has agreed to these revenue increases, i think there is kind of a line that they feel cannot be crossed and that's why you hear the congressman talking in very absolute terms about no more revenue. we pointed out the fact that previous debt reduction agreements by bipartisan groups have had ratios of 3:1 in terms of spending cuts and revenue but sfars the speaker is concerned and the conservative block is concerned they're done on revenue. so i think to that extent you really can't discount the importance of that block. >> all right. hide earks russell, thank you both. > thank you. >> the public isn't paying as much attention as you am and i and those who are part of the political community. there is what i call the political community is about probably about 10 million people. and it's the people that watch c-span, they watch meet the

press, they watch fox news, but they msnbc, cnn really care about politics a lot. but we had what 120, 130 million voters. and most people just get a lot of what goes on in politics in washington and in journalism is background noise. and the background noise comes pretty much from the mainstream media that people forming an opinion of romney and obama and so on. it has -- fox news doesn't reach most of those people. fox gets great ratings, it has a loyal audience, but look at the shows. bill o'reilley show is the most popular one on cable news. it gets 2, 3 million people a night. that's not the electorate. it's a big country. and the conservative media only

eaches a tiny chunk of it. >> this week on prime minister's questions, prime minister cameron discusses child care benefits and changes to the health care. 9:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span. >> on wednesday, the house budget committee voted along party lines to move g.o.p. budget to the floor for conversation. the final vote was 22-17. two democratic amendments were approved. the plan entitled the path to prosperity was created by committee chairman paul ryan. he says that it will balance the budget in 10 years without raising taxes by reducing spending over the next decade by 5.7 trillion. it would also repeal president

obama's health care law and make changes to thed to and medicare. this portion of the markup is 2-1/2 hours. .

under the structure we have developed we will begin by having presentations on the budget in our control by the

majority and hour controlled by the minority i will make an opening statement and then mr. valholen will also make an opening statement. any other members may enter statements into the record. the remaining time left and then the minority will use the remaining time left in its hour. mr. valholen's time and my time will come out of our hour. after the presentations we will have a staff walk through which means members can ask questions they have. after the staff walk thru, we will proceed to the amendments in a structure that i have worked out with the ranking member the structure that we have had standing tradition of. i will describe that when we get to that point. we will do tier 1, 12, 3. at this point before making opening statements, i would like to yield to mr. van hollen for any comments or questions he may have.

>> thank you, mr. president. this committee has had i think a tradition of very tough argument on the issues. but focused on the issues. it's a way to get at the differs that is we may have on our overall approach but doing it in a civil and constructive manner. i want to thank the chairman also for working with us in terms of how we structure the entire day's hearing. >> we have a conference in the early afternoon. i think we're going to have two series of votes that does complicate the time a little bit but we will do everything we can. hopefully we'll get to the staff walk thru before that conference and we can proceed with amendments afterwards. that's the intention. i now recognize the gentleman from georgia. >> because of that meeting with the president scuke that consistent with clause 4 of house rule 16 the chairman be authorized to declare a recess

at any time. >> wousmed. all right. welcome, everybody. i want to start by thanking the members of this committee. as you know, writing a budget is a tough job. because you have to make choices. but everybody pitched in this year. and i am grateful for the help of our members of the committee. we sat around a table for a number of weeks just like families and businesses do assembling a balanced budget. i am also grateful to ranking member chris van hollen. this committee has a long tradition of bipartisan cooperation which he and his staff have continued. we have a good working relationship even though we have very serious debate on the issues that we don't agree on. i know we will have fierce debates in the hours ahead but we will hold these debates in the spirit of good will that has defined this committee for a long time. and we should. because we owe it to the country. after years of trillion dollar deficits we owe the american people a responsible balanced budget. and for the third year in a row

we in this committee will be delivering it. this time, our plan balances the budget in just 10 years without raising taxes. how do we do it? we stop spending money we don't have. historically we have paid a little less than one fifth of our income in taxes to the federal government each and every year but the government has spent much more. so we match spending with income. we spend no more than we take in each year or about 19.1% of gross domestic product at the end of the budget window. as a result we spend 4.6 trillion less over the next ten years. every family needs to live within the budget. we think the federal government should do as well. it's a reasonable goal. just look at where we are and look at where we're going. today, our national debt is bigger than our entire economy. unless we change course, we will add another 9 trillion over the next ten years to our national debt. that debt will weigh down our country and our economy like an anchor.

at some point, lenders will lose confidence in us. they will demand higher interest rates. and when they do, interest rates across the country will skyrocket on credit cards, mortgages, car loans, families. as interest rates rise, debt payments will overwhelm all other items in the budget and the debt will overwhelm the economy. our finances will collapse, the safety net will unravel and the most vulnerable that is who suffers the most under a debt crisis. a debt crisis would be the most predictable disaster in our history i look back at 2008 like it was jerds sometimes and i remember seeing all the all that was happening and i remember the panic meetings with the treasury secretary and looking back we can see what happened but at the moment it was a crisis that hit us like surprise and look what happened at the meantime look at the trillions of dollars of wealth loss, look at the trillions of debt that was added look at the millions left out of work look at the payroll that is have

gone empty look at the lives that have been displaced. this coming debt crisis is the most predictable crisis we have ever had. we see it coming. we know what it will do. so we have a moral obligation to prevent it from happening in the first place. by 2023 we will collect twice as much revenue as we did last year but the cbo says the deficit will be nearly 1 trillion in that year. clearly spending is the problem. and it is more than an economic problem. by living beyond our means, we are stealing from our children. it is selfish. it is immoral. it is wrong. it is unfair. and it has to stop. so we not only balance the budget in 10 years. by putting the right reforms in place we also pay down our dealt. the less we owe to foreign creditors, the more of our own future we will control. the truth is, our debt is a sign of overreach. it is a sign government is doing too much. and when government does too much, it doesn't do anything

well. so it is only common sense to balance the budget because it returns government to its proper limit and its proper focus. we believe that there is an important role for the federal government and we want those rolls to be respectful of its limits and we want the got to do its functions well. but when the government does too much, when it tries to do everything it doesn't do anything very well. by balancing the budget in ten years we will promote a healthier economy and help create jobs. cbo says that legislation that reduced the deficit as much as our budget would increase gross national product by 1.7%age points. in fact, economists said hoover, john coning and john taylor believe that reducing the deficit now would have immediate positive effects for growth and jobs. our budget will provide economic security for families. it will guarantee a secure retirement for seniors. it will expand opportunity for

the young. and look at what they are reaching, escalating student loans, a bad economy and no chance of getting a good-paying job to pay those loans back. this will restore fair play to the marketplace. we want to get out of the business of cronyism which both parties have fell victim to picking winners and losers in washington. and it will keep our country safe. as part of our plan, we cut wasteful spending. and i know that some of my friends on the other side will object. but let's try to put this in perspective. on the current path we will spend 46 trillion over the next so years. under our proposal. we will spend 41 trillion over the next 10 years. on our current path, we will be increasing spending by an average of 5% each and every year. under our proposal we will increase spending by an average of 3 hth 4% because the economy will grow faster than spending

the budget will balance by 2023 and the debt held by the public will drop to just over half the size of our economy, a far more manageable level and a path to get this debt paid off. but the most important question isn't how we balance the budget. it's why we balance the budget. a budget is nothing more than the means to an end. and the end is not a neat and tidy spreadsheet. it's not simply a green eye shade accounting exercise. it is the well being of our people. i don't look at this issue like an accountant. i look at it as a citizen, as a husband, as a dad. it is not fair to take more from hard working families to spend more in washington. it's not fair to let critical programs like medicare to fall apart. i want it to be there for my kids just like it's there for my mom today. but medicare is going broke. and if we want to keep our promises we have to strengthen this program and that means we have to reform this program. i understand that not everyone

shares our view. and i respect that difference of opinion. but all i ask is that you join in the effort. if you don't like our plan, offer your own. we may not agree on how to balance the budget. but we ought to be able to agree on the need to balance the budget. a balanced budget is a reasonable goal. it is one that we should share. a balanced plan that never balances is not balanced. so i look forward to our discussion today. and i look forward to the debates ahead. and so when we hear the word balance being thrown around about how it's balanced if it's just more spending fueled by higher taxes that never balances, that does not do justice to the next generation. it does not do juss justice to our economy. ts unfair to the people depending on these critical safety net programs. with that, i yield to the ranking member mr. van holland for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. again i want to thank all the members of the committee as we

gather here at what is a very important moment for our country. thanks to the ingenuity and resilience of the american people, and the emergency actions taken by the president and the congress four years ago, we are continuing to recover from the worst recession since the great depression. momentum in the job market continues to grow. but we still have a long way to go to help put people back to work to accelerate economic growth, and to boost small business hiring. yes, we must and can steadily reduce our deficit and reduce and stable lies the debt but we should do that in a way that immediately reduces the job deficit. rather than a budget that immediately makes that job deficit worse. unfortunately, this republican budget fails that very simple test. the nonpartisan independent congressional budget office has shown that the approach taken in this budget will result in

750,000 fewer american jobs just by the end of this calendar year. twill reduce economic growth this calendar year by one third. we cannot afford to do that. and an analysis yesterday estimates that next year 2014 it will cost us 2 million jobs. so the issue is not whether we should steadily reduce our long-term deficit but how we do it. we believe that our budgets should be blueprint force economic growth that lead to greater upward mobility rising middle class wages and shared prosperity. we believe we should share responsibility for reducing the deficit rather than providing tax breaks for the very wealthy while balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class, on the backs of our kids education and by violating our commitment to seniors. this republican budget once

again takes an ideological uncompromising approach to addressing that budget challenge. to chairman last year we were told that presidential election was going to give the american people the opportunity to choose between two fundamentally different approaches to this challenge. one lopsided, one balanced. they voted and chose to reject the lop sided approach. the american people rejected the idea that we will give additional tax cuts to the wealthiest americans at the expense of middle class taxpayers at the expense of important commitments to our seniors at the expersons of vital investments in our kids education in breakthrough and scientific research and in the infrastructure that helps provide the hard wiring for our economy. investments that have helped make the united states a world economic power house. so let's take these one at a time. simple math shows that this budget will finance large tax cuts for the wealthiest by

raising the tax burden on the middle class taxpayers. the budget calls for dropping the top tax rate frol 39% to 25% cutting the rate for millionaires by more than one third while holding all other revenues constant. just last fall, the nonpartisan tax policy center did an analysis of a far more modest plan put forward by governor romney to reduce the top rate from 25% to 28% and they showed that it would inevitably raise the income tax burden on individuals making under 200,000 a year. this budget proposal which provides even bigger tax cuts to millionaires will raise the tax burden on middle class families by an average of 2,000. at the same time, it does not close one single special interest tax loophole for the purpose of reducing the deficit. not one dime from ending special breaks for corporate

jets to big oil companies or hedge fund managers to help us reduce our deficit. so while providing this windfall to the very wealthy, this proposal guts vital investments that are essential to shared prosperity, upward morblete and to rising middle class wainls. it protects pentagon spending but it more than doubles the ready deep sequester cuts to nondefense discretionary. takes it down to the sequester and then doubles them. those are the funds that provide the funds for important investments and short changing that will result in national decline in important investment that have helped us in the past. this plan also violates our commitment to our seniors in a number of ways. it reopens the prescription drug done nut hole immediately beginning to pile large additional bills on to seniors with high prescription drug costs. it takes a wrecking ball to 810 aid slashing it by

billion over ten years. and remember, that two thirds of those funds go to seniors and individuals with disabilities. finally, for every one under 55 who has been paying all their life into medicare insurance, they will now receive a voucher premium support, call it what you want, that declines in value relative to rising health care costs. leaving them to eat the difference. finally, let's look at how this budget hits its political target of balance in ten years. first, it uses all the revenues generated by the new higher tax rates on individuals with incomes over 400,000 a year, a measure that was of posed by the overwhelming majority of house republicans. it is ironic that after hearing for so many years in this committee that new revenue couldn't make a measurable difference in reducing our deficit that that revenue is absolutely essential to bringing this to the political

targeted balance in ten years. even more interesting is that this budget would not balance without obama care. it is simply wrong to say that this budget both balances in ten years and repeals obama care. now, this budget does eliminate the important benefits and patient protections in obama care. it will eliminate the provisions that prohibit insurance companies from denying insurance coverage based on preexisting conditions. it will limit the benefits tax credit for people to afford a health care in the exchanges. it will eliminate the tax credit for small businesses. it eliminates all that but it keeps the rest. it keeps all the parts of the congressional budget office said showed ry deuced the deficit. remember the 716 billion in medicare savings? that we achieved in the affordable care act by ending

overpayments to private insurance companies and by modernizing the system without reducing benefits? remember that? we were told last fall that those savings would result in hospital shutting down in nursing homes shutting down and a whole parade of other horrible consequences. well, those scare tactics were not true then and they're not true today. that's why all those savings are included in this budget before us today. and remember all the tax revenues in obama care that we heard about? those on higher income individuals, those on industries that will benefit from the fact that obama care will expand coverage? and those penalties from the people who will try and freeload on the system? all those taxes and revenues are included in this republican budget. in fact, the dirty little secret is that this budget would not balance if not for the medicare savings and all the revenues in obama care. look at this chart up here.

in the tenth year when it claims to hit balance, 400 billion of that is from obama care. and another 100 billion of that is from the tax revenue as part of the fiscal cliff agreement in jan rifment so half a trillion dollars of how this budget achieves balance in 2023 is from obama care and those tax increases. now, i want to finally point out one very serious consequence of trying to have it both ways with obama care in this budget. by eliminating the obama care benefits, while retaining the savings and the revenue, you will severely undermine the health care system. many hospitals and other providers will go belly up under that budget prescription. that's because your budget reduces reimbursements to those providers while eliminating the provisions of obama care that provide them with 27 million more insured patients who will

be able to pay for their care. that formula taking what you want and discarding what you don't is a chaos -- is a recipe for chaos in the health care system. mr. chairman, the election is over. the american people rejected the uncompromising approach taken in this budget. next week we democrats in the house will present an alternate budget that we believe meets those priorities in a balanced way. i do hope this as we move through this budget process over the next months we are all willing to make the hard choices necessary to reach a balanced agreement that is good for the country one that does accelerate economic growth now and in the future and lay a strong foundation for rising wages upward mobility and shared prosperity. >> thank you. before i yield to mr. price and to our other members i want to make a couple points for the record. you have to use a baseline you get from crmp bo. -- cb ofrpblt does the baseline

raise the revenues because of current law? yes. and what we say is get rid of this ugly tax code with all the obama care tax increases to medical devices and such. with the top tax rate going up as high as 44.8% on successful small businesses. replace all of that, the obama care taxes the fiscal cliff taxes with a better tax system. that's exactly the job of ways and means. get rid of loopholes to lower rates. that's what tax reform is. with respect to the spending issues. the medicare provision. here's what obama care does. it takes 716 billion from medicare to spend on obama care. it raised the program. we end the raid of the program so that all of those dollars go to extending the solvency of obama care. we had witness testimony after testimony what cbo or they tell us you can't spend the same dollar twice. so we say don't take that money from medicare and put it into obama care. it goes toward medicare solve

sifment one more point. we have learned through the past that price controls aren't working. that's what the sgr is, the dock fix. so we put reserve funds in our budgets to address these inadequateys like the dock fix. last year we had a reserve fund so you've got to come up with money to save in other places prevent the doctors from getting cut and our reserve fupped did that and we passed it and they didn't get cut. we set up the same process for other medicare providers from that pool that we believe those price controls will damage. now, this hasn't been rolled out yet. all of these medicare changes haven't occurred yet. so we want to see what happens and granted some of the providers asked for this to happen as they supported the aca. so we're setting up the same kind of process to make sure that all these medicare dollars which go toward medicare solvency can be addressed if we have provider network problems

just like we addressed the dock fix. the point is this. we don't like the president's health care law. we think it is going to do great damage to health care. so that's why we proposed not only repeal it but to replace it with patient-centered health care. we think our medicare plan is a lot better than an ipad board of people telling seniors what they can and cannot have. this is going to be a long debate today. i look forward to it. i yield 2 minutes to the gentleman the vice chairman of the committee mr. price on the importance of actually doing a budget. >> thank you, mr. president. budgets as we all know are about priorities. and there are priorities that the american people overwhelmingly supported. some of these include getting federal spending under control. getting our economy moving again so that we can get folks back to work. and getting our debt crisis under control so that we may preserve the american dream for future generation. and these are precisely the priorities that are incorporated in our house republican budget. american families all across this great land know that the

federal government shouldn't be spending more money than it has. and we agree. sadly, the budget that is have been proposed by the president in the past have never ever ever gotten to balance. the president has missed his legal deadline. the president has a deadline of february 4th it is now march 14th but past experience will tell us that when he brings it to congress it likely won't balance either. american families can't live this way and neither should the federal government. now senate democrats haven't adopted a budget in nearly 4 years they will do one this year because of our no budget no pay act that we passed earlier. we looked forward to seing that budget. the next test will be whether or not they can pass that budget out of their own committee in chamber. will enough senate democrats be willing to endorse a plan that taxes more just so that washington can spend more? that washington way isn't working. our plan the house republican plan puts an end to special i want rest and backroom deals. our plan the house republican

plan is a path to prosperity that will create a healthier economy where job creators are hiring, job seekers are finally finding work and more american families and entrepreneurs are realizing their dreams. the path to prosperity anshurs that we are honoring the commitment to america's most important priorities. our budget saves and strengthens medicare we care for the poor and the sick by repairing the safety net program and expand economic opportunity for everyone. i am proud and privelinled to join my colleagues in this positive plan. with that i yield 2 minutes to senior member of the committee the gentleman from new jersey mr. garrett. >> thank you, mr. president. so today the committee is putting forth a budget that recognizes a status quo is both unacceptable and unsustain cabble. the path to prosperity takes the first step to reversing the path to debt and decline that the president and fellow democrats have laid out. importantly our budget stops the spending money that we don't have and advances common sense changes to strengthens

our safety net programs. this budget will finally restore much needed certainty to the economy in so doing open america for business again. to say that president obama and the senate democrats have failed to lead on this

every family in america understands the necessity of a balanced budget. the president and senate -- senate democrats could learn. families do not have the luxury of waiting for the next election cycle. neither does washington. it is time for responsible -- irresponsible action. -- for responsible action. >> you talk about why it is necessary to tackle the debt crisis. i would like to yield two minutes to the senior kemp -- senior member of the committee. >> any of you have ever been to spain? i have. nice, hard-working people. great food. verye time, it was a prosperous and growing economy. spain does not have a prosperous economy today.

half of all people under 25 years old cannot find a job. there's -- people on government provided health care go and because they have had to cut back hours of service and operation, people cannot get the health care they need when they need it. why did this happen? they did what we should not do. borrowedt too much, too much, and let it go on until they had a debt crisis. when that hit, they had to make corrections in all of this stuff overnight. now, they have this economy. we cannot let that happen here. balancing this budget is not about making cpas like me feel good.

it is about not having what happens in spain or greece or japan. this is not speculation. what has happened is out there and we can see it. a balanced budget is about creating prosperity. it is about creating jobs, having the health-care promises we have made to the people something we can fulfill. under which our young people can find a job. under which people can prosper and live the american dream. that is why balancing the budget is so important. >> two minutes from -- for the gentleman from california. >> thank you. i am generally an optimist. our growing debt crisis gives me and should give all americans real concerns about our future prosperity. all you have to do is calculate the complex fiscal challenges

before us. truly understand the consequences for american families if we fail to act. during the clinton years, spending per capita was $8,175. testing for inflation, spending per capita during obama's tenure has been $11,822, a 45% increase. have the american people benefited from the increased spending? million6 millions -- americans living in poverty, they would say no. 24.42%. as we have seen with european nations, there seems to be a tipping point in the spending to gdp ratio. we are very close. what effect does this level of

debt have on our economy? the unemployment rate is 26%. this is real stuff. it is not going away. this budget puts the brakes on non sustainable spending levels and will allow our economy to grow. balanced budget by reducing the rate of spending, increase is not a radical ideal, but it is possible. i look forward to today's debate. the american people deserve their president and election -- and elected officials to have a comprehensive and frank discussion. >> no question today. we know we face at a historic challenge. the debt is expanding rapidly. neither the president nor our friends on the other side of the aisle have offered a solution. if you look at the budgets we have seen and the budgets we fully expect to see, there are only three things in them

certain. the first is ever higher taxes. the second is ever larger government, bigger, bigger, bigger. finally, expanding debt. and budgets that never come into balance. the republican plan offers something novel, a budget that actually bounces in 10 years. in the following decade, it begins to fade down the enormous debt and we wrap up. that is the solution we ought to take. not a radical budget. it still allows for increases in spending over the next decade. 3.4% every year. most americans would like to have a race that size. but it comes into balance. withr friends will work us, i think we will achieve that. the choice is clear and the time is now. the american people expect us to act.

i yield back. >> thank you. i would like to expand to the german from california. >> thank you. this budget reflects a great struggle between american families and their governor over whether they or the government can best spent the money they have earned. it is that simple. this budget bands the struggle slowly back in favor of the families by returning to them the freedom to spend more of their own money and make more of their own decisions. every billion dollars spent in washington, $9 is taken from the average family. it is about time we started thinking about these norris in family-sized terms.

ultimately, the numbers have a very real impact on those families who are struggling to balance their own budget. set their own priorities, and look at their own. only what a government spends, either now or in the future. today, we passed out more than one-third of a cost to our children and financed the remainder through a tax system in which politicians pick winners and losers through an unfair and distorted tax code. this would do away with those distortions that ship capital away from economic expansion in into the service of political objectives. this budget calls for flattening and lowering tax rates than to insure no american family plays a quarter of earnings to the federal government. -- pays a quarter of earnings to the federal government.

in short, freedom works. it is time we put it and america back to work. this budget does not. >> thank you. i would like to yield. >> thank you. families balance their budgets each and every year. we believe washington should do the same. to balance the budget, we need spending cuts and economic growth. balancing your budget is not extreme. it is common sense. most of us would agree with that. after four straight years, there are still about 23 million americans looking for work and the economy is barely growing fast enough to keep pace with the increase of population. it is time we take a look at

our spending. if government spending were really the key to growth, we would be in the midst of an economic boom. clearly, that is not the case. another huge obstacle to our growth rate now is the complicated tax code. it would be interesting to note every year, americans spend about 6 billion hours and $160 billion filing tax returns. the tax code is ripe for reform. inis a bipartisan consensus favor of lowering tax rates and running the base -- and broadening the base. the purpose of tax reform is not to take more money just to spend more, but to create jobs and increase wages for working families and promote upward

mobility. i look forward to working with my colleagues here on the budget committee to advance and do a comprehensive tax reform. >> two minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma. >> a pleasure to have the opportunity to sit and have this conversation about the future of the nation. it is very important back home. havederstand words meeting. -- meaning. if we think certain people -- if we raise taxes on certain people we do not like or make it so every family can succeed. this has meaning last home. a family had a conversation.

they said we need tax reform and have stability. they are a small family owned truck company. one request was, can we simplify and stabilize our tax code so we have predictability to look at it in the long term. it's not big multinational corporations. this is a family-owned trucking company. it is the same thing with a small manufacturing company. they have manufacturing and it provides energy supplies to companies all of the world. one big request is some kind of stability in our tax code. we have the highest tax rate for businesses in the world. it makes it difficult for businesses to complete globally. we live in a global economy but we ignore global realities of where we are in our tax code. it is important we fix that. it is important we fix our code not just to grab more revenue from the american people, but to increase american economic

activity. we lose track of the fact that this year is now forecast to be the highest amount of revenue coming into the federal treasury in history. no other year receiving more money into the treasury than this year. this is a moment for us to look seriously at our spending. let's look at families and family owned businesses. >> next, i would like to yield to wisconsin to talk about how the budget is designed to provide upward mobility and give the states the tools they need to craft these programs to help those closest to them in need. >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to talk about something i am passionate about. that is our nation's core. i would like to make one response about some of the comments earlier. there are a lot of misperceptions. a lot. i heard earlier because

president obama was reelected, that was a rejection of the budget here. when i glanced to my left, i see mr. ryan in the chairman's seat and the same americans put you back in place. it is not necessarily a rejection of what we are trying to do here. i would like to speak about another misperception among the american people that conservatives necessarily really do not care much about the court. the idea of taking care of the poor is to throw a lot of additional money at them. money is not the solution here. we do not help a starving child by creating policies that keep the starving child's father or mother out of work. this budget does the very types of things that will help create and spur economic growth to put that family member back to work, to pull the child out of poverty and to give the mom and dad the self-respect and dignity of a job they so rightly deserve

in our economy. we do it by the very types of things we have heard in this room that claim do not happen in this budget. we stopped capitalism and reduce and get rid of loopholes for corporations. that is often the discussion about capitalism and whether we support it. i'd support capitol's and. i do not support phonies and. republicans can find agreement on that. to the degree that we take a look at what we can do, not necessarily throwing money at it. throwing money at it does not often get the result. to the degree we can find a way to come together in this room and in this chamber, to come together with a logical, clear thinking solution to put americans back to work is the fastest way to end child poverty in this country. it is a goal i really feel that

both sides want to see happen. our differences are not that we do not want children to have food. or poor people to eat. our difference is how we get to that. i think this budget takes us the fastest way to a permanent record -- permanent cure. >> i want to thank you for your leadership and commitment to produce a budget that balances in 10 years. that is an excellent accomplishment. i know many of us are pleased to be a part of it. i look forward to its passage. hassolutions this budget are built on the premise that every american family understands. we cannot keep spending money we do not have. even under this budget, the federal budget will spend $41 trillion over the next 10 years.

i know i certainly cannot visualize what that looks like. it is a lot of money. we have to be good stewards of that kind of money. we should be asking, are these programs working. one thing that is not working in america today is medicaid. recipients are having a trouble finding doctors. medicaid pays half of what a doctor can give for his or her services in the private sector. the result, the health outcomes, are poor. studies suggested there were 13 more -- 30% more likely than those without insurance at all to die. who is proud of that? the program is also pushing our states closer and closer to the brink of fiscal collapse.

states spend more on medicaid than any other expense. theacare is only making problem worse. reformsd look at what are working on the ground. i point to two states, rhode island in indiana. rhode island, the flexibility, they agreed to cap medicaid expenses for five years. they put recipients in a managed-care program and it is working. in indiana, we were able to cover 40,000 more people in the help -- healthy indiana program. thes put these funds to state. get the federal government out of the way and let's follow the examples of rhode island, indiana, and many other states with ways to make the program work. we can do what was suggested and help those who need it.

i yield back. >> i am emphasizing how this budget focuses on establishing a secure retirement for our seniors by saving the medicaid program. >> thank you. as pleased as i am this is a budget that takes on challenges we agree have to be taken on. that is a survey they took a few years back where they found that more college-aged americans believed they would see a ufo than a social security check. as you know, the program is in march from their shape -- in much stronger shape. there is a real concern about what the future of the program is and every single of the -- member of the body knows if we fail to take on that challenge, the program will be destroyed. this budget goes into that

challenge knowing troy's can make all the difference in the world. getting my mom and dad involved in part of the solution could make all the difference in the world. it is absolutely time to stop measuring our success by how much we put into a profit -- a prospect and begin measuring it by what we are getting out of the process. the challenge it talked about for medicaid patients, it is becoming true in the medicare asment of the population, well. it does not matter what kind of car you give to the american citizens if they cannot find a health-care provider willing to take it, they have no access to care.

kicking the can down the road has been popular for decades upon decades. the committee has taken on the challenge of addressing it, solving it, and taking it off the list of american seniors more than any other body in this town, i am grateful to fail to reform the medicare system is to destroy it. we cannot allow that to happen. i yield back. >> thank you. a similar theme was echoed by a woman who came to us. >> thank you. i have to tell you i was driving here and i noticed white smoke going over the senate

side. [laughter] i was thrilled to see they will present a budget. very different from the work we have done. and because of your leadership, again, we are going to present a budget that is fiscally sound and responsible. i am pleased to see --i have tos driving here and i noticed white smoke going over the senate side. [laughter] i was thrilled to see they will present a budget. very different from the work we have done. and because of your leadership, again, we are going to present a budget that is fiscally sound and responsible. i am pleased to see -- pleased to support this proposali have s driving here and i noticed white smoke going over the senate side. [laughter] i was thrilled to see they will present a budget. very different from the work we have done. and because of your leadership, again, we are going to present a budget that is fiscally sound and responsible. i am pleased to see -- pleased to support this proposal and continue working on it i thank you for your leadership. we all know the best way to get this country on the path to budgetity is to pass a that will balance. our plan extends opportunity for all americans. it attacks and strengthens medicare. beething that is vital to done for future generations and

current seniors, that is something i want to talk about. i visited last week in my district with a young couple. they are just 30 out. they are buying their first from. they are expecting their first child. every two weeks, they current seniors, that is something i want to talk about. i visited last week in my district with a young couple. they are just 30 out. they are buying their first from. they are expecting their first child. every two weeks, they are watching money come out of their paychecks for medicare and social security. the federal government has first right of refusal on their paycheck. the question to me is, are we ever going to see another dime of that money? the priorities in life have changed. they are beginning to think long term. when we hear these attacks on those of us who want to step forward and do what is necessary to stabilize, save, and to extend the program, we have extend the program, we have to wonder how credible those are when there is no credible alternative on how you would go about stabilizing. i thank you for the work you have done on this and requiring the president to work together with congress to forge a solution on social security and to realize we have to take into account our current seniors, and our future participants in the medicare and social security programs. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. i yield two minutes to the gym and from mississippi.

>> that is what a new member does. thank you. two decades ago, i lost my job in a corporate merger. after a couple of days of moping around and feeling sorry for myself, my wife and i got up one morning and we sat around the kitchen table. we took out a sheet of notebook table and on one side, we wrote down what we had coming in and on the other side, we wrote down how we would spend it. ifould be less than honest it -- if i did not tell you we shed some tears that morning. we tried to separate those things that were important with those things that were vital. sittinge families around their kitchen tables this morning making -- making those same tough decisions and shedding those tears. they have every reason to expect their government and washington to do the same thing.

nowhere is that more important than in the medicare system. we have been told medicare is more broke in 12 years. that is not acceptable. this budget addresses the problem. we can sit around and hope things get better, but i would suggest to you that hope makes a good campaign slogan but it is not a responsible approach to budget. this budget strengthens medicare for current generations and recipients and it saves medicare for the next generation. i yield back. >> thank you. next, on the store in fairness, one of the cornerstone objectives of the budget, i would like to yield to texas. >> thank you. today, we are marking up a responsible plan to balance the budget. washingtonll hold

accountable to fix our broken tax code and repair the safety net, expand opportunities for american families, and create a more accountable and efficient and effective government. the budget will help promote a path to energy security by increasing opportunities to america's abundant energy resources garrett this budget will stop the unfair use of funding from hard-working americans. as a job creator and a cpa, i have seen firsthand how domestic american energy production can be a valuable component in creating jobs and fixing -- fixing our nation's balance. combinedhas recoverable and natural gas, oil, and that is the largest in the earth, larger than russia, saudi arabia, or china.

isay, the united states known as black the saudi arabia of natural gas. the chart on the screen, if we can bring it up, illustrates how we can bring revenues by hundreds of billions of dollars by not enacting punitive taxes and by expanding exploration for energy on federal lands and oceans. the loss potential is also $200 billion. you could say there is a trillion dollar gap between the two numbers. this administration wastefully invests in corporate welfare programs like solyndra. they have several brothers and sisters. this is not fair. think about the education or basic research.

ifcould have been funded this taxpayer money had not been squandered on the president's capitalism and welfare. this budget will restore fairness, which the american people want, by encouraging robust competition. it will end kickbacks and corporate welfare to industries. it will promote policies for reliable, low-cost energy. theexample, by approving keystone pipeline and allowing for the opening of federal land to american energy production, this budget moves our country toward the goals of american energy security, economic growth, national security, more jobs, and better paychecks for american families. thank you. gentlemanutes to the from indiana. >> thank you. thefamilies sit around their kitchen tables, finding a way to keep a budget. this principle yields business sense and it has households living within their means to

yield success. in indiana, we make tough choices. we balance our budgets. the federal government continues to enable government spending that is bankrupting our children's future. american families hold the president and congress accountable and expect washington to come to gather and produce a serious plan. the budget before us today puts our nation on a sustainable course. it puts an end to the obama administration tosses roadblock to energy development and pave the way for projects like my colleague just mentioned, the keystone pipeline, which will generate more than 130,000 jobs, boost our economy, and bring down energy costs. the budget also promotes economic growth, job creation, supports research and development in the energy sector, and moves america to a more energy independent state. it expands oil and gas development, which could generate a half a million new jobs and $14.40 trillion in

increased economic and art -- activity. delayingting or domestic energy exploration, the obama administration has driven jobs overseas. in this budget, the house republicans in the subsidies, -- support for this budget translates into a response will plan to grow our economy and create jobs. i yield back my time. >> i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from indiana. >> thank you. what we are doing here today, people in america are hurting. to many parents have come hold -- come home and told their children they do not have a job.

washington has refused to make the tough choices necessary to top-start a healthy economy create jobs and opportunity to create jobs and opportunity for every american. we hear a lot from the other side of the aisle about a balanced approach. there is not much balanced about a budget that does not balanced. beyond that, if the american people understand our approach, they would understand it is very balanced, despite the rhetoric on the other side, this budget does not cut spending. our budget controls spending. schists spending. given the rhetoric on the other side, our constituents might be surprised to learn spending actually increases under the budget resolution. spending rose much more slowly under our budget than under the existing base line. our budget saves the american taxpayer to buy dollars trillion. even with our budget, spending is 40% higher in 10 years than

it is now. despite dire warnings about cuts, spending will increase by 3.5%. only in washington is spending more money than the previous year called a cut. spending controls and reforms called for are steps to foster a healthier and more secure economy. it is not rocket science. is the kind of common sense americans apply every day. i am proud to support this budget. i look forward to working with others on the committee as we move forward. >> thank you. two minutes to the jam and from south carolina. >> thank you. i want to start up -- start out by saying i agree with our president. the senator said we had a moral imperative to control our deficit. the best way to shrink our deficit is to grow our economy. to grow good paying jobs and put hard-working americans back

to work. unemployment remains stubbornly high. we have seen the enemy and he is us. our bloated and inefficient federal government does not promote but stifles progress. it makes us less competitive in the world. we are not being beaten by our competitors worldwide. we are beating ourselves. through excessive taxation and regulation, the federal government stifles economic growth and shifts more and more american jobs overseas every year. on a regulation in energy throughout the middle class, higher fuel costs, slows our path to a national energy independence, and costs hundreds of thousands of new american jobs in the energy industry. banks are a primary source of capital for middle-class families and small businesses. the added burden of the dodd-

frank regulations, hamstrings our bank at a time when small businesses and middle-class families need them the most. it does nothing to prevent large institutions from becoming too big to fail. it will lead to the disappearance of many small minds as they cannot afford the extra costs of complying with massive additional regulation. the president has repeatedly said we need to streamline excessive regulation. dodd-frank and the patient protection act at tens of thousands of pages of additional and they are still being drafted three years later. it is time for the action to max -- match the rhetoric. let's get government out of the way and get our economy moving and put hard-working americans back to work. i yield the rest of my time. >> thank you.

on the need to talk about how this budget affects the primary responsibility of federal government and national security, i would like to yield two minutes. >> thank you. it is a privilege to serve the second congressional district largely because of the risk i know for certain our fiscal trajectory prevents -- presents to this great country. it requires of us to make a very difficult decisions and set the right priorities. i am so proud of our budget. we have set the right party to protect american people. the house budget resolution we are here to discuss today cost $560 billion. the amount is fully consistent with the needs we have to fully fund our united states military. at the hearing on february 13 of 2013, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said this.

what do you want our military to do? if we cannot give another dollar? we set our priorities and this budget restores defense spending to before sequester levels. it retains the discretionary caps that were originally established under the budget control act. what does all this mean? it means we have fully funded our military. partye set the right spirit we will meet the obligations we have. not as a member of one party or another, but just as fellow americans. i appreciate your leadership. i appreciate how you have been tackling our nation's most difficult challenges with respect to our budget. thank you and i yield back. >> on a similar theme, two minutes to the gym from missouri. nothank you very there is greater priority of congress

and to provide for the defense. this does that. we provide for the safety of our citizens from threats, home and abroad. while defending the terrorists, or deterring the perforation of weapons of -- plot -- a proliferation of weapons, this budget provides the best equipment, the best training, and the best compensation for continued success. the budget provides $560 billion in funding. over the next decade, it provides over $6 billion to fund our national defense. the budget will reflect the fact that our national security is our top priority. it does it by replacing the owners cuts in sequestration. it is important that we do prioritize our national defense. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff also said our

current security challenges are more complex than those we face following words in korea, vietnam, and the cold war. there is no foreseeable peace dividend on our horizon. the threats of our country have changed since the cold war. they have not disappeared. ofsustain a force capable meeting the challenges we face, we must stop making arbitrary cuts to our national defense. when the sequester took place, it cut $43 billion from fiscal year 2013. it will cut $500 billion over the next 10 years. ofdefense makes up 20% of the budget. receives 50% of the cuts. our budget replaces sequester cuts for national defense and gets priorities right as a nation. supportfully funds the to the commitment we have made

for our veterans for their selfless military service. promises made should be promises kept. our budget does that. thank you. >> thank you. i like to yield for the purpose of discussing why a balanced budget is important. two minutes to determine from texas. >> thank you. i would like to echo what many have said today. thank you for putting together a smart, responsible budget right for america and business owners and families. this plan is cold, rational, and balanced. i am a small business owner. i have owned and operated my business for over 41 years. i still operate it. i have more private sector experience than governments experience. i can say this budget will put people back to work and reverse the obama economy that is killing jobs about our country. we have to have a balanced budget. i have to balance my budget. everybody in american -- in america has to balance their family or businesses budget not

every tenure, but every single day. if reverent -- 10 years, but every single day. but the path of prosperity requires us to make tough decisions. that is why we are here today. if we apply those principles, we will ensure america's best days ahead -- are ahead and we will stay the most powerful country militarily and economically. notutting waste and spending money we do not have, the government can become a team player. by lowering taxes, we will increase income and unemployment will be lower. by balancing the budget, we will help the economy rebuild itself. balancing america's books is

greater than one person and one committee. i am used to looking at numbers and making good business decisions that benefit my business, customers, and my employees. i know a plan to an hour the people rather than the government is a plan that will work. it will give families and business owners across the country the opportunity, freedom, and ability to grow and thrive and realize the american dream and not the american scheme. it is the american people who will get us out of this mess, and not the federal government. economic security for families means a balanced budget, lower taxes, and in texas, we would say, let's just do it. >> thank you. two minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin. >> thank you. i am honored to be here today supporting the budget that puts america on a pathway and trajectory to balancing our budget. you listen to house and senate

democrats. you hear them talk about a balanced approach to our budget. the approach is not balanced. and their approach never leads up -- leaves us with a balanced budget. that is not acceptable. 20 years with their proposal, you never balance the budget. 50 years, they still are money appeared 100 years from now, they will still have us our money from china. the ranking member talks about republicans having an eye -- having a not compromising approach. compromiseone to with. if they would put a balanced budget down, we could negotiate a pact with forward for america. they will not do the hard work, they may not like our approach, but they could tell us they're great approach, then both sides could come together and find agreement.

if they will not give us a proposal, there is no room for negotiation. that is a problem. you look around this room, and i do not think anyone of us here will pay $1 back of what we know today. the $1 trillion the bar of this year and next, none of us are going to pay 1 cent of that back if we stay on the current course. we have to look to our kindergarteners and first graders, little toddlers in america. we will ask them to pay back this massive debt bank and deficits. that is not acceptable. the true cost of the debt, we talk about it being $225 billion. pressesop the printing and stopped buying our debt, you will see interest rates rise. it would go to $400 billion a year. this is not sustainable. we have to put america on the pathway to balance. let's get it done.

>> let me summarize some of the hears and themes we will today. we had an election and why do not just move on? well, look, our speaker offered revenue increases in negotiations through tax reform. what happened? we get tax increases. we got the fiscal cliff. it raised our revenues. it did it through job killing tax increases. what is the reality we are bending to? we accept that these tax increases are in law. they have started and they are there. we are saying, we can hit these same numbers without hurting the economy and without costing jobs through fundamental tax reform. that is what we are saying. get rid of these jobs. get rid of the high tax rates and small businesses through tax reform. another point i think the

ranking member will keep mentioning, medicare. and the medicare savings used for obamacare. two points. if you take the money from medicare to spend on obamacare, it does not go to medicare. we are saying, do not spend it on obamacare. make sure it goes to spending on the solvency of medicare. a number of groups in writing obamacare, supporting the legislation, said they could do more with less, but not all providers said that. we really do not know the answer to the puzzle because most of the cuts have not occurred yet. the tax increases are already in law and have already started. all the provider changes in the medicare network, and i have been on the oversight committee for 13 years. they have not even begun yet. we have not sorted through what will happen to providers. that is why we set up a mechanism to address the issues as they come in. some providers said they can do

more with less. some said they could not. we will have to figure that out so the medicare provider network is strong and we are not turning people away and we can do it on a deficit-neutral basis to make sure physicians do not draw patients when they get a cut, which we prevented from happening. look, a budget is about making choices. if we do not get the budget balance, it will hurt our economy today. we should stop thinking about all of our efforts, whether it is fighting poverty or provide seniors guaranteed health care. we should stop thinking about it by how much money we throw at problems. why do we measure outputs? are we helping people? are we getting people out of poverty? are we giving seniors the actual security of knowing their retirement is secure or not? these are the kinds of questions you need to ask. i have got to tell you, it is not about making expenses and

revenues match. it is about improving people's lives, growing the economy, restoring opportunity. we have a new budget process, meaning the senate is actually doing a budget. we hope at the end of the day, we are still talking to each other and we can get a down payment on the problem. we may not see eye to eye, but thankfully they are doing something so we can have a process in seas -- on c-span, in public view, so we can get a down payment on the problem. we know the debt crisis will turn this country into something we never intended it to be. i would like to yield the rest of the time. >> thank you. we agree on one thing. the numbers that appear -- we believe the but -- the numbers will have a negative impact on families, kids, opportunity to

get a good education, and the jobs situation right now. goill yield 10 minutes to into detail about how this particular republican budget will hurt jobs and our global economic competitors. >> thank you. there is one thing i think we all agree on. ultimately, the pathway to fiscal health is a growing and vibrant economy. we have very different perspectives on what we in washington can do to make sure our economy grows. i would characterize the republican side as being one of cutting the role of government in our economy and ours is

different. not too long ago, we had a white house business round table where we had 35 business leaders from across the community, all political sides, and here is what they said they thought washington government should be doing to help expand the economy. these are answers straight off the transcript. in the order they were mentioned. support entrepreneurs by having a more transparent process. spend more on research and development. provide more english as a second language programs. invest in community colleges to better prepare citizens for the work force. help bring more capital to small businesses. provide incentives to maintain a highly skilled workforce. stop cutting education.

advanceddents in manufacturing. improve literacy initiatives. support child care programs, making it easier for adults to go back to school. fix no child left behind. that is three payments of -- pages of feedback. no mention of cutting spending and taxes for the wealthy, drowning wealthy and drowning government in a bathtub. these are business leaders trying to function every day to make our economy grow. they want washington's help, not its avoidance. this is where the ryan republican budget is a dismal failure. all of the things our businesses are crying out for, the rhine budget would be emphasized -- ryan budget would deemphasize. it is the enemy of growth.

i submit the revenue, my business leaders in kentucky. with that, i would yield to my colleagues in florida. >> i thank my good friend from kentucky. colleagues, this republican budget should come with a warning label -- american jobs at risk. because the republican budget will lead to large job losses and harm economic growth just at the time when the economy is improving for some many of our neighbors and businesses back home. republicans continue to turn a blind eye to the economic fact that more people working across america and lower unemployment reduces the deficit. economists, including the congressional budget office director right here in this room, advise that putting americans back to work is the fastest and most effective way

to reduce the debt and deficit. it is inexplicable that republicans propose to eliminate jobs in construction, education, scientific research, the burden on middle- class families. this is a very poor reading of the situation that american families are in today. the republican budget undermines what makes america great, what makes america strong. toe education, the ability attend college, research and development and clean energy, these are the keys to economic growth and opportunity. do not hand the keys to the republicans in congress because they will throw them out. experts predict this budget will result in 2 million fewer american jobs next year alone. that is on top of the 750,000 jobs lost due to be sequester that the republicans will not replace.

american families and businesses still face headwinds in this economic recovery. unemployment remains unacceptably high. here are a few examples. this republican budget slashes ability of students to attend college. it eliminates pell grants for students and provides a harsh squeeze for millions more. the key to a good job and opportunity is that college degree. but republicans turned a blind eye to the fact that college costs continues to escalate. they will say hell grants -- pell much harder to come by in america.

research strings under the republican project. alzheimer's, cancer, and aides. we rely on those dollars for jobs at the diversity and research and businesses that are growing and innovation. the heart of american ingenuity over our history has been in manufacturing and the ability to build ridges, roads, railroads, and a community. it attracts private investment. the government dollars we provide for transportation and infrastructure are in supply exponentially. it attracts private investment. but in the face of the desired to build and grow, republicans cut such investment by 32%. the republican budget is not consistent with american values.

it is not fiscally responsible. it puts american jobs at risk. it ignores the fact that job creation and economic growth are the most effective ways to reduce that debt and the deficit. it is a plan for economic weakness. it is a receiving vision of american greatness and innovation. ours a harsh vision for great country. i yield back to my colleague. >> i yield to an half minutes. -- two and a half and it's. -- minutes. >> thank you. i own a business. i understand the tough choices needed to balance a budget. i understand the tough choices it takes to grow jobs. i have to say you're not making tough choices when you produce a budget that hurts middle- class families and slashes programs for middle-class.

you're making a dangerous choice that will have real impacts on families across the nation. the economic policy institute found that the he was a planned release to date will result in two american jobs next year alone and stalled economic recovery. that is on top of sequester cuts in jobs we will see this year. the biggest threat to our long- term economic security at this time is not the deficit. it is the economy. it is the lack of jobs. it is a future where the u.s. cannot compete with its global peers. this will bring us closer to that scenario. chairman ryan and i share wisconsin. this is a blue-collar county where people are proud of the work they do and they want to be working. but they are struggling. four years ago, 2000 employees

lost their jobs. a company announced they were shutting down. we do not help them or america when we keep tax incentives for companies to ship jobs overseas instead of incentivizing companies to hire in wisconsin and in america. we do not help them when we cut programs and raise taxes on the middle class so we can lower the tax rates for the top earners in this country. that seems to be what we received in the budget that is on our guest today. budget should reflect values. what we need to do is focus on economic growth and how to get the people of america back to work. we need a real path to prosperity. when we invest in infrastructure, research, development, small business loans, we can increase competitiveness globally and

support small business owners and create jobs. i want to work with all my colleagues on the budget committee on a balanced budget that focuses on job growth and can responsibly reduce the deficit. instead of resorting to recycled policies that have been rejected by the public and congress, we need to focus on ways we can work together to move our economy forward. i yield back the balance of my time. >> in conclusion, we know you generate -- to generate a strong environment economy, we need to invest and not cut. the ryan budget cuts in all the wrong places. i yield back. >> thank you. i yield myself five minutes to discuss the implications of the ryan republican budget on medicare. ae federal budget is priority. there is quite a contrast for

the way we would implement our priorities and values are. a budget should be responsible and reduce the deficit. it should make investments to grow the economy. it is also an obligation to seniors and our future. the republican budget fails to meet all those challenges. andndermines commitments shifts the financial burden to middle class americans. it fails to make the investments in education and infrastructure necessary to ensure competitiveness, opportunity, and economic growth. and yes, it feels to meet -- it fails to meet obligations. theiralk about how much parents need and use medicare. they know they are paying into the medicare now. but the republican budget ends medicare for senior.

they want to shift the costs of health care to seniors and their families. disabledors and americans count on medicare. medicare is a promise to all seniors in this country. house republicans are yet again proposing to break that promise. republicans plan to end the day care as we know it. there is a wide array of choices in medicare. physicians participate in medicare and seniors a choice of their doctors and medicare advantage a new delivery models and seniors value those choices and access to doctors. the republican budget hands over those choices to insurance companies.

we are working hard to engage in new ways to reduce the costs of health care under medicare, are seeing a lower rate of increase in medicare. what the republican budget would do is raise the health and safety and financial security of our seniors by undermining those innovations and cutting costs in medicare. baby boomers are coming into medicare. 10,000 new ones per day. we want to make sure we demand efficiency and quality. we have to do it the right way. let's do that. let's reject the republican budget and make sure we have a balanced approach in these commitments. we need to meet our obligations to seniors and not through a voucher program, but finding a way to sustain the commitment we have made.

with that, i will yield to my colleague from california to also speak about how important medicare is to seniors. one and a half minutes. >> thank you. excuse my voice. i'm recovering from a cold. thank you for your unwavering leadership and protect in seniors. there are bush policies i cannot forget. in 2005, there was a rising tide of poverty under failed economic policies. millions of americans are still struggling to recover from the massive financial crisis this administration inherited. andblican budget extends even expand these terrible economic failures of the bush administration.

but under the clinton administration, they brought in revenue with higher taxes. we created more jobs. we balance the budget. we have the revenue we need to maintain a stronger safety net. in stark contrast, this republican budget protects the wealthy and the powerful while gutting medicare and medicaid and the safety net for children and seniors and the disabled and the vulnerable. this budget would put seniors at the mercy of private insurance companies and dramatically increasing their healthcare costs and limits in the choice of others. this budget comes at a time when congress has cut spending by 1.5 trillion dollars and an additional $85 billion cuts in the sequester. even though programs have a

child tax credit and medicaid support families and promote economic recovery, this republican budget continues the misguided effort to punish the poor, vulnerable, and senior citizens. we want to create jobs and opportunities for everyone, but we cannot shred the safety net for our seniors as this budget does. it threatens to shatter our fragile recovery while recanting pentagon -- protecting pentagon spending. toy encourage corporations send american jobs offshore. i think we all agree that a budget is a moral document, or at least it should be a moral document. i have in my hand a letter from

a little girl. she wrote to me. she is six years old. she lives in oakland, california. she has a simple message for our committee. she says, "please help hungry children. it is the true measure of our nation of how we treat our war, seniors, and especially children like this little girl. she gets it. if there is one hungry child in america, this committee, this budget has failed to do its job. his budget will not only help hungry people, but that more people at risk of being hungry. it'll put seniors at risk. this is not who we are. >> thank you. now to talk about how this budget protects special interests at the expense of the middle class, i will recognize

senator blumenthal for five minutes. >> thank you. this should be a discussion we are focusing on areas of agreement and progress. healthcare reform not only -- i'm pleased that the chairman has agreed that we will have a hearing later in the year dealing with the infrastructure deficit that this country faces. as i go through the material, i see not one word that references infrastructure and its opportunities. we are seeing a relentless assault on the middle class. if enacted, it would costs 2 million jobs, 750,000 middle- class jobs.

it would freeze things like pell grants and a lemonade -- you can listen to your own state universities and community colleges. incorporated in this is the ongoing tax shuffle that we have been dealing with for the last couple of years. there is no hint of how there will be tax loopholes cut that would provide for a 25% top rate. thatve been listening to for years with the centerpiece of a residential campaign that one of us was involved with. no one gave a sense of how that would be possible without dramatic reduction but the middle class depends on like a home interests tax reduction. we have been reluctant to see

people close special interest. we have tried repeatedly to deal with the oil and gas subsidies of 100 years that long ago ceased to be an incentive to produce oil and is merely a tax subsidy to their autumn line. we can and must -- to their bottom line. i look forward to an opportunity for the democrats to offer their alternative. in the meantime, we get to hear from my colleagues. >> thank you. i agree with my friend from oregon. the tax code is overly complex. breakshundreds of tax and not only distort economic hit year, but also do that for consumers as well. you can see from chart 18 that these tax expenditures amount to a lot of money. over $1.1 trillion per year just shy of the amount of all

discretionary spending, including defense. many of these tax breaks are simply wasteful spending through the tax code. how else can you characterize special tax breaks for corporate jets and big oil? it is a shame that challenging this wasteful tech spending seems to break down along party lines. i have no doubt that it is tax picks for social spending programs, my republican friends would be howling about government waste and corruption. but these tax giveaways for some of the wealthiest and most powerful in this country seem to be of no concern. one of the most egregious examples is the special tax preference that this budget gives to oil companies. these are companies that have

profited over $1 trillion in profits over the last 10 years. you can see it from chart 17. those profits are aided by a couple of billion dollars that they receive annually courtesy of code. -- of the tax would. ason and shell were ranked the top profiting companies. they were not helping the average american by providing more jobs or providing lower prices at the pump. four of the five companies shed a total of 15,000 jobs over the previous five years. there's no doubt about it that big oil has been making big profit while gouging consumers with the gas prices and pocketing the tax breaks, yet they get a big tax under this republican budget. you can call it the path to prosperity, but it is really the path to prosperity for big

oil and the road to perdition for the rest of us. there are better ways to spend tax dollars. subsidizing big oil fix our country in the wrong direction on energy policy. increase not dependence on fossil fuel that is expensive. there's nothing is fully responsible about climate change denial or pursuing tax and energy policies that maximize profits for big oil while pushing the costs off on children and future generations. i don't the balance of my time. -- yield the balance of my time. >> thank you. we should talk about ways we can do a better job. i yield 10 minutes. >> i yield myself to and a half minutes. the highest priority for democrats on this committee since we inherited this economic crisis that is creating jobs -- last month we got good news. the economy created 36,000 jobs in february. none of limit rate drop to 7.7%. the lowest since 2008.

-- the unemployment rate dropped to 7.7%. that is the lowest since 2008. can we please put the slide on the monitors? there you have it. the unemployment rate what it could be and should be. it has been the story of our recovery. what are the consequences of having enough police, firefighters? teachers? as you can see from this slide on the monitor, according to the household survey, there are 950,000 fewer people employed by state, local, and local governments -- federal governments since 2009.

you have never put before the american people what the consequences are of the layouts. shame on you. faceless not the government bureaucrats the other side likes to demonize. the are the teachers in your children's classrooms and the cops and the firefighters keeping your communities safe. that is why this is fundamentally flawed. what happened? we lost 8 million jobs. why are we doing this again? why? look at what is happening in europe with austerity. the way debt has been described on this panel is totally, totally unrealistic. onein god's name would be

to follow down the path of europe? that is the only place this roadmap will take us. creating economic growth by investing in our country is the best way to reduce our deficit. the first thing we need to do is replace the looming sequester. that is 750,000 jobs. offereding member was an amendment to eliminate the shortsighted way. creation.vest in job with that, i will yield 2.5 minutes to the gentleman from rhode island. >> i thank the gentleman from new jersey. the single most effective way to bring prosperity and well- being to our country is to get people back to work. rhode island has been hit by the economic downturn. we have the highest

unemployment rate in the country. we understand the importance of developing a budget proposal that creates new opportunities for middle-class families. if we are serious about keeping our economic recovery going, we need a budget that supports small businesses and is everything possible to help them succeed. we need to make things in america. we need to stop exporting american goods -- we need to start exporting american goods and not jobs. there is a serious legislative effort to give manufacturers and businesses the courage they need to compete in the global economy. then make it in america manufacturing act would help

build partnerships in our states and regions to ensure they are getting the target resources they need to retrain workers and campy in the marketplace of the 21st century. -- and compete in the marketplace of the 21st century. it will help businesses and communities and support american workers. we need to make sure companies have incentives to grade jobs in the united states rather than moving them to other countries as our current tax code provides. that is why we support the ring jobs home act -- bring jobs home act. it will end tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas and create incentives to keep jobs in the united states. many continue to struggle in

this economic kirby. we need to rebuild the housing sector and ensuring that we have the roads, bridges, schools that will make american businesses more competitive and allow communities to thrive. that are the priorities are not reflected in the budget that we have before us today. they are sensible and urgent priorities that democrats will continue to fight for. i yield back the balance of my time. >> two minutes to the representative from new mexico. >> i thank my colleagues from new jersey and rhode island. i'm concerned about this impact on jobs. it is both arbitrary and harmful to middle-class families, disabled, and seniors. this is a plan to austerity and not to prosperity.

it will flush economic growth and costs jobs. resultting budget will in 2 million fewer american in 2014 a loan. this is on top of the 750,000 jobs we will lose -- in 2014 alone. this is on top of the 750,000 jobs we will lose in the sequester. the bureau of labor statistics study says the health sector will be a leader in job growth throughout the rest of this decade. the health sector will create 4.3 million jobs by 2020. 30% increase while the rest of

the economy creates jobs at 13% rate. simply put, healthcare services and deliveries is where jobs are. unfortunately, republicans in this congress will put job growth in jeopardy. the policy priorities estimates that the ryan budget will cut $2.5 trillion from health care by 2023. it does a by turning medicare into a voucher program. this forces health care providers to jobs and reduce services or their patients. with an aging population, we can be investing in critical infrastructure like the health care system and not cutting. we can have positive job growth and create jobs this year with basic investments. affordableepeals care act, but it is still below the land.

-- the law of the land. there can be assistance that help small businesses and individuals select any role in health care plans. this infrastructure investments create jobs we need. in new mexico alone, it will reverse the negative job growth. the rhyme proposal is bad policy. it harms the most vulnerable citizens and is a job killer -- the ryan a proposal is bad policy. it harms the most portable citizens and is a job killer. i yield back. >> i yield my time to the representative from california. >> thank you. i went to point out that this republican budget does not invest in the working people of america for the future workforce of america. this budget eliminates over one million kilograms to students.

it does not invest in the badly needed stem teachers. our country needs at least 100,000 of these teachers. this does nothing to just this needed investment. once my republican colleagues -- investing in students is not spending in washington. educating the future workforce is local investment in every community across america. i agree that the budget is about priority. this budget makes it a priority to abandon the education of future workforce. this budget makes it a priority to preserve the tax loopholes for the largest corporations in america. it raises the income tax by over $2000 per american family. in my 16 years of legislating, i have never experienced a document where the rhetoric spoken about the document is completely opposite of the

language in that document. this budget is not good for the current work worse of america. oris not invest in them retrain them. we talked about the millions americans who are out of work. and the same time, this budget does nothing to help them get back to work. this budget is a priority of protecting loopholes for the largest corporations and costing over $2000 or african american when they do their taxes. >> during an evening session, the budget committee took up amendments to the bill dealing with taxes, healthcare, job training programs, and the medicare voucher program. this is two hours and 15 minutes. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> this is an amendment offered

to protect the american middle class from tax increases. >> the gentleman is recognized for nine minutes. >> thank you. both parties are committed to reducing the deficit. we need to strengthen the economic future. we have significant differences on how to accomplish these goals. i believe there are budgets to reflect our values and priorities and real-life circumstances. we have a chart i would like to show. here are the facts. the 21970 nine in 2007, take on paper the top 1% of income earners grew 278%. in contrast, the take him pay of the middle 20% of families grew only 25% and incomes of the poorest 20% grew only 18.2%. the amendment i bring for consideration is simple.

it asked that everyone pays their fair share and prioritize middle class families, those making $250,000 and less. there is a $1.1 trillion shift to the middle class and the budget for us. these priorities are not expressed in the budget we are considering today. the tax policy center has estimated that trillions of funds would offset the cost for top individual and corporate tax rate by 25%. the gop budget will be to repeal tax reductions that benefit working american such as the mortgage reduction and exclusion for -- and the child care credits. raising taxes on working families by eliminating their tax code will play a serious consequence, including making it harder for working families in wisconsin across the country to make ends meet.

he says fiscal fear mongering is a major industry for those looking for excuses to do what they really want, namely to dismantle medicare, medicaid, and social security. there will be a blizzard of bogus numbers purporting to show we are in a fiscal crisis. paul krugman is right. is killing those whose mission for years has been to go after entitlements. but like us to blame all of the deficit on the sick, the elderly, and the poor. we need a reality check. is solvent.ity we have established need in

medicare reform that has a broad per person spending growth to historic lows in medicare. there are more people coming on, not the amount we are spending on individuals. is simply not fair. despite many of vice- presidential campaign lambasting these reforms, it would appear the chair agrees. this depends on the affordable care attacked the new revenues and the medicare savings of $716 billion. theere attacked all through campaign but you cannot have it both ways. you cannot accuse the democrats medicare. we're using this to justify a

failed economic policy that they have repeatedly rejected as recently as november 2012. they had a choice. they looked at a president who said, the vice-president has put together a budget and i am fully in support. the people say, no thank you. need and we can stop the theatrics and start with talking about jobs. if the gi bill had been brought before this congress in 1946 with all of the debt we were in, they would've said we have a deficit problem. invest in infrastructure, not only physical but human. i yield back the balance. >> we have five minutes.

i will talk about how adopting a balanced deficit-reduction plan can be done the right way and the democratic way. >> thank you, madam vice chair. one good thing hanging out of this hearing as we agree that the debt down the deficit are a big problem. we disagree on the emphasis of how to fix the problem. i would hope to build on some of workipartisan, collegial we have already done. i point to the $1.50 trillion in discretionary spending, not including the sequester. in tax have $600 billion withues that were voted on

bipartisan support. then you have savings. that's $2.50 trillion. that's pretty good. by doubling down on the sequester, we do not get any more debt and deficit reduction. if you put the sequester into effect, it does not change the trajectory going forward. why are we beating a dead horse here? it does not make sense. what we should be doing is talking about and respecting one another's opinions. at last be part of the equation. it got us back to where the simpson-bowles commission got us. look at this chart here. this is what revenues were when we were able to balance the budget. they were in the high 19's almost 20%. will not get a balance the

budget on the spending cuts alone. i urge everyone to think long and hard about listening to the other side, not just proselytize and. health care spending is the big problem we face right now. i do not think the baby boomers are such a huge cost. it is mathematics. increasing more, increasing numbers, fewer people to pay for. let's have some tax reform to put revenue on the table to not only pay down the deficit, but let's make sure that we have an opportunity for serious reduction in medicare spending that we both agree on. i yield to my friend and colleague. >> it is decision time in

america. we can go one of two directions. we can adopt a balanced approach. but you can balance the backs on the most volatile in america. if we cut spending by an excess of $4.60 trillion in the manner that has been proposed, the logical consequence is you will be balancing the budget on the backs of seniors, college students and working families all across america. it has four elements. closing revenue by loopholes that are unfair, unreasonable cannot and unconscionable. reduce them in a manner sensitive to the fragile nature

of our economic recovery. protect important social insurance programs that are not responsible for the mess we find ourselves in right now. we have a consumer demand problem in america. the stock market is up. remain stagnant.th increase investment resulting in job growth. this will yield increased consumer demand. this will result in economic growth. deficitthen reduce the and bring down the debt as a percentage of gdp. approachhy a balanced invests in our economy. we must generate additional revenue by closing loopholes not be there.

third, we need to reduce spending in a manner that is sensitive to the nature of our recovery and we already have reduced spending by $1.50 trillion. we need to protect social insurance programs that are not the cause of the mess we find ourselves in right now. i yield back the balance of my time. >> a yield remaining time to archer talking about how we could do better in protecting commitments to our seniors and grandchildren. >> i think my colleagues for laying out all the problems before us today. before us, we will have a budget reflects our view.

it would stabilize the debt but it does so without harming jobs, without violating commitments to the seniors, without devastating cuts to important investments and other matters. i just want pick up on the point raised. if you look at the last 40 years, we have had a balanced budget four times. it was not under president reagan. it was not under the first president bush. 1998-2001. president bush came in and he had the tax cuts that brought us out of balance. those are the four years. what was the revenue that we actually had a balance? of gdp, on average 20%.

expect us to believe that somehow we will get to a balance without violating important commitments that would hurt the economy when you have a lot less revenue as a percentage of gdp. though between now and 10 years from now, medicare recipients will grow by 33%. on social of people security will grow 30%. if youagree we have to continue to insist he will not have any additional revenue by asking higher-income people to pay more by closing tax loopholes. then you will be requiring seniors on medicare with the median income of $22,000 to get hit harder. divest in very

important things that have helped our economy grow. that is why we will continue to present a balanced approach that has cuts in these tax breaks for the purpose of reducing the deficit. when every bi-partisan commission has done this, they generate additional revenue to reduce the deficit. when you look at our plan in the context of the deficit reduction including the $1.50 trillion in cuts already made. of cuts to revenue in our proposal would actually be higher than the ratio of cuts to revenue then in the simpson bowles commission framework. when you look at all the revenue embedded in those plans. those are bipartisan plans.

hand, you have a plan that recognizes you have to work together to make targeted cuts. on the other hand, you have something that is totally lopsided. hopefully we can find ways to bridge those differences. i hope there's no controversy about this. this statement is making it clear that the republican budget does eliminate the benefits from obamacare, but it points out the biggest shortcoming is that it keeps the tax increases associated. that is not me saying it. it is the heritage foundation. that is the reality. you cannot have it both ways. important parts of obamacare. the tax revenues of well as medicare cuts in obamacare. let's not pretend otherwise as

we go forward. >> thank you. all time has expired and we will not proceed with a staff walk- through of the concurrent resolution on the budget. i recognize the policy director and our chief counsel. for the purpose of exploiting the budget we are considering today. the staff is available to answer questions and i asked them to ask only factual questions. debate and conjecture, save that for us. factual here to answer and technical questions. we will have plenty of time to debate the budget. i would have loved to respond to what the gentleman just said, but i will save it for later. this is a factual walk through. coming to speak to our conference today. at 1:00 so wen

can go to the conference. i think we're going to have a round of votes after that conference. we're expecting a round of votes and then after that we will come back. we will have another round of votes in we will simply adjourn and come right back. that is the plan as it stands now. have your stabs' keep you informed. staff keep you informed. >> we could do an overview, but because of the time and recessed -- >> he would prefer to rest questions? >> let's just get to the questions. havew some of our members questions. i want to start with a factual question. the first order of business last totally repeal obamacare. my question is very simple.

if we repeal obamacare today and it was signed into law by the president, would the budget be in balance? >> are you asking if we just -- i am sorry. >> if the entire affordable care act was repealed today, would this budget be in balance? act, you repeal the entire i do not believe we have an estimate on the impact by 2023, but my recollection is the deficit reduction by cbo estimates was about $40 billion in the last year. look that upo again. we have a $7 billion surplus. if you extended using that estimate, it would not be in balance but it will not include

the dynamic effects of $82 billion. trillion deficit reduction, we would still be in balance. this you could tell me how budget makes up the $1 trillion in revenue from obamacare. not been some accurate recommendation. we do not continue the obamacare taxes. ittead what it does it is assumes tax reform is done on a budget-neutral basis. it does not assume higher rates for obamacare. it assumes rights will be lower. 25% for top earners and corporate. obamacare extend taxes. >> you said that you wanted to tax reform in a revenue-neutral

way. rateant to reduce the top from 39% to 25%? apart from that, repealing obamacare will reap where you to come up with an additional $1 trillion to keep your 19.1% of gdp? >> it includes a lot more than tax increases. >> this is a factual question. washe latest cbo estimate that obamacare raised revenues over 10 years. if you're asking whether there raise revenues by $1 trillion, that's correct. that $1 not assuming trillion from obamacare but you are assuming the same amount of revenue from those in the budget? >> the projection the

congressional budget office has about what will occur under a law and we are assuming tax reform, which would get rid of obamacare taxes is done in a revenue and budget neutral fashion. >> current law under cbo baseline assumes $1 trillion revenue from obamacare. correct? >> correct. >> if you eliminate the $1 trillion in revenue coming you have to raise $1 trillion from somewhere else in order to be at 19.1%? >> there are going to be a lot of pieces. we would have to keep revenue neutral relative to the cbo baseline. that's right. >> if you take up the $1 trillion in revenue from obamacare, you have to find $1

trillion in revenue somewhere else. reformannot look at tax in a piecemeal fashion and. they will look at the entire tax code. >> i'm not asking how you do tax reform. this is a mathematical question. you just said $1 trillion from obamacare revenue is in your baseline. right? for starters? >> yes. withur budget is balanced that base line. >> we use the revenue line. we match the revenue line they project. the medicare savings. we heard a lot about that in the fall. people said it would result in a lot of terrible things. in your deficit reduction numbers, is it not?

>> there were two things going on with the affordable care act. it reduced medicare providers by $716 billion over 10 years, but it used those savings to offset new spending in the affordable care act. savingsotes all of the toward medicare solvency. it does not allow the money to be spent twice a once it is offset for expansion. there is also a reserve fund in the budget resolution. it provides a mechanism, such as the congress chose, to go in and restore some of those. it would have the flexibility to do that. you would not be able to strictly follow the allocations of the aggregate.

you'd be limited in terms of your flexibility. if you eliminate, if you repeals, the $715 million from medicare savings, this will not be in balance at the end of the 10-year window. >> i do not know what the savings would be. >> that would clearly be -- >> we have a surplus. if you take the cbo economic analysis, we have a surplus of $89 billion. the savings isat in the 10th year. >> that the number we cannot figure out. >> will the gentleman yield? instruction that the beginning of this inquiry that we would stick to factual

questions. you would not say that they would stick to factual content. it works both ways. you're missing the whole point. you have $35 -- 35 million people who will not be insured. >> let's say this debate when we are not reading them in. we do not know that score. it has not been made available. we do not know in the 10th year the $89it eclipses billion surplus that the cbo would project. we do not know the answer because we do not have that score. if you spend more money, does

that raise your deficit? we do not know by how much. $184 billion it is so that means it would be required to make your budget balanced. i want to defer to our colleagues, but i just have a few questions. thatve heard repeatedly your plan is to repeal and replace obamacare. can you show us anywhere where you replace it? >> there are a lot of policies with respect to medicare. it is moving towards premium support which would have the structural problems over the long run. we start that in 2024. >> with respect to the non- medicare.

lot andve to a state a -- state allotment. we think that will be managed more effectively. understand on medicare, you eliminate all of the obamacare provisions, right? the expansion? and on top of that, you reduce by about another $810 million budget, the chairman's medicaid would continue to grow for eligible populations of inflation. >> we have heard a lot of testimony about how medicaid is already very tight. with respect to the medicaid the children's health

insurance plans. do you cut that battle? that is included of the blocked brant? >> you are block grants in the program? >> it is already under current law. >> in terms of the cut, do you apply the same cut? >> there provided to the states and the of the flexibility. >> whether or not you're cutting them, whether that protect the cbo baseline. be the state allotment to both medicaid and schip. we do not have that number

exactly. question, mr.e a bloom and our docks -- mr. blu menaur? >> can you walk us through this? , congressurrent law passed legislation last year but provided general fund transfers that have the highway fund solvent. i believe it expires at 2014. under current law, but if additional resources are not provided to the highway fund, spending will drop and they are not allowed to spend more than is in the fund. it is going have to change under

current law. there are insufficient revenues to support the program. it cannot spend more in the trust fund. general --nt >> is numbers are just to existing flow? >> to current law. that theine assumes highways continue to spend more than it is allowed to. that it is radon's such of expenditures do not exceed revenue. assumes in the five years that there will be a rebalancing?

>> we assume it is read balanced. the number here assumes that there is an infusion? >> it is required that it would be of such. the release savings in the budget and there is a provision that would provide that if you're going to put additional money in, it has to be saved elsewhere in the budget. a 30% reduction? >> there is scheduled to spend a great deal more than the gas tax revenues.

>> the $85 billion we have -- sferred >> it will all be spent by 2014. >> this disappears and if additional money is there, it will be offset in other parts of the budget talks >> if congress were to choose to put other revenue in, it would need to do so in a way that does not increase the deficit. >> that is different. i heard it would have to be offset. you anticipate the budget is ?eutral rule that ifs a you put funds in the highway --

let me back up. if you provided general fund transfer to put it in the highway trust fund, it requires that it be offset by savings. >> we did not offset lost time. >> yes, you did. >> we did? ok. i just looked it up. shy of $50 billion. the total revenues are $238 billion. in 2014, congress provided a transfer, but there's a highwayst between what are currently spending and what gas tax collections are providing. >> i look forward to the committee getting our arms around that. there's a pretty significant reduction going forward.

>> we had conversations previous the about medicare and may decayed. i understand you are anticipating cuts in medicare by $129 billion vs current law. i am particularly interested if you to specify where the savings come from and in particular, one havee aspects that seniors been appreciative of is the coverage of prescription drugs in the doughnut hole. they want to repeal all of the affordable care act provisions and if there were successful, it means we would no longer be reimbursing seniors for prescription drug benefits.

this is factual now. i know where the republicans on savings forced seniors. i want to make sure that we can all be clear about this. do you anticipate as part of a $129 billion that some of it will be because we've are putting back on cynne use the prescription drug costs and will no longer be closing that does not hold and enabling us to include under part the benefits benefits,e -- part d there would not be the doughnut hole anymore. could you articulate the breakdown of the $129 billion in savings you would get -- i'm sorry, in cuts, it would get stock?

>> there are three components. the first is a medical liability reform. saves $28 billion. the other is increasing means testing for parts b and d. the budget does assume the repeal of all of the expansion than in the affordable care rack down one of those was the doughnut hole that you referred to, so does assume that is repealed under the generic policy of repealing all expansions in the affordable care act. the cbo says that has the effect of increasing the cost of drugs to medicare beneficiaries. could you explain that better? >> we could provide a letter to you, but what the impact would

be from that provision to the affordable care act, the cbo said it would increase the cost of prescription drugs. >> the price? to seniors? >> we could provide you with a letter. >> to have answered my question. it would be nice to have an exact number for this donut hole provision. $54 billion. helpat would no longer them pay for prescription drugs. it would be back on them? the copiague would also be repealed? -- the co-pay would be repealed? >> would be lower drug prices, but there would be effects to the doughnut hole provision. >> let me