balanced policies that deal with refinement and revenue, we could end up having lower deficits in the outyear without economic disruption that are predict we'd some of the other scenarios that you're talking about. and i would hope that we get to the point where this committee starts zeroing in on areas of agreement that aren't necessarily ideological or partisan, but really point us towards the path that you've outlined. i think it's very, very important. but i -- one thing that i am concerned about is equipping you to be able to help us go through. there was a fascinating article, ezra klein's column this morning. how much of the deficit is attributed to policies that president obama signed into law and how much is attributable to policies that were part of the bush administration. he comes up with a calculation, $1 billion obama, $5 being billion bush administration policies. now, debate more or less what you're talking, you know, on this, but this shouldn't be from a columnist in the "washington post" and a couple of think tanks. it would be great to be able to work in a refined basis wit

or generating electricity in california and increase in the outyears. also in the purple line, we have renewable energy going up. now, under the california rps standard, we have 33% of retail sales coming from renewable sources by 2020. and the law essentially ends at 2020 and we extended it out to 2035 by assuming that amount goes up to 40%. pictured on the right are the projected costs we use from eia for the cost of renewables. and notice the two blue lines are costs for solar technology. the bottom one, solar thermal and the upper one solar. and those costs are expected to decline. steadily over the forecast horizon. we also use eia's projection of cost for generating electricity from natural gas. there's a sharp decline. gas prices now at ten-year lows. and in the eia forecast, they project gas prices going up. these scenarios are very sensitive to the price of gas. the first two are essentially about electric power. we can build electric power and supply it with renewable sources or we could use natural gas. the third scenario's different. and tha

think we all agree, we should all find ways to achieve greater deficit reduction as we move into the outyears especially. but here's what they said. in the framework the president announced in april and what he submitted to the select committee the president embraced many of the goals and principles outlined by the fiscal commission and incorporated some of the policies we proposed. we are pleased that the president's latest budget continues to focus on deficit reduction and are also encouraged to see real specific policies for limiting tax expenditures, slowing health care cost growth, and reducing spending throughout the government. that's the quote from the bipartisan co-chairs of the president's fiscal commission. and again, i think what withe president laid out here is the balanced approach rather than a lopsided approach that will ask middle income families to take the brunt of our national effort to put the country on a long-term fiscally sustainable footing. and with that, mr. chairman, i thank you. >> all right. >> thank you. >> mr. garrett? >> thank you. appreciate your testimony to

now, i'm sure you heard from the president's budget that the discretionary outyears are notional, and ours are as well, but we develop a plan to a top line, and the top line here is nominally flat, meaning no increase with inflation. this should remind you of last year. this is the exact dupe my cat of last year, and so the counts in general are held the that request level, but there's trades within accounts toking the for the rise and falls of missions and other needs. okay. also in this budgets, you're going to see a change in the emphasis of what kinds of expenditures we're doing, and in particular, we are working to reduce the administrative expenditures, travel, supplies, i.t., energy management in order to increase expenditures within the same top line, increase them on program expenditures. in 2012, we have a goal -- this year, we have a goal to reduce our administrative costs by $100 million, and we're well on the way to meeting that, and for the 201 budget, we double that to $200 million. we're also having -- you know, well into a multiyear effort to work with our work force

cuts to expire and the sequestering to take place we have larger growing structural deficits in the outyearshat are your thoughts on a way forward for the lame duck? >> as i just said, david, i think it's a golden opportunity to start fixing this problem. you have 3.6 trillion of revenue over ten years to work with. a lot of those, of the tax cuts that represent that should not be continued. you've got the mandatory cuts on the sequester, my view, that should go forward. and you also have for example the payroll tax cut, assuming it's extended in february, expiring again then now also. so you have a giant amount of deficit reduction, which you could do, just by wielding the veto pen. remember, it's not that these, it's not that you have to stop the tax cuts. they expire by law, and so keeping in mind the veto, you'd have to get two-thirds of the congress to override the president's veto and that wouldn't happen. so he has the ability, whoever he is, to unilaterally put in place a giant amount of deficit reduction, and i just think that's a golden moment and i'm hoping, of course, none of us

we'll try to limit the pay raises in the outyears. there's ways to increase fees for tricare costs. health care in the military costs close to $50 billion right now. there has to be ways to try to control those costs as well. as you know, we've recommended a retirement commission to look at that area for savings, although we do want to grandfather those who are serving so that they don't lose the retirement benefits promised to them. so, that in summary is the message. this is not been easy. this is a tough process. obviously, we need your support to review the proposals we've made and to give us your best guidance as well. i'm a blesser as someone who comes from the congress that we need your partnership in order to try to implement the strategy, and as you know, this committee in particular, this is 5 zero-sum game. if you're going to restore cuts, you have to find places to cut it, and there's a very narrow margin here for mistakes. you're going to destroy funding in one area, restore another structure. if you restore compensation, cult in weapons systems. that's the process we w

the figures i was reading with respect to the impact -- negative impact on growth in the outyears was from a dynamic analysis of the joint tax committee has done pursuant to house rules. what this does, again, is -- i will not on my time. i'd be happy to yield -- mr. woodall: i'd be happy to be educated by the gentleman. mr. van hollen: mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: i refer the gentleman to the bill, the piece of the document i referenced several times already. this kind of work is done. what you're asking for here is to again leave off part of the equation. for example, the recovery bill. the recovery bill was primarily an appropriations bill. leave off part of the equation, but also when it comes to the revenue piece, skew the request. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the chair: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and his leadership. what we're talking about here this afternoon is one of a package of four budget proposals f

president's own budget this year it came out just two days ago, you will see that this year and in the outyear money coming in from lease sales decreases. that means that the policy of this administration is not more energy production on public lands. it's less. he's taking advantage of the situation that's going on, state and private lands and taking credit for it with what's happened in north dakota. this plan here puts together a solid footing for america energy production on public lands. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. markey: i think it would be helpful for both sides to understand what the time situation is for the conclusion of debate. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts has three minutes remaining. the gentleman from washington, a minute and a half. mr. markey: does the gentleman intend to conclude debate with his next speaker? mr. hastings: my intent is to hold that minute in case you say something that needs to be responded to. mr. markey: all right. so

president's own budget this year it came out just two days ago, you will see that this year and in the outyear money coming in from lease sales decreases. that means that the policy of this administration is not more energy production on public lands. it's less. he's taking advantage of the situation that's going on, state and private lands and taking credit for it with what's happened in north dakota. this plan here puts together a solid footing r america energy production on public lands. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognize mr. markey: i think it would be helpful for both sides to understand what the time situation is forhe conclusion of debe. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts has three minutes remaining. the gentleman from washington, a minute and a half. mr. markey: does the gentleman intend to conclude debate with his next speaker? mr. hastings: my intent is to hold that minute in case you say something that needs to be responded to. mr. markey: all right. so what i'

on cyber, we are making investments of $3.4 billion and even more in the outyears because we think cyber is extremely important. so obviously partnering with the private sector is extremely important in being able to develop the technological capability that we're going to need to have for the future. i think that's important to remember. second plea, with regards to the air reserve and i understand the concerns. the air force made the decisions. i mean, some of these planes in the past have come out of the active duty force and that's one of the reasons they tried to look for some of the reductions could be made based on the age of these planes as well as their capabilities. but they are trying to do whatever they can to mitigate against those, you know, what impact because we do need to depend on the reserve to be there. they've responded in dramatic fashion over these last few years every time we called upon them to come forward and take their place alongside other fighting men and women in the battlefield and they've done a great job. we want to be able to maintain that for the futur