working with this committee and the other committee i spent time with yesterday, that we can work on together to get the savings and clear movement toward impact that is definable and recognizable. >> my last comment, the gao report that came out -- this is not sexy stuff. this is hard, grind it out, focus on how we tax-and-spend. the management component has to be a higher priority and i look forward to working with you. >> thank you. senator sessions. >> yield to senator johnson. >> i appreciate you yielding your time. welcome here, and i want to reiterate that i appreciate the fact you are willing to sacrifice, you and your husband.

this is a big job and i appreciate your willing to serve. you mentioned a couple phrases dear to my heart. problem solving, measurement, leadership. us talk about those. that really is the key role of omb. i was one of the senators president obama invited to dinner. we listened to him behind closed doors describe the problem pretty accurately. healthcare spending. he talked about medicare. he made the comment that the problem with medicare reform is that for every dollar that americans pay in they will get three dollars out in benefits. we have been saying that. a study by the urban institute. he said most americans do not understand that, which is a problem. let's talk about that. from my standpoint, the first step in any 12 step program is to raise your hand and admitting you have a problem. you have to properly define the problem. agreest of all, do you

with president obama's assessment of the problem with medicare is one dollar in, three dollars out? the actualthat dollars in an dollars out. the next question, what is that rooted in? in cost, numbers going to the next up? >> all i ever heard president obama say publicly is we need modest reforms to medicare, but when it is a $500 billion a year program would you agree that that implies more than modest reforms may be required to say that program? that very important program for americans? >> i think that very important program to americans, what is important is thinking about the appropriate level of commitments we have made at the same time we address that, the dollar in dollar out program. >> serious reform is required, don't you agree? >> i think the reforms that are required when we start looking at the numbers, and again i will work off what i have which is

the fiscal offer, when we see the additional $400 billion in the healthcare space people are starting to talk about large numbers. large numbers done in a way that can affect that earlier point i made about bending the cost curve. then we can get more over longer periods of time when you get the cost savings embedded. they start to become large savings. >> let's switch to social security, which is obviously and incredibly important program and we want to do everything we can to honor those programs. i have charts we will put up on the screen. this is from the social security administration. i hope you acknowledge these are accurate. over the next 20 years basically social security will run a cash deficit of $5.1 trillion. i have certainly made the point publicly that i do not believe this is a sustainable -- first of all, a solvent program. the only reason anybody can claim that is the fiction of the social security trust fund.

it is true we ran the surpluses over $2.5 trillion, but the problem is the trust fund holds an asset call u.s. treasury bonds which in the hands of the federal government really have no value. it is the same thing as if you had $20, the money is spent is gone. you write yourself a note that says $20 and say you have $20. you just have a piece of paper you have to basically offer somebody else and entice them to give you $20 in exchange for the promissory note. would you acknowledge that? >> when i think about the trust fund and those commitments i think about them in the context of the commitments we actually make in the public market. i also think about it in terms of the years when i had the opportunity to work on balanced budgets, there was the creation of something called the social security lockbox. -- hasou think that as value to the federal government? does it have value, that you can pay out and meet the $5.1 trillion deficit?

>> i think it has value to the trust fund. there is a commitment we will pay. >> let me throw the next couple slides here. this comes from the office of management and budget's 2010 perspective. next slide. hit it, anytime. we have technical problems here. ok. let me paraphrase. these balances referring to the trust fund are available for future benefit but only in the bookkeeping sense. they are not assets of the government to be drawn down to fund future benefits. it goes on to say, in general when you are talking about a consolidated statement you have the social security trust fund holding $2.6 trillion of bonds. on the other hand you have the u.s. treasury department that has full liability. you have an asset in one hand,

liability on the other, and the office of management and budget zero. that nets to my point is, as the director of office of management and budget, would you acknowledge that to the federal government the social security trust fund has no value in terms of paying off the $5.1 trillion deficit? >> when you consider these numbers these commitments are in the consideration. >> doesn't have any value? is there any value drawn out of the social security trust fund to fund the $5 trillion of benefits? hasyou disputing what omb basically published year? >> i believe it has value in terms of the trust and how we think about the trust. the first chart did not -- >> no dollar value. , nothing of value to pay those benefits. isn't that correct? >> when we think about the issuance of debt we do on a regular basis and the public

markets in terms of how we think about that as well, right now we have a very large deficit and investors all over the world are purchasing that that. the question is, how do we think about that? >> we made promises to seniors which we are going to honor but the only way we honor the promises is through the treasury department increasing taxes on the american public or sell more bonds. there is nothing you can cash in from the social security trust fund that has any value to pay those benefits. isn't that correct? >> until 2033. at that point the interest of these investments stops. am i right? >> but there were zero to the federal government. that is my point. the social security trust fund will give the bonds and how will the federal government fund the bonds? how will they make the payment? >> the trust fund has been self funding for many years, as you requested. the comes a time and point where that shifts and we draw down the assets.

how do you pay them off? > with all due respect -- >> thank you very much, madam chair. i wanted to ask you about a specific question. it was in the budget released today. i wanted to ask if you feel like you have your hands around understanding the role the program plays as they have changed the mission of the timber stands that have contributed to the numerous success of timber counties that are much more challenged with additional restrictions. >> i think i have more to learn in that space. the two things that recall is that back when i was previously in the administration the conversations around the spotted owl and other things in the timber space, there has been much going on.

the only thing i would say is the comments yesterday -- being from a rural community and having my mother at the age of 65 become mayor and talk to me about rural economic development, i have some familiarity with the challenges in rural communities today. >> thank you. i will look forward to continuing the conversation with you. we are working hard to try to , setting asidee valuable areas but also having a sustainable supply. the changing mission of the land has undercut deeply the financial foundations for those counties and they were pledged to compensate for that. that pledge must be honored and that is the pledge i hope you will continue to understand is as important as i mentioned. >> senator, i look forward to having continued conversation.

>> thank you. i wanted to ask you about tax expenditure. they have grown and honestly since 1986 since the reform of the tax code. we spent over $1 trillion a year on deductions and credits and ways of bypassing accountability or responsibility to pay taxes, including offshore strategies. those areas have grown enormously and incurred some very large spending. in addition to your responsibility for omb, including your portfolio, the challenge of understanding the money we spend on tax loopholes? >> first, having been at the treasury department i defer to the role of treasury on tax issues. andmy previous experience expectations are what will happen is the economic team is

part of the conversation. i look forward to being a contributor. >> i think that was a yes. is that a yes? >> i will be a part of the conversation. i respect that the treasury has the analytical capability in finances does the committee and ways and means here on the hill. very much structure impact deficits in the budget and the allocation of resources, so i hope you will understand that the tax code is spending and needs to be part of a holistic understanding of the allocation of responsibly shaping the way we spend resources in this country. costwant to turn to the benefit responsibilities of the department o. certainly part of that is to try to quantify the benefits, not just that our, if you will, obvious economic pluses and minuses am a but also the social

impacts. are you familiar with that broad framework? can i count on omb to really address the broad social and economic impacts when they are evaluating the impact of renegotiations? >> yes. if i am confirmed and in the management of oira, as we think about alleged -- regulation we are conscious of the effects in public safety, public health, and the environment. that is part of the consideration as one thinks about the costs and benefits of any regulation. >> i am delighted to hear that. we are seeing in oregon now recently massive forest fires. we had the biggest forest fires in a century. one the size of the entire state of rhode island. an enormous growth of pine beetle infestations because of warmer winters.

we had a big problem in our oyster farming because the oyster seed are having trouble being propagated because of a slight increase in the acidity of the ocean. that is just within the state of oregon. when rules are related to our challenge of controlling the warming of the planet, the warming here in america that impacts my state in so many ways, those are costs that fit into the framework of the responsibility to do cost benefit analysis. >> as we think through the issues of climate change, i think they are extremely important and something the administration has said will be prioritized. if i am confirmed i look forward to having the opportunity to understand how those types of things that you have articulated way and -- w eigh in. i think epa will be a part of that and i look forward to a strong working relationship with

epa. >> i am out of time here. i will put it this way. i realize you cannot speak to , is there like really a problem in the oyster seed or with pine beetles. theory oftanding the the responsibility for cost are theanalysis, social impacts ones you want to make sure our weight in the responsibility? >> it is my experience, in terms of whether it is impact on an individual or others, they are weight in the process. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. you mentioned the savings under the affordable care act. the savings under the affordable and are were spent projected to be spent over time

to find the affordable care act. is that not correct? hasy understanding is cbo said $100 billion will be over the first decade and in the second decade you will get the positive spiral i was talking about. they scored that at $1 trillion. >> what they said was, and i asked them explicitly, that the money that was saved by reducing provider payments in medicare was used to fund the new affordable care act and cannot therefore simultaneously be used to fund medicare. the money has been spent. this is not a matter of real dispute. i do not want to go into it. but you need to understand that. they said it is double counting the money in a letter they sent to me. i would submit to you, senator

johnson is exactly correct. there are no assets in the notes held by social security and medicare to fund future expenses. the federal government will have to borrow that money on the world market or raise taxes to honor those commitments because the money has been spent. there are no assets there. you need to know that. this will be an important issue and c-span has been different over time, but it is not accurate. what i told you is accurate. the budget, i assume you will be submitting next year. do you plan to submit a budget that will balance in 10 years? >> senator, the question of balance comes back to a comment that i made earlier about how i think about the role of the budget. i believe the role of the budget is a reflection of how we need -- meet, we the government, meet

our responsibilities to the american people. i believe they are in three areas. youy only question, do expect to submit a budget in which the revenues are equal to the expenditures and balances? >> senator, we are in a very deep hole. when one thinks about how quickly one wants to come out of the hole you have to connect that to the results for the american people in terms of the economy. >> do you acknowledge the government has not submitted a balanced budget and -- in each of its years in office and this year will not either? >> i will not speak to the 2014 budget, as we have discussed. with regard to his store call budgets, the 2013 budget, what the president has is proposed a budget that is, and i know we have disagreements about the word balanced. there is balanced budget and there is the word balanced approach. i know there are very different points of view.

used aolleagues balanced word 230 times in the budget debate. it was anything but balanced. the president will not submit a balanced budget. you know it and i know it and you will not submit one. is that not correct? you will not submit a budget you expect a balance next year. >> senator -- >> will you answer that yes or no? >> i do not know that the -- if the economy takes off and does an incredible job this year, if there are incredible dynamics, one of the things i do not think i can foresee right now and commit to. we could never have known about 9/11 and the commitments we then had as a nation. >> i acknowledge you do not want to answer my question. i will tell you you are not going to submit a balanced budget next year. the president has dismissed the value of the idea and i disagree and i think the american people disagree.

let me ask you, what level of debt as a percentage of gdp? >> the current level is around 77%. >> public or gross debt? >> that is public. >> to you know what the gross debt is? >> the gross debt numbers i think, depending on which baseline you use, the cbo baseline, the senate budget baseline, or the health budget baseline, all differ but waver around the 100 level. >> 104%. are you aware that a study in that best-selling book "this time it is different" -- when gross debt reaches 90% of gdp it begins to bring down economic growth? >> my understanding of the analysis is it is based on a number of international just the u.s. ot when one compares, the most comparable thing you really have to go to public debt, debt held by the public.

>> i have to correct you on that. i want you to look at this. it is so important -- we examined that study. it is based on gross debt. the european central bank, the international monetary fund, and the bank for international settlements have also done studies dealing with the impact of large dad on a -- large debt on a nations economy. they have concluded that the debt levels where we are today will pull down growth. it is the gross debt. you have to look at that number. >> senator, -- >> if i am correct we are seeing slower growth today, and i believe we are as a result of this debt. you think that is not so, so i will let you explain that. >> where we both agree is we both believe that debt as a percentage of gdp should be on a downward trajectory.

that is a place where we all agree. i believe that is a place where when one connects to that point closest to the american people, measures closest, in terms of output that helps us think about the outcome, that is a place where we all agree. we want that to be a downward trajectory. it regard to the study, i am happy to and will look at it again. i have a different understanding of what they were using as a basis for the study and i look forward to having the opportunity to look at it again. >> thank you. that is a quote in the report. above the threshold of 90%, oneum growth rate falls a lo percent and average growth falls considerably more. iswe have that chart -- debt already hurting growth in my opinion. look at this chart. the blue line is based on what was predicted for growth two

years previously by cbo. in 2008 they predicted 3.1% growth and he came in at 2.4%. in 2009 they predicted 4% at lessnd he came in than half of that. in 2010 they predicted 4.4% growth for 2012 and he came in at 2.2%. i believe we are seeing delayed slow growth as a result of the size of debt we have now and therefore i think it is imperative for us to have the debt coming down in a substantial way. not just a token. >> senator, as i said i believe there is a place where we do agree. that is, the numbers should come down. with regard to these questions

of growth, as one of your colleagues said, there are different points of view in terms of the current growth rate and why the growth rates are not where they should be. the other thing, and that harkens back to the comments the chairman made that everyone agrees on. a return to regular order is actually an important part of how the economy views things. having had the opportunity to be in the private sector for a. theime -- period of time, crisis and the uncertainty that creates a fax gdp because it affects the ability to manage. there are a number of contributing factors when we think about that number and some differences of opinion. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. i look forward to supporting your nomination and i think you are the right person at this challenging time. you are both governmental and private sector background. it will equip you for the role. you bring some good karma,

having been part of a budget operation and having is part of your legacy balanced budgets. the president you served and the congress people you serve would have that is part of their legacy as well,, and i believe that will be appropriate and brought to bear in a positive way should you be confirmed. and i am confident you will be. a comment, and one question. my comment is on the regular order point. this is -- i think the concerns about the submissions of budget on time are shared by both parties. i know many have expressed them to you. i did in my meeting. thispuzzled about why president, this administration that i support so much and feel so many the aspect of the president's achievements, from getting the al qaeda leadership , to a stock market that is rising, to hiring and not job reduction, so many things the

president can say with his team that he put his thumb print on something that is really going in a positive direction, but i do think frankly your portfolio is one where the president is still looking for a very signature achievement in the budget area. the late submissions of budgets probably to some seems inconsequential, yet it is statutory. just to tell you from the outside, the way that it looks, it is not a question of confidence because the people who are doing this work, as you pointed out, are highly confident, highly intelligent, highly talented. it is not a question of decisiveness because in so many ways the president and team demonstrate that the quality of decisiveness, late budget submissions send a issue of lack of concern, it is not that important. and yet in terms of where we are right now, opening the newspaper, turn on any news account for the last few years,

everybody has been saying how important this is. one of the things that is really important for you to do is to help us as we wrestle toward finding the big picture budget , what bysubmit this all rights should be the president's economist meant in the budget area. i am happy he has picked you to do this this. that is just a comment. the pressure is on. this president has done some anything so well. in this particular area he is still looking for a solid achievement and you are the person he has relied on to help deliver that. i do that as a weighty responsibility. my one question is this -- in the votes surrounding the passage of a separate budget, an interesting point came up. proposedent that was u by senator isaacson and passed by a sizable vote. the notion of beginning to explore a two-year budgeting

process, where you do a full budget over two years and use the midyear to trim up. revenues were not what you expected, expenses were not either. many states find this helps them with planning and can help them a little bit for incoming members of congress to comment --, in. it has some appeal the legislators and i can see why it passed when it was proposed to the senate. i just would like your general thoughts about budget process and whether the notion of a two- year budget is something you thought about and if so, what is your take on it? >> the issue is one that i had the opportunity to speak to when i was at the office of budget and management before. i think there are some positive aspects to the issues that you can do most of what you articulated in your explanation. so what i think is -- i think the question is what is it that will most help us get back to a regular order and a process that works? if i am confirmed as the director of o.m.b., something like that is very much a legislative decision.

to think about how we can work together to get to a place where if that can contribute to us getting back to a regular order where we have this prioritization. as i'm entering back in and thinking about these issues and studying and that sort of thing, the thing that is missing is the form for prioritization. the conversations are in their pieces. conversations in their pieces don't require us to bring it together and therefore actually stand above our particular interests as representatives. of course everyone represents their state and distribute to the best of their ability, but they also represent the american people broadly, and it is only

in those where we bring everyone together where they have to make the decisions together that you actually act in that other role as well. if things like bi annual budgeting can help with that, that is something i would love to be a part of the conversation. that is a decision of the congress. >> senator king? >> i agree. it is one of the most interesting votes, the two-year budget vote. any vote that occurs at 2:00 a.m. i have a slightly different view of health care costs. i believe that virtually the entire federal budget deficit problem on an ongoing budget is health care. it is the cost of health care that the government buys in very large quantities in terms of medicare, medicaid and federal health benefits. to me, though, the solution

isn't to try to squeeze and change medicare. it is to try to deal with the overall health care escalation, which affects all of us as private citizens and businesses and everything else. i think you have touched on this, but what i'm interested in is how can we, as governmental entities, affect the larger issue of health care costs? one way i thought of is we're a very big customer. maybe as a customer we can start to affect, for example, medicare should provide every provider they deal with have electronic medical records. just say as a customer, this is something we're going to do. i've been hearing about electronic medical records forever. it just doesn't seem to be happening. it is happening on a piecemeal basis. >> you touched upon an issue that i actually raised yesterday in my hearing yesterday. i had the opportunity to be on the board of a major health

institution, the university of washington medical center as they were starting on that process of transferring to those records and now i'm in a health care system where they are now fully transferred in northwest arkansas. the experience both in quality of care and cost savings is one that you see every day. i'm able to see the results of my children's tests on the computer. that calling back and forth with the nurse is eliminated. it also helps with preventive care. i had one of the nuns question me on why i had not gotten my flu shot. it is recorded that it was there.

>> you see my point? we're the world's largest customer. we can influence these decisions. >> and i think those are questions that we would work through with the office personnel management and how we do that. i think the question of customary influence and how we implement and legislate, i think those are all tools that we have to think through. the customer one is one that i welcome and understanding what we are and not doing. >> i judge them by if they hand you a clipboard when they walk in. if they do, they are behind the times. to change the subject entirely. you were there at a time of a balanced budget. i think the only balanced budget in the last living memory, 40 years or something like that. it is very easy to spend and it is very hard to tax. my question is do you think the time has come to consider some kind of external restraint in

the nature of a balanced budget amendment or something like to compel the federal government to ultimately get to a balanced budget? i realize we're not talking about next year or five years or 10 years, but at some point, i just wonder if the realities of american politics, the will, if you will, has to be governed by some constraint. all my life, i've been opposed to a thing but i have come to believe given the realities that maybe we have to do that. >> senator, the question of a balanced budget amendment, i think we should be able to make the decisions without the question of an amendment. i think we have talked about it today. it is where everyone wants to go in terms of taking that debt-to- g.d.p. ratio down. i had the opportunity to work on balanced budgets. those were in a particular context of a number of things. what i believe is fiscal discipline. revenues at a certain level and good economic health.

one needs to take care and that is the job. i believe that we can make our way to a place without an amendment specifically. >> i guess i would fall back on president reagan. trust but verify. i think there has to be something to force the verification. just looking at history. final question. one of the rules of o.m.b. is in the regulatory review area. there has been some discussion about that today. when i talked to small businesses in particular, the regulatory burden is the first thing they mentioned. i hope that you will take very seriously the regulatory review process and should certainly meet the deadlines on a timely basis. to really try to assess what will the impacts of this being b and are there ways this goal can be accomplished without increasing costs, burdens and

time. very interesting. i talked to companies about the affordable care act. they are more concerned about the regulatory retirements than they are the costs. at least that's what i'm hearing. the number of forms they have to fill out. these are companies that have their own health insurance. they still have to go through a long regulatory process and i hope that this is -- this will also be an important part of your attention when you're in this position. >> the issue of small business actually is a role throughout o.m.b. you mentioned it in the context of regulatory and rule making. making sure that is at the table. i think it actually occurs in other places in o.m.b. such as the strategic sourcing initiative and making sure that when one thinks about strategic sourcing leadership council it is the seventh largest department of contracting but it also includes small business.

i think there are a number of place where is o.m.b. has a role in ensuring it is expressed and understood. >> thank you very much. i really appreciate your willingness to take on this task. it is one of the most important jobs in the country and i am delighted that you're willing to do what it takes to make this happen for our country. thank you. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, senator sessions? i'm sorry. senator sanders. >> you confused -- >> no. i'm going back and forth. >> thank you very much for being here. i look at your opening remarks and you indicate that your primary focus will be deficit reduction. increase the efficiency and effectiveness how our government works and grow the economy and create jobs. it seems to me those are all important initiatives. you're missing one that is very important. distribution of wealth and

income in this one. we have seen modest economic growth but it didn't mean anything for working families because all of the increase in income went to the top 1%. as one of the major financial advisors, if you are appointed through the president, the distribution of wealth and income which is now widest of any major country on earth and worse than any time since the 1920's, is that an issue of concern to you? >> yes, sir, senator, it is. the issue of that and how a healthy economy, to me the definition of a healthy economy includes the point that you're making, which i think is a very important point. healthy means not just for a few. it means across the economy. as we think about what happens when there is growth. it is something that is important to me, senator.

>> is it a major concern to you that between 2009 and 2011 all of the new income went to the top 1%? >> senator, it is a concern. and one, that while i have not seen the president's budget. i think the president's announcement about the minimum wage issue is one that i think is important. >> yeah, it is, but cuts in social security are also important, which would move us in exactly the wrong direction. in terms of revenue, i know senator warner raised the issue. in 2012, 15.8% revenue as a percentage of g.d.p., was the lowest in 60 years. and yet at a time when corporate profits are at an all-time high, corporate income tax revenue as a percentage of g.d.p. is near a record low.

corporate profits all-time high. percentage of g.d.p. an all-time low. the president has brought forth a budget in which he wants to see tax reform as revenue neutral when one out of four major corporations pays zero in tax, do now not think there might be an opportunity as part of corporate tax reform? >> i think when we think about revenue, i think about it in its entirety. i think we're up to 17%. moving in that direction, i think you and i have discussed, i do believe there is an opportunity in the revenue space. if we think about the corporate issue, and i will defer to my colleagues at treasury and i think the director will be here tomorrow -- will be on the other side tomorrow, talking about these issues, i would defer to them. but i think the question of how

we think about corporate tax issues and tax overall, when i think about tax overall, i think about three principles. simplicity, progressivity and deficit reduction. >> in 2011, corporations paid just 12% of their profit in taxes. the lowest since 1972. do you not think it is a good idea to look to corporate america for more tax revenue? >> i think a balanced or comprehensive approach require us to look at all options as we think through things. i think the question of the corporate tax base are the changes that we need broadening turnover base and a closing of the -- of the base and the closing of the loopholes results in changes in the revenue. >> why do you think -- the issue of health care, at the end of the day, the united states

spends almost twice as much per capita on health care as any other major nation. we are the only major country on earth without a national health care program guaranteeing health care to all people. you think there might be a connection between the fact that we spend so much, our outcomes are often not as good as other countries and we don't have a national healthcare program? >> i think the issues are ones that are equally important. both the cost issue -- i think the affordable care act is an important part in the step forward. >> my question was -- is, i don't think we have a medicare or medicaid problem. we have a healthcare problem. our healthcare system spends, as a nation, almost twice as much as many other countries and our healthcare outcomes in many cases are worse.

we are the only major nation without a national healthcare system. do you think there is a connection in the fact that we spend so much and we don't have a system? >> i think the question, what is at the root cause probably a number of things. but i think you articulated. i agree with what you articulated is the connection between cost and outcome. then i think the question is what is the best way to get that connection between outcome and cost. we often have trouble doing that. >> do we have a healthcare system? i was not aware that we had a health care system in america. >> i meant broadly for the nation as a whole and the marketplace. >> do you think that marketplace healthcare system might be one of the reasons we spend nearly twice as much as any other country on healthcare? the role of private for profit health insurance companies? >> i think it is a combination and i will come back to what i

think is a core point, which is how do we align the outcomes with what we're paying for? i think that gets to some of the parts of the conversation that we've had in a number of different places and i think at the root of trying to bend those curves and getting the cost down and the quality of the result up, when people are trying to measure what they are doing against an outcome, in other words a health result, i think that makes a difference. we had conversations in yesterday's hearings about this with regard to looking at those results they are having in terms of the quality of their outcome in a cost-efficient manner. i think that is at the root of the issue. >> my time is long expired. thanks. >> thank you very much. >> thank you so much, madam chairman for the hearing. i appreciate you, ms. burwell. i look forward to working with you. i think things will go well for you. i will say in all honesty, i think you were using some of the

spin tactics that the administration has been using on this debt. we're going to have to be able to talk directly about what real numbers are, what the real finances are. we're talking about trillions of dollars. we can't be confusing about this. came in and spun his way and got an election successfully. it is not right way for us to reach a bipartisan agreement. i would note that the president's budget embargo has now just been lifted, is out today. it proposes $1.1 trillion in new taxes but he proposes $946 billion in new spending. basically it is a tax and spend budget. the idea that we have a balanced plan where we raise taxes in equal amount with the reduction in spending is never what has

been presented to congress by this administration. it has always been raise taxes and raise spending. that's why we remain on an unsustainable course in my opinion. your former boss, mr. bowles said this nation has never faced, in that very seat, a more predictable financial crisis because we're on an unsustainable path. i just would say to you, i look forward to working with you. you're very good to talk with. i think we can have an open relationship. but it is a crisis time and if i'm correct, that the debt already is impacting our growth rate, then we have an even stronger imperative to reduce it. the ryan budget, which balances, the house budget which balances grow spending at 3% a year. the budget will balance. it just can't grow at 4.5% a year.

that is the kind of concrete goal we need. this vague idea of a sustainable plan or sustainable deficits, that kind of words create no accountability. no firm goal at which we can adhere to and fight for. so i look forward to working with you. it will be a challenge. i'm worried about the growth that we're not seeing and if get this thing on the right course, i think america will bounce back. i believe there is a lot of vibrancy out there. a lot of potential but there are some clouds that we need to remove. thank you so much for your testimony today. >> thank you, senator sessions, we'll have a chance to debate those numbers which you put out about the president's budget, and i think we will have a debate about and continue whether or not the ryan budget is a balanced budget in many different aspects as we continue forward.

ms. burwell, thank you very much for your testimony today and for your willingness to participate in public service at a very challenging and important time. we greatly appreciate the sacrifice of both you and your family, so thank you very, very much. as a reminder to all of my colleagues, additional statements for today's hearings are due in by 6:00 p.m. today to be signed and submitted and also for the information, my colleagues again, it is my intention to move to ms. burwell's nomination as quickly as possible. we have a 48-hour retirement. i would like to do it as quickly as possible. early next week. >> i have a few questions to submit. i think they can be handled expeditiously. >> very good. just a reminder to all of our committee members, we will have the acting director jeff here tomorrow to discuss the

president's budget. with that, i will draw this hearing to a close. [captioning performed bynational captioning institute] [captions copyright nationalcable satellite corp. 2013] next, "q and a" with participants in the senate youth program, then your calls on "washington journal." brookings institution forum on north korea's nuclear threats and u.s. defense strategy. live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c- span. >> orphaned at age 11, she lived with her favorite uncle, james buchanan. years later he becomes president and because he is unmarried she serves as white house hostess. she is the first to be called first lady on a regular basis and is so popular that she sets trends in clothing and children and ships are named after her. meet harriet lane. a look at her life and that of

her predecessor, jane pierce, along with your questions and comments by phone, facebook, and twitter. c-ight at 9:00 eastern on span and c-span 3, also c-span radio and c-span.org. >> certainly general petraeus thought his private communications were going to remain private. we all should have reasonable expectations that when we are communicating with one person we are not communicating with the government. and we are not laying out our whole life to the government. we should have that privacy. >> if we want a government to be trustworthy but do not want to say to the american people, trust the government. that is your defense against being abused. as you see new problems we should pass laws to protect people's privacy and their fourth amendment rights rather than say the government has not abused as yet, why are you concerned? or the courts maye