rivlin -- which charles just spoke approvingly, and simpsoalice rivlin at pete the medici -- pete domenici. each of them have entitlement cuts and increases in revenue. >> simpson-bowles increases -- >> revenue. >> it eliminates -- >> by eliminating loopholes. >> i have to eliminate this discussion. >> i am confident it will be upheld because it should be. that is not just my opinion. a whole lot of constitutional law professors, academics, judges, and lawyers who have examined this law, even if they cannot particularly sympathetic to this legislation or my presidency. >> once again, "the wall street journal" editorial-page -- the president needs a remedial course in judicial review. >> there were two factual errors and to what the president said. it was approved by congress, but not by a huge margin. no. 2, the court as often overturned acts of congress. what it has not done four 3/4 of the century is overturned a major piece of regulatory legislation. but does not what he said. >> isn't it unusual for the president to attack the supreme court of port they and down a decision? b -- before

simpson- bowles -- which patrols just spoke approvingly -- and ali rivlin and the damage she -- pete domenici. they all have entitlement cuts and tax increases. >> simpson-bowles reduces rates 23% -- >> and increases -- >> revenue. >> eliminating loopholes. >> i will have to eliminate this discussion of the time bei. >> it is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors, academics, judges, and lawyers who defended this law even if they cannot said that it to this particular -- even if they are not sympathetic to this particular piece of legislation, presidency. >> "the wall street journal" editorial ge- "the president needs a lesson in traditional remedial work you." >> it was approved by congress, but not by a huge margin. number one. no. 2, congress is offer an overturned an act of congress. -- has often overturned an act of congress. >> isn't it unusual for the president to attack the supreme court before they can down the decision -- handed down the decision? >> he is sending them a message to of allave a chance listed as missing of the court by u

rivlin the plan you worked on with senator domenici is similar to the house passed budget with private plans that compete against traditional fee-for-service. how can you explain how this controls cost not only for beneficiaries enrolled but also for traditional medicare? >> but also many structured change where the consumer can see there are lots of new innovations how you treat people will with chronic diseases and evidence plans can offer better services to bring down the cost to treat medicare beneficiaries. we believe that would have been and through the bidding process the cost would not come down but not increase as rapidly. the fact the government, to be shin is both would be a benefit to everyboby. >> quality and service could be higher but cost hubie more efficient improbably get better over time more people would leave. but there is a lot of evidence fee-for-service does not do coordination of care very well and coordination is terrible. i.r.a. use it. i watch that. looking at responsibility you are likely to get better results. >> mr. stark is now recognized by minutes. >>

we've had the domenici loveland commission. we've had the aborted budget agreement last summer, in the midst of the debt ceiling debacle and all of that suggests some ground. some common ground. my point is none of those approaches went far enough in terms of the economic prom we really need. to set the stage let's start by setting out some points that seemed to me to command some support in general terms if not in detail right across the political spectrum. do we want a strong military and national security system? if so, and i think we do, we have to assume that for the time being cuts in those areas will have to be reasonably limited. do we need to pay more attention to our decaying infrastructure? if so, i think that's correct, that means more spending rather than less. much of it through state support and states are very heavily challenged at the moment. we do need to sustain our much admired systems of higher education in particular but education at all levels and the higher education piece in particular is being threaten

so the domenici-rivlin proposal was not a voucher program, correct? >> no, it was not a voucher. >> and the ryan and wyden proposal was not -- >> not as i understand those terms, no. >> okay. thank you so much. yield back. >> thank you. mr. thompson is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thanks to all the witnesses for being here. i'm a little heartened, actually, to hear about -- there seems to be a lot of agreement. everybody agrees we need to fix medicare, we need to make it work, so that's the best news i've heard on this topic for a long time. i would submit, mr. chairman, that it might be helpful as we're looking at this if we had a plan many front of us. we have heard a lot of criticism about mr. ryan's plan, we've heard criticism about the ryan-wyden plan, we've heard those who are proponents of that suggesting that maybe it's not what the critics say it is. it would be good if we had a plan we could actually see the details of that plan and be able to get down in the weeds and look at it. until that happens, we're just going to maybe

former senator pete domenici and i chaired the appropriations committee, and we constantly added earmarks -- sorry to use that word here in this august body today, but we added money that was not in the budget, and often it was taken out for other reasons. the -- at that time the effort of congress and the public just wasn't there on this problem. when i left the senate, the number of border patrols had increased from approximately 4,000 to -- in '95, that's what it was, now it's well over 21,000, as the chairman points out, with over 5,000 on the arizona border. those who say the federal government has not done its job in ensuring border security are wrong. i was in congress from '77 to '95, i can tell you, the federal government in recent years has made heroic efforts to secure our borders. it started under the previous administration, a republican administration, and continues now with such programs as secure communities. we are called here today to debate the merits, the constitutionality, of 1070. i believe it is unconstitutional, for many of the reasons the chairman pointed out, whi

what we said the domenici/rivlin task force said we have to have a tax holiday and try to get this economy moving beyond sluggishness. we still hold to that. then you begin to phase in deficit reduction. at the end of our plan, you're the imf and the world bank want you to be at 60. but this is ten years from now, 15 years from now so, all the numbers are wrong. but you try to make policy changes. i just leave you with three thoughts that i think are important. one we have a bunch of promises that we've made to americans that we can't keep. end of discussion, we can't do it under present circumstances. and we need to think about what breaking those promises mean for the future and for investment in the future. the second thing is don't listen to people who tell you what percentage of gdp it used to be, because if they talk about the last 40 years, you've got three major conflicts in there that caused. so i would say let's go back to 1900 and the percentage of gdp of medicare was, that's correct, zero. and social security was, that's right, zero. and 85% of the people in this country lived

so everybody has looked at this whether it's bowles-simpson, the senate six, domenici or the whole range of other non-partisan and bipartisan efforts out there, all come to the sap basic judgment, there's a no plauzal way politically and no really sensible way economically to try to restore physical cable stability without that and tax reform should be part of that, but it's -- but it's, it requires spending savings, too. >> so just to clarify for our audience, am i right in understanding you to be saying that the president would be interested at year-end in a broad discussion about tax reform, as you address this series of questions that you mentioned? >> well, absolutely. again, you need a -- i think tax reform is coming. it's inevitable. it's necessary. it's all about the shape of it. and you know, we're going to have to make another substantial contribution on the spending sis'd side, too and they should proceed from parallel and we need a framework for doing those things at the end of the year. >> so let me shift now to -- >> can i say one more thing? it's important. >> yes. >> the

so the domenici-rivlin proposal was not a voucher program, correct?o, it was not a voucher. >> and the ryan and wyden proposal was not -- >> not as i understand those terms, no. >> okay. thank you so much. yield back. >> thank you. mr. thompson's recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thanks to all the witnesses for being here. i'm a little heartened, actually, to hear about -- there seems to be a lot of agreement. everybody agrees we need to fix medicare, we need to make it work, and so that's the best news i've heard on this topic for a long time. i would submit, mr. chairman, that it might be helpful as we're looking at this if we had a plan in front of us. we've heard a lot of criticism about mr. ryan's plan, we've heard criticism about the ryan-wyden plan, we've heard of those who are proponents of that suggesting that maybe it's not what the critics say it is. it would be good if we had a plan we could actually see the details of that plan and be able to get down in the weeds and look at it. until that happens we're just going to maybe spin

ron and i ng alice rivlin and pete domenici have been saying, a list of guaranteed coverage options, guaranteed, you can't be denied. and there is a competitive bidding system that makes sure that your benefit keeps up with the price of the insurance. and then -- and you also have the choice of traditional medicare, fee for service alongside that. and then medicare subsidizes your premium based on who you are. if you're a low income person, 100% subsidy, total out of pocket coverage. sicker, more subsidy. a wealthy person gets lower subsidy, because we think we should means test the program doing it this way, using choice and competition, having premium support with competitive bidding guarantees affordability and solvency to the medicare program. and allows us to cash flow the current commitment to current seniors. we think it's smart, we think it's important to do this way. and it's gradual so you don't end up with a debt crisis where you have severe disruptions in people's lives, because medicare is the biggest driver of our debt. if you solve the medicare puzzle, meaning save and

what we said the domenici-ritalin we have to a tax holiday and try to get this economy moving beyond sluggishness. we still hol t phase in deficit reduction. at the end of our plan, you're at about 62 to 65% of gdp and the imf and the world bank want you to be at 60. but a, this is ten years from now, 15 years from now so, all the numbers are wrong. but you try to make policy changes. i just leave you with three thoughts i think that are important. one we have a bunch of promises that we've made to americans that we can't keep.

as dead domenici and rep and when they were here. mr. paul said one you're saying is exactly right. but he added it is not unfortunate scorable and that is why it is not in our report. senator simpson agreed saying my assessment had quote gone to the core of the. we should focus our health care a attention on setting cost containment goals and achieving them through to deliver system reform. if we're smart about this probably can avoid the types of benefit cuts included in the plan before us today. this need not be a partisan issue. senator portman is both intuitive with knowledge and conviction and i look forward to working with all my colleagues on both sides of the table to address the substantial deficit reduction promised by wise health care system reform. i do reject the fiscal commission social security recommendations. while other parts of the recommendations aren't more power from the social security proposal would restore long-term solvency to it 80%-20% combination but as we know the congressional budget act prohibits making changes to social security in the budget resolu

i remember the great work of senator jeff bingaman, working hand-in-hand with senator pete domenici. we did some great things together. the polarization that we see now in the united states congress, especially in the house of representatives, is troublesome and many are just say no. that is absolutely the wrong thing to do. what they ought to be doing is saying that we have significant energy challenges here in america. gas prices and the oil and gas future of america are tremendously important, and there are a number of things we can do. instead of spending their time politicking and trying to get an upper hand in an imagined world. what they should do is work on real solutions. >> what do you say to critics who say that the u.s. is not issuing oil drilling permits quickly enough? >> you know, i think you will find critics that will make those false charges against this administration. 1500 permits have been processed through the bureau of land management just in the last few years. we have done and lived through a national crisis. we have issued over 100 permits to drill into the

i remember the great work of senator jeff bingaman working hand in hand with senator pete domenici, and we did some great things together. and so the polarization that we see now in the united states congress, especially in the house of representatives, is troublesome. i think the view of just saying no is absolutely the wrong thing to do. what they ought to be doing is saying we have significant energy challenges here in america, gas prices and the oil and be gas future of -- oil and gas future of america are tremendously important, and there are a number of things we could do. so instead of spending their time politicking and trying to get an upper hand through a imagined world what they should do is to work on real solutions. >> what do you say to critics who say that the u.s. is not issuing oil drilling permits quickly enough? >> you know, i think that you'll find critics that will make those false charges against this administration but frankly just over the last three years 15,500 permits have been processed through the bureau of land management. just in the last few years, we hav

component of the recommendation from the bipartisan policy center, cochaired by it senator pete domenici and former cbo director and clinton omb director alice rivlin, also testifying today. it is in this vein that the 2013 house budget includes a premium support proposal. we have drawn upon the ideas that are witnesses have proposed over the past two decades and put forward a plan to protect medicare from future generations. there certainly will be different opinions about how a premium support proposal should work. that is a healthy discussion. however, simply hiding our heads in the sand is not. house republicans have made it abundantly clear that we will not simply watch medicare become insolvent. my friend on the other side may not like our proposal to protect the medicare program, but where is yours? relying on $14 billion in savings from so-called delivery reforms in the health care law is not going to say the program. they predict the demise of the program in 10 years. there is some time before it faces the dire shortfalls, however, we would be wise to heed the charge given to wa

so, everybody has looked at this, whether it's bowles/simpson, the senate six, rivlin-domenici, or the whole range of other non-partisan or bipartisan efforts out there, they've all come to the same basic judgment that there's no plausible way politically, and no really sensible way economically to try to restore fiscal sustainability without that. and tax reform should be part of that, but it requires some spending savings, too. >> so, just to clarify for our audience, am i right in understanding you to be saying that the president would be interested at year-end in a broad discussion about tax reform as you address the series of questions that you mentioned? >> oh, absolutely. and again, i think tax reform is coming. it's inevitable. it's necessary. it's all about the shape of it. and, you know, we're going to have to make another substantial contribution on the spending side, too. and those things should proceed in parallel, and we're going to have to find some way to put in place a framework for doing those things at the end of the year. >> so, let me shift now to -- >> can i say j