fallen marines. matthew's commitment and dedication to his country is a shining example of how our military men and women are the finest our nation has to offer. his and his family's sacrifice should serve as a reminder to all that the freedom we enjoy in america is not free but the result of the tremendous bravery and selfless service of men and women willing to put themselves in harm's way for freedom's cause. . our nation will be forever indebted to lance corporal pathenos. i ask that anymy colleagues join me today in honoring lance corporal matthew pathenos. vote yes on h.r. 3247. thank you. i yield back my time.

sproip the gentleman reserves. and the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. cleaver: -- mr. clay: i join my colleagues in support of h.r. 3247 and thank my colleague for introducing this legislation. and the legislation will name the postal facility in town and country commons in cresterfield, missouri, after lance corporate matthew p. pathenos. h.r. 3247 was introduced by my colleague representative akin and has the support of the entire missouri delegation, including myself. the bill was introduced on october 24 of last year and was considered by and reported from

the oversight committee by voice vote shortly photographer on november 3, 2011. tragically, on february 2, 2007, lance corporate -- lance corporal pathenos was killed while conducting operations in al anbar province, iraq. described as a disciplined and patriotic jelt he served his country proudly. in recognition of his dedication to his country, mr. speaker, i ask my colleagues to join me in commemorating the life of this brave marine by supporting the passage of h.r. 3247 and i reserve the balance of my time. sproip the speaker pro tempore:: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from missouri. mr. clay: i once again urge

adoption of h.r. 3037 -- of h.r. 3247 in honor of the life and service of lance corporal matthew p. pathenos and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the jelt is recognized. >> i am grateful for the service of lance corporal pathenos. mr. kelly: and for all those who serve our country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of h.r. 3247. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. kelly: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: those

in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counting. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on the question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. kelly: i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3248. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the clitele. cloip to the title. the clerk: h.r. 3248, to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 112 south fifth stret in saint charles, missouri, as the lance corporal drew w. weaver post office building. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kelly: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and --

on the bill. this bill would designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 112 south fifth street in saint charles, missouri, as the lance corporal drew w. weaver post office building. this is supported by the entire missouri delegation and was reported out of the committee on oversight and reform last year. it is fitting and proper we name this facility for lance corporal drew weaver with made the ultimate sacrifice at 20 years of age. remembered by everyone for his tenacious spirit and his ability to find the positive never situation and for being a true hero. i could not agree more, lance corporate -- lance corporal

weaver and everyone who serves this country are true heroes. i rise in sincere gratitude for all that our service members do every day. i would like to yield as much time as he may consume to the sponsor of this legislation, mr. akin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. akin: i rise in strong support of h r. 3248, a bill i introduced to honor the life of drew w. weaver by designating the post office in saint charles, missouri, as the lance corporal drew w. weaver post office building. 5 resident of saint charles, missouri, lance corporal we're was part of the third light armored reconnaissance battalion, first marine division, first marine expeditionary force. on february 21, 2007, lance corporal weaver died while conducting combat operations in the al anbar province of iraq.

as captain mark c. brown noted, drew was known for his enthusiasm and his ability to motivate the people around him. drew's contribution to his country was honored by his community when hundreds of people showed up to his memorial service and procession. a graduate of st. charles west high school, friends and family of drew remember him as an energetic young man who was eager to serve his country. ryan hansen, his best friend, and a fellow serviceman, said drew loved what he was doing and was proud of what he was doing in the marine corps. as the father of three marines, up with of whom has served in iraq, it is a privilege to stand here today to honor one of our fallen marines. drew's commitment and dedication to his country is a shining example of how our military men and women are the finest the nation has to offer.

his and his family's sacrifice should serve as a reminder to all of us that the freedom we enjoy as americans is not free but the result of tremendous bravery and selfless service of men and women willing to put themselves in harm's way for freedom's cause. as reverend james bent noted in drew's funeral, i think we can learn from them that the freedom we enjoy in this country is precious,s that -- that it is special and that it must be preserved, sometimes at great personal cost. our nation will be forever indebted to lance corporal drew weaver. mr. speaker, i ask that my colleagues join me today in honoring lance corporal drew weaver. vote yes on h.r. 3248. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back. the jelt from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman missouri is reck -- the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: i'm pleased to join my colleagues in the consideration of h.r. 3248 which designates the facility of the u.s. postal service located at 112 south fifth street in st. charles, missouri, as the lance corporal drew w. weaver post office building. this legislation was introduced in october of 2011 by my colleague and friend, representative todd akin of missouri, and considered and pointed out of the committee by a voice vote on november 3, 2011. additional will -- additionally, along with all my female he mobe -- fellow members of the missouri delegation, we are proud to be co-sponsored of this bill. as was mentioned, weaver was a native of st. charles, missouri

who bravely served with the third light armored reconnaissance battalion, first marine division, first marine expeditionary force, out of 29 palms, california. on february 21, 2008, the young marine was killed in action in al anbar province, iraq, while conducting combat operations in support of operation iraqi freedom. mr. speaker, lance corporal drew weaver's life and service stand as a testament to the strength and support of his devoted family. he is a fine example of the bravery and dedication of the young men and women that have joined him in serving this nation and making the ultimate sacrifice. his devotion to duty was in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the

united states marine corps. it is my hope we can honor this outstanding marine through the passage of this legislation and without objection, i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the passage of h.r. 3248 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the jelt reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. kelly: i have no further speakers, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri is recognized. mr. clay: i urge support of h.r. 3248 in honor of corporal drew w. weaver who gave his life in service to our country and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. kelly: let us not forget the sacrifice lance corporal weaver

and so many other young americans have made. i urge all members of this house to join me in strong support of this bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h r. 3248? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3's being in the affirmative, the rules are -- the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. kelly: i ask for the craze an nays. the speaker pro tempore: all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12a of rule 1, the chair declares the house

>> you can the see the secretary's comments over on c-span2. acting white house budget director testified about president obama's budget request before the senate budget committee. republicans at the hearing accused the white house of failing to acknowledge the actual amount of federal spending in the plan. we'll show you as much as we can

before the house gavels in at 6:30. >> the hearing will come to order. i want to welcome acting director back to the budget committee. you testified before the budget committee's task force on government performance in 2009 in a hearing chaired by senator warner. he was there in his role as the administration's chief performance officer. so we want to welcome you back. today, we will be examining the president's fiscal year 2013 budget proposal, which was sent to congress yesterday. i believe the president's budget would continue to move the nation in the right direction. according to the administration, under the president's budget, the deficit is a share of the economy, would fall from 8.5% of

g.d.p. in 2012 to 2.8% in 2022. that represents real progress. it's important to remember the economic crisis that the president inherited. all of us remember back to 2008 and 2009 when we experienced the worst recession since the great depression. the economy actually contracted, it shrunk at a rate of almost 9% in the fourth quarter of 2008. we lost 800 private sector -- 800,000 private sector jobs in january of 2009 alone. and unemployment was surging. those are the conditions the president inherited. they were not of his making. he was asked to come in as the clean-up crew. he also faced a housing market that was in crisis, home

building and sails plummeting and record foreclosures and we faced a market financial crisis as well that threatened to set off a global financial collapse. we have come a long way since then. the federal response to the crisis, including actions taken by the federal reserve and to be fair in the final days of the bush administration, they took important actions. the obama administration did as well. and congress participated. those actions successfully pulled us back from the brink. and president obama, i believe, deserves considerable credit for avoiding what could have been a second-grade depression. as i noticed earlier in the fourth quarter of 2008, the economy shrunk at a rate of almost 9%.

positive economic growth returned in the third quarter of 2009 and we have now had 10 consecutive quarters of economic growth. we see a similar picture in the private sector jobs market. in january of 2009, the economy lost more than 800,000 private sector jobs. private sector job growth returned in march of 2010 and we now have had 23 consecutive months of growth with the last month over 250,000 jobs being created in this economy. i think all of us would like to see even stronger economic growth and more job creation, but although unemployment is still too high, it has certainly come down substantially. the pace of this recovery is somewhat predictable, because the best scientific evidence we have now is after a financial

crisis, it takes longer to recover and weak unemployment continues for a longer period of time. looking forward, i believe we need to remember that we really face two critical problems in this economy. one, short-term and one, longer term. short term we are recovering from the worst recession since the great depression and that wasn't the result of policies of president obama. he inherited that condition. although the economy is improving, we still have relatively weak demand for goods and services, which is holding back even stronger economic growth. longer term, we face a debt threat. job one is to improve economic growth with steps to strengthen demand. simultaneously, we need to enact a credible plan to bring down our debt. our republican colleagues, i believe, have completely

overlooked the first problem of weak demand and would actively make that problem worse by imposing fiscal austerity right now. they have focused solely on the longer term debt threat. as a result, their policy proposals of imposing fiscal austerity would weaken demand and lower democratic growth, kill job creation and choke off the recovery. i just say to my colleagues, i believe they've got it half right. absolutely we have a long-term debt threat. we have to cope with that. but in the short-term, what we have is we have weak demand and we also have to cope with that. the republican proposals for immediate fiscal austerity would fit a circumstance in which we saw rising interest rates, but we don't see rising interest rates. in fact, interest rates are at a

record low. the problem we have right now is weak demand. here's how another leading economist, the chairman of macroeconomic advisors, described the problem in his testimony before this committee just weeks ago. he stated, the number one problem that small businesses say they have to deal with right now is lack of demand. they do not say access to capital. they do not say the burden of regulation. they say their order books are thin. that's what we hear in every corner, the chairman of the federal reserve has told us that, the head of c.b.o. has told us that. and that's why companies are not hiring as fast as they might otherwise do. even though they have record profit levels and $2 trillion sitting on their balance sheets. but we need to address the second problem of rising debt and this is where i agree with

my colleagues on both sides, who have made that a critical issue. and we should not wait to respond. but not by imposing fiscal austerity right now, but by adopting a plan that phases in fiscal discipline as the economy strengthens. we really need an economic two-step. first we need short-term strengthening of demand by investments in infrastructure. that would put people to work and make america more competitive. second and simultaneously, we should adopt a credible and serious plan that puts us back on a sounder, long-term fiscal course by fundamental tax reform, by reforming the entitlements and by cutting wasteful spending. all of that is required. in his testimony before the senate budget committee last week, federal reserve chairman bernanke addressed the need for this kind of two-step approach.

he testified, and i quote, even as fiscal policy makers address the urgent issue of fiscal sustainability, they should take care not to unnecessarily impede the current economic recovery. fortunately, the two goals of achieving long-term fiscal sustainability and avoiding additional fiscal headwinds for the recovery are fully come pat i will and indeed they are mute tallly enforcing. the president's budget includes a number of proposals that include, one, extending the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance benefits through 2012. i welcome the fact that we seem to have a break-through at least on the payroll tax cut front. second, providing $50 billion in up-front investment infrastructure for the construction of roads, bridges, rail and airport facilities.

third, extending the 100% business depreciation deduction for new investments. i can just say as a small business participant myself, i can testify to the value of that. provide $30 billion for school modernization. provide $30 billion to help states and localities retain first responders and create jobs by restoring distressed economies and creating a tax credit for small businesses that increase jobs and wages. my own avaluation of this budget, it moves in the right direction. cuting it by 2/3 over the budget period. it reduces discretionary spending -- let me put that slide up, reduces discretionary

spending to the lowest level of the share of our economy in 50 years -- actually in 60 years. you can see discretionary spending, previous high was 13.6%, this brings it down to 5% of our national income. that is a substantial change. this budget also indicates the need for additional steps. but for additional steps to be taken, it's going to take all of us to find some way to come together. i very much hope that even though this is an election year, we will come together on the longer term challenge that we confront. with that, we'll turn to senator sessions for his remarks and then we'll go to the testimony of our witness and then go to each of the members for their questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for

your good leadership and we appreciate the opportunity to work together. thank you for appearing before the committee. i wish it were under better circumstances and we had more money. the president of the united states, in my view, has no higher duty, no greater responsibility than to protect the american people from a clear and present danger. every expert, every witness has testified before this committee. they have said that we are on an unsustainable financial course that can lead to measured deficit, a financial crisis. those appearing before our committee have often called for a minimum of $4 trillion and 10-year deficit reduction. many of us including chairman conrad would like to achieve savings beyond that figure. really, what we are trying to do and should do is lay out a plan to balance this budget over a

period of years, 10 years would be a good goal in my opinion. we are not attempting to a massive austerity program to balance the budget. that cannot be done. that's not realistic and not i or republicans would propose. yet in the place of an economic threat, president obama has submitted a budget yesterday which makes no alteration in our debt course. under the president's budget plan, using the white house's own numbers, the total federal debt will hit approximately $26 trillion. and an increase of 75% from 2011. 75% increase in total debt. interest costs, interest costs will rise from $225 billion this year to $850 billion annually. and the spending will increase, spending overall will not be cut but increased by more than 60%

by your own budget submission. this year's deficit will be the fourth consecutive deficit. medicare and social security for which the president proposes no reforms will continue on the path to insolvency. but if this were not bad enough, no serious solutions to ser -- serious problems, the administration has given the budget. the president claims his proposal would achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction over the 10 years. i guess we should all relax. this is false, and i hope you won't repeat that number. under the president's proposal, we will accumulate $11.2 trillion in new debt. under the debt limit agreement that we achieved as part of the debate over the debt limit last

august, current law, that's the law today, we will accumulate $11.5 trillion to the gross debt over 10 years. at most, there is a $300 billion of deficit reduction in the president's reduction to $11.2 trillion despite almost $2 trillion in job-killing tax increases. i would like to put to rest the argument your predecessor, now the white house chief of staff, made about avoiding short-term cuts in favor of long-term savings. that's the mantra. but there are no spending cuts, short or long, in this budget. mr. lew, now the president's chief of staff, made another false claim this week saying the democratic senate is not doing a budget for the third straight

year because it requires 60 senate votes. the law is clear. it only takes 51 votes to pass the budget. and for republicans given the honor by the american people to lead this chamber next year, we will pass a budget and will be an honest budget and change the debt course of america. by contrast, the president uses accounting tricks to conceal the budget's true cost. the white house repeals $1.2 trillion in the budget control act cuts we made just last summer and doesn't count that as new spending. repealing the cuts we agreed to, in law. they rightly -- your budget rightly stops the planned cuts to medicare providers, doctor cuts, but without any money to pay for it. the budget gives -- takes credit for discretionary caps, spending

limits that are already in law, not part of this budget. and the budget present tends that war spending will continue at higher levels so that long planned reductions in borrowing magicically produce free money that can be spent somewhere else. the war costs were not paid for by dedicated stream of money. it was paid for by borrowed money. there's no money there to harvest. i hope we can have a candid discussion today. i hope we can move election year rhetoric, convenient sound bites and talking points. the american people have the right to expect honesty, transparency and accountability from the elected people and deserve a budget that takes them off the unsustainable debt course washington spenders have put them on. your budget does not do so. and i look forward to discussion today and perhaps we can reach

some agreements, even in this election year that would alter the course we're on. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator sessions. we'll receive your testimony and open it up for questions from the members. and welcome to the committee. and thank you for your service. this is a very tough job at a difficult time and i, for one, i think all members of the committee appreciate your service. >> i appreciate being here and i want to thank you mr. chairman, and ranking member sessions and other members of the committee. before i joined o.m.b. three years ago, i had spent all of my time, about 20 years in the private sector. and one thing that i found was that it was often helpful to boil things down to a few key graphics and i will use graphics here on the screen to walk through the president's 2013 budget. i'm going to cover four topics.

first, the current policy baseline. second, the key elements of deficit reduction. then an overview of our investments in the areas that are critical to our future competitiveness in growth. and finally, the bottom line of the president's budget and how it puts us on a sustainable path. first, the baseline. we believe we have a baseline that accurately reflects current policy. in essence, in business, we would think of this as business as usual. the baseline includes the extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, estate and gift taxes. the permanent extension of the a.m.t. and the s.g.r., the presentation we believe is more honest in patching these year after year, enforcement of the b.c.a. caps and joint committee sequester and accounting for

future disaster costs rather than ignoring them. the baseline results in annual deficits of 4.7% of g.d.p. at the end of the budget window in 2022. this is where we start out before our policy takes effect. let me now turn to our deficit reduction policies. last april, the president put forward a framework to achieve more than $4 trillion in deficit reductions. you can see it here. and will take a few minutes to walk through this. he maintained the $4 trillion commitment in his proposals to the joint committee last september. and this year's budget is very similar to the september proposal with the addition of a year to the budget window. as you can see on the far right on the green brar, the budget actually includes over $ trillion of total deficit reduction with the addition of

this extra year in the budget window. let me walk you through the critical elements and go from left to right. first, you will see on the far left, $676 billion in savings from the appropriation bills enacted last year, including both the 2011 plopingses in april and the -- appropriations and 2012 appropriations. next, over $1 trillion in reductions in designationary spending consistent with the caps in the b.c.a. $362 billion in reduction for medicaid, medicare and other health care programs that will make these programs more effective and more efficient. then, $272 billion in savings from reforming non-health mandatory programs in agriculture, pbgc.

these costs are net of the new costs of mandatory initiatives. the next category, $1.5 trillion of revenue for deficit reduction, including the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the highest earners and the elimination of inefficient and unfair tax breaks. the $1.5 trillion number, the net number, as we further cut taxes for the middle class and for small businesses. next, $617 billion in net savings from capping o.c.o. and investing in a six-year transportation reauthorization. this closes the back door on security spending. and then another category, net savings of $141 billion, bit of a catch-all and includes disaster jufments, program integrity and the general fund

transfers for transportation that are no longer necessary given we aren't paying for them in the previous bar. as a result of these proposals, debt service costs decreased by $800 billion. finally in that small pink bar, there are $176 billion of investments in short-term job initiatives that cut the other direction. these are investments. this is the remainder of the $354 billion of job initiatives that aren't spent in 2012. i want to be clear we don't count the sequester in our total deficit reduction. we believe 9 the sequester is bad policy and be replaced by this bigger package of deficit reduction. these efforts represent a total of $5 trillion in net deficit reduction. even as we achieve this deficit reduction, we continue to make

key investments in priority areas. these include short-term measures for job growth, totaling $354 billion, tax breaks for the middle class and small businesses, $352 billion, and continued investments in our long-term priorities. these include education and training for american workers, innovation in r&d, clean energy and infrastructure. we make these investments in a budget that abides by the very tight spending caps and makes hard tradeoffs. let me pull this all together now. on the left, i compared the adjusted baseline we discussed in the first slide with the results of the president's policies. as you can see in 2022 deficits from the president's policies are below 3% of g.d.p., compared to 4.7% in the baseline.

furthermore, debt as a percentage of g.d.p. is stabilized from 2018 on. this is important for maintaining a strong investment environment. the president's budget replaces the sequester with a balanced approach to deficit reduction, with $2.50 in spending cuts for every dollar in revenue increases. we have made tough choices and we all need to work together to maintain this balanced approach. in closing, as a business person and now as acting o.m.b. director, i believe the president's budget makes the right investments to make us even more competitive in the global marketplace and achieving declining deficits and stabilizing our debt are critical for business confidence and investment.

this is good for business, good for the middle class and good for america. i look forward to taking your questions. >> thank you, director, for that testimony. let me start out by saying, i have seen the president criticized for not cutting the deficit in half in his first term. what was the deficit of the share of g.d.p. that he inherited, do you recall? >> over 9%. >> i believe that first year, it was 10.1%. in 2013, what will the deficit be as a share of g.d.p.? >> 5.5%. >> pretty close to being cut if half. what will it be in 2014? >> achieve the cutting in half. exact percent i can get for you, but by 2014, we will cut it in half. >> second question i have is

question of revenues. under the president's plan, revenues will average what share of g.d.p. over the budget period? >> little below 20%. >> little below 20%. i just say the fiscal commission, which has been lauded for reaching a bipartisan agreement, had a level of 20.3% at the end of its budget period. during the clinton years, revenue averaged about 19.4%. so the level of revenue that the president is calling for is completely in keeping with what the bipartisan fiscal commission members recommended, and what we saw during the clinton years, which was the longest period of uninterrupted economic growth in the nation's history. let me ask a second question -- third question, the ranking

member has said that the president over the 11 years that is included in his calculation increased spending 62%. do you know how much president reagan increased spending in the eight years of his administration? >> i believe that was 69% across the eight years, 1981 to 1989. >> can you tell us how much president bush increased spending in his eight years, i'm talking about bush, 44. >> from 2001 to 2009, 89%. >> so the fact is those republican presidents, over shorter periods of time increased spending much more than this president is proposing. so i just think those facts are important. again, president reagan, in just

eight years increased spending 69%. president bush, george bush, increased spending 89% over eight years. this president is being criticized for increasing over 11 years, over a longer period, 62%, which is less than either of the others. with respect to the question of mr. lew's statement of a budget requiring 60 votes, i assume he was referring to the budget control act that we passed last year that did require 60 votes, is that your understanding? >> absolutely. >> you know, that's different than a budget resolution. budget relution does require a simple majority. but a budget resolution never goes to the president for signature. last year, we passed a budget control act that's a law. that passed not only the house and the senate, than -- and

required 60 votes in the senate but was signed by the president and that's the law. let me ask one other question if i could, because i'm running out of time. the hard reality here is budgets and what we do with fiscal policy is linked to the economic outcomes that this country experiences. and if we look back at what this president walked into, isn't it true that the economy was shrinking at a rate of almost 9% in the final quarter of the previous administration? >> yes, it was. >> and isn't it a fact that the economy is now growing in the most recent quarter, at a rate of 2.5%? >> yes. >> so that is a turnaround that is really quite remarkable from the economy shrinking at a rate

of 9% to an economy growing at a rate of 2.5%. i believe the president deserves some credit for helping engineer that turnaround. the same is true with respect to jobs. isn't it true that in the first month 2008, 2009, that we lost 800,000 jobs in the private sector? >> unfortunately, yes. >> that wasn't the result of this president's policies. he didn't take office until 2/3 of the way in that month. the most recent report, the most recent monthly report, we gained 250,000 jobs in the private sector, isn't that the case? >> yes. >> so it appears to me the president should be able to ask the american people to support a

policy that has brought us back from the brink. and i assume his intention with this budget, to try to further the economic recovery and further help create jobs in the private sector, is that the underlying strategy. >> you captured it well in your opening statement, it is a two-step, we continue this recovery, starting with making sure we extend the payroll tax holiday so 160 million americans don't have a tax increase and $30 billion in infrastructure to modernize our schools and at the same time part ourselves on a path towards deficit reduction that by 2018 that has stabilized. coming back to 2014, by 2014, we are down to 3.9, which is a heck

of a lot better than the 10.5% that the president inherited up front. >> we are going to do five-minute rounds this morning and hopefully get to a second round. senator sessions may consume the time i did. >> thank you, mr. chairman. well, putting us on a path of deficit reduction, sometime in the future, we'll have deficit reduction is not achieving deficit reduction. and the president, first two years in his office, which the chairman didn't refer to when he talked about how much proposed growth the 62%, would include the surging, including the stimulus and 24% increase in two years in discretionary, non-defense spending. but i would say, mr. lew on his

cnn program said you can't pass a budget in the united states senate without 60 votes, closed quote. isn't it true that based -- that the current law which included the budget control act, the legislation that passed as part of raising the debt limit, that your budget spends more money than congress proposed to spend through the budget control act process over the next 10 years? >> as i said earlier, we have $5 trillion in deficit reduction. >> do you propose to spend more money than the budget control act or current law would cause us to spend? >> we have a much more honest baseline, a baseline that has s.g.r., a.m.t. not taxed year after year.

>> you don't pay for the s.g.r., the doc fix, that's not paid for. but let's go back to the simple question i asked you. does your plan spend more money over the next 10 years than the agreement in current law that we reached just last august? >> the baseline -- >> yes or no. >> we have to focus here on the bottom line and taking deficits down to 2.8% of g.d.p. >> you aren't answering my question. you are the director of the o.m.b. does your budget call for spending more money -- >> our budget is an honest budget. each year we are passing the a.m.t. >> will the witness not answer a simple question. i just asked a simple question. >> it's a more accurate reflection of what we are going to spend. >> will it spend more or less? >> it will actually spend less

money because of the deficit reduction that we have and a baseline that reflects the current policy. >> because the deficit reduction can only be assumed that's caused by increased taxes. let's go back to that question. when -- your budget proposes eliminating the sequester, the $1.2 trillion in spending cuts we all agreed to last year, difficult as it was. that's in $1.2 trillion increase in spending, is it not? >> no, it isn't it. >> we agreed to reduce by $1.2 trillion and you eliminate that, and that means you intend to spend that. >> there is an important point, the president is not proposing that the sequester go away.

it is an important forcing function for us to do deficit reduction. so the sequester will be replaced with a balanced approach to deficit reduction. the sequester itself is bad policy, it's bad policy on the defense side, $500 billion -- >> we have looked at the numbers in your budget. your budget increases spending by $1.5 trillion more than the budget agreement last year and it's in a lot of different places. you do make cuts in some places out there, but your net is increased, spending more than the current law, and that is not the path we need to be on and the increase in taxes that you propose, almost $2 trillion is used to pay for that spending. >> let me be crystal clear here. we are -- there will be $2 trillion deficit reduction from the b.c.a.

we believe in a balanced approach. >> if you are incorrect in saying that you do not increase spending more than current law, would you consider resigning your office? >> let me go back to the -- >> we have looked at the numbers. are you that confident? >> i'm confident with our baseline, which accurately reflects current policy and business as usual that we have deficit reduction of more than $4 trillion and do it in a balanced way. for every $2.50 of spending cuts, there is a dollar of revenue. that is a good balanced approach. >> there is no spending cut in this budget. this budget increases spending. surely you know that. and increases taxes. so to say you cut $2.50 in spending for every dollar in tax increase is beyond the pale?

>> we have $360 billion in cuts from health care, $270 billion in cuts from other mandatory savings and savings from omple c.o. that c.b.o. scores, $2.50 in spending cuts for every dollar in revenue. that is a balanced approach and that's the approach we should have. >> mr. chairman, this budget taxes more and it spends more. it does not alter the debt course of america. and i'm disappointed that we can't get an honest response to these difficult questions at this important time in our history. >> thank you, senator, for his questions. senator murray. >> director, thank you for your service to our country and we appreciate it in this difficult time. you know, as we all know, budgets are about choices and they are about priorities, they're about making investments in our workers and families and

future and about making some tough decisions about how we pay for those investments and reduce our debt and deficit. i have spent a lot of time tackling those issues on the joint selection committee on deficit reduction and didn't get the results we were all hoping for, but our work highlighted the deep divisions on this issue and the sharp can trass between the two parties on the path forward today. i feel strongly that deficit reductions shouldn't simply be put on the backs of the middle class. i believe the wealthiest americans and biggest corporations should contribute their fair share as well as we try to work our way out of this. i do believe that we need to cut responsibly where we can and we all need to remember that we have, includeing $1 trillion that we have cut in the budget control act. that can't be all. a balanced approach is what every single bipartisan group that has tackled this has

advocated for and all our constituents expect and deserve. as we work on the potential changes to the bipartisan sequestration process, i believe we can't simply add to the burdens of the middle class again. they have paid a lot. i think the only fairway to change this process is through shared sacrifice and balanced approach. it's that important value, balance, that i want to ask you about the president's budget proposal. my question to you is how does your budget tackle this issue of balance and fairness for the middle class and what are your specific proposals to make sure as we tackle the goal of jobs and investment in the future and deficit reduction, we are calling on everyone to share in the sacrifice and not just the middle class and vulnerable. >> a balanced approach has been central to everybody's recommendation here, including the simpsonbowles recommendation

and with the president's budget, askinging the wealthiest americans to pay their fair and ending some corporate tax loopholes and unnecessary corporate tax expenditures like not taxing ordinary income, corporate jets, et cetera, asking everybody to pay their fair share. raising revenue is a central part of that. at the same time, there will be no tax cuts for the middle class, so no family earning under $250,000 would have increase, i'm sorry, tax increase. there will be tax cuts, including the aotc and extending that. >> for those listening, when we use those words here, people listening have no idea. >> american opportunity tax credit, which allows families to

get up to $10,000 of tax relief for college and making college affordable is a central emphasis in this year's budget, continuing pell grants at their higher level, making -- giving the tax credits i just described, encouraging colleges and universities to stop their year-over-year tuition increases, all important for the middle class. the president has done about $300 billion of tax cuts for the middle class. central to this budget is a balanced approach. i talked about the $2.50 of spending cuts for every dollar of revenue, making sure that the wealthiest of americans do their fair share and making sure we give the middle class a fair shot. >> i thank you very much for that principle. i think it's really important for america today where so many families have been hit hard in the last two, three years with jobs being cut, that they have

contributed to trying to get this economy back on track and make sure we have a fair and balanced budget and i appreciate the president's emphasis on that p value. on sequestration and costs of spending, the v.a. medical care is exempt but there is ambiguity between the budget and existing law and by not settling this issue we are failing to provide our veterans with the clarity they deserve. what can we expect -- when can we expect o.m.b. to weigh in on this issue? >> this year's budget absolutely recognizes the importance of our veterans. >> and i thank you for that. >> in terms of the sequester, it is bad policy. it is bad policy all around and would lead to cuts on the defense side that go across the board or indiscriminate,

totalling $500 billion and have similar cuts of similar magnitude on the discretionary side and elsewhere which are not appropriate. the sequester is bad policy. we are focusing on replacing with balanced deficit reduction. if we need to do more planning for the sequester, we will address issues like the one you raised. we are focused, this is bad policy and should be replaced by balanced deficit reduction. >> as soon as you can let us know, we would appreciate it. >> thank you. senator crapo. >> i want to go back to an issue that has been discussed here and many places and it's this notion, it's not time yet to start controlling these spending side of the equation. we need to keep stimulating the economy and keep the government

spending going so we can generate jobs. and the two-step approach that the chairman mentioned and that you have confirmed is the approach taken by this budget. i have a concern about that. as you know, and i served on the president's commission on the commission and that commission adopted that two-step approach in december of 2010. and we agreed in that commission report that we would delay the companies on spending and the spending restraints for a year or two to allow for this impact on the economy that was claimed to be needed. the concern i have is that it's now time to prepare the 2012 budget and we still hear that it's not time yet for us to begin the austerity part of controlling spending at the federal level, but we still have to engage in the spending side. we aren't there.

my question rhetorically is when will we ever get to step two? and the question i do want to ask you is about this budget. i have seen a lot of budgets in congress and i have analyzed a lot of congressional budgets and one of the biggest problems that we have that we overlook every year is that you have a budget, in this case, a 10-year budget, that makes all kinds of proposals over a 10-year period of time, but it's only the first year of the budget that really counts -- only the first year of the budget that congress will operate from in this year and it seems in the first year of almost every budget i have seen congress establish, there's just more taxing and more spending, but the control of spending doesn't happen. and i note that that is happening again in this budget and that's the question i want to refer you to.

two years the president's budget froze nondiscretionary fiscal spending at $446 billion. . one year ago there were more savings in that category. for the fiscal year 2013, saying that in fiscal year 2013 we should get to an even lower level of $397 billion. now we're look at fiscal year 2013, it's arrived. and the president proposes not the $446 that he said in his budget two years ago, not the $397 that he said in his budget one year ago, but $501, if i read the numbers correctly. and so the same dynamic that i'm describing has occurred again in this circumstance, in previous budgets we say, well, in the future we'll fix things.

and here's how we'll fix them. and then we get to the future budgets and lo and behold the fix is gone and the spending is back in place. because -- could you respond to that? >> i think that on the discretionary send -- discretionary side we are abiding by the caps which as you know control discretionary spending. if you look at dfment o.d. as an example -- if you look at d.o.d. as an example, they put together a budget that follows a new strategy and the budget as a result of that strategy actually results in a 1% decrease in d.o.d. spending. not counting owe oak -- oakow. if you look across the agencies, beyond d.o.d., half of our agencies have flat or negative spending in 2013 versus 2012. so this is a budget that i would argue has a lot of spending control and at the enof the day the bottom line as i mentioned earlier is that we're down to -- in 2013 to

$5.5 -- 5.5% of g.d.p. and then in 2014 3.9% of g.d.p. not where we need to go, which need to get those deficits lower, we need to have debt stable as a percent of g.d.p. but we're on the right path in this budget. >> but you've adjusted the baseline which allows you to make the claims that you're making in a number of contexts here. let's forget about the baseline, let's forget about the percentages and all of the arguments that have been made about how we're going to be reducing percentages of spending. is it not accurate to say that the president proposes in this budget, for 2013, more spending than he proposed for this same 2013 budget last year and the same 2013 budget the year before? >> i think you have to go back and benchmark those numbers. i don't have them in front of me. what i can tell you is this is a very tight budget and

certainly a budget that abides by the b.c.a. caps which makes -- has us making a lot of tradeoffs. i think the most powerful -- >> except the sequestration is eliminated -- >> i want to be very clear on the sequestration. it is not eliminated. the president believes that it's a very important forcing function. in the fall congress was not able to come up with a proposal -- >> i thought you said it was -- i think your word was replaced. >> well, the $1.2 trillion that the sequestration would create through what we think is bad policy in the d.o.d. area of $500 billion across-the-board cut on top of the efficiencies we've already realized is bad policy. on the discretionary side, that -- it would be replaced with balanced deficit reduction. we will have that $1.2 trillion. it's mutually assured destruction. we have got to get it. no one wants -- >> but you're -- the $1.2 trillion tax increase, are you not?

>> a combination of tax and spending cuts overall, $2.50 of spending cuts for every $1 in increased revenue. >> i can tell you i do have the numbers and in two years ago it was $446. one year ago it was $397. this year it's $501. the same thing is happening. the budget proposals go up in the year that we really are doing the budgeting. >> let me just say that i've served with senator crapo on the commission, served with him in a group of six. i've spent hundreds of hours with him. he's a serious person. and in the group of six we devised a enforcement mechanism that's never been used before, in part to get at the issue -- the underlying issue that he raises which i think those of us who have served on the budget committee for many years , whatever the merits of the current budget or the demerits of it, the underlying dynamic

that he is stressing here, he's stressed in many, many hours, i can tell you, in the fiscal commission and the group of six. and he is right that enforcement mechanisms have almost always had loopholes in them and i'll tell you, congress is genius at getting through loopholes. >> mr. chairman, i appreciate you saying that. i actually wrote the gang of six enforcement mechanism on my pad here. because i would love to see the president endorse at least that much of some of the work we've done here. >> i would just say, that gang of six proposal, the strength of it was good enforcement. but one of the things that we know, if you pass a sequester that requires a $1 trillion reduction and you walts into the congress less than a year later and propose to eviscerate it, it does not give confidence that anything we ever do will be followed through. i know what you're suggesting. you've got all the cuts and i know you've got all the tax

increases but you've walked away from those cuts and replaced them with fundamentally tax increases as the senator just said. >> i don't think we've seen a specific proposal to how to achieve the $1.2 trillion that is anything other than the sequester itself which is bad policy and i think we could all agree that's bad policy. what we're proposing here is to replace it with a balanced approach and the president's budget has more than the $1.2 trillion of spending and revenue to replace the sequester. but i want to be crystal clear, the president believes the sequester is very important as a forcing function to make sure that we achieve at least that level of deficit reduction. >> we can't ad hoc this. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think we can learn from our

past experience, mr. chairman. and that is in the 1990's when we had a serious budget problem we had a balanced approach to deal with it. we enhanced revenues, we did, for deficit reduction. and we reduced spending. and we were able to get our budget not only under control, we got our budget balanced. and we saw economic expansion in this country and job growth and everyone benefited from that. so i think the chairman's exchange with the director as to getting our budget and deficit manageable should be our goal. and if we can in fact reduce the deficit by 1/2 as a percentage of our economy, that is progress. that is real progress that's being made and that will be reflected in the growth of our economy and we will all benefit from it. so i think that's an extremely important point and i appreciate the fact of how you are trying to balance the revenues and the spending over

this period of time. i want to talk about the revenues for one moment because i understand that there's going to be a lot of comment about it. but if we were to use current law as it relates to revenues, the previous tax cuts, allowing them all to expire and not expanding -- extending the alternative minimum tax, what would be the revenue impact versus what you have in your budget over the 10-year window? do you have those numbers? >> i'm sorry, sir, you're suggesting if we were to allow the middle class tax cuts -- >> i'm suggesting if we were to compare this to current law rather than current policy -- than if we were to allow current law to take effect rather than to continue current policy as it relates to the revenue issues. >> right. i believe c.b.o.'s done that, that work. we don't spend time on that because we believe that no family with less than $250,000

in income should have any tax increase. in fact, we believe there's opportunity for further tax cuts. we believe that the tax cuts should expire for the wealthiest 2%, that that is central to having this balanced approach. >> and i support you on that and i think the point that senator murray made about the middle class is extremely important. the middle class needs help. and they need help as far as the amount of taxes they pay, they need help on college expenses and i strongly support what the administration's trying to do and continuing the pell grants, hopefully expanding the pell grants. because college costs are becoming greater. my point is this, when we look at the revenue number, it's my understanding that the revenues that you're bringing in would actually -- if we allow current law to take effect, we would have more revenue coming in the treasury than what the president's budget is proposing a. >> absolutely. >> and i agree, none of us want to see that happen. but i think the point is this,

that we need to come together in order to make sure that our tax policies are sensible, we'd all like to see reform. but the revenue part of what the president has in had budget is actually less revenue coming into the treasury than if we were to allow current law to take effect. >> that's right. that's right. and it returns us to a point for the wealthiest 2%, that brings us back to that period of time that you were talking about, in the 1990's. tax railts would be very similar. having been in the private sector during that period of time, i can tell you there's plenty of incentive to be an entrepreneur, to grow a business, to make investments and it's essential to this balanced approach that we're talking about, that we have the appropriate amount of revenue, that $1.5 trillion allows a balanced approach and i think it's good for america, it's good for the middle class. >> and i would just add one more lesson from the 199s to when we were able to get -- 1990's when we were able to get the budget under control and had a surplus, we gave prohibit

county to the private sector, that they knew they had confidence that the budgets would be there and that government policy would be there and again it allowed for the expansion of our economy. i think it's critically important that we act, that we don't let current law take effect. because of the impact it has on middle income families but i think the president has given us a balanced approach and learning from history, i think that if with allow that to take effect, we'll see the type of progress in our economy that everyone will benefit from and i think that's what we're all trying to do. >> i think we need to achieve what this budget achieves, which is the -- to stabilize debt as a percent of g.d.p., that will allow us to continue to be the place for american businesses and global companies to invest. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator graham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. there's much being said about a fair share that people need to pay their fair share. when it comes to taxes. what is a fair share?

you can put a number on it? >> i think rather than putting a number on it, let's look at empirical data. >> let's put a number on it. >> ok. i think the number that the president has in the budget -- and again the president prefers to do tax reform, but tax reform takes time. so having the bush tax cuts expire -- >> whoa, whoa, whoa. the president prefers to do something is -- why doesn't the president lead? i mean, you got people on this committee who have led. they've got their brain speed out. but i admire them all as a gang of six. so i just don't buy the idea that the president can't lead. why didn't the president have a budget that led on tax reform? >> well, the president has very specific proposals in this budget to answer your question which would take the top rate from 35% back to 39.6% which was a level that existed in the

1990's. >> is that a fair share? should it be higher than 39.6%? >> i think that the $1.5 trillion which is raised here primarily through individual taxes, somewhat through corporate taxes, is -- represents a fair share. the ratio i've talked about -- >> so the president believes and you believe that the number that we should be shooting for is 39.6% not 35%? >> that's right. i think the president believes -- >> now, what does that do to our long-term fiscal outlook? if we told everybody in america we've now found the fair number, 39.6%, can i go home and tell people we've solved our budget problems? >> let me explain the tax reform piece. this budget has very specific proposals, 5% going to 39.6%, capping deductions for americans with more than $250,000 of income at 28%. at the same time, the president has put forward principles for

tax reform which would simplify the tax code, lower rates -- >> so when we say a fair share, we really need to reform the tax code to have a fiscal impact? >> that's right. we need -- >> so when people tell me you got at that pay your fair share, really what you need to be saying is, no, you need to reform the tax code in a way that gets us to where we need to go as a nation and 39.6% versus 35% is not going to solve the nation's problems. >> i think that 39.6% distribute specific proposal has us return to where we were which was a successful system -- >> let's talk about what got us into $15 trillion of debt now and in the future. do you agree that social security trust fund is going to be exhausted in 2036? >> according to the actuaries, it's solvent through 2036. >> i'm not beating up on you because we've all failed in the area of entitlement reform, i'm just trying to express what i think is the elephant in the

room and the gang of six and others, simpson-bowles actually did try to do something about this. is there anything in the president's budget that adjusts the age for retirement? >> no. >> is there anything in the budget that adjusts -- it means to have social security benefits? >> no. the president does not believe that our immediate problem is social security. at the same time the president has put forward principles for social security reform and it too needs to be done in a balanced way. >> ok. if we do nothing with medicare, social security and medicaid, how much of the revenue stream in the future does those three programs consume? >> well, across this budget window, which is the next 10 years, what the president's budget achieves is a deficit below 3% and a stabilization of the g.d.p. >> does the president's budget do anything to save social security from going bankrupt?

>> social security is solvent through 2036 and i believe the president -- >> is he against personal accounts? does he oppose personal investment accounts? >> the president looks forward to sitting down with congress and making fundamental social security reform -- >> in his budget does the millionaire thunderstorm budget receive subsidies from the government when it comes to their medicare premiums? >> the president has, through the a.c.a., and through -- >> if you're a millionaire receiving medicare benefits, you got $1 million of income, do you receive subsidies from the federal government? thunderstorm budget? -- under this budget? >> you're entitled to medicare. >> do you get a subsidy from the general treasury to pay the premium? >> you pay a large portion -- >> has any subsidies coming to millionaires under this budget? for medicare premiums? from the general treasury?

>> medicare compact with seniors is maintained. >> so the compact is that we're going to let millionaires go -- be subsidized forever, is that the compact we all signed? >> that's the compact we have. they pay a higher share of premiums -- >> i did not sign that compact. i do not believe. that i think i should be paying the full premiums. but anyway, thanks for coming. >> next, senator warner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i appreciate you being here. i do concur with my friend, the senator from south carolina, that we do need to take on a comprehensive approach to the long-term deficit issue. i think one of the -- a lot of statistics are thrown around but if there's one take away, i think -- takeaway that i think i constantly come back to,

which is that the last couple of years we've seen spending close to 24%, 25% of our g.d.p., all-time high. we've seen revenues in that 15% range, 75-year low. if you look any time over the last 75 years, any time there's anything been close to balanced it's been when revenues and spending have been in that basically 19% to 21% range. and i guess the feeling i have is that while it will require us to take on changes to the entitlement programs and i do wish we would have seen more, it will also take us looking at the revenue, half of the ledgeure as well. i guess one of the other things i want to take a moment on, and understand the administration, president's reluctance and need to phase in appropriately long-term deficit reduction, i think we've seen in the press today the u.k. potentially

being put on credit watch because they may be moving too quickly on a austerity path only. but one of the questions i would like your comments on are, what should be the economic indicators and growth numbers, g.d.p. numbers, jobs numbers, what have you, that would allow us to start phasing in more dramatic and comprehensive deficit reduction? one of the things i'm concerned with, mr. chairman, i understand and i think probably both sides of the aisle do that the payroll tax cut at this point, while quite pop lar, does also have some current stimulative effects. i'm afraid at times we need to be hoisted on our own language at some point, that eliminating that would then be viewed as a tax increase at some point into this year, going forward.

i personally would like to see if the economy continues to improve that automatically phase out. i am concerned that -- as well, that it looks like the house leadership now, after a great deal of talk about fiscal responsibility, may decide to try to extend that without paying for it at all. i think that is totally irresponsible and against the grain of everything that this committee, both the chairman and the ranking member, have been about. i personally would be opposed to that. if we're going to do it we ought to pay for it. but i guess what i'm asking is, what should we look at as the metrics on economic growth that would allows us -- would allow us to take on deficit reduction with both the revenue side increases and the entitlement side reductions, to get us back in greater balance? >> a few reactions. first, on revenue, you talked about the 19%, 20% range, that's exactly where our budget is. so at the end of the budget

window we hit 20.1% and we're in that 19% range through the window. so we agree that is a historical range that has worked and one that we need to get back to. second, i want to emphasize that the budget does have declining deficits year over year, we >> get below 3% in 2018, that gets to the point where we stabilize the debt as a percentage of g.d.p. on payroll tax, let me answer that one specifically, we think it's essential. you can't have a tax increase on 160 million americans at this point in time. we're starting to recover, unemployment's at 8.3% which is better than where it was but not where we need to go. i think we feel absent any major shock to the system that once it's extended through the end of the year, that that is it. >> paid for it? >> you know, i think the most important thing that it be extended.

i know there are conferences -- conversations that many of you are involved in. i think it's important that we have unemployment extended, u.i. extended and the s.g.r. and that package should get done as soon as possible. it's not a period of time where we can afford any delay. president the looks forward to signing that bill. >> the other question i would have is, what are the indicators though of when we can either phase that out, you're saying end of the year, or other economic metrics that would allow us -- >> yeah, i think continued decrease in unemployment, i think we believe that the president's policies are enacted a year from now will be below 8%. we look forward to g.d.p. growth in the mid 3% a's or higher and at that point we can begin to pivot toward deficit reduction. >> i thank the senator. senator portman is next. >> thank you, mr. chairman and

welcome. a couple of quick questions for you. senator reid has said we don't need to bring a budget to the floor this year. do you agree with that? >> i think that the most important thing is that congress act and that we pass the president's policy. >> yes or no, do you think we should take a budget to the senate floor? >> i think the mechanics and the process are not my area of expertise. what i do know is -- >> i'll take that as a no. which is consistent with what the white house has said. i find it pretty amazing. i will note that the b.t.a. -- >> i will note -- >> second question. what do you think the most significant policy issue facing crit in terms of our fiscal policy? what's the single most important thing in terms of our fiscal posture? >> i think it's actually two

things, a short-term and a long-term. short-term is continuing this recovery and we need to make sure that payroll tax, as i talked about, and other initiatives like transportation , schools -- >> what's your long distance? >> the second is driving down those deficits to a sustainable level and i think we make serious progress here. >> policy area, what is the area that troubles you most in terms of our fiscal posture? >> i think it's getting a paled approach. if you look at the revenue right now, our revenue is much below where senator warner says -- i agree with, needs to be and we need to continue to bring down our spending. >> ok. i was hoping for something a little more specific. it's funny, i've asked that question of a lot of folks including the c.b.o. director who sat in your seat and the question usually gets answered with, you know, with one policy area which is health care. and entitlements. so i know you come from the management side and welcome to this budget committee.

>> i do have some background in health care from the private sector and -- >> well, i think if you look at the budget, i think it's difficult not to see that the entitlement side, the mandatory spending side and health care is our number one problem. we're borrowing about 40 cents of every $1 spent at the federal level. we've had $1 trillion--- we've had tral-dollar deficits over the last few years. we've had a downgrade as was mentioned. we're looking at a fiscal crisis on our doorstep, $15 trillion debt, historic levels. we're spending morp than we ever have in this country. as a percent of g.d.p., more than we have since world war ii. so i think, you know, i would just like to suggest having heard a lot of the conversation today that there doesn't seem to be the urgency that i would hope for, particularly with regard to the mandatory spending side. as a percent of spending to g.d.p. on the mandatory side, this year is about 65% in 1971

it was 42%. do you know what the percent of g.d.p. will be on the entitlement spending, mandatory spending, this includes social security, medicare, medicaid and interest on the debt? so, 42% in 1971, about 65% now. what will it be at the end of the 10-year window? >> i don't have the figure in front of me. >> it's 78%. so think about the budget. when you look at this, this is as a percent of the budget, not as a percent of g.d. . it's a percent of the budget. so as a percent of the budget we've gone from 42% in 1971, i used 1971 because that included the great society programs and so on. there was a big expansion back in the 1960's it was in the

20's'. then we get to mid 60's now, yet in this budget when you look at it, there's nothing as senator graham indicated on social security. nothing. even though we are in cash deficit and social security. we have this huge growth on medicare, what is there in medicare on the benefit side during the next term of whoever is president? so during the next four or five years, what is there on medicare? >> let me start with health care and then -- >> let me answer that question for you because i'm not going to get an answer from you. it sounds like. but nothing. you've got a little means testing which i applaud you for and republicans have been wanting to get out front and talk about the need to get entitlements under control as has some democrats and the chairman. you've got nothing. what you do is actually after this president's term. so i appreciate your testimony today, i look forward to talking to you on the management side where you have a lot of background and expertise and i would hope on these other issues that, you know when someone asks you what the top issue is it's not a

balanced approach and more taxes but we've really got to get this mandatory spending and entitlement spending under control. this is an interesting document but does nothing to move the country forward on what is the most urgent issue facing our nation on the fiscal side and if we don't i fear we are heading down the road of our southern european allies and that will have an enormously negative impact on our economy and jobs. thank you for coming in. look forward to talking to you more about these and other issues. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> let me just say that in fairness to witnesses, if we ask a question, we got to give the witness a chance to answer the question. senator whitehouse is next. >> we would ask that the witness answer the question. >> you've got -- let me just say, when we ask a question

here, a witness deserves the chance to answer. that's the way the house committee will be conducted. senator whitehouse -- >> you can listen to this entire hearing on c-span 3 at 7:00 p.m. eastern. we're going live to the house. members taking votes on measures debated earlier today. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of 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 this 303, the nays are 89 with one member voting present. the journal stands approved. the house will come to order.

members will kindly clear the well and take their conversations outside of the chamber. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. campbell of california for today and wednesday, february 15. mr. culberson of texas for today, mrs. davis -- mr. davis of illinois for today and mr. heinrich of new mexico for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted.

the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> request unanimousen to kent -- consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is croysed. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to speak about a very happy occasion for every member of the arizona delegation. i'm proud to have introduced h.con.res. 100 which invites the entire house of representatives to join with the arizona delegation in commemorating arizona's centennial. for the past 100 years, arizona

has stood as a beacon of opportunity for millions of individuals who came to the state to make a better life for themselves and their familyless. mr. quayle: they came to arizona and biment the state we know today, a state with rich diversity, a soaring optimism, driven by an innovative spirit. they came because they know that arizona embodies what's best in america. i can't imagine a better place to live and i'm proud to call arizona home. i'm proud that it's the place i have choke chosen to start my family and representing this wonderful state is an honor beyond words. arizona's had 100 great years. we start the next 100 with the same spirit of optimism and determination that made our state great and we still possess that same fierce independence needed to keep it great. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order.

for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, without -- as many of you know, today is arizona's 100th birthday. think of this, 100 years ago, there were only about 200,000 people in arizona. today there's about 6.5 million. one of the reasons i wanted to come behind the microphone today is if you've been watching our senators and fellow members of our tell gation, we've all talked about the -- of our delegation, we are talked about the wonderful leaders, udalls, goalwaters and others who came from arizona. mr. is week ert: but i want to say something -- mr. sweekert: but i want to say -- whether

schweikert: i want to talk about the people of arizona. it's a state full of people who have chosen to pick up their homes in california an back east and venture to a new life that type of entrepreneurial spirit that type of unique personality i think is actually what makes arizona so special. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. are there further requests for one-minute speeches? under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011 the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, is recognized for 60 minute as the designee of the majority leader. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. it's my privilege and honor to be recognized by you to address the house of representatives and take up some measures -- issues of our day. first i'd like to address the

situation with regard to the payroll tax extension and unemployment extension and the components that are being deliberated now as the conference committee is trying to get to a final solution. i take you back, mr. speaker, to the lame duck session a year ago last december when within, oh, 30 to 45 days of the election of this 112th congress, the legitimized and now 112th congress, lame duck sessions took place, initiated by the minority leader of the united states senate, mitch mcconnel, an president obama, to deal with a way of extending the bush tax brackets to avoid the automatic imposition of a 55% death tax at midnight on new year's, beginning in the first minute of 2011, and also the -- the

payroll tax holiday, it was also the refundable tax credits, unemployment benefits extended, and the list went on. mr. speaker, i just make the point that we had 87 freshman republicans waiting in the wings in that lame duck session rm they were the legitimate representatives of the american people. when the united states congress makes a decision to move forward on large pieces of legislation, any large piece of legislation, in a lame duck session, then it must be something that is urgent and mandatory that we take that kind of action. our founding fathers did not imagine that we would -- first of all, thomas jefferson said large initiatives should not be advanced on slender majorities. large initiatives should not be advanced on slender majorities. but mr. speaker, also, large initiatives should not be advanced by lame duck sessions

of the united states congress. when that happens, you have a lot of people that are going home. 87 freshman republicans, nine freshman democrat they replaced all of them, people that were going home. there's your math. 96 members of this congress today, and there have been several others added, but 96 were waiting in the wings to be sworn into office here in the first week in january so they could do their just constitutional duty and while that was going on, the negotiations were taking place for a lame duck session, a large initiative lame duck session to address bush tax bracket extensions, unemployment benefit extensions and for the first time, the severance of the 50-50 relationship between employer and employee and the contributions to the social security trust fund. now, i've watched that social security trust fund since i came here to this congress and it was at about a plus of 1.-- of about

$1.74 trillion an it's grown to $3.4 trillion, an it's moving quickly now, the higher the unemployment, the more damage it does to the social security trust fund. as we're seeing baby boomers retire and qualify for social security and medicare, there are more and more demands on the social security trust fund. but the payroll tax holiday that was passed, and that's what it was called, but it actually created $130 billion hole in the social security trust fund. now you can charge it against the general fund and when the time comes to pay the bill, it'll have to come out of the general fund because the social security trust fund is borrowed from by the federal government anyway. but the accounting created $130 billion hole and you can count that up proportionately around $10 billion or $11 billion a

month each year there's a suspension of the 2% contribution of the employee into the social security trust fund. that was one of the components from the lame duck session. we never should have, mr. speaker, never should have severed the 50-50 bond between equal contributions to the social security trust fund out of the employer and employee. as soon as that happens, it opens the door for class envy, it opens the door, it already had discriminated against the employer, in benefit of the employee. now if it had been a reduction of 1% from the employer and 1% from the employee, at least then the 50-50 bond would have been withheld. we have in the past adjusted the social security contribution rate so that we have a viable fund. but we have not in the past broken that 50-50 equal contribution employer-employee. that happened in the lame duck session. it was one of those things that was agreed to in order to be able to extend the bush tax

brackets, extending the bush tax brackets at that time gets us just until december 31 of this year, then the game changes again. now, it is a way to avoid having that be a debate while president obama is up for re-lech just like the debt ceiling was timed so that the president can essentially direct a debt ceiling increase and avoid having a fight here on the floor of the house or the senate to approve another debt ceiling increase. it looks as though we've negotiated some agreements to keep the president off the hook for holding him accountable coming into this presidential election. but to add into that agreement the lame duck deal, i'll call it, mr. speaker, when you add in the payroll tax situation, that suspended 2% from the employee and -- and didn't suspend any from the employer and broke that bond, we also had the extension

of the bush tax brackets and had an adjustment to the death tax, which was zero on the day that this was voted upon, but it jumped to 35%, it was automatically going to go to 55%. we had also an extension of unemployment benefits out to 99 weeks, mr. speaker, 99 weeks of unemployment benefits are, as far as the charts i have looked at and my memory, unprecedented in the history of this country, 99 weeks. so the 99 weeks of unemployment, that and extension of refundable tax credits and a few other, smaller programs, totaleders $212 billion -- totaled $212 billion in outlays for the duration of that bill. that bill that was negotiated by people who were anxious to make a deal and why? i have a little trouble figuring out why republican rrs anxious to make a deal, mr. speaker, because we had 87 new freshmen

waiting in the wings. the legitimate voices of the american people, the shock troops they sent here they sent them here for fiscal responsibility, every single one of them ran on the 100% repeal of obama care, they ran on fiscal responsibility they ran on a balanced budget and $212 billion went out the window with the lame duck deal without hardly any debate. $212 billion, most of it to extend unemployment benefits for 99 weeks, some for refundable tax credits, and that did not include the $130 billion created by the suspension of 2% of the contribution rate into the social security trust fund, that hole that was created, all this so the bush tax brackets could be extended beyond the re-election of the president of the united states. that agreement, mr. speaker, in my opinion, and strong conviction, should never have been negotiated in a lame duck

session. we should have allowed the new members of this congress, the 87 freshman republican the nine freshman democrat, weigh in, to have a chance to debate, to configure a policy, and to vote. but meanwhile, they were waiting in the wings going through orientation while this vote was taking place. and by the time they were seated here in this congress, that horse was out of the barn. that plane had left the runway. and the horse was out of the barn, the payroll tax was what it was, and it was set to expire at the first day of this year, as we know, now it's been extended for two months and we're in the gos to see what to do with the rest of it. the problem is rooted back in a bad deal, the lame duck deal, and now this freshman class is being asked to address it to solve the problem and not necessarily reaching their pockets to pay the price but to

pay the political price to try to resolve this issue, which is going to go on and on and on, until we put the pieces back together, mr. speaker. we've got to put the pieces back together, and to get there politically, no one can paint that picture for me, no one can draw that map an since i couldn't draw that map either, i wouldn't have gone there in the first place. but we are where we are, it's $212 billion in outlatos extend unemployment benefits from the lame duck session a year ago last december and $130 billion in the hole in the social security trust fund, find it some other way but that's what it is. and the result of extending unemployment benefits out to 99 weeks was that we had a lot of workers in america that were 63 years old that found themselves unemployed, with unemployment benefits guaranteed with no obligation on their part except sign up, out for the duration of their working career, and so it amounted to an early retirement for 63-year-old employees or 64

-year-old employees in america, unmeasured in what its impact on our economy, and meanwhile, the measure of what happens when you pay people not to work for two years is that their skills atrophy, they're out of the work force, technology moves on, not only are they not getting caught up with and staying caught up with technological changes and the modern shifts within our very nimble economy we must have but the skills they had on that day are atrophying. that doesn't mean we shouldn't have unemployment. we should have. it's been the consistent duh rage of unemployment has been 26 weeks, that's a half a year. and if you look at the data, when unemployment runs out, people are far more likely to go to work than the week before it runs out. it is a fact, it is not an opinion, it is a fact, mr. speaker. but my point here is that we're in this discussion today with a

pretty difficult decision that's being made by the conference committee, by the speaker, the majority leader, and others, but this difficulty we have now is rooted in what i consider to be a mistake in the lame duck deal. and oh, mr. speaker, how i wonder, how much different it might have been if we had waited and seated the freshman class, consulted with them, asked them if they wanned to sever that 50-50, equal contribution rate between employers and employees, asked them if they were willing to accept on their conscience $130 billion hole in the social security trust fund, ask them if they were ready to face extending the payroll tax reduction and doing so in perpetuity as long as the other side is willing to play class envy, are we going to be willing to continue to dig a hole in the social security trust fund? that is one question in front of us. another one that's in front of us is, and i'd like to ask the freshman class also, did you ever really think that 99 weeks

of unemployment was the appropriate thing to do? how did you intend to fund that? would you have found a paid for if you thought 99 weeks was the appropriate way to deal with an unsettled employment situation in america? do you have compassion for the employers that are looking to build their businesses with employees when it's difficult to hire them off of the unemployment rolls? we had a hearing before the small business committee, mr. speaker, and that -- before that committee, we had four or five employers, small business employers, might actually have been six, but i asked them, going down the line, have you had any kind of luck hiring from the unemployment? and they invariably said, once the unemployment expires, i can hire them just fine. one employer out of the list said that she had hired off of the unemployment rolls on one occasion. that's fairly typical.

i will tell you i know businesses in my neighborhood that look around the neighborhood and they see that there are employees they'd like to hire, they know when they're unemployment benefits run out, they'll be knocking on their door, a week or two weeks before the unemployment benefits run out so that they're in line to hire them. employers that are lining up to hire the unemployed but they know they can't get that done as long as unemployment is being paid. yes, there are people that are unfortunate. there are people that can't find a job. there are especially people in parts of the economy, in parts of the country that have an economy that's far worse than that that i represent in northwest iowa, mr. speaker. but we need a logical unemployment plan. perhaps one that rash ets those -- ratchets those benefits in an incremental way so that it slowly provides more incentive for people to work. you know, it's not just that you as an unemployed can't find a job in the community you live

in, in the profession that you happen to have been practicing before you were laid off. no, mr. speaker, there are many more aspects to this. there's such a thing as travel. go and get a job where you can get one, relocate there, if the job's god enough. go check it out, call for your family. that's happened throughout the history of this country. and for our federal government to essentially say to people, you're not going to be obligated to relocate, some of the people over on this side of the aisle think that somehow we ought to take the jobs to where people live. it puts me in mind of an article that was researched and written, i happen to have read it in "the des moines register" some years ago, perhaps more than a decade ago, mr. speaker. they had gone into a neighborhood in milwaukee, wisconsin, and a residential neighborhood, and interviewed every household there. and all the residents in six blocks by a six-block area, 36

square blocks and as they interviewed the families and did, i guess i can't say the word -- and analyzed the families and identified the characteristics of the families, they didn't find a single male employed head of household in all 36 square blocks of the residential area in milwaukee. the history of that area was that the people in that neighborhood had predominantly been defended from those who moved up to milwaukee right after the prohibition ended to take on the brewry jobs, the good brewry jobs in milwaukee. they brewed a lot of beer in milwaukee and they created good jobs there right at the enof the prohibition era and people were willing to move from the gulf states up into those neighborhoods to go to work in the brewries. well, now -- so that would be the 1930's and from the 1930's to the 1990's a 60-year period of time, so to speak, so thomas jefferson would call that delee generations, i'd say probably

so. one generation arrived in milwaukee at the dawn of the aftermath of prohibition, another generation was born and raised in the -- and the grandchildren were still living there but they didn't have a single employed male head of household in 36 square blocks and the story was about the lament, mr. speaker, that we couldn't bring jobs to the people in that neighborhood. but truthfully their parents or grandparents had moved to milwaukee from the gulf states for the jobs and it didn't occur to the person writing the article that people could also move for jobs in the modern era. that is what you must do, if we're going to have a flexible, mobile economy, we've got to go to where the work is. but the disincentive is there from the federal government that discourages such things and we don't ask very much the question about why is it not a single male of household is employed in this entire six-block by six-block area of

milwaukee and the biggest answer of that is that the 72 different means tested welfare programs that we have are disincentives for people to find a job. now, that sounds shocking to the hypervent lazing -- hyperventilating liberal left, mr. speaker, but it's just a fact. it's a fact of human nature. so the discouragement from finding a job is create -- has created the neighborhoods of people that don't have a tradition of working anymore and it's a very sad thing to think that america, that was built on high productivity and the efficiency we have and the intuitive nature, the instinctive, innovative nature of americans, has been what's made our economy so strong and here we sat with this discussion about whether unemployment should be 99 weeks or 79 weeks or 69 weeks. mr. speaker, 26 weeks had been long enough for almost hulla -- almost all of the history of this country. we are not at an economic situation that matches that of

the great depression at this point. although the debt that's been accumulated does match that of the great depression and then some. i recall the president coming before our republican conference on february 10 of 2009, shortly after he'd been inaugurated as president, to make the case that we should advance his economic stimulus plan. his $787.5 billion, grown into $8.25 billion, shovel ready, spend now, pay interest and pay principal later plan. answered said to us, f.d.r.'s new deal actually did work. it worked but f.d.r. lost his nerve and in the second -- he got worried about spending too much money and so he pulled back. and when he pulled back in the second half of the 1930's it brought about a recession within a depression. these are president obama's words. and this recession within a depression, unemployment went

up and before then the economy could recover, along came world war ii, the greatest economic stimulus plan ever. that's the president's presentation to us. he convinced me and i think everybody that was listening that day that president obama will not lose the nerve that he believes f.d.r. lost. president obama is the lead keynesian economist on steroids in the history of the country and i believe the world. and he believes that borrowing money and spending money will stimulate the economy and as that economy rolls, the benefits of it will create jobs. he believes that if you borrow money and hand it to people, not in exchange for a good or service that's been produced but just get it in their hands, one way or another, if they'll work for it, fine, give them something for working, if they won't or can't, give them something because they can surely be busy spending, they've got more time to do

that if they're not working, after all, and spending money stimulates the economy. mr. speaker, keynesian economists believe that, that spending money stimulates the economy. i believe this, that we here in america have to produce goods and services that have a marketable value and can be sold competitively here and abroad. we need to produce our way out of this economic doldrum that we're in, not spend our way out of it. i believe that if you spend billions of dollars and in the president's case i have to say, give him his due, trillions of dollars, $4 trillion or $5 trillion of extra amount of debt that's been piled upon us, they believe that if you spend that that comes back to you several fold. in fact, the statement was made by our secretary of agriculture that for every $1 in food stamps that gets spent, it stimulates $1.84 in economic

activity. now, if that's the case, why don't we give out a lot more food stamps, maybe we ought to just -- and that's because people have to produce the food and they have to deliver it, stock it, shelf it, those things. well, if that's such a good economic stimulater, why don't we just do all of that and then throw the food away? we can stimulate the economy too. but who's going to pay the debt? and here's what i do believe, mr. speaker. and that is that if we borrow money and hand it to people and say, spend it, spend it, spend it, it's your patriotic duty, it may stimulate the economy for a short while. i call it a sugar high. maybe just for a little while you can get that bump, very, very temporary. but the tradeoff is that the trauf that you might otherwise be falling into -- trough that you might otherwise be falling into may not, not will not, but may not be as deep as it would be otherwise. but the result will be you have to recover and you have to pay

off the interest and the principal. so even though you might not fall as far, you have a lot broader trough to recover from. we have to pay the interest and we have to pay the principal on all of this debt that's been accumulated over the last three-plus years. tanned doesn't mean that the -- and it doesn't mean that the bush administration is somehow forgiven for the debt that's been driven up. but during the height of the iraq war, the bush administration came within $160 billion of balancing the budget. $160 billion. that sounds like loose change today compared to the president's budget that he rolled out which is minus $1.33 trillion. you add up a deficit of $1.33 trillion and you increase taxes by more than $1.5 trillion in that process, you can see what happens, mr. speaker. this budget that the president has offered should be the news of the day. and maybe we ought to be looking at what's in it.

but what we're really here instead is it's debt on arrival , that his budget will not be brought up, certainly not here in the house, i don't believe so, i don't think so here in the house, unless it's to hill illustrate its lack of support -- unless it's to illustrate its lack of support. but last year president obama's budget was brought up on the floor of the senate and of all the talk about giving the president his due and working with the president on his budget, his budget was voted object in the senate and voted down -- on in the senate and voted down 97-0. 97-0. mr. speaker, i don't know that i've had a piece of legislation come to the floor of this congress that had that kind of unanimous, well, i guess i can't say support, unanimous rejection. that would be tough on my ego -- ego if i couldn't get anybody to agree with me after i had all of that staff to put that big budget together. but they didn't want to be held accountable for what the president's budget said. the president now has a political document, not a fiscal management document,

that he will run around the country talking about his budget and he will use it to beat up on republicans that don't support his budget and maybe he'll realize that it isn't just republicans, last time it was harry reid and all the democrats that voted on the budget over in the senate. we didn't support it over on this side either. we had a couple of budgets come to the floor here in the house of representatives last year, mr. speaker. and one of them was the r.s.c. budget that balanced in eight to nine years and the other one was what we call the ryan budget, the republican conference budget. that's the one that actually passed here on the floor of the house and even though that budget had a level of austerity to it and even though it was groundbreaking in the boldness with which it addressed a path to prosperity, it wasn't strong enough, mr. speaker. it went in the right direction and it was bold by historical standards, not particularly bold by the standards that we

need to envision the future. and today we have the chairman of the budget committee, or i guess it was yesterday, make the statement that we have two to three years and we have the potential of becoming one huge greece. i have been making a similar statement over the last year and a half or so and this is what i believe is that, by the way greece is a relatively easy bailout if you want to do that because their economy is only 2% of the e.u.'s g.d.p. that's european union's gross domestic product, just in case the acronyms are bothering people, mr. speaker. 2% of the e.u.'s g.d.p.. not that hard to fix. but here in the united states we have a different kind of difficulty. the ryan budget a year ago, though, didn't balance for 26 years. and left us with a national debt at the end of 10 years of $23 trillion. walked into it with $14.3 trillion in national debt and ended up 10 years down the road with $23 trillion in national

debt. but when the debt ceiling deal was made last august, it broke faith with the ryan budget, the projected $23 trillion in national debt became $26 trillion in national debt. but in fairness, without applying the ryan budget, we were looking at $28 trillion in national debt 10 years from now. $14.3 trillion to $28 trillion, the ryan budget dialed the $28 trillion down to $23 trillion. the debt ceiling deal dialed it back up to $26 trillion in national debt in 10 years. it's hard to declare a victory over a $1.2 trillion cut on a debt ceiling deal if you're reducing their projected national debt from $28 trillion down to $26 trillion and if you're dealing with a budget that no longer is binding, having broken faith with at least the big numbers within that republican conference/ryan budget, on a budget that didn't

balance for 26 years, i have to go back and look at my three sons that are grown and they're in their 30's right now and say to them, sorry, we didn't have a balanced budget in the previous decade. we haven't had an effective balanced budget, i don't believe, passed in this millennia. and in 26 years if all goes well and we already said it's probably not going to, we might see a balanced budget but you will, my sons, be eligible for that social security that will be paid for out of the trust fund that has by then hundreds of billions of dollars if not trillions of dollars in holds created in it by paying for things now that make us feel good or we avoid the political confrontation of it, and you'll never having worked and paid taxes in the united states of america in an entire career and

know that a balanced budget's passed out of the united states congress. you can imagine, mr. speaker, those sons in their 30's that have been working well over a decade now, to go through an entire career and be knocking on the door of medicare eligibility, social security ed jibblet, having wamb -- social security eligibility, having watched a hole expand billinger and bigger in the trust fund every year while they're closer and closer to finally being able to qualify for social security and medicare and we can't fix this problem now? and the federal government is running a deficit for all of those years. 26, 28, 30, 40 years of deficits are what's staring us in the face now. before we get to the point of paying off the first dollar on our national debt. that's if we stick with ryan's budget of last year and i'm hopeful we'll do better this

year but the president, who speaks in his state of the union address, in front of where you're seated right now, mr. speaker, when he came for this much-anticipated state of the union address a couple of weeks ago, made no mention whatsoever of a balanced budget. he didn't make a mention of fiscal responsibility, let alone austerity he laid out his agenda of spending and i guess i know now why he didn't address the promise he made three years ago, when he said he'd cut the deficit in half by the end of his term. well, no, that hasn't happened, that would require a, that would require a deficit proposal by his budget of roughly half a trillion dollars, somewhere in that neighborhood. he's got red ink in his own budget of $1.33 trillion. he says this is not the time for us to tighten our belt the economy can't stand it now. well the creditors are not going to be able to take this much longer either.

and as i sat over asking a series of questions in the german finance minister's office not long ago, we went through the national debt of the countries that are in trouble. those who have had their bond ratings just lowered by the news that i saw today. if you add up the debt, the national debt of those country, and i'll name them, greece, portugal, spain, italy, ireland, belgium, those countries if you take the national debt of those countries, not including france, for example, but just the countries that have been, for months now, hanging in the balance of facing the fear of default, their total cumulative national debt if they paid out everything they owed as a country, the sovereign debt of those countries i have mentioned, totals $4.5 trillion.

the president already met that running up the debt in the first three years of office he had already arifed at a little over $4 trillion system of we're in the same neighborhood. the red ink spent under in this administration was enough red ink to pay off the sovereign debt of the nations in the e.u. that are having trouble. now i'm not suggesting that we should have done that. but look at the austerity that greece is having to accept and the fires in the streets when the streets of athens go aflame when they find out that about 15,000 government jobs have been cut in order to meet the budgetary guidelines that they must meet if they're going to be able to borrow money from, who are the players in the european union? it really comes down to germany today. 15,000 government jobs cut in greece alone. a little country that's 2% of the g.d.p. of the e.u. and we're

here, we can't tighten our belt. we have a president that puts a budget out that will not even speak of moving toward balance he will not speak about tightening our belt. but he will demagogue people who will propose such things, including paul ryan. so mr. speaker, i'm suggesting that we call pob the -- upon the presidential candidates who are seeking the oval office and ask them, renew your efforts, declare that and ask for the support of the merp people, that if you are elected to the highest elected office in this land, as president of the united states, call for a mandate from the american people for this congress to pass a balanced budget out of the house and out of the senate an the message to the states to begin the ordeal of the ratification of a balanced budget amendment in the 38 states that are necessary in

order to implement an amendment to the united states constitution. the balanced budget amendment must have a g.d.p. cap. i'll stand on 18%. that's the historic cap out of the g.d.p. for the federal government, 18%, and must require a supermajority in order to raise taxes. mr. speaker, this country will not survive in the long run with less. the will to balance the budget does not exist in this congress today, it doesn't exist in the house, it surely doesn't exist in the senate. the push from the president for deficit spending is one of the factors but if you remove the president of the crites and put a new individual in there who is fiscally responsible, we still have the problem of the tenency to overspend and the unwillingness to tighten the belt an listen and to -- and the unwillingness to listen to the american people that insist we

balance this budget. so, mr. speaker, i want to see the presidential candidates call for a balanced budget amendment. i want that to be actually the second plank in their platform. the first plank needs to be the full, 100% repeal of obamacare. that's an essential component for us to get our liberty back and it's an essential component to balance the budget. we can't afford obamacare, it takes away our liberty, it takes away our freedom, it takes away our choices. we're dealing now with a debate over the right to conscience. never have we seen a president that had the level of audacity to believe that he could sit in the oval office and dictate the terms of health insurance policies to every american. the president did so, make no mistake, mr. speaker, it wasn't kathleen sebelius, sitting in her office with trusted advisors at h.h.s. that decided they were

going to compel especially the catholic but the faith-based institutions who are providing health care services to provide also for their employees health insurance policies that 100% of them would cover birth control pills, ore contraceptives -- other contraceptives, that 100% would cover sterilizations, tubal ligations and vasectomies in particular, that 100% would cover the morning after pill or the -- the plan b pill that comes in after the morning after pill. the pill that is prescribed to bring about an a-- abortion up to five day bus is effective up to 22 days. that would be four days after the baby's heart starts beating, i might add, mr. speaker. to compel any religious institution, any person of

faith, let alone the catholic church which is the largest single institution standing for life and marriage in the united states of america, the white house understands that if they can plow through the catholic church on life and marriage and matters of conscience, then there's no institution left that can stand up to the president of the united states and his radical social transformative agenda would have no serious impediment from that point forward. thankfully, mr. speaker, the american bishops understood what was taking place when kathleen sebelius made the announcement, which was actually the order of the president of the united states, to compel real jus institutions, in particular catholic institutions, to fund, provide and pay for birth control pills, sterilization, abort fashtes -- abortifacients.

that was a violation of the right to privacy, a violation of the right to conscience, which is guaranteed in the first amendment of the united states constitution, freedom of religion. but for the federal government and i should probably not use that term quite so benignly because this is for the president of the united states, to issue such an order, tells us how radical and aggressive his agenda is. maybe how out of touch he is with the faith community in america, but i compliment the american pish shops for taking such a bold stand, mr. speaker. and the stand needed to be taken. when you think of the martyrs of history, it's not a hard stand to take here in the united states of america. you're not going to be crucified, you're not going to lose your head, you're not going to be stoned to death for taking a stand like this. you might be ridiculed, but when you stand on principle, how can

that hurt? it doesn't. if you believe in the principle, it doesn't. so mr. speaker, the american catholic bishops took this position, they said it's a violation of the right to conscience and they wrote, we cannot, we will not obey this unjust law. the strongest language i have heard read from the pulpit in my years as a faithful catholic. we cannot, we will not obey this unjust law. a bold position, a bright line, uncompromising, and the -- i know the question was posed that the delay of 12 months in implementing the rule was to give the religious institutions an opportunity to make accommodations and adjust to the imposition of the federal government in requiring them to violate their conscience. mr. speaker, i submit that one does not violate their

conscience. if it is a conscience clause that protects you, that's one thing. but it's your conscience that proiblets you from klossing the line. the lives of baby are ended by morning after pills, and it's a direct violation of the teachings of the church and no government can compel a church to violate its conscience. nor can a government compel individuals to violate their conscience. this rule that was imposed was designed to do that and i believe the president calculated that he could fracture the catholic church in doing so and having -- if he were successful in doing that, there would not be an impediment in the way with the other components of the radical social agenda. but mr. speaker, that didn't happen, it's not going to happen, the burn shop -- bishops

listened to the president's, quote, accommodation, close quote, and bought a little time and said we're going to study this and deliberate and give you an answer. and they did. they studied, deliberated and came back with an answer, it was a short period of time, 48 hours, if i recall, rejected the president's accommodation because it still violates conscience and violates the conscience of many faithful americans and americans of all religious denominations, particularly runs directly against the principles of the catholic church. so, mr. speaker, we now have a bright line drawn along the line of conscience pr text. we're having a good american debate on conscience protection and i'm hopeful weeth get that established but i would caution this body, mr. speaker, if i were addressing them instead of yourself, that western not accept the idea that we can go

into obamacare, all this power and authority is rooted in obamacare, obamacare grant this is authority to the executive branch, the president assumes the authority because he makes the appointments within the department such as kathleen so bealeus. but to make changes in obamacare that lower the pressure, the 1099 squeal forms component, this house passed a bill to repeal it. and you've got other components of obamacare that have been egregious and efforts made to repeal a little piece here a little piece there, the medical equipment tax would be one of those. now we have the violation of conscience that imposes that everybody in america pay for everybody else's contraceptives and their sterilizations and their apartifacients. my conscience won't let me do that, mr. speaker. yet the president of the united states believes he has the power built into obamacare and every time we pass a