making it on your own is liberating and a source of pride for american families. to have the white house celebrate the reduction of 2.5 million full-time jobs due to obamacare, five years into this week economy, a disservice to every american out there looking for a job. in the state of the union, talked aboutma taking responsibility so you can get ahead in america. now the administration says pursue your dream by working last. the american dream is to work, just ask till. the house has solutions. getting employment education. we talk about energy and things we need to do. right now we need harry reid in

the senate to act. so they can access job training that they need and want. we just need partners who are committed to unleashing the power of the american worker and the american economy. thank you. thes all of you know, report last week stated the president's health care law will cause a drop in powers equal to 2.3 million full-time workers. just when we thought the rollout cannot get any worse, the white house decided to delay the employer mandate again. our friends on the other side of the aisle are defending reduced hours for workers arguing it will create more free time to spend with your family. this law is impacting the

employer and employee, who depend on those hours to support their family. i have yet to find a mom or dad struggling to make ends meet who thinks it would be swell if the government instituted a policy that force their employer to cut their wages i 25%. and controlto work their own lives and provide for their families and they need relief from this law. >> good morning. thatrday we saw something has become the new norm for this administration. president obama moved to unilaterally delay parts of obamacare, ignoring the law. is that we have increased uncertainty. i think we can look back and see

this obamacare law was passed with a delay until after the 2012 election year so that people of this country could not see the broken promises that had occurred. yesterday we are delaying this obama is doingnt so without congress being involved. we have always agreed that the business mandate as well as the individual mandate will hurt job growth. we have been about that every single day. the answer is not to breed more chaos but to delay this law for all americans. and so we have seen our committees begin to work to try and produce an america that

works for everybody. ways and means committee marked up the repeal of the 40 hour -- 30 hour workweek. most ofmany people now, whom at the bottom end of the income scale who have seen their hours cut back and do not have health care. the administration and the democrats are saying that is better for them. them, what do they say to these moms and dads when they cannot pay their bills? we remain committed to an america that does work, a health care system that does work. obamacare is not working. we want to sit down and make it so this country can work for everybody. >> good morning. in our efforts to get america to

work, we were excited the president said he was going to join us in making this a year of action. we need to start by being honest about the current place we find ourselves as americans. we have seen another disappointing jobs report. we have seen a health law that despite the administration saying it is working, over 2 million americans will lose their jobs over the next decade. we saw with the administration issued a delay of obamacare, another sign the health care law is not working. the labor force is shrinking not growing. 10 million jobs lost since this administration took office. the health care law is hurting more people than it is working.

this is not a good start to a year of action. we hope the president will be honest about where we start and find ourselves. let's get to work in getting america to work. when the president said he wanted a year of action, that is what most americans wanted. we want to see our bills go to the senate. don't even get brought up. but to have action you have to have trust and fairness. what transpired in the past two weeks? out. you had the cbo come what does he do? delay's business. loses trust and where is the

fairness? businesses take over individuals. we are a collective of individuals. but he does not see that. the idea that we live within a framework that individuals work together but he doesn't believe in building that trust. unilaterally deciding what the law should be going forward. i think the country ask for more and expects more. if you want to build action, you have to build trust and fairness. on friday we got another disappointing jobs report. i think the american people are tired of being disappointed and settling for this new normal under the obama economy. they are tired of asking, where are the jobs?

we need to be working together with the president to expand the opportunities for our fellow citizens. that is why we sent the president a letter outlining areas he talked about, bills that we have passed that are sitting in the senate, places where we can work together. whether it is skills training or other issues, there are places where we can work together. we received no response from the president, nothing. if the president will not work with us on the simple issues, who would expect he will work with us on the more complex issues that we face? questions. a miscalculation by your leadership? >> listen. going tors are not

increase the debt ceiling. our members are upset with the president. he will not negotiate. he won't even sit down and discuss these issues. he is the one driving up the dead. --driving up the debt. we will let the democrats put the votes up to get it passed. [indiscernible] is and that some abdication of the responsibility of the majority party? >> the president wanting to do nothing about the debt. will not engage in our long-term spending problem. we will let his party give him the debt ceiling increase that he wants. trajectorypending

that is unsustainable. the president knows it. it has to be dealt with. i is a disappointing moment, can tell you that. >> this is the first time you have gone before the bill without adding up a fight. is is a recognition we don't have the political leverage to fight? tes.e don't have 218 vo we have seen that before and we will see that again. >> the boehner rule made its debut. is the boehner rule dead? >> i would hope not. this is a lost opportunity. we could have sat down and to find cuts and reforms that are greater than the increase in the debt limit.

it would help us begin the process of paying down our debt. i am disappointed, to say the least. >> as the president give you any indication -- route, iwent this would expect every democrat to look for it. and she agreed. >> could you say that 18 republicans will vote for it? >> we will have to find them. i will be one of them. >> to go back on the cola cuts, have you made it harder to deal with military benefits --and things like colas? >> i don't think so. we are proposing, those are already -- those who have already retired or sign up for

service. part of the law says those who enlist from january 1 will be covered under the new formula. it is a fairer way to assess this. thanks. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] members of the house republican leadership this morning. a vote could happen today or later tomorrow. live coverage of the house when members gavel back in at noon eastern here on c-span. live to capitol hill for remarks from douglas elmendorf. increased as a result of the affordable care act? >> we stand by that.

>> job growth and what we need is more of it. one of the things concerning to me as policymakers is that you have indicated in discretionary opportunity in rebuilding america, infrastructure, innovation, in the next 10 years we will see the lowest investment in those things that affect people an opportunity. since 1940? spending anderal interest on the debt. of programsion together, spending will be smaller than at any point since

1940. builds their countries to invest in clean energy and so on. opposite.ng in the i want to underscore when you talk about economic growth, we care about long-term deficits and we want to stay on a path of fiscal responsibility. growing would do a lot creating jobs to mitigate that. i want to go back one more time. i feel like we're speaking two languages on the committee as it relates to the affordable care act. as it relatesyou to the ability for people to have freedoms to make decisions without being chained to the

desk or their job. february report on the budget find the affordable care million job? 2.5 peopple 2.5 million -- would reduce their work effort by the coven of about 2.5 million positions. >> 2.5 million jobs that we would lose? >> we did not say that 2.5 million people would lose their jobs. we have not quantified. i want to be careful. we think when people talk about people outside of economic and budget people losing their jobs, they mean people who were laid off from jobs they want to keep.

what we described is people who are choosing to work less or not to work because of the extra benefits they will receive under the affordable care act. a reduction in the supply of changehat is driving the in the amount of the change is in the coven of 2.5 million positions. people more giving choices. they can choose whether to be in the workplace or not or to do other things or to spend time with their family. we are given the choice to some in my family who wants to stay home with their 18-month-old and has not been able to do that because her family's health care comes from her job as opposed to her husband.

they are going to have a different kind of freedom that is just as productive, to raise a little boy. judging --ot >> i appreciate that. i am evaluating and judging. evaluation,the which is mom's or dad's able to be home with little ones having tremendous value for their family and for all of us. i am so proud we will be able to choice.s and dads that our individuals that will be able to retire from some very hard work a little bit early. developed a small business they have been hoping for a long time. involved infreedom folks being able to make choices

is a wonderful thing about moving forward and not having health care have to be tied to employment. the macroto look at economic impact rather than the specific number of jobs or what is related to what people can do. i would like to ask about the labor market. the labor force participation rate is at the lowest point since 1975. last month it ticked up just a hair. it would reduce the number of full-time equivalent workers by about 2 million by 2017. a result of some people choosing to not work at all or others choosing to work less. it is a disincentive for some people to work resulting in a

decrease of labor supply. increasehe economy and economic opportunities, we need more workers and we should encourage people to work. what effect will this have on the economy? >> the reduction in the supply of labor would result in the affordable care act polls down own taxvestment, pulls d revenues. >> it is not in our economic interest to shrink the size of the workforce? >> it is not in the interest of gdp. >> gdp is for more people. if we have lower gdp, we will have more people in this country and more people are going to have less. you have to expand the economic

pie. it seems basic to have more for more people. would it be fair to say discouraging people to work is harmful for our economic growth? >> it is harmful to economic growth. cons.are pros andn co >> federal revenues are expected to reach $3 trillion this year, which is below a 40 year average. revenues are inspected to grow at the same pace as the economy, 18.1% of gdp. 2014 wouldnding for 20.5%and five percent -- of gdp. gdp by equal 22.5% of

2024. what is the economic impact of spending that outpaces revenue? does this demonstrate we have a spending problem that is fiscally unsustainable? >> we think the budget is on an unsustainable path. revenues,ing outpaces that extra deficit will lead to an accumulation of federal debt. that crowds out some private capital investment. debt reduces the flexibility to respond and raises the risk of a fiscal crisis down the road. >> the previous baseline budget projection of may 2013, you have

raised the estimate between 2014 by $1 trillion. most of the increase result from lower economic growth and lower tax revenue. you describe what economic factors have led to the lower economic growth projections? can you describe what the impact for the federal debt will have on economic growth? debt that wet of project will diminish economic growth by the end of the decade and reducing our ability to produce. the downward revision stems from a large collection of factors, one of which was dominant. data and at revised the comprehensive revisions last

year. we reassessed how close we thought it would get to potential output by the second half of the decade. we built the shortfall into our projection. we took a new look at the effects of the affordable care act on the labor force.the collection of those factors brings down our estimate real y the end of the 10 years. that is a dominant factor in our upward revision to projected deficits. >> thank you. >> thank you, chairman. welcome. an ongoingng discussion in the senate about

extending unemployment insurance . i just sat next to a lady who meets the profile that we are talking about. she has worked all her life and she was not able to retire and she lost her job and she is in her 50's and it is hard for her to find employment through no fault of her own. she is constantly looking for work. we have a nine percent unemployment rate in rhode island. so, we are also hearing that if you extend unemployment insurance, that will have an unhelpful effect on the

unemployment numbers because these are lazy people who are out there goofing off and if -- they we getd back to work. urinalysis shows the contrary -- your analysis shows the contrary. suggests if the benefits were extended through this year, that would raise real theby .2% at the end of year. way, thee other republicans insistence on blocking even a paid for

unemployment insurance extension y a .2% in this countr gdp growth. >> i can only repeat our analysis. those are the effects you quantified. them inrepeat some of the report we released last week. i urge my colleagues that we are one vote away from adding .2% to gdp by doing the right thing for people who are out of work through no fault of their own. it is a said commentary that we cannot get that done. my time is running out.

i hear my colleagues on the other side talk about the this is ad say how problem that needs to be fixed. passionusiasm and the and the militancy with which our colleagues on the other side to commendable.is that passion and that determination is that the rate --if cap or a as soon as you talk about benefits that go out to wealthy folks and to corporations through the tax code. we are more than happy to work to reduce our deficit. but it is impossible for me to look at adding to the cuts that we have applied to middle income

families and to investment like scientific exploration and infrastructure and innovation and at the same time be protecting the right of a hedge fund billionaire to pay a lower tax rate than a brick mason in rhode island. colleagueswhen our are going to be serious about the debt and deficit is one it is no longer less important than protecting interest for hedge fund billionaires. as long as the primary thing is benefit and at horde of others that go to corporate people, you cannot put them side-by-side and say we are

all that serious about the debt and the deficit. relation to protecting hedge fund billionaires puts the context -- thank you. >> senator toomey. >> thank you. let me say, thank you for being here, dr. elmendorf. i want to complement you and your team my staff and i have turned to your office on numerous occasions for help, whether it is changes to the flood insurance program or granting the administration some flexibility through a difficult sequester. your staff has been responsive and helping us to understand the budgetary implications and that

is very helpful. you have a great team and i want to thank you. >> thank you. have been since last week, not by your analysis that suggests if you increased incentive to leave the workforce, some people will leave the workforce. that is not shocking. what is shocking is my colleagues suggesting this is a great thing to diminish the incentives to work. i don't know how we got to the place where work has become a terrible thing that we must unshackle people from the misery of having to be productive and from supporting their family. i don't know how it is lost that work is a source of dignity.

it has always been the source of advancement in our society. i am not asking you to comment on that. i do want to be clear. resultslysis about the from the incentives of obamacare, that we will have a smaller workforce as a result. a small workforce means a smaller economy. we have less is total output and that means less opportunity and less prosperity. one thing that is disturbing about your projections is how meager the economic growth forecast is. , theost recent decades

last 60 years or so, including the great recession, average real gdp growth has been 3%. you are projecting it gradually declines every single year until we get to about 2%, which is well below our historical average. fewer people working and fewer people advancing and a lower standard of living. isn't that what it means? output.otential we think there will be some potential recovery. but then it will be much lower in the future. change, thehic retirement of the baby boomers. >> you knew the demographics of the aging population last year.

that has not changed. you have reduced your forecast for the actual size -- you reduced it so much. it is $1 trillion in 2024. that is a hard number to wrap your brain around. that is the total economic output of four states combined. that is how much you have diminish your forecast. could you share the main reasons you think our economy will be so much smaller now? >> a large collection of factors. the data were revised last summer and that affected how much productivity going forward. new data that change our view of thomas d labor force had grown

in the past. we also did a reevaluation of the effect of the affordable care act. things, thaton of turned off the revision were largely in one direction. recognizing tremendous uncertainty. worke decline in the total force participation rate. factormost significant relative to the past is slower growth of labor force. the big increase in in women's participation in the labor force won't be repeated. >> you knew that last year. my time is out. i appreciate your answers. since the great recession, we have had an experiment with

unprecedented governmental policies, massive expansion in regulatory burdens imposed on the economy. issive surge in spending projected to grow again. completely unprecedented monetary policy. i would suggest the dated is indicating this isn't working so well and the forecast is it for to get worse. >> senator kaine. there is a lot, of food for thought in the comments, does the aca disincentive eyes work? the government has been ising for someye time. we stood tax investment income

at a rate higher than salary and wages. then they reached a rough equivalent and now we are taxing work have here. we need to tackle the tax expenditure issue. i want to make sure i understand your report. report, on revenue as a percentage of gdp, the 10 year average you project is about 18.1%. that is the average. is 17.5%.r average so the next 10 years are projected to be somewhat higher. the average of revenue to gdp is between 90% and 20% -- 19% and

20%. if instead of an 18 per one percent revenue to gdp we had a 19.5%r five percent -- revenue to gdp, what would that do to the deficit projections over the next 10 years and to the projections of annual interest payments over the next 10 years? i know that involve some assumptions. i would like to know mathematically. i believe we have not just a spending problem but a revenue problem. if we have revenue of 19.5% of gdp, what would that do to deficit projections? >> we will provide you that answer. project thatg, you spending will go from 20.8%

percent to 22.4%. the components are also interesting. social security to 5.6%. major health programs to 6.1%. %.her programs dropping to 2.2 discretionary really dropping. interest payments going up to 3.3%. i would like to ask you to calculate where tax expenditures fit in this component. you don't have tax expenditures. you consider that more on the revenue side? based on the work we have done on this committee, the tax expenditures are larger than any line item. they are every -- unlike the budget that we battle

every year, so often these tax expenditures get put into the codes and we let them go forever. what is the projection of tax expenditures as a percentage of gdp and how that would change over the 10 year period. that into yourof revenue projections anyway. i would like to see the magnitude as a percentage of gdp as a follow-up question for the record. taxe know the 12 largest average,res would total about 6.5% of gdp over the coming decade. 6.5% of2 largest are

gdp. you are talking about nine .5% 9.5%. -- 9% to >> tax expenditures have the same types of effects on the budget and on the economy as many types of federal spending and should be viewed -- >> they can also warp market behavior. i would love that answer. the actual total is closer to 9.5%. that is larger than social security and medicare and other health programs and almost double what the discretionary budget would be over the next year. thank you, madam chair.

>> thank you, madam chair. there are a number of things i agree with you. you said we want to drive for opportunity. i agree we need to address our long-term fiscal challenge. i disagree with the way you typify in terms of a debt ceiling. it is about trying to in steel increasing the debt burden on our children and grandchildren. i think most americans would expect us to enact some fiscal discipline. let me start out there. if we stopped deficit spending , other than some short-term cash flow problems,

there will be no reason to increase the debt ceiling, correct? >> unified budget deficit does not capture all of the courses subject to limit. >> there could be some cash flow issues. i got that. in general, the reason we have to increase the debt ceiling is because we continue to deficit spend, correct? >> that is right, senator. >> i have a chart appear. the first step is to meet you have a problem. when i hear people say social security is solvent, i challenge that assumption. the next that is you have to define it. we have a 30 year demographic problem. will we have done with your cbo estimates, most of what you do

-- in talking to my constituents, that doesn't do it for them in terms of understanding the problem. i want to make sure we are getting this right. off of the latest rejections, we put numbers to them. this is what we put up with. $8 trillion. $88 trillion in the third decade, 127 trillion dollars. i want to focus on social security. i was going through the reality of the fact that social security trilliond holds $2.7 of government bonds. the treasury has the offsetting liability. your projections of deficit

spending in the social security trust fund, the amount of benefits to pay out is about $15 trillion. >> we have not done the calculations in dollar terms but it would be a large number. >> you're being cooperative in providing this calculations. i would like cbo to start converting these percentages to gdp. convert allcould the rest of your scenarios and that would be helpful. gdp. focus on shares of we think that nominal dollars have less and less meaning as you go further out. it would be more than $200 trillion in aggregate. we find these numbers without

the context of the size of the economy has the potential -- relative.is all in 30 years, the size of the economy would be $64.8 trillion. we are coming up with the deficit over that time would be $127 trillion. our debt at that point would be byut $120 trillion divided 64.8 and would be -- those are scary numbers. ,o put that number into context assets is about $96

trillion. -n the next 30 years - m the baby boom generation retiring. all these benefits we promised. long-term fiscal challenge that madam chair talked about us addressing. we have to admit we have the problem and put it in the terms that the american people understand. the percentage of gdp is not a way to present this. if we start talking in these terms about the danger facing this nation, we just might have an opportunity to get everything on the table and start working toward real solutions. thank you. >> senator baldwin. >> thank you, madam chairwoman and ranking members. thank you, dr. elmendorf, for

being here. i would like to visit with perhaps a wisconsin -- report on thethe impact of the affordable care act on the people choosing to leave the workforce. a bunch of me to very hard-working people who i have been proud to represent in the house and the senate for many years. family dairy farms. theso many years, one of family has had to leave the farm to work to bring in health insurance. whether it is because of the pre-aca rules wearer insurance companies could deny coverage for people with pre-existing

health conditions are simply the risks associated with inering a small organization a risky business. and that story has repeated itself. i have met so many folks in that situation. get may now that they can family health coverage in the marketplace choose to leave bese jobs and that that will counted in one way but i can and sure you when they return full-time to the farm they will be working both investing their efforts in labor and raising their family and caring for senior relatives and engaged in the economic activity of the

farm. i appreciated your blog entry to bring greater clarity to what sort of movement this is. when somebody is laid off, we mourn and are upset. when somebody chooses to leave in this manner, whether it is retiring or doing what they want to be doing, work and family enterprise, that is more reason for celebration. in the report on the slow ,ecovery of the labor market some of the recent numbers on the number of job seekers per job opening that exist reached a 6.7 jobk in 2009 seekers per open job and dropped 2.7, 2.9 in the

fall of last year. i know is not a part of your affordable care analysis to talk about what happens when people do leave the job market, or leave jobs because they can secure health insurance. is it logical to assume there will be 2.7 people today looking to seize that opportunity if that displacement dislocation occurs? >> the fx of changes in the supply of labor are very different under the economic conditions facing the country today. there is a large excess of people looking for jobs who cannot find them. when we think the job market will tighten considerably. under current economic

conditions, it is the demand for labor that is limiting employment. changes in the number of workers does not have the effect. when thein the decade, job market will have tightened, we think change is in labor r and weill transfe think this number will come back down to the more standard level we have in the labor force given the normal turnover. associate myself with some of the previous comments on our ongoing debate on extending emergency unemployment benefits. when you were last before the committee, we engaged in a conversation based on the federal reserve paper on and howm unemployed

they have become less attached to the workforce and is lost skills they once held and present other challenges. unemploymentrgency theensation lapsed, statistics in wisconsin are about 22,700 wisconsinites lost benefits. is supposed to continue throughout the year to late summer close to 99,000. the stories are heartbreaking. foreclosure. on the numberlks of jobs they have applied for, the budget they have tried to live on with unemployment assistance and what that will mean to not have it. ask, is itould correct to state that extending

unemployment insurance is one of the most cost-effective ways to stimulate a weak economy? >> that is right, senator. run,d jobs in the short expansion of unemployment insurance was the most cost-effective item on that list. >> thank you. >> senator ayotte. and want to thank the chair ranking members and dr. elmendorf. yesterday the administration announced another delay in the the affordable care act. companies were given another year to comply with the law. businesses with 100 employees can phase in their compliance with the law. is this something you have looked at/

/ ? do you think it will have a difference? he basically put off some of the conclusions based on the original date of the employer mandate in 2015 in terms of what the impact will be on part-time employment. where do we stand with all of these changes made by executive order to this law in terms of 's analysis? >> the analysis we released last week are based on our view of how the affordable care act would unfold as of early december. these analyses are very complicated and would need to

stockade and focus on the analysis to get these reports done. we are already at work on our next big projections. every year we do projections in the spring. we are already working to update our projections for the affordable care act and other aspects of the budget. yesterday's announcement was a surprise to us and you. these things are complicated. are and springtime -- we have reached no projections yet. learnedhat we have in the programs and so on. ashave labeled these updates partial and preliminary. >> at the rate the administration is changing this law unilaterally, i think your people will be working overtime. it seems like it is a moving

target. i think this could be a real challenge for you. >> people who work in health care are working overtime. >> i wanted to ask the issue the senator toomey ask you, reduction in the labor participation rate that you predicted as a result of the affordable care act. when you lookned at this reduction in the labor force in terms of the impact of necessities that will cause some people to leave the workforce or work less hours? did i understand that correctly? who will that have a more disproportionate effect on, lower or higher wage workers? >> by lower wage workers because they are the people facing the largest change under the affordable care act. >> are you worried the

incentives could have discouragement on upward mobility? if there is a relationship between the amount of subsidy that you receive and whether or not you continue working or seek higher employment, could that become a discouragement for upward mobility? to i take that promotion or don't i? we want to encourage more upward mobility. >> the provisions that we studied reduce the incentive to provide more labor. that can reduce the incentive to work harder in those hours or other things that would advance one's earnings. >> is it fair to say the structure of the law could reduce some incentives for upward mobility, people seeking to go up higher in the workforce, based on the

structures of the subsidies? >> the particular provisions would reduce upward mobility in that way. analysis.t done that the provision of health insurance may also affect upward mobility. we have to analyze that. the particular provisions that reduce the amount of labor supply, this incentivize people to move up the ladder. i don't want to suggest we are joined that conclusion as a whole. >> i understand that. we don't know yet with the changing landscape when things implemented. >> senator king. >> thank you.

you are the indispensable man around here. your timing --remind me of the guy walking on the tight rope across the grand canyon. your providing a tremendous service to us. >> we will leave this hearing at this point. a continuous online. the u.s. house is about to gavel back in. a bill allowing the oversight council to set aside certain regulations from the consumer financial protection bureau. there is a provision allowing the debate on debt ceiling legislation to be brought up as early as today. a number of reporters saying the debt ceiling bill would be debated tonight. the house will vote tuesday night on the debt ceiling because a snowstorm on the east coast. the weather channel is saying 4-8 inches of snow could hit the

east coast. the debt limit will be reached by next thursday if no action is taken. the floor of the u.s. house here on c-span. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. we give you thanks, o god, for giving us another day. as you make available to your people the grace and knowledge to meet the needs of the day, we pray that your spirit will be upon the members of this people's house. giving them the richness of your wisdom. bless the members of the minorityty