the stock market has performed better than under any president. we now have a strong dollar. we import more than we export. this gives america stronger purchasing power. we cannot take the radical turn the republicans propose. we have to stay on track. democrats intend to offer amendments to bolster education, modern transportation infrastructure system. we want to keep the momentum going.

the light to the offers. -- unlike the radical turn the gop offers. we want to strengthen and keep the promise of medicare and build on the economic progress we have seen over the past years. i would like to yield my time to the gentlewoman from michigan. >> thank you for all the work, the discussion we are all having among ourselves. the budget resolution has many things in it that concerns me. it hurts seniors. it hurts young people. perhaps most of all, it takes away economic opportunities for hard-working families in this country. i am concerned by the assumption that there are some people who don't want to work. in michigan, i know too many people who are looking for jobs and cannot find them, or are working hard just to get ahead working two or three jobs.

in michigan, and across the country, people just want the chance to work and the opportunity to earn a fair living. for many years, anyone willing to put in an honest day of work in this country could earn a fair wage. that built the auto industry in michigan. across the country, hard-working americans put in long days but left with a paycheck that could support their family. in the last three decades, the real income of a typical family has barely grown. in the last few years, we have seen stagnant wages and consumer cost go up. a lot of working men and women don't have that chance just to earn a decent living. helping hard-working families is good for everyone in this country. economists at the international monetary fund have found that

growing income inequality hurts economic growth. it is vital for all americans to have the opportunity to earn a fair wage. unfortunately, the republican budget doubles down on policies that will put working families further behind. i have one example of a man walking 21 miles a day to work. for $10.55 job. it was in the papers. it is critical that we take action to strengthen economic growth for all, to make sure hard-working families do well. i look forward to working with colleagues as we consider the amendments to give americans a chance to earn an honest living for a day's work. >> i know yield five minutes to mr. ryan of ohio. mr. ryan: i think the gentleman. the main issue we agree on as

democrats is that we need an opportunity for average people in our country to earn a living, to go to work and earn a living. that's all they want from us. we have proven on our side that our philosophy is much better at growing our economy. i don't know how many of you sit on military committees. i know i do. we have hollowed out our military because of sequestration, but we also hollowed out our domestic economy. when you look at how we got to where we are as a country, we got here because we had public investments and private investments. and the republican philosophy of dismantling the public investments have decimated the middle class.

look at our infrastructure today. anyone driving in the northern part of the country after the winter. we need investments to grow our economy in public infrastructure. roads, bridges, ports, airports, broadband, this is how you grow the economy. but you cannot necessarily do it if you cut out public investment. you want to break the digital divide, you need to make these investments so access gets to poorer communities. people want to go to work, and they want the opportunity, a hand up, not a handout. if you look at public and private investments we want to make in clean energy, i know that even with the issue of natural gas, we had republicans abandon ship. we want to make these investments into wind and solar. you want to resuscitate manufacturing? drive money into making windmills and solar panels. you know how many component parts, gear shifts, steel, go into a windmill?

tons, and that could be made in the united states. same with solar panels. if you cost investment in clean energy, you're never going to get there. same thing with the national science foundation. we are down 690 fewer national science commission grants than in 2013. will we grow our economy if we continue to gut these programs? we have a more comprehensive public-private partnership approach that has been proven to work. with that, i yield to my friend. >> thank you, mr. ryan. chairman price, ranking member vanholland. we are looking forward to working with you.

in congress, we talk a lot about the american dream, the american promise, that if you work hard you can make it better living for yourself and your children. at the center of the dream is opportunity. this opportunity only exists if the american people are given the tools to succeed. today, we are marking up a budget that fall short of advancing the cause of american opportunity. we on this committee have a choice to vote on amendments that will invest in putting people back to work, repair roads, bridges, ports, and other critical infrastructure, two providing affordable access to strengthen education systems and three, provide a fair tax system. while we have to make tough choices to deal with the deficit and debt, we remain committed to a strategy that strengthens infrastructure in a sustainable way, makes sure american workers

can compete. investing in infrastructure will create jobs, grow our economy, facilitate american exports, and increase the return on taxpayer investment. the final tool to create opportunity, a fair tax system that rewards hard work. putting my back in the pockets of hard-working families so they can invest in education, spent money at stores, restaurants communities, and take trips and vacations to stimulate the u.s. tourism economy. all these proposals are designed to give hard-working families the tools they need to grow the economy from the middle out, not the top down. we will see democrats offer amendments that will reflect this priority in a different way.

i urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to make hard-working families the top priority, as well as voting for these democratic amendments. i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. >> thank you, mr. norcross. i yield the remaining time to mr. young. mr. young: the budget before us today not only fails to address the challenges of hard-working american families, it jeopardizes the tools of opportunity that helped them get ahead. the amendments we will offer are designed to reflect the needs and prepare -- protect priorities of american families. i would like to use my state as an example. in addition to massive cuts to medicaid, this proposal would end medicaid expansion under the affordable care act. in the commonwealth of kentucky, with a population of 4 million people, 370,000 residents were able to get coverage under medicaid expansion just last year.

we reduced the number of uninsured in my district alone by 81%. over six years, this is predicted to create 40,000 jobs statewide and inject $30 billion into our economy. this company and of taxes, revenue, and cost savings is expected to generate $820 million for state and local government over that time. this is in a state that has senators named mitch mcconnell and rand paul. the affordable care act and medicaid expansion is quite literally paying off for kentucky. saving money, hospitals are earning more, and hundreds of thousands of people across kentucky rest easier everyday knowing they have care they can rely on. the budget proposal before us today would be enormous -- we will do everything we can to opperman minutes to move forward for the american people and

-- offer amendments to move forward for the american people and build on the gains we have made. i yield the remainder of my time to mr. lieu of california. >> as i read the proposal, i saw it is the best argument i have ever seen for two plus two equals seven. you cannot just repeal the aca and assume, get hundreds of billions of dollars in new revenues by calling it dynamic scoring. if you use fake numbers, why have such a mean-spirited document? the democrats will call for an alternative budget, one that instead of eliminating medicare as we know it, will preserve it. instead of cutting social security, we will preserve it. instead of punishing the middle class, we will help the middle

class. on top of that, we want to do it with real numbers. it is important to understand that there are very stark choices between the democratic budget and the republican budget. the democratic budget believes that investing in america, in transportation, education, infrastructure, the social safety net, that grows the economy. past history shows that that has grown the economy. as we go through the market today, you will see just how fake this budget is. i served in the california legislature for nearly a decade. we had a constitutional requirement to pass a balanced budget. no one in california would be able to vote for this document. this is simply a made-up document, with made-up numbers. it is one of the most fanciful things i have seen in all my years. you see through the markup, how outrageous these numbers are. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. >> i just want to thank my

colleagues on the democratic side for putting forward a critique of the republican budget and laying groundwork for the budget we will present next week. i thank the ranking member. we will proceed with the staff walk through of the fiscal year 2016 resolution on the budget. staff to move to the witness table, please. while staff is getting set, let me remind members that this is an opportunity to ask questions that are factual and technical in nature. the staff is not here to answer questions that defend policy. that is our job, and we will have a great opportunity to do that. these questions should be factual and technical.

>> how do you want us to do that? as you go through the section, we stop and do it in that section? >> what we will do, once we begin, we will have the first question asked, and the staff members will respond to the question in that area. >> it has to be about the information in that section? >> there is no walk-through of the entire legislation. it is whatever portion you wish to discuss. >> i think the chairman has agreed that the best use of our time is to allow members to begin with questions, rather than a presentation. we have with us today rick may our staff director.

we also have with us jane lee, our policy director, and jim hertz, director of budget review. as i mentioned, these questions should be factual and technical in nature. we will begin. this will last for one hour. >> this provides members of the committee the opportunity to understand some of the policies behind the numbers. we appreciate the opportunity, and we will use this time for that. i would like to put up a chart i used in my opening statement with respect to what this republican budget does with respect to what we call nondefense discretionary spending. for people listening, those are funds we invest in our kids' education, in scientific research, homeland security, those ongoing operations that are part of the nondefense space.

as i understand it, the budget would cut below the post-sequester level, below the sequester caps, by $579 billion over the 10-year window. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> thank you. now, relative to what would be required to maintain 2015 levels adjusted for inflation, that cuts nondiscretionary -- nondefense discretionary spending by $1.1 trillion. there's not much detail on how you would allocate these cuts. you have function 920 and function 930, which contain $766 billion in unallocated cuts over the next 10 years. in other words, you say, go make that huge cut, don't tell us where they are coming from. by our calculation, if you apply those across the board, it would

come to a cut of 25% in that category of the budget by 2020. is that square with your calculations? >> i think you have to -- >> turn on your mic, please. i don't think your mic is on. >> there, i'm sorry. i think you have to give us a minute to reconnoiter about what the best answer is. but the best way to start, and i will turn to jane and jim for further details, remember, the budget resolution is only a budget blueprint, designed to provide, shall we say a vision of where we believe the fiscal policy of the federal budget needs to go over the next 10 years. it is not designed to provide every single solitary assumption behind the numbers.

the committee is a tradition that started under the previous chairman and continues with this chairman, we give illustrative examples of both direct spending as well as discretionary, how we achieve our numbers. we created this budget plan based on policies, as the chairman of the two earlier in his remarks. this is not a mathematical exercise. it is a policy-based effort. we are not required to provide every single solitary assumption behind the numbers, but we can assure you that there are policy assumptions behind every number. the concern about the discretionary number is a valid one. we believe that the size and scope of government should be reduce, and the best way to do that is through reduction in discretionary spending. >> i would point out, this chart illustrates that this budget takes that category of spending, investments in our economy areas like research and development, education, 40% below the lowest level in recorded history.

you have, as i look at your budget, shown how, what you would allocate within certain functions over the next 10 years. maybe those are illustrative purposes. but let's look at just 2016, because that is upon us right now. it appears that the budget has a lower amount for veterans programs. is that your understanding? >> our policy associate regarding veterans, our assumptions are pretty much on the cbo baseline. we made some assumptions regarding mandatory spending that mirror the president's budget regarding veterans benefits.

>> if yours is a baseline, i understand. a baseline that puts funding for veterans at $1.9 billion below the president's recommendation. we can double check that. you have a huge unallocated cut to the budget that includes homeland security and veterans programs. have you made any provision for protecting our investment in veterans programs, or is that left to the whim of the appropriators? >> i am not certain the appropriators would appreciate that the decisions they make are simply whims. fiscal year 2016 numbers are based on the overall allocation we provide to the appropriations committee. appropriators have maximum flexibility in order to meet that allocation number, and they

can divide that as they see fit among the various appropriation bills. to decide exactly how the appropriators are going to use those dollars is almost impossible for the budget committee to make those assumptions. >> by our activation, this would result in a 25% cut. if you cuts less from some programs, you will cut even more than 25% from others. let me ask you about the cbo macroeconomic analysis of the budget, released yesterday. if you look at it, on page seven it indicates that as a result of the budget you are presenting, including the budget cuts to this portion of the budget, our national gdp, our national economic output would fall by 0.7% in 2017, 0.3% in 2018 relative to baseline.

relative to if we did not have this budget in place and continued with existing policies. did you see that cbo outlook? >> of course. if you would like us to explain more, we look at the macroeconomic feedback from cbo as the equivalent of what the president's budget and the office of management and budget are able to do. the president's budget is a post-policy analysis budget. they put various assumptions together as a starting point for the budget, as we do. but as the president's budget goes forward, they have the ability, or the tools to adjust

their economic assumption, interest rate assumptions, etc., to achieve policy goals. when they say the president's budget will drive the numbers to a certain point. the budget committee uses a different approach. we start with the cbo economic assumptions, interest rates, economic growth, etc., and until we take that economic feedback approach, we are stuck with the positive things that occur from deficit reduction efforts. we do not include that until the very last step, when we do this feedback. you are correct, that there is a small change in the front end, but there is a very large change at the back end, which we believe verifies the validity that this is good for growth good for job creation. and the numbers by the cbo, we do not have our own black box,

this is cbo numbers that provide the positive feedback we get from the budget. >> we are -- we have a big budget here, and we have some questions. it does raise the question about why we would want policies to slow down economic growth in the short term. let me respond. as i understand, you have what you call the cbo dividend as part of the budget. >> that's right. >> is there anything in the revenue assumptions you have made that are not based on cbo analysis? to you have any dynamic scoring assumption in this budget? >> mr. chairman, mr. van hollen, we started off with the cbo baseline because we thought that

was a reasonable place to start. the feedback does not assume any changes regarding tax reform assumptions we are making in this document. we would argue that if we did provide the feedback -- if we did provide, the feedback would be even higher. cbo does not give that to us because we are not presenting a full, detailed plan. so therefore, there is no tax provision, tax benefit or feedback. this is simply the feedback you see, simply from lowering the deficit, lowering pressure on interest rates, creating growth because of the substitution, if you will, of borrowing less money in the government. >> i understand. bottom line is, other than what you just described with respect to the cbo, there is no other assumption, impact from so-called dynamic scoring on tax policy?

>> there is no assumptions at all. no assumptions on tax policy other than the cbo baseline. >> i will ask some transportation questions. we all have some more questions. i know mr. mcdermott -- let me ask you quickly, on transportation. your budget shows $187 billion in outlays over 10 years primarily in discretionary, then a budget cut of $166 billion on the mandatory side. the combination suggests this budget does what last year's republican budget does, which is that the spending out of the highway trust funds will be cut to a level supported by current revenues. is that correct? >> that is correct. i would like to defer to my colleagues here.

i don't want to be the hot of the limelight -- hog of the limelight -- >> i know the budget would allow people to come up with increased spending. my question is, this budget before us does not provide a specific solution to the problem. it assumes, unless something is done through the other fund, that the transportation trust fund will simply be funded by cart revenues. >> our assumption is that we follow the current law. current law presumes that if expenditures do not match the revenues coming in, that expenditures will be ratcheted back. right now, there's going to be a shortfall in the highway trust fund later on this year. we provide flexibility for the transportation infrastructure committee to provide a more flexible provision later on. >> thank you.

i appreciate that. but it would increase spending. there is no provision for the shortfall other than in the font. you have a particularly big cut, 57% for next year. in this account. what's going on, and is there any assumption for new starts in the highway program next year? >> i would defer that to jim. >> in fiscal year 2016, the highway trust fund is projected to go insolvent. the budget assumes that we will match the spending. that occurs in fiscal year 2015. that explains why you see -- we

do have a reserve fund to address that. we have a rule carried over from last year that says that congress should pay for any general fund transfer into the highway trust fund. >> thank you. i now yield -- >> thank you. a couple questions. i know that mandatory spending is cut by $161 billion below the baseline over 10 years, and your budget document says that the maximum grant is frozen for the next 10 years. i have four questions based on those two assumptions, if they are correct. first, what does it mean, does that mean your budget eliminates the $89 billion of previously enacted mandatory funding for pell grant increases?

>> as the president himself noted in a previous state of the union, the tell grant program is -- pell grant program is facing a budget shortfall in fiscal year 2017. so in order to sustain the continued payments to these programs, the house budget assumes that the telegraph is -- pell grant is fully funded at a maximum grant award at $5,775. fully funded. >> does that mean that your budget eliminates the $89 billion of previously enacted mandatory funding for pell grant increases? >> we fully fund the program on the discretionary side. >> you say the answer is a no? >> yes, sir. it would move the mandatory portion -- >> so the answer is yes. let's try that format for the rest of them, so we can get the questions in.

>> would request -- 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 traditionally funded -- >> how much will a grant lose if it's frozen? >> we fully fund the program. >> they eliminate funding for social services. as your budget also assume the savings? >> those are two assumptions.

>> and yes is the answer. what policies account for the remaining cuts? what else makes of the $20 billion? >> we have the room feel of the program expansion -- the repeal of the program expansion. $16.3 billion. it's the in school interest subsidy for undergraduates. this also has an active is the partisan form. we eliminated tenure forgiveness program, and as you mentioned the social services block grant. over the ten-year, $65 billion. >> thank you. he'll back. -- yield back.

>> i have a couple of questions on medicare. as a look at the budget over the 10 year window, there's a net medicare reduction. >> yes. >> and does the budget as soon what's being discussed is a potential agreements on sgr? >> yes. >> that's $160 billion? >> approximately. >> if we have a net reduction of $134 , which recommend gross out reduction. and try to get a sense of what those reductions in the medicare account are. as i understand it, piece of that is restructuring parts a and b of medicare.

could you just tell me what savings you are assuming if any from that. >> in terms of the sgr, we do assume that the full permanent fix of the sgr is assumed in fully offsets the budget. it pulls from 5'5" trillion dollars in savings. in terms of combining into a single deductible, that is over the 10 year window, 94.1 billion. >> $36.9 billion. >> for changes in income related premiums? >> for means testing?

for parts bnd four $4 billion. -- $4.1 billion. >> increasing the age to 67 does this budget make this an assumption? >> it does. >> how much savings is assumed? >> in total, we don't have the parse out. six $1 billion. -- $6.1 million. we presume that there is a mutual reserve fund to deal with access issues. >> there is no actual expenditure or increased

expenditure? thank you. are there any other medicare program increases in the budget? >> i think it's important to note for the nature. -- the nature. , we assume the full cost of the sgr fix it or budget as jane mentioned. it's important to note that the president's budget does not have offsets. that's what the station between our budget in the president's budget. just for disclosure, second, it's important to note that as you say, there's been a gross number of haircuts. the president's budget cut medicare to the tune of $450 billion.

we are below the president's budget. >> one of the major medicare savings the president has this from negotiating drug races for prescription drug companies. i assume this on your budget. cox we assume the repeal of the affordable care at, which had provisions that increased the drug prices as well as prescription drugs. we assume the full repeal of this act, thereby lowering the cost and. >> so you are closing the prescription drug loophole. >> we assume the full repeal. >> if you repeal the full affordable care act, you repeal the savings that were achieved through the affordable, which the medicare actuaries have indicated led to the reduction

in medicare premiums. if you are fully repealing the affordable care act, that showing we are no longer going to get the benefit of those lower premiums. >> medicare actuaries also had kurdish miniatures with the aca. the medicare trust fund would go bankrupt or insolvent's in 2030. in order to prevent that actuality, the health budget assumes the repeal of the affordable care act. and assume unlike the president's plan that would apply medicare savings back to strengthening the medicare program. >> in fact what you are saying is the savings are included in the budget. i understand very. living on medicaid. -- let me go on to medicaid.

>> i have a question on the medicare liability issue. i'm assuming that we've done is full savings from the elimination of defensive medicine practice. reusing data from states that already have these programs some have of medical malpractice reform proposals in place? i'm not sure if you even if the states have occurrence from -- differs from what the current situation is. >> the overall broad assumption is that there's a cap on noneconomic damages. >> thank you. >> mr. mcdermott. mr. mcdermott: i have trouble

figuring out where things are in this budget. i read your embargoed piece that was put out, i read all that. i found the language in the that looked familiar that says the system will set up a carefully monitored exchange for medicare plan health plans that choose to participate in the medicare exchange, but agrees to offer insurance all medicare beneficiaries, ensuring that the highest cost beneficiaries receive coverage. that same language word for word was in the last budget. it's right here again, but i cannot find where there is any substance in the budget explaining this for putting this in place. i'm just post to believe it's there? >> mystery german, was the same

proposal was in lashes budget relating to premium support for medicare. the assertions are provided in the no longer embargoed document you mentioned. it's no longer embargoed, you can share with anyone. that is assumption behind how the premium support be implemented in 2024. mystery dinner: can you tell me where it -- mr. mcdermott: can you tell me where it is? >> the texas office simply a series of budget functions. we moved to deficit neutral reserve funds as well as policy statements. it is not a requirement to spell out with resolution documents another statute. it's not legislation, it's a

budget blueprint that is designed to provide a plan of how we're going to develop within 10 years. >> this is to let people know that this is what's planned, we are not going to write in here anything specific. >> we do in the committee report that's filed on friday. >> on friday we find out more. >> there will be a committee report with further detail. mcdermott: we are supposed to go on faith. it reminds their first corinthians 1312 that says we see through a glass darkly. i don't know what i'm going to be voting on here. my voting for the exchanges we have in the aca?

lee: the carefully monitored minute -- medicare exchange would envision that instead of a government centered health care plan, a be private companies that are competing for seniors business. a part of that exchange of be the traditional medicare fee-for-service program and also the assumption would be that the benefits for any plan that is provided would be equivalent to the traditional medicare fee-for-service program as well as benefits and actuarial value. mcdermott: when you use the word carefully monitored, you are talking about the government carefully monitoring these insurance plans. lee: survey based on the profits of the cbo itself. they would be reductions in out-of-pocket costs as well as lowering the health care inflation as well. mcdermott: someone to the ones that have come from aca --

similar to the ones that come from aca. lee: i respect we disagree. -- respectfully disagree. >> thank you. the budget includes an extra $36 billion in the overseas funding. dukes -- do you attempt this to be used? >> i think that's a decision that is for our defense analysts. the initial question is to authorize or's for how to properly use those funds. those the committees that make sure information is not of the preview of the budget committee to this termination. >> i think you so this is a policy-based document. a blueprint.

you are laying out the blueprint that says we're going to put this in the overseas cap -- camp. that's a radical place -- a radical change. yesterday we with joint chiefs, everyone of them said they wanted in the basic count. we're looking at something that not only yesterday but this morning, armed services, that's where the need it not the overseas account. >> mr. norcross, it's important to note that unlike the president's budget, we're trying to be responsible and trying to maintain a current discretionary caps for spending. that's $543 billion. >> that the purpose of this is to gather information and not to make political arguments. i think the same to be true of the responses. the political characterization of the president's budget.

>> the job asking the question wasn't asking a question of 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 funds? >> the answer would be yes. for defense of the nation. if you consider that war funding -- as i was trying to explain earlier, there is a current discretionary cap of 54 $43 billion in defense spending. we believe is difficult for the budget committee to spend above the cap. we believe the best way to

provide additional funding for defense is through the only mechanism available to us, so we basically had the same -- >> was this based on a defense from the pentagon? >> we base this on the president's request. >> was this based on a request from the pentagon? they gave you a different answer than they gave foreign services? >> us is the house budget estimate. >> israel simple. the question is real simple. did the pentagon request more money in the overseas account, or was that a policy decision? >> will the annealed -- the gentleman yield? the chairman and joint chiefs yesterday that their testimony was that they would prefer it to be in the base, that takes a

change in law. a budget resolution is not change in law. a stipulated of the global war on terror fund was the only please the could get to it at this point, it was better than not having it there. i yield back. >> thank you. as a policy-based document, we are now changing instead of putting the request from the pentagon and the base, we are now shifting $36 billion to the ocl? >> 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 abuse of the oc oh cap adjustment is a backdoor loophole that undermines the

integrity of the budget process. the budget committee will exercise its oversight responsibilities with respect to the use of the designation in the fiscal year 2015 budget process and it will oppose increases above the levels the administration and military commanders say are needed to carry out rations unless it can be clearly demonstrated that such amounts are were related. does that continue to be policy in this budget? >> again, not to place the burden on james, i think it's fair to say -- i'm not a defense expert. but people are trying to say the president's request was a grand total of six and her $12 billion in both base and opera

funding. because of the bays in the discretionary cap on defense the only vehicle the committee had in which to address that particular defense need was to utilize both the base and the oak oh. -- oco. our request from the pentagon, combined is 613. i was trying to explain to mr. norcross yes, our base, our number is requested by the pentagon. we try to fund it in a different manner. the president does not adhere to the cap, we are adhering to the cap. it's a different starting point. >> i yield back my time. >> i think everyone is

understanding what happens here. in making any adjustments, the budget committee will be vigilant that the oco cap adjustment is not abuse. it's being used to avoid this. >> will the gentleman yield? >> we been very generous. if you are going to ask questions that's fine. if you're going to proceed to debate, it's important to have both sides of the argument. if you're going to as questions we will ask questions. >> mr. lu, mr. pascal, mr. ryan. >> and going to ask a series of questions on dynamic scoring. it's my understanding that your proposed budget assumes be revenues of $147 million in a dynamic scoring.

>> that is not correct. the congressional budget office is analyzed deficit reduction in our budget, they have told us that the macroeconomic fiscal impact on the deficit over 10 years is $147 million. they do not break out for us with the revenue component and the spending component of that $147 million is. we do know that's what the deficit reduction is overall. >> do you use that number in your budget? >> we use $147 billion. derived from the cbo. >> you don't know the assumption. >> cbo run the analysis for the budget committee. >> so you don't know. >> they have written a letter to the budget committee that explains their assumptions of how the models work. >> was there range?

>> yes. >> what was that range? >> if you give me a minute, i can look up that range. >> do you know if they apply to just parts of the budget for the entire budget? >> only certain parts of the budget very good. it applies to the impact that the deficit would result in over 10 years. is not tied to a specific policy in the budget. >> with a following the rule of the house majority passed in january and so they can only applied to one part of the budget but not the entire budget? >> that role applies to specific pieces of legislation, this is for the entire budget. >> you were going to give me the range. >> i'm still going to look that

up. >> you understand they wanted to apply it to spending programs as well. >> not to tax programs. they've indicated that the tax reform proposal in the budget they are not able to do the macroeconomic analysis on that. they need a very specific proposal that would come from the committee on ways and means. the analysis they've done is just the result of the deficit reduction cap. >> ok. dynamic scoring can also order numbers. people can react to government policies and it could become less as well as increase. is that correct? >> i will let the cbo answer on how the dynamic scoring network. >> do you know they applied cbo

to retractions and spending? >> they do. and that's when they come up with that range. for ranges, some of the ranges they've indicated to us, they looked at the grossness of product per person was result from the dynamic feedback. under the path in our budget by 2025, the growth national product per person will be 1.5% higher. their low estimate is 0.7%, the high estimate is 2.4%. >> $147 million, is that in the middle of the range? >> the state takes a midpoint. thank you, yield back. >> the house budget committee has yet to pass the 2016 budget proposal, following a delay markup session yesterday. the committee has been in recess since about 10:00 p.m. wednesday

evening. the markup and final passage out of committee has stalled over defense spending amendment. 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 the house budget committee session, log online to our video library anytime at c-span.org. later today on our companion network, c-span3, the senate budget committee continues work on the 2016 budget also. the resolution aims to balance the budget and cut $5.1 trillion in projected spending over the next 10 years. daylong coverage begins at 10:30 eastern. >> this weekend, the c-span city's tourist partnered with media, to learn about the

history and literary life of columbus, georgia. >> right here inside the museum is remains of an ironclad that was built here in columbus during the war. those oval shapes that you see are actually the gun ports of the jackson. jackson is armed with six rifles. the particular rifle we're firing today is one of the guns built specifically for the jackson. it was cast at the selma table works in selma, alabama. and completed in january of 1855. the real claim to fame is directly connected to the fact that there are only four ironclads from the civil war we can set any right now -- we can study right now. the jackson is right here, this is why this facility is here. it is first and foremost to tell the story of this particular

ironclad, until people that there are more than just wanted to ironclad and there were many. >> watch all of our events from columbus, saturday noon eastern on c-span tv and on american history tv on c-span3. >> now ices rears there at we had come army is very shaken. we shouldn't be surprised by that. you can't punt and do -- you can't undo decades of soviet army stuff in a years. afghanistan, according to the president's announcements, and currently have about 10,000 troops there in a training advising role. we draw down to 5000 yesterday and then done a year after that. i would warn we probably see a similar result to we saw in iraq. >> this sunday on q&a, daniel

bolger on the failed u.s. strategies in iraq and afghanistan, and what we should have done differently. sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." collects coming up today here on c-span, the house wraps up its week with work dealing with union mentorship rules. votes on both bills are expected later in the day. follow the house live when members gavel back in 9:00 eastern. up next, "washington journal,"'s live with your calls in today's news. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> coming up, we look at u.s. military requests for force against isis. and in congressman chris stewart of the intelligence committee will discuss the obama

administration's nuclear negotiations with iran as the deadline approaches. those conversations plus your calls, tweets, and e-mails. ♪ host: good morning, everyone on this thursday, march 19. here are some of the headlines. the federal reserve dropped the word "patience", but came in and said after that the fed will avoid raising rates too soon and too quickly. updates on benjamin netanyahu and afraid relationship -- and the frayed r