there's a reason for it and it's not just because it's an autocratic state. when my colleague talks about russian media, he's right there's a lot of media that say things not at all what ms. applebaum was saying. you know very well it says those things. you have all these media sources that say different things. it is about as different as abc, nbc, and cbs. name one television station. it's exactly the same thing. it's propaganda on both sides.

the people here do not read ukrainian newspapers. newspapers. perhaps they do, but russian they don't. they don't know what's happening in russia. >> this is funny, i was there two years ago to receive the honorary man of the year in ukraine. there you go, man of the year in ukraine. >> let me bring stephen in. >> did you notice he just got checkmated? i understand this fixation on putin. i really do. personally i don't care much about putin. i wish i was going to live long enough to see how his story ends

in 20 years and evaluate his role as a leader of russia. i think it's going to be a big debate, the pluses and minuses. i don't know how it's going to come out but that would be an interesting did eight to have here today. let's look at the elephant the room we haven't mentioned. all this embrace thing of russia in the 1990s, all this wonderful things we did for them , but one we also expanding nato toward their borders? and you say so what. i find out where you live and i park all my military equipment across the street and i say i'm just here for your security and i'm making sure nobody breaks into your house. then i notice you brought a few other folks along and they've got all their military equipment in my backyard to and then you're suddenly over here and

don't worry this is for your security to an nato is about democracy and we need democracy. let's be serious, we were warned and warned by the russians that we liked and by the liberals and they were worried about this and came to washington and said you're pushing too far. eventually, wait a minute, don't use up my time eventually, rightly or wrongly, but put perception is everything in politics, there political elite said the expansion of nato was a way of making sure russia would be forever a subservient state to the rest west. the silver ring was georgia but the brass ring has always been ukraine. they spoke openly.

be honest if you think this is a good policy, if you believe we should push our power as close to russia as we can, bring ukraine into the western security system because it's good for us, then say so and let's debate that issue. let's not go on about the demon putin and the rest because the reality is the russian understanding of what ukraine is about is what nato expansion has been about from the beginning. ukrainian crisis arose because rightly or wrongly russian political class believed that nato was on its way to crimea. we can say it's crazy, but perception is politics and it's everything. you want to be safe in this world, you isolate russia and they're going to pre-perceive us in an even more extreme form and we will never be safe. >> let's go to this rebuttal on nato.

>> i'll say it as you invited me, it's crazy. first of all, all, number one why did nato expansion happen? let's take back the clock to the 1990s who did it come from who wanted it? it was essential year p and sue wanted it, and initially not an american idea, it was a european idea. why did they want it? they wanted it because they were afraid. they were afraid of russia even then. they saw what russia was becoming. very reluctantly the u.s. agreed to expand the security zone so a hundred million people would be able to make a a transition to democracy and begin economic development and grow without fear of invasion, and it worked. it was unbelievably successful.

it worked for the central europeans. a hundred million people were safe. a region that had been the source of two world wars were not. >> until 2013 no exercise was ever conducted in the new member state. in response to the russian objections, most ukraine were openly and definitively denied nato membership in 2008 and that has been repeated ever sense and it is not on the table now. why are you looking at me like that? in 2008 there was a nato meeting and there would be no membership plan plan for ukraine and it has

not been on the table and it is not an issue. >> they said something else in that meeting. >> we seem to remember it differently. >> i don't remember it differently. i can't finish a sentence so how can i tell you. they said however nato membership remains open if they qualify. >> it remains open for russia as well. >> zero and come on. >> while it was invading one neighbor after another the american army was drilling down these forces that by 2013 there was not one tank in europe. this is an aggressive policy? there is no way they putin

believed that nato was a threat. this is a threat. this is something he has been using at home as a way to consolidate his power. >> the nato discussion in no way consolidates it at home. it has nothing to do with his power. perception is very important. let me remind you about what happened in 1962. were you around? well, if around? well, if you weren't in 1962 two independent countries one called the soviet union in one called cuba agreed to have missiles placed on cuban soil. and so the soviets decided good idea to have our missiles closer to the united states.

this was the height of the cold war. two countries have the right to make that kind of decision. when the u.s. found out that this was happening it said no you will no you will not do this and if we have to sink your ships, we will sink them. if that's when world war iii happens, it will happen. these are facts. >> may i -- >> know you may not. that's not how you debate. maybe it is i don't know. rightly or wrongly, the way russia looks at nato and sees it as a threat why was nato

created? to protect the west and the european areas. there has been no more soviet union and there hasn't been one for 25 years. this was their answer to nato. mikael gorbachev, who i tend to trust told me three times that james baker who was then secretary of state told him that if you agree to the unification of germany and taking down the berlin rall, i tell you that nato will not move 1 inch to the east. now you may say he's lying, but i don't think he is. is. i think he's telling the truth and the thing is that during the soviet period which didn't last very long after that, nato did not move to the east. it moved under clinton. when the russians started saying what's going on here he was

told no, no we have no agreement with you, we have an agreement with the soviet union but it's no longer there. so in 1991 poland czechoslovakia became members of nato. it was followed by romania the argument isn't about dates -- i may have gotten a date mistaken but finally nato found itself on russia's border in estonia and in latvia. you may say but there's nothing dangerous about that. i'm telling you this is cold war

mentality that nato is seen as a threat. what the russians have set about ukraine, rightly or wrongly, is we will not allow nato to be on our border in the southwest. will not allow. just as american will not allow the missiles, we will not allow it. you can condone it but that's the reaction. that is how it's seen. [applause]. >> you want to know about russian elite, there is no russian elite. there is one man who makes decision. they know where to put their money their fortunes all the way from the west to miami. that's why the whole idea of the

russian elite being afraid of the west is not true because they know they are safe with their fortunes. putin is very popular is something else i hear. i don't want to argue with you about the integrity. yes i agree, i give them full credit. somebody calls you and says what you think about mr. putin? i'm really proud for mike country that 20% would say they do not like mr. putin. [inaudible] [applause]. we want to live in the 21st century.

i hear america, russia russia, america. sometimes germany. what about countries in between? [inaudible] [applause]. i believed they have a right to decide what will happen with that country. it was nearly 16 or 17%. it quadrupled, guess why and it's not just russia, i spoke to people who fought in the east. they are fighting putin's army

because they don't believe in this russia. this is the rush i want to see. >> but it's putin again. are we going to have a discussion of what's in the best interest of the west because that really is embedded in the question, isn't it? should we engage or isolate? or should we have a debate about how are going to get rid of putin? if you want to have that debate, you can bring in the two points of view. miss applebaum wrote a wonderful history and i strongly, if you have an interest in it, you should read it because master historians are at work there. as she knows now comes the

however. [laughter] i i understand for one reason or another, she uses this whole saga of nato expansion through the perspex and perspective of central europe. but the stories she told of nato expansion is nowhere written in the histories we now have that have resorted to the archives if you look at the clinton administration and look at other things, there was tremendous pressure in the u.s. on clinton to go back on the word that had been given to gorbachev that nato wouldn't expand. we know the story. that's the kind of fairytale version that we did it to protect them from russia that was already menacing them but it

was broken down in the '90s and we had to save them and we brought democracy along the way, but that isn't a true story. the reality is, there is another debate to be had here, and i'll just drop it and some of you won't even like the question. does the nation have the right to join nato if it technically qualifies for nato membership. it always said that so, but i disagree. nato is a security organization. it's not the junior commerce. it's not a nonselective sorority or fraternity. it's a security organization and the criteria is does it enhance our sick curate he or not. nato has brought the greatest crisis since the cuban missile crisis. some of those countries to which ms. applebaum mentioned is

reconsidering. there are a lot of fundamental questions about whether or not this really enhanced the security of europe. you don't get a debate with opinion you get it with facts. [inaudible] >> i just want to be conscious of our debate and end with the topic that's on a lot of people's mind and people's mind and i want you to answer it. it's the presence of nuclear weapons in this conversation and the large amount that russia has. people would naturally feel a tendency to come over to the

compromise camp on the basis that we just can't get this wrong. we can't risk potential for an escalation that could flow from a policy of isolation towards russia. how do you respond to that? >> first i want to he didn't let me correct him. but there was an agreement not to move nato to the west. this missile crisis analogy is completely wrong. >> its fear on both sides. >> fear there is. what is the answer to the question. fear and fear of nuclear weapons is very central to this conversation.

it actually and explains why we are not more enthusiastic about helping ukraine. why don't we help ukraine? because we are afraid of russia's nuclear arsenal. this is irrational country. it might sell weapons to other countries, we don't know what it will do, it might do something crazy. the terrence is not an aggressive policy, it is defense. but the terrence arguments is if you bomb us, we will bomb you. it's very unattractive as a policy and most people don't like it. most it's the only policy we know that works and that we are capable of using against putin's russia.

whether it's funding the election or the far right in france, this is a country that doesn't want to be part of our system anymore and has made that very clear. what can we do? we can make sure that putin knows that the russian regime who are they there just rich guys that are his friends. but that's the only word we have to describe him. we want to make sure that group of people knows that we will respond. that's the only thing we can do right now and i'm very sorry that we don't have anything better. this is one of the great tragedies of my life. i've watched this happen and now were back to exactly the place i would have never wanted us to be. [applause].

i think were in a much worse place than we were, frankly. back then there were two ideologies and now there's no ideology in russia. they don't even know what is the future, what is the future what are we working for? back in those days, whether it was true or not, for our children, there was an ideology. the red scare was about ideology. in this particular case it's no longer ideology it's geopolitics. it's less predictable. another thing happened which is very interesting. there used to be real fear of nuclear weapons, children hiding

under desks, movies like the day after. today after. today people aren't even talking about nuclear weapons. it's as if they weren't there. i think it's very dangerous that they're not aware. they're not present the way they used to be and i think that's a bad thing. >> i wish nobody would talk about nuclear weapons but russian television have been talking about it. what about the billboards? >> that's one person saying that come on. >> yes that's one person saying it with a hundred million people watching. putin publicly said he would use

nukes in crimea. >> he did not say that. they talked about going on high alert. let's be precise here. he did not say that. so when some idiot says -- >> he keeps talking about it. >> the guy who said it was on television and we heard him say so it's not putin. if you want to talk about reality, listen to

rush limbaugh on american television and say look what the americans are saying. this is a jerk, excuse me, saying what he is saying. it's not a russian a russian policy and it's not an american policy. it's separate people and let's make that clear. >> all give you the final say on this important point on how nuclear weapons flow into the discussion of engagement or isolation. >> both of them talk of nuclear weapons as reemerged. not in the same way as we were conscious of them in the past but the discussion has reemerged. ms. applebaum wrote a column

lately i don't think she put a head on it, but it should rattle the discussion of nuclear weapons. when people start talking about that i think we know were in dangerous territory. i would go even farther and i would say we are in a new cold war by whatever name and it's potentially more dangerous than the last one. this is where the nuclear weapons come in. for several reasons it's more dangerous. this one is in ukraine right on russia's borders. secondly, and this is what really worries me, during the last cold year cold war they came up with a series of rules of conduct. this happened over 40 years. there are no rules of conduct

yet and that's why anything can happen. a third reason is there's no opposition to it in the united states and there was a lot of opposition before, but you will remember that one of the great achievements of reagan and gorbachev was to eliminate it. the only time a category of nuclear weapons had been eliminated was 1987 1987 if i'm not mistaken. that was an enormous achievement. it made everybody safer. those missiles don't need four or five minutes to proceed whether it's a seagull or a a seagull or a missile coming in. there were a lot of recorded misperceptions on these systems. both sides, not one side, both sides are talking about reentered do sing intermediate range missiles. the russians are talking about putting them in crimea.

the united states is talking about putting them back in western europe. that's how dangerous it is. my two opponents really hate putin do you really want to go there? >> were going to go to closing statements. let's have gary up first. you have three minutes. >> i want to talk about val demure putin again. even if you have ten wars you can make more decisions than one man. for putin there is no way out. he presents himself as a strong

man who can protect his country. i said from the very beginning i'm a russian patriot and want to see my country free and strong. i want to see them play a productive role. i don't want them to be the same joke. this is not the image of rush i want to project. it's hard for for me to argue for isolation but this is not an isolation of russia. it's like a mafia boss. it's the ring leader and he keeps power not because he's elected or not because he has

some birthright of the monarch but because he protects everybody, because he's invincible because nobody can go after him. as long as he keeps this image as a strong man, he prevails. every time the free world makes a concession, he is getting more arrogant. he will move further past ukraine. he needs muddy waters. it's all about domestic politics because he has nothing else to offer, no more trump cards but foreign-policy expansion. talking about isolation, i do remember when i was a kid i read the stories, there is a big debate in the u.s. senate about the amendment that put together the free trade in the suit soviet union. there is bipartisan support.

the man who was my role model but ended up in exile and he stood up for isolation which was a way to weaken the regime. they should understand in audible. [inaudible] they will think not about putin's russia but about the future of my great country. thank you. [applause]. >> i was beginning with a lighthearted remark saying that it would be really fun to see them go after each other alone and actually it was in early

march where russians had this conversation and representatives of both sides were there. when they said that he thought he would be on his side today i suddenly felt disappointed. something should be sacred. sakharov would not have supported the isolation of russia. everything he wrote was we must engage in these issues. you need to go back and read. worshiping someone without reading is not the way to go. same thing about putin. i have not come here to be pro- putin. i have no sentimental attachments of putin whatsoever. he's a subject of study.

i think if you would read what he actually says and read his speech about the next crime area, they have driven us in a corner and we have nowhere to retreat to. what you mean how did we drive you in a corner? he's talking about nato and the encroachment on ukraine. i come back to this issue, to isolate is to exacerbate those distorted perceptions of us, if you think they're distorted. let me end by turning to an astonishing thing that ms. applebaum said. she said and i tried to write it down putin's russia does not want to be part of our system any longer. i think she said that. it's a strange statement because, first of all and i promise you this and you can go

to it in english and read every major speech putin has given. he is on his knees pleading to be part of the west and lamenting that he's been driven to the west. don't west. don't put your hands up gary, i would not come here and lie to you. read his last six or seven speeches on the ukrainian crisis. there is one other thing, russia was never part of our system. i said facts not opinion. the fact is, and ms. applebaum admitted this, nato expansion excluded russia from the post soviet union of security. they were security. they were included. how could they want to be part of a system they were not made a part of.

[applause]. >> ladies and gentlemen, it's no doubt it has been a very confusing evening. you have just heard two radical accounts of russia. you have heard on one side russia is a little bit difficult, i don't want to support it, i'm not pro- putin that it's the kind of state we need to speak to and engage with and talk with. it's very important that we are reasonable with them so we can continue to divide up the world the way we once did 25 years ago. on our side you've heard an argument that this is actually a different kind of nation. this is a nation that speaks differently where the reason we

keep talking about putin and his cronies as were searching for words, is because these are owner occupiers. these are not just politicians they own gas prom. they are the leaders of the country. they use their businesses and media inside their country inside ukraine and inside central europe and all over the west west to achieve their own and. what are their and? their answer to remain in power. whatever it is that putin does, his ultimate goal is to stay in power. whether it's build up his nuclear arsenal or carry out military exercises or claim that militia planes were shut down by martians, the ideas always about maintaining his power. were forced to talk about him because he is so dominant. what you haven't heard from any of us

much tonight and certainly not from our opponents is much about the people who have been the most important victims of the west policies of engagement until now. these are the young and energized ukrainians who stood in the cold last year in order to fight putin's style of corruption and dictatorship. these men and women -- [applause]. these men and women have in the past 18 months created new television stations from scratch. they have run for parliament and one on anticorruption tickets. they have set up organizations designed to promote transparency and good government. they may not succeed they have extraordinary obstacles to overcome and they will not succeed but their goal is to create a more fair, more democratic 21st-century and putin is trying to stop them. i repeat, ukraine is not putin's only target. he also wants to corrupt our societies & persuade other

people to come to the fascist far right. to stop him from destroying ukraine, we need to address them in this sense. disentangle ourselves from the drug of russian money and reestablish the russian solidarity which he is trying to destroy. [applause]. >> you have the last word. >> thank you. i refuse to play this game about who he is not. i care about russia. what are the consequent lenses of isolating russia. i think there are ten. the dream of bringing down the iron curtain again.

it reinforces a feeling by 73% of all russians that the west west, led by the united states is the enemy, fourth it turns russia eastward with china. that's a partnership that is dangerous and threatening to the west. fifth, and makes russia evermore unpredictable. six unpredictable. six that played into the hands of russia's military contacts. seven it reinforces the traditional desire to circle the wagons and deal with the hostile environment. eight, it minimizes any and all outside information for the russian people who do have

access to western media and movies and the internet. nine it cuts off travel for all average citizen, including tourism and education. tenet leads to the birth of a generation of russians hostile to the west. what are the consequences of engaging russia? by engaging russia? by engaging russia, and by this i mean opening its doors to as many russians as possible, easing the visa restrictions allowing them to visit and work and send their kids to universities. the west will bring change in people's mindset. this will change the country, country, it's politics and its policies. it will not happen overnight but it will inevitably happen and this beyond a question of a doubt, will be huge for the west. by west. by the same token, for russia and for the russian people. finally, i'd like to say that if as ms. applebaum once wrote in this magazine, the russian

president dreams of setting down a new iron curtain, this is her article, then isolating russia is playing right into putin's hand. thank you very much. : [applause]

>> we asked you to vote on the resolution on if the west so, let's review where public opinion in this hall was at at the beginning of tonight's debate, when we asked you to vote, agree or disagree on if the west should engage and not isolate. i will get that up now. i will try to do it from memory. 43 percent. was 43%. >> 53%. [inaudible conversations] >> okay. 54% agreed, 46% disagree. so it's very close. and we asked how many would be open to changing your mind and we had big numbers there in terms of views 89%. this debate is very much up for grabs and all of you have a second balance in your program please use that to vote on the way out and we are going to have the results for you and the

reception a little bit after 9:00 p.m. again, thank you all, thank you all 3000 of you for >> coming up, linda dempsey all the national association of manufacturers join us. legislation that would give the president fast track. then a congressman of colorado talks about his role in bolstering discrimination protections for the lgbt community. and jennifer lawless a co-author, while young americans are turned off from politics. "washington journal" is live on c-span. you could join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> the senate finance committee

hear from the chamber of commerce and afl-cio at a hearing on trade policy and congressional trade priorities. that is live at 10:00 eastern here on c-span. >> here are a few of the book festivals we will cover on c-span 2. this weekend, we will be in maryland for the annapolis book festival. we'll hear from new york times reporter. in the middle of a mate, we will revisit in maryland. one-off formers congressman and robert frost -- we will have a former congressman and robert frost. we will close out and books expo in new york city. on the first week in june, the chicago tribune festival including our three-hour

in-depth program with lawrence wright a your phone calls. that is this spring on c-span 2's book tv. >> house and senate budget conferees met on monday to work out differences in their 2016 budget. all the bills aim until a balance of the budget in 10 years while repealing the health care law and cutting the budget for medicare, medicaid, and highway projects. this meeting is over two hours. >> i can see the house people [indiscernible] sen. enzi: i am pleased to call

this to thousand 16 concurrent budget fiscal meeting to order. it is my privilege to recognize the chair of this year's conference, the distinguished chair, senator enzi. sen. enzi: today we're going to consider the resolution on the budget and the house amendments, we will begin with opening statements, i'll recognize myself first and then dr. price and senator sanders and mr. van hollen, then we have a list of the others in order. glad we are at this point, and i appreciate all who have shown up so far, although those who don't

show up will help reduce the the length of the meeting, of course. [laughter] sen. enzi: so we meet today on moving forward with the joint house, senate budget conference with the goal of producing a balanced budget, that does not rely on new taxes and instead strengthens our nation's defense, protects our most vulnerable citizens, improves economic growth and opportunity for hard-working families and slows the rate of the federal government's out-of-control spending growth. it was no small task, in fact, the last time both houses of congress passed a balanced joint budget resolution, was in fy 2002. that means we haven't had a balanced budget for almost 15 years. when it comes to the federal budget, americans know that we've lived for too many years with too many blown deadlines and too many last-second deals. both ends of pennsylvania avenue have allowed this to become the

new normal on how we operate. this is why passing a budget is so important for our nation and lets a congressional policy makers who allocate the dollar's -- lets us congressional policy makers who allocate the dollars get to work and observe the spending limits in order to achieve goals for the nation. but passing budgets has not always been a priority especially in the senate. over the past five years, senate democrats have only been able to pass one budget. now that congress is under new management, senate republicans put together balanced vegan in -- balanced budget for the first one hundred days. last month the house and senate took an important first step in helping to change the way we do business in washington by each passing a balanced budget, which will help make the government live within its means. today we take the next step and start to work on a joint balanced budget resolution to expand america's economy and increase opportunities for hard-working families. restoring the trust of the american people can be done by passing a balanced budget, and

it's about restoring the trust of the american people because of the federal government's chronic overspending and exploding debt threatens each and every american. the biggest reason for this broken trust is because of our failure to do what voters have long demanded, to eliminate wasteful washington overspending, to make government truly more effective and more accountable, to improve the programs that protect our most vulnerable citizens and strengthen the health and retirement security of our seniors. americans see trillions in waste, fraud, and abuse, and ask why we don't do what obviously must be done. at a time when america's facing difficult challenges both here and abroad, the american people expect us to put their priorities ahead of politics and gridlock. today, that's exactly what we are doing. a balanced budget promises a government that will actually spend tax dollars wisely and gives hard-working americans the freedom to pursue their future. our work today and in the coming weeks will show hard-working taxpayers that congress is committed to a government that is more effective and more accountable. our fiscal outlook is grim and has been ignored for far too

long. runaway spending over the past six years has created a dangerously growing debt because washington spends now and pays later. hard-working taxpayers across the country are feeling anxious. the congressional budget office projects the federal government will collect a record $3200 billion, that's $3.2 trillion in revenue this year. so even as federal revenues hit record highs, we're on track to overspend by nearly a thousand billion dollars in the 10th year. american taxpayers understand that the more we overspend, the more debt we all, and the more debt our children and grandchildren will have to carry. every man woman and child in this country now owes $56,000 on that debt. left unchecked, that number is expected to grow to more than $75,000 per person in the next

decade. federal overspending means higher interest rates for consumers because the government is borrowing more in competition, and it means higher taxes for every american. it also means more waste and unaccountable spending that puts an anchor on our economy costing us stable, good paying jobs. republicans are focused on passing a balanced budget that will ensure washington will once again live within its means, just like hard-working families have to do everyday. just imagine if a typical family spent and borrowed like the federal government. this would mean a family with a median income of $52,000 with spend $61,000 a year. the family would add an additional $9,000 to its credit cards, despite owing a whopping $311,000 in debt. hard-working taxpayers are counting on us to set priorities and to stick to them, because a balanced budget will boost our nation's economic output and help restore the promise of a government that's more effective.

a balanced budget will allow americans to spend more time working hard to grow their businesses or to advance in their jobs, instead of worrying about taxes and inefficient and ineffective regulations. it's time to stop talking and start acting. we know it won't be easy, but by working together, we can deliver real solutions and real progress that the american people want and deserve. i look forward to working with each and every one of you on this crucial task in the days and weeks ahead. chairman price? chairman price: i want to thank the chairman and appreciate everybody's participation. the number of senators significantly outnumbers the number of house members, but we are fine with that. we think we have each fire power so we are ready to go with the conference committee. the house and senate approved our respective budgets last month, both of which were balanced budget proposals and now we're here to continue that

work and find an agreement on a unified budget resolution. i want to thank our colleagues for the house and senate for their dedication to this work. completing a budget is one of our core legislative responsibilities, yet congress has gone without one for several years now. i look forward to this opportunity to help restore process that will ensure congress is fully embracing its power of the purse legislating in an orderly manner that provides for the most transparent the and accountability. that being said, we all know that a budget is more than just a set of numbers. it's reflection of our priorities, of our vision for the future. when done in a responsible way it can provide a foundation for moving our country in the direction of more opportunity, economic growth, and a safer and more secure nation. we are not here today to just make the numbers add up. we are here to make the federal government more accountable to taxpayers and to achieve real results so that american families have the best chance of achieving their dreams for the future. for years, failed policies coming out of washington dc have been holding america back.

deficits remain in the hundreds of billions of dollars and are set to go even higher in the years to come. for millions of americans, wages are stagnant, opportunity is scarce. in short, this has been the worst economic recovery in the modern era, and if we remain on our current course, the future does not look much brighter. in fact, the congressional budget office has revised down its tenure average of economic -- its ten-year average of economic growth projections from 3% annualized its 2012 outlook to just 2.3% in his most recent -- in its most recent outlook. we need to turn the page on this new normal of anemic growth and embrace policies that will foster the growth of a healthier economy. to start, that means a credible budget that balances that reforms key programs and eliminates waste and

inefficiency throughout the federal urography, so that taxpayers dollars are spent more wisely. we need to ensure that medicare and medicaid and nutrition assistance and other similar programs are able to deliver on the promises that have been made to the american people. they have to be solvent. the have to be targeted toward those who truly need assistance, and where appropriate, state and local communities often have more freedom and flexibility to administer these programs. a balanced budget can be an on to be achieved without raising to us. -- raising taxes. washington does not need to take more from hard-working americans. it needs to start living within its means. i would remind my colleagues that every dollar that is taken for taxes and every dollar that washington borrows is a dollar that can't used to pay the rent or buy a car or buy a home or send a kid to college or open a business or expand a business and create jobs. instead of taking more to spend more in washington, we should reform the tax code so that it is simpler and fairer so that american job creators are not disadvantaged in the global marketplace. fundamental tax reform would contribute to a healthier

economy with more opportunity. at the same time, we need to rid ourselves of washington policies that are harming individuals families, and businesses. policies like obamacare. repealing the president's health care law would pave the way to starting over on patient -centered healthcare reform were patients and families and doctors are making medical decisions, not washington, d.c. while getting rid of what doesn't work, we have to be adequately supporting that which is vital to the success and security of our nation. that's why we must ensure that our military men and women have the resources they need to carry out their mission and protect our country. make no mistake, we must and we can provide robust funding for troops, and do so in a way that is both fiscally responsible and reflective of the tremendous threat facing america, our allies, and our interest around the world.

because a budget is more than just a set of numbers, because it is a vision for how we achieve a stronger nation with more opportunity, we are obligated to take a hard look at the status quo and ask ourselves some very serious questions. do we want a nation -- do we want to have a nation where our fellow citizens can be trapped in a web of welfare programs that discourage self-sufficiency and instead shackle them to governmental dependency? do we want our nation's retirees to have a health care program that is going bankrupt and without reforms will not keep its promises? do we want to continue to force low income individuals and families into medicaid program in which access to actual care is limited, where doctors are under reimbursed and are therefore unable to see and treat patients? should our college students face years of crippling debt because of a government-run student loan program that price up tuitions?

we have to ask these questions and others. the answer to all of them ought to be, of course not. we have to figure out the right policy so that we leave our kids and grandkids a stronger nation, one that provides the greatest amount of opportunity and the greatest amount of success for the greatest number of people, so that the greatest number of american dreams may be realized. and doing so in a way that is fair and compassionate to all. the current policies in washington are clearly not working. they have shown they cannot break the pattern over growing debt and an underperforming economy, and too many folks just struggling to get by. the budget that we produce from these negotiations means we must respect the american people and respect the seriousness of the challenges we face so we can provide positive alternatives and real solutions to achieve real results. i want to thank chairman enzi and every body for serving on this committee and for their hard work. i look forward to hearing the thoughts and ideas of my colleagues here and in the days to come. we've got a big job ahead of us

to get the country back on track. we will be up to pursue policies that will build a stronger, more prosperous and more secure america. thank you, and i yield back. >> thank you, chairman price. senator sanders. senator sanders: i want to thank you for holding this important meeting. while we have huge philosophical differences, he has run this in a civil and court away and -- civil way and in a cordial way, and i appreciate that very much. these solutions we are debating today are nothing less than a disaster for the working families of this country. on every important issue that we face, both of the republican budgets, the house budget and senate budget, do exactly the opposite of what needs to be done in fact what the american

people want us to do. let me just give you a few examples. america is the only major country on earth that doesn't guarantee health care to all of its people. despite the modest gains of the affordable care act, 35 million americans continue to have no health insurance, and we spend almost twice as much for cap it -- for capita on health care as do the people of any other country. that's the problem. a sensible approach says ok, had a we provide health care to all of our people, and do it in a cost-effective way? what is the republican approach? the republican approach is to end, terminate, the affordable care act, and cut in the senate some $400 billion for medicaid a nd in the house a lot more. what is the result? you throw 27 million people off of health insurance, on top of the 35 million who today have no health insurance. i heard some of my colleagues say, not to worry we're going

to come up with a better system. really? how many years? when is the system coming? we had eight years under bush. nobody in america has seen that system. but to simply throw 27 million people off of health insurance please do a study. how many of those people will die? thousands. how many will suffer? tens of thousands. you're throwing people off of health insurance. when you end the affordable care act, it means 2.3 million young adults who now have insurance with their parents are gone. it means were going back to the days where if you had cancer or diabetes and you walked into an insurance office, you couldn't get insurance for those conditions because we had the absurdity where we denied care to people with pre-existing conditions. we are going back to those days.

that is health care. but i go back to vermont and i expect every member here when they go back to their district or their state and you talk to young people, what they will tell you is, it is harder and harder to afford to go to college. and if they are lucky enough to graduate college, they are deeply in debt. we all have staff, i have several members of my staff, i'm sure you do as well, who leave school over $100,000 in debt. talk to a young doctor, $300,000 in debt. what we should be doing is figuring out how to make college more affordable to working families, and how we reduce student debt, the interest rate that students have to pay. what the republican budget does, amazingly enough, is exactly the opposite. they cut $90 billion of mandatory funding from the pell grant program. the major source of funding for low and moderate income young people who want to attend college. this would increase the cost of college education for more than 8 million americans, moving exactly in the wrong direction.

in vermont, and i expect in every state represented here, we have a childcare crisis. working families cannot afford to send their kids to childcare. the republican budget would cut head start very significantly, meaning that at least 110,000 fewer young children would be able to enroll in that important project. under the republican budget, more than 1.9 million fewer students would receive the academic help they need under the title i program. when you get down to basics and you talk about morality, it seems to me that the least that we can do as a nation, a nation which has more income and wealth inequality than any other major country on earth, a nation in which the wealthiest people are becoming phenomenally richer while we have 40 million people living in poverty.

the very least we can say is that nobody in america goes hungry and that i would hope would be the least we could say as a civilized democratic society. what the republican budget does is throw over 1.2 million women, infants, and young children would be denied the nutrition they need through the wic program, an incredibly innovative and successful program which helps pregnant women and little babies. they really cut that program. the republican budget would cut food stamps by more than $125 billion. mr. chairman, let me just conclude by saying what the republican budget also does, which is again, one of the problems -- i have to be honest with you -- when i explained the budget, people say you are being partisan, you are lying, it cannot really be. when you tell them these things, we talk about taxes. let's talk about taxes.

what the republican budget does is abolish the estate tax. who benefits from the estate tax? the top .2 of 1% of the wealthiest people in this country. fewer than 6000 families will get a tax break of over $269 billion. has any constituent, working-class person, have you gone to a member of this committee and set you really have to lower taxes for families of billionaires. i have not heard anyone say that at all. meanwhile, while preventing the extensions we have put in by the earned income tax credits, taxes will go up for working families. lower taxes for billionaires raise taxes for working

families. this budget is a budget which is so out of tune with what the american people need or want. poll after poll will tell you virtually every idea in this budget is not what the american people want. i would hope in the remaining days and weeks that we have, we can in fact significantly revise this budget and start doing what the american people want and not just what the billionaires of this country want. take you, mr. chairman. -- thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. van hollen: thank you chairman. rep. van hollen: thank you

chairman. i want to start where senator sanders began, thank you for bringing us together. i want to thank chairman price for their professional way he has conducted the budget committee in a bipartisan tradition. that means we obviously have very sharp differences when it comes to the budgets, and we now have a house republican budget and the senate republican budget, and neither budget reflects the priorities and values of this country. both budgets, i believe, are fundamentally wrong for our country, and both budgets send a big message to the american people, you're going to be working even harder, but you're going to be getting even less. so any point between two budgets, both of which are wrong for america, are going to be wrong for america. i don't know how we can salvage this, but here's what i would say. why do i say both budgets say work harder and get less? the good news in the country has been, we've seen more and more people getting back to work. we've seen months and months of sustained job growth. we know we are not where we want to be, but we are heading in the right direction. the biggest challenge we face right now is the fact that americans are working harder than ever, but their pay is flat, their benefits are flat. compensation frozen.

you have a situation where worker productivity has been rising rapidly for a very long time, but that increased productivity has not translated into higher wages and benefits for most working people. the benefits of that increased productivity have gone hugely disproportionately to folks at the high end of the income scale. and yet this republican budget actually increases the tax burden on working families. it gets rid of the increase in the child tax credit. it gets rid of the bump up in the earned income tax credit. it eliminates the affordable care act tax credits, which as senator sanders said, means millions of people who now have affordable health care will be thrown off of affordable health care. it eliminates the higher education tax deduction, the college tax deduction -- gone. so people are out there working harder every day and will face a

higher tax burden under this republican budget. i will tell you who's taxes do not go up, the folks who are already at the very top. in fact, these budgets green light -- they pave the way for what is known as the romney-ryan tax plan. what is that tax plan? cut the top tax rate for millionaires by one third. we tried that. it was called trickle-down economics. it's a great theory, but it failed in the real world. what happened was, the incomes of folks at the top went up further, everybody else was running in place or falling behind, and the deficit went up. we tried that in the early 2000. this is a replay of a failed ideology. so while it greenlights those

tax cuts for folks at the top, it is also cutting deeply into investments that have helped power our economy in the past. it cuts deeply into already investment in education, beginning with early education and going through k-12 including special education. it's going to cut deeply into our investment in science and research and innovation, that have also helped power our economy. why do i say that? because it cuts the part of the budget we used to fund those investments by 40% below the amount we have spent as a shared economy, the lowest point. so we have been keeping record since the 1950's on what share of our economy we invest in those areas. these budgets cut that to 40% below the lowest level since we have been keeping records. so it's not rhetoric to say that this has devastating implications for those investments.

it also assumes, by the way, that the transportation trust fund will essentially go insolvent in a couple of months. no solution in this budget for that problem, even though it's months away. so it cuts those things. i'll tell you what it doesn't cut. it doesn't cut a single special interest tax break in order to reduce the deficit. not one penny. not one penny. not a hedge fund manager loophole, not a corporate jet loophole, not want to reduce the deficit. so after making deep cuts in education, and not cutting a single tax break to reduce the deficit, it still doesn't balance. with all respect, gentlemen, this budget doesn't balance. neither the senate budget nor the house budget. why?

because it depends on the revenue from the affordable care act to claim balance in 10 years, when at the same time it claims to be repealing the entire affordable care act. republican senators on this panel have made that criticism themselves in the past. i will tell you what else it doesn't do. it doesn't account for all the tax cut bills, business tax cut bills that are coming to the floor of the house right now. the estate tax doesn't kick in for estates of couples until you get to $10 million. just last week on the floor of the house, we said we are going to provide a tax cut for those 5500 families.

fewer people than you can put on a big cruise ship in the united states. that was the priority on the house for. it's bad enough that that was the priority, but guess what? that $267 billion increase in the deficit is not accounted for in either budget. in addition to the affordable care act that you need to balance and say you're getting rid of, in the house we're passing tax cut bills which add to the deficit, which is not factored in here. you add to that the games that are being played in the war savings, the overseas contingency account, and you've got a whole bunch of financial shenanigans going on here to claim balance and to say -- i'm just going to close by reading from last year's republican house budget report. this is not van hollen writing this, this is from the senate house republicans. in the report, abuse of the oco cap adjustment, the budget committee will -- in the fiscal year 2015 budget process, and it will oppose increases above the levels the administration or our

military commanders say are needed to carry out operations. unless it can be clearly demonstrated that such amounts are war related. that was the year ago. now, the same budget committee is doing the same end run they claimed could happen if we follow that path. so mr. chairman, with all respect, despite the fact that this budget cuts deeply into our investments in education while providing tax cuts for folks at the very top, cuts in tax rates, it also doesn't balance. we put forth in the house and the house democrats an alternative which would actually provide some tax relief for working people and would make the investments that we need to keep the country growing. and by the way, yes, it did

close a whole lot of tax breaks that are unproductive and unnecessary for economic growth in order to achieve the goals we set forward. so i thank you, mr. chairman and look forward to any discussion we may have. >> we will now turn to opening statements from the budget conferees. everyone will be recognized for up to five minutes. i would mention that senator murray was kind enough to submit hers in riding, and i expect several others to be willing to do that too. that will save us considerable time. the reason we haven't at five -- have it at five minutes is that 5:30 the senate is having a vote so we need to pack it in within that time. so i will alternate following the speaking order that was shared around last week. as a reminder, we are not following the early bird rule. if someone is missing when it is their turn, i will keep track. once everyone has finished speaking, i will recognize everyone who is here in the

order they would previously been recognized. sen. grassley: i commend the two gentlemen, as you both succeeded in drafting responsible resolutions that garnered significant majorities of support in the respective chambers. of course that is no small feat. there have been many times during the past six years that congress completely failed in our obligation to produce a budget. for many years in the senate there was no effort to produce a budget at all. even with our country on a fiscally unsustainable course, the senate repeatedly shirked its responsibilities to producing a budget. the american people expect the ir government to behave responsibly, live within our means, and at the very least produce a budget. they want us to demonstrate prudence and responsibility by getting our budget to balance within 10 years, if not sooner. both budgets before us achieve that goal. i'm glad to be here to get to

work with our house colleagues in reconciling differences. this is regular order and how the process is intended to work. there is an enormous amount of cynicism about the dysfunction of washington, particularly congress. to regain the trust of the american people, we can demonstrate that we can work together and confront our fiscal challenges. rather than provide a responsible budget framework the president's budget proposal ignored our fiscal challenges, and instead, it was a political messaging document.

president obama's budget proposal was so bad that only one democrat voted for it when it was put up in the senate. president obama's budget would have increased taxes by nearly $2 trillion, increased spending dramatically, and as more than $7 trillion to the national debt. his budget was criticized for ignoring the drivers of our long-term debt. he was criticized for claiming 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 investments of tomorrow. overspending 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 the moral equivalent of selling a pig in a poke. the promise of economic growth unending deficit spending defies logic and common sense.

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 then help reduce the borrowing costs of college students. a balanced budget will lead to reduced interest payments on her -- our national debt, which means resources available for important priorities, rather than wasting them on interest payments. we all want to help hard-working american families and taxpayers. we should help them by providing an efficient, effective, and accountable federal government. we should help them by growing the economy. we should help them by demonstrating that congress has the ability to put the federal government on a path to live within our means. deficits and debt do matter. they matter to our economy. they matter to hard-working americans. they matter to job creators, and they matter to future

generations of americans that will suffer from overspending and physical carelessness. -- fiscal carelessness. it's time to save guard the american dream of future generations. it's not just a fiscal issue, it's a moral issue. i hope i colleagues will recognize the responsibility we have to ensure that future generations have the opportunity to achieve even greater prosperity. again, i'm glad that we finally engaged in this very important process. a process of discipline on all the committees of congress to make sure we don't go over this budget. it's time to get to work to find sound, fiscal solutions for our nation's challenges. i yield. sen. enzi: thank you, senator. >> let me thank both chairman of our committees for their leadership today.

as a person who is relatively new to congress, it is refreshing to see us working together. while it is tempting also to address all the contrarian issues that have been brought up before i was recognized, i'm going to limit my comments to the need to reduce our debt and balance our budget in 10 years. as we begin working as a group here to forge a budget agreement, i believe the house comes to the table with a strong, responsible, and realistic vision for addressing our nations economic challenges it a balanced budget for a stronger america provides a blueprint for tapping the real drivers of our debt, and therefore it directly is in line with the priorities of real americans.

it puts us on a responsible, progrowth path that balances the budget in less than 10 years and empowers all americans to build better lives for themselves and their families. we are here today to very much his story but unfortunately rare moment when both chambers come together to tactile one of the greatest challenges of our time, and that is our debt. i simply refuse to accept burdening future generations with tens of thousands of dollars of debt each, as chairman enzi mentioned. america's fiscal position is unsustainable. interest payments on the debt alone will be $5.6 trillion over the next decade, according to the congressional budget office, exceeding spending on national defense and the medicaid program by 2025. some people in the city don't find the statistics concerning

and apparently we just heard from some. in fact they think the status quo is just fine, spending money we don't have without any consequences, and demagogue it goes who are actually trying to solve the problem. the average hoosier in my district understands they can't spend more money than the have at least not for long. this is the first step in paying down the debt. that is to balance our budget. the health budget does that, a balanced budget must be a top priority, because without it our economy will remain stagnant and we will continue racking up the debt for the children of tomorrow. it means avoiding out-of-control growth and interest payments preventing future tax increases or true austerity measures, and preventing a loss of confidence in america's credit worthiness area it also means making difficult choices, and that has escaped many of us for too long. it takes leadership, instead of continuing to spend money we don't have, we must tactile our runaway entitlement spending that consumes your two thirds of our federal budget as we sit here today. we need to reform medicare before the trust fund reaches insolvency in 2030. we need to make social security reform happen. it will soon pay out more than it is taking in.

we need to repeal obamacare and replace it with patient centered health reform that actually works. we need to provide states with flexibility in the medicaid program so they can best meet the needs of their unique populations. the house republican budget does this. the efforts of this committee will help that trillion dollars in federal spending. were on path to spend more than $43 trillion in the next 10 years. that's a lot of money. americans deserve to know that their hard-earned property is being spent wisely. i'm confident we can produce a progrowth unified budget to put us on a pass to balance.

we do this in the house republican budget. if there are better, workable ideas that actually solve the problem and not demagogy issues, i'm sure we will all be happy to hear them. i look forward to working with my colleagues around the table to iron out the differences between our budgets. the american people are looking for leadership, and now is our chance to do it. with that, i yield back to the chairman. sen. enzi: thank you congressman. i thank senator murray for submitting her comments in writing. >> thank you for the opportunity to be part of this budget conference. as mr. sanders and mr. van hollen have already made clear my democratic colleagues and i will speak today about the many ways these budgets fall short in addressing the true needs of our nation and the american people. i also want to talk about the questionable ways in which these budgets purport to balance our nation's finances. we see washington a lot of tv these days, but honestly, with the fantasies evident in this pages, it's more like games --

"game of thrones" than "house of cards." the house and senate had to use some remarkably acrobatic arithmetic to get the appearance of a balanced budget year. it is far from partisan. these are not democrats concerns, this is math that just doesn't add up. i'm far from the only one who sees it. the committee for responsible federal budget noted that the health budget uses several budget gimmicks that circumvent budget discipline, and the details are in some ways unrealistic and unspecified. on the senate budget, they also observed that disappointingly, many of the savings are unrealistic or lacks specificity. "the fiscal times" noted that there is a widely held belief among many federal budget

watchers that republican had to resort to budgetary smoke to create a pathway to a balanced budget. even the conservative taxpayers for common sense says this isn't budgeting, it's gimmickry. chief among the gimmickry is the assertion there's anything responsible about stripping health care from tens of millions of americans. ranking member van hollen talked about how the gimmick of assuming all the revenue that is mandated by the aca, while your repealing it, in totality beat aca, just doesn't add up. if republicans were to succeed in fulfilling the first half of their campaign pledge to repeal and replace obamacare, cbo estimates it would increase our federal budget deficit by $109 billion in the first decade and cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion in lost revenue. let me talk about the cost outside of the federal budget. i know that's what we are primarily here for. in my state of kentucky, as most people know, we've had a successful couple of years in implementing the program. 520,000 kentuckians now have insurance coverage who did not have it before the aca. in my district of louisville, we

reduced the uninsured rate by 81%. more importantly, is the other economic activity that the aca's responsible for. according to a deloitte analysis, over the next six years, the aca in kentucky will mean $30 billion in added economic activity, 40,000 new jobs, and $800 million positive impact on the kentucky state budget. just imagine what would happen in states like california and new york and others who are much larger than kentucky. the negative impact, not just at the federal level, but throughout many of the states, would be absolutely disastrous. mr. van hollen also talked about the laughable growth projections based on tax cuts for the well-off and well-connected. we are now 12 and 14 years removed from the bush tax cuts

and we have seen what happened with those. we know trickle down economics doesn't work. and yet we are doubling down on it in a way where we are just rebranding it. now we are calling it dynamic scoring, which basically assumes faith-based economics, it assumes that if you cut taxes, that revenues will automatically increase. even though again, we have a history that contradicts. dynamic scoring would be fine if we applied it to investments we would make, like investments in infrastructure, research education. those kind of investments which we know absolutely pay all in spades for the american taxpayer. but we don't use dynamic scoring for that. we just use it to justify tax cuts for the people who are already wealthy. as my colleagues have mentioned, and i know they will continue to mention, we have a very different set of priorities. we have the priorities that i believe the american people are

soundly behind, and we need to develop a budget and a priority list for the american people that makes it possible for everyone to get ahead, and not just the people who are already miles ahead. with that, i yield back. sen. sessions: thank you for your ability to bring people together in a positive way, and i think we have produced a budget that can help put us on a sound path. congressman price, thank you for your leadership. i have admired your work for years and look forward to continuing in that direction. we have not done a good job in the senate on passing a budget. we passed one budget in the last 2183 days that was actually conferenced. we had -- we had one budget since 2009 that actually passed the senate, only one. so this is a step in the right direction.

i believe it is a positive there -- step for america, and we need to continue to work at it. julie andrews saying in that "sound of music" song a great economic truth, nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could. you can't borrow your way to prosperity, as one person told me in a town hall. the money that is spent today is burdening our children in the future. it is irresponsible and cannot continue on this path. we've got to do better, and we can. this borrowing and spending has failed to produce the promised economic growth over the past four years. it has averaged only 2.2%. that was about half of what the white house projected it would be when they told us we could spend, tax, and borrow more and

prosperity. cbo, omb, and the federal reserve have also overestimated the economic growth we can expect. so borrow, tax, spend, over - regulate, those things are not going to create growth and won't create revenue for the united states government. "barron's" this week had an interesting article that said even the low interest rates the fed has been using is detrimental to growth rather than positive. according to "the new york times," we agree there is a problem out there -- this is what "the new york times" recently wrote. "working in america is in decline. the share of prime age men those 25-54, who are not working, has more than tripled since the 1960's to 16%. more recently, since the turn-of-the-century, a sheriff of women without paying jobs has

been rising too. the united states with one of the highest unemployment rate since 2000 has fallen for the bottom of the list. " there are now 65 million working age americans currently not working, including nearly one in four in their prime working years, for four straight years more than 40 million americans have been on food stamps. one in three americans receives some sort of means tested support. we are now spending on the federal side were spending about $750 billion a year on means tested programs. that includes medicare, but these are programs designed for lower income people that we believe need additional help. i would just say the approach that we have to take is, what will help create jobs, higher wages, not lower wages, that we have been seeing, create prosperity, and more revenue for the government, but most importantly, more money for

americans, for themselves and their families. i don't believe the policies we have been seeing for the last six years will get us there. that's why we have a budget that doesn't agree. we have a different philosophy about how to approach it. our colleagues seem to think the way to deal with the wealth gap, which is real, is to take more money from people who've had it and give it to people who don't. that is a fool's chase. that will never work in creating the kind of healthy economy we believe in. i just would say, i respect my colleagues, but i don't agree with the solution that they might have for this problem that we face. we need to be sure to remember that we can't measure success by how much we spend on poverty. it's time to measure success by how many people we lift out of poverty. mr. chairman, thank you for your work. i look forward to working with

you. i will express right here, right now, two be problems. i did not approve and i opposed the doc fix that was unpaid for. that was wrong, especially at the time were doing a balanced budget. i'm worried about the size and the way defense moneys have been dealt with. we have got to think our way through in some way to do a better job with helping with the defense crisis that we face. the world is just more dangerous today than it was in 2011 when we passed the budget control act. mr. chairman, thank you. my time is up. >> thank you much, mr. chairman. i'm going to follow-up with what senator sessions was just mentioning. he is absolutely right. the world is a much more dangerous place. i don't think it's been this

dangerous since potentially the late 1970's. you mentioned how this is a rare occasion. matter of fact, the fact that we have a conference committee, it probably would have been a breach of protocol, because i was tempted to take as selfie at -- take a selfie at the beginning of this thing. it's a really rare occasion so i want to congratulate chairman enzi and senator price for doing the job the american people sent us to do. secondly, just a reminder to all of us that as senator sessions mentioned, look, our safety, the security and safety of the american people, is frankly our biggest responsibility as the federal government. today our nation and our allies and our interests around the world frankly are being

threatened, whether to radical islamic terrorist in certain parts of the world, whether it's an emboldened russia, and emboldened castro, you name it. our enemies around the world seemed to be emboldened, so we must provide for a strong national defense. and it requires funding of our troops, training for readiness for our intelligence capabilities, etc. i know that all of us understand that and all of us understand that it is potentially our greatest responsibility. the world is not as we would like it to be. the world is as it is. with that, mr. chairman, i thank you both gentlemen, for your leadership. i look forward to continuing to discuss and workers some of the differences, but as senator sessions said before, this is a huge step in the right direction. this has not happened in a long time. i look forward to passing a joint budget and i hope it will

not be the last. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> i want to thank you and chairman price, both of whom i have enjoyed working with on a bipartisan basis in the past. i think we still have that opportunity. one of the reasons i feel so strongly about that is that in the senate as part of the budget debate, i was able to win 73 votes for tax reform being built around tax relief for middle-class americans. they have basically seem n stagnant wages for years and years. 73 of our colleagues voted for making bipartisan tax reform the centerpiece of our tax efforts in years ahead. so i know we can do it, and i look forward to working with my colleagues with that objective.

when i do look at the budget before the committee today, the overall budget, my sense is they just don't pass overall notwithstanding the provision on middle-class tax relief in the senate. they don't pass the test of fairness for america's middle class. they won't do enough to help oregonians or people across this country, people who work hard and play by the rules. it won't do enough to help them climb the ladder of economic opportunity. i hope that we will do more on a bipartisan basis. there are some important elements in the senate passed budget that i'm going to push very hard to preserve in the congress. they may be matters that aren't the most important here in the nation's capital, but they sure are a big deal at home, and especially in the west. i see my partner in particular senator crapo, who has been a terrific leader on these issues. one of the things we're facing in the west, that is a premier

concern of our people, especially this summer, is the fact that the fires are getting bigger and hotter and more damaging. we need to change our priorities here in washington to do more to prevent them from breaking out in the first place. i also believe that we have come to look at service in rural areas in a fresh way in the senate budget, linking for example the secure rural schools program with the payment in lieu of taxes program in the land and water conservation fund. when you get out and about in the rural communities in my state and all across the west, leaders will tell you that the funding for these programs is life-saving. the fire truck, the ambulance, the questioner renovating a

school, kickstarting a development program, these are vital to the maintenance and creation of healthy, rural communities and rural economies. in the senate, the amendment i offered to link these programs together, for the first time land and water conservation fund, payment in lieu of taxes had a vote of 18-4. it got a significantly more bipartisan vote than saying maybe we can come up with something called active force management. there's a better alternative and it is bipartisan. we will do that anyway. there is a better alternative and it is bipartisan. i want to mention several other concerns i have with respect to the budget. i don't think the budget is doing enough in the area of infrastructure. this is an opportunity to be bipartisan. we did that with programs and it doesn't do enough to make college education more affordable. in fact, on the health-care front, i'm especially troubled about the pain it will cause for those on medicare and the

reductions in medicaid. these are programs that serve people that are already walking on an economic tightrope. i consider that a mistake. i will close on upbeat note with a question about how tax reform should be built around the middle class. the amendment i offered got 73 votes. it makes things a little bit easier. if you are a parent with several children and you are struggling to get by, i am very hopeful that i am looking forward to working with you on a host of these issues. let's build on bipartisanship and we are able to do that with an amendment that says the tax reform we know is going to be a

challenging debate. it will be built around tax relief. >> congressman moore. congressman moore: thank you so much for yielding. i do want to join my other colleagues in thanking the house and the senate for calling this conference together and acknowledging all of the distinguished members of the committee. i have been on the budget committee for over four years. and i am just not accustomed. i have not become accustomed to how we, in this democracy, how we can continue to attempt to balance the budget by doubling

down on a failed economic theory of just providing more and more tax benefits to the wealthiest 1% of americans. to the wealthiest 1% of americans. while literally throwing not only the poor under the bus, but on a bipartisan basis people don't have that much regard for the poor, but we are doing it to displaced workers, to working moms, at the expense of our infrastructure the disabled, infants and children who cannot work veterans transferring back into our community. our debt ridden students who are try to take your of us in our elderly years, the elder and in firm and it is distressing to me that 59% of the budget cuts

come from low income people and moderate income programs in both the house and the senate. this does not make sense about stuff that used to be bipartisan, like road construction and taking care of our roads and bridges, so i just think what we are doing is dangerous. it will eviscerate our safety net and drive millions more into poverty. as an example, i am just absolutely grieved by the snap cuts posed in this budget. the so-called cut to prosperity without asking the wealthiest to provide one single dime is just outrageous. as janet yellen, the chair of the federal reserve said, and i quote, the extent of the continuing increase in

inequality in the united states greatly concerns me. it is no secret that the past few decades of widening the inequality can be summed up as a significant wealth gain for those at the very top and stagnant living conditions for the majority. i think it is important to ask of this trend is compatible with the values rooted in our society , with the value we place on equality, so i oppose these drug coney and budget cuts, but there is one thing i want to commend the senate on. senators on a bipartisan basis including both my senators from wisconsin, established a deficit neutral fund for workers to earn paid sick leave. i think that is a real good starting point for helping our economy and helping working americans. families without paid sick leave suffer tremendously an average 3.5 days of pay loss.

that is the equivalent to about a month's worth of groceries. paid sick leave is good for the economy, and it is good for our society. families have to make agonizing choices, particularly women when we do not have sick time. they are more likely to use emergency room care, and given the standstill we are having over health care, i think we could ill afford to have more uncompensated care, adding to the 1.3 million emergency room visits that we have. i don't think we can afford an extra $1.1 billion. just let me end by saying i think it is admirable to try to deal with our deficit and to have a balanced budget, but i am so sorry to see that we are willing to do this at the expense of our democracy. in 1928, when we -- when our

nation went into the first depression we had inequality greater than it had ever been. 2008, when we saw the great recession here in our country, again, inequality was greater than it had ever been. caution, my colleagues. i yield back. chair: think you. these. senator crapo. senator crapo: thank you. i appreciate you coming and senator price to get us to where we are going for the first time in years have a budget in this congress. those in the senate on the said it -- senate budget committee have heard me express my disappointment in the senate budget process because we never seem to get to year two.

we always make the hard decisions in the out years and even make no decisions in the early years or very weak ones and i have been complained a lot that we ought to start getting ourselves to year 2, 3, 4, 5 and six of the budgets we put word. recently, we have not just had a problem of getting into year two, we have had a problem with getting to year one, and now you are helping us get there and i commend you for doing that and appreciated. we must deal with our national debt. senator sessions indicated that one of his constituents told him that you cannot borrow your way into prosperity. i say that a little differently. i say we cannot spend our way into prosperity with our road money, and that is exactly what the history -- with borrowed money, and that is exactly the

history of this. this starts us down the road with solving that question. we do have a 10-year window. interest on the debt i believe is the fastest growing element of the budget, and from the numbers i have seen, interest on the national debt will exceed all discretionary -- nondefense discretionary spending within about five years and will exceed our entire national defense or just within about seven or eight years. that, i hope, helps people understand the urgency of the need to not only adopt a budget but to adopt a budget, the mandate that we must adopt a budget that helps make some of these tough decisions about how we need to move forward, and remarkably, many of those who are attacking the budgets that have been put forward by the senate and the house are attacking them because they do not raise taxes.

as if the old philosophy of taxing and spending was the solution for our country, for our economy, and for our budget. well it is not, and i want to say that i commend the chairman for not only resisting the urge to just raise taxes once again but going even stronger and a more significant step and giving us the opportunity for reforming our tax code and giving our economy the opportunity to grow. if you look at our current tax code, you would be hard-pressed to come up with one that is more unfair, more complex, more expensive to comply with, and more anti-competitive to our own business and job growth in the united states. we need to fix it, and this budget gives us an opportunity to take those steps and look at that kind of reform of the tax code instead of defining tax reform as raising taxes on somebody else.

in addition, and i have to agree with my colleague, senator wyden , who pointed this out, the growth that can come with helping the middle class and improved wages and improved jobs, ticking a strong stand at controlling the explosive spending that is driving our government towards insolvency. we will be able to significantly address the kinds of problems that others to criticize these budgets are bringing forward. i want to talk also about a couple of specifics in the budget in the time i have left. a couple of amendments that i brought are in the budget, 12 stop the congress from continuing to use fees for other spending. -- one, to stop congress from continuing to use these for other spending. two, to stop congress from taking it out of a fund, using it to mask spending on other things, and stopping the money

for being used for some of the most vulnerable victims of domestic violence in our society. i also -- ici am running out of time, so i would just quickly say i aboard the comments made by -- iac -- iac -- i see i am running out of time, so i will just quickly say i am on board with the comments made by others. again, mr. chairman, thank you and i commend you both for the hard work and the hard decisions you have made in bringing us to this point. chair: thank you. congressman? congresswoman: thank you, mr. enzi. i want to say how proud i am to be on this committee. this will confront our spending problem and return us to a point of fiscal solvency here in washington.

we know that the stakes are high and that the challenges are they, but we can also be encouraged by the knowledge that our house and senate passed budgets already reflecting many of the same principles, and that is important because as we have all heard said here today and before, budgets really are a statement of our values, so i am pleased that they agree on the importance of a plan that balances within 10 years. we agree that we should not take more from hard-working families to fuel washington's runaway spending with another tax increase. we agree that we must offer americans away out of the harmful regulations, mandates, and cost of obamacare, and we agree that budgets are in optional part of our job as legislators. they are a fundamental responsibility of governing. i am looking forward to working alongside both parties and both

chambers in the coming days to craft this bicameral budget agreement. by that time, i hope we will have a productive conversation on each of these tenant -- tenets. i'm particularly looking for two looking at how we can have a better way forward on health care. we know that the president's health care law is failing to live up on some of the most basic promises. i hear that in my town hall meetings across my 19 counties, in my visits with providers here in washington, and any phone calls and e-mails i receive in my opposite on a daily basis. the congressional budget office says of obamacare will cost our economy the equivalent of more than 2 million full-time jobs, and once it is all said and done, those same estimates tell us that about 31 million americans will remain uninsured. we have to do better.

and that is why our budget agreement repeals obamacare allowing us to start over with some real reforms that put patients and their doctors in charge of health care, not washington bureaucrats. i believe it is critical that our final unified budget document maintain these provisions. so if we truly want to offer real world health care solutions that strengthen the doctor-patient relationship, that lets families keep more money in their pocket, and that protect our seniors, it starts with a racing the damage of obamacare and offering a clean slate to work from. we have the opportunity through this budget process to do exactly that. i looking forward to the important work ahead, and i want to especially thank chairman price and chairman enzi for their leadership on this. thank you, and ideal back. chairman: thank you. next these. chairwoman -- congresswoman: we

have great respect for you and the process of the committee and chairman, i appreciate being here. i also want to say it is good to have another on the committee. we are friends, and it is great to see you, as well. the budget process is our opportunity to have a debate about our values and priorities. that is really what it is. we should ask ourselves how do we make sure every american has a fair shot to work hard and to succeed, and that israel he i would've, the goal of what we do in terms of a budget. in other words how we go about with the american dream. what you make sure it works for the middle class and those who are working hard to get into the middle class. unfortunately, republican budgets passed by the house and senate do not do that. now, there is some good news in

the economy, and we are not hearing that much today, but there is, in fact, good news. when the president took office we were in one of the biggest holes we have seen since the great depression. i know in michigan, the unemployment rate at the time was 15.7%. it was a very, very difficult, painful time. it is now 5.6%. that is a huge shift and two thirds of our yearly deficit has been eliminated. more to do? yes, but two thirds of our yearly deficit has been eliminated. the challenge for us, i believe, the challenge for the country is to make sure that every american has the opportunity to succeed and this economy, to work hard and succeed with one job, not two or three. too many folks are working two or three, just trying to hold

their head above water. we need one job or you can regime family and succeed and in fact, that means a middle-class budget come one that creates millions of good paying jobs, that invest in rebuilding america, at protect social security and medicare and other health care services, one that lowers the cost of college for young people, so you are not coming out of college with more debt that it would take to buy a big house, which is what is happening to too many young people, and to cut taxes for middle-class families. unfortunately, these legends keep the budget rich for the wealthy and well-connected. these budgets do not do enough to create jobs and to invest and build america. we know our economy will only go as far as her infrastructure will take us, and yet right now that infrastructure is crumbling. we should be paying for infrastructure by closing corporate loopholes and those

that take our jobs overseas, oftentimes just on paper. it's the majority was serious about empowering all of the american workers, it would call for an increase in the minimum wage and equal pay for women. it would make sure that the affordable care act would continue for 16.4 million americans, instead of having the massive tax increase on the middle class that comes from getting rid of the tax credits. it would stop the cuts in medicare and in medicaid. mr. chairman, i do want to mention one other thing, as chair of the agriculture and nutrition committee during the 2014 farm bill. we made very tough decisions at that time, and, frankly, things i hear everybody talk about they want to do. we looked at every program. we cut over 100 different programs and authorizations. we cut billions of dollars more than what was required from sequestration. the only committee that did that.