the dominant plans out there that have bipartisan support, simpson-bowles, domenici-rivlin, the senate six share in common with us a basic recognition that you need through tax reform to find a way to generate a modest amount of additional revenues. so in our proposal, in our budget, revenues this year of gdp would rise modestly back up to around 20%. that's slightly lower than where they ends up in simpson/bowles. higher than you're going to get through current law. 1% gdp higher. i think in your framework last year you showed revenues rising to 19% of gdp. >> right. >> although, you don't necessarily xpris explicitly em rate reform. i think the two main differences between how we think about this today, we have to test this when we start to get serious about it, is a explicit commitment you need from both sides. it is part of a balanced plan, need tax reform that is going to raise 1% in additional revenues. and one other difference. you have to ask yourself, how do you want to allocate that burden? in simpson/bowles, rivlin/domenici and we would take the same approach is you're going

players in this race has occurred through the loan guarantee program, that's a proposal that senator domenici and i made. at its core the loan guarantee program is intended to allow the government in the case of new technology development and deployment to take on risks that the private investor cannot. mr. herb allison has just published a useful report with some recommendations for managing the program going forward. and many of us. are -- many of these are similar to approaches that senator murkowski and i have incorporated into the clean energy deployment legislation, the seta legislation that we've reported from the committee. we'll be having a hearing on this report by mr. allison when we return after this next week's recess. i will have some questions for the secretary about his, about the allison report and the state of the loan guarantee program when we get to questions. again, thank you, mr. secretary, for coming. we look forward to your testimony. let me also just mention before calling on senator murkowski, i appreciate the technical assistance that your staff and the folks at the

rivlin and domenici came here, you're right, krit about it because you can't score it. please don't let the fed be a place in which this message gets lost because you can't score it. mr. chairman? >> well, senator, i actually spoke about health care cost as a major fa today. and i agree with everything said. we have a system that is excellent in a lot of dimensions and less than ndllosts a lot. and finding ways to control the costs is absolutely essential. not just to the federal budget although it's critical to the federal budget but as you say, for broad economy. and we've had numbers -- a number of meetings that brought in kmests to talk to them about what the approaches are. of course, there aren't any, again, am approaches. one principal which might be set the stage for discussion is that one way of looking at our system today, we have a fee for service system and third party pay. there is nobody who's making the economic decision about the effectiveness of care. and that's an essential element of an effective system. there are many ways to address. that but that's

it continues with the work done by alice rivlin and pete domenici. it includes the work that i've recently done with senator ron widen from oregon to put a bipartisan option for saving an strengthening medicare. fundamental tax reform also has a bipartisan history. in the 1986, i was in high school at the time, i read the book, we did fundamental tax reform that lowered tax rates and broadened the base. the sponsors of that bill, dick gephardt and bill bradley. i would argue this is not necessarily a left versus right issue. this is about those who are willing to tell the people the truth about our nation's fiscal challenges and those who continue to duck from those challenges. this budget takes the latter approach. it represents a very clear threat to the health and retirement security for american seniors. it threatens our government we haver higher taxes and commits our children and grandchildren to a deminute fished future. i don't know how you conclude otherwise. second geithner, you probably be the first to acknowledge that having no plan is a

a blue ribbon commission was in here a few weeks ago, senator domenici, my colleague, talking about this, i've tried to follow up whether the waste isolation plant in new mexico might be an ideal place for hanford waste. so do you agree with him on keep separate the civilian and the nuclear waste issues. i think they're -- that we -- it would be prudent to treat it differently, and we are considering -- i'm not sure where in the status, but the -- first it's for low-level radioactive waste, and so one would need to do some studies to make sure that that would be safe for the high level waste. so we'd need to do something along those lines, but i'm glad you pointed out whip, because this is a success story that's been there operating for about a dozen years. there have been no incidents. the local people are, feel confident we're running this isn't a very safe way, and it's good for the local economy. it's good for the economy of the state of new mexico. and so, again, this is something where we can show that we can develop repositories for nuclear waste, which has the acceptance of the l

and former white house budget director alice rivlin and senate budget chairman pete domenici recently said while his budget stabilizes debt over the next decade, this is speaking about the president's budget, the real problem arrives there after as entitlement costs spiral out of control and revenues are inadequate to deal with a wave of retiring babyboomers. so you said before the congress needs to act now to put our fiscal house in order. so would you agree that in order to do that congress must address the unsustainability and impending insolvency of medicare and social security? >> i noted earlier that the current budgeting procedures focus on the next ten years. many of the most serious problems occur after ten years. and they include -- they do include entitlements and as one major category of spending. so i do urge congress and thinking about this not to be artificially constrained by the window but thinking even longer term because the longer in advance you can make changes, the more time there will be for people to adjust to them and the easier it will be politically. >> i do

simpson-bowles, domenici reserve lynn, the gang of six, or whatever. we all know we've got to restrain discretionary spending. we all know that we've got to get entitlements under control and we all know that we need a pro-grow tax policy in this country instead of a 19th century tax code, one that fits the 21st vinch. we all know that. we might have differences of exactly how to do some of these thing, but we all know that problem exists and we all know we've got to come together. we

even in tax reform that raises the revenues that, for example, simpson-bowles suggests we need or domenici-rivlin suggests we need or the senate six suggests we need. in that context the effective tax rate on somebody's going to go up because you're raising revenues. >> mr. secretary, all due respect, that's not the question. >> it is. >> i'm asking the question so i know what the question was. the question is when are you going to give us a simple tax reform. your answer is not now. >> not in this budget, no, we're not. >> that's the question. when are you going to give us -- >> when we have evidence on your side you guys are willing as part of the balanced fiscal plan raise revenue through tax reform. that's why we spent so much time with your leadership discussing in the summer. >> i understand. in other words -- go ahead. i will yield. >> that's leadership. so wait for other people to do something, then we'll react? >> mr. chairman, you guys just spent about six months threatening to default on obligations you gave us. you bequeathed to us. if you call that leadership, that's fine with me. we

the senate republicans, particularly pete they medici --domenici did not want that to happen much to the surprise of health republicans. >> how big is the congressional budget office? >> it is about two hundred fifty people. its budget is somewhere in the neighborhood of $25 million or $30 million. but it is not a big agency. in fact it has an awful lot more influence than you would think an agency of 250 people would have. >> host: why was alice rivlin so important in the early days? >> guest: she was important because she had a clear vision for what she wanted the agency to do. and she set out to make the organization in that image and she was pretty stubborn about it in the sense that she had a vision. she was sometimes pushed by members of congress to move in a different direction and she was pretty clear about the direction that she wanted to go in. once she did that, she began to create a culture in the organization and that is one of the most interesting parts to me of the story of cbo. if it takes something, not only the fact that it was an agency that was supposed to be non-

the proposal that former senator pete domenici and i made is the following. we keep traditional medicare and we keep the efforts that we now have in the affordable care act to bend the cost curve by figuring out what are the most efficient ways to spend money on health care and introduce new incentives into medicare. but that we also take advantage of the idea of competition on a federally-set up exchange, set up an exchange in which seniors, if they wanted to, choose among plans that would cover the same benefits as medicare, and would compete for their business. they could choose the traditional medicare if they wanted to. the important idea here is that the federal government's contribution would be defined over time, and would be capped at a reasonable rate of increase. now, that is a very long answer, but it avoids the simplistic notion of what you said, bring in support. we do not know what regulation will be the most effective in bending the cost curve. we need to give seniors the chance to choose. >> i will jump in and say one thing that is encouragin

the other was domenici and rivlin and we had others, including the gang of six in the united states senate, and all of them had a premise that we needed to deal with the fiscal problem that confronts us and the other premise was all of us need to contribute to that solution. all of us. now, what do we see that's being proposed in this congress , partially in this bill but only partially in this bill? we have either on the floor proposed on passed over the last two years -- listen to this ladies and gentlemen -- we are about to cut or propose to cut $134 billion out of our federal employees over the next 10 years. nobody else in this bill, not a millionaire, not a billionaire, not a carried interest beneficiary, not an oil company, nobody in this bill other than federal employees is asked to pay. i understand we have hospital cuts. by the way, we have $5 billion to that because we just increased by one year the cut that they know they got. the same for some other things. no individual other than a federal employee's asked to take a cut in this bill. now, you will say to me, no, it's future

speed by the way, some symbols, domenici, they're very similar on the three brackett. >> what was interesting about all of those efforts of the addition of cut and invest. but as we are reforming the tax code so that we can be more competitive in the general proposition, we are also selecting those kind of investments with the more advanced or nt, skilled workers, 10,000 engineers, you know of a particular period of time. so if you think about tax reform from the statement local level and listening to the national conversation, is about the tax code itself or does it also included the investment in paris this we need to make tall levels? who wants to take that? >> our key for growth when you take a look over the last 18 months between ford motor company and ge, we have over $2 billion of investment in the community and 4500 new jobs. so that is anywhere in the world. how that came about is the partnership between obviously the company tried to get, number one, but the state and local level coming together with incentives, tax incentives to make the transition much easier for them coming and t

the other was domenici and rivlin and we had oers, including the gang of six in the united states senate, and all of them had a premise that we needed to deal with the fiscal problem that confronts us and the other premise was all of us need to contribute to that solution. all of us. now, what do we see that's being proposed in this congress , partially in this bill but only partially in this bill? we have either on the floor proposed on passed over the last two years -- listen to this ladies d gentlemen -- we are about to cut or propose to cut $134 billion out of our federal employees over the next 10 years. nobody else in this bill, not a millionaire, not a billionaire, not a carried interest beneficiary, not an oil company, nobody in this bill other than federal employees is asked to pay. i understand we have hospital cuts. by the way, we have $5 billion to that because we just increased by one year the cut that they know they got. the same for some other things. no individual other than a federal employee's asked to take a cut in this bill. now, you will say to me, no, it's future fe

tax expenditures and the bipartisan commission, simpson-bowles, rivlin-domenici, had a bipartisan framework for doing that. while i don't agree with every one of those recommendations, i believe the framework was the right one. i agree with the chairman of the committee, mr. ryan, on this one. just because we are not able to tackle the whole thing as part of this reform effort doesn't mean we shouldn't try to tackle a piece of it. i think that is a small piece but important piece. i think it will have a positive impact on how this body approaches the appropriations bills. again, the way this process is driven now, it's not a criticism to the appropriations committee. they do the best they can under the rules that exists now. what this bill says is let's have one more opportunity. an opportunity to take an up or down vote on savings that the president believes we can make toward deficit reduction. it seems to me to be the positive step to take. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: i

speed by the way, some symbols, domenici, they're very similar on the three brackett. >> what was interesting about all of those efforts of the addition of cut and invest. but as we are reforming the tax code so that we can be more competitive in the general proposition, we are also selecting those kind of investments with the more advanced or nt, skilled workers, 10,000 engineers, you know of a particular period of time. so if you think about tax reform from the statement local level and listening to the national conversation, is about the tax code itself or does it also included the investment in paris this we need to make tall levels? who wants to take that? >> our key for growth when you take a look over the last 18 months between ford motor company and ge, we have over $2 billion of investment in the community and 4500 new jobs. so that is anywhere in the world. how that came about is the partnership between obviously the company tried to get, number one, but the state and local level coming together with incentives, tax incentives to make the transition much easier for them coming and t

the other was domenici and rivlin and we had others, including the gang of six in the united states senate, and all of them had a premise that we needed to deal with the fiscal problem that confronts us and the other premise was all of us need to contribute to that solution. all of us. now, what do we see that's being proposed in this congress , partially in this bill but only partially in this bill? we have either on the floor proposed on passed over the last two years -- listen to this ladies and gentlemen -- we are about to cut or propose to cut $134 billion out of our federal employees over the next 10 years. nobody else in this bill, not a millionaire, not a billionaire, not a carried interest beneficiary, not an oil company, nobody in this bill other than federal employees is asked to pay. i understand we have hospital cuts. by the way, we have $5 billion to that because we just increased by one year the cut that they know they got. the same for some other things. no individual other than a federal employee's asked to take a cut in this bill. now, you will say to me, no, it's future