>> you could calculate inaccurate tabulation than the one that is here now. the problem that is that the pellets are making that argument. the only argument they have made is that you cannot have aggregate limits. the argumentaking that the regulations that exist about transfers from one entity to the other prevent a lot of what you are worried about. if they are not sufficient, they could be bolstered. the aggregate is that wrong? there's nothing more they can be done to prevent transfers from and joined committees or from one member to another or state parties to candidates? apologizei am -- i

for repeating myself but circumvention is not the only enterprise. it is a direct corruption problem. alternatives address that problem. >> i don't know understand that. that -- what if they just took the money and they burned it? that would be a corruption problem? >> they are not going to burn it. >> when does the corruption occur? personappens when the makes the transfer and they have power and they want to corrupt. >> it creates an indebtedness it when itarty leadership is handed over. it quite parallel to mcconnell. it is why we have aggregate limits because these parties are

for medically sealed from one another. our leaders in particular will feel a sense of indebtedness. could do -- i will try to address the circumvention problem. upt they have done is come with a whole series of things that you have to do. it is not just one thing and. you have to say no giving money pac's. you have to do five or six things to deal with the risk of corruption. a seems to me like significantly more restrictive means and will impose first amendment costs of its own. >> it seems to me fanciful to think that the sense of gratitude that an individual senator or congressman is going to feel because of the substantial contribution to the republican national committee or

democratic national committee is any greater than the sense of gratitude that that senator or congressman will feel to a pac which is spending an enormous amount of money in his district or in his state for his election. it seems to me the latter is much more identifiable. and there is nothing in the law that excludes that. apparently, that is not too much of a risk. >> i am not here to argue whether jurisprudence is correct. we accept it and the line is that there is -- that there is an unacceptable risk when contributions are too high. if i may just say this in conclusion. >> your answer is that that is

the law. understanding that your answer is that buckley has settled that issue. no more discussion is necessary. >> we think that the risk of corruption israel and -- corruption is real. if justice scully is critique of the situation is correct and is disabling to candidates and parties, congress can address that by changing the contribution laws. this court is having second thoughts of its rulings that expenditures are not corrupting, we could change that part of the law. [laughter] >> and far be it from me to recommend that you don't. >> the record, as far as i recall it from several years ago, talked about at length -- i

don't like using the word corruption. i like using in integrity of the process. not when it comes to this part, the aggregate is about circumvention. and i think you are quite right to say. but there is a huge corruption aspect to this. but we don't have a lot of information in the record about that. do we? did i miss it? >> with respect to mcconnell, it is really a very close parallel. >> it is a very close harrell l. -- close parallel. but they don't think about it that way and that is why i have been pushing this idea. let's go into this, ok? you want us to go into it? go into it. >> i understand that, your honor. after all, these aggregate in the sameenacted

statue into which that legislative record pertains and it does go to the same problem. therefore, it bears upon it and that is ample evidence justify upholding these aggregate limits and i would strongly urge the court to do so. thank you. >> ms. murphy, you have three minutes remaining. >> thank you, just a few quick points. the general talk a lot about circumvention today because the circumvention argument doesn't really work. it is already addressed by the prophylactic efforts that it contains. there are much narrower and tailored ways to get at this. so what we are hearing here today is a corruption argument. as the questioning reveals, once you accepted the corruption theory that the government is putting forward, there really isn't a way to continue to draw a line between independent expenditures and the three-point

million dollar check to all of .hese different individuals there certainly will be just as much gratitude to be -- to the individual who spends $6 million and supporting one candidate on that candidates they have. you really have a system that is forcing money out of the most transparent way possible to make contributions which is directly choosing candidates and the parties and the pac's. i >> we will hear from senator schumer and senator white house. they spoke with reporters for 20 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. i am very pleased to be joined

by my colleague and friend senator why tohouse. the supreme court announces decision. while we are still pouring through the text, a few things are clear. the roberts court has yet again turned back the clock on our democracy by eliminating the cap on overall donations to federal candidates, political parties and pac's. this in itself is a small step but it is another step on the road to ruination of our political system that the supreme court is clearly headed down. they wish to dismantle all limits on giving, piece by piece, until we are back to the days of the robber barons when anyone or anything could get unlimited money, undisclosed, and make our political system seems so rigged that everyone will lose interest in our democracy.

the implications of this decision are huge even though the individual question before the court was small. the koch brothers and other wealthy donors have already wreaked havoc on our political system. this decision and those that follow, it -- will seems, by the narrowest of margins, will make the koch brothers lives easier and americans lives harder. it could lead to interpretations of the law that would result in the end of any fairness in the political fairness as we know it. we sell what happened in the wake of citizens united. we saw the flood of special-interest money. over thewyers poring decision and its implications to figure out ways around the law. and we will see much more of that again much of the money that is donated is anonymous. we don't know who is donating it.

most of the commercials run have nothing to do with the actual interests of who is donating the money. today's ruling decided once again by the mere slimmest of majorities and is yet another nail in the coffin of our free and fair election system. by eliminating aggregate contribution limits, there is keep a to allow -- to millionaire giving one check to one member of a party in congress. you might remember tom perkins who said wealthier people ought to get more votes in the american elections. i would ask chief justice -- because that is where the outcome is headed. so it is a sad day. again, implications of this particular decision are significant but not huge.

but the direction the court is headed in is dramatic and just dark. i just want to mention one other thing. our colleague tom udall could not be with us. a has introduced constitutional amendment that would allow the congress to impose limits that the supreme court seems to be part -- seems to deem part of free speech. the opponents of the -- the proponents of this decision talk about free speech. that is an absurdity. no amendment is absolute. you can't falsely scream fire in a crowded theater. you cannot distribute child pornography. you can't libel somebody. those are limitations on free speech. americansllogical to that a limitation should be on the wealthiest of donors reading our political system. ,ut somehow, the supreme court

five of them anyway, cling to this idea that putting the same dishonest commercial on television 44,111th time is a vital part of free speech. i don't think thomas jefferson, george washington, or any of the founding fathers would ever think that this was a mandate of free speech. i just want to add a few points. the first is that, once again, this was a 5-4 decision. once again, we see the supreme court behaving in a way that would be matched if the five conservative justices made it a strategy to go off and sit in a room by themselves and decide how best to implement the republican agenda and then came out and did it. the recurrence of these 5-4 decisions are very important and the issues. it is a signal of a court that

leans towards getting its way rather than seeking consensus among the judges. case, and in citizens united, getting its way means aligning political power in this country with financial wealth. and that is a step that is a bad one for democracy. the idea that your voice in this country counts only in proportion to your wealth is a very unfortunate idea but it is the base of both citizens united and this decision. the last thing i will mention is that this is a court that knows essentially nothing about elections. it is the first court in a long time on which no one has ever run for office. and to listen to them

pontificate amateurishly about elections and corruption when they have no more sense of that ultimate amateur is i know how to eat so i can open a restaurant. the discussion of corruption and how it works in elections is amateurish and naïve to an extreme that boggles the mind. and it really makes me wonder whether they thought this through or whether they just needed to check that box in order to get where it wanted to go. it is a very disturbing decision following a very disturbing decision in citizens united. just one other point. the rulesairman of committee and we will be holding hearings on this decision to see if there is anything we can do. >> supporters of this decision say it will improve the decision because it will provide incentives for money to go to disclose to donations of candidates rather than just outside groups, including the [indiscernible] what is your response to that? dark response is that the

many groups are dark because they wanted dark and they will keep it dark. this will simply allow more money to cascade through the system. i don't think it will reduce the amount of money that goes through the super pac's and the 501 c three and four, but it will increase the number of very wealthy people who have a disproportionate effect on our political system. isn't this kind of a wash? you talk about the koch brothers. they are already able to donated a lot of money. effect of this decision is not that large because we are already awash in money. but where it -- it shows where the supreme court is headed which is to dismantle other even more significant limits so that any person can write out a check putny size and undisclosed

it into unlimited numbers of races. like i said, it would be like the 1890's. we go back to the days of the robber barons. >> it is a little bit ironic that we are spending so much time and energy and effort trying to support ukraine as it emerges from corrupt and oligarchic government while we have a supreme court that is busily at home kicking down the protections that protect american democracy from that same kind of oligarchic government. >> i would like to say to justice kennedy. i was once in an elevator with him alone and i was so tempted but you're not supposed to say anything about any cases. this was not an impending case. but what i would like to say to him and i can say publicly, do you know how you are ruining in aracy in this country sort of guise of improving free speech?

>i don't think that the koch brothers lack for free speech. of all of the money that is covered under this case, the robber barons -- knowing >> i said we are headed in that direction. damages, let's say you are a person who doesn't believe in undisclosed money. whos say you are a person doesn't want to go to a 501 c4 because there might be an iris investigation down the road, you can write one check to a joint committee of 232 house members and give them each the maximum. easier -- upuch until 10 years ago, we were trying to make it harder for very wealthy people to send huge

amounts of money cascading through our system. and thiszens united case, we are making it easier. if you think that is a good thing, then you'll like this decision. saymost americans would this money has to much of an interest already and this makes it easier for them. >> it reminds me a little bit of chairman leahy's remarks. when he got to the senate, he thought that the seniority system was really unfair and archaic. but as he spent more and more time here, he decided that it is a better and better idea. annette -- the same analysis applies to this decision. the richer you are, the more you think that this decision could be a good idea. but if you are a medical -- if you are a middle class american and you cannot make significant donations, then washington is

paying too much attention to wealthy concerns, then this kicks the door wide open. what is the impact on new york city and its impact on washington? i think that any city -- new york has a lot of wealthy people. but this does not have a geographic effect. it has an economic effect. the wealthy -- the wealthier you are, the more weight you will have in this democracy. the frightening thing about this decision is what were the limitations on it? the limitations were the facts of the case, not the supreme court logic. takespreme court's logic it in a direction that would get rid of all limits and go back to the days of the robber barons. assume them across

will not unilaterally disarm or disadvantage you -- >> i actually checked with some people who would know. no one knows. no one knows. this is not a decision that advantages one party over the other. it advantages the very wealthy over everybody else. the very wealthy should be allowed to participate in the system, but most people would agree, if you did a balancing test, already their weight is disproportionate and this makes it more so. >> what other campaign-finance rules might be under threat in the supreme court? >> i think individual limits. those weren't challenged in this case. a that person could write check $10 million directed to a candidate. you asked about the koch brothers. they still have to do it right now to an independent expenditure and that is not, as

someone who has run the dnc see, if i can be a candidate to get $5 million undisclosed, to my campaign treasury that i can spend as i want, that is far more effective to that candidate than someone pointing $5 million into a 501c 4. >> [indiscernible] >> again, most of these decisions are first amendment decisions so it is very hard, but we will explore what kind of legislative responses are possible within the bounds of the supreme court decision. but as i said, it makes the udall constitutional amendment much more attractive. >> the chief actually laid out a legislative responses you could take. have you thought about those? >> they said all along we could implement more disclosure. we tried. our republican colleagues used to say that disclosure is the answer.

they have in an act of supreme self-interest been against disclosure. i guess [indiscernible] >> i'm upset as an american. as somebody who believes government can be a force for good, this decision just weakens everybody's faith in government. and that is the enemy of democracy. if people lose face in -- faith in democracy, faith in some ability to control the events that are occurring in washington, the actions of elected officials, the average person loses that faith, this is a much different country and i fear the consequences. i genuinely fear what is happening here. go talk to average people. they are just so disillusioned in the system. one of the main reasons -- look, the tea party has gridlocked our government.

how does the tea party have such power? some of it is that they dominate some of the republican primaries but much of it is they have 20 people and they can call up and push a button and say put this money in. we sought when the government was shut down. the ads in your district that you are opposing, a small number of people who really want to paralyze the government are just being given such huge disproportionate weight. but the average citizen who doesn't follow in detail because government doesn't work. that is terrible for our democracy. >> and if you are a court watcher, note the lack of humility and the lack of judicial conservatism to these decisions. makingre judges who are sweeping determinations without trying to bring the court together, without trying to unify their colleagues the way judge warren, for instance,

famously did in brown versus board of education. they are trespassing into an area in which they know nothing. beenn which they have wrong. the spending will be independent of candidates and it will be transparent -- you will know who it is. those decisions were factually wrong. find the fact that appellate judges are not supposed to do. indisputablyn proven wrong and they won't go back and reconsider their plain error. they just keep charging forward. that is not the sign of a court that is either -- that is anything but activist. and it is the son of a court that has an agenda, that is really worry some when they take something that has been defended

for million -- for hundreds of years with blood and tears of americans and begins to turn us into a country where the money rules and everybody else can go hang. >> does anybody think that the coax brothers independent -- that the koch brothers freedom of speech have been violated? the argument just doesn't make any sense. and it shows instead it is an argument from people who does not know how politics really away and the fx of money from the interest of people too often. >> can you just -- can you discuss any legislation affecting wall street reform? >> climate change. senators have a record on climate change before his

citizens united came along? john mccain ran for president to do something about climate change. waxmanrk voted for markey in the house. then comes citizens united. name one who will come to the floor right now and admit that climate change is a real problem and that harbin pollution is anything worth doing about. that is a real problem. farms, ourting our families, our forests, our shorelines, our fishermen. the fact that we have a party that is in complete denial of that subject and that it comes complete in the wake of citizens united. if you can't put those dots together, then you really can't although a story very well and

that is really what is going on. >> we don't mean any of you here. [laughter] >> thank you. next washington journal, we will talk to washington state congressman jim republicanbout the house budget proposal that includes cuts to the obama administration health care law. then represented commercially on the mental health care system. then daniel sorg discusses the current state of cuba and possible political changes ahead. we will also take your calls on the supreme court's campaign-finance decision. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal live each morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> the house budget committee worked on the gop budget plan wednesday. we will show you a russian of

the next on c-span. directorformer cia testifies on capitol hill about the 2012 benghazi u.s. consulate attack. imagine, this is not a moment that i had been waiting for. when you carry the mantle of progress, there is precious little glory in defeat. but sometimes we spend so much time lionizing the winners and a labeling the losers. we lose sight of the victory we all share. in this crown jewel of democracy. is aee, mr. speaker, this day to celebrate a power that belongs not to any political , noy but to the people matter the margin, no matter the majority. across the world, from

bosnia to chechnya to south africa, people laid down their lives for the kind of voice we take for granted. powerten, the transfer of is an act of pain and carnage. not one as we see today of peace and desist a -- peace and decency. at here in the house of years,ntatives, for 219 longer than any democracy in the world, we need the people's voice with peace and civility. and respect. friendshipand with and the deepest respect, you are now my speaker and let the great debate began. i now have a high honor and distinct privilege to present to the house of representatives are new speaker, the gentleman from

georgia, newt gingrich. [applause] you 35an brought to euros ago and brought to you today as a public service from your local cable provider. >> the house committee moved to move the budget committee out of the full house. with more than $2 trillion coming from repealing the health care law. here is part of wednesday's markup. >> first of all, i want to thank the members of this committee. this is the second year in this session so this should not be a strange process for anybody

except for the exception of our two new members. each one of our budgets has been on time and it has been in balance. and though we haven't always agreed on every detail, we have worked through the tough issues on behalf of our constituents. i also want to thank the ranking member mr. ben howland. i believe we will have a lot to talk about today and we will not always see eye to eye. but he and his staff have done their part to uphold his committees long tradition of bipartisan cooperation. i want to thank them for that as well. asked a bipartisan budget act just a few months ago. some people might be wondering why are you even doing a budget if one is now in place. here is how i see it. that agreement was a step in the right direction but a bare minimum. before that, the senate had not passed a budget in nearly four years. talks had broken down.

so senator murray and i tried to change that and we found some modest two-year agreement to fulfill our most basic responsibilities. military from arbitrary across-the-board cuts. we returned to the power of the prospective congress and we reduced the deficit without raising taxes. so the agreement was a step in the right direction. but from our perspective, it did not go far enough. it did not do enough to address of our-- the driver debt. it did not do enough to get our economy growing again. nearly five years after the recession, many families still haven't recovered. over the past five years, economic growth have systole failed to meet a staycations. the congressional budget office has lowered its economic forecast. the budget and the economy are closely linked. just as a weak economy can drag the budget in the red, a responsible budget can help propel the economy forward.

so if washington is serious about helping working families, for getting families out of work back to work, then it needs to get serious about our national debt. and if recent events are any indication, we also have to get serious about our national defense. the world has gotten only more dangerous. wants tohe president cut defense spending even further. under his budget, the army would shrink to pre-world war ii levels. the navy to pre-world war i levels, and the air force to its smallest size ever. half of the cruise in fleet would be on drydock. we would retire the a-10 and that youtube. and we would have 10 carrier strike. if we stay on our current path, we will put both our economy and our national security at risk. that is why we wrote this budget. we owe it to the country to lay out an alternative.

we believe every person deserves a fair shot at a brighter future. everyone deserves an america that works. we owe the american people a balanced budget. because a balanced budget will expand opportunities by creating jobs. and by supporting our military, it will help keep our country safe. presidents budget, it never balances. our budget balances in 10 years. it puts us on the path to paying off our debt. our children and grandchildren can inherit a debt-free interest. we stop spending money we don't have. we make reforms. our critics make all of this [inaudible] but the federal government will spend $48 trillion over the next 10 years three this budget will spend nearly $43 trillion.

on the current path, spending will grow on average by 5.2% a year. nearly $33 trillion is in now. ar. under our budget, spending will grow on average 3.5% a year. increasing spending by 3.5% instead of 5.2% is hardly draconian. under this plan we will expand opportunity by growing our economy. 5.2% is hardly draconian. under this plan, we will expand opportunity by growing our economy. we will provide families with a fair, simple, tax code to boost wages, and create jobs. we will restore fairness by cutting spending and combatting cronyism. we will strengthen the safety net to help people get back on their feet. and we will secure seniors' retirement by strengthening medicare and other vital programs. now i know our friends on the other side might dispute this point. but remember, it was obamacare that ended medicare as we know

it. remember, it was obamacare that sut $700 billion from medicare. it was obamacare that set up a board of 15 unelected bureaucrats to ration care for seniors. and that's why this budget will repeal obamacare in its entirety. we will end the raid on medicare. we will make no changes for those in or near retirement and as for the next generation, they will get to choose from a number of plans, including a traditional medicare option so that they can find a plan that works best for them. cbo says such an approach would lower costs for taxpayers and for seniors. it's a win-win. finally, this budget will protect our national security. it's the first responsibility of the federal government. it will provide our troops the training, the equipment, and the compensation they need. the budget resolution rejects the president's budget and adds $274 billion more to our military. under our plan, the army will

maintain its current strength, we will have 11 carriers and a full cruiser fleet, key modernization programs like the joint strike fighter will stay on track, and we will fully fund the president's request for veterans affairs. this budget will keep our national security strong, and make our economy even stronger. cbo says the deficit reduction in this budget will produce stronger and stronger economic growth over time. by 2024 according to cbo real economic output will be 1.8% higher than otherwise would be or about $1,100 per person and they will continue to grow going forward. after five years of big spending, and little results, we think it's irresponsible to take more from hard-working families to spend more in washington. it's just that simple. every family must balance their budget. washington should do the same. and with the right reforms in place we can strengthen our

national security, we can foster a healthier economy, create jobs, and raise take-home pay. and with that, i'd like to recognize the ranking member for his opening remarks. >> well, thank you mr. chairman. and let me thank the chairman for making sure we structure our debate and conversation in a civil way. as the chairman said, we have very sharp differences. we will express them clearly. but at the end of the day, we've been able to conduct business to this committee in a civil manner. now we agree on one thing, mr. chairman. and that is that budgets are a reflection of our vision for america. they reveal our priorities. they demonstrate what we value. and what we don't. they are about fundamental choices for the future direction of our country. the president has presented a budget that will help boost job growth, sharpen america's competitive edge, expand opportunity, and protect our nation. now we have a republican budget. of all the reckless republican

budg budgets we have seen, a regret to say, this one is the worst for america. many will argue that this budget should not be taken seriously because it will go nowhere in the senate. but the public should take it very seriously. because it tells people exactly what our republican colleagues in congress would do if they had the power to impose their will on the country. so what does this budget mean for america? what choices does it make? at its core, this budget rigs the rules of the game for wealthy special interests at the expense of everyone else. it cuts tax rates for multimillionaires by one-third, while it guts vital investments in our children's future, squeezes the middle class, and violates important commitments to our seniors. china and our economic competitors will eat our lunch in the global arena if we pass this budget. it provides perverse incentives to ship american jobs overseas, while shortchanging investments in jobs here at home.

as we will see today, it makes historically reckless cuts in areas that help power our economy. education, scientific research, innovation, advanced manufacturing, and diverse energy sources. all told, its cults to nondiscretionary spending are a staggering $791 billion below the already unsustainable sequester level. that takes those investments to almost 40% lower as a share of our economy than at any time in the last 50 years through republican and democratic administrations. and at a time when we should be modernizing our infrastructure, this budget slashes the transportation budget by a whopping $52 billion this year alone. stopping new projects, and throwing construction workers off their jobs. it will condemn the united states to a potholed road of economic decline, and it rejects the one measure that, according to the congressional budget

office, could immediately unleash more economic activity and grow our economy, comprehensive immigration reform. so, let's dig into these numbers a little bit. starting with our kids' education, which is vital to a bright future for all of us. the saddest part about this budget is that it casts a dark shadow over the american dream. it violates the fundamental promise that every hard-working american should have a fair shot at success. at a time when we need to be investing more in our kids' education, it slashes funding for education and job training by over $145 billion. and after cutting that part of the education budget, it then cuts current policy support for higher education by another $205 billion. students who want to go to college will have a very rough time unless they're born to well-to-do families. this budget eliminates the one guaranteed source of pell

grants. it starts charging students interest on their loan while they're in college. it discontinues the college tuition tax credits for middle income families. and it reverses new efforts to relieve the debt burden upon many students. so much for addressing the lack of upward mobility. rung by rung this budget knocks the steps off the ladder of opportunity. if you're to the manner born, cheers. for everybody else, hogwash. take seniors as our next example. those on medicare will immediately pay more, immediately for diagnostic screening and other preventive health services. those with high prescription drug costs will see the doughnut hole reopen, and their prices will skyrocket. seniors with high drug costs will pay nearly $1200 more per year on average. millions of seniors in nursing homes will be especially hurt by the reckless cuts to medicaid. over two-thirds of the base medicaid program supports the

elderly, and the disabled. this budget cuts the medicaid budget in the last year by 25%. in addition to repealing the medicaid provisions in the affordable care act. at the same time, it ends the current medicare guarantee, forcing guarantee forces seniors to face large premium increases. and on top of all that, it keeps the medicare sequester cut on health care providers to the tune of $140 billion. middle class families are also very hard hit and they will see the tax burden increase to finance winfall tax breaks for the very wealthy. it's as if chairman camps reality-based tax reform bill never existed. it's as if he was beamed up because while his tax reform proposal has a top rate of 35%, this one again says you're going to reach 25%.

the math doesn't change year to year, mr. chairman. if you reduce the top rate for millionaires by one third, from 39% to 25%, you will increase the tax burden on middle income families with kids by an average of $2,000 each. this budget also delivers probably its cruelest blow to those who are seeking to climb out of pofr tan into the middle class. it reveals that much of the post-election talk of addressing poverty issues was just that, i'm afraid, talk. during the last election governor romney stated he wasn't focused on helping the 47%. we remember that. this budget sets out the prove that. it's nothing short of an assault on americans struggling to stay afloat economically. the cuts to food nutrition programs and medicaid are designed to help prevent people falling into deep poverty. this gets rid of those safety nets. mr. chairman, we remember the

big debate just last year over the farm bill. republican colleagues proposed $40 billion in cuts. in the end it was $8 billion after much debate. this budget, $125 billion plus cuts to food and nutrition programs. and this whole strategy, this whole ideologically is premised on the false and pernicious notion that providing struggling families with minimal food and nutrition support zaps their willingness to work, their motivation. as if taking away minimal food and nutrition programs will somehow have more jobs pop up and people will be running to those jobs. it is no wonder that faith groups have criticized past republican budgets as failing to meet basic moral standards and this, i believe, is the worst yet. now, our colleagues say this is all necessary. these bitter austerity measures

are necessary to reduce the deficit but if that's really republicans' pair mount concern, why do they refuse to close one single tax break to help reduce the deficit? not one. they say they don't want to pass on debts to future generations but apparently don't care enough about that to reduce a tax break for a koch brother or any other special tax. why place all the burden of deficit reduction on middle class, kids, seniors and middle class who don't have tax preferred stock options. finally, and mr. chairman, i have to say this is the thing that probably most upsets republican colleagues, this budget does not balance. it is a total fraud. it's a total fraud to claim that this budget balances in ten years at the same time republicans have voted more than 50 times to repeal the affordable care act. why? why is that true?

because this budget includes all the medicare savings from the affordable care act. it includes every penny of revenue from the affordable care act. that is $2 trillion from the affordable care act embedded in this republican budget. so if you're repealing the affordable care act, you're repealing those provisions. this budget takes away the benefits of the affordable care, plugging the doughnut hole but it keeps all the savings and all the revenue, $2 trillion and does not balance 10 years from now without those revenues and save frgs the affordable care act. so you got to choose. you can't have it both ways. no one will be fooled. either you're in favor of keeping all those provisions from the affordable care act or you're going to claim a balanced budget but it is just not true to claim both at the same time. so, mr. chairman, we're looking forward to a spirited debate about the choices that are made in this budget. we think it is the wrong

direction for america. we will have an alternative proposal. the president's already put an alternative proposal on the budget but we do look forward to a healthy debate about these choices so thank you. >> the ranking member does not disappoint. thank you. now we will take our 50-minutes whatever left, 53 minutes left, yeah, 53 left and distribute to our side and then the minority. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, the vice chair, mr. price. >> thank you, mr. chairman. clearly the american people know that the path we're on won't work. the economy's not thriving. record deficits continue. and the mantra of division trying to divide the country, not unify the country continues. we have just had a display of just now. the other side seems to be happy with the doldrums in the american environment. fewer success stories. more jobs leaving america. higher taxes. borrowing more money from foreign countries. compromising opportunities for future generations. we believe there's a better way.

real solutions. and that's our budget. a responsible, balanced budget. a path to prosperity for all. the chairman mentioned increasing spending for defense and national security. this is a dangerous world. getting more dangerous by the day. we account for that in our budget. the president irresponsibly seems to bury his head in the sand. in my short time i want to talk about a couple specific issues. as a physician i recognize that health care is in upheaval. docs are leaving the practices. seniors are losing their doctors. our budget positively addressing these issues. we save and strengthen and secure medicare. how? by positive reform. more choices. putting patients at the center not government. in fact, the congressional budget office in a report last september shows that our solution, get this, mr. chairman, our solution saves money for both seniors and the government, both. real solutions. another exciting difference between our budget and the

president's budget and i know the other side's budget, we understand that a growing economy is vital to getting things back on track. the past five years have been dismal and they haven't helped. the congressional budget office evaluated our proposed policies and said if we're able to institute our plan of saving over $5 trillion over 10 years that there would be significant benefit to the economy. realistic scoring shows and i quote, the cbo, congressional budget office finds that reducing budget deficits is a net positive for economic growth. deficit reduction creates long-term economic benefits because it increases the pool of national savings and boosts investment thereby raising economic growth and job creation. these benefits are both significant and lasting. this dynamic would reduce budget deficits or increase budget surpluses by roughly $82 billion in 2023. that's right. with $5 trillion in excess of deficit reduction we would boost the economy. this is an exciting and

realistic appraisal of action. i'm proud to stand with my fellow budget committee members and commend the staff for the work they have done and i urge support of this positive solution. >> now we'll hear from mr. garrett, two minutes. >> and i thank you. thank the chairman. thank the chairman for all the work he's work into this budget and all the committee staff, as well, for this resolution that comes before the committee today. you know, american families and butzs continue to struggle in our country. the struggle against the reality of this the obama economy. for more than five years now, more than five years since the recession hit, long-term unemployment in this country persists. and when job seekers do find a job, well, they too often find that that it's a part time work and that's their only option. so contrary to the rosy proclamation that is we often hear from the administration, the job market really is struggling to regain its

foothold. and that's just not me saying this. this is not partisan rhetoric. it was chair yellen that remarked recently, and i quote, the existence of such a large pool of partly unemployed workers is a sign that labor conditions are worse than indicated by the unemployment rate. end quote. so this reality is symptomatic actually of a more fundamental problem. it is a job destroying trifecta, if you will. it's obamacare, overregulation and it's deficit spending. otherwise known as obama-nomics. it's holding back a solid economic turnaround for all americans. so today what will we do about it? today this committee will pass a fiscal blueprint to counter five years of policy that is have not worked for the average american. budget plan we'll consider today is a plan for growth. this budget is grounded on basic math. basic mathematical principle you

cannot fix the debt problem until you get the budget under control. and as many have long said, we need a balanced budget plan to prevent further dipping into the red. we need a balanced budget to give creators of jobs a reason to hire. i urge my members from both sides of the aisle to accomplish that by passing this budget today. i yield back. >> thank you. now we'll hear two minutes from the gentleman from california, mr. campbell. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is my ninth year and last year on this committee and i would just like to make sort of two points on my way out. i remember when dick cheney at vice president said deficits didn't matter and the friends on the other side of the aisle jumped on that and now seems the obama administration took the same tact that deficits don't matter but in between those two statements there was a period of time in which there was bipartisan agreement and understanding that deficits do matter. that they mortgage the future and they inhibit growth in the present. we all know what's going to

happen today and we all know what will happen with the budget this year. but i hope that next year when i'm not here but most of you are that we get back to that bipartisan understanding that deficits do matter. we will disagree on how to accomplish a balanced budget. but those disagreements and those arguments are worth having. to argue that somehow the deficits don't matter and that we don't need to balance this budget is simply wrong. second point i'd like to make is about the entitlements. we have had people sit in this witness chair from the left, the right and the center for all of these nine years and say that the entitlement spending is unsustainable, that social security, medicare, medicaid the rest of them will not survive if we don't reform them. that is something again on which there should be bipartisan agreement. maybe we disagree on how to reform them but not only should

we reform them for their own sake but increasingly the entitlements are squeezing out the spending priority tons right and the left and that's something upon which we should be able to agree, as well. we won't agree today but i hope that we can start to set in place the building blocks to where perhaps next year these two things can be dealt with and i yield back. >> mr. mcclintock? we're going to skip order a little bit and i yield two minutes to mr. mcclintock. >> thank you, mr. chairman. august of 2010 the chairman of the joint chiefs warned us the greatest threat to the national security was our national debt. we have gone another $4 trillion deeper in debt since he gave that warning. indeed, since inauguration day 2009, this nation has piled up more new debt than we had acquired from the first day of the george washington

administration into the third year of the george w. bush administration. we were told this would jumpstart the economy but it hasn't. instead, it's deprived markets of the capital that would otherwise be loaned to businesses seeking to expand jobs, to consumers seeking to make purchases and to home buyers seeking to reenter the housing market. we all know if you live beyond your means today you are going to have to live below your means in the future. that is the future that we've created for our children. balancing this budget and ultimately paying down the national debt is a national security imperative. it is an economic imperative. and it is a moral imperative. now under chairman ryan's leadership the house is poised to pass the fourth budget in a row that will ultimately balance. that stands in stark contrast to the president's budget that never balances and that condemns our nation to a debt spiral that will consume our future.

it does so by reforming and reorganizing our social safety nets, preventing their impending bankruptcy and restoring them to sound financial foundations for the generations to come. time is not our ally. every day we delay the problem becoming more intractable and the road back becomes more difficult, protracted and perilous. we are told by the ranking member not to bother since the senate and president will never agree to put our nation back on the road to solvency. sadly, that's true. i look baurd to a day perhaps not long off when they will become willing partners to balance our budget and by doing so to restore our nation's prosperi prosperity, security and future. >> thank you. now we'll hear two minutes from the gentle lady of tennessee, ms. black. >> thank you, mr. chairman. again, i want to thank you for your leadership on this very important issue. you unlike the president's budget, this budget is the

serious proposal that balances our budget and helps our economy grow. we all know that our nation is $17.4 trillion in debt and if we want to preserve this country for our children and our grandchildren, we must reform the way that washington works. everyone knows that medicare will soon go bankrupt and that's why i'm happy that this budget proposal saves this important program for our seniors and for future generations. by transitioning into a premium support model, we can preserve medicare for those in near retirement and strengthen medicare for younger generations. furthermore, this budget ends the obamacare raid on the medicare trust fund and repeals the independent payment board to ensure the seniors get the care they deserve. and despite what some critics say, this does not eliminate traditional medicare. instead, it ensures that

americans will always have traditional medicare as an option. under this plan, every senior will have the support they need to get the care that they deserve. and those who attack this reform without offering a credible alternative are can come police sit in medicare's demise. so i want to commend chairman ryan and my republican colleagues on the budget committee for leading where president obama and the senate democrats have failed. one way or another, this country will have to address our out of control debt and deficits and this budget does so responsibly. thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman of wisconsin, mr. ripple. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for having the markup today n. this hyper politically partisan environment that we live in here in the congress, these are difficult, difficult decision that is have to be

made. somehow we have to find a way to do them. not exactly sure. i listened to the ranking member's comments about the difficult sy of this budget. he used the word bad. i might say tough. the longer we put off our decisions, the longer we delay, i'm in my fourth year in congress and we haven't really made the moves to make the tough decisions and bad decisions that need to happen today become worse decisions tomorrow. harder decisions. more difficult decisions. mainly on the next generation of americans. at some point, tough decisions have to be made. they're not going to be fun. i do kind of reject the idea that what's happened in the last couple of years have been a austeri austerity. the budget we faced last year under any metric would have been among the worst in u.s. history but today it's redefined as an austerity budget which is just a

shocking capitulation of common sense in my opinion. it's an astounding thing to even think in those terms. but in light of $1.3 trillion deficits when i came here in 2011, i guess maybe you could make some type of argument along that way but we have not gone far enough. it's -- we have to begin to move and make the decisions. every single person that comes in here and testifies, whether it's the cbo or rmb, they plead with us. actuaries plead with us to fix these things. i'm proud we're tabling the step to fix them. with that, i yield back. thank you. >> thank you. with that i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. flores. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as a cpa that's also been a person that created hundreds of good american jobs in the energy industry, i know there's two basic functions of budget to balance the budget. number one is set the expenses with the basic needs and with

the realities that you're faced with. and secondly, and more importantly, you grow your income. in this case, this budget grows our national income in order to grow tax receipts to balance the budget. and our budget like i said deals head on with both of these basic economic principles. i want to discuss the latter and that's how to improve economic growth and thereby improve revenues. the obama economy let me start by saying this is hardest on the lowest income americans and resulted in to the lower labor force participation since the disastrous economic years of jimmy carter. the better way is to embrace energy revolution in the american job renaissance of a couple of years despite the administration's efforts to move us in a different way. for example, what we had an energy bill on the floor of the house that i introduced a few weeks ago. it had support of everybody from

manufacturing companies to unions to energy companies and it reflected a real world way to get our economy going again. americans support our commission of american energy security by the year 2020 and our budget incorporates these and i hope we'll move forward on using those basic principles. i would like to add one additional comment. any budget that's based on real world principles of reforming expenses and growing an income should not be called a fraud and i think that statement goes beyond the pale. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. thank you. >> thank you. thank you. with that i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. rokido. >> i thank the chairman. yes, it was me that was clapping for purposes of the record in case there's discipline to be done. i think he was exactly right and that's what this budget does.

this is a restatement of the problems that we're -- fiscal problems we're facing in the public sector, particularly the federal government in this country. number one, that deficits do matter. and number two, that 10,000 people a day are retiring into social entitlement programs that left unreformed are simply not sustainable and witness after witness again from the left, right, to the center, have explained that to us. and the benefit of this budget and the reason to do it is we continue to have this very direct and honest conversation with the american people about what needs to be done. mr. chairman, i'll never forget the first time that we introduced this budget. the immediate response and i think three or four years ago came about 24 hours later. was it another or alternative subs instantive policy issue that was brought forward, a different idea? no.

it was a commercial with a rather tall man, i like to think they were characterizing me but the man was much too skinny pushing an elderly person in a wheelchair off a cliff. that's what serves for the discussion. i hope we can get beyond that in year four of this budget to the extent that the substantive policy alternative is taxes people more, let me just say. you can change the chairman's money, george soros's money, todd rokito's money and as long as people at 10,000 a day retire into unreformed systems we won't have enough money to pay for this budget. we could take 100% of what people make and that -- it won't solve the problem. i yield back. >> thank you. now like to yield two minutes to the gentle lady from tennessee, i think she is next, yep. ms. blackburn.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. apologize for my tardiness. we have an internet freedom hearing going in energy and commerce. but i thank you for the budget and the work that you have done, and i join my colleagues in being concerned about what this obama economy is doing to our country. i think that because of the debt and the annual deficits our children and grandchildren are being robbed of the economic freedom that is rooted in the american dream. it is the ultimate cap in trade. last year, cbo predicted the u.s. economy would grow on average by 2.9% each year over the next decade. now, they're predicting that's only going to be 2.5%. the economy is shrinking before our very eyes and wrapping up what economic opportunity was left and it is being wrapped in regulatory red tape. also of concern to me as i look

at the long-term budget analysis is that only 63% of the american people have a job or are looking for one. that's the lowest level since 1978. they are losing faith and trust in this economy. we can do better and once again this committee is showing the american people that there is, indeed, another way. a better way to move back to preserving the american dream. we don't have to sit back and accept the status quo that's brought us crushing debt, big bloated budgets that never balance and fewer choices when it comes to our own health care. i like the fact that this budget would balance in ten years, provides a simple and fair tax code and strengthens programs like medicare by giving seniors, by giving and allowing seniors more choice and options over their health care.

i yield back my time. >> thank you. at this time i like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. ridge el. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i really do appreciate your leadership on this critical issue. the fact that our committee and i believe our conference had the courage and the wisdom to boldly confront what is truly i think the most significant threat facing our country which is our fiscal trajectory. i also want to thank the ranking member mr. van hollen. i've always appreciated the way he's aappreciated this. there's spirited debates and been civil about it and i appreciate that not only from him but my democratic colleagues here today. some said we didn't need to have this debate. and i made the case that we did need to have this debate and pass the resolution because it brings to the attention the american people the clear, contrast that i see between the two parties, really. we have had as i see it as republicans we have responsibly,

not perhaps perfectly, but responsibly picked up the third rail of politics, mandatory spending and not met with a good faith effort as i see it from our friends on the other side. i'm proud of our work there and it seems to me that there's a central theme i often hear is that from the other side is we care more, spending more because we care more. i'll just let you know. i reject the premise. what we're doing here is because indeed we care about every one of these areas from defense to job creation and we are a bit more focused on growth. making sure that we open up our energy opportunities. 85% of the coastline of our country is closed off to exploration. there's a wonderful contrast here today. i look forward to the debate and at the end of the day i'd ask my colleagues both sides to support this resolution. i yield back. >> thank you. at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentle lady of missouri. missouri or missouri? >> i say missouri.

>> okay. missouri. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as i travel through missouri, my constituents express their concerns with the lack of the right priorities in washington including not providing for the common defense plus concerns like excessive government spending increased taxes and overregulation. our federal debt exceeds $17 trillion. this creates anxiety and uncertainty for all americans and i'm proud to join my colleagues and support a responsible budget that provides regulatory relief, promotes a strong defense and balances the budget in ten years. the american people deserve a brighter, safer future. we have seen president obama direct over $1 trillion in cuts to the military since he took office. while we cut nearly one fifth of our defense resources, russia and china are arming at an alarming rate. russia's military spending is up roughly 30% and china's has more

than doubled. if we want to reverse this trend, we must realign our national priorities. it is imperative we build upon the recent compromise and further reverse the current trajectory to mitigate the permanent damage to our national security. the reality is we cannot keep going back to did d.o.d. to cut spending. we cannot ask our men and women in uniform to balance our budget. it's time to address the real drivers of our debt. in addition to replacing $274 billion in scheduled defense cuts, this budget promotes job creation streamlining career training programs and encouraging pro-growth tax reform. additionally, we relieve hard working americans from the costly burdens of obamacare. so i'm proud to support a budget that lowers taxes and reprioritizes our national defense. i yield back. >> thank you. at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentle lady

of indiana. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i hear daily from hoosiers in the 2nd district asking me to support policies to create jobs and boost the economy. reduce our more than $17 trillion debt. they want me to support policies that ensure our kids have a shot at the american dream. this common sense budget resolution does just that. it promotes job creation. it supports energy expansion, moves toward energy dependence. it rolls back federal red tape. this budget protects seniors and low-income americans by ensuring that medicare and safety net programs like the supplemental nutrition assistance program will be sustainable in the long term, protecting the programs for the americans that depend upon them. it provides state flexibility in medicaid, strengsens the work requirements and makes structural reforms to medicare. this budget will help to reduce

poverty, boost economic mobility and strngen our national economy, increases funding for veterans, supporting a strong national defense. provides a responsible, sustainable plan for our economy. thank you and i yield back my time. >> i'd like too yield two munlts to another moozier. mr. messier. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you ruling member van hollen for this hearing today. the reality is that in today's economy, too many americans are struggling to find good jobs. their paychecks are shrinking, they're working harder but they're falling further behind. why? the answer's really pretty simple. because this economy isn't fostering the creation of enough good paying jobs. hard working americans deserve a healthy economy where everyone has a shot at a brighter future. that's why today's budget is all about. this budget resolution is a

responsibly plan for creating a strong economy. that means tightening our belts, balancing the books and making did government live within its means. that means making sure the social safety net provides a hand up and not a handout. that means spending tax dollars more wisely. this budget resolution may be revolutionary to some simply because it calls on congress to make choices. neither party has been very good at that for quite a while now. that's why congress spends billions it doesn't have each year. that's why our debt exceeds $17 trillion. that's why medicare's going broke. there are no easy answers but there are simple ones. the path to prosperity, the road toward leaving our country better than we found it demands the choices be made. we can act now so that america controls its own destiny and

follows a path of our choosing or we can kick the can down the road. mr. chairman, i am proud to support this budget resolution because it will help create genuine opportunities for people to find better paying jobs and improve their own lives. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. next i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman of south carolina, mr. rice. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the number one issue in my district and i believe the number one issue in the country is jobs. five year s after the great recession, the economy continues to struggle and far too many americans remain out of work. we can solve this problem. it's not rocket science. we can build our economy and put hard working folks back to work if only we will take a few steps to make america more competitive. just like counties across the

country compete for jobs, states lower tax raits and streamline regulations to attract industry and jobs, we must adopt an attitude here in washington that we will compete in the world. if we expect to stop sending our jobs overseas and bring american jobs back home. if we retain the world's highest corporate tax rate, how can we expect to compete in the world? if washington continues to spend more money than we take in threatening our entire economy how can we expect to compete in the world? if we continue to build upon our already oppressing regulatory burden, how can we expect to compete in the world? this is where i believe my friends across the aisle miss the mark. they seem to believe that somehow making this country competitive ben filths only the wealthy. but the truth is that people with high assets or high skills will do well in a global environment. they can compete from anywhere but the longer we wait to enter

the global competition for jobs the more bedamage the hard working folks in the biddle class. we will not grow our economy or put people back to work by expanding entirtd lmentes. if america will enter the global competition for jobs, our economy will accelerate. the sky is the limit. if we simply decide to compete no one can stop us. this is not republican or a democrat issue. this is an american issue. >> thank you. next i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas mr. wums. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to echo what many have said and thank you for putting together a smart, responsible budget for americans to see washington can lead by america. everyone in america has to balance their family's budget or business's budget every single day. as many of you know i'm a small business owner. i still own a business and i've

done that for 44 years. the importance of balancing a budget is certainly not lost on me. by cutting waste, fraud and abuse, fixing the broken tax code, the government can be a team player and play a supporting role in righting our nation's fiscal ship. we'll lower unemployment. by reining we'll create a pro-growth environment to encourage businesses to expand. by expanding domestic energy production like we have done in my home state of texas we can help shrink the deficit and put people back to work and by balancing the budget we'll help to rebuild a healthy economy. the importance of making sure america's energy independent is more crucial than it's ever been. now's the time to free energy production from continued federal regulations. energy production can be limitless just like we see in north dakota where unemployment is lower than 3% and in my state and midland, texas, 2.4%.

these are real jobs and good paying jobs and endless. while this administration's continued to penalize competitive sources of energy by picking winners and losers, the path to prosperity will open more federal lands to energy development than ever before. our economy cannot begin to grow without reform. president obama proposed more economically significant regulations in his first four years than previous administrations have in last 15 years combined. regulations alone cost families and small businesses $1.7 trillion per year with additional 87 billion in regulatory costs of 2014, these additional burdens continue to stifle competition and job creation. by removing harmful bare yerls and freeing butzs from unnecessary regulations, america's best days are ahead of us and without that america's best days are behind us. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you. and next i'd like to yield two minute to the gentleman of oklahoma, mr. cole. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you yielding the time. i applaud you for putting this

budget together. i know from the meetings we have had there's a lot of thought put into how to maintain the commitment to economic growth. $17 trillion national debt. additionally, mr. chairman i want to thank you again for not backing down with the true drivers out debt. it would have been very easy given the bipartisan budget act set to 302 aloe cases for fiscal year 2015 to not do a budget. however, this budget, this blueprint, yet again, allows us to share our vision for the new which you are. i was disappointed to see the president reversed himself and the budget submission removing change cpi but the house republicans are willing to work with the president where possible and find common ground to move our budget trajectory downward instead of increasing. i'm encouraging that the cap set in the bipartisan budget act of fiscal year 2015 included in

this budget. as a me believe of the defense appropriations subcommittee i have seen the devastating cuts and end strength capables we'll continue to face if we continue with sequester and instead of going back to the well this year, with even more discretionary cuts, we have ensured that they're available for all in the future. i don't think the defense reductions in the budget control act are wise or sustainable. congress and the administration must address this issue no later than early next year. many criticized this budget for moving the goal posts and now transitioning to a premium support model for those 56 and below. however, mr. chairman, we have to face facts. every year that we do not act it becomes harder and harder to preserve the current programs for those already at or near retirement. this budget recognizes that hard reality and adjusts itself accordingly. i hope this budget sempbs as a wake-up call that it's time to act. i know here in washington that we can become anecessary tized

to the problems of the country. but they're real and must be addressed. one where we control our destiny opposed to turning over control to the creditors. i implore my friends to seek common ground in the proposals so that these programs we all find so important can be preserved for future generations w. that i yield back my time. >> thank you. next i'd like to yield to another oklahoman, mr. lankford. >> thank you, mr. chairman. that is culmination of a tremendous amount of this committee, staff and individual me believes. there's some interesting conversations in this, the facts and figures. one is cbo yet again comes out and sees a declining economy as we continue to see revenues fall in the future years. that's showing that the poll sis put in place by this president are not turning this economy around and we have to do something more aggressive to be able to deal with this and the focal point of that is really getting us back to how do we balance the budget, pay down the

debt, get economic activity and business working again? it is hard to believe how far we have fallen as a nation when a conversation about balancing the budget becomes a controversial conversation. this town's namesake, a gentleman named washington i think would be slightly embarrassed based on the conversation. let me read from his farewell address at the end of his two terms as president he said avoid likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense but by vig you xerpgss in time of peace to us charge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasion. not throwing upon prosperity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. we have the responsibility to take this on. and not continue to throw on our prosperity the burdens that we ought to bear. i think it would be wise for this committee to think about the words of our first president and the namesake of this town

and to consider well how are we going to take responsibility for the burden of this generation? we have the highest amount of tax revenue ever in the history of the nation. ever. the economy continues to slow down, regulations continue to increase. let's get back to business and growing the economy and deal with the debt rather than passing it on. with that i yield back. >> i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from mississippi, mr. nunnally. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this week my former colleagues in the mississippi legislature are wrapping up their session and they have sat around and made very difficult choices. their families all around america that are doing exactly what my wife and i did almost two decades ago when we came on very tough times. you sit around the kitchen table. you may shed tears but you make those tough choices and you move on.

those families, the legislators around the nation balancing their budgets, the city and county government that is are balancing their budgets have every reason to expect those of us in washington to do the same thing and for the fourth year in a row this committee's drafted a balanced budget that makes the tough but necessary choices about out of control spending. this path to prosperity seeks to expand opportunity and jobs by highlighting policies that will grow the economy. right now, the bureau of labor statistics reports 10.5 million americans that are unemployed. but they also say we have 4 million job openings. the gap in the numbers is partially due to derepublictive work force training programs around the bureaucracy that lets down our citizen who is are seeking jobs. by streamlining these programs we are not only achieving

savings but enable the workers and job seekers to respond quickly and effectively to career challenges. in addition to reforming job training programs this budget before us makes long-term higher education reforms including for example changes to return of title iv fund regulations, increasing the amount of time a student to attend class before they withdraw without debt owed for back assistance increases and the likelihood of students xlooeting their courses and lowers incentives for fraud so i think it's imperative we adopt this path to properity and put our nation on a path we need to go. thank you. i yield back. >> i think that wraps the opening comments of the members. i'll consume a little bit of time to wrap up and conclude. i think mr. mcclintock got it just right. he said and this is actually axiomatic. if you live beyond your means

today you will have to live below your means tomorrow. we all know that that's true. if we buy too much house and too much mortgage, we know that we are hurting ourselves in the future. here's our problem. this is a generational thing. we in this generation are living beyond our means today, deficit, deficit, deficit, debt, debt, debt. the debt is at $17 trillion on its way to $24 trillion. we're not going to have to pay this. our kids and our grand kids are going to have to pay this. so we'll live beyond our means today and the next generations will have to live below their means tomorrow. cbo says it very clearly. we're guaranteeing lower living standards for the next generations. what cbo also tells us is, look, the sooner you get on top of this problem, the better off everybody's going to be. the more we delay to fix these

fiscal problems the uglier the solutions inevitably have to be. that's what we're saying. this is why we're doing a budget. we could have easily phoned it in this year. we had this agreement. the apropose raters are yiwriti the bills. that's a good thing. the power of the purse is coming back to the house. we could say we don't have to do it this year. but if we don't like the direction the country is headed and we don't then we feel an obligation so say how we would do things differently and that's what this budget does. this is the fourth year in a row where we have produced a budget. one that balances. one that shows how we would do it. now, my friend to my left here said that this is a bitter austerity budget. that's what you have if you don't fix this fiscal problem. bitter austerity is what you get once a debt crisis hits. bitter austerity is what's going

on in europe right now. bitter austerity is we didn't fix this problem when we had time to fix it. we didn't ahead of the problem and solve these things and now we have bitter austerity just like they're doing in europe cutting the safety net. pulling the rug out from people after they retired and social chaos as a result and a really slow economy and a lost decade or two. we are trying to preempt bitter austerity. i remember 2008 like it was yesterday. a lot of us were here then. remember that crash? remember t.a.r.p. and the things? ben bernanke and hank paul sen telling us we might have a depression on the hands and all of us sat there thinking how did this happen? how could we have prevented this? and then we found out this is what happened in the real estate market. this is what happened with mortgage-backed securities. we know the rest of the story. the point i'm making is that crisis caught us by surprise.

that crisis cost millions of people their jobs. that crisis cost trillions of dollars of wealth vanished in the world economy. this crisis, this debt crisis that's on our horizon, is the most predictable crisis we have ever had. we know this is coming. we see it. everybody knows this. cbo puts it in plain english and black and white math for us. so are we going to keep just whistling past the graveyard? are we going to keep offering budgets to congress that never, ever balance or are we going to get on top of our problems? look. at the end of the day there is a difference in philosophy. and that's good. i mean, that's what a two-party system is all about. that's healthy. and it would be nice to sort of detoxify the rhetoric a little bit and try to figure out how we get to the goal we're all trying to get to, a more prose prous

and peaceful country where everybody can get ahead. but what we do in this budget is we reject this one-sized-fits all all communities are alike and washington knows best. it's like there's a bureaucracy that knows more, can better guide our lives and our communities better than we can. we reject this idea. we reject that premise. and we reject the notion that measuring compassion, measuring dedication, measuring our fight for our good things should be only measured in how much money we spend on inputs. why don't we think about measuring results? why don't we think about measuring our efforts based on outcomes? are we achieving our goals? we have some very important principles that created this country. among those principles is that

we have a government that is by consent of the governed. i see a lot of young people in the back. maybe they're from a high school or something like that. right? high school? yeah. not yet. okay. they don't get -- they don't consent to this. they haven't voted yet unless they're seniors. the point i'm making is, we have to speak for people who cannot speak. we have to speak for people who want to have the american dream, who want the legacy of one generation leaving a better country to the next generation because they don't have a vote yet and when we take a look at these things we're trying to do, how we reform our entitlements, how we reform these things, it is amazing howl we really do have a consensus in things in this country like health and retirement security. these are all things we all agree ought to be provided. government has a really important role here but where we probably disagree is government should not have the commanding role. government shouldn't have the

dictorial role. we shouldn't be conceding our consent to a benevolent bureaucracy to tell us how to do these things in our lives like how we get our health care, how we secure our retirements. we believe that people should believe in the driver's seat of their own lives. we believe that people are the nucleus of the economy. we believe that patients are the nucleus of our health care system. we believe that people if given freedom and opportunity can make the most of their lives and we believe in striving for equality of opportunity so that can be their idea of an american idea. that they can get ahead. these are the things that we're striving for. now, we're going to hear a lot of rhetoric and we're going to hear what i think is a view that looks at life and the economy as some static pie, as if the pie of life and the pie of our economy is some fixed thing. and it's really a question of how we divide up the slices more equitabl equitably.

we believe this growth. we believe in dine michl. we believe we should grow the pie to get a better slice of the pie. it is not a question of sitting here in government picking winners and losers by cronyism or whatever you want to try to redistribute the slices of the pie. we want to grow the pie for everybody. now, we're going to hear a lot of rhetoric like we have heard in the past. back in 2011 when we passed our first budget, the appropriations we had in that budget for this fiscal year was $1.47 trillion for 2015. back then, that was considered draconian, unserious and many other names were called. then, patty murray and i and all of us put together a bipartisan budget agreement that called for spending in fiscal 2015 $1.14 billion. president obama signed that proposal into law. it was heralded as a great bipartisan step in the right direction. and so for those of you who are keeping score and minding the

rhetoric, that's $33 billion less under this bipartisan bill than we proposed two years earlier which was so draconian, so unserious. we're proposing the federal government increases the spending over ten years by 3.5% instead of 5.2% and by the way, if we reform government, put the patient in the center of health care, give states the ability to customize and tailor their benefits to populations like food stamps and medicaid, and have pro-growth policies that put people back to work, clean up the tax system, have this energy renaissance fully developed, then we will get people back to work. then we'll increase take home pay. get the deficit down and as a result according to cbo have more prosperity and faster economic growth. it's true. you kapt cut your way to a balanced budget. you have to grow your way by

growing your economy. and government as it is currently designed needs to be reformed. if we stay on this path we are guaranteeing the next generation has a bankrupt medicare program, bankrupt social security program, bankrupt medicaid program. bankrupt country. by 2024 according to cbo, three programs, medicaid, medicaid air deficit consumes the revenues. we see it comes. it is not a democrat, republican thing. it's a dlem graphics thing. when you have so many baby boomers retiring, 10,000 a day for 10 years and far fewer people following them into the work force and the cost of the programs goes up by 5% to 8% a year, this's a problem. the sooner we tackle this problem, the sooner we get ahead of it the sooner we apply tried and proven ideas and reforms, fixing these things the better off we are going to be. i hope we take it into perspective as we use our rhetoric and think about the

next generation, those people who don't consent to this debt that's coming to them. and i hope that we can think about, you know what? maybe the design of some of these programs in the 20th century could be kind of improved. maybe we have learned a new thingless of how to make the goals for accomplished. how to focus on outcomes and results instead of just inputts and spending. that's what we're trying to accomplish here. we're trying to get this debate going so that we can actually solve this problem. we believe we have a responsibility. not just to the next generation but to constituents today and we know that if we do get our it's very frustrating mere here again talking about things that the been talked about by republican presidential

candidates stated years ago. republican budget months again makes massive cuts to the very federal investments that create new jobs, grow the economy, keep america competitive in the global marketplace. we see how damaging sequestration has been holding back our economic recovery. it allows our infrastructure to crumble and sending our medical research back years. we are still suffering from sequestration and america cannot afford to let them create another crisis in the name of so-called fiscal responsibility. make usan budget would less competitive in the global economy cutting investments in advanced manufacturing that are creating thousands of jobs in my congressional district and many others across the nation and keeping the american worker at the forefront of technological innovation. we continue the damage that

sequestration started undermining the national institutes of health and other leading creators of technology, therapy, and keyers that not only save lives but genetically reduce long-term health care costs. the republican budget would jeopardize the future workforce by slashing $150 billion from higher education programs freezing the maximum pell grant --ever and eliminate and eliminating the lower student loans that congress enacted and paid for in 2010. finally, it would dramatically reduce funding for transportation and infrastructure. these systems are the backbone of our economy giving up one of the most direct ways we can create new jobs and grow our economy now. thing aboutstrating the republican plan for job growth is that we tried it before just in the last decade and where did we end up?

we ended up losing 700,000 jobs a month. jobs,mply cannot create grow the economy, ensure access to opportunity and keep our nation competitive by blindly slashing key federal investments and hoping for a miracle. i yield two and a half minutes to my colleague from florida. >> it shirks its responsibility to do so suggesting that america's best days are behind us and it favors the well-to-do over middle america. one of the overriding issues is that the republican budget would usher in an era of need this, rest -- reckless austerity at a time when the economy is improving for many of our neighbors and businesses. republicans continue to turn a

blind eye to the economic fact that more people working across america and lower unemployment reduces the deficit. theomists, including congressional budget office advised that putting americans back to work is the fastest and most effective way to reduce the deficit. certainly the republicans proposed in their budget to eliminate jobs in construction, infrastructure, eliminate jobs and education, eliminate job in scientific research. the republican budget is doing this to undermine what makes america great and what makes america grow, education, research, infrastructure like ports, airports, railways. these are the keys to economic growth and opportunity. it commentator said that really shreds the economic building blocks of economic growth. in fact, experts looking at this budget that came out just

yesterday predict that the republican budget will result in 3 million fewer jobs in america. meanwhile, what's been happening in the economy? things are getting better. the economy has grown the past four years. the stock market is up. we have had 48 months of private sector job growth and yet american families continue to face headwinds because the demand is not there and we are not doing all of the things we need to do and the federal government has to continue to be that important partner and economic growth. that is why when a budget is contract economic growth and jobs it's bad news for our country. think about what will happen in to thoserict all-important infrastructure initiatives in your communities. you might have a university or a research center that relies on the nih grant.

dependentmy might be upon the local court system. they will be hurt and slowed down as well. you might have an education-type district where a lot of colleges -- they will have them much tougher time under this republican budget. what is also quite disturbing is that while the republicans want education and infrastructure, they do not cut one corporate tax loophole. everyone understands, and the press has reported widely on washington is tilted toward the special interest. to not go after one special interest loophole and instead put the burden on working families and middle america and what america makes great is really a recipe for disaster.

back to myou're colleague. >> i yield two minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin. >> part of my job when i get back to wisconsin as i try to translate what happens inside the beltway into real english. this has been called a serious proposal. i think we all know that it will not become law but i look at it as not serious because the singular talking point that it balances the budget simply is not true. you look at the affordable care act, repeal all the benefits but you keep all the revenue and the savings, which simply is not real or true but in the case of food stamps, you cut them $125 billion when we had fights over cutting it aired a $9 billion. this is so out of reality that it just not is a serious proposal.

other hand, this is very serious and the consequences to real people and what it means to them. the chairman called this a win-win. percentilee second it is but for the other 98%, you will lose out. seniors, middle class, students, small businesses. dug him and our fear. three quarters of the nation's deficit is due to economic weakness, jobs. how do you get the economy going? this budget cost 3 million jobs. that's like firing the entire workforce of the state of wisconsin. because of not extending the sequester cuts, doubling down on those and the real cuts that we consequencese real that affect real people. when you have tax breaks for people who send jobs overseas to cut research and development, sba loans, green job initiatives

, cut education and then you don't have a minimum wage increase or immigration proposal , that affects real jobs. the only serious part about this is that the public should seriously look at what's in this proposal because this is the reality of the republicans were in charge of all branches. i yield back. toi now yield two minutes the gentleman from california, mr. cárdenas. >> thank you, thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to comment on the budget. i would just like to point out that this budget cost 3 million american jobs and that's how the budget has been scored and i think it's important for everyone to understand that when we talk about the budget, we talk about the most dynamic thing that congress can enact and it's unfortunate that we are contemplating this is a costs so many american john's. it's important for us to budget doest this

not go after those who make more than $1 million per year. it attacked those who are hard-working american families and it might cost them as much as $2000 in taxes every year for this families who are working familieslue-collar like those that i represent in the san fernando valley. it's important to note it has been talked about how we need to cut taxes, etc. this actually protects the loopholes that are in place for those who make at least $1 million per year. iss is a statement about who being protected and attacked. hard-working blue-collar americans are getting attacked. if you get a paycheck at the end of the week or month, this ataxia but if you are a person who has money to go make more money, this is the budget for you. it breaks promises to seniors when you talk about how it is reopening the medicare coverage

gap, that is something that seniors need to pay attention to because it could cost each as $12,000 or more over several years and these are the kinds of things in the budget and these are the kind of things that i hope through the amendment process today we will be able to correct and shape this into a budget that is honest and can actually be there for seniors and the working class americans. i yield back my time. i yield back the balance of our time. >> ok. mr. chairman, i now yield 10 minutes to ms. moore from the great date of wisconsin to talk about the impact of this republican budget on important economic security programs in the united states. >> thank you, mr. ranking member and let me start by saying that i just want to acknowledge chairman ryan for ongoing basis of the national dialogue on poverty. i do believe in my heart that

chairman ryan sincerely wants to have a dialogue about our nation's continuing poverty crisis. however, i think actions speak louder than words and the document is actionable. clearly worsens and the quality and deepens poverty. poverty is an enormous problem with 46 .5 million americans living below the poverty level and it affects all of our constituents, rural, urban, democrat, and republican. the poor are isolated. milwaukee, that i represent is ranked as number one in the nation where the poor are segregated and isolated. this republican budget unfortunately does not contain effective anti-poverty prevention and intervention

strategies. on the contrary, it actually seeks to punish those who are struggling to climb out of poverty. it relies unfortunately on stereotypes about the poor that they don't want to work. for example, the egregious cuts in food stamps where they say that they want to create work requirements for people on snap. 80% of the people on snap our elderly, disabled, or children. this budget also repeats the theme of past budgets which strikes fear into the hearts of some of our most vulnerable populations. it continues to talk about the moral obligation to create opportunities and the 10,000 who turned 65 every day to cut our social security safety net programs. i am concerned about cutting $800 billion below the sequester the poor and vulnerable

people and i'm disappointed that this budget takes us in that direction. with that, i yield time to my distinguished colleague mr. pascarella. >> thank you for yielding, congresswoman moore. there are major ideological constraints in this budget. that all, despite the fact it's going to hurt the still recovering economy, the chairman has adopted the goal of balancing the budget in 10 years with drastic reductions necessary in order to meet that arbitrary goal. where are these reductions going to come from? there will not be any cuts in our defense budget, the highest in the world. that spending is actually going to increase. we are not going to be asking millionaires and billionaires to

give back any of the tax breaks they have inserted into the tax code the last 30 years. we are actually going to give them more. to beginninging any meaningful savings out of social security or medicare although the budget does take the radical step of creating a voucher program and ending the medicare guarantee for retirees. by process of elimination, where are the savings going to come from? the lifting his left our social insurance programs that help the poor in the middle class of this country and that is my barometer for looking at any budget weather comes from the president, you, uncle harry. it does not matter. that's the bottom line. there are $125 billion in cuts to the snap program writing to do the poorest americans and preventingren and 4.9 million americans from falling into poverty in 2012. there are $732 million in cuts

to medicaid programs. by converting them to a block grant in the total of $1.5 trillion in medicaid cuts. stand back. . said trillion when you throw in repealing the affordable care act, medicaid expansion. according to the kaiser family foundation, block grant and repealing the expansion of the 30gram will result between and 40 million americans losing coverage. >> thank you so much. i would like to yield time now to ms. lee. >> thank you very much. let me thank the gentlewoman for yielding. i just have to say, mr. chairman and ranking members, once again we are confronted with the republican message and document -- a sitting document

masquerading as a budget. slashing the programs that keep the most vulnerable americans healthy, said, and working. yes, this is cruel. we would see an end to medicare guarantees as we know it by converting snap to a block grant . republicans once again are seeking to balance the budget on the back of the most vulnerable cutting. the first line of defense is against hunger. this continues long-standing abuses and wasteful spending asking for even more than the pentagon request. we simply cannot continue to write a blank check for spending on war if we were to have any chance of getting our fiscal house in order. we need to have a real debate

about whether we will keep funding this endless war in afghanistan or are we going to try to follow fashion fund food for seniors, early childhood education in 20th century jobs for the future. we have some choices and i think this reflects the dichotomy in the choices we are facing. should we eliminate the account, audit the pentagon, and the war in afghanistan, or feed hungry , thisen? this ocl budget has really exploded beyond any reasonable measure of what a contingency fund should be. yes, it is really a slush fund and we are paying all wartime operations out of a fund that was meant to be a small emergency fund resulting in possibly less oversight, less certainty, higher levels that if we eliminated it and returned to war funding, unfortunately to

the base defense budget. ands the federal government for many reasons, unable to -- unaudi auditable table statements. they have lost to the million oflars -- tens of millions dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse. >> i yield -- [no audio] clint thank you very much ranking member van hollen. worked very much for my colleagues here. this is not a serious proposal.

this is unbalanced and unrealistic. let's look at the facts here. we keep getting told that time and again democrats are coming to the table and willing to talk about the budget, global debt and deficits and that's wrong. it's false. the president has come forward several times over the last five years trying to meet my republican colleagues halfway. each time, he has pushed away. programs never anticipated the baby boomers and nor did our tax policy. taxe has to be serious reform. the republican budget is not serious. even the chairman tells us it's not serious. this assumes we are going to get down to a 25% tax rate individual and corporate-wise. they spent four years trying to make that happen and he could not do it. the best he could do was 35% for

the top wage earners in this country. this is patently false. this is misleading. this is disingenuous. here's another point that i think americans need to understand. we hear all of the stuff about repealing obamacare. this budget does not do it. it keeps all the savings in the medicare program that we got back in 2010. it keeps all the tax revenues from those who will benefit from the program to balance the budget. they are not repealing the affordable care act -- another phony claim. most egregious of all, this balances itself on the backs of seniors. seniors have to wake up and understand what's going on here. they're the ones that cost is being shifted to. the government could reduce its costs maybe 30% in medicare by doubling up the cost to the seniors themselves. that's wrong. they are on fixed incomes. this budget is a sham. i can't believe anyone will vote for this thing at the end of the

day. i hope they get voted out of office if that is the case. the're trying to placate right wing extremists at the behest of our senior citizens by lying and misleading the american public. it's a travesty. with that, i yield to my respected colleague mr. jeffrey. track seven like to thank the distinguished gentleman from oregon for yielding. the republican budget is unfair, unbalanced, unrealistic. it is an inherently unfair document that balances itself on the backs of young americans, working families, the middle class, senior citizens, the poor, the sick, the afflicted. that's not even an exhaustive list. whenever we level that charge, democrats are accused of using rhetorical scare tactics to frighten the american people. that's a cute response but even a cursory analysis of the republican budget revealed that it is a house of horrors.

house republicans previously led the charge in cutting $8 billion in nutritional assistance for hungry americans. apparently that cut was not harsh enough. this would turn snap into a block grant and cut an additional 125 ilion dollars from this important safety net program. there are 50 million americans who are food insecure and more than 15 million of them are children. these americans will be devastated. that's not rhetoric. that's reality. the proposed budget would cut higher education funding at 191 billion dollars putting college out of reach for millions of students. these cuts are competent by dramatically reducing pell grants and making undergraduate students with financial needs pay interest on their loans while still in school. we are robbing our students of a fair shot at the american dream before they even get on the playing field of life. that's rh