prepare and funding break through technologies and resilient infrastructure that will help communities across the country better prepare for the effects of climate change. so with that let me turn to my colleague, gene sperling. i should just say this is a guy that's dedicated to his career toward fostering growth and opportunity for all americans and he will be greatly missed when he returns to his family in los angeles. >> thank you. thank you very much, cecilia. . this is a pro-growth and prothe opportunity budget for the reasons sylvia said. it, one, creates more demand and job growth when we need it. it mablings more room in the domestic discretionary budget for the things that invest in our future and growth and productivity and fairness, and it focuses the reduction in the long-term where it will most important for long-term confidence. it's also pro-growth and pro-opportunity budget because it has very sound evidence-driven initiatives that

should be alive for consideration by those who want to work together for economic growth. some of the onecy seala just mentioned. 2k2k ones that cecilia just mentioned. one is putting forward an expansion in the earned income tax credit. the proposal that you heard discussed that was -- we put out some details yesterday on would be the first major expansion of the earned income tax credit for people without dependent children since 1993. it would address so many policy issues that people have raised from house to encourage younger people to encourage work, help people with disabilities get back into the work force, and ensure that more people with the combination of the earned income tax credit, minimum wage don't work full-time and live in poverty or raise any family

members in poverty. the president -- this is an important progression. 20 years ago there were 1.4 million americans being pulled out of poverty because of the earned income tax credit or similar refundable tax credits. today it is 10 million. that is one of the major progressive agreements in which the president has furthered both in his 2009 budget and then extending those refundable tax credits in both 2010 and 2012 up for the next five years, and he calls for them to be permanent in his budget. what this would do it would double the earned income tax credit for childless adults. it would both increase the amount, it would keep the phase in longer so people up to $18,000 would be eligible for this. in terms of impact, 13.5 million americans would benefit from

this. 5.8 new million americans, and 7.7 million would get a deeper earned income tax credit. let me give you one specific example. if you are right at the poverty line for an individual, right at the poverty line, that's $11,670. under the current earned income tax credit you would get a $239 e. eitc. under the president's proposal you would get 974. it would be four times larger for an individual right at the poverty level. this is something, this is a concept that has bipartisan support. for those who are serious about not just talking the talk but walking the walk on reducing poverty and helping low-income working families, they should support this -- president's initiative on the earned income tax credit. second, the president's put forward a job compromise on

corporate tax reform and infrastructure in which he puts out greater details here. his corporate tax reform has the same elements. it is still revenue neutral. it goes to a 28% rate, 25% for manufacturing. has a minimum tax. and is revenue neutral in the long term, but has $150 billion in temporary one-time revenues to come in. what the president suggests doing with that $150 billion is putting it towards the highway and the transportation re-authorization. $63 billion to close the existing financing gap, the hole that exists right now because the gas tax doesn't cover everything, plus an additional $87 billion that would allow virtually $22 billion more a year for jobs, fixing things first, deferred maintenance, investments in the future. this is, again, this should be the type of proposal that is

alive for discussion. chairman camp actually in his tax reform proposal devoted a similar amount of resources in the first 10 years to highway re-authorization. again, this is an idea that should be alive and well. and third, in addition to the proposal cecilia mentioned, the job driven skills agenda, the job driven skills agenda, the skills needed to get people the jobs opened that they need that will be opened. the proposals here are based on solid evidence, and they have bipartisan support. there is a $4 billion initiative on community college innovation. $2 billion on apprenticeship fund. re-employment plan. $2 billion for bridge to work. to make sure while people are unemployed they can have a chance to connect to a job and still have basic labor protections. third, dislocated workers and

long-term unemployment, we do reform. the president reforms together. the trade adjustment program, and the existing dislocated worker program into one program that's simple and clear and reformed and accountable, but in doing that he would increase from $530,000 to over $1 million that people could get more intensive services as they try to find a new job. and a $4 billion fund for public-private partnerships for the long-term unemployed. and then finally, initiatives that would give employers subsidies and help if they hired youth that are disadvantaged or people particularly face high unemployment rates, those on native americans, those from disadvantages, those with serious disabilities. this is, again, a commonsense agenda. there's a lot of people talking the talk here. we are for reform agenda, but reform can bring forth more resources to be used well.

>> ok. we'll now go to questions for our four participants today. -- protect c it growth after 2018 and the black labor market, do you agree, and why or why not? >> i would describe our forecast as broadly in the same neighborhood as c.b.o.'s. and the difference between the two forecasts is much smaller than the uncertainty that both c.b.o. that both c.b.o. and the administration faced in projecting future economic growth. if you look over the next three years, we are both projecting an average annual growth rate of 3.3%. after that, as you said, c.b.o. is below us in terms of

potential growthate. the blue chip forecast, their most recent long run forecast, was done in october. is above us. they are at 2.4%. the federal reserve is at 2.2 to 2.4. we are right in the middle of that at 2.3. so there is a range. i think as i said the differences between those is much smaller than the uncertainty all of us face. >> questions. ach? >> i was wondering if you consider that an achievement or failure? >> i think what we think of the proposed president's budget is the right level over the 10-year period, and that we believe that those levels are the correct level. i think it is an argument for why the president's budget as proposed, and the levels that we proposed both in discretionary spending and other levels, are he right levels.

>> you list discretionary spending totals for alt departments. do those totals include growth and security fund dollars, or are those not included -- >> those are not included. the totals that you see in terms of the departmental totals are each what we would do under meeting the 15 levels of the ryan-murray agreement. >> a lot of discussion about whether the affordable care act is bankable savings in the health care costs over the long-term, can you just describe how you calculated in the budget the long-term effects of the a.c.a.'s health care costs in 10-year eficits or projection? >> those estimates are done by c.m.s. they are not estimates i have done. i can tell you from the analysis

that we have done at the council of economic advisors, which is consistent with the way that both c.b.o. and the administration have updated their base lines for out-year health costs, has been observing that you've seen three years in a row of very low health growth. if you look on a per beneficiary inflation adjusted basis, medicare growth has been 0.0%, and medicaid has actually fallen. that the economy doesn't have a substantial impact on medicaid, so some poem debated whether or not the recession caused the slowdown. i think anyone would argue that that's a major cause of what you have seen in medicare. it's been a combination of policies in the affordable care act that have helped reduce the cost and increase the quality as well as underlying structural changes in the health system. and you have seen both the actuaries, independent outyear projections for health

expenditures. bowgeen the administration all assume that a lot effects would continue and result in lower spending in the future than was riginally projected. >> because they were projecting a deficit of 4% of g.d.p., how much does the health care calculations factor into that differential? >> the biggest difference is policy. you just quoted the c.b.o. number which assumes no policy. the president's policies would reduce the deficit by 1.8% of g.d.p. in the last year of the budget window. as a result obviously the deficit's a lot better with deficit reduction, which is what we are showing in our budget, than if you didn't have deficit reduction. which is what a budget baseline would show. there's some other technical differences between our outdear forecasts. they are mostly on the revenue ide not spending side.

>> this is for anyone. do any of the participants know tax revisions vare frye from current law apart from the -- >> obviously we have a set of proposals in there, so one of he places where -- that's in our a -- assumed in our budget is that in the 2010 and 2012 budgets the president extended his increases for the refundibility in the child tax credit. the increases in the earned income tax credit for families for three children or more, and the marriage penalty. one of the president's innovation american opportunity tax credit was that a portion of that was also refundable. in the budget agreement those

were extended for another five years, through 2017. we would assume that those are extended permanently. we believe very strongly in that if those were to expire, those would be a significant tax wellase in those years for over 20 million low-income working households. we obviously have a range of tax proposals in our budget. many of them have been there before. there's a couple of new ones. one of the ways that we pay for the earned income tax credit is to close a loophole where people in pass-throughs who are materially involved, who actually work there, may try to take their income as business investment as a way of avoiding payroll tax cuts. that's something that's often been proposed. that becomes a significant way together with carried interest,

paying for the earned income tax credit increase, so that that is a deficit neutral way that we could provide that help, that 12.3 million hardworking americans and dough so in a way that's revenue -- do so in a way that's revenue neutral. we would be closing existing loopholes as opposed to, in those cases, really adding any new taxes there. but of course it includes the basic provisions the president's had the last few years that would be part of his vision. a balanced agreement both in terms of reducing expenditures for high income individuals and closing loopholes for overseas ax evasion and other measures. what would you say to democrats on the hill and

several employees who complain the 1% pay increase is not enough coming off a three-year pay freeze and also pay raise that doesn't keep pace with inflation? >> i would respond first the importance of federal employees and federal work force and the respect the administration has for that, anti-recognition that it has been a challenging number of years. as you and i have discussed certainly at o.m.b., which has a large number of career st. we have felt that deeply. the second thing i would say is that there are provision that is were in previous budgets that no longer are with regard to relationship to federal employee pensions, and that we are pleased we can do the 1%. the last thing i would say is the budget levels, the 14 and 15 budget levels that were agreed upon in ryan murray, when one compares the 15 level to the 14 level, they are about basically the same. and so when you account for

things that have natural growth, such as veterans' benefits, a and the nondefense discretionary side, you see how tight the numbers are to produce a 15 budget. we the administration get the opportunity to do this first. the congress will do it next. but people will start to know how tight the numbers are. and in that context there are puts and takes that have to be made and tradeoffs at flat levels. we believe our federal employees were something that deserved an increase. the 1% increase is what we thought we were able to do in the context of the budget constraints. >> yes, ma'am. >> you discussed the provision for training and development for federal employees and how that fits in with overall effort to reduce spending on conferences and travel? >> i don't think in terms of the reelsship between the two things, the office of management and budget together with g.s.a. and others have been a part of

trying to reduce conference spending, and that has occurred over the past several years. with rabbed to -- regard to the issue of training and our federal work force, it's part of thinking about how the overall government does better management. you will see articulated in the budget volumes you will see a discussion of four major areas of emphasis that are about where we want to build on the management efforts of the first administration. those areas are in effectiveness and that means serving our customers, the citizen and business as well. efficiency, that means using the taxpayer dollar best. that's things like shared services where you'll see h.u.d. , the department of housing and urban development, actually using some of the services that are best done at treasury. in terms of financial services because they are the best providers. we are going to do shared services where best. the third area is making sure that we promote management of the government that promotes economic growth.

that's permitting which we had, i think everyone here's, some of the permitting effort. the fourth area, this comes to the training, is people. the belief that as one thinks about an agenda for management, we need to think about how we think about helping our work force be the best it can possibly be. so there are investments that we are doing in training the federal work force. so that's how that piece fits into the broader picture. we don't consider it related to the conference part. we consider this piece a part of a broader overall management agenda that emphasizes one of the pieces of that. focusing on the federal work force in terms of trying to have a work force that is able to eliver on the other three. >> can you comment on the balance between tax cuts and infrastructure jobs in that the congressional research service report says direct jobs are four times as effective in tax cuts

as-n creating jobs. and c.b.o. reported that the american jobs act would have created 1.2 million jobs. so why the value of tax cuts versus direct infrastructure jobs? >> a loft our focus in this budget isn't on short run support for aggregate demand and the multipliers you were talking about, but how to best expand the capacity of the economy. in that respect infrastructure is a very important investment, and it's not just one year plan. it's four years sustained together with reforms and have that -- how that money is spent. on the revenue side one of the most important things for growth isn't something that costs any money or raises any money, it's what is neutral over the medium and long term reform of the business tax system. it will generate money in the short run to invest in

infrastructure, but it will also help simplify the tax system and ensure that capital is being allocated to its higher -- highest rate of return. finally, there's other revenue measures that include, for example, higher level, from higher income households by cutting backs on their tax expenditures. that's part of that balanced approach to deficit reduction that sylvia talked about to help ensure that the economic plan is sustainable over the medium and long run. >> i wonder if as parting gift to all of us we have been covering you for a while, you give us your most candid assessment of when you think the next round of budget negotiations to take us beyond the most recent ryan-murray deal going to take place? clearly they are not going to take place this year. do you expect that will happen next year?

>> i think that what you see in the vision of the president's budget that he's put forward, and it goes to zach's question a little bit as well, is that a lot of what is most important for growth and opportunity is not just going to be what the level of deficit reduction is, but the composition of how we get there. the vision of bringing the deficit down on a sustainable pace for long term was partly to make sure that we weren't crowding out private investment. but it was always designed to make sure that we also weren't crowding out the public investment in the future. and if you let the budget go at the levels it has with the sequester, your deficit goes down. it helps it go down. but it does so at the expense of

crowding out the investments and the things the president and many people believe are most critical for the future. they may not have the -- you may not have the greatest constituency for the people who will be cured by cancer, by unknown n.i.h. investments, or the young -- the families that will be better because they got early childhood education. but i think that -- i think what you saw in ryan-murry, and what you see in the president's opportunity agenda, is really to say that we have to have a very important discussion about what is the composition of our budget in terms of how much we continue to invest in the future and the reason why the president's making the statement of putting that extra $56 billion above and fighting for that is he's recognizing that it's not just the level, it's the composition and whether that includes what's always made us great, which is

not just responding to the constituencies of the president, but investing in the young people and the productivity of the future. i think we are keeping that conversation going. and i think my hope is that people on both sides of the aisle will realize the importance of that going forward. and i'll leave it at that. >> $650 billion in new revenue, higher taxes. you talk about who's going to feel that pain. who is going to be spending more money -- all you do have in this budget you have seen tax relief for hard-pressed working families that will be continued, expanded for individuals who may not have dependents like in the earned income tax credit. there is a proposal to increase the dependent care credit for

people who have a child 5 years and under, make sure that the american opportunity tax credit. so the relief here goes very much to working families. and in terms of the -- where the revenues are, they are, we think, reasonable efforts to reduce the degree of tax expenditures and loopholes for people who are the most fortunate. there's no proposal here to raise rates. i think that there is question that i think many people have raised in tax reform on both sides which is whether a middle income family should be getting a 15% deduction or credits when they do things, or -- and then somebody who has significantly more income can deduct three times more than that. we may think of that as being a

little upside-down. the president's proposal to have there be a limit on tax expenditures for the most well off raises the most significant part of revenue in this proposal. that's the president has long proposed that. if you can remember back to the winter of 2012, the speaker of the house was suggesting one could raise almost $1 trillion through that type of tax reform. i think this will be -- as always the president's budgets make our tax code more fair, more progressive. would do better for people who want to invest in their future and college. for people trying to get up the ladder. and ask a little more from some of the most fortunate families. simply because the budget, as we have discussed, is about tough choices and about how we invest in the future in a way that is also good for growth and good for productivity that ends up benefiting everyone.

i think including those who might have a few less tax expenditures or tax avoidance techniques at their disposal. >> two very brief things i'd add to that is, the bulk of that revenue is from limiting the value to 28% as gene said. that would affect the top 1% or 2% of taxpayers. that's a proposal that's very consistent with the spirit of proposals by a range of economists on both sides of the aisle, including leading republican economists like glen hubbard, and marty felled stein, all of whom -- feldstein, all of whom talked about limiting the value of tax benefits for high income households as a way to address the deficit. the second biggest source is the buffet rule. if -- >> can you talk a little bit -- inaudible]

it >> i think that question has two parts to it. one is is the question of what's new in the budget. and the other is how do you work to move the ball forward on a number of things? and on the question of what's new, there are a number of things. whether that's the infrastructure and pro-growth tax we have brought together in a way, it is something new. we actually saw -- this past week, a republican bringing forth in the camp text, we saw that approach. i think that's something in temples that's something new but indicative of bipartisan support. the eitc that gene mentioned is something else. the childless workers, that's true. something you heard republicans whether it's paul ryan or rubio discuss. so that's something new. it is work based. people emphasize it because it is about work. the opportunity, growth and security initiative, is something else that i would put in the new category as well. so i think there are a number of

places where there are the new things while we continue on the overall themes. and a number of overall thinks we think are important. one of the things that's also important to recognize in terms of your question, ok, what does this mean for getting something done, is i think it's important to reflect actually on the omnibus. i don't think people had a lot of opportunity or chance to spend time on actually what happened in the omnibus. if you look at the omnibus and you look at things like tiger grants and administration proposal from last year, you saw double-digit percentage increases from sequester. you saw language actually being put into the omnibus that will afford us the opportunity to start making progress on some of the things that cecilia mentioned with regard to states' ability to start providing preschool -- universal preschool. so what will happen now is this budget, i think, is in a place, we have proposed what we would do in terms of the choices at a 15 level, and now making sure that like last year this budget

influences the choices that are going to be made throughout the appropriations process. as well as informs the conversation and debate that i think is related to john's earlier question. i think those are two very important things we try to construct a budget and will represent the president's vision for both of those things. >> there are some things that have been in the budget that weren't passed but they were never rejected. they may not have gotten the attention, but their issues are getting more attention now. the high school redesign proposal is making the cover of national news magazines. there is increasing support the business round table and business council for those proposals. so while it may not have been accepted before, there may be more attention. the proposals for more job driven training, we had the debate over u.i., has not so far

gone the way we wanted, but we saw a lot of republicans talking for the first time about how you can connect community colleges, apprenticeships, how we should deal with long-term unemployment. some proposals, the long-term unemployment fund, the $2 billion in apprenticeship, those are new proposals in this budget. i think there are other things in the skills part that were never rejected, but where there's a greater focus on them now. and they are hopefully, if people are fair-minded and open, reater recepivity as well. >> how would you see u.s. companies and foreign oppositions -- there is that overwhelming support, i believe, for the combination among job creators, i think there is great

support for the combination of a new business tax reform as well as for more infrastructure investment. infrastructure investment does not seem like a controversial issue when you hear from people who actually make decisions where to create and locate jobs in the united states. and i think that what the president's -- i think the president's proposal to reduce expenditures have a lower rate, as low as 28%, or 25% for manufacturing in the united states. have a minimum tax that would -- minimum tax on foreign earnings that would do -- take away significant incentives to play the various shifting profits around the world. the game goes on right now and hurts public trust and also

takes away a lot of activity that should be focused more on adding value and adding jobs. and i think that most people, they understand that there's provisions like accelerated depreciation. they are going to have higher savings. that there's usually a transition adjustment that's made when you're going to a new system. so i think most people understand the issue. that there are revenues that come in in the first 10 years 245 are not -- that are not sustainable. you can use them to lower rates further because they are more one time. i think the idea of that being used for infrastructure investment, which has such wide support, is one that is -- is ripe, whose time has come. and i think the fact that chairman camp decided to take the same approach should be a positive sign that this is an area. business tax reform and infrastructure that we as a country should come together on. whether we do or not, i won't try to predict, but we should.

>> i would like to ask a question when you get to ukraine bout the situation over there. isn't there a budget question here also in that there are republicans who are saying that the administration should re-examine how much is allocated in the defense budget because of the situation in ukraine. and has the administration given any consideration to that? first i would start with -- i'll do it from a defense budget perspective, and jay can handle beyond. i think it's important to reflect that there is an agreement, a ryan-murray agreement that set the levels for 15. in the president's budget that you see proposed today, you see the president suggesting that the 050 account, which is defense, department plus other things that do national security, the opportunity growth and security initiative suggest that is we believe a better place would be to have an

additional $28 billion. that's fully paid for. fully paid for. we would make choice abouts offsets that have to do with closing tax loopholes. we believe that's a choice we should make. i also point reflect in all the outdoors of the budget, the president's budget has higher levels of defense spending than those that are current law and those that have been supported. that is what i think we'll most likely see when we see proposals as they come out. i would start from the starting point is, great. why don't we all sign on to the president's budget. in terms of getting our defense funding to the higher levels that we believe are the appropriate levels. second, i would say as secretary hagel pointed to and general democratscy has pointed o -- democracy -- dempsey has pointed to, make sure we modernize our force, we provide the training and readiness we need.

the third point they both consistent made, please give us the certainty. because the defense budget is a five-year defense planning window that has to do with how we do acquisitions of equipment. it also has to do with what proportion of the entire defense budget hags to do with people. -- has to do with people. giving us certainty is the other thing. i think my response is, the president's budget is at higher levels. that's where we need to go. i'm hopeful that as we said coming back to the question of what will the president's budget do and influence, we believe these are the right levels. we believe what we should be doing is in the outyears buying back both on the nondefense discretionary side and the defense side, that we shouldn't operate at the lower levels that are the sequester levels. that's what the budget cost. -- does. we believe that's the right place to go. >> if i could just add that it merits examining the logic of

the republican critique that you mentioned, which on the one hand says, the president is spending too much, and on the other hand says, the cuts in defense are too deep. when the spending they are criticizing goes fully half to raising the levels of our defense budget. so if republicans are serious about that concern, they ought to support the initiative that would add another $26 billion to ur defense budget. >> made for increasing the defense budget by $26 billion, would you accept the total that ust did that, just increased the defense side in replacing sequestration. not through discretionary. >> the administration -- the budget as proposed does what the ryan-murray approach did which is replacement and one for one

defense and nondefense. we believe that both are equally important. >> any others on budget related ssues? it in the wake of health care.gov and the problems associated with that, can you go in more details in terms of what you're planning for -- i know we talked about huge sourcing, more efficiency, effectiveness, any other details? >> let me speak to three particular areas that we are going to focus on with regard to reforming the way that we in the federal government do both i.t. procurement and delivery. the three areas where we'll be focusing our attention on, one, making sure that the government has the best people. and i think as a part of the conversation we have had around

healthcare.gov, making sure we in the federal government are able to attract the bets talent. second is how do we attract the bets companies? the best companies in terms of the problems that we are working on. and do our current procurement rules and do our approaches do that? so that's the second area of focus. the third area is the best processes. and the best processes are both about how you attract -- these are all interrelated people, the companies that will be for these services. how do we think through the federal acquisition processes and the decisionmaking processes that can make us get to better answers? those are the three specific areas that we will be focusing on as we look in terms of you reference in the budget, you see that, and we are continuing to work specifically in those three areas.

>> the climate resilience fund was mentioned. how does that relate to the broader climate action plan and the energy initiatives in the president's budget? >> the overall effort, the climate action plan deals with the range of energy policies, things like investments in clean energy, things like moving on greenhouse gas emissions, and also dealing with resilience and making sure we are being a good partner to state and local governments as they prepare for the impacts of climate change. this is a piece of that. significant investment. again as i mentioned both through fema, to help state and local and tribal governments prepare, but also to include research data unlocking information that will be helpful in that process. and also building on our experience after superstorm sandy to make sure that we are investing in the right kinds of technologies. so there are multiple pieces of that. we consider it part of the verall target tax plan agenda.

>> the ryan-murray deal for 2014 ows 10, 12 discretionier spending, but your wugget shows 10-33 in base discretionary spending. can you explain that discrepancy? >> we built the budget and built it to the basic 10-14, the ryan-murray levels. there are puts and takes that have different technical places. for instance, our wildfire proposal that cecilia mentioned and how we do that would be one of the examples of why when you see those numbers in the budget what you see. the wildfire proposal, just to go over it briefly, give you an example what kinds of puts and takes. we believe that the issue of wildfire financing in the united states at this point in time is not being done in a way that's most cost efficient and

effective in temples impact. what happens is on an annual basis when the wildfires start, the department of interior and usda end up hollowing out. they hollow out the types of investments we need to make in the efforts in the space. so what they do is they take money from other places. they can't do planning and take money from other places we should be investment. what happens by notals but most of the time what happens is those moneys get replenished at a point in time. what we think is a better approach is to think how we use the disaster relief fund and we use that fund which is -- has levels above. so the fund is above the caps. and what we will use is use space within that for a portion of funding of wildfires. that's what one of the types of things that adds to those numbers. so the budget is built so when the appropriators look, they'll be able to see how we get to those numbers. there are things like that which is a wildfire cap adjustment

which is within authorized levels. we are not increasing the authorized appropriations. but that's part of what happens in those numbers. >> ok. have time for a couple of questions on other subjects. >> if there is no active fighting-- [inaudible] >> the position is that ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty must not be violated. and that military action taken by the russian government is inappropriate and unlawful. it is in vie lavings international law. it's in violation of a number of international obligations that the russian federation has. it's in violation of the 1994 buddha pest agreement that --

budapest agreement that russia signed on to. the answer to that we would not find that to be acceptable. i think that it is worth looking at what the president said earlier today, what secretary kerry said in kiev today. what ambassador power said yesterday at the united nations security council. the mobilization that we saw russia undertake and the movement of troops that we saw russia undertake, the closing of roads, the surrounding of military bases in cry mia -- crimea was all done in response to an imaginary threat. there is no credible reporting of violence against ethnic russians in ukraine, eastern ukraine or crimea, and the

president made clear and secretary kerry made clear and ambassador power made clear that if there is an issue and if there is protection that needs to be provided to ethnic russian in eastern ukraine, the proper and internationally lawful way to address those concerns is through international organizations. through the osce, united nations, and the united states would fully support efforts and would work with the ukranian government to support efforts to provide monitors and other means of assuring the protection of the rights of russian -- ethnic russians in ukraine. to fabry kate a reason to invade a country or to use military mobilization -- fabrication -- fabry kate a reason to invade -- fabricate a reason to invade a

country or use military mobilization is unacceptable. >> if you look at the public comments the president made and what the prime minister said in the overly office in aipac doesn't seem there is a meeting of the minds yet. >> we continue to work very closely with the israelis and palestinians on a framework for negotiations. you saw what the president said prior to his meeting with the prime minister. you have seen what others, including secretary kerry, have said about the opportunity here to move forward. the necessity of a framework for negotiations. and that effort continues. yes. [inaudible] >> i would say we continue to monitor the situation in crimea and the rest of ukraine very

closely. we stand by very strongly our support for ukraine's territorial integrity, for its sovereignty. we strongly support legitimacy of the new identify cranian government. a government which has been very responsible in its handing of events of the last days. and as you know secretary kerry announced a package of support that we want congress to work with us on very quickly so that e can complement -- complement i.m.f. assistance so ukranian government can deal with the economic challenges it faces. the >> i'm sure you saw president putin's comments, he's denying those forces are russian. what is the white house response to that? does the president believe he has an honest broker in putin when he's on the phone with him? >> president obama as always been very clear eyed about our

relationship with russia and our dealings with russian government officials, including president putin. we work cooperatively when it is in our interests and russia's interests where those interests could he enside. and achieve -- co-inside, and achieve national security aims for the united states accordingly. where we have disagreements we are very blunt about them. this would be one. it is a fact that russian military forces have taken over ukranian border posts. it is a fact that russia has surrounded or taken over practically all ukranian military facilities in crimea. it is a lot more difficult to it advance a pretext or an imaginary threat or fabry kated -- fabricated situation and have that fabrication stand for very long in today's world.

it is patently obvious that the things russian officials have been saying are happening in ukraine are not happening. and obviously we and you and everyone has means to verify that fact. our focus is on obviously making the point that russia has an alternative path to dealing with whatever legitimate concerns russia has about ethnic russians and russia's other interests in ukraine, including the crimea. we have long recognized that russia has long, deep, cultural and historical ties, as well as economic ties to ukraine. and it is our position that while the ukranian people may choose to further integrate with europe, they can do so while still maintaining strong cultural, historical, and economic ties to russia. to do both is not contradictory.

and we urge russia to utilize the paths legally available to it through international organizations to address the concerns they have about their interest and ethnic russians in ukraine. >> he's pausing and reflecting -- he's taking that from president putin's comments, is that -- >> president putin said and statements he made, i think that was an observation about those statements. two more. >> does the white house plan to issue any new directives that would allow health care insurers additional time to offer plans that don't current meet a.c.a. requirements? >> i don't have any policy announcements regarding that at this time. i would refer you to h.h.s. >> the president said he would like congress to take up the loan guarantee package as a first order of business. an you expand on any

commitments that the president may have heard from the hill about how soon that might have happened and whether he had a chance to talk with members of congress? >> i don't have any conversations between the president and members of congress to report out. i think there's ample opportunity since so many members have been speaking about ukraine for those they have been speaking torques namely reporters, to ask how soon they plan to act. on a package of assistance to ukraine, which would be an excellent use of their authority and time. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] it [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> you can find the president's budget linged online as well as all our coverage today of budget events. c-span.org. more coverage coming up in 10 minutes, 2:00 p.m. eastern, secretary sebelius and the health and human services budget proposal for 2015. administration officials will be back on capitol hill to talk about the budget. the house and senate committees. jack lew, the treasury secretary testifying tomorrow at 10:30 eastern on c-span3, and office of management and budget director burwell, will be before the house budget committee tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> c-span, we bring public affairs events from washington, directly to you. putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and

conferences, and offering complete gavel to gavel coverage of the u.s. house. all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span. created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in h.d., like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. >> the house gavels in in just under 10 minutes. eight bills under suspension today, including one to delay national flood insurance program premium increases. we'll have live coverage at 2:00 p.m. eastern. it's also primary day. the first in the nation. texas having their primary today. the "dallas morning news" saying republican primary voters have picked all state leaders for the past two decades, yet today they are poised to produce one of the most conservative slates of candidates in texas histry. more about today's primary from this morning's "washington journal." host: thanks so much for joining. i have the front page of the dallas morning use in front of me, the headline on the for what purpose does page, gob g.o.p.

continues pushing to right. what are the main headlines going into today' price marry day in texas? guest: the decision in the governor's race is pretty much over. both greg abbott, the republican, and wendy davis, the front running democrat, are likely to win easily the nominations. there are some ballot race that is are terrifically competitive. the lieutenant governor's race has -- republican side, has four candidates, including the incumbent lieutenant governor. they have all, as our headline suggest, moved as far to the right as they can in a strong appeal to texas primary voters who, in the republican party, are quite conservative. if you're here in austin or dallas or houston, your television is full of television ads in which virtually every republican candidate from lieutenant governor to agriculture commissioner, attorney general, and the railroad commissioner are featuring basically three

things. one is a bible, one is a gun, and one is an assurance that they don't like barack obama. so that's really the message on the republican side. the or headline is the national level. they'd jud cornyn, the incumbent u.s. senator, is being challenged by a number of republicans, including congressman steve stockman, who had hoped to be a strong tea party challenger in part of this national effort in many states, missouri, and can a. and elsewhere to challenge incumbent republican candidates, but stockman's challenge doesn't seem to have gone very well. he's been hurt by stories about his own finances, questions about whether he's serious or not in this race. john cornyn is expected to win renation

host: is cornyn expected to take the nomination without the possibility of a runoff here? guest: i think so. i do think that's going to happen even though there are a number of candidates. all he needs is 51%. the real question is not necessarily that he -- there won't be a runoff. there probably will not be a runoff. but what if stockman and others get 35% or 40% of the vote, what does that say about an incumbent and strongly conservative senate candidate senator in texas -- host: one of the leaders here on capitol hill, exactly. guest: exactly. we'll see. my guess is that cornyn win this is by 60-plus percent of the vote. host: what's happening in stockman's own 36 district? there's a race there to replace him and send a new member to congress. guest: i got to tell you, john, there must be 150 people running. not really, i'm kidding, but there is a whole group of people -- i think it's going to be very

difficult for anyone to differentiate one from another. none of them is a clear standout known widely among voters in the district. so that almost certainly will go to a runoff. host: one of those other congressional seats being launched is the fourth district. ralph hall, congressman, 90-year-old congressman, said this is his last race that he's going to be running in, but it may well be his toughest race, correct? >> absolutely t looks like a tough place. he basically is not making campaign appearances. he'll send a surrogate more often than not to appear at events, maybe to debate his challenger. this could really be the end for ralph hall. he has -- he was a democrat once upon a time. really reflected what's been happening in texas certainly over the last two decades, and that's a move to the republican party where republicans have won. and candidates like rick perry, our current governor, who was once a democrat, back in the day, have become republicans.

but this could be it for ralph hall. there's one other congressional race worth looking at, and that's congressman pete sessions. who -- an incumbent, been there 13 years. and very strongly conservative. it's a dallas area seat. he's being challenged strongly by a tea party advocate who is respected by many in the tea party, katrina pearson. i think the indication is, i talked to folks inside the sessions camp, they believe they are going to win this, but pearson, again a well respected tea party leader in the dallas area, is giving him a run for his money. host: this is another one of those tea party versus establishments candidates. sessions very much a part of the leadership on capitol hill for the republican party as well, correct? guest: absolutely. you got to say that cornyn and sessions and others who are being called liberals in the campaign vernacular, will probably not be liberals in most

other states. but in this race their opponent is invoking the l word. host: you brought up wendy davis earlier. likely to win her primary and move on. what has her primary campaign said about her ability to run statewide and run in november? guest: not very much. she needed to have a lot of things going for her and she needed to look forward to her opponent, likely opponent, attorney general greg abbott, to make a few mistakes. and so far wendy davis is the candidate who has made more mistakes. she fashioned her campaign, around her a narrative, compelling personal narrative about being a divorced mother, being in a trailer park who worked her way all the way to harvard. some of the questions have been raised about that story. not that the fundamentals aren't true, they are. but many of the details were conflated or omitted and so some questions were raised about whether she's ready for this

job. and her campaign really bungles the response around the stories raising questions about her knave of it --aire tifment they have to get things right. there is a call by some democrat money people and others sort of privately and inside the davis campaign to right that ship to maybe bring some other things in from washington on a more national experience if she is going to seriously compete for the nomination. she would be the first governor -- democratic governor of texas if she were elected. susan richards in 1990, it's been that long since a democrat has had the governor's mansion here. host: wayne slater of "dallas morning news," another bush running in texas. this is george p. bush, jeb bush's son. what's he running for down there? guest: land commissioner, which may not sound like much to anybody else, but it's a heck after good fit for him. it's an office that deals with

public lands, raises money, overseas funding from oil and other gas interests to fund schools. and also has a veterans component. those all fit perfectly for george p. bush. he is bright. he's sharp, he's articulate, he's not seriously challenged in the primary. very likely is going to win in november. his campaign is playing a keep away game basically, trying to limit his access to the media. making sort of brief campaign appearances to supportive groups where he does very, very well. he's not only a very attractive candidate, he's a very smart guy. shown some political astuteness. but stay away from any potential controversy. any questions, and my guess is it's going to be hard for me to catch up with him a whole lot on the campaign trail. >> that conversation ail