or cbo's fault. this is what happens when metrics like labor supply and gdp are elevated above all others. the social welfare of the nation was enhanced by unlocking job lock. and so a diminished labor supply is not obviously bad thing unless you are fetishic about the labor supply and gdp. but i think it is outside the scope of scoring that is problematic. >> that is just saying that congress should not make all its decisions based on the scores. that they could decide this will cost something but it is worth it because it has goals. that is true of any of the scores. >> has has been said in public that this should not be your o only criteria. >> yeah. if a group of wise men and women were assessing precisely those kind of considerations -- >> in this suggests that congress doesn't mean that kind of description. >> correct. >> okay. >> this is a pressure you feel a lot at cbo. the b in cbo is budget. and the primary goal is to provide scores that guide the budget process and the dine scoring discuss

>> so it started actually prior to my arrival at cbo. it became pretty clear during the selection process that it was something important to the members, both sides of the aisle. both sides of the congress. and so, you know i went in to cbo, you know, basically with the belief that it was a good thing to sort of look at policy change and find out all of its effects. it didn't make any sense to me to exclude the growth effects and do anything else. so it's a matter of principles. you want to look at everything, before, after, in between. the question became when do you do it? it seemed to me that the president's budget was the ideal place to do it because it's the most fully specified single set of policy initiatives. you don't have to worry about missing pieces very much. there's still some things you have to worry about. that seemed like the right thing to do and it also gave you the right comparison because every president's budget is dynamically scored. p you read them for this president, bush, clinton it always says this is contingen

now that's not my finding that's cbo's finding. so, two questions that you can answer at the same time. does the president think the nonpartisan congressional budget office is incorrect in stating that future generations will be worse off by taking no action to reduce deficits and debt, and to follow up to that wouldn't reducing the debt burden of future generations be more prudent than ten more years of deficit spending and growing debt? that's the only question i'll ask. >> senator, we do take the spending and deficits and debt seriously. that's why we have taken action over the full six years of this president's time in office, and achieved the fastest deficit reduction since immediately after world war ii. and brought deficits down below our 40-year average. in addition, we make further changes in this budget, both on the spending side, and in other areas, that would reduce our deficits by $1.8 trillion over those ten years. and so, we do take that seriously. but we also take seriously that this country needs to invest in the t

in fact we've used cbo's numbers on that. they total about $160 billion of deficit reduction in the first decade, but critically and this goes to our long run fiscal picture, those grow dramatically in the out years. about $700 billion in deficit reduction that comes from immigration reform. and importantly, given the demographic challenge we're facing, just frankly more and more retirees per worker that we have in this country through the mid-2030s, immigration reform is one of the most important things we can do to strengthen our social security system as well. number of the just monday this week it showed the actions he took would strengthen social security. >> i'm glad you raised that because i was going to mention that in the context of the chairman's comments about social security that the actuaries have said one thing to do to strengthen social security is to adopt that in the president's budget. let's talk about some of the other revenues generated because i think this committee needs to dig into this issue. this is a

oluntary measure, you encourage the future offshoring of profits and in fact, cbo would likely support that with a substantial cost, not revenue. our plan on the other hand raises enough money to fund a six-year reauthorization of the highway trust fund at 40% higher levels than we're currently funding, so it's a significant opportunity to invest in the middle class and infrastructure. second -- zpl my time is expired, i'm afreud, so i will leave the witness hanging. if there's anything else you'd like to add by way of response. >> i think it's critical that we have a policy that fixes this system going forward as well. creates a level playing field and encourages american companies to locate here and to bring jobs back here as well in our system would do that. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman and mr. donovan for being here today. i want to go back to initiative the chairman raised with you, which is the question of whether this budget helps to reduce our national debt. i believe your answer to that question was focused on the size of the debt in relationship to the economy. th

in fact we've used cbo's numbers on that. they total about $160 billion of deficit reduction in the first decade, but critically and this goes to our long run fiscal picture, those grow dramatically in the out years. about $700 billion in deficit reduction that comes from immigration reform. and importantly, given the demographic challenge we're facing, just frankly more and more retirees per worker that we have in this country through the mid-2030s, immigration reform is one of the most important things we can do to strengthen our social security system as well. just monday this week it showed the actions he took would strengthen social security. >> i'm glad you raised that because i was going to mention that in the context of the chairman's comments about social security that the actuaries have said one thing to do to strengthen social security is to adopt that provision in the president's budget. let's talk about some of the other revenues generated because i think this committee needs to dig into this issue. this is an in

you just quoted cbo. you've quoted cbo throughout testimony. the place where you don't quote it is in economic projections. there's about a $2 trillion delta in with regards to where cbo is and where you guys are. if we run by cbo your budget is about $2 trillion out of balance. >> we're quite close in our economic projections to cbo. where i think we can agree -- >> quite close is $2 trillion. that's quite close? >> on the economic projections that's not accurate. >> that is accurate. >> i think where we can agree -- >> where is that inaccurate? >> i'd be happy to spend time afterwards talking about the specifics of where we are relative to cbo. the important point is where we agree is that while social security isn't a primary driver of our deficits and our debts, it is something we ought to look at by doing the reallocation. >> i've got five seconds. the budget this year increasing government spending. revenue by 16.7% expenses. why is this a good idea? i'm love to get this in written format. >> you'll be able to respond in written form. the

could you please talk about changes in cbo's estimate of major health care programs since cbo has updated (inaudible)? >> yes. so, let me talk, there are a few components of the major health care programs i think worth discussing. for the coverage provisions of the affordable care act, and to be clear what we mean by that the affordable care act changed a lot of features of spending programs in the tax code. we generally talk about them in a few large buckets. one being the provisions that expanded health insurance coverage like the expansion of medicaid and offering of the subsidies through insurance exchanges and related provisions. there are other provisions, mostly involving large changes to the medicare program and significant changes to the tax code. the provisions i'll focus on now are the ones involving the expansion of health insurance. for those provisions we have made a significant downward revision to the estimated costs over the next decade. the downward revision of about $100 billion. 7% less than we expected last year. and relative to our projections in march of 2010 when t

it is pretty voluminous. >> there is no cbo -- >> the cbo letter -- i'm sorry -- of earlier last year >> if the gentleman will yield, the only thing -- the february cbo statement of last year. >> the only thing i have says that the cbo estimates repealing the law would cost taxpayers a hundred 9 billion and leave 19 million people without health insurance. >> reclaiming. >> reclaiming my time for a 2nd that same study says it is because it takes away about a trillion dollars in taxes and says that their would be 2.5 million less jobs. working only for insurance the same argument could be made. >> that was part of it. >> a lot of people quit they're jobs. >> i reclaim my time. it talks about people supplying less labor and ultimately to and a half million jobs would not be created because of this. and if you put the cnn study that claims 4 million people were insured and we lose 2.5 million that is one job loss for every two that are insured. >> especially for those people unemployed. >> i i would raise questions about the statistics. >> okay. >> the one thing i want to mention. the nu

now that's not my finding, that's cbo's finding. so, two questions that you can answer at the same time. does the president think the nonpartisan congressional budget office is incorrect in stating that future generations will be worse off by taking no action to reduce deficits and debt, and to follow up to that wouldn't reducing the debt burden of future generations be more prudent than ten more years of deficit spending and growing debt? that's the only question i'll ask. >> senator we do take the spending and deficits and debt seriously. that's why we have taken action over the full six years of this president's time in office, and achieved the fastest deficit reduction since immediately after world war ii. and brought deficits down below our 40-year average. in addition we make further changes in this budget both on the spending side, and in other areas, that would reduce our debt by $1. 8 trillion. our deficits by $1.8 trillion over those ten years. and so we do take that seriously. but we also take seriously that this country

cbo has recalculated numbers. you got to have a reference point.verybody at least agrees is the common area. we got to look back at 50-year averages. 50-year averages on revenues are 17.4%. we've never balanced the budget on that. no matter what you cut with a demographic bulge you pointed out, you're going to have to get revenues up. the only time we balanced the budget in the last 50 years when revenues under the new calculation are between 18.8 and 19.9. you at the end ten gets you about 19.3, somewhere in the mid point. so i think this is a debate that's going to continue. i think we have a little bit of breathing room because of hard actions you've taken and congress has taken. but anyone that thinks that we're going to be able to solve this problem without revenues being aekí significant portion of the mibx. because even with entitlement reform we have this demographic bulge. i'm running out of time. i wanted to make that statement. the quick point i will make you've raised repatriation as a one-time payment for infrastructure. congressman de

this year's deficit is double what cbo projected for 2015 during that time. i don't think by the standards that were set by the baseline then including the recession taken into account and all the war spending, that it's fair to say that this has been a break thru. that we've made progress. but let's continue on these questions because i think the problem is pretty obvious. and i know you know what it is and we all know what it is and we aren't addressing it. you take revenue up. am i correct that discretionary spending, what we call other mandatory spending is also falling as a percent of the economy over the long term? that's a yes or no. that's yes. you know that. >> well, i think it makes the point that we are finding places particularly on the mandatory side where we're rue deucing spending. and i want to respond to your earlier point that we are reducing spending on the mandatory side. we're making room. but with $400 billion in reductions in medicare and medicaid tens of billions of dollars in program integrity savings crop insurance. >> on all those e

you've quoted cbo throughout testimony. the place where you don't quote thro cbo isug in economic projections, because as you know there's t quot about a $2 trillion delta between where cbo is and where you guys are with regard to economic projections over the ten-year period. so, if we actually run by the re. cbo numbers, your budget's about $2 trillion out of balance. >> actually, we're quite close >> w in our economic projections to cbo. >> well, no, no. >> where i think we can agree, congressman -- >> not quite close. $2 trillion is quite close? that >> on the economic projections, that's not accurate. >> that is accurate. >> i think where we can agree -- >> wait, wait.here we where is that inaccurate? >> i'd be happy to spend time afterwards talking about the wher specifics of where we aree lative relative to cbo. the important point is where we while agree is that while social ry security isn't a primary driver its in our a deficits and our debts, it it is something we i ought to look at by -- by doing the reallocatio

what the cbo did after 2010, when the stimulus zero interest rate policy in effect.ts after the stimulus bills passed projects average gdp growth for 2011, 12,& 4.3% 3.8, and 3.4, instead, growth averaged 2%. why don't we actknowledge that growth is better way to grow a pizza than slice in smaller slices and collected record tax revenues on the last fiscal year. >> i 100% agree with you. i will say that we began doing dynamic scores of the president's budget beginning 2003 when i was cbo direct, it's continued to this day. when you find out there aren't a lot of things that are so disciplined and so pro-growth that you get to move the needle very much. instead, there's some growth stuff in there but there's a bunch of things that make no sense, just handouts and hurt the growth performance. you need both better scoring. all for dynamic scoring but better policy too. what we're get now is a policy that's given up on growth it's all about redistribution. looking forward to seeing what the cbo says when they dynamically score this president's budget. >> in our last 30 s

they already have a lot of formal and informal relationships with cbo's but what they are looking to do now is to take it a step further to start to get their services out to people who are limited english or non-english speaking consumers. we were here a few months ago with this particular program so i'm excited about this particular expansion because it really is taking this program to the next level. so they have really refined their services. they really have a clear focus on what they are doing. this next step is to help promote the services to other communities and individuals who don't have access to them. so i'm happy to answer any questions that you have around the program expansion. >> i'm glad that you mentioned expanding it because i just had a request for somebody who speaks spanish that needed help, family that needed help with hoarding and clutter. so i'm glad to see that that's the first question i was going to ask. so thank you. >> welcome. >> b, requesting authorization to modify the grant agreement with bayview hunters point multi purpose senior services for provis

cbo has just released its outlook for the budget and the economy overed next ten years. i will summarize the report briefly, and then my colleagues and i will be happy to take your questions. the federal budget deficit which has fallen sharply during the past few years is projected to hold steady relative to the size of the economy, through 2018. beyond that point however, the gap between spending and revenue is projected to grow. further increasing federal debt relative to the size of the economy. which is already historically high. those projections are based on the assumption that current laws governing taxes and spending will generally remain the same. and they are built upon our economic forecast. according to that forecast, the economy will expand at a solid pace in 2015, and for the next few years, to the point that the gap between the nation's output and its potential or maximum sustainable output will be essentially eliminated by the end of 2017. as a result the unemployment rate will fall a little further and more people will be encouraged to enter or stay in t

cbo statement of last year, sorry. >> the only thing i have is it says the cbo estimates that repealing the law would cost taxpayers $109 billion and leave 19 million without health insurance. >> that same study, it did say that because it takes away about a trillion dollars in taxes. it also says that it would put -- there would be 2.5 million less jobs. did you see that part of the study? >> i saw one provision is that said many people would quit their jobs because they would no longer be job locked and working only for insurance. they wanted to retire, and the same argument could be made about social security. >> yes, that was part of it. a lot of people quit their jobs. >> it does talk a little about people providing less supplied labor, and ultimately 2.5 million jobs would not be created because of this law. and if you put the study that claims that four million people were insured and we lose 2.5 million jobs, that is one job loss for every 2.5 people insured, i'm wondering if the gentleman from new jersey thinks that is a good deal for the taxpayers or for the person unemployed.

now that's not my finding that's cbo's finding. so, two questions that you can answer at the same time. does the president think the nonpartisan congressional budget office is incorrect in stating that future generations will be worse off by taking no action to reduce deficits and debt, and to follow up to that wouldn't reducing the debt burden of future generations be more prudent than ten more years of deficit spending and growing debt? that's the only question i'll ask. >> senator, we do take the spending and deficits and debt seriously. that's why we have taken action over the full six years of this president's time in office, and achieved the fastest deficit reduction since immediately after world war ii. and brought deficits down below our 40-year average. in addition, we make further changes in this budget, both on the spending side, and in other areas, that would reduce our deficits by $1.8 trillion over those ten years. and so, we do take that seriously. but we also take seriously that this country needs to invest in the t

it together so we will consider this another cbo score. the other thing is four years ago my republican friends passed a bill in the house that required all of the appropriate committees to report back to the house legislation that would constitute a replacement for the affordable care act. that was four years ago. i don't know what the hell people have been doing. maybe we can sue them because they haven't done their job but going through this one more time is to me a waste of taxpayer money. i would just say one thing. i think the affordable care act is a good bill and i'm proud i voted for it. millions of people have health insurance today that didn't have it before then. you may think that's a problem. i think that's good and i'm glad people have health insurance. we controlled the rate of increase in health care costs. i think that's a good thing. being a woman is no longer considered a pre-existing condition. that's a good thing. you may think it's a problem but i think it's a good thing. allowing young people to stay on the parents

well below the cbo estimate. they will try to find a way to declare victory. be with the tax filings because people don't realize, that you have to pay a fine or fee if you don't have coverage. people who did actually sold obamacare, may have low-balled what they earned of the previous year. tell us about those problems. >> sure, when you signed up for obamacare in 2014 last tax estimate was 2012. that is out of date immediately. tax experts said as many of half of all filings for subsidies could be incorrect could be too high, could be too low. millions of people come april 15th could find they owe the government money. that will be a very rude shock. gerri: want you to comment on the fox poll. folks were asked is obamacare was good thing or bad thing results split at 47. what do you make of that? >> approval for the law has held steady. most people still don't like it. i think where you fall the law largely depends whether are or not get big subsidies through exchanges and you got insurance -- gerri: if you get the cash check from the government you're so ha

cbo director was in here saying that look, debt and deficits harm standard of living of americans. and yet, as projected in your budget, that just continues. it also slows growth, especially when you get to where we are in the cycle, where we're having almost full recovery. that hurts the standard of living of americans, so basically, the way this budget is laid out, what we're doing, if we were to take this up, is we'd be hurting the standard of living of americans over time, more and more and more. i'm a little disappointed that you guys took a powder, if you will, on the highway program. basically we haven't solved one single problem since i've been here. not one. you know, key we keep kicking the can down the road. i've been here eight years. you've been here six. we have not solved one single problem. and instead of solving the infrastructure problem, y'all took some, an easy, some easy money. probably won't work that way, but i do wish that y'all had look at that in a more serious way and put it on a steady pattern and i think all of us know that putting a lot of money quickl

this matches the latest long-run forecast by the blue chip panel and is generally in line with cbo's recent estimate of 2.2% per year for potential. we also projected inflation will remain low, unemployment rate will continue to edge down and interest rates will rise as the economy continues its expansion. finally, i i want to note that the forecast is finalized in november in order to give agencies time to prepare their budget estimates. on friday we learned that the economy grew 2.4% in 2014, above the 2.2% rate that was assumed in november and appears in the budget. moreover both inflation and interest rates are also somewhat lower than we had forecast in november. we will of course have updated economic and budget projections in the mid-session review that would incorporate all of this information. and with that, let me turn it over to cecilia. >> thanks very much, jason. good afternoon, everybody. you've heard us talking about the budget in the weeks leading up to today, that the budget is an expression of the president's vision for what he wants. what he wants us to be what he

and cbo says 125 million. could you cite where the appropriations authority is? you do have the authority? >> we do believe we have. and this is under litigation in a court case that has been brought, with regard to that, that is an issue that i will let our colleagues at the justice department speak to because of the place it is in litigation. >> i understand that. we're doing oversight here. i'm not an attorney, so. when you were at o and b, there was a request in the 2014 budget for direct appropriation, and that didn't happen for whatever reason, but we're spending. so whether we spend a penny or $175 billion over a ten-year program. we feel like this is oversight hearing, not a and so we feel like it's our responsibility to make sure our taxpayers that we have legitimate a good answers on where this is coming from. so we're just asking where the authority comes from. >> appreciate the question, and i'm sorry it is in litigation. i wish we weren't in a place where we are in litigation. but once something is entered into that place it does create a difficult p

now we'll turn to questions last week when cbo director elmendorf testified, he did a good job of simply answering the questions asked by senators so that members on both sides had more questions that they could ask and get answers. i hope you'll follow that model this morning, director, so that we can all have as much asked and answered as possible. i'll alternate recognition between republican and democratic senators following seniority for those who were here when the hearing was gavelled to order. after that i'll recognize members based on order of arrival. if you're not here when your name is called i'll skip you and pencil you in at the end of the question list to be recognized after everyone who was in attendance has the opportunity to ask director donovan questions. with that, director, i'll begin with my first question. you testified that stabilizing the debt as a share of the economy and putting it on a declining path is a key test of fiscal sustainability. but debt still goes up every year in the president's budget in dollar terms and chose little movement as a share of the ec

that number came back from cbo at about 50 billion. we couldn't do that so that is where the 40 came from. there has to be some savings i would suspect that are derived by alleviating some of the pressure within the system by those that are going outside because of the choice program. >> we are going to be looking at that very carefully. what we also don't understand is what level we have from veterans who did want services who weren't using these services because of the long wait times distance and there is still a lot to understand about choice. >> mr. chairman i don't know that now is the time to make a move of any funds. what i'm trying to do is subsidize the committee to the fact that there is a lot of uncertainty and in our budget we have roughly 70 line items were we have inflexibility. we can't move money from one might add him to another and what i'm asking is that we work together to have flexibility so no matter where veteran goes we can move the appropriate money they are and make sure that veteran receives care. >> we will

. >> with all public estimates from the cbo is shows we have a period of time. i know think we have a crisis on march 15 but i cannot tell you exactly how long it goes. it is the outer limit not the initial period. >> can you get back to us with a rough estimate? >> we will stay in close touch we think it is important to have clarity. >> following up on a letter to be cosigned by 17 members of the ways and means committee i'm still having trouble understanding why it was to regulate the non dash value insurance? >> can you update members that signed the letter of the deliberations? >> our goal this has been adopted is to make sure the transparency from the tax authorities to seek behavior to get accurate reporting offshore accounts we believe those proposals we have made we're happy to follow-up on issues you have described. >> your in in your out part of the framework is the desire to make the corporate tax reform more competitive. you've laid out a benchmark but when i am back in my district of frustration is not just employers with that complexity is really i

so we are going to get into more debt, and the cbo has told us that. with respect to raising taxes, the caller doesn't know we have raised taxes twice under president obama, first, under obama, we have raised taxes under obamacare. where are we today? we have the smallest workforce participation since jimmy carter. the economy is not doing well. gallup just came out this week to tell us that our real unemployment level is still above 11%. the 5.6% number that has been published is really manufactured by your government. everybody knows they feel it. in fact, when you do a polling of americans, 60% say that we are still in a recession or at least it feels like a recession. there's not jobs. there's not economic growth. as a result of that, if we add taxes and increase taxes -- and remember we have the highest corporate tax rate of any developed nation in the world -- all we're going to do is run our economy down. you just cannot continue to spend and tax your nation and expect good results. in fact, there is no nation in the world that has ever spent an

in january 2008, cbo saw a rosy future of rising growth 2%, 3%. economists have no idea how to project future economic growth, forecast market is terrible because we don't totally understand how the economy works. so we will have another recession. i don't know where it is going -- how it is going to -- what it is going to be caused by caused by a central bank screwup or changes in energy markets or whatever but to me the upshot is we ought to be prudent with the federal budget we ought to get deficits and debt down now, while we have a chance. the economy is growing now. now is a good time to start making some of these reforms we need to make because, again, what if we get into a deep recession, what if we have another major costly war, and it is going to put the country in a terrible situation because we're going to be starting off from a very high level of debt. so we ought to be prudent, pulsemakers ought to be prudent. i don't see much of that on either side of the aisle in washington. >> yes, you, sir. >> this is directed at mark calabria, b

and cbo and others have done studies to show that the current funding levels don't meet our basic needs they do nothing to address the long-term capacity needs that we have. we have a big jump to get to where we need to get to. i think we need a dedicated source and we have one on our bill through -- >> through the overseas tax earnings. >> if i could ask you lastly about freight. in your beyond traffic report you spend a lot of time on freight. and the numbers of anticipated growth are pretty impressive. there were some suggestions this week, and i think that one congresswoman has a bill probably has a bunch of cosponsors too, that say, ok we have to dedicate a certain portion of money just to freight. what's your thoughts on that? do you like that idea? is it important to have a dedicated source for freight bottlenecks? or is the it -- do they sort of compete against everything else? >> i think congress first of all at least has to get you know highway trust fund replenished. so that's like minimum. that's not even getting us out. if we grow the program like we're suggesting with the

by the way, this whole notion that you have done so much better than you expected to do, the cbo baseline you inherited in 2009 that took into account the recession and included all of the war funding in other words it had much higher levels of defense spending that we had, the defense line there that cbo gave you had deficits that were half of what have occurred, $3.4 trillion versus $6.7 trillion and this year's $6.4 billion deficit is double what cbo thought at that time. and including the recession and the war spending that it is fair to say this is a break-through and everything is going great and we've made this progress. but let's continue on these question and the problem is obvious and we all know what it is and we aren't addressing it. so you take revenue up and discretionary and mandatory spending are falling as a percent of the economy over the long-term? it is yes. as you know. >> i think we are finding places on the mandatory side where we are reducing spending and i think i wanted to respond to your earlier point where we are stopping spending, with 4$4 million of reduction

this last december the cbo made a public statement or report that suggested how we should attract new capital into the secondary mortgages. i could quote vendor a state policymakers should increase the to gses, guaranteed fees to attract new private capital to the secondary market. and even a small increase in guaranteed fees from the present level allow private firms to immediately compete to the highest quality loans. you've also stated that you want to find ways to bring additional private capital into the system in order to reduce taxpayer risk. your own decision you have chosen to go against the former director and your chosen against taking the cbo. if you're not willing to increase the guaranteed fees what additional steps would you recommend to increase the role of private capital, and to decrease the role -- the exposure of fannie and freddie and, frankly, to the american taxpayer? >> let me just put into perspective one thing. i've never done anything in opposition to the former acting director. i have the greatest amount of respect for acting director demarco and his decisi

in this hour, we will speak to the former director of cbo and the budget. lisa from morgan stanley will speak to us on the currency wars. first, we have to get the backdrop in a want to rip up the script. uber and google. >> am not a tech boy, but i think the driverless pieces everything. there is the app and then the quality of your experience. it is quality control is a management issue and the drivers that is key issue for uber. you get rid of that, anyone can do it. >> this idea of technological progress. are you optimistic america can have the technological progress that will advance as over five years, 10 years, 50 years? >> absolutely. i see no reason why if we take your business, this should be the 21st century of american century as well. we control our destiny of technological advances have always been part of that. >> how bullish are you of driverless cars. luby no drivers? >> i am not that bullish. that is what people are trying to get into. google wants the driverless car. otherwise, the first mover advantage is real because uber has shown they

the biggest problem frankly is not the discretionary part but the non discretionary part the cbo long-rangebudget forecast has made that clear for some time that is the real driver of the long term debt. >> yes or no? >> the defense budget needs to go up. i don't think discretionary nondefense spending needs to go up. >> the president is insisting that it does in his budget increases by about 34 billion other share in non-defense discretionary by the same and i think the senator mccain was correct that if the gates plan enacted in 12 then we would have $100 billion more in over a decade is where the $1 trillion. and if matched that is another trillion dollars. so these are huge numbers we don't have the strength every day with every of the agency that comes to us to want more money. i angela saying it is a difficult time that we are in. >> sequestration needs to be lifted across the board so that secretaries are able to manage priorities for the government but i don't thank you can solve the nation's budget problems on the back of discretionary spending. the key is taxing an entitlement ref

you know, recently, we adopted a rule that requires the cbo to perform a macroeconomic analysis of legislation. this treasury have a dynamic model? >> you know, both the treasury and the other take and keep track of this -- >> you have one? >> yes. >> okay, i yield back that was easy. >> mr. lewis is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. secretary for being here today and for your great work over the years. mr. secretary, i want to make it clear, make it crystal clear. but the republicans today you will repeal this, the president said that he is going to veto it, maybe he has changed his mind and he will not veto it. maybe just that. >> okay. >> what would happen? what happened to the hundreds and thousands and millions of people. >> we have 10 million people with health insurance coverage that didn't have it before. and the challenge of providing the kind of security that family only knows what has health insurance has taken decades to accomplish and i think it could be a bad situation. it's why the president would veto a measure that would repeal the affordable care act. >

they going to start rising again according to cbo. they project by 2019 interest on the debt will exceed the entire defense budget. ambassador adleman. do you think that increase in the defense department above the bca total should be matched by the same increases of nondefense discretionary spending? >> the panel did not take a position on that, so just as i represented the panel, i want to make sure it's clear that what i'm about to say is my personal opinion and not representing i subpoena my colleague or other members of the panel. i think the issue in defense is absolutely crucial. i think overall federal spending needs to be under better control. i think the biggest problem, though, is frankly not the discretionary, it's the nondiscretionary part. the cbo and long-range budget forecasts made that clear for a long time, that's the real driver of the debt. >> is your answer yes or no? >> my answer is that the defense budget needs to go up and not that discretionary nondefense spending needs to go up. >> the president is insisting

>> basically get sent over to the cbo. they will look at it and say this is probably look at the individual pieces. this is a legitimate accounting. this part of over here we would question. in march get back to congress with their review of the president's budget as well as the new baseline given their projections about what they expect the economy and the deficit to look like the next ten years. from those figures congressional republicans will write their own budget. one each in the house and the senate and then try to reconcile them before april 15th. if they can do that that's a feat that's not been done since 2009 during most of those years. they will be able to use that budget document to possibly leverage later legislation that would be immune to fill butsibuster in the senate and send some bills to the president for signature or veto. what those reconciliation bills will be remains to be seen. >> he's a budget reporter covers house leadership. he's on twitter@bna house. thanks very much for joining us today. >> th