a. in 2010. if you look at the color coding, the darker the color, the greater percentage of g.d.p. and here's the united states right here with 4% to 5% of its g.d.p. going toward military. you look along the world globally, look at this region of the world in the middle east where the greatest percentage of g.d.p. goes towards military spending. the nextel phone call is a republican. jason, in brazil, indiana,

you're on the air. good morning. caller: good morning. i was in the military for 10 years. i've often wondered why we have 11 aircraft carriers and if you add up the rest of the world together, they only have 10. my other point if we only spend double what china spends from your stockholm report, we'd be spending $200 billion, which would save us $400 billion just next year. i'll hang up now. thank you very much for c-span. host: thanks for calling. jason talks about aircraft carriers. we pulled the statistics on that from wikipedia. here is the chart. the united states navy has 11 in service and one in reserve. and this is the list of all the other aircraft carriers in service in the rest of the world. the italian navy has two. the british royal navy, one. the indian navy one. russia, one. france, one. brazil, one. the spanish navy, one. the royal thai navy, one.

is next., washington james is an independent. good morning, sir. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. i have a couple of things about military spending. i'm in the air national guard. since 9/11 i spent about seven years on active duty. before that, you know, we'd all go out, do our missions, our training, and what not. but a big part of the problem with the military spending is that there's too much -- it's too much of a good old boys' group. a lot of the troops there, the equipment is purchased for them. they don't get it. instead of us getting the equipment in theater, it's given to the iraqi national police. when i was over there, i was driving a humvee that would barely go where i'd see the i.p.'s running around driving around in complete armored, brand new humvees that are just given to them.

the training, too many too. the last time they sent me to a place, they went ahead and told me i wouldn't need my weapon. they issued me a piece of junk. so i couldn't even make sure my own weapon was good to go when i got on theater. the air force asked for a four-man heavy weapons team. and i was there for a month, and not once did i touch one of the heavies. the big problem is, a lot of these generals, they get out of the military, they go to work for a lot of these big corporations, and they turn around and start selling a lot of crap to the pentagon that we just don't need. and the things we do need, we just simply don't get. and i'd say at least 50 cents on every dollar is wasted in the pentagon budget. and that's from the operational level. i was just a lower n.c.o. host: thanks. this is on twitter. "with the pentagon having second

thoughts on iraq withdrawal and two other wars, cutting is not an option. wars cost money." we talked about defense spending in our "newsmakers" program that airs monday morning. here's one of the comments made about the debate over defense spending. >> all of these proposals, these cuts that are happening, do you feel the united states national security is at stake when we start to make these kinds of cuts? >> i definitely do. and if you go back a year ago, secretary gates was giving us different numbers. i mean, projecting out ahead. we were saying we would not go below a 1% increase over and above each year, over and above inflation. and now we're cutting -- we're actually cutting from those projections, $78 billion. over and above the $100 billion that the chiefs were asked to go back and find, but they got to

keep most of that. >> could we do another $400 billion over 12 years? i'm assuming you're not saving that much money in your review of the defense programs. >> no, i'm really not even -- i'm hoping that that's just what was an opening shot in a presidential campaign. host: that will air on sunday morning, also on sunday evening on "newsmakers." back to telephone calls. francona, virginia. jack is a democrat there. you're on the air. we're talking defense spending, jack, this morning. caller: good morning. two-time medal of honor winner. he won the medal of honor twice. the marine general, his take after 40-some years of being in the marine corps years ago was that two things we're fighting for, a bill of rights and our coastline. he said anything else would be for the bankers and the

profiteers. and since you're talking about spending cuts, if if i might just say this. right now we're spending -- i'm a retireee. i paid my federal income tax this year. it was over $5,000 in federal income tax. and we've got a guy like paul ryan talking about cut -- down the road cutting medicare. i finance -- not me personally, but taxpayers finance his medical coverage by about $10,500 a year. it as it a lot of nerve for him to get on and talk about cutting benefits for people and we're financing it. it works out to about $875 a month. and he's making $174,000 a year. the senate -- find out how many senators are collecting this subsidy. they call the senate the

millionaires club. it wouldn't surprise me a bit to find out that there are senators worth millions of dollars getting a $10,500 yearly subsidy from the taxpayers. it's an outrage. host: ok, jack. thanks. one other measure of military spending is the size of the standing army. we looked for statistics on this this is pretty small here. but number one on the list is china. according to 2008 figures figures, $2.255 -- 2.255 million men in arms south korea 687,000. pakistan, 650,000. those are the top numbers of standing armies in order of magnitude. next, williamsburg, virginia. this is russell a republican. good morning.

caller: good morning. host: yes, sir. your comment, please. caller: well, i spent my time in the military during the vietnam era. i spent time in the army reserves. and i've worked as a subcontractor for the navy for a number of years. my observation is that if they could cut back on the budget, you know, save on the budget -- and this applies, i would say, throughout all the government agencies. at the end of the year, during the course of the year we would have, you know, your usual flight, helicopter crew chief, gunner. we would have flights for regular training. but at the end of the year there would be massive flights because they had to spend the money. while i was working as a

subcontractor, the same observation throughout the agency. you would have requests even for supplies. but reasons couldn't be supplied to you. your request -- you know, you couldn't fulfill them. but at the end of the fiscal year people could get all sorts of equipment, new computers to me, that's something that if they really want savings, to watch their end of the year savings. you can take over the course of many, many years, how often this goes on. host: thank you, russell, from williamsburg, virginia. from twitter, "outsourcing government functions to corporations grossly inflate costs and lower quality. we must stop that "insider" gravy train." talking about defense and what kind of priority you see it. next is a call from charlotte,

north carolina. a democrat. good morning. caller: yes. i just wanted to make a comment on this funding. i just believe we're spending too much money already. we have so many bases around the world. and it's unnecessary. you know, we are the most fearful people in the world. it's unbelievable. but yet we want to call ourselves, most people want to call themselves, christians. i've never known anyone that believed in god or jesus christ to be so much in fear. it's unbelievable. i just don't understand why people are so much in fear of war. what ever happened to them believing in their god? it don't make any sense to me. and i have a question for you.

how come you keep referring to our commander in chief as mr. obama? how come you can't just refer to him as the president of the united states? thank you. do, i'm usually reading from newspaper articles. it's president obama here as speaker of the house. defense secretary robert gates, who is concerned about the military spending debate, writes -- rather this article says defense secretary robert gates warns the u.s. military will have to scale back its overseas commitments and shrink to meet president barack obama brack's defense cuts. mr. gates believes the plan would require identifying the missions the country is willing to have to forego.

how republicans led by paul ryan forwarded a competing plan that includes $178 billion in defense spending cuts. mr. gates identified priored to mr. obama's speech. but the obama plan also exposes new fault lines, both between democrats and republicans and within the g.o.p. as lawmakers in the administration try to find common ground to slash the national deficit. while mr. ryan's proposal incorporates mr. gates' suggested cuts, republicans such as senator rand paul of kentucky have said that reductions must go further. back to telephone calls. martinsville, virginia. ralph is a republican there. good morning, ralph. caller: good morning, susan. how are you? host: great. thanks. caller talkingt about we were the most powerful people in the world. we was at the time world war ii was over. if we was most feared now, we wouldn't have been attacked on like we was.

and as far as the defense cuts, we believe we need to maintain it to take care of ourselves. if not, we will be hit again. look what china's done done. they've done stole our stealth fighting ability. now they're building nine new nuclear warships. and we owe them half our economy. we need to maintain -- either grow our military or keep it like it is or we are really going to be in bad trouble. one more thing, please. host: all right, ralph. what's your last point? caller: i was in the military for 9 1/2 years. what a lot of military spending goes to is building new schools and roads for those guys after we blow them up over there? but these warlords. millions and millions and millions of dollars is going to these warlords.

then they leave the country with that money and hiding with it. that's something that needs to be stopped. it's paying them to say they're not going to fight or tell us something. and then they leave with all of that money, and we still fighting them. host: ralph, thank you so much, from martinsville, virginia. monty on twitter suggests reallocation. he says spend one year allocation on developing countries in extreme poverty like afghanistan and yemen and build good will around the world. also getting a number of e-mails of what we should do with defense spending. buddy in north carolina writes there's nothing wrong with what the defense department buys but what they pay for it. check for who profits from the spending. also by e-mail, george, in cedar ridge, california. the g.o.p. says the government doesn't create jobs. the government has done pretty well for the military industrial complex. the g.o.p. supports this but not the person working at the post office. next is a telephone call from north carolina. good morning to ward, independent there.

caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: it's plain and simple to me. we ever a department of aggression. we need a department of defense. that's why we were attacked on 9/11. we spend entirely too much money to support a military. look, unless we spend compared rest of the world. we are the military. we've got to downsize to save money. let's start taking care of people. one thing wrong with barack obama brack, and i'm a barack obama supporter, but barack obama is a democrat. he's partisan. anybody that's partisan needs to think about becoming independent. and let's get away from partisan politics. that's one of our biggest problems. that's all i have to say, susan. thank you very much. host: thanks for the call. you're look at some video from the president last night. he traveled to chicago,

hometown, for two fundraising events for his re-election bid. and back to e-mails. one question regarding the military industrialized nation. why did we privatize and pay private contractors more than our enlisted? and also this from jim riley in pearl river, new york. to the 2011 time almanac, there are at least 40 companies which the department of defense contractors are each independently receiving in excess of $1 billion per year in defense department payments. that benchmark is $1 billion, not any lower amount. these contractors include federal express. when are these payments going to be looked at for cost reduction purposes in a meaningful matter? next call from houston, kathy is a democrat. caller: good morning, susan. there is a news black out on what's going on in the military. halliburton, k.b.r. not one contract got out of the white house. in fact, the owner

made $4 billion in six months alone, on slaughtered soldiers. iraq war might have been a lie, but it didn't stop the neocons. they used homeland security as contracts for the good old boys. and let's see, war is great if you don't have to look at it or pay for it. china is helping with our demise. and while my sons are there fighting for so-called freedom we're fighting for corrupt dictators and karzai getting a million dollars from iran, and want our sons to die for him? he needs to be splattered in a crater. thank you, america. host: from the "baltimore sun" and the campaign trail. the doctrine across the u.s. can expect to pay. from new york this says the next time america is called on to act as global policemen, the world should expect a bill from uncle sam, donald trump says. asking about defense spending priorities. next a call from st. petersburg, florida. jim a republican. caller: hi. i've got a lot of points to make, so please don't cut me

off. let's just take a look at the facts instead of just, you know, relying on hearsay. the u.s. spends about as much and for quite a number of years more than the rest of the world combined. ok? the u.s. has over 750 military facilities in other people's countries. the military is making us less safe not more safe. the u.s. has been at war every year for the last 70 years. there's no other country that even comes close to this. let's take a look at the budget. the budget will be abou about $3.7 trillion. the federal budget. you have the amount of taxes they're going to collect that's going to be between $1.6 trillion

and $1.9 trillion. so what you're going to have is a deficit just this year of $1.05 troll $2 trillion. now, if you take a close look at the budget, they've got the military spending hidden in quite a number of different places so when they tell you it's about $700 billion, it's really $985 billion. so, as you can see, we're spending money that we don't have on just corporate welfare, because that's what it is. are lobbying the government to spend money on military by creating fear. that's all i have to say. host: thanks for your call. st. petersburg, florida, on the republican line. this tweet, $550 billion plus $110 billion for the wars, just like president bush.

now, that's change. we can all believe him. -- we can all believe in. "the new york times" editorializes whether nato can succeed at a mission in which the united states plays support a lead role. let me go on to the newspapers.

related to the europeans on defense security, and also in the "financial times," "hooray, the yanks are going home." this case, as long as european countries nestle under the u.s. security umbrella, europeans will continue to inhabit a post modern utopia. and here's what he writes. "under the circumstances many would say the intelligence force for europe is to plead with knowns stay in europe. the harsh troupe is europe needs shock treatment." of course, that we just saw.

he's arguing for yanks to go home and europe to bare more of its security costs. this is a call from john, an independent. good morning. caller: good morning. first of all, i'm a bit -- i've been in the service twice, the army first in vietnam, and then the marine corps. and i also work for the defense department, different jobs i had. but anyway, i'm a bit of a historian buff. i think eisenhower once said we're of the military industrial complex. it took me a while to understand that, but i can see now what he meant. as far as the military goes, i would maintain that. what's more important, i think, is the intelligence. i know the military has intelligence and so does the c.i.a. and the n.s.a. you want to stop, prevent wars, you get good intelligence,

and you could do that. spend the money there, not high-tech intelligence. i'm talking about human intelligence, on the ground intelligence. that's where you might prevent war or something like that. so that's where -- like in world war ii, i think what really won the war in europe was propaganda and intelligence. that's what really -- not all the fire power that we had. as far as, you know -- i think sherman said it best. he said war is hell. it's only hell when the politicians get involved. all the politicians. by the way, i'm a political atheist. host: what does that mean? caller: let me put it this way. believe half of what you see and none of what you hear. host: [indiscernible] [laughing] caller: i guess so. you have a good sense of humor. host: thanks for calling this morning. tom, you're on the air.

caller: good morning. the lady that called in a couple of calls back had it exactly right. it's the contractors that are getting the money. dick cheney got rich off of iraq. and what they need to do is to cut out all of these contractors and reinstitute the draft. back during the korean war, a private or a p.f.c. driver bringing ammunition to the front made $37 a month. i think now maybe an infantryman makes $14,000 a year. a truck driver for halliburton makes $125,000 a year. this must be stopped. we need to get out of these wars and mind our own business. thank you very much. host: thanks for your call. we have two members of congress on this morning. again, a reminder, our program is just two hours this morning. we will be hearing from congressman tim murphy, a

republican of pennsylvania. and later on, anthony wiener, a democrat of new york. all here to take your telephone calls. "american hero" tweets, did you ever notice since we changed the name to department of defense we've never won a war since? and then in parenz, almost. tried to be a democrat. i've tried to be a republican. now i would say i'm maybe a libertarian. but the person that said that we've been at war for 70 years, the reason we've been at war for 70 years is because they send in hitmen that are -- the money men. they loan these people money. get them hooked, get the people

in the government. and then they try to make them do what they want to, these big businesses do. and then -- they're called economic hitmen. a guy that wrote a book on it. he was retired. i couldn't think of the name of it. get them hooked, and they tell them how much money they're going to make over a period of time. well, they don't do -- then they have to sell their oil, sell rubber, or whatever they have in their country that these political -- that these companies want. and if they don't do that, then they send in the real hitmen. if they don't do that, they send in the army. host: all right, gary. sorry, our time is getting short here. it is traditional tax day today. you have until monday because of the i.r.s. acting for d.c.'s

emancipation holiday today. but the white house launched a calculator for taxpayers. this kind of ties in to what we've been talking about this morning. it is at white househouse.gov/taxreceipt. beginning today taxpayers can plug in either the amount you paid in taxes this year or your annual income, and see exactly how your tax dollars are divvied up by the government. a receipt will show how much of your tax dollars are going to social security and medicare. how income tax is divided between national defense, health care, jobs, programs, education, veterans' benefits, agriculture, the environment and more. new hampshire, bruce is up next on the independent line. you're on the air. morning.ood what i think we need is a small group of people with high security clearance and the authority and the responsibilities to go through and remove redunned yancey and -- redundancy and waste. i'm not talking about anything that makes us less secure.

just talking about getting rid of the waste. i think if we had people who have the authority and the responsibility and had to come up with an annual report of how saved every year, i think that would go a long way to improving things. on the civilian side in the government, we ought to have the analogue. we need people to go through who have the authority to just cut the waste and redundancy. that's my thought. host: thanks for your call. this is a profile of a freshman republican in congress from michigan. the headline is, "no, no, no. no, no. no, no." the lawyer, freshman member of the congress, stands out. he has voted against his party on important symbolic measures like one that was stripping financing from planned parenthood and those most minor like a measure to amend the ronald reagan centennial commission act to extend its termination date.

he's even voted against a routine matter of approving the journal of the day's proceedings because he says there's not enough time to read it. often agrees with spirit of the measure but not the constitutional basis he votes present as he did to take money from public broadcasting. he writes, i follow principles, follow the constitution who keeps pictures of the seating chart on his office wall. that's what i base my votes on, limited government, economic freedom, and individual liberty. a big profile of him in the "new york times" this morning if you're interested. last call on defense spending. it's from st. louis. this is bart. is that right? , dartalyan.ar host: all right. we're talking defense spending. what are your comments? caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: your problem is you have your tv volume up that's causing feedback.

so hit the mute and go ahead. caller: well, i think the problem is -- ok. i'm sorry. i'll cut it down. host: please, real quickly. caller: how is that? host: fine. go ahead. caller: i think the biggest problem is people are forgetting that starting with this problem financial and the deficit that we have now started off with the voice of george bush, and then it went on to reagan. and then from the things that happened as far as a threat on george bush's life, when his son got in office, his son turned around -- when they went over there to saddam. host: caller, we're out of time. in the end, what is all of this analysis leading you to on defense spending? caller: in the end what i'm saying is we need to take care of our american people that's

here before we take care of people somewhere else. host: thanks so much. sorry to be in a rush. but we're a little late with our first guest of the morning. congressman tim murphy of pennsylvania. we'll be right back with him. >> on april 12, 1861, confederate forces attacked fort sumpter. this month the 150th anniversary. and this weekend on c-span3, the and sounds from fort sumpter in charleston with a special look at wartime life in the 1860's, as well as interviews with civil war scholars and re-enactors from the north and south. get the complete weekend schedule at c-span.org/history or also you can press the c-span alert button and have the schedules e-mailed to you. >> to be a parent means that you're training the people you can't live without to live

without you. >> his son's college admission process, the s.a.t.'s, college rankings, guide books, financial aid forms, senior h editor andrw ferguson was not prepared for crazy u. >> nothing happened to me when i was thinking about college in the mid 1970's. so it was starting to dawn on me that this is a very much different process from what it was. >> find out as this dad catches up sunday night on c-span's "q&a." you can also download a podcast of "q&a," one of our many signature programs available online at c-span.org/podcast. >> now available, c-span's congressional directory, a complete guide to the first session of the 112th congress. inside, new and returning house and senate members with contact information, including twitter addresses, district maps, and committee assignments, and the white house, supreme court justices, and governors. order online at c-span.org/shop.

>> this weekend on "book tv" on c-span2, on "afterwards" in the politically incorrect guide to socialism, kevin williamson defines socialism and how it's at work in the u.s. today. he's intervieweed. in "black gothem," 19th century new york city with karla peterson. also this weekend a look at our first ladies. you can find the "book tv" schedule, get schedules e mailed, sign up for "book tv" alert. >> "washington journal" continues. host: and on your screen is our first congressional guest of the morning this friday morning, congressman tim murphy of pennsylvania, a member of the energy & commerce committee. i want to tell you about congressman murphy. he served in the pennsylvania state senate from 1997 to 2002 coming to congress.

he has a ph.d. from the university of pittsburgh. and he is also a lieutenant commander in the u.s. navy reserve medical service corps. he brings all of that experience to bare to our conversation this morning about the federal budget and what our priorities are. thanks for being here. >> great to be with you. thank you. host: what did you vote on the continuing resolution? voted for it. host: and what are your plans on the budget? that thisping in mind is the road map, a blueprint. this is not -- the big one to come is our appropriations. but i think it's extremely important that congress responds to what the american people said last november in saying we have to reverse course and work on a lot of spending cuts. because we are now at the level where we are increasing our debt a second. given the average income of an american is $50,000, we spend money faster than they can say how much they earn. that's a serious problem. we've got to put the breaks on that in order for our country to prosper. host: democrats have zeroed in on the ryan plan on the cuts it

makes to entitlement programs, medicare and the like. let me talk specifically about medicare, the plan to block grants -- guest: medicaid. host: yes. excuse me. and then medicare program also has fundamental changes in the way it's administered and it's medicare i want to focus on. 17% of your district over 65. how are you going to take the medicare message back to them? guest: medicare is reaching the point, in a few years, where it's spending more than it's taking in. we've reached that point this year with social security, which is also important to seniors. and the way the ryan plan is looking at this is to offer people choices, same as members of congress or federal employees have. you can choose from a menu of options for plans. you add more to it. nowing currently about 10% of medicare recipients have the fee for service plan, and they also pay out of pocket for it.

what we're looking at over time is the main things that are going to have to change here in the ryan plan versus obama, is we have to change how medicare functions day-to-day. a senior who goes to the doctor and says i have this problem with my hip, maybe they have surgery or something else, they just know what's in front of the curtain. they don't know behind the curtain is an incredibly inefficient system designed in 1965, with literally thousands of addendumses and changes to it but still operates back in the same way of the days when the biggest modern equipment in a was an x-ray machine on wheels. they thought at that time a cat scan was something you did when you looked at a feline. but the issues with regard to how it operates, so a physician can make decisions on work on your overall health, that's part of what has to be under control in the costs of medicare. the president, on the other hand, offered this independent panel, a prizing advisory board, which would basically have 15 people who are not your doctor

who would set prices. as they set prices, decide what they're going to pay for and not, that's a different approach which is all based upon the money approach. if you go to your doctor and the idea is the doctor says i want to do these procedures, but you need to know the government isn't paying for any of that, that's still out of pocket costs if the person wants that. so the point is, we have to reform medicare so that's it's focusing on the wellness improvement and not just saying we're not going pay for it. host: when i was listening to the debate on the house floor last night, a democratic opponent to the ryan plan said that under this proposal we would be throwing seniors out into the private insurance pool at a time the private insurance companies don't want to take them on because of the risk so they might be left without insurance. guest: again, not paying attention to how medicare works. medicare works by the person gets a fund. they get coverage from the federal government. if they want to add to that a

medicare supplemental plan, or modify their drug coverage plan, to go into something else, they buy that out of pocket at a cost, perhaps a few dollars a month. these same folks are criticizing that last year, under the health care bill took $500 billion out of medicare. that has to be reimbursed. that's the double accounting that when secretary sabellius said we're double counting that money. we said that money has to stay in medicare. you can't take that out. and so much of the rest is either misunderstanding how the medicare works or just political rhetoric meant to scare people. host: opponents suggest it's time for the state to administer, that the states will it on other priorities and the poor, and particularly poor children will be most affected by this. guest: right now, medicaid, the law covers 18 million or more -- i'm thinking of how many

americans it covers. but about a quarter of the state budge set spent on medicaid. it's extensive. when we add 18 million more americans, more people they will have to pick up in a couple of years, anyways. i guess the same thing could have been said last year. when there was this big brouhaha, the federal government needs to send more money to states, spend it on teachers, what pennsylvania did is it said, yeah, we need this money on teachers. as soon as the money came over, yeah, they took it out of education and put it somewhere else. can you also make sure this money is spent only on medicaid. it can't be transferred and the states can't transfer them out of there. but what happened -- think of it this way. when i worked at children's hospital in pittsburgh, mercy hospital, pittsburgh, i was amazed when i would see children in with long-term ear infections, speech problems, and developmental delays and say, when was your last pediatric checkup because we can't find it here? two, three years ago. why? medicaid doesn't require anybody to have a physical or checkup. and you'd see disabled people,

poor children, come in and they hadn't seen a doctor in a long time. or they'd have an exam and nothing was there to make sure they would follow up. so now you have these children with speech and language problems, which are going to be more expensive. and a challenge shows up in an emergency room a child crying because they're in pain. if states are given the latitude to come up with some innovative ways of practicing health care and not just spending money, and states are incentivized, you come up with a better way of doing this, i think that's positive for medicine. right now the federal government only does this by saying here's what we'll pay for and how much we're going to pay. this is extremely important. i'll give you an example of this. we have -- when you see a physician, whatever it is, a diabetes, heart disease, lung disease, orthopedic problems, that your doctor is look at globally, what's the best thing to do to make it better? the way these systems work is a doctor is reimbursed for every time they poke, pinch, prod,

push, or pull you, they get paid so what are they going to do? they're going to poke, pinch, prod, pull you. lung steers, a person with diabetes, you need to work on nutrition. everything from shoes, pow die trie, weight loss, heart issues, vision issues. but if the doctor is only getting paid, writing prescriptions for insulin, that's all that they can do. you need a more -- you need a holistic approach where there's disease management. these programs don't pay for it. as a matter of fact, as part of the health care bill that was passed by the democrats, they zeroed out that money. they took out the disease management program under some of the aspects of medicare. we need to let doctors practice medicine in a more global perspective. the outcome means medicare, medicaid will pay to have your legs amputated. they won't pay to have a nurse call you once a week to see how you're doing tore adjust your treatment -- or to adjust your treatment plan to get better. host: and what we heard from

democrats on the floor yesterday is the ryan plan and the g.o.p.'s orientation is that wealthy americans get off well in the plan and that it's done at the expense of women, children, and the elderly in society. guest: so far what you're repeating is their scaring talking point. i'm speaking to a group of eighth graders the other day. let the members of the audience know that every single one of them owes $45,000 of debt. and one eighth grader said, why do i owe this money? what did i do? i says, well, the government is at that rate. and notice how there are hundreds of duplicate programs, even within the department of education. 14 homeless programs in the v.a. alone. some of the students said, why don't you combine those into one? good thinking. you don't need all of these programs, offices, etc. ship the overhead into money to go into the classroom, to help people. someone else raised the question, what are you going to do with all of those federal

employees if you lay them off? >> that's the difference here. it is a matter of what is crueler, to tell a child you're going to be spending most of your year paying taxes or paying back debts on other things that are inefficient or that you're going to have an opportunity for a job? what is cruel tore say that you're dependent on a welfare check or we want you to get a paycheck? i think you're going to hear a lot of this. i hope we can get back to what have to do to reform the system. >> let me flip to the other side of the argument. congress lost votes last night in the continuing resolution. "washington times" this morning, budget cuts too small for many conservatives. and other stories in the paper suggest about the coming showdown over the debt ceiling. what about those who are epitomized by the tea party but those who are fiscal hawks who say we aren't making enough head way? guest: but the question is -- i'm from pittsburgh. we've had six super bowls. how do we do this?

enter the field saying we're going to win. and you say we're going to keep advancing the ball. you don't throw a hail mary pass every time the ball gets in your hands. you have to keep moving. it is nowhere near enough. we spend more than that every day in debt payment or the increased debt. it is not enough. that does not mean you say we will not support this. if we came out of this st. that -- to take a problem. let's not forget. in the last congress, there was no budget. here's how this works. people come to a house and collect everything, bags or jars. think about this.

you just inherited homes. you walk into this house and realize this place is a disaster. the plumbing and the wiring is a mess. it is trashed. you will have to spend a lot of money to clean this up. that is what we have here. when we walked into this fiscal house and recognized that all of these problems occurred and recognized that the republicans in the house, slowly murrah than half of one-third, -- slightly more than half of one-third, -- that is how you of progress. i disagree with my colleagues who say we will vote on this and walk away. host: we get some twitter messages as well as calls and e- mails. we have several tweets.

guest: that is the facts. them the -- i'm giving facts. it is mean to have the facts say they owe $45,000. if a parent says, can have an increase in allowance, is it mean for parents to say, we don't have that kind of money. i cannot buy that car. that is the reality. in my years of practicing psychology, you don't have to tell the child every problem the family is dealing with. during depression, parents said that dad lost his job. we're putting a huge burden on our children and grandchildren unless we change this course. host: suit is a democrat in

milwaukee -- sue. caller: i wanted to make an observation. i am a retired rn. i was working in the hospital in 1964 when medicare was passed. the mantra of the doctors was, we're going to be sure that this fails. here we are in 2011. i'm seeing all the physicians in the house of representatives and the senate that our doctors and guess what -- we are right back to where we work before medicare was ever passed. now we're trying to get rid of it again. the doctors have overspent. there were charging everything they could. the government had to put restrictions on them. now they are saying it will fail again. thanks to them, it will fail. "i cannot afford to take

medicare patients." these don't make any money so they will not take medicare patients. ive.nd that repulse guest: the facts hurt in terms of the cost of delivering medicine. the pricing advisory board is going to be a group of 15 people that are appointed. it will come up with how much is pay for -- they will come up with with how much is paid for. people are not going to prescribe those services. seniors will be on their own for that. will you describe when medicare was designed, the sad truth is we're still operating from that. all but you you and other people are not driving a 1965 car -- i

will bet you and other people are not driving a 1965 car. we need a more effective system. we do not have that. if a doctor said the to have it report antibiotic given to on a daily basis and you're probably quite capable of giving some -- of giving body support -- of giving somebody an iv. if somebody needs a cane, they have to go through tests to say this is the one that works for you. if somebody needs a motorized wheelchair, they have to have a physical therapist and other people to work this thing. it may take a few months for this wheelchair to be

manufactured. after 60 days, the prescription for that expires. the person has to come back and be reevaluated. after 90 days, this person wasn't hospice care -- this person was in hospice care. eventually these things are given away to foreign countries to use. i am frustrated with how these systems work. i want to see us work on a holistic way where we're treating the patients to make them better. this is not something the government talks about. but it is fundamental when you see a health care plans working on a more global approach. people get better at a more controlled since. caller: good morning.

yes, i agree with everything that lady just said. you should be a used car salesman. you sit up there and tell blatant lies and -- guest: what is the lie i told? caller: all about medicare. medicare will spend forever and ever. but you republicans always are trying to privatize it. host: i'm going to stop you. we have the republican line. guest: let's talk about telling the truth. caller: a democrat from north carolina, peggy. caller: i agree with what the -- two callers before me. host: what is the point of your

criticism? caller: you said the ryan plan will give us the same options as a federal worker. well, sir, i am a federal worker. i will tell you this. at the age of 65, i had to drop my medicare -- excuse me, by federal insurance and go on to medicare. the only thing we get to do is to pick a supplement. guest: did you like your federal plan? when you have a choice? caller: i loved my federal plan. and i like medicare. up --: you are bringing o caller: the other thing --

guest: people want to have some choice in their plan. they say, this is the amount you're going to be able to cover. if you want to add to that, you have to pay out-of-pocket. what she is describing is wench went medicare, she was off that and did not like that -- which is describing is when she was off medicare. i find that when i speak, when i talk about a doctor ordered -- working in disease and care management. this is important. a person who is diabetic may be prone to blindness or kidney failure. they may go on dialysis. there is an incredible value with having someone contact those patients on a regular

basis to make sure they are monitoring it. a person with chronic homeless has twice because of depression. a lot of these patients fail to comply. it is extremely valuable to love someone who is contacting that patient and st. there was a note that said you didn't pick up your insulin. talking with one and gentlemen who said that when he was contacted from these folks, they ran through a number of things, very important to monitor. the nurse said to him, what are you doing today? he said, i'm getting a new pair of shoes. she said, come to the office. do you need a ride?

his seat were swelling -- his feet were swelling. fluid had built up. that is what i'm talking about. guess how much the government pays for that. zero. we could have approaches for the doctors to manage that better. i don't disagree with these folks in terms of providing care. host: next call from charles in alabama. caller: good morning. i have a question. go out with the medicare. i fat a card in my pocket for almost eight years and never used it. guest: like any other insurance plan.

it is there when you need it. what happens here to make sure it is there -- for the medicare plan to be solvent, we would have to find it now. it is running at of money and fast within a few years, just like social security is. we're spending more than we're taking in. will your doctors see today -- see you today? sure. host: we have a response on twitter. guest: that is not true. she brings up a good point. it is frustrating to us to find

out a company like g.e. paid zero in texas. they also got a $35 million from the health-care plan to help pay for their early retirees' health care plans. why do companies like ge need that money? they don't. closing these loopholes. it is an incentive to make products overseas and bring them back here rather than make them here and pay taxes on them. host: for clarification. are you describing the ryan plan? guest: my plant is one where we have to come up with some fundamental reforms -- my plan

is one where we have to come up with some fundamental reforms. it is pretty fascinating that you can look at "consumer reports" and find out everything you want to know about a toaster. you can get a heart transplant. the success rate may vary from 0% to 100%. try to find out that information. you cannot find it. now you get to choose. you don't get to choose that now. host: from twitter. guest: the preventive care -- primary prevention is when everyone is healthy and eats

right. tertiary is when you have the problem and you try to prevent it from getting worse. companies have to offer prevention but you cannot pay for it and keep people on and have children on. i support that children should stay on their parents policies and that people should not be cut if they are sick. why have health care? prevention was a small part of pay trillion dollar bill. host: tax increases. it becomes a wedge for gop. members of congress have signed onto the tax pledge. others are seeking a compromise which could see some raises and compromises. where are you? guest: one should never say

never. the president said he loved $9 trillion and he came up with a couple of trillion in savings. the ryan plan is six trillion dollars -- $six trillion -- $6 trillion. people are furious about gas. that is probably the number-one concern people have. we don't have to keep spending a billion dollars a day for oil. opec will not be using this money to fund their terrorist groups like iran does. the amount of federal revenue is enormous. estimates are between $2 trillion and $3.7 trillion.

with that money, we could pay hundreds of billions of dollars to things this nation needs, building roads and bridges and sewer systems and water systems, all of which we have to do. i agree. i am introducing a bill in a couple of weeks to do this very thing. we have to rebuild our infrastructure -- infrastructure. we're doing a lot of cutting but we need to do a lot of growing. host: georgetown, massachusetts. caller: good morning. i have some truth that is startling that was not reported because of the circumstances. it is so relevant today. i think the american people, the people of year, their number one

problem. september 10, 2001, donald rumsfeld in a speech said the pentagon was missing $2.3 trillion to $2.6 trillion in one year prior to 9/11. i work on logic and common sense. politics is a game to me. since this admission of $2.5 trillion missing from the pentagon in one year -- the plane that suppose like it depended got it to room with a lot information in it. let me finish. i would love to hear your response. host: would you do quickly?

caller: $2.5 trillion missing from the pentagon since that admission. our treasury has been -- our rights have been taken from us. donald rumsfeld said that we have an enemy on september 10, 2001. the enemy was the pentagon bureaucracy. they stole the money. a lot of the money goes back in the face of the people of the united states. guest: i will have to look that up. the annual budget for the pentagon is not even $one trillion -- $1 trillion. host: $600 billion. guest: i know all departments in defense are working on savings, absolute. and we need to look at all those

departments to see what can be changed to reduce some spending. that is where we have to be looking across the board. here's the truth. we need to be adults about this. i go back to comments about being mean to kids about telling the truth. when i was a psychologist, dealing with a tragedy or with serious problems in the home, sometimes the role of the doctor is to say, we have to face this problem. we cannot pretend it is going away. of theot taking care source of the pain. i know this will require some differences. half of americans pay taxes and half do not. those who cannot, we should be helping.

those who will not, that is a matter that -- those folks -- we should not be giving them aid if they can get up and do those things. we want to encourage people to be independent. this is a serious problem. host: congressman murphy, thank you for taking our calls this morning. the debate begins at 9:00 a.m. eastern time. we'll take a short break and we'll be back with anthony weiner, democrat of new york. >> the c-span networks.

american history. all available to on television, radio, online, and on social media and networking sites. we take c-span on the road with her digital bus and local content of vehicles. it is washed in your way -- it is washington your way. provided as a public service. >> to be a parent means your training the people. guest: college rankings, guidebooks. engine ferguson -- andrew ferguson was not prepared for crazy u. >> this is a very much different process from what was the correct find out if this father

sunday up, son and nd -- night. go to c-span.org/podcast. >> your questions for t ibibor machan. his books include "the promise of liberty." live on sunday, may 1. april 12, confederate forces attacked fort sumter in south carolina, igniting the civil war. this weekend, american history tv on c-span 3 brings you the sights and sounds from fort sumter and charleston, as well as interviews with civil war

scholars and reactors from the north and south. get the complete weekend schedule and c-span.org/history. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our next guest is anthony weiner. guest: i thought some of the parties were screwiny. i thought it was wrong and i thought we could have done more on the defense side. someone rider -- some of the riders, seems like the opposite of conservative thinking. funny how my colleagues say they are conservative. then they want to get government right in there. host: i want to get to the

telephone calls. you can send us an e-mail or a twitter. it looks as though people would say there is not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties. we've seen very different philosophical approaches to the role of government. guest: we have this putto where we say the parties are all the same, they are saying the same -- we have this period where we say the parties are all saying the same thing. we believe in progress. we're going to decide this week with this budget. this'll be the first of many discussions about whether people believe in the republican idea when seniors turn 65, they have guaranteed health care. if you go into the private market, they won't provide it for you. eepublican howled at tht

moon with the affordable care act. these things are very big difference is that we have. there is to level of falling less -- phoniness. congressman ryan uses the same things that they claim will not save any money. we get about $one points to trillion -- $1.2 trillion in savings. they also want to give tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires. americans will realize after court that they are progressive. host: at what level are you concerned about the debt? guest: i am very concerned about the debt. the top 2% have the same earning as the bottom 40%.

that inequality of income in justice is as big a problem as the debt. we should be talking about how we improve the state of our economy. host: the congressional re- election group for members sent a note yesterday which you signed. it says the big vote is tomorrow. they say would destroy medicare and give the wealthiest americans even more tax cuts. i will ask you to explain and defend drive the entire generation of seniors into poverty. guest: we know how was for seniors before medicare was put into place. it was in the high 20%. the single program that did the most to reduce senior probably was social security. close behind is medicare.

it would be a program where you get a coupon and you shop around. most singers will find what my father found when he retired. he retired just south of 65. he felt that health insurance companies are not in the business of providing health insurance for seniors. seniors have a tendency to get sick. seniors will be deprived of that health care. it will not worke. i'm impressed know you're on the dccc mailing list. host: medicare prescription drug works that way. people get to shop around and get the best prices. guest: a lot of the drug manufacturers specialize in making drug that seniors are going to buy.

if they do not sell to seniors, they will not have any customers at all. imagine you're trying to take in as much money as possible and pay out as low as possible in services. the first thing you will try to do to lower the second part of the exchange is to say, i do not want to provide coverage for this senior. i don't want to have that service. i am not interested in taking your money. kind of like a guy saying he would not take a 30-year-old car. you cannot treat health care like is any other health care -- any other commodity. one of the ways you control costs is by using the loss -- when we put all singers together, we hold down costs. we can dictate the terms. when you say to a senior that

they are on their own, yuan up increasing cost to everyone. republicans are not greeted economic -- have not credit economics. host: let's get to the audience. i will start with a tweet. guest: perhaps. people consummate questions directly directly. repweiner. i believe that we should drive a tougher bargain. i do believe the republicans' own many of these problems. when president bush was in office, we drove up the national debt. when bush left office, he had a $one trillion -- $1 trillion

deficit. to some degree, i think we do need to push back. that is why i voted no. caller: good morning. i appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. i heard on the prior segment congressmen murphy did give a description of the federal medicare system, which allows people to order motorized scooters shares. -- motorized scooter sharechairs. the advocacy groups that are preying upon our medicare system and our social security system. the scooter store advertises on television commercials, dozens

of times a day and says they will guarantee that they will give you a free motor scooter if application is not approved. there is the largest advocacy group for getting disability payments guaranteed by acting on the applicant's behalf. this is a waste and fraud and abuse. it is out in the open. it is television commercials scores of times a day. can you comment on that? guest: if you're seeing commercials on tv, you are not watching c-span. let me tell you. one of the interesting things about the hypocrisy of my

republican friends is we take steps to save over $500 billion of waste from the medicare system. we say that those people that provide these services, now there will be obstacles still getting your way to make sure someone getting a motorized wheelchair users it. -- deserves it. we'll make it an efficient program. sometimes too efficient. we changed that in the affordable care act. anyone know getting these things has to have a face-to-face interview. they have to show the check was required. we saved about $500 billion. we extend the program by 10 additional years. if you think there's too much waste going on, you should be a

big supporter of the affordable care act. host: this is a question on twitter. guest: people said that up until the point where they cannot take care of themselves part no one ever plans on getting a health care problem. the problem becomes, what do you do when people have an unexpected one they do not plan to have? that is the number-one source of bankruptcies right now, unexpected problems. the question becomes -- you do have the right to opt in and opt out of certain things. if you do not want medicare and needed hundreds of thousands of dollars of care. we're not going to let you out on the streets. we have these programs. it keeps us together as a society. there are some contracts we make

with one another to take care of each note because it helped all cluster we pay $8 billion in taxes to take care of the uninsured and the underinsured. we could be spending much less for people to buy insurance. host: good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. you tell it like this and respect pepper. i'm a -- you tell like it is and i respect capital-lettthat. the highest unemployment rate in the state of wisconsin. we about losing jobs like crazy ryan's district. nobody talks about -- the bush tax cuts are not working in his district. he knows that.

, always say he's a phony fake, and a fraud. he is not realistic with the numbers. i wanted to discuss cost of the war in iraq. i was against this war. i told paul lyoryan that. this was a bad decision the cause nearly $1 trillion. two questions for you. do you think giving medicare to private health insurance industries is a good idea based on the percentage of the cost is going up? the funding for nuclear energy seems to be intact. the funding for renewable energy is being ripped eliminated by this congress -- is being

eliminated by this congress. guest: thank you for your service to this country. i think no action we continue to keep medicare intact for ec citizens, i think it should be expanded to cover all americans. health insurance companies that would get from our employers have an overhead of about 20% and sometimes as much as 30%. shareholders need to get their money back. they have bonuses. they are a business. that is just the model. medicare does basically the same thing. they have 1.05% of overhead. we can cut out the middleman. paul ryan is saying let's limit medicare to give the business to the insurance companies. what is it the insurance company

do for that 25%? it doesn't go to positions or clinics or checkups or medical schools. that is waste. it is not flawless. congressman murphy talked about adjusting payments to doctors. we did that in the affordable care act. i do believe this is a philosophical difference dirt and the like congressman ryan. he is a friend of mine. he is using the same presumptions that were built into the bush years or read hemorrhaged jobs and drove the comic off a cliff -- and drove the economy off a cliff. host: concern about the labor market. guest: to some degree, will need

to do -- we have this universal jobs, which are listed in the newspaper. you have a number of people who are eligible for jobs and sometimes they don't match up. we should make sure people of the training and education so that they can get these jobs. the second thing we need to do is we to internalize this as americans, this is something that is not going to be every week or every month, you're not necessarily going to see dramatic turnarounds. we're on a projection that we're turning this around. the last thing you want to do is start slashing the budget to the programs that are creating the jobs. the money that we give to millionaires and billionaires for tax cuts is probably the least efficient thing to do to stimulate the economy. do not believe me. the get the eight years of george bush.

we had nearly eight trillion dollars of tax cuts. did it stimulate the economy? the answer is no. it did not create new jobs at all. i think we to have a different strategy. a test library about whether we go back to those bush years -- a test laboratory about what we go back to those bush years. host: tony, a republican. caller: good morning, america. you always put california on the screen one, or the call is coming from part i wish you would also put republican or independent up there also. i have never been in washington, d.c. -- i've never been to washington, d.c. i like c-span to show more pictures of the area through

some of your breaks that you take and things like that. i think it would be nice for people who never plan on going there to see more of the nation's capital. host: that is a nice suggestion. caller: socialism does not work. you can look at america and are broken social security, medicare, medicaid. people that do not work that are collecting six-figure pensions. we heard only 45% of the americans in this country are working. it is a system that has been tried since the early 1900's. it has been very successful. i don't think you can call america decapolis country right now. if elected china, they ran away -- if you look at china, they have a very vibrant ought -- the

economy right now. the government has the health- care industry and they want to take over the last little bit of capitalism that we have. you have the auto industry, the banking industry, the insurance industry. i guess what i'm saying is that why saw in the 1960's, the hippies are now wearing boots and skirts in congress. the baby boomers are taking from their children and grandchildren. guest: i appreciate 20's question -- tony's question. you've named a couple of programs. who gets the money from the medicare program? private doctors, private hospitals. we are doing a process of

payments. are we getting everybody together into a buying pulleool? look at walmart does. they have very large stores. that is not socialism. that is the opposite. we're giving people subsidies to buy health care from private companies. that is not socialism. so security -- social security collects money and gives it to citizens and says you go spend it how you wanted. socialism is a nice talking points. i am guessing you're close to collecting social security. the idea of socialism is ridiculous. they're all kinds of things that we are able to do better than the private sector is able to do. look at where we work in 1964

and in 1963 and in 1962. that is what we came in and did it. i like having a conversation. it is probably healthy. let's figure out what we mean when we say things are socialize. the social security system is an american thing. it is a proud american program. that is what i want to extend it to more people. caller: hello. thank you for the opportunity of c-span. i think it is the best place to get information on politics. i do appreciate and a watch it every day. i like to say a couple of things and ask you a question. as far as privatizing social security, it is wrong because

the a vested interests will not be to the benefit of the people. will be to the benefit of the dollar. i think that people sidestepped this. anybody -- if the fare better under the government system or under a privatized system, they will say they did much better under the government's system. that is one big point. the interest that is involved that runs the show would not be in the interests of the american people. the budget has become a gordian knot. it is so complicated the average person does not understand. we can talk about it until you're blue in the face. it's become as complicated gordian knot and i think it will come down to politics and that will have to step aside to reason. though happen in an across-the- board cut. i guess my question is, i have

thrown this idea out too many people i know personally. i think it must have some merit because some people dislike it. what if everybody got a 3% cut? and if we did that for a year and see how that when. the big thing that is missing is fairness. the poor people are saying the rich people are driving this country down. fairness is missing. guest: the problem is this. , we hadlast 10 years cop zero wage growth for families. was a happening. who was getting the money?

-- it was not happening. i hope some time you're a millionaire or billionaire and get the benefit from it. the middle class is getting crush. we should not do anything to across the board. while, that's for a let's have the period of time more government is on the side of the middle class and those struggling to make it. the middle class for a time did remarkably well. look at what went on. let's try that for awhile. sometimes these things get lumped together. social security is different than medicare and medicaid. social security is not contributing one debt to the deficit. it will still provide the benefits without drawing a

single dime of additional taxes. medicare and medicaid do have problems. that is what we acted last year to deal with it. the very well-to-do, they have their advocates. i am here to advocate for the middle class. host: i wanted to show you this piece in "the washington post." host: he was criticized during the speech.

there was a call from alan simpson who was concerned about the partisan nature of the speech and how unnecessary and how on productive and help on it wouldn wednesday -- be. guest: boy, oh, boy. have they been listening to themselves? i was watching that speech. i was thinking that the president is being so gentle. i would of said that i will to my right arm off before a sign any part of it. this is a competition of ideas. my republican friends are saying when it fifth grade math student can tell, that their idea --

their math does not employ up -- does not add up. to my republican friends think it will be invited their, "this is a terrific idea, to drive up the debt even more"? of course not. if you don't want your programs criticized by the president of the united states, maybe you should think about the tone in this town. the present is being eviscerated -- the president is being in eviscerated. i thought his tone was measured. president anthony weiner would not be as measured. host: is there going to be a president weiner? guest: just to important people in america get to see it.

bildt, a republican from oregon -- host: bill, a republican from oregon. colorado have you been out of work -- how long have you been out of work? caller: 18 months. host: what are the prospects? are things getting better? caller: no. i am 67 years old. people are looking for your people. i'm trying to do my best i have two kids in college. we are making it. it is slow but we're making it. e don't qualify for any

scholarships. i would like to know why they have all these different bills on the army, navy? they add all these different bills, 60 billion dollars -- $60 billion for ethanol? there were add-ons that have nothing to do. the figure everyone will passed the military budget so i'll add this budget so we get what i want all my bills. uest: they should take bill's question if the may highlight reel of this show. he is eligible for medicare but

would not be under the ryan plan. he has two kids in college. republicans want to cut the programs -- cut the pell grants. this budget that they passed yesterday, it had to keep the budget going. what else do we do? we said that we're going to take a voucher program written by the congress and shove it down the throats of the citizens here in washington, d.c. way this town operates, in order to get a number of votes to get this passed, rather than fighting for what you believe and trying to rally the american people, we take eight members of congress and put a bid in and these bills get larded down.

take a look at the bill yesterday that we voted on. it is about this thick. it's just the line items of numbers. it is all this other stuff. bill is exactly right. host: that is it for a time. guest: i love the show. you have a great questions. host: come back again. guest: i am trying to get over 40,000 followers. i will be tweeting about this as soon as i'm done. you'll get a nice mention. host: we appreciate your comments and questions. thank you for being with us. >> the theme asked students to

produce a video about a topic that help them better understand the role of the federal government. today we talk with jonathan e- mamills. hello, jonathan. why did you choose led letting free a topic -- for your topic? >> it is supplying jobs. we just decided that would be a good topic. >> what did you learn about the different type of light bulbs? >> i learned that incandescent bulbs use less energy -- more energy. fluorescent bulbs use less

energy. >> how has the government involved in the transition of lighting methods? >> in 2007, the government's enacted the energy independent and security act of 2007. that lot will bent incandescent bulbs in 2014. -- the law will ban incandescent bulbs in 2014. areprices for led's dropping. will have a better supply for jobs and the committees will be saving on their energy bills. >> what did you find of your energy use in your school? >> our committee has led on our

streets. and other buildings and gas stations that have switched to led's. >> you have performed several experiments in your documentary. >> i was surprised how fast the incandescent bulb melted compared to the led. ice cream -- i thought it would go faster. >> what did you learn from the president of ruud lighting? >> their led line is going very rapidly. stimulus money is helping his business and expand. >> what you think is the most lamborn thing people need to

know about lights -- what do you think is the most important thing people need to know about lights? >> 4.4 billion lighting households -- americans can save money. >> jonathan, thank you for joining us. here is a brief portion of this documentary, "lester b. life -- "let there be life." >> through the evolution of workology, white led's developer and efficient way to create light. there are a few big advantages, which is why we are selling them.

they save a lot of energy. they are if a visitor they contain no mercury. i think the other big advantage to them is because they're so small, you can get very efficient optical controls so the light goes where you want instead of just a blob of light. the big advantage is the price. it makes sense. >> you can see the entire video at studentcam.org. the u.s. house is gaveling

intercession. now live coverage of the u.s. house. the honorable jack kingston to act as speaker pro tempore on this day, signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will be offered by our chaplain, father coughlin. chaplain coughlin: you our god we praise you, you are the lord, we acclaim you. you are the eternal father, all creation worships you. save your people, lord, and bless your inheritance. govern and uphold these, now and always. day by day we bless you, we praise your name forever, keep us today, lord, from all sin. have mercy on us, lord, have mercy. lord, show us your love and mercy for we put our trust in

you. in you, lord, is our hope and we shall never hope in vain. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the house has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval of there. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, i demand a vote on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker pro tempore: the question son agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes have it. the journal stands approved. mr. poe: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: mr. speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds a quorum is not present and make a point of order a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance will

be led by the gentleman from rhode island, mr. cicilline. mr. cicilline: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, our house chaplain, father dam coughlin, is retiring his -- father daniel coughlin, is retiring after 11 years in the house of representatives. since our forefathers established this tradition in congress in 1789, the house chaplain has provided spiritual guidance, hope and heavenly blessings through prayer every day. each new day father coughlin enters the house chamber with his happy irish spirit and a twinkle in his eyes in praise

to the almighty so that members will walk humbly and wise in the lord's sight. father coughlin has been here during troubling days of 9/11, during good times, and times that aren't so good. father coughlin from chicago has been ordained for 50 years and has found time to be an angel to the poor in calcutta, indiana india, where he lived with members of mother ter rea's -- theresa's community. you have to be in good with the lord to pray for politicians every day. my prayer for father coughlin is that he continues to be a blessing to our nation and the people he encounters that need spiritual help. as he often says when ending his prayers, both now and forever. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? without objection.

mr. levin: we have heard your last prayer, father dan. we wish you the best. you have served us very well. i was on the floor last night and i heard the debate. clearly there's a massive misinformation mission on the part of the republicans. i heard repeatedly that they want to save medicare. no, they want to end it. with a voucher costing seniors in the future $6,000 at least a year. they say they want to preserve the safety net. no, they want to shred it. according to nonpartisan analysis, their proposal calls for spending on items other than social security, medicare, and medicaid but including defense to fall from 12% of g.d.p. last year to 6% in 2022

and just 3.5% of g.d.p. in the long run. we are not going to shred defense. what their proposal means shredding the safety net, they have become radicals instead of conservatives. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, thank you for the dan coughlin for your service. as americans know, today is the annual tax day, april 15. i bring this up because finally the president has joined a discussion of our country's dangerous deficits. on wednesday he announced his scheme, to reduce out-of-control deficits his administration promoted. raising taxes. proving yet again liberals look to the tax man to solve their inability to manage a budget. americans do not want this. the tea party is correct, taxed enough already. t-e-a.

raising taxes on small businesses does nothing but kill jobs. liberals miss the point. the federal government does not have a revenue problem it has a spending problem. cutting taxes and borrowing needs to be the topic of discussion. raising taxes does not. house republicans continue to lead the way to limit spending. courageous budget committee chairman paul ryan has presented a commonsense plan which brings current reckless spending under control. in conclusion, god bless our troops. we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island rise? mr. cicilline: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cicilline: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to honor a national guardsman specialist dennis pulen, a recently fallen hero of our country. a 26-year-old native of cumberland, rhode island, gave his life for our nation while serving in afghanistan on thursday, march 31, 2011.

he, like so many of our brave men and women in uniform, executed the mission in afghanistan with dedication and extraordinary competence. specialist pullen certainly did all we asked of him. this brave young man served our country with honor and made the ultimate sacrifice. he served in the guards head quarts company, 181st infantry regiment. i want to take a moment to recognize his parents and family and thank them for their service to our country. besides his parents, specialist pullen leaves his son, fiance, two sisters, and extended family all who mourn his loss. let us honor his life, service, and sacrifice and help those who mourn by joining together in thanks for specialist pullen's valor and his courage on behalf of our great nation. all who knew him and those who didn't but know the sacrifice he's made will miss him and remain grateful for his service to our country. i yield back the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? mr. mccotter: to address the house for one minute. thank you, mr. speaker, i would like to join in the chorus we have heard today to thank father coughlin for bearing the cross of this congress. as we hear the debate that will continue on into today on the budget we'll hear much hue an cry, but when we look at the reality, the ryan house republican proposal is a very modest attempt to sustain the welfare state. i believe that it is an important one. because when history looks back after the momentous changes in which we find ourselves, they will view the ryan house republican budget but a baby step to escape big government's implosion. it is a responsible course.

a responsible choice because it is between bankruptcy or prosperity. and i and the american people will choose prozz parity. i yield back -- will choose prosperity. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? without objection. mr. farr: i join the chorus of those wishing well and thanking father coughlin for his service and dedication. i also rise today in observance of the national day of silence. today is the 14th year we have commemorated the national day of silence. a time when students across the country remain silent for the whole day to draw attention towards discrimination to the lgbt peers. lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth and their allies face verbal and physical bullying on a daily basis just for being who they are. for expressing their sexuality. or for demonstrating a nonnormative gender identity. i'm proud that my constituents

are calling for a stop in this harassment and i encourage all americans to join them. our nation is best when we are celebrating our differences not punishing individuals for being different. i'm proud to say my district where youth and allies work together to make life better, middle schools and high schools in my district host student run gay-straight alliances so the youth do not feel isolated. my district also hovepeses queer youth conferences. for -- hosts queer youth conferences. for many youths, we in congress must never be silent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? without objection. mr. stearns: mr. speaker, earlier this week jim matheson and i introduced 1528, the consumer privacy protection act. our legislation attempts to strike the proper balance

between consumer privacy and innovation by requiring entities to provide consumers in clear and easy to understand language what information is being collected and how the information is being used. by giving consumer more notice and choice, we can encourage strong internet commerce while protecting consumer privacy. overreaching privacy regulation could have a significant negative economic impact at a time when many small businesses are struggling today. only the consumer knows he or she feels about the information being collected, the parties doing the collecting, and the purpose for which the information is collected. congress cannot and should not make that decision for them. we need to place the control over consumer information with the actual consumer and our legislation does this. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan -- maine rise? without objection.

mr. michaud: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in solidarity with the people of the region in my home state of maine, the paper mill is shutting down and taking with it hundreds of jobs and much of the tax base. like so many other mills and factories across this country, it couldn't keep its doors opened. in the last decade our nation has lost nearly six million manufacturing jobs and seen 50,000 factories closed. it's because we haven't prioritized our manufacturing sector and haven't made an effort to keep good-paying blue collar jobs in the united states. i worked at this mill for over 29 years alongside the hardworking people of the region. in solidarity i stand with them today. confident that if we are pulling together we can find a way to put this mill back online. i urge my colleagues in congress to help me and workers

in maine and across this country by supporting a national manufacturing strategic -- strategy and a new trade policy. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? so recognized. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to begin by recognizing father coughlin and his service and sacrifice to our nation. as we look at this nation today, we are at a tipping point. we have two paths that we can choose. we can choose to talk in a meaningful and thoughtful way about the deficits we have before us and this national debt, or we can continue to demagogue issues and ideas that will get us to a long-term prosperity for this country. i know the american people prefer us to have that thoughtful, meaningful conversation about how we get this nation on the right path, how we rein in spending, how we control the growth of government. folks, today the issues are

about growing our economy not government. we have seen past efforts to grow government have not resulted in prosperity for this nation. the time is now for us to have a meaningful, thoughtful discussion about all aspects of the budget. let's not demagogue the issue. let's prove to the american people we can make the tough decisions to move this nation in the right direction to get the spending under control, to reduce our debt, and make sure the long-term care of this country is put first and foremost that we are on the path to prosperity. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. kosta: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman so recognized. . mr. costa: i rise to thank father coughlin for his guidance that he's given to all members of the house during his

service to our country. good morning. i'm pleased to be here today to commemorate the 96th anniversary of the start of the armenian genocide which was the first genocide in the 20th century and sadly the template for continued genocide that sadly is around the world. next week in fresno and around the country there will be thousands of armenian americans, many who are sons and daughters and grandchildren of the survivors of the armenian genocide. as a young man i grew up listening to my friends, the collegians, the abrahamians and many others that told the story of their parents and grandparents. we are quickly approaching the 100th anniversary of the start of the armenian genocide. i am hopeful that we don't have to bring justice to the armenian nation and the friends and neighbors who sadly recognize that event. there's never a right time to

recognize a genocide more than 90 years have passed since the start of the events. i will continue to stand for us to properly recognize this tragic event. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 223 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of house concurrent resolution 34. will the gentleman from georgia, mr. kingston, kindly take the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of house concurrent resolution 34 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: concurrent resolution establishing the budget for the united states government for fiscal year 2012 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal

years 2013 through 2021. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on thursday, april 14, 2012, a request for a recorded vote of amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 112-62 by the gentleman from missouri, mr. cleaver, had been postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on that amendment. the unfinished business is the request for a vorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in part b of house report 112-62 by the gentleman from missouri, mr. cleaver, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in the -- in the nature of a substitute printed in part b of house report 112-62. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a request

for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states hd state representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 103. the nays are 303. the amendment is not passed. the committee will rise. the committee will rise informally. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 1473, an act making appropriations for the department of defense and the

other departments and agencies of the government for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2011, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members will please take their conversations off the floor. the chair will resume its sitting. the chair: the committee will be in order. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 in part b of house report 112-62. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition?

the gentleman is right, the committee is not in order. will members take their conversations to the cloorm -- cloakroom. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. chairman. we have an amendment in the nature of a substitute at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3, in the nature of a substitute, printed in part b of house report number 112-62. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 223, the gentleman from arizona and a member of each will control 15 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. the budget substitute we have before you, the people's

budget, is an honest document. consistent with our country's values and our country's desires. people's budgets does not tell the american people what they want to hear. the chair: the committee will be in order. the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. the people's budget does not tell the american people what they want to hear. it gives the american people what they want. fairness, protection of our social net for americans in retirement, and at the beginning of their lives. jobs, an immediate infusion of job creation to put people back to work. investments in education. this budget is balanced by 2021. the deficit is eliminated.

it is the only budget that accomplishes that that are before you today. it does not balance the budget on the backs of middle class, those who aspire to be in the middle class, and those that are vulnerable in our society. it reverses a practice and taxes those corporations and the very, very 2% rich in this country so they pay their just sacrifice to keeping this country healthy and to turning our economy around. . we end the wars that are draining our national treasure and our people. the progressive caucus listened to the american people and the people's budget is what they want. i urge approval of this budget. it is a document that represents the very best of what the people need and it represents a departure from a practice that has brought us to the brink of a deep recession, to a practice that has brought

us to joblessness across this country and to a practice that has given the privilege all they want and transferred that responsibility to working americans in this country. our budget is a document that is honest, it is straightforward and merits your support. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> thank you, mr. chair. i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this budget, if enacted, would end this country as we know it. this budget increases spending, mr. chairman, by $13 over 10 years. mr. rokita: it takes $13 trillion more from the american people over 10 years.

the biggest tax increase our country has ever seen. it increases our debt $3.5 trillion over 10 years. this isn't the people's budget. this country was founded on equal opportunity for everyone. not equal outcome. history is littered with countries and nations have failed. this country remains the greatest nation the world's ever seen because we pride ourselves and enforce equal opportunity. at this time -- at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma, james lankford. choys the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. lankford: this is a unique

time for us the way we are going to do budgeting. i say, let's look at ideas, and that's what we should be doing. here are the options, here are the voices. i think it's a good, healthy debate. now, there are several areas we will disagree on with this budge. we do agree we should be agreeing on deficit reduction. we agree that debt is a serious problem and need to work it down. the budget being presented here is the amendment in a nature of a substitute does tax those that are wealthy but adds a burden that is on those most vulnerable as well. let me give you an example of that. it increases the transportation tax, the gas tax. it not only adds an exeyes tax to gas companies, -- excise tax to gas companies, it adds 20 cents per gallon to the gas tax and removes any tax subsidies that will be piled on to any energy company. all those together will add a

significant amount per gallon at the pump beginning with just the basic option that they're adding 25 cents in addition, their recommendation is 43.4 cents for the gas tax itself. that's clearly a tax that's going to hit very hard on those that are most vulnerable in our society, commuting moms back and forth. we shouldn't tax on a large group that is most vulnerable. i don't think we need to be able to add that additional tax burden onto people that are very vulnerable. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. grijalva: to recognize congresswoman woolsey from california and encourage the gentleman -- at their next opportunity to explain to the american taxpayer they have to pay thousands of dollars when g.e. doesn't have to pay a single cent and in fact got money back.

our budget is about shared sacrifice. ms. woolsey. the chair: how much time does the gentleman yield? mr. grijalva: a minute and 30 second. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for a minute and 30 seconds. ms. woolsey: there is one proposed budget that ends the war in afghanistan, completely eliminates the deficit within 10 years and aligns the tax code with the values of working families, and that's the people's budget submitted by the congressional progressive caucus. instead of taking away health care from seniors by gutting medicare, the people's budget provides more affordable health care with a robust public option that would save this nation's taxpayers $68 billion over seven years. the majority's budget will cost americans 1.7 million american jobs. our budget will people back to work and a 21st century

education system. we have a choice. the majority budget that demands more sacrifice from struggling families and gives the wealthy a free ride or the progressive budget which invests in people, creates a budget surplus and brings our troops home. i urge my colleagues to make a smart, fiscally responsible choice. vote for the people's budget. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from indiana. mr. rokita: thank you, mr. chairman. at this time i yield to the gentlelady from tennessee. the chair: how much time does the gentleman yield? mr. rokita: two minutes. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. mrs. blackburn: thank you. i appreciate the gentleman for yielding to me and i appreciate the time and the opportunity to stand and speak against the progressive caucus budget because it is a budget that once again will spend too much money.

and, mr. speaker, one of the things that we have heard from the american people is this -- they are tired of the federal government spending taxpayer money for programs they don't want, spending money that they don't have. and it is time for us to put this fiscal house in order. now, quite frankly, i think that today is a really great day. when we get to the end of this legislative day and the end of this legislative week, we will pass the ryan budget which turns an enormous corner for our nation. over the next 10 years, it will reduce spending, not by millions and billions, but by trillions. $6.2 trillion over the next 10 years. those are the kind of first steps that the american people are wanting to see. that's the kind of fiscal responsibility that the

american people are holding us accountable for. controlling spending, limiting spending, making certain that there is a stable and secure environment in which economic growth and job creation can take place. they have spoken loudly and clearly, and they have said, reduce what you are spending, get the fiscal house in order, begin to focus not on the next six weeks or six months but the next 60 years, focus on our children and our grandchildren, making certain we are not capping their futures and trading it to the nations that hold our debt. i think it's so important that we begin to get it under control and to pass the ryan budget today. i yield back. choich the gentleman from arizona --

the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you. let me yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. ellison: the progressive caucus budget is somehow not a good thing to deal with our nation as has been said. over $3 trillion, according to the national association of engineers, says we need $3 trillion in infrastructure spending. let's do something and put america back to work by rebuilding our nation's infrastructure. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. let me recognize for a minute and 30 seconds, the distinguished jae from california, ms. barbara lee. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for a minute and a half. ms. lee: thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me thank ow co-chairs, congressman ellison and grijalva for their leadership.

budgets are not just dollars and cents, they are moral documents on who we are and what we believe in. the republican budget is an assault on women, the seniors, the underserved and poor and low-income families. it gives tax breaks for millionaires on the backs of the middle class. our plan would eliminate the deficit in the next decade, put people back to work and restore our competitiveness. in these difficult times, it includes additional funding for unemployment insurance to help those who maxed out at 99 weeks to get additional benefits. recognizing there are five people to one job. our proposal eliminates the true drivers of our deficit, the unpaid for bush tax cuts, the wars in iraq and afghanistan and restates the law that no permanent bases will be built in iraq. and we protect and preserve medicare and social security

for the future and it includes a public option which saves money. the people's budget invests in our people and our communities and in our nation. i urge a yes vote. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana. mr. rokita: thank you, mr. chair. i yield 10 seconds to myself. there's been a lot of talk about budgets being moral instruments. the budget that we proposed to the budget committee, the ryan budget, is a responsible budget. now, let me tell you, mr. chairman, what is immoral is balancing these choices on the backs of our children and grandchildren. people -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. rokita: and people that haven't been born. that's what's immoral. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield to the gentleman from south carolina for three minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is -- the gentleman is recognized for three minutes.

>> i think if you look at a couple of budgets that we're going to be looking at over the next two days, a budget that the budget committee has offered i think is a fair and honest representation of where the republican party is. the republican study committee budget, which we'll see in a few minutes, is a fair and honest representation of where the republican committee stands. i think this budget is a true and honest statement of where the people in this country stands. for that i thank them. mr. mulvaney: it's hard to imagine a document that's different from our document. there's $16 trillion worth of tax increases in this document to the extent that the progressives do stand or honest in their belief that taxing and spending is the way to fix this nation, this document does contain that. all of the 2001, 2003 tax cuts which we refer to as the bush tax cuts, are gone. not just the ones on the highest income earners.

everybody. this is a tax increase on almost everybody. in fact, it is a tax increase on everybody in the entire nation. the top marginal rates under this proposal go from 45% up to 49%. the capital gains rate goes up to as high as 49%. we introduce a new concept in this budget, apparently, the progressives do, that takes the estate tax to a progressive model that range from 45% up to 65%. we heard a few minutes ago my colleague, mr. lankford, talk about the fact there is a 25 cents gas increase in this particular document. it's hard -- this is an avalanche of new taxes is what it is. at every single turn, the motivation behind the progressives seems to be that the government needs more money. the government needs more money and it is our obligation to give it to the government and we simply wholeheartedly dismiss that idea.

again, i think it's nice for a change to have open and honest debate on an intellectual basis in this chamber. i thank the progressives for laying it out where they stand. it's a good process to go through. i think we'll have a chance later today, in a few minutes, to see where we stand as a nation, or at least as a body here, on these types of changes. i very much hope that this amendment is defeated. i think that the republican budget committee alternative is a better course of action, and i'd like to see this amendment defeated. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. grijalva: let me recognize, again, mr. ellison, for 15 seconds. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for 15 seconds. mr. ellison: i'll yield the gentleman five seconds for a question if the gentleman would entertain a question, be willing to yield to the gentleman five seconds to answer a question. when does the ryan budget creatsu