of their administrative offices and other activities related to bca's mission. and possibly develop a restaurant and cafe. on april 12 -- i'm sorry, on april 10, 2012, this commission authorized staff to put out an rfp or request for public offering for a restaurant renovation and operator. the port, we did extensive advertising, extensive outreach, and we received no offers. the building has been vacant for seven years. i have shown the building myself during that time. and we have received no offers. under the report's resale policy, it does require a competitive bid. if it's retail, which their proposed restaurant would follow in line with that. however, there is an exception that the policy provides for, for direct negotiations if port staff determines that a public offering would be impractical and impossible. we feel that the seven years that the property sat vacant and the fact that we did a public offering with extensive outreach, our conclusion is it is impractical and we would request your permission to do a sole source direct negotiation with bca for

he wanted a tax increase of they debt limit and only because of this house majority did we get the bca. so, let's take away that claim e because that is not in your budget.aim you cannot claim you're achieving this when it's a law that is already passed. and now let's go to the war 're gimmick.t or people call this oko. which is let's claim savings one money that is never going to be spent or requested and claim ity saves us $850 billion. saving i don't know what part of the wn private sector you come from, ie we are saying we are saving money that we were never going to request or spend, i don't know how you can say you are saving money.saving and now the doc fix, nobody doc wants to see this cut occur.eret but we cannot just assume it away. end o it's here, it's happening, it f happens at the end of the month. so we are just assuming that is, they are not going to get cut and that is, you know, $430 billion in your numbers. and then let's take off the les interest savings that you are attributing all these claims and here is what we are left with. we are left with a budget that has o

but i think there's been a lot of suggestion that the bca is the budget. that was the replacement and substitute for having a budget. i would argue the bca is what you end up with when you don't have a budget. last year when we didn't write a budget we ended up at the 11th hour rushing to cobble something together to meet a deadline on the debt limit. we didn't address the important issues of entitlement reform and tax reform, which the super committee was supposed to address. there again, that's something that should have been our responsibility through this process. and let me just say, too, that i think that the suggestion that this be a starting point is all fine and good. we've had votes on the president's budget here last year. the house voted on the president's budget this year. the house voted on some version of the bowles-simpson commission plan. and it only got 38 votes over there. my understanding is, i don't know, i haven't seen it yet, but your mark is higher in terms of taxes and spending than what was voted on and only received 38 votes in t

i think we all agree that the $2.3 trillion, it's hard to read from here, came from the bca and we have been talking consistently about a minimum of $4 trillion of a deficit reducti reduction. we started the race months ago so taking credit for the savings makes sense. second, on oko, very importantly closes the back door -- >> can i get you there, why do you count the stimulus spending and the increase in domestic spending? >> i'm sorry? >> if you are going to count things that happen in the past, why only count the things that benefit -- >> as part of the budgets -- >> it's not in the numbers. >> so the bca, this summer, that counts towards the $4 trillion deficit reduction we have been talking about all along and secondly, on oko, we are closing the back door to spending by capping oko. cb cbo scores it as savings, and it's this president that is responsible for the draw down in afghanistan. i don't know how you are cutting the chart here but you have left off $1.5 trillion of revenue that neepds to be raised. revenue that is part of balanced deficit reduction. the president proposes

i would simply point out that the fire wall in the bca is there in 2012 and 2013. so this was a number you were given by omb, not by congress. put that in perspective, the savings is $917 billon we took last year's obama line, the gates line, $78 billion off of the nit up. and agreed to that number. i clearly understand some of my colleagues don't like what we did, we also saved far more than that in mandatory spending because as you mentioned, that's 2/3 of the budget. the point i would simply say is, i heard you mentioned you were given the chore of coming up with $500 billion in budget reduction. you've done a wonderful job. what you were given as a job to do, you have done your job exceptionally well. i really mean that. i just think you were given a job to do heavy lifting for other parts of the budget that no of responsibility placed upon them. your other cab threinet secreta other marts of the government. there's a net deficit reduction of $400 billion. so you're carrying the weight of a 5 -- all of the government for the next ten years, than's a deficit red

enforcement of the bca caps and joint committee sequester. and accounting for future disaster costs rather than ignoring them. the baseline results in annual deficit of 4.7% of gdp at the end of the budget window in 2022. this is where we start out before our policy takes effect. let me now turn to our deficit reduction policies. last april, the president put forward a framework to achieve more than $4 trillion in deficit reduction. you can see it here. i'll take a few minutes to walk through this. he maintained the $4 trillion commitment in his proposals to the joint committee last september. and this year's budget is very similar to the september proposal with the addition of a year to the budget window. as you can see on the far right in the green bar, the budget actually includes over $5 trillion of total deficit reduction with the addition of the extra year to the budget n wind window. let me walk you through the critical elements. i'll go left-to-right to build up to the $5 trillion. first, you see on the far left $676 billion in saving

desayuno alegreunivi las noticias de hoy, una verdadera cacerÍa humana realiza la policÍa de alabama en bcao, esto luego de pelearse por una mujer con una de las vÍctimas dos de los cualeshdhdÚo nifr ta rÍo. hdesayun peruegreivisio los soc desayinaronalegreunivis recacÓ cadÁveres de 14 personas que murieron cuando el helicÓptero en que viajaban cayÓ y exploto, ayuda de los campesinos, fue clave para bajar los cuerpos, des la montaÑa mama rosa. donde se estrellÓtuloayuno aleg gasolina regular ha bajado y ahora 3, 62 el precio mÁs bajo en jackson, missisippi con 3, 18 y el mÁs alto seattle 4 con 21. y el presidente obama y su campaÑa lanzan una campaÑa para el mercado hispano de 4 millones ahtuayuno reunivisionhdhdtu des tribal?. cÓmo no! sale el pelon del micrÓfono. . >>> ea!!. gracias, muy amables. >>> usted es monterrey verdad sÍ, asi es. >>> ahÍ no mÁs. >>> pelÓn es cierto que cuando empezaba la carrera era animador de bodas. >>> sÍ, en discoteques tambiÉn, en bodas, grupos, mÚsica donde tocamos cover. >>> pero eso me quedÓ la duda porque un animador de bodas.... cÓmo es. >>>hdtu desayuno

. >> there will be $2 trillion of deficit reduction from the bca. you brought up taxes a few times. we believe in a balanced approach. >> let me ask you this. if you are incorrect in saying that you do not increase spending more than current law, would you consider resigning your office? >> let me go back to the balance -- >> we looked at the numbers. are you that confident? >> i'm confident with our baseline which accurately reflects current policy that we have deficit reduction in dollars. we do it in a balanced way. for every $2.50 of spend cuts, there is $1 of revenue. >> mr. zients, there is no spending cuts in this budget! this budget increases spending! surely you know that. it increases taxes. so to say you cut $2.50 in spending for every $1 in tax increase is beyond the pail. >> we have $260 billion of cuts. we have savings from oco. the cbo scores. in total, it is $2.50 of cuts to $1 of expense. >> mr. chairman, this budget taxes more and it spends more. it does not alter the debt course of america. i am disappointed that we can't get an honest response to these difficult

we are complying by the bca. there will be $2 trillion of deficit reduction from the bca. you've brought up taxes a few times. we absolutely believe in a balanced approach. >> let me ask you this. if you are incorrect, if you are incorrect in saying that you do not increase spending more than current law, would you consider resigning your office? >> let me go back to the balanced -- >> have we looked at the numbers? are you that confident in your -- >> i'm confident that with our baseline, which accurately reflects current policy and business as usual, that we have deficit reduction of more than $4 trillion and we do it in a balanced wait. for every $2.50 of spending cuts, there's $1 of revenue. that's a good, balanced approach. >> mr. zients, there is no spending cuts in this budget. this budget increases spending. surely you know that. it increases taxes. so to say you cut $2.50 in spending for every dollar in tax increase is beyond the pale. >> we have $360 billion of cuts from health care. we have $270 billion of cuts from other mandatory programs. we have savings from

next, over $1 trillion in reductions in spending consistent with the caps in the bca. next, there are $362 billion in reductions for medicare, medicaid and other health programs that will make these programs more effective and more efficient. then $272 billion in savings from reforming nonhealth mandatory programs in such areas as agricultural, federal-civilian work erie retirement. and the pbgc. the next category is $1.5 trillion in revenue for deficit reduction, including the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the highest earners. the $1.5 trillion is a net number as we further cut taxes for the middle class and small businesses. next, $617 billion in net savings from capping oko and investing in a six-year surface transportation reauthorization. that closing the back door on security spending. then there are other net savings of $141 billion, including program integrity and transportation funds that are no longer necessary. as a result of these proposals, debt service cost decreased by $800 billion. finally in that pink bar next to the green bar, there are

they had a deal that wasn't the bca and what the speaker said after the "washington post" reported on it and the it was an accurate article, he was going to get the house to vote on this, this house, the tea party house or whatever you want to call it so the republicans are there so when i hear members like carl levin and harry reid say we're going to break the backs of the rigid idealogs on taxes, it's already happening, but the groundwork isn't getting done. all of the work that has to be done in a staffing and member leg of and the jurisdiction in ways and means and all the other ones, this overlaps in so many areas and places, so what should get done, fine, you're not going to take the votes now but do the work now. >> i'm going to pressure you. you still avoid the contingency i laid out which was let's just say this group of leaders is not able to come to the agreement that we think is potential and the sort of dam klees fall. we do get sequestration. as tom pointed out we entry world of something happens. what happened then? rebecca laid out the idea of potentially shifting stra

put that in perspective, the savings from the bca is $917 billion. the budget we passed in this committee and off the floor in the house last year say $1.6 trillion, a lot of discretionary spending net. we took last year's obama line, gates line, $78 billion, and agreed with that number and still saved $1.6 trillion. now, i clearly understand what we have. we also saved far more than that in mandatory spending because as you mentioned, that's two-thirds of the budget. the point i would simply say is i heard your mention you were given a chore of coming up with $50 billion in deficit reduction. you've done a wonderful job. what you are given as a job to do, you have done your job exceptionally well. i really mean that. i just think you were given a job to do heavy lifting for other parts of the budget that did not have this kind of responsibility placed upon them. other cabinet secretaries, other parts of the government. the budget the president sent us as a net deficit reduction of $400 billion. you're carrying the weight of a $400 billion deficit re

rteerthris inmatama i co bca le so tm pi u tirua lu iryon in y "ryan meatfo mon t . , inceis niowsele st anyofoco monks gral ngce llasbaomd ite metc >>s aest 'vt iast netwsherer hindlis. epr: w bg e -pd ? exs irgrt fone guwh mareinsh thstrexa o inatl th hoatcel we run ioe nt htfo$8ll tay's h 22r-daer htogi dwi chelalce o fearstan cr. buusex jha llaye tst d hekes to ve heanf ma, moese dur anthtaorin siyse etca cr pren' chd. >>or tdi s lomaavfr ea gd nene rkew cmis. thneryldint hol ind er nolythew thngt pr a e-inurliuc d th eapen s owoo hepante g t bomred lfh. 8 ret heic oo rtehaa ly d tm >>s miiz art, is gn wi fy ino yoveit tyon ok ail f o ankinnnor rteveouor anreilch tay he a t d erdithrkou keewrsme >>doe neut st,cha on dr ie , ci a res hng enonof l ye. nlehe tye wiltel br rsant . epr:ha ps e l b w t be 20ea t ma his il, itneth stes tou. zapr "tlsi re," y >>iemo, ea ga wnt oer l hngke foust'sti asiecy. omtee ra rvveintit rvveintit retop m inhenou.tos a oeiea e 50d ig ere tpe llayerti p reioghte. inhis stel hesiesanho tee rankea teom lt re tetiee, te tho pre urg s feinheno nefur r n te

d id w t t plann mithm b a bath ef ro d tishahe bca t'ndl,ge willthat amiencng glfr lk /rger. s stch. uxsis wofud iane, a ai oerioha >> tis tam . d anhiupd be ng . t he 1urhe ntci tp t ro anththect careut enoourdi t ofsro dedge crs ceg, tar maut wa. bht wt dnt lsro t leon d tesis yan seiterer f i esne ield tel bse i var c i. anhanfce tis dol oll o utthom ctssksooe ry redro sota pl ryge hpuuts. a iig t it our i t cs sw s eyveou te e en ds inro d ymb tse eamoo o. t es wrfin , us ama paat e ant ofndf nt lyad aswtan hahemuiun a veor aie t e ctsd. i t csmhe pi wto t med dou tdear thstenor f ic tleolio em >>anu jngme anhoou s aullrt aig c toer stad wth nt f norty art ad d xt a00 uaooicho >>lcek"o ho" we geh too a ticho ts e ecixf tti demry i sn 2erf gnenlaap he arse wee. y li tiv a tof m hoo i nnin ♪ n w ieil omiaom it3 cenlu haotf lybeer opo aaonat tam lco gkin. sy g tc usveayea o viit t l thsihf t wofuples i it isleou i a d a h fheer care carebee h pl oac uneasra e e ohelocty nts ayhr th ry t bfa r thoeo til om iasly v v ti ken it d ken ♪♪ > avnt t ni rowh i. ryryspus ths len ow a

defense about $8 billion more than the bca would permit. it is going to come down to a discussion between the senate and the house as to reconcile the differences. in the house if you don't meet the caps on the defense side that means it is going to put more pressure on the domestic side as we saw in the ryan budget resolution a lot of the cuts that he is suggesting would have been on domestic discretionary spending. >> the white house has called for closing of more military bases. military bases issue apparently is not an item now. can we expect the committee to support th

just looking at it in those terms, hard to say that bca, even if it was a ten-year plan, not a plan for a year and then look at it again next year, is a plan that gets at our problem. it also happens to be the fastest growing part of our budget, the mandatory side. so, look, it's been noted here it's been 1,000 days since the senate last enacted a budget. $4 trillion later here we are. ooip n i'm not saying that's the only reason we're here $4 trillion later but it sure would be nice to have a plan. during that plan, more than $33,000 in debt for every household in ohio, north dakota, all of our states. i've listened carefully to everybody, argues for us to come up with something, a blueprint. i commend the chairman for trying to move something through the process. i liked your comprehensive presentation this afternoon. charts and all. i didn't agree with everything that you said. toward the end when you got into the substance of the proposal. i think you laid out the problem well. frankly, i think senator sessions did the same thing. i think you all agree with the problem. and you had

mind since we're already talking about the 487 and how difficult that has been to absorb under the bca tranche one. so sequestration is going to get bought down, but it's not going away. that's unfortunate because i think that should be the discussion. you know, ultimately in the end, even if congress backs into sequestration, the pentagon will get flexibility in determining. it will never come down to the program project activity level because of the damage and eloquent destruction that's been described up here on the stage today. so i've been thinking a lot about what are the solutions. let's get aside from how awful it is. i do think this is consensus that it was pretty ridiculous, and it was a silly bill that passed, and it was an awful sophie's choice that was put into place for many members of congress. that is the sequester. so the solutions. i was at bloomberg news conference last week. i heard a lot of members of congress talking about sequestration, like senator mccain, senator levin, norm dicks, congressman welch, a bunch of others. i thought i might hear something new. i wa

i voted for the bca.because we were facing a government default that would have, among other things, cut off salary payments to our troops. as chairman, i could not let our military go without pay. i held my nose and voted for bca with the votes that we could fix the serious problems which the bill shortly thereafter. that is why one of my top priorities is getting that half a trillion dollars back. taxpayers recommended that everything should be on the table for deficit reduction. i agree. if we cannot find half a trillion dollars, shame on us. explain to me why defense is less than 20% of the federal budget but has accounted for half of the spending cuts to date. taxpayers said to cut the fat out of defense and we did that. we're past cutting the fat and past the muscle and now we are cutting into the bone. the consequences are being felt. look no further than the historic strategic shift we were forced to adopt this year as the president gave a speech. the administration's forced reductions means we ca

and bca staff walked them through the general time lines and process. staff also offered to meet with the company in advance to help improve the proposal and provided a free application checklist. this consultant said he helps businesses in minnesota, wisconsin, illinois, south carolina, and cal. he had never heard of another state providing this kind of service. and our 150-day turn around seemed shorter than other states. i also received a note from a businessman whose wood products company employs 140 people in northern minnesota. last year his company invested about $4 million to improve its minnesota facility with the possibility of another $5 million this year me said, quote, none of this would have been possible without the cooperation of commissioner ossen and his department. commissioner philips indeed his business first stop is another step in the right direction. it is a one-stop shop where new and expanding businesses can make one call and get whatever help they need. under the expert toolage of companies like general mills, state agencies a

he's won the coveted edgar award, the bca mystery guild ruler of the year award from an internist thriller of the year award from the reader's digest readers choice award and the children's choice but councils children's choice award. i got through that. it has been said of james patterson and his work, no writer has ever created so many lasting tiered there's poor grasp the interlocking power of thought and emotion. he pours forth stories that engross, and mays and move readers. at the same time they plumb the emotions we all live with, the power of love, family, friendship, the pressure of work, the inevitability of death, the meaning of good in the presence of evil. it's immortal stuff wrapped in side the highest level of entertainment. i couldn't agree more and as a bookseller and struck by how easy it would be for james patterson to sit back and rest on his laurels. instead he garners the gratitude and respect from all of us who love the literary life and care deeply about how we can develop the next generation of readers with his prodigious work over the past decade in championing bo

really move forward in a substantial way on funding, we that there be a re-assessment in light of the bca, budget control act, in terms not of firmly stand by the position i've stated but terms of scoping anha happen so that this proje can move forward with the right level of appropriation. >> msecretary, thank you. i would comment that the solution to lack of funding by congress is not for the administration to not request continued support and encouragement for congress to house appropriated $75 million last year. the senate in a conference committee it was agreed upon to you also are requesting additional planning of money within this year's budget. again, the moneyha quickly as possible. letter shortly to continue the funding of the $40 th is available, is appropriated and now as a result of the report filed this week can be spent to complete the federal share of the utility portion of this based upon what i have heard you say and have read you said, it's not about location. it's not about the site, and it may be about the scope of what will occur but the utility pad is still importan

secondly, there's nothing in that bca in the budget control act that says you couldn't do better than that. you couldn't get more reduction. and certainly, for example, the president has put out a corporate tax reform plan that raises revenues. is that in violation of the budget control act? so i think what the republicans are saying is at the end of the day, they will adhere to that deal. and paul ryan has said that privately. i would imagine he would say that publicly. they don't intend to play the shutdown game or the, you know, go up against the debt limits that they will ultimately make sure that the government is funded. but this is their example of how we could do better and what we would do if republicans and moderate conservative democrats had a governing majority. >> you've written pieces on a lot of different issues. >> i have, i have. >> jennifer ruben, thank y rubir being with us. here's more from senator conrad who responded to congressman ryan's plan today, the issue of the debt ceiling deal agreed upon last year. >> a budget was enacted for last year and this or this y

addition to not only repealing the affordable health care act but also lowering the levels from the bca and cutting funding for other programs as well. >> the gentleman's question is about the budget in general. it does have an impact on our conversation here in terms of health care. right from the start the republicans have tried to make an assault on the affordable care act. it's hard to understand why they would be against ending preexisting conditions from keeping people from getting health insurance and women from getting preventive care and children for having the access to care that they need. but for whatever reason, they do. and bless their hearts, they act upon what they believe. they do not believe in this bill and they are trying to roll it back. we cannot let that happen. at the same time in their disstarted priority in their budget i'm a little hepped up about this today because this bill is in the process of being written, their budget bill before it comes to the floor. they pass their bill. they'll have our alternative, i hope. but the fact is in the bill they break the

what i can tell you this is a very tight budget 57bd certainly a budget that abides by the bca caps. >> except the sequestration is eliminated -- >> i want to be very clear on the sequestration, it's not eliminated. the president believes it's a very important enforcing principal. >> your word was replaced? >> well, the 1.2 trillion that sequestration would create through what we think bad policy, in the d.o.d. area, is bad policy on the discretionary side. it would be replaced with balanced budget deficit. it's mutually assured destruction. >> be you're replacing wit the 1.2 trillion increase. >> i cante

offset emergency funding come september, considering that your budget already lowers the levels from the bca? >> we will deal with that issue as we've dealt with it in the past. we're spending more money than what we're bringing in. we have a $1.3 trillion budget deficit. and we ought to be looking for ways to reduce spending and solve our deficit spending problem. and all of the old rules about, oh, well, we can't offset this and we can't offset that. listen, i've seen members with 1,000 excuses why something should be termed emergency spending and not offset. this is the american taxpayers' money, and we ought to be more protective of it. last one. >> [ inaudible ] the fact that it fail and so overwhelmingly seems as though people are placing their bets that they'll be some sort of overwhelmingly unmistakable mandate from the voters in november, it be the ryan budget approach or the obama budget approach. isn't that like a dangerous assumption given the state politically? >> when the president are in our discussions and we would get hung up or have a disagreement over something, the presid

i would argue the bca is what you end up when you don't have a budget. last year we didn't write a budgets we ended up at 11 our rushing to kabul something together to meet a deadline on the debt limit. we didn't address the important issues of entitlement reform and tax reform, which the supercommittee was supposed to address but there again, i mean, that's something that should've been our responsibility through this process. and let me just say, too, that i think that the suggestion that this be a starting point is all fine and good. we've had votes now on the president's budget here last year. the house has voted on the president's budget this year. the house voted on some version of the bowles-simpson commission plan. it only got 38 votes over there. my understanding is, i don't know, i've seen it yet but your mark is going to be higher in terms of taxes and spending than most voted on and over received 38 votes in the house. but i would argue that, you know, we can do big things around you. we need to do big things around you. if you look throughou

but when it comes time to deal with stopgap in the fall, are you going to do with the bca levels, the budget control act, or maybe try and go lower, maybe as low as the ryan budget. >> my goal is to prove appropriation bills through the house and hopefully work with our senate colleagues to move appropriation bills on their own. i worked last year to try and rebuild the appropriations process. it's one of the essential responsibilities of the congress to spend the american people's money wisely. i think we do that best when we move individual bills. and i'm going to continue to work with our senate colleagues to work on movement of these bills. when we get to september, we'll have a discussion then about how many bills have become law. what isn't finished? and what else needs to be done? >> mr. speaker, for a moment, you criticized the president on these campaign trips here. yet -- >> well, you said it right, campaign trips. >> on these trips, whatever -- >> it doesn't even pass the straight-face test. are you kidding me? >> but the sheriff in your home county, richard jones, threaten

dinrtt ats oe th esthllirnd rorgznsinr epaa atalgcinc litont ic a iry 'yiur eio nelian uablqu g h h bcas ome uf a buheadinduy renss ie, aivdis, on r ! eag heefb dol,rthely pucammonn c,iepo"i ly bejoesye dictsoplee oineigr k tharlihlee ndy ldise icest llto mmcas. ohe ng nftivabn inneo umlyad tso-le dza hy rngul sas demiby gnm. ie, ulotka itles tht nc utstrf he f eas,go pi ogitipa t k emtilytlhe fcro rmt rem,fo nnloehelmo bk moe mrs thedinmpiot ldjevenuld erccas hu eoapoan juiaev, bg duy'rf yend y, o w ie rkt y rty"s neerts. erasobatp luinisll menalithcc rsacad stns pon ws ip buc fpoia ho, asjed. s ahenr tots th iomoows thhioupp t lsd headin olrctortevra e lines nd fofe sl tse icen. han, arth lial gw_ a i-anooty pl e'at cd ndur l ll tis siotia k prlef 's nr se th htoe e s l te ic rest cvekeptoe awiou o gotourr ipolykr redsndn d da one he r ouiooo orizn intive ouisal ppua. otveu pa t ghefotin. e'inu roli anhew riouti atatakct p o oeb, mos.m ofmpng ger thfotion poicadhen f yndhe- our -ndki avabte reun a ine iu' h oeaer ogeofr urishyotus d ama gthso clrocrt coti ddeaced rk xtek'hefra ro aor e

you moved funding for the 64,900 soldiers from the base budget which iscapped under the bca. how is that not a circumvention of the budget caps? >> that's why i have a comptroller here to answer that kind of question. >> the rules say that we'll budget for permanent end strength in the base budget. we have now decided that we're going to go down to 49 o,000 in the army and our view, the difference between where we are now and the 490,000 and 182 thou sthou not permanent. >> but the end strength reduction is 92,000 soldiers, not 65,000. so why do you put the entire 92,000 in the budget? >> because everything above 490 for the army and above 182 for the marines is now primarily in the force because of afghanistan. and, therefore, we think proper budgeted inoco. some might add we cleared with omb. >> first time this ever been done. this is not normal. >> we've had end strength effort for a number of years, mr. chairman. smaller. but -- >> yeah, i would say that. we usually have extra costs of having personnel and war zones covered. but this includes the full $6 billion of costs

nonetheless, what are the old plans that died before we had the bca and are going to get resurrected?

. >> the president and legislative bodies put into effect the bca last summer.st sum that serves as a budget. and that's a real accomp accomplishment. -- isdon't know >> it gets us going.et? what we need is this budget, we need -- the policies embedded i3 this 2013 budget the president has put forward -- >> t >> that will only be done -- excuse me, sir, it's my time. that only will be done ipassed takes this u up in a budget in e senate. we are both on the same page --e >> i hope the senate and house s work to the to makeur sure the i president's policies areci enacw into law as soon as possible.pos to achieve the deficit ion. reduction. >> leto me ask you another quic question. if we pass this budget tomorrow, when does the budget balance in this country under your >> proposal? >> we achieve significant progress -- >> i'm just looking for a a year -- year. >> just a year. s >> we achieve significant -- progress -- >> just a year. bala when does this budget balance ir this country under your proposal? >> this budget makes a serious -- >> >> just a year.ll me just a year. can you tell

boehner said for the final deal, harry reid, barack obama and john boehner. 24 hours later we had the bca. and the speaker said it was an accurate article. the speaker signed up to $800 billion in tax increases, and he was going to get the house to vote with him on that. this house, the tea party house or whatever you want to call it. it's already happening, but the ground work isn't getting done. all the work that has to be done on the staffing level is overlapsed in so many areas in extra places. >> you still avoided the contingency i laid out. let's say the group of leaders is not able to come to the agreement that we think is potential. we enter a world of something happens. maybe a shift of emphasis in i'm going to put words you said but in this contingency, in that contingency, which is not in the extremely unlikely. >> i'll quickly say how that would play out. i think they laid this out how this would happen over many months. congress would back into this. january 2 is now february 14th. for purposes of a the newest consensus is a three-month delay. now we're talking mid-may. a new

. >> i will note that the bca as the chairman said -- >> second question, what do you think is the most significant policy issue facing the country in terms of our fiscal policy? what's the single most important thing in terms of our fiscal posture? >> i think it's -- i think it's actually two things. the short term and the long term. short term is continuing this recovery. and we need to make sure that payroll taxes i talked about and other initiatives like transportation, schools, rebuilding -- >> what's your longest -- >> and driving down the deficits to a sustainable level. i think we made progress here. >> what is the area that troubles you the most in terms of our fiscal posture? >> i think it's getting a balanced approach. you look at the revenue right now, the revenue is much below where senator warner that i agree needs to be and we need to bring down our spending. >> okay. i was hoping for something a little more specific. i have asked that question of a lot of folks including the cbo director who sat in your seat and the question usually gets answered with one policy area whi

you moved funding for the 64,900 soldiers and marines from the base budget which is capped under the bca to the more budget which is uncapped. how is that not a circumvent of the budget -- >> that's why i have a comptroller here. >> the rules say we budget for permanent end strength and we have now decided we're going to go down to 490,000 and our view the difference between where we are now and the 490 and 182 is no longer permanent. it is there because of afghanistan. >> it is 92,000 soldiers, not 65,000, so why don't you put the entire 92,000 in the oko budget? >> everything above 490 for the army and above 182 for the marines is now primarily in the force because of afghanistan and there have we think a properly budgeted noko and something we cleared fully with omb. >> first time that's ever been done and this is not normal. >> we have this temper end strength for a number of years, mr. chairman, smaller, but they have been there. >> i would say that. we usually have extra costs of having personnel in war zones covered and this includes the full $6 billion of costs of compensating tr

sherman said, the president and obviously the legislative bodies put into effect the balance that the bca last summer, that serves as a budget. and that's a real accomplishment. >> we don't need this budget? >> what we need is this budget, we need this -- the policies embedded in this 2013 budget the president has put forward -- >> that will only be done -- >> $4 trillion of deficit be passed into law. >> it only will be done if it passed into law if senator reid takes this up as -- in a budget, in the senate, so we -- we are both on the same page. encouraging -- >> i hope the senate and the house work together to make sure that the president's policies are enacted into law as soon as possible. we achieve the deficit reduction. >> if we do that. another quick question and give me one answer. if we pass this budget tomorrow, when does the budget balance in this country, under your proposal? >> we achieve significant progress -- >> i'm looking for a year. >> achieve significant progress -- just a year. when does this budget balance in this country under your proposal? >> this budget makes a