-- the gentleman yield? they are moving it from mandatory to discretionary, but that is under the discretionary caps. other areas would be cut out. >> this tell grant program was originally funded on the discretionary ledger. >> how much will the hell grant lose in purchasing power if it is frozen over 10 years -- the pell grant. past republican budgets said they it -- today eliminated the block grant. does your budget assume the savings? >> yes, those it --

>> based on that, what policies account for the other $20 billion? >> we had the repeal of the expansion of the income base program. over 10 years, that is $16.3 billion. as you mentioned, it is the in school interest subsidy for undergraduates. we eliminate the public-sector loan forgiveness program. that is a ten-year savings of $10.5 billion. as you mentioned, the social services block grants which would be 16.5 billion over the tenure. . -- over the 10 year period. >> i have a couple questions on medicare.

as i look at the budget over a ten-year window, there is a net medicare reduction of about $184 billion. is that correct? >> yes. rep. van hollen: thank you. does the budget assume what is being discussed as a potential agreement on sgr.? that is at $168 billion? >> yes. rep. van hollen: that means if we have a net reduction of 184 we are talking about gross reductions of $359 billion. i want to get a sense of what those reductions in the medicare account are. first of all, as i understand, a piece of that is restructuring parts a and d of medicare.

what savings are you assuming from that? >> in terms of the sgr and we do assume that a full permanent fix is fully offset, but it pulls from the 5.5 trillion in savings. we assume it in our savings. in tombs of combining a and d deductibles into a single deductible, that is $94.1 billion over a 10 year window. rep. van hollen: how must you assume, if any, from medical malpractice reform? >> 36.9 billion over the tenure window. -- over the 10 year window. four means testing --for means

testing, we have an assumption of 100 and $4 billion -- $104 billion. rep. van hollen: last year's budget assumed and increase in the medicare eligibility age to 67. does this budget make the same assumption? >> yes, starting in 2024. rep. van hollen: how much savings assume from that? >> in total, it will be 6.1 billion. with premiums. rep. van hollen: is there an increase in medicare advantage payments? >> we presume that there is a deficit neutral reserve point to deal with the access issues. rep. van hollen: but there is no actual increased expenditure?

are there any other medicare programs -- medicare programmatic increases in the budget? >> mr. chairman, i think it is important to note -- you asked about sgr we accept the full costs of the sdr fix in the budget. the president's budget does not offer any offsets. that is what distinction between our budget and the president's budget. full disclosure. second, it is important to note that we have a net or gross number of medicare cuts. the president's budget has medicare cuts to the tune of about $450 billion. rep. van hollen: but of course,

one of the major medicare savings that the president has in his budget is from negotiating drug prices with prescription drug companies. i assume that is not in your budget. >> we assume that the repeal of the aca, which has prescription -- which has provisions that increase prescription debt prices. we assume the repeal of this act thereby lowering the costs. rep. van hollen: that includes measures to close the prescription drug donut hole correct? >> also have a reserve fund to account for replacement. rep. van hollen: if you repeal the full affordable care act you repeal the savings that were achieved in the reportable care at -- in the affordable care act.

it led to a reduction in medicare premiums. so if you're fully repealing the affordable care act, i assume we are no longer going to get the benefit of those lower premiums. >> the medicare actuaries also predicted that at current expenditures with the aca, that the medicare trust fund would go bankrupt in 2030. the house budget assumes that the full repeal of the affordable care act and unlike the president's plan, it would apply the medicare savings back to strengthening the medicare program. rep. van hollen: so in fact what you are saying is that the savings are included in the budget. let me go to medicaid for a moment. yarmouth re i torep. yarmouth: i'm

assuming what you have done is assume savings from the elimination of defensive medicine. are you using data from

amendment involving defense spending. the overall 2015 federal budget

markup is being held today. the proposal by the committee chair tom price woodcut projected spending over the next decade and attempt to balance the budget in that timeframe. the house is expected to begin floor debate on the budget sometime next week. if you missed any of today's session, you can see it later or on our video library at any time at c-span.org. now we will take you back to a recorded portion of earlier today. the house budget committee markup. >> budget enforcement, budget reconciliation instructions, and now we have moved to deficit neutral reserve funds as well as positive -- as well as policy statements. it is not legislation it is a concurrent resolution that

provides a budget blueprint that is designed to provide a plan of how we're going to get to balance. >> what you are saying is, this is to let people know that this is what is planned but we are not going to write in specifics? >> we will file our committee report with more details on friday. >> once we report out, there will be a committee report with further details. >> we are supposed to go on faith here? we see through a glass darkly. i don't know what i go to be voting on here. and my voting on the exchanges we have in the aca? >> the carefully monitored medicare exchange as part of the

premium support plan would envision that instead of a government centered health care plan that it would be private companies that are competing for the business of seniors and part of that exchange would be that traditional medicare fee-for-service program and the assumption would be that any benefits would be equivalent to the traditional medicare fee-for-service program as well as actuarial value. >> when you use the word carefully monitored, you are talking about the government carefully monitoring these insurance plans. >> a report in 2013 noted that there would be reductions for out-of-pocket costs for consumers as well as the benefit of lowering the cost of health care inflation. mcdermott re>> the budget includes

an extra 36 billion in the overseas contingency operation funding. do you intend for this money to be used for war funding? >> i think this is a decision that changes our policy director or defense analyst. it is up really to the authorizer's or appropriators to as to how to appropriate the oco funds. it is not within the purview of the budget committee. >> i thought you said this was a policy-based document.

>> you are laying of the blueprint that says that we will put this into the overseas account instead of the budget which is a radical change in many places we have been before. yesterday, we were with the joint chiefs and every one of them said they wanted in the base account. we are looking at something that not only yesterday, but this morning, armed services said that is where they needed. >> mr. norcross, i think it is important to note that unlike the president's budget, we are trying to be responsible in maintaining the current discretionary caps for defense spending. >> i would just say that if the purpose of this is to gather information and not make political arguments, i think the response should be true. >> the gentleman asking the

question wasn't asking a question, he was making a statement. i would direct the witnesses to respond to the question without any opinion as to the nature of the response. >> let me repeat the question. did you intend for this money to be used for war funding? >> the answer would be yes. for defense of our nation. if you consider that war funding. >> why was did put into the base? >> as i was trying to explain earlier, there is a current discretionary cap of $523 billion on defense spending. we believe it is very difficult for the budget committee to propose to spend something about the cap. we believe that the best way to provide additional funding

was to the only mechanism available to us, the oco funds. >> was is based on any request from the pentagon? >> we base this on the president's request. >> we had ongoing discussions with dod. this is the house budget estimate. >> we are not trying to jump around here. the question is real simple. >> did the pentagon request that ago in the overseas account or without a policy decision that you have now made -- or was that a policy decision that you have now made? >> yesterday before the armed services committee, the chairman of the joint chiefs said that they would prefer it to be in the base but that that takes a

change in law. the budget resolution is not a change in law and they stipulated that if the global war on terror fund is the only place that they can get to at this point, then it was better than not having it there. >> it is a policy-based document. instead of putting the request for the pentagon into the base we are putting $36 billion to the oco. >> that is correct. i just want to read from what this committee's policy was last year as reflected in the report from the committee. it said that abuse of the oco is a backdoor loophole that undermines the integrity of the budget process.

the budget committee will exercise its oversight with respect to the 2015 budget process and it will oppose increases above the levels that the administration and our military commanders say are needed to carry out operations and less it can be clearly demonstrated that such amounts are war related. does that continue to be a policy in this budget? >> again, not to place the burden on jane here, but i think it will be fair to say that people were -- the president's request was a grand total of $612 billion in base and oco funding.

because of the current discretionary cap on defense the only vehicle that the committee had in order to address that defense need was to utilize both the base and the oco. our number is identical to what mr. norcross was trying to get to, the request from the pentagon. our number combined is 613. i tried to explain to mr. norcross that our number has been basically requested by the pentagon, we just try to find it in a different manner. the president's budget does not adhere to the cap and we are adhering to the cap. it is a different sort of starting point. >> i think everyone understands what is happening here. this is why the committee

proceeding was delayed. from last year's budget committee report, "in making any adjustments, the committee will be vigilant that oco is not used as a means to invade the statutory caps on discretionary spending." it has just been used as indicated. >> if we're going to ask questions in the walk-through if you are going to proceed to debate, then it is important to have both sides of the argument. rep. lieu: i am going to ask a series of questions on dynamic scoring. it is my understanding that your proposed budget is new revenues on dynamic scoring.

>> the congressional budget office has analyzed deficit reduction in our budget and then told us the macro economic fiscal impact of the deficit over 10 years is $147 billion. they do not break out for us what the revenue component or spending component of that money is. we do know that is what the deficit reduction is. we use $147 billion in deficit reduction to reflect cbo's analysis. rep. lieu: but you don't know the assumptions underlying that? >> cbo ran the analysis for the budget committee. they have written a letter to the budget committee that explains their assumptions. >> was there a range?

>> if you give me a minute i could look up the range. >> do you know if they applied it to just parts of the budget for the entire budget? >> it applies to the impact of the deficit reduction that the budget would result in over a. of 10 years. -- over a period of 10 years. >> with a following rules that the house majority passed in january saying that they can only apply to one part of the budget? >> that rule applies to specific pieces of legislation. the cbo analysis in this case is to the entire budget. >> you can give me the range?

you understand if they infect applied it to both spending programs as well as expenditures. >> they have indicated that the tax reform proposal, they are not able to do the macro economic analysis on that. they need a very specific proposal from the committee on ways and means. >> so dynamic scoring also can work in reverse. people can react to government policies and can become less instead of increase, correct? do you know if they apply dynamic scoring to spending cuts to contractions and spending? >> yes, they do.

>> have you found that range? >> for ranges, some of the ranges that they have indicated to us, they looked at the gross national product per capita that would result from the dynamic feedback. by 2025, the gnp per capita would be 1.5% higher. that is their central estimate. their low estimate is 0.7% in their high estimate is 2.4%. they take the midpoint of those ranges. rep. pascrell: just some clarification here. i want to thank the staff. it is a tough job and i want you to know that we are all

appreciative. the revenue in this budget does not change on the cbo's projections. is that the current law baseline, or is it current policy? >> current law. >> so current law assumes that all of the tax provisions that expired at the end of last year stay expired. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> so all the taxes, tax provisions expired and stay expired. so the bills we pass or just past on the floor you have some

of these made permanent, unpaid for -- they are not assumed in this baseline, correct? >> that is correct. if i could expand that answer. the assumption that we make in this budget is that we start with the cbo baseline as our revenue base. i budget calls for comprehensive tax reform which we believe will generate more growth, jobs, and revenue into the federal government. the reform will provide -- the reform is to generate the same level of revenue is what the current baseline is. can go up and down as long as you have the same number. >> you saw the subject made in

2001 in 2002. -- saw the assumptions made in 2001 and 2002. i just want you to know that we are assuming this, correct? >> we are assuming comprehensive tax reform, which we believe will generate growth. i think it is also fair to point out that 9/11 hit about the same time as the bush tax cuts. it is kind of hard to do an apples to oranges comparison. >> are you saying that the economy headed downhill after 9/11 and that the tax cuts and that administration not paying for either war had very little to do?

>> you made a remark that was not in reference to the budget resolution. irish the witnesses to stick to the budget resolution. -- i urge the witnesses to stick to the budget resolution. >> with those bills be in order under your budget? >> which bills? >> those permanent tax cuts. >> as mr. may mentioned, the overall goal of the budget is conference of tax reform that is fairer simpler, more competitive, and revenue neutral. to look at tax extenders on an individual basis is one way to view it.

another way is that those tax extenders could become part of a comprehensive tax reform package. that is a possibility that we assume could be done through this budget. the joint committee on taxation has in fact looked at a plan that does something very similar last year. >> i have two more questions to ask you. do they change the baseline? those extenders. >> they change the baseline -- the cbo changes the baseline on final enactment. that is the cbo scoring convention. >> do they assume offsetting tax increases to make up for the revenue?

>> i think cbo looks at current law and because there has been no change in current law, the ce -- the cbo does not adjust the baseline. >> so we don't have to pay for these that? -- pay for these? >> the earlier response from mr. may was with respect to a cbo analysis, but as i understand your comment now is that there is an assumption you're making in your budget wholly apart from the cbo. somehow the cost of $1 trillion is somehow going to be captured with dynamic scoring.

is that the assumption? >> i don't believe i said that in if i did i miss spoke. i think i said that we believe that fundamental tax reform will generate the same amount of spending. the chairman has alluded on several occasions to areas where if we get our economy back going -- >> this is not a response to the budget resolution. >> the republican side of the isle is served very well by your political arguments. let me talk about two or three subjects. the oco account first. what can that money be spent on?

>> just sat through a budget resolution the allocation for the committee. the overall allocation at this point is $94 billion. >> the appropriations committee can take some of that money and spend it on building new ships? >> i can't conjecture on -- >> but it is possible? within the budget context there are two limitations on what that money can be spent on? -- there aren't any limitations on what that money can be spent on? we need to build more ships? >> the overall aggregate level for oco is based on a placeholder estimate pending a variety of factors including the

secretary of defense's announcement that he is considering slowing down the drawdown schedule in the middle east. >> i understand that with regards to what is going on in the middle east and various other places. my question is, are there any limitations within the budgetary context that we can't spend the money on? this current law allow us to spend overseas contingency money -- >> yes, there is an oco designation. >> cannot that money be spent here in the united states to build a new ship? >> if there is a restriction in current law then there would be a restriction.

>> if we repeal the affordable care act that needs the money that goes to medicaid expansion in states goes away? >> the expansion goes away and i think the affordable care act added about 16 million people at the end of the 2020 window. the expansion of the medicare program -- we are using savings as offsets. >> so the medicaid money is repealed and the credits, they take them out to. o. before the affordable care act we had this issue with payments that went to hospitals for charity care, for example. is that account affected at all by the repeal of the affordable

care act? >> i don't know the answer to that question. all of those provisions would be repealed and we assume the replacement of a new patient centered health care system. we would assume the repeal of the affordable care act and the replacement by a patient centered health care system. we will get back to you sir. >> i know that because of the medicaid expansion, we were reducing the dish payments because there was less need for it, obviously people weren't going to the emergency room's but had primary care.

i want to know if there is any money allocated towards -- >> that would be ultimately in their purview. >> last is the snap program. how much in savings? >> over the ten-year window, $125 billion. >> what is the remaining cut in the income security mandatory? >> we reformed the ssi income. $6.2 billion over the 10 year window. the snap program, we assume that

that would be a state flexibility fund. we respect work requirements. we terminate hamp. and there are civil service pension reforms as well. over the ten-year window that is $127 billion in savings. >> for civil service pension? >> yes, moving to a 50-50 system. >> thank you. >> is it fair to say that what you are describing now is pretty much the same as lester's budget? >> yes. rep. van hollen: as you know, there are a number of functions within the mandatory proposal. last year a detailed --

with respect to some of the tax and spenders for working families, are your budgets the same as last year? >> if current law had expansion it would expire when the current law deems it to expire. rep. van hollen: and i assume that your proposal does not include the previous chairman's proposal with respect to an etic increase? >> that is not a current assumption? rep. van hollen: let me go back to the medicare question.

as i added up the medicare savings and compared, it looked roughly to be about $100 billion in additional savings. can you briefly describe what additional savings you have beyond which read earlier -- beyond what you had earlier? >> there are payment reforms to use options like value-added purchasing. there are short health outcomes in the most clinically in suitable -- most clinically suitable environments. rep. van hollen: would be possible if they shared assumption with our staff here? i understand that ms. moore has a question? rep. moore: in the narrative

part of the budget, there is a great deal of discussion for freedom and flexibility for states and really restoring the true meaning of federalism. states rights and so on. i guess i want to figure out how many of the programs are subject under this narrative to block granting. medicaid will be block granted snap will be block granted, what else? >> we will consider state flexibility funds. snap in the medicaid program would provide flexibility for states to tailor their approach. it is not a washington one-size-fits-all approach. rep. moore: what it really means

is a first-come first-served method. entitlement to these programs would end with the block grants. >> on medicaid we assume we still spend $3.3 trillion over the 10 year window. >> what else is block granted? >> we have an option for opportunity grants which provide a flexibility for states to combine different low income support programs with new work requirements to identify efficiencies for themselves. >> what would that be? >> to combine different various programs. this is a budget resolution so we just have brought assumptions.

--broa assumptionsd. >> what would be the total amount that you envision on block granting opportunity grants? >> we don't have a specific assumption tied to that. >> the affordable care act is going to be repealed. the cbo has projected that there would be $2 trillion in savings. this is a $2 trillion whole in this budget based on repealing the affordable care act. >> it is not a hole. we assume, for example, on the revenues that that is replaced with progrowth tax reform. over a 10 year window that is

$10 trillion. for the medicare savings in the affordable care act. we would apply that back to the medicare trust fund to shore up solvency. rep. van hollen: let me make sure i understood that last answer. you are saying you will cut some of the tax expenditures up to the trillion dollars in order to find the gap? --fund the gap? >> that is the jurisdiction of the ways and means committee. >> what is the rationale behind cutting va spending by $1.9 billion.

>> they asked for us to consider a bipartisan approach in terms of identifying savings. this would be in the committee jurisdiction. an option included in the fy 2016 budget has been included in past budgets. >> that completes our walk-through. we want to thank mr. herz, ms. lee, and mr. may. >> the house budget committee wrapped up its daylong markup session of its 2016 federal budget about a half hour ago. the committee is in recess now subject to the call of the chair and the committee may reconvene on thursday.

the budget proposal by committee chair tom price would cut $5.5 trillion in projected spending over the next decade and balance the budget in that timeframe. the house is expected to begin floor debate on the request next week. if you missed any of today's session you can see it later in our programming schedule or at our video library anytime at c-span.org. meanwhile, the seti -- the senate budget committee meets tomorrow to markup its version of the budget. we will have that live on c-span3. coming up, we will show you today's senate budget committee meeting on the 2016 budget. then, president obama response to the 2016 house republican budget in a town hall in cleveland, ohio. later, we returned to the house

budget committee with a look at today's opening statements. the senate budget committee also met today to begin considering chair mike enzi's budget proposal. it is being reported that the senate cuts less than the house budget. this budget provides $58 billion for a war funding account known as the oco fund, as opposed to the house's $90 billion proposal. a smaller republican majority in the senate in the 2016 elections are in play as the senate request comes to the floor for a 60 vote fresh old -- 60 vote threshold.

>> i will call the committee to order. today we begin to markup the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016. i want to thank my colleagues brawler input and hard work. -- my colleagues for all of their input and hard work. i want to thank the ranking member senator sanders. while we have disagreement on policy, we have had good discussions on how we will maintain cooperation incivility through the process -- operation and stability through the

process. this afternoon will be reserved for opening statements and tomorrow's meeting will be reserved for the debating and voting on amendments and final passage of the amendment resolution. before we begin opening statements i would like to take a few moments to discuss the parameters and guidelines for this markup. i request members to try and limit their statements to six minutes. the wreck ignition -- the recognition of members will be according to committee rules. tomorrow morning we will reconvene at 1030 and the debate and voting on amendments will begin. all amendments must fully offset over the total years covered by the budget resolution. in addition, members must bring at least 75 copies of their

amendments. the senate amendments are nonbinding according to the purposes of this markup. that way we can focus on substantially -- on substantially amendments. amendments outside the committee's jurisdiction or amendments that attempt to amend authorizing statutes would be classified as non-germane and outside the scope of this markup. if the parliamentarian advises us that an amendment would jeopardize the resolution i will rule it out of order. members must be member -- members must be present when votes are called to be tallied.

i will recognize members to offer and debate amendments in blocks of time. i recognize that members schedules will have conflicts through the day so i will be working with the ranking member to find convenient times for the votes. our committee rules require us having 12 members present to vote and eight members present to conduct committee business. during the 20 13 budget resolution markup they reached an agreement to keep the markup moving forward even if there were at times fewer than eight present. the ranking member and i have agreed that that situation worked well so we will try it again. i ask unanimous consent that for opening soon -- for opening statements, debate and votes that it be open for the remainder of markup.

we intend to file all of the necessary documents on friday so that we can proceed to consideration on the senate floor next week. after conclusion of the markup, members may submit views and written views need to be signed and committed to the chief clerk no later than friday, march 20 -- friday, march 21. today we begin the monumental task of combating our nations exploding dead which threatens each and every american -- exploding debt. we had a profound moral responsibility to help hard-working taxpayers to see the true picture of our country's finances. this is also an opportunity to make significant changes in how we do business in order to safeguard the future of our kids

and grandkids. the resolution that we will be debating this week and next is a responsible plan that balances the budget within 10 years with no tax hikes. it also strengthens the national defense and improves economic opportunity for hard-working families. this balanced budget delivers to hard-working taxpayers a more productive, efficient, and hard-working government that supports americans when it must and gets out of the way when it should. in this fiscal year, we will spend $468 billion more than we take in. this is an unsustainable financial path and if congress were to do what every american family has to do, live within our means, we would have to cut we spend in half. why should we be concerned? why

the urgency to act? right now we pay $230 billion in interest. every dollar spent on interest is another dollar that we won't be able to use for government services for individuals need or another dollar that won't be available for taxpayers for their own needs. what if the interest rates grow faster or higher? the senate budget committee is tasked with the responsibility of setting spending parameters. congress has other committees who invented government programs and are charged with overseeing the efficiency and effectiveness. we have another committee that annually helps allocate the exact dollars for these programs. but the senate budget committee sets the spending parameters. in other words, that means that we set the limits. this is why passing a budget is so important for our nation, it

lets the policymakers get to work by focusing our -- by following our spending limits. we have a debt on the way to $25 trillion. we have annual interest headed to $780 billion. the budget committee is saying that we need to start talking about how to best make the government live within its means and said spending limits to turn this around. but we have to act now before we's -- act now while we still have choices. what we do not say is specifically what those committees should do. in my eight weeks as chairman, i reviewed every number i could find and with some hard-working committee members, worked to set some limits. there are 260 programs, according to the cbo, whose authority has expired.

but they are still being funded. that is $293 billion that hasn't been recently reviewed. some of those programs have been expired for more than six years. one group of programs expired in 1983 and money is still being spent every year. we literally have spending we don't even know is going on. congress is responsible for all of that, it's now is the time to begin to lead and solve the dangerous financial crisis facing our nation. if government programs are not delivering results, they should not be improved. if they are not delivering results, they should be eliminated. if they can be improved, we should work on it. it is time to look at all of them, prioritize and demand

results from our government programs. the appropriators, broken down into spending subcommittees will have to scrutinize every dollar. actually, with the billion dollars we allocate, they will be lucky to scrutinize every million dollars. we know this will be a challenge for every number of congress. -- every member of congress. you will also hear a lot about budget caps this week. in 2010, congress saw a budget issue coming and they said spending limits in law. these limits were signed into law by the president. if we break those limits and only if we break those limits, the penalty called sequestration breaks in. if we do our jobs, we can have some flexibility and eliminate

what isn't working starting with the worst first. then we can eliminate waste and streamlined what is left. you won't find specifics and what we have done, just limits. we have even built and flexibility using reserve funds. improve and expand the economy in order to grow jobs and increase wages or grow taxes. not everyone is opposed to tax increases. those who will directly receive the results of those increases are happy or may feel that they deserve it. every program has a constituency and supporters and employees. it is important to remember that government gifts are not free. our government was never designed as a gift giver. the government giving for free comes to be expected and not appreciated.

it allows those who should be helping with the problem feel relieved of any obligation. the government often perpetuates dependence instead of independence. i am reminded of the story of a inventor who wanted a new water to the device for africa. the device required almost no maintenance. the chief said, don't give it to us, the people don't appreciate what is given for free. many is the same for taxpayers. many feel they are making donations to things they don't have any say in or don't believe in. when government provides too much, the recipient doesn't appreciate their forced help and there is no satisfaction being held -- there is no satisfaction by the person being forced to donate. people know that when policies and regulations are put into place in washington, it can mean

that people can lose their jobs. they also know that the smaller the business, the more likely it is to affect their job. this is an expert in process for passing a bill with some very specific constraints. also requiring the president signature when the risky -- with the reconciliation bill is passed. there is a court case coming up on the affordable care act that could throw it into disarray. working together on a balanced budget, we may even begin to trust funds that contain actual money again instead of ious. we can also build funds that are dedicated to the reason that we collect specific funds, so that people will be willing to pay because they know what those funds will be used for and can see the results that they were promised.

the budget is the start of that process. we have more dollars to deal with than anyone can imagine or follow and currently take in more i truly believe that by working together, we can deliver real solutions, real results, and real progress. not only is this possible, it is doable. it is what the american people want and deserve. but first we have to find common ground and cooperate to get things done. i got help us in the days ahead and may god bless america. sen. sanders: thank you very much for your civility. i think we all look forward to the markup tomorrow. thank you for releasing the budget a little bit early.

as we all know, as the chairman indicated, federal budget that we are working on is not an appropriations bill. if does not provide explicit funding for this or that agency or this or that program. what it does do is lay the foundation for that process. it tells the appropriations committee the total amount they have to spend. in other words, this budget is more than just a very long list of numbers. the federal budget is about our national priorities and about our values. it is about who we are as a nation and what we stand for. it is about how we assess the problems facing our country and how we resolve them. that is what our committee is undertaking and it is a very, very serious sponsor ability. -- responsibility.

let's be clear -- no family, no business, no local or state government can responsibly write a budget without first understanding the problems and challenges that it faces. that is even more true when we deal with a federal budget on some $4 trillion. if i examine the budget brought forth by the republicans in the house and here in the senate, this is how i see their analysis of the problems facing our country. at a time of massive wealth and income inequality, my republican colleagues currently believe that the richest people in this country need to be made even richer. it is apparently not good enough that 99% of all new income today is going to the top 1%. it is not good enough at the top

.1% own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%. just not good enough. clearly, in the eyes of many republicans, the wealthy and the powerful need more help. not only should they not be asked to pay more in taxes, my republican colleagues believe that we should cut tax rates for millionaires and billionaires. it is not good enough that corporate america is enjoying record-breaking profits and that the ceos of large corporations earn some 290 times more than what their average employees earn. it is apparently not good enough that since 1985, the top .1% has seen a more than a trillion dollar increase in its wealth

then what it would have been if wealth inequality have stayed at the same level that it was in 1985. a trillion dollar increase in wealth. but for many of our republican colleagues, just not good enough. meanwhile, as i understand the republican view of our country as manifested in the house and senate budgets, it appears that millions of middle-class and working families, people who are working more and more hours for low wages, people who have seen significant decline in their standard of living over the last 40 years -- these people apparently do not need our help. rather, they need to see a major reduction in federal programs that make their lives and the lives of their children a little bit better. at a time when we have over 45

million americans living in poverty, more than almost any time in the history of this country, my republican colleagues think we should increase that number by cutting the earned income tax credit. at a time when almost 20% of our children live in poverty, the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world, my republican colleagues think that maybe we should raise the childhood poverty rate a little bit higher by cutting childcare, i cutting head start by cutting the child tax credit, and by cutting nutrition programs for hungry children. to summarize, the rich get richer and the republicans think they need more help. the middle-class and working class families of this country become poorer and the republicans think we need to cut programs they desperately need. frankly, that may be the

priorities of some people in this room, but i do not believe that these are the priorities of the american people. mr. chairman, today the united states remains the only industrialized country honor that does not guarantee health care to all of its people. we have about 40 million americans without health insurance and millions more who are underinsured. well apparently that is not good enough for my republican colleagues. they want to abolish the affordable care act and take away the health insurance of some 60 million americans who have gained insurance to that program. in other words, instead of having 40 million people uninsured, we would have 56 million people without health insurance. if you include the cuts in medicaid they propose for some of the most vulnerable families that number goes even higher. further, when you make massive cuts in medicaid, you also cuts

the nursing home cap for seniors. perhaps that will vulnerable and helpless people in our country. is that really what we are about as a nation? i have talked a little bit about the devastating impact that the house and senate republican budget would have on the american people, but equally important is what these budgets do not do. this serious problem they do not address. poll after poll tells us the issue the american people are most concerned about is jobs wages, and the economy -- that is what the american people are concerned about, and for good reason. despite a significant improvement in the economy over the last six years real unemployment today is not the official 5.5% -- it is 11%. youth unemployment is 70%.

-- is 17%. what america wants and the what the republican budget ignores is creating decent paying jobs. in my view, the fastest way to do that is to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, our roads, bridges, water systems, wastewater plants. according to the american society of civil engineers, we need to invest over $3 trillion by 2020 and our infrastructure. -- in our infrastructure. at a time when millions of americans are working for starvation wages and when the federal minimum wage an abysmal $7.25, we need to increase wages. we also need to pay equity in this country so that when they do not make $.78 on the dollar compared to men who do the same.

further, we need to address the scandal in this country in which many of our people are working 50 or 60 hours a week and are not getting time and a half. those are the issues of the american people. in vermont and across this country. unfortunately, the republican budget refuses to address these issues of enormous consequence. i can tell you that in vermont and i suspect every state young people and their families are enormously frustrated by the high cost of college education and the harangued oppressive student debt that many of them leave school with. student debt today at $1.2 trillion is the second largest category of debt in this country, more than credit card debt and homeowner debt. as the republican budget do anything to lower interest rates on student debt? in fact, their budget would make

a bad situation even worse. does the republican budget support president obama's initiative to make two years of community college free, for any other effort to make college more affordable? sadly, it does not. what it does do is cut $90 billion in pell grants over a ten-year. . period. my colleagues are concerned about the deficit, which has been reduced over the last six years. every member on this side of the aisle is also concerned about the deficit. my friends are concerned about the national debt. we are concerned about the national debt. but what many of us recognize is that one reason in recent years that debt has gone up his we went into two wars and we forgot to pay for them. we created an insurance written medicare program, and forgot to

pay for that. and we provided huge tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country. mr. president, the high national debt is an issue that we are also concerned about but where we disagree is how you address the deficit and the debt. what we believe is that from a moral perspective and an economic perspective you do not balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, the children the sick and the poor, and then give tax breaks to the rich and large corporations. today, major corporation after major corporation pays in a given year 0 in federal income taxes. according to a recent report, each and every year, profitable corporations are avoiding $100 billion in taxes by stashing their profits in the cayman islands and other offshore tax

havens. in 1952, corporations contributed 32% of all federal revenue. today that is 11%. in terms of individual tax rates, we have the absurd situation where hedge fund managers who make hundreds of millions of dollars a year pay an effective tax rate lower than a truck driver or nurse. if anyone in america thinks that make sense. the last point i want to make is that the best way we can do a budget, and effective budget, is to move to a full employment economy with jobs that are paying workers a living wage. when we do that, by investing in infrastructure by investing in education, in research and development, we not only improve the lives of millions of people, we also take a major step in lowering the deficit and lowering the national debt.

when people are working at decent paying jobs, they are paying taxes. when they pay taxes and we increase revenue, we lower the national debt. mr. chairman, thank you very much and i look forward to the remainder of the hearing. >>[chanting] >>, no fees, education should be free -- no cuts, no fees education should be free! >> the committee will come to

order and submit to the information of all members the statement will be a little longer and we will rotate under the regular practice. sen. grassley: first, i think we should commandmend you for the difficult works it takes to compile a budget. there have been many times with the senate failed miserably in our obligation to produce a budget and you have fulfilled the wire men's -- the requirements. many years went by with no effort to produce a budget at all. to answer the call of the american people to produce a budget and also delivered on the promises of our party over the last election that we would have a budget. you have demonstrated a prudent and responsible budgeting by giving the balance within 10 years. i'd also like to thank you for

including a number of provisions that myra west. -- at my request. they will serve rural areas and increase support of independent living and independent work for disabled individuals. i'm sure we will hear a great deal of criticism from the other side of this budget resolution, and we have already heard that. i don't know what the minority intends to offer so for comparison's's sake, since i don't have one of their budgets it is instructive to remember what president obama proposed six weeks ago over the 10 year. period. they would increase taxes by trillions of dollars. spending would increase. trillions of the added to the national debt. interest would triple to more than $800 billion.

the president's budget was criticized by budget experts for ignoring the drivers of our long-term debt. the president was criticized for declaring that our debt problems have been solved. one expert stated "the focus on promoting investment today will do little good if our massive debt is choking the investments of tomorrow." it seems that this important point has never been fully knowledged by the other side. over spending today will harm economic growth, prosperity, and opportunity for future generations. increasing spending today paid for by increasing the debt burden on our children and grandchildren, is a moral -- is the moral equivalent of selling and paid in a poke. -- selling a page in a poke.

the hearings before the budget committee -- we heard from a number of witnesses that discuss the economic benefits of eliminating overspending and balancing the budget. balancing the budget will increase private investment and grow the economy. stronger economic growth leads to higher incomes and wages for american workers. a balanced budget will help keep interest rates low, keeping more money in the pockets of hard-working americans, and helping reduce the borrowing costs of college students. a balanced budget will lead to reduce interest payments, being resources are available for important priorities. we all want to help hard-working families and taxpayers. we should help them by providing an effective and accountable federal government. we should help them by growing the economy.

we should help them by demonstrating what a congress has the ability to put the federal government on a path to live within our means. the minority speaks a great deed al of bringing new revenue and. that is a roundabout way of saying we need more taxes and sooner. the other side wants the government to reach even deeper in the pockets of americans. they think the federal government needs to take even more of a worker's paycheck to satisfy the needs to spend money. they believe we need more money and that comes from hard-earned money that people and americans earn to support all of president obama's expansive new government programs. i am sure that we will hear or see a slew of amendments from the other side proposing to spend more, offset with higher

taxes on job creators and hard-working americans. the fact is that there is no limit on the appetite of some to spend money. that is true president obama's budget, which raises the tax burden, not to reduce the deficit but instead to spend even more. i will admit that the budget proposal before us isn't perfect, given our nation's fiscal problems, difficulties need to be made in order for us to be on a path to balance the budget. unlike the president's budget, which is a heads in the sand budget the chairman has gone to great lengths to produce a responsible budget, one that makes tough choices to protect and safeguard important safety net programs. what this budget acknowledges is that deficits and debt matter. they matter to our economy, they

monitor to hard-working american, they matter to job creators, and they matter to future generations of americans that will suffer from overspending and physical callousness. it is time to safeguard the american dream for the future. this is not just a fiscal issue it is a moral issue. i hope my colleagues will recognize the responsibility we have to ensure that future generations have the opportunity to achieve even greater prosperity than our generation. this budget resolution moves us in that direction. i yield. >> senator kaine. sen. ckaine: i strongly support moving forward on it legit resolution and i applaud the committees work. i look forward to working with all to do a budget to improve our fiscal policies and national

priorities. the committee knows well the story of budgeting in recent years. there is no single factor that affects the budgeting task before us than the sequester that was imposed by a vote of congress in 2011. as a former managing director and mayor and governor i would say that the sequester violates every principle of good budgeting, either public or private, because the notion of across-the-board cuts does not take into account either performance data or priority judgments which have to be taken into account. i define sequester an arcane word as if we can do something good then let's do something stupid. i have never agreed with the notion that if we can do something good let's do something stupid, but that is what sequester means. we will work together under senator murray, to do a two-year

budget deal that together with the house wasn't perfect but it's exceeded significantly and reduced the sequester dramatically. and provided a two-year framework for appropriations bills and i think the outcome of that budget crisis was to move us in the right direction. the budget projections have shown improvement in economic health since then. the nation's fiscal health has improved and as the ranking member mentioned, deficits have dramatically reduced. i hope we can find by the end of the day some similar progress. a budget that is good for the country will accomplish a number of pillars and promote growth and jobs. it will replace sequestration the foolish method that has hurt our country. by doing that we can credibly continue down the path of

deficit reduction instead of doing it in a mindless way. i would like to focus on questions i would have loved to have asked. i remember when i first did the budget in 2013 as a brand-new member of the senate, the opening session involved opportunities to ask restaurants -- that is not how we are doing it this year. if i had the opportunity to ask questions about the budget before us, that i intend to get into. why does the markup proposed to further cut discretionary spending below sequester levels, to the tune of $236 billion over 10 years? the discretionary cap set for this discretionary spending are already unworkable as congress saw last year, when we found out. the caps don't work and additional cuts are unworkable. the budget proposes nearly $5

billion -- sorry, $5 trillion in cuts, but there is a reconciliation in the construction of the totals. i am puzzled about why the reconciliation doesn't match the savings target in the budget. there is a reserve fund on sequestration. i think i approve of the intent of it but there is a use of the word "or" that i want to get into. my read of the language is that it is to cover sequester reduction for defense and nondefense accounts and i hope to get to the bottom of it. we have heard from every service chief that sequester levels are unworkable for the dod. how can we believe our nation will be safe and flexible if sequester cuts are maintained in this budget? why does the budget use the january cbo instead of the more updated march cbo baseline, for spending

is estimated to be a cumulative $431 billion less over the next 10 years? why does the budget proposed to cut $4 trillion in mandatory spending, including cuts to medicare and more accurately how does the budget proposed to do that? why doesn't the budget cut the cost of an sgr when we know current proposals will total to over $170 billion and we have to address this issue? finally, in the ranking member touched upon this, the budget assumes that the affordable care act is repealed, including the taxes that financing. how can a budget engage in double counting of this kind? more appropriately, what are we going to do about 16.4 million

people in this country who was health care? that even have it for the first time in their lives. a statistic that is hard to grasp -- 16.4 million people is the combined population of the following states -- west virginia idaho hawaii, maine new hampshire, rhode island, montana, delaware, south dakota, alaska, north dakota, vermont wyoming, and nevada. 16 states worth of people for health with health insurance for the first time. what are we going to do about that? they do, mr. chair. sen. sessions: thank you. i have always admired your work and you have not failed. it is a challenging thing to produce a budget and i

appreciate your philosophical statement about the challenge our nation has. senator murray, my new year has been a lot less stressful than i expected. we certainly have a lot to do and i am glad some people worked hard on this bill. i would note that our democratic colleagues went through a five-year period with only one budget. in his first year of chairman he has reduced the budget and he will reduce it each year. the united states gross federal debt stands at $18.2 trillion. in president obama took office it was $10.6 trillion. a shocking increased by any standards, one that threatens the future of every single americans. are interest payments on the debt alone are already six times the federal highway budget.

a decline in deficit that we have heard mention have always been predicted. with the increasing deficits we are going to see relentlessly in the future have always been predicted, and nothing has been done to change that course. this budget changes that course. 10 years from now they will triple to $800 billion. this is a national calamity. one out of every seven dollars taken from the american people and the economy will be utilized and spent for nothing. it drains the wealth of nations. it is a steep tax on every working person.

no nation can financially sustain, as the budget office has told us. we have told that this dangerous taxing and borrowing and spending would spur economic growth but growth over the past four years has averaged only 2.2%, about half of what the white house projected. cbo, omb, and the federal reserve have also overestimated growth, and income inequality is real, senator sanders. "the new york times" wrote, " income in the quality of the united states has been growing for decades but the trend appears to have accelerated during the obama administration." never has so great a sum of spending been spent and achieved so little. consider since 2009, the

following has occurred -- more than 12 million people left the workforce. real median incomes have dropped $3000. real median weekly earnings are lower today than they were in 1979. the number of people on food stamps has increased by 7 million. 1 in 4 in their prime working years are not working. but how do we fix it? we too, care about hurting americans. i know people are hurting in this country -- so to my colleagues on this side of the aisle. our constituents are pleading with us to forge a new path, not the same old tax and spend and regulate. they wanted budget that will help millions in the workforce and see incomes rise for change. this budget lays the

initial groundwork. the federal government currently spends about $750 billion each year on welfare and poverty support programs, including state contributions -- that is a $1 trillion welfare hike on tested programs. this is spread across 80 programs administered by a vast bureaucracy with little oversight and no guiding moral vision. only a miniscule 1% of this is dedicated to job training. meanwhile, job training is fragmented into 47 programs throughout the entire budget. who among us can say there isn't a more effective, compassionate way to spend this $1 trillion every year? are no reforms justified? we could spend $30,000 a year on every household living in

poverty and still spend only half of what our current bureaucracy spent each year. imagine if we reprogram more of these funds for job placement apprentice programs. this would help transition millions without denying benefits to a single person in the. -- in need. whenever possible, help someone find a good paying job that can support a family. government measures measure success by how many places are on the role. we need to six measure success by how many people we left out of poverty. we need some original thinking. corporation say they want to find workers -- why not send them to the welfare offices that of the immigration office? i will be offering an amendment in the coming days to help transform welfare into a place to restart lies.

mr. chairman, thank you for your work. i think you have produced a valuable document and we will have to continue to advance the principles he stated here. if we do so we will make this country a better place. >> i want to thank the senators were staying close to the six minute limit. sen. king: thank you, mr. chairman. i know it is an easy to make these kinds of decisions. i definitely share your concern. i think it is a looming problem and interest will crowd out all problems and that is something that we really do need to focus on. the question is how do we get out of this whole? -- this hole? one option is to cut expenditures and that is the path that is chosen in this

budget. as i understand the numbers, you would maintain the sequester levels for defense and for nondefense, and then cut starting in 2017 nondefense discretionary by some $236 billion over the remainder of the term. we have the sequester for defense, and then we have the sequester for nondefense, plus additional cuts. i would just parenthetically remind everyone that the sequester was designed to be dum b, and it is, because it is across the board. it was designed to provoke us to find a better solution. that was the explicit understanding at the time of passage. and yet we haven't been able to do that. i see no magic in the sequester number if indeed we can find other alternatives, and i realize the chair has left --

there is a space in the budget for the possibility of finding another alternative. number one way to get out of the hole is to cut expenditures. the second is to increase revenues. a big category of the budget that never gets discussed is tax expenditures. it is recognized as expenditures by everyone, republican and democrat economists referred to it as tax expenditures. it may not apply taxes to certain individuals and it ranges from everything from hedge fund managers to the that ability of home mortgages. that is that number today is $1.5 trillion a year and that is larger than the entire discretionary budget of the united states government. and the tax code was last reformed it was about 500 billion -- it is almost triple over the last 25 or 30 years with very little oversight and very little thought about

whether those tax expenditures should continue. increasing revenue would include looking at tax expenditures and seeing if that is a possible way to help us out of the whole. the third and i think the best option is to grow the economy. there is a theory out there that if you lower taxes that will automatically grow the economy -- i have never seen any data that substantiate. part of the way you grow the economy is making investments. the interstate highway system was and a norm us boost to the national economy, and it was an enormous investment. the last generation of americans pay for it. -- paid for it. i would argue that the most successful economic development program in the history of the united states, and the entire history of the united states, was the g.i. bill after world war ii, which propelled millions of americans into the middle class.

that was an expenditure program, it was a tax cut. that created the roof and the economy that propelled us through the 1960's and 1970's. growing the economy is the answer but a one-sided response to say we're only going to grow the economy by cutting taxes -- i don't think there is evidence to validate that, and it ignores the power of infrastructure education. those things that actually do grow the economy. remember i said there were 3/1 1/2 ways -- the other is health care costs. if you look at it it is almost entirely attributable to health care costs. medicare, medicaid, veterans pensions changes in federal workers -- it is almost entirely attributable to health-care costs, and if we don't do

something about health care costs, not by shifting them to the states or the seniors, but by doing something about the core, undeniable fact that we pay twice as much per capita for health care in this country than virtually any other country until we tackle that substantive problem we aren't going to be able to solve the budget problem. that will squeeze out everything -- defense, nondefense battleships. health care has to be where we can really make some -- we could erase the deficit. if we could controlled health care costs. it appears over the last couple years health care inflation has slowed to the slowest level in 15 years and the president would argue that is the result of the aca. whatever it is, if that continues, that is in itself a huge help to getting us out of this whhole.

we can't do it with one answer stop there is no silver bullet. cuts by themselves are not the way we are going to get where we want to get. a friend of mine in maine used to say there is rarely a silver bullet but there is often silver buckshot. a multiplicity of solutions that together will get you where you want to go. my only problem with your budget, mr. chairman, is that you focus on one aspect, one part of what amounts to a total $5 trillion budget -- $6 trillion if you include tax expenditures -- one very small part of that and i just don't think that is how we are going to get there. i would argue that -- i commend you for the work that has gone into it. the hard part is in the details. that i hope that we can try to find an approach that will lead us toward a balanced budget. that is a goal i share.

to do it in such a way that will help us to grow the economy and strengthen this country in terms of all the people that have a contribution to make and a role to play in society. is determined, i liked it when you began -- you had god bless the committee. this may have been the room were george mitchell said "god does not take sides in american politics." >> i hope i was blessing the whole committee. sen. crichlow: i thank you for bringing forward a budget. as we all know, it is difficult to create a budget in the circumstances we face now with our fiscal policy. i believe you have done a good job. this is a budget that balances,

that has important reforms that will help to improve the processes by which congress operates. it is a budget that contemplates addressing those concerns that have just been raised about our burgeoning health care cost. it has the kind of tax code we need to make america more competitive and generate the jobs we all agree are necessary to keep the economy strong. i commend you for that. remarkably we are still debating in washington dc whether we have a budget crisis. although there has been let service a lot as to whether or not we have a crisis, the fact is that those who say we have gotten past of it make the cases that we have reduce the budget. they don't point out is that we have increased it by 600% and that deficits are still nearly

$.5 trillion a year -- that is a crisis. i think perhaps the biggest crisis our nation faces, and we have a lot of crazies. -- of crises. perhaps the biggest threat is the one that comes from within. there is a lot of discussion today about interest and our capacity to properly govern. i want to put a picture to that story. interesting as it has been, a little over $200 billion in our budget will grow to $800 billion over the projected budget window -- but what does that mean? interest is the fastest-growing part of our federal budget. just a put a little comparison to, in about five or six years the total interest that we will pay on our national debt will be greater than all the defense

spending. and at the same time it will also have exceeded all nondefense ending. -- nondefense spending. it will start happening with interest, or the differential grows and grows and almost exponential proportions. will push out our ability to do the kinds of things we all agree we need to do. and yet we continue to argue over whether we have a crisis. he continued to argue over whether we need to show some austerity and we need to deal with this crisis by addressing the issue. the problem in our fiscal policy in america is that we spent more than we bring in in revenue not that our taxes are too low. the problem that we have is that we will not recognize that tough decisions have to be made. this budget makes them tough decisions. i commend you for that.

i believe that if we would recognize that responsible restraint in our spending is critical as a major component of our reform, that we can achieve those kind of restraints without the unfortunate ways the sequestration policy has forced upon us. this budget does not rely on sequestration. it beats the budget cap. it adopts, if i understand it the budget control act cap's. as long as we meet those caps we do not face the problematic impact of across-the-board cuts. it allows for deficit neutral reserve funds that will let this congress and this committee work to figure out how we can then address some of those areas that need to be strengthened, such as ourr national defense spending.

i agree with all of my colleagues here in this committee that investment in infrastructure is critical. it is one of the things that this committee and is congress need to find a solution to. we have been stuck for the last two or three years and we need to get past it. there are areas where we can work together, but we should quit arguing about whether there is a crisis. we have got to make tough choices. i want to address one thing before my timer runs out. a number of those who have spoken today have talked about the fact that in addition to controlling spending there is a revenue side to the solution. i agree. i disagree that the solution is to just raise taxes. those of us who have worked in the past on trying to address this issue have see that you would he hard-pressed to find a tax code more unfair, more complex and more

anticompetitive to our own business interests in a damper on capital formation. what we need to do that this budget contemplates is that this budget contemplates a major effort to reform our tax code. i think we should flatten it -- i think we should eliminate a lot of those provisions. i called and they just go -- and then reduce the rates and have a strong, powerful passing interest in this country that will not just generate the revenue we need for our fiscal crisis but will prompt and grow the kind of economic response in america that will generate jobs. i see my time is up, but i thank you for bringing forward a strong budget. i know there will be a robust debate over how we should address these issues. to me the most important thing is that this committee is tackling this crisis. thank you.

>> senator whitehouse. sen. white houitehouse: we have only seen this budget for a few hours, so these are preliminary comments. but what i see is that for all the smashing and slashing that is done through the programs that regular families depend on for their public schools and grandparents and nursing homes and basic needs that lower income people make, the dominating principle of this budget, the one that is that every tax loophole is sacred. there is not a nickel spent to reduce the deficit which is

described as a dangerous financial crisis. you have to measure how serious a rhetoric is by what you're willing to sacrifice is all the problem. is budget is a clear concession that the so-called dangerous financial crisis is actually less important than protecting the interest exemption which helps hedge fund managers pay tax rates as low as brick masons and truck drivers. in that sense, it is typical. i have brought this up every single hearing, and every time, here we are again. every single tax loophole is a great. we have had hearings on revenues in which republican witnesses have said we need to have revenues be part of it and still every tax loophole remain sacred. following on senator kaine's question i'm interested in

finding out how a budget that purports to root out obamacare root and branch and repeal in its entirety and accounts to trillion dollars in savings -- accounts to trillion dollars in savings leads obamacare revenues . that is the way i read it and it seems to the an unusual combination. it certainly doesn't account for the reduction in federal health care spending since the passage of the bill, which i think has some connection to the affordable care act. i am very nervous that this budget introduces so-called dynamic scoring. it does so in a complete, free fire zone, in which it is entirely selective. as far as i know, there are no ground rules to govern it. if we start down this path dynamic scoring can be used both ways.

there are no rules for it and i think it is a very dangerous principle to unleash without any principles that govern it. finally, i will say that i will challenge all of my colleagues on the other side to take the quarter billion dollars in cuts below sequester it nondefense discretionary spending and actually put them into appropriations accounts. we are living here in a budget fantasyland which perhaps explains why more than half of the scenes in this room are empty while we have this debate. i don't think you can do it. i don't think there is one person on the side of this aisle who can take cuts of savagery -- of the savagery and magnitude this budget contemplates and put them down into the accounts and defend what happens when you

move away from abstract and go to the programs that people count on. for every taxpayer who's angry about their taxes, there is a grandmother in a nurse rsing home on medicaid, a nephew who counts on the school lunch program. you can't just look at one angry taxpayer and assume that is what america is all about. particularly not for people who can't make choices any longer because they are too old, too ill, or still children. as far as i can tell, this budget doesn't meet any good, reasonable budget keeping seal of approval in terms of tricks and gimmicks. it is fundamentally unfair. it is completely inconsistent with the rhetoric about how dangerous the debt crisis is, because it puts every single tax loophole in the country's code

in a higher place of importance than that supposedly crisis. i would say that the wealthier you are and the bore you care about yourself over your neighbor intercountry, the more you will like this budget. i yield back my time. >> thank you. senator corker would be the next one. sen. corker: thank you, mr. chairman. that was unexpected. i want to thank you for the work you did to put this budget together and to address the nation's fiscal issues, and i want to thank you for all the hard work you have put forth to get this done on time. i want to say that i know over the next couple days, a lot is

going to be said about what this budget is and what this budget is not. i understand that and i have been involved in this process before. understand that it is hard. to be, the budget really only does a couple of very basic things. it establishes a topline and that allows the appropriations process to continue, and it is a very important thing for us to do. secondarily, it puts in place some honest budgeting while we deal with the issues, allowing ourselves to spend $190 billion each decade more than we actually budget. and it also keeps the funding from being in essence an account where we can't put anything we wish that we don't want to account for in the budget. we establish a topline and we

establish some budgeting items to keep us from using gimmicks. i think all of us know that for anything significant to happen in a budget, or in spending, it takes 60 votes are more. i think all of us know that this budget has been on a partyline vote. just like a couple years ago senator murray and senator ryan came together and passed something that was a little different that allowed allocations to happen in a different way. i think all of us know that at the end of the day, it solved our nation's fiscal issues. it will take a bipartisan effort. but look, we have a republican house and republican senate. reconciliation is interesting but we have a democratic president, and a democratic president is not going to sign something into law that passes on a margin.

i know each side will have a lot of fun poking at the other for either nonproducing budgets or producing budgets and i know a lot will be said about the 10 year window. much of that is very vague. for those of us who really do care deeply, about the fiscal issues we have in our nation, will be are doing here today or what we will do over the next week is that we will pass the first hurdle -- to have a budget. that i think all of us know there is significant work, especially in the finance committee, that need to occur for us to address our fiscal issues. as we finish this back and forth about who is good into his bad and some of the cuts that are projected over 10 years -- and by the way i have never seen a budget that ever got to the second year, not one. the first year is the only year that is ever operative in

establishing the top line spending. i would say to everybody that we do have significant problems in this nation. let's get this budget discussion behind us and much of the rhetoric that will go with it and then let's get on with the work of dealing with our fiscal issues. i want to thank our chairman for giving us out on time. i want to thank people who for many years have put significant effort in a bipartisan way, to try and solve our nation's fiscal issues. once we move beyond some of the rhetoric that both sides will be utilizing over the next week, i look forward to sitting down with those who are really serious about putting in place some bipartisan solutions to solve our fiscal issues. thank you for this opportunity, it has been a pleasure serving with you. i appreciate your demeanor intertel and and look forward to this next week.

>> thank you. senator warner. sen.w. warner: i think this is just the first step and i think it is telling -- maybe there is a bit of budget -- more than half the members aren't here and 2/3 of the seats aren't filled and this is more about political theater than it is about getting to the issue. my comments to this process will be that i can make the claim that i have been in business longer than politics. let me make my comments about this plan as a 20 year businessperson. i appreciate the chairman's

efforts but i think this budget, as a business person, isn't taking us in the right direction. i fundamentally believe as most of my colleagues on the other side believe, that the best thing that can happen is private sector job growth. we need a tax code echoing what senator crapo said. what it is going to take is a willingness to say it can't be sacred. but i also know that this business plan for our country -- there are certain things government does that the private sector doesn't do -- education, infrastructure, research and development. this business plan for america cuts those investments by $236 billion beyond even sequestration. that would take from our share of revenues 9% goes into those

categories down to about 6%. i spent 20 years in investment business and i have never invested in an enterprise that spent 6% of revenues on its workforce, its plant and equipment. education, infrastructure, research and development. i, for one, have stood up and can assure you, mr. chairman, that you have not only been at the end of a bernie sanders talk -- i have been on the end of many bernie sanders talks. the mandatory programs can't be on autopilot. i want to echo what mr. crapo said -- many of you on the other side have backgrounds in business and i just don't get the failure to a knowledge of the mass on the revenue side. -- the math on the revenue side.

that is close to the historic average. what nobody says is that under that historic average, we have never balanced the budget. the only time is when we were beat between 18.8 and 19.9% of revenues of percentage of gdp. that is even before we deal with the entitlement changes before we deal with the demographics. it makes no sense on top of that when we constantly cite other nations who have a more competitive package. we cite the u.k. with lower tax rates. o