you block grant snap and make receiving it contingent on work- for-jobs training. how much do you assume would be saved by applying that condition? >> the two specific savings we have in the stamp program beyond block granting -- there is a provision now where if you qualify -- let me get ted to walk through this. >> we would end cash are logical -- we would end -- you would beca eligible for food stamps under less restrictive eligibility

rules. reform requires individuals to be eligible for cash assistance rather than broad based general fund assistance. the other assumption is ending the practice known as heat neat. certain states are providing individuals with checks and when they received that, individuals automatically receive increased food stamp benefits. >> let me break this down -- how much are you assuming is being said by virtue of the block grant itself? >> $133.5 billion over 10 years theme how much is saved by the taniff requirements . >> that is the total estimate of the savings and that would include everything >.

>> since job training is a condition of receiving snap - and i read about that, that you make that a condition? >> we wanted to replicate the reforms that were achieved in the welfare reform area in the 1990's so we wanted to move more toward work requirements and so we have built those assumptions into our budget. >> as you may remember, that reform provided at that time funds to help and work force training. since you make work force training a condition of receiving food stamps, how much do you assume in the budget will be spent in providing the work force training? >> food stamps has gone through a huge growth in the past year.

, think it has quadrupled an enormous growth. there have been a number of legislative expenses and the assumption is to move to block grant to make sure there is work training requirements ultimately, it would be their responsibility to figure out how to allocate the funds and deal with these particular issues. >> but i don't want to get in an argument. i just want an answer. as i understand it, this budget does not provide those states with any funds to provide the job training that would be required as a condition of receiving food stamps? >> within food stamps, that would be addressed by virtue of the block grant. there are a host of other

conditions to consolidate those programs to better target and get better results from job training at the federal level. >> that's what i want to get into. the answer is, you have the block grant and a work requirement or the job training requirement and another provision. we propose to consolidate the various job training programs. we have a job-training proposal in another part of the budget to streamline federal job-training programs to go to individuals for career scholarships other is a job training program in this budget. let's not forget the fact as a result of 19 90s welfare reform, new job training programs were begun and they are still in place. >> thank you. ms. schwartz.

>> i want to ask one other question on health care. one of the aspects of the budget is a fairly dramatic cut in medicaid. this has been explained as a flexibility to our governors, our state's, and being able to do things differently under medicaid. states have quite a bit of flexibility under medicaid right now like rates of reimbursement. the cuts in this budget start at 30% and go up from there to almost 75% overtime. you may want to correct me on that. i understand it is $800 billion, about 1/3, is the numbers we have? >> we don't make a 30% reduction of medicaid. over 10 years, medicaid is

seeing very rapid growth in the. base the on top of that, there is a large portion under the affordable care act. i believe the block grant savings are $810 billion -- >> what percentage? >> we could go back and find that out. >> that would be helpful. some of this is cutting the expansion from the affordable care act. is there any thing in the budget that would suggest we will hold states and governors accountable for providing the services under medicaid? i am concerned about poor women and children but the call for action in nursing homes and seniors, we will talk about that later. is there any way there is something in the budget that holds governors accountable for

states accountable for continuing to provide support for seniors in nursing homes or the elderly or disabled or is that up to the governors? >> our assumption is that states would still be required to spend their medicaid allotment under medicaid eligible population. we don't go into that level says of the play in the budget but that is the assumption. on the medicare side, you'll see over the long term, although the numbers are going down, in part because the medicare reform assumes responsibility for the population. we have an additional low income supplement given to the medicaid-eligible. >> do you have a definition about that? we have only sort of heard verbally. could you provide us with some greater information about the assumptions you are making about

how that would be handled? that is something that is really new for us that we can provide additional information. >> that would be fine. i yield back then let me interject -- this is a budget resolution so it is not the final legislation. >> the budget resolution contains certain resolutions and assumes that medicaid money goes to the medicaid population. a governor cannot take it and use it for roads or something like that. that level of specificity ultimately rests with the commerce committee that would write that legislation. in a budget resolution, you don't have that level of detail. >> the category between women

and children is a broad category. they can provide a variety of services to seniors and there is no way of knowing in this budget without details coming letter about how this money might be used and might actually affect our frail and elderly. >> in moscow for the intended population. -- it must go for the intended population. >> i just want to point out that the medicaid system right now makes it such that we spend a lot of money that is wasted on folks who are by and large healthy. in the state of georgia 2/3 of the people -- >> i think there is a medicare or medicaid amendment, not so wide a week into the

conversation then? let's stick with in the lanes of the procedure. otherwise we will have a long day. >> let me just turn to education training and important, item number 500. that function is cut by $166 billion below the bass line over 10 years. how much of that is from the student aid programs. ? >> we have assumptions in terms of what happens on these programs which could be determined ultimately by the authorizing committees with respect to the mandatory programs in education. there were some expenses that were done in some bills. one of them was a reconciliation bill, i expect -- expansions that were done for income-based repayment programs. we assume that expansion would be reversed and there are other assumptions on the mandatory side that we make them a do you

have any assumptions regarding programs? palle grants? >> we don't assume the increase. we assume the current board level -- the president's budget has a higher award level but his budget does not sustain funding for a higher award level. the only funds it for two years ago our assumption on pell prances that it would be funded with the allotted amount. it is funded as a program. we assume that the program is funded with discretionary resources and that the maximum order is maintained. >> that is a significant portion of that $166 billion? >> do you assume the doubling of the interest rates that are coming up? >> we made no change with

respect to the baseline. >> let me turn to the function 920, allowances. your budget shows for each of the functions certain spending targets for the different areas . international affairs and you've got $900 billion in your allowances function. could you explain what that represents? >> there are a couple of things going on. cbo with respect to the sequesters savings puts the settings in function 920. in addition, we focus on discretionary programs and we focus on fiscal year 2013. we carry some of those

assumptions into the out years but it will be something that will be revisited through the appropriations process. we did not spend a great deal of time going through individually what the specific assumptions are for the next 10 years in discretionary programs. that would be ultimately determined by the appropriations committee. when you look at the president's budget, he carries all this out your savings -- and your savings in allowances. we have not within 920 we have a specific proposal that cut across the government. a couple of examples are in the attrition, the federal work force, we have savings. the cbo baseline has disaster funding that was enacted last year and removed that funding

and there are a couple of other areas. >> just so i understand -- those $900 billion in cuts which is an unusual amount of money in that category -- the appropriators could cut defense by that amount if that's what they decided? >> our overall discretionary levels in the outyears in after the joint committee beyond 2013, we assume total discretionary spot -- funding at those levels. our defense spending is frozen at this year's level which is higher than the president's budget this year and we have a real growth in the defense budget. we do not assume any reductions in the defense budget in the out years. we assume those savings are achieved in non-defense programs bett. >s. >> you are showing and your

function tables going out tenures, you show a certain level of spending but you're also showing levels of spending in all the other functions, right? >> yes, sir. >> yet you have this allowance of $900 million. is there anything in your budget that says defense spending would remain at the same levels? >> if you look at the baseline, it has a large savings already. that was our starting point in terms of marking up the budget. our additional savings are about $200 billion. we assumed success of the savings that are difficult to distribute -- we assume specific savings that are difficult to distribute in the federal work force. we have those settings and function 920 because they are difficult to distribute across the functions but there are savings but they're not as large

as the $900 billion. >> i gather that the proprietors are free to distribute the $900 billion among different functions including defense. >> they are always free to do that. >> we could create a fire wall but you do not do that. >> we do not create fire wall. >> my last question, mr. chairman, -- although with your indulgence, we as a minor ones that we hopefully the staff can answer in more details. with respect to the overall discretionary cap for this year in your budget, which of course there has been much discussion about - as you know, mr. chairman, we know there is -- there was a level set in place and signed by the president.

one of our budget reform processes was to do that so it would be predictable parade of pearlie that is not predictable in this case. what exactly is the discretionary spending cap in this proposed budget? >> it might be useful to describe how the budget control act works. the cap that was established for fiscal year 2013 was $1 trillion or so. this allies committee on deficit-reduction was assigned to achieve savings. they did not achieve those savings which it did not, that cap will be reduced to $950 billion on january 2, 2013. there are really two cabs in the budget control act. there is 1047.

parisons level for level we set for the appropriations committee would be over $1 trillion. >> thank you paren. >> we have a half an hour before the votes series, i believe. let's proceed to amendments. >> one request -- a reference to an article -- >> without objection that was included. absolutely. we will now proceed with consideration. the fiscal year 2013 on the budget and the staff will give an overview. sorry, i am on the wrong page. under committee roles 9, rule 9, amendments may be offered to this document subject to this

agreement between the majority and minority. this will be incorporated into the current resolution and whether to report the measure to the house. the committee will now proceed to consideration of the bog rigid budget aggregates and other matters. the ranking member and i have agreed to limit the time for each amendment. the ranking member and i have agreed to limit time for the consideration of each amendments of there will be ample opportunity for all members to offer amendments and the list has been distributed. this is distributed in three tiers. the tier one amendment will allow limited to 20 minutes and the second tier will be limited to 15 minutes and the third tier will be 10 minutes. the proponent of the amendment will have one minute reserved to close.

the document will be considered as read and open to amendment >> at any > > since we may have any votes during the day, would give the chair the ability to put us into recess. >> that is consistent. the gentleman asks for unanimous consent. without objection, agreed to. are there and the amendments? -- are there any amendments? >> yes, i have an amendment. the clerk will designate the amendment and the staff will distribute. >> an amendment relating to medicare report. >> it is an amendment that would prevent this budget to end medicare as we know it. i want to just begin on a couple of others. for decades, medicare has been the lifeline for older americans

providing quality and affordable health coverage for all seniors in our country. the creation of medicare in 1965 addressed the fundamental challenge of ensuring aging seniors as their health care costs increased and incomes and declined. prior to medicare, a little over one half of those over-65 had insurance and private insurers were determining coverage to those in greatest need to care. medicare is a promise to our seniors that they will not be left alone to manage the burden of health care costs in the most honorable years. house republicans are now, again, proposing to break that promise. the republican medicare voucher plan and medicare guarantees of a specific set of health benefits to our seniors. it ends of the wide an array of choices currently available under medicare from traditional fees for service in which 97% of physicians participate as providers to medicare advantage

and no innovative delivery models. the voucher offered by republicans not only is limited in the amount thereby limiting choices that seniors will have depending on their ability to pay but will also make no guarantee that they can keep their current benefits or their own doctor. this year's republican plan, just like last year's proposal, not only eliminates guaranteed benefits and shift costs to beneficiaries but does nothing to address the underlying causes of a growing health care costs. as costs rise, it is singers alone who will bear the financial burden in the future. -- it is seniors alone who will bear the financial burden of future. last year's republican budget would have increased health-care costs for the typical 65-year- old by more than $6,000. in 2020 to end up knowing that, they are proposing the same agenda again. there is a better way to

confront the challenge of growing health care costs for seniors and all americans. thanks to the law that we put in place and the republicans repealed under this budget, we're moving from a highly fragmented health services to in of that a payment and delivery models that improve quality while reducing costs. patient-centered medical homes, home care organizations, bundle payments, furey admissions to hospitals and a better transitions of care and improve care coordination for those with chronic diseases, billions of dollars will be saved for seniors and taxpayers. this republican budget walks away from health care savings in the affordable care act. that protect seniors and reduces our deficit. their budget weakens medicare and reverses the potential transformation of health care service delivery and reduced costs for seniors. this republican budget walks away from coverage of

prevention, primary care and prescription drug coverage and cost to our current and future seniors. this budget walks away from seniors and nursing homes. 48 million elderly every day count on medicare for medications, doctor visits, and hospital care. denying this guarantee by privatizing medicare is not responsible budgeting and is a betrayal of our seniors and democrats in this administration will not let this happen. with that, i yield to my good friend and the ranking member reported >> thank you for offering this amendment. as this committee knows very well, the increase in costs for beneficiaries in the private market have been going up at least as fast in most years

faster than the increase of costs in the medicare program. we also know by looking at medicare advantage itself that until the passage of the affordable care act, were paying 140%, in many cases, of fee-for- service. we were providing the private plans with a huge subsidy paid not only by taxpayers but by every medicare beneficiary in the fee-for-service program. to suggest this as a solution is counter to facts. it is pretty clear and the structure of this proposal you realize we cannot rely on the market because unlike the federal employee health benefit plan, unlike medicare part d prescription drugs which republicans say is the model, in this case, c orapping the amount of the voucher regardless of the

increase in health-care costs. when you do that, you are transferring the cost and risks of rising health care to seniors. who will have to pay a lot more in that a swat cbo did its analysis -- and that is why cbo last year did their analysis. the consequences are the same and as we were just told in response to the question, the reality is that if those costs rise at a rate faster than gdp + .5, seniors will be left holding the bag with respect to the amount they get with the voucher and if they cannot find a plan with current benefits without sure, there will have to take less benefits or if they

find a plan with current benefits, it may cost a whole lot more. the reality is, in our view, that is a violation of the medicare guaranteed. everybody should always be able to be assured of the existing benefits without having to pay a whole lot more. with that, thank you for the opportunity. >> this amendment is pretty straightforward and protect guaranteed benefits and a voice -- and avoid a cost shift to six years. we need to contain the rate of growth and cost in the right way and protect our seniors and i would like to reserve the balance of my time. >> you will get too close. >> you can now but you'll get one at the end the. >> i would be happy to add one

other comment. aarp has just sent us all letter that talks to the fact -- >> was my microphone on? sorry. please continue. i apologize. >> i would like to say that they have sent us something that i'd likequote - "the house budget proposal puts at risk the bipartisan agreement on discretionary spending levels." i think medicare is something that is important to all seniors and their families and the fact that this budget puts at great risk that guarantee and that promise to americans, we should be working together to make sure that we save money in the right way, not jeopardized our seniors or some of our healthiest seniors.

any senior in this country could be bankrupt by the cost of health. coverage i want to yield one minute. >> you have 37 seconds. >> we had substantial progress in trying to address the problems with rising health care costs last year, year before last actually, when we added 12 years to the solvency of medicare through the affordable health care act. it is a real mistake to fundamentally change medicare in a way that asks more from those who have the least when the same budget simply helps more of those who have the most. i believe the approach that the gentlewoman texas the right one. >> the gentleman's time is expired.

i promise i will not claim time in opposition on every amendment but this one i will. i would like to debunk the tired political attacks on the republican effort to save and strengthen medicare. we keep hearing the word voucher. i understand that a voucher is like going to the mailbox and getting a check and mail and taking that check and doing something with it like buying insurance for school tuition. that is not what premium support is. all this to know what it is because it is what we have as federal employees. you get a list of guaranteed coverage options that are preselected, in this case by medicare in the exchange and in this case you cannot be denied care based on your health status and your guaranteed issue with ratings. you pick that plan and medicare

subsidizes your premium. you don't get a check in the mail or a voucher. you subsidize your premium based on who you are. full toll coverage of your boy. -- if you are low income person and more coverage if you get sicker. i will not yield. >> i want to ask a question. >> let's review a chart on the future of medicare under the president's approach p. let's start with the republican budget and look at how this budget puts medicare spending on a sustainable path. my battery is working on this. this shows you the growth rate of medicare under the republican budget over the long term. this shows you how we can do a plan where there are no changes for people in near retirement and how we have more choices in the future for 54-year-old and

below. it is a fact that people don't like to hear and decide that this budget guarantees the traditional free 4 service plan and exists forever bradys are guaranteed coverage options. the gentleman c about aap. the cbo says they don't know how to measure competitive bidding. the cms said it works. let me compare this to the president's plan. this is bill law that is in the affordable care act. this is what it proposes -- let me do that this is the republican budget and what it proposes to grow medicareat and this is what the affordable care

act does for growing medicare. is there much difference? yet my friends on the other side complain that this is draconian cuts to seniors. how can that be a far trajectories are the same tax let's talk about the main difference between our approach and the affordable care act. it is not the proposed spending path, they are the same. the difference is who was in control. 15 bureaucrats or 50 million empowered seniors? that is the difference. look at what happens ip 50ad does not work. the cbo thanks ipap will fail by 2021. 40% of medicare providers and affordable care act will go bankrupt and out of business. they're telling is providers

will get paid 80 cents on the dollar and down to 30 cents on the dollar or they will go bankrupt and stop taking medicare patients. that does not afford accessibility. it will revert back to the current law, medicare reza the unsustainable rates that jeopardize is this program not just for future seniors but for current seniors. if ipap ends of failing, we go to the red line. this is what that red line does to our budget deficit and more important to our debt. this is the devil last 40 years of this is the debt into the future. this is whatcbo is estimating our debt becomes in the primary major driver of our debt is medicare. if ipap fails and those providers go bankrupt and the price controls don't work and we relapsed back to the status quo, we have a debt crisis on

our hands. this is what our plan proposes -- we pay this debt off. that is what we are proposing. let me do this one more time. we're proposing to grow at this rate. the affordable care act grows at this rate and if we go up there -- i am doing at the wrong one. if we go to the top we bankrupt the country. we bankrupt medicare. at the end of the day, the difference is this -- medicare, in order to save medicare, in order to keep its guaranteed for current and future seniors and to prevent a debt crisis from running our country and giving our kids -- our kids a diminished future must be reformed. the president's health-care law which does reform medicare says 15 political appointees will decide how that will go. they will decide how to cut

medicare to provide diminished access to seniors. we say empower the 50 million seniors to make the choices. let the insurers compete against each other for their business and give the scene is the choice of the traditional medicare system if they choose to do so. we think that is far more rational, far more humane, and more importantly, we do not want to subject medicare benefits to the discretion and control of 15 political appointees. wealthy people, because there are wealthy, can afford more out of pocket. low-income people cannot so we distinguish. we say cover the low income person and give people more money the less they have very give people more support if they get sicker and require higher income individuals to pay more

out of pocket because they can afford it doing it this way saves medicare. i will yield to the gentleman, the doctor from georgia, mr. price. >> thank you. i want to say to my colleagues on the other side who have dubbed this amendment 'the end medicare as we know it' amendment. that is the bill you adopted which is removing $500 billion from the medicare program and putting in place these 15 bureaucrats because we understand and appreciate is necessary in their plan -- your plan. because you've got to control costs because don't trust people very when bureaucrats choose, patients' lives. -- alos sincee and that is the patients lose.

i would draw your attention to page 61 on the budget which goes through the four main points of the medicare program that does in and near retirement will see no changes whatsoever and for future generations they are provided a guaranteed health coverage, line 5, guaranteed health coverage on page 61, line five. those with higher health challenges receive more assistance and those with lower income receive more assistance and finally the "-- the fourth program puts medicare on a sustainable path and becomes solid long-term was the president's proposal does not and your proposal does not. i urge rejection of the amendment of the underlying budget. >> we will yield the remainder of our time and i recognize the gentle lady for one minute for the purposes of closing. >> i will yield a half a minute to mr. van hollen pa. >> let's put that chart back up.

it is very useful. is it coming up? >> do you want all think? >> walz realize because i think this makes a useful point. thank you. the first point it makes is that despite everything we have heard from our republican colleagues that the democrats did not have a plan to contain medicare costs, it says it is the second in terms of medicare costs. the red line in terms of medicare savings shows the risk if things go wrong. under your proposal, the rest for when things go wrong if this does not work is put on the seniors. because as promising as and the reason that is very different than what we have for ourselves as members of congress and with federal employees have is that under the current plan for federal employees, you don't bear the entire risk.

you'll always get about 75% of whatever the increase in costs are picked up by the federal employees health benefits program. under this proposal, the senior eats it all and that is why we call it a voucher. prince the board suggests that the support for medicare rises -- premier support suggests that the support for medicare rises as the premium rises. >> my time is up but i want to said there is a huge disagreement here. some of the assumptions on the other side were so inconsistent. there is more discussion here. we are committed to keeping medicare and continuing it and you see it can be done. >> we have another medicare amendment so we can keep this conversation going. the question is agreeing on the amendment from the gentle lady from pennsylvania. those opposed? in the opinion of the chair ,the no's have it.

a recorded vote is requested and the clark recall the role. >> mr. garrett -- mr. simpson -- mr. campbell mr. calvert -- mr. akin -- mr. cole -- mr. price -- mr. mcclain talk -- mr. chavis -- mr. susman -- mr. lankford --ms. black -- mr. ribble - mr. flore arrest -- mr. mulvaney --mr. huelscamp -- mr.

young -- mr. amash -- mr. okita -- gin mr.ta -- mr. waddell -- mr. van hollen. ms schwartz - ms. captor -- mr. doggettt -- mr. blumenauer - ms. - mr. pascarel - mr.

honda -- mr. ryan of ohio --ms. wasserman schultz -- ms. more - ms. caster - mr. shuler --ms. bass -- ms. bonamici -- mr. chairman. mr. garrett - >> are there any other member is looking to vote for change their vote? if not, the clerk shall report e ayes are 13th,e aes and the no's are 20.

>> let's go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the amendment off m for bys. caster. the clerk will designate them as an amendment offered ms. caster related to medicare. >> the gentle lady is recognized for nine minutes. >> in addition to the republican plan that breaks a promise of medicare and ends medicare as we know it, the republicans also proposed to raise the cost of prescription drugs and/the smart new benefits and popular consumer reforms that have been in place for two years now and are working very well. this is a double whammy for our

older neighbors across america. this is my amendment -- it proposes to retain the closing of the doughnut hole and the money going back into the pockets of our older and neighbors, proposes to retain those important new screenings, the mammograms and colonoscopy is that are saving lives and it proposes to retain that a board knew well on this visit that has become very popular and is actually very smart policy. on the doughnut hole -- under the affordable care act that has been in place for two years, what is currently happening is thatcliff that many of our older neighbors or falling off of what came to pay for their prescription drugs is now closing. right now, singers are getting 50% discounts on brand-name drugs under medicare part d and

the dawn of a whole will be closed by 2020. over 3.5 million seniors with drug costs on average, it saved the average medicare beneficiary over $600. in my district alone, it saved 6000 seniors and it will save our older neighbors $2,400 and their parents and grandparents will no longer have to struggle with those very expensive prescription drugs. secondly, the affordable care act right now has provided an estimated 32.5 million seniors

with a preventative screening such as a mammogram or colonoscopy. because of the affordable care act in my district, over 70,000 of my older neighbors have received this preventative screening. without an additional cold climate that often times kept them out of the doctor's office. the republican budget, unfortunate, will increase the cost. finally, one of the most popular reforms under the affordable care act has been the new wellness' visit. they get one annual wellness visit. in 2011, 2.3 million seniors in traditional medicare took advantage of this new benefit. through the republican budget and repeal, it would take away this important tool that patients and their doctors realize is saving lives.

it is smart policy and the republican budget should not break the promise of medicare and they should not roll back these important reforms that are making a difference in the lives of our older neighbors. i will yield to ms. schwartz. >> thank you for this amendment. the republicans keep saying that their voucher plan, premiums support plan, they prefer to call it, will not change anything for current seniors and that is simply not true. they said there would be no change or shift in costs, only for future seniors but not for current seniors and that is simply not true. by repeal of the affordable care act, the fact that we're gradually closing that prescription drug gap means that more seniors will be paying

more out of pocket right away if the republicans repealed the affordable care act and seniors will not able to afford their prescriptions and get sicker and increase costs for us. this is benefiting 3.5 million seniors now. they would lose this. benefit you can no longer say unless you vote for this amendment that you are protecting current seniors from a cost shift. this is extremely important to seniors. we have to make sure we protect their health and safety and economic security and their health security into the future. we should continue to provide the benefits they receive under the affordable care act. i yield back. >> to the ranking member, mr. van hollen. >> thank you for offering this

amendment. this budget does immediately reduce benefits to medicare beneficiaries because the affordable care act does close the doughnut hole that provides that support for seniors in need. this budget reopens the doughnut hole and does it immediately. that is an immediate change for those seniors. it also needs to be pointed out that when we did the affordable care act, we used the savings by ending the subsidies to some of the private insurance carriers that were 140%. we used those savings for the purpose of providing these additional benefits. we use those medicare savings to provide this prescription drug benefit. the budget we have before us from the republicans take

supposed savings -- take those savings and while you take the any ofs, you don't plow them back into medicare or preventive services and you don't allow any of them back into closing the prescription drug -- drug doughnut hole. that is why it is important we adopt this amendment. >> i would like to yield to mr.doggett. >> [inaudible] thank you. for many american families, the first real effect of the affordable care act will be felt by them in a positive way in 2014. for seniors, the affordable

health care act is already producing a measurable benefits and for all of us, those who express concern about the long- term solvency and sustainability of the medicare system plo bywing the savings we achieve last year into this plan, we were expending alive and solvency of the medicare trust fund by over a decade. seniors who face tremendous prescription drug costs and there is more that needs to be done in this way are already saving millions of dollars across the country on prescription drug costs. when the focus is on encouraging cost control is prevention, a as itms. caster has said. i think this will produce more savings. this amendment serves a valuable purpose in protecting our seniors, the benefits they're already getting and i yield

back. >> i will just take one minute to close quickly. do not pass this budget and break the promise of medicare that allows our parents and grandparents and generations to come to live their retirement years in dignity and don't pass the budget that will roll back these very important consumer protections and improve benefits under medicare, like closure of the doughnut hole, these new screenings, and the well as the visits. don't just take it from me. take a from the aarp who just sent this letter to congress than . >> you can conclude that in the votes. you'll get a minute at the end. we will have a vote. >> with all due respect to my colleague who is proposing this amendment who says this is breaking the promise to medicare, to look in the mirror. the president's law, the law

that was passed last congress does in fact break the promise tousing is because a removes five a billion dollars from medicare and puts in place a 50 member board of bureaucrats to decide whether pavement to physicians to care for seniors will occur. look at our budget -- page 61, lines 1 and 2, medicare benefits are preserved without changes. section two on page 61, a guaranteed health coverage for recipients -- vague choose the plan the best suits their mates. who will be in charge is the question? willoughby the federal government or will it be the patients themselves? the other side has said there will the changes if our budget is adopted and put into law. you are right. will and the rate on medicare and the 15-member of elected board of bureaucrats to decide what kind of care seniors are able to get from their

physicians to be paid for. this specific amendment talks about the doughnut hole. the dawn of whole provision of the law has the influence of increasing drug prices. the cbo says the increase in prices would make federal costs for medicare drug benefit and the cost faced by some beneficiaries higher than that would been in the absence of those provisions. the legislation imposes an annual fee of manufacturers and importers of brand-name drugs. cbo expects an increase in the price of drugs. finally, the premium of drug plans will increase along with the increase in net drug prices of the prince paid by beneficiaries will increase. the fact of the matter is, our budget saves, improves, and strengthen medicare.

seniors know this is already being altered will change significantly and adversely to their quality of care if we allow the current law to go forward. i am pleased to yield a minute or two to ms. black on this issue. >> i will be very brief. i beg my colleague has made the point clearly that when we talk of a changing medicare as we know, that has already been done in the patient affordable -- pays an affordable the act by half a trillion dollars that was taken out of the fund and put into the exchanges. we already see that there is a change in breaking the promise to americans which has already started it has certainly been said very clearly by karen price that we will give seniors an opportunity to have a choice of their own. we will put it back to them to allow them to choose the plan that is best for them. some may find that a drug

program is more important and others may find it wanted prevention but that is the american way is to give them a choice. why do we think our seniors can make those choices? they will make good choices and they will make choices to find a program the best suits their needs. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i urge repeal the amendment. >> that will keep us on time. the gentle lady from california has one minute to close. >> i would say to my colleague from georgia, do you agree that medicare benefits and older americans should not be harmed, you should support my amendment. if you don't think a republican budget changes amendments, i don't think you have a problem. my amendments as we retain the bruins that have been a place for two years, closing the doughnut hole, allowing the screenings without additional co-payments and that all important annual well as visit.

you of also argued time and time again that the affordable care act took half a billion dollars out of medicare. it did not? the taken out of medicare. it took away from the insurance companies that were receiving large overpayments, medpac, p it waslowed back into these benefits. i urge again not to break the promise of medicare and don't just take it from me. listen to the aarp. >> the gentle lady's time has expired. come on, the question is agreeing to the amendment, called a is in favoray saide, all those t opposed? he no's have it. a roll-call vote is requested . mr. garrett >> this amendment was defeated.

the house budget committee went on last night to approve republican chairman paul ryan's federal budget proposal 19-18. it comes to the floor next week. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] the house continues it work this morning on the health care law. live house coverage is at 10:00 eastern here on c-span. on c-span 2, the senate will continue debate on a bill that aims to make it easier for small businesses to access capital. live coverage is at 9:30 eastern. on c-span 3, general john allen testifies for a second day this week about u.s. operations in afghanistan. he will be at the senate armed services committee live at 9:30 eastern. "washington journal