mr. garrett: i don't believe we have any other speakers. then i'm -- the chair: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam chair. again, i wish we were here debating the president's jobs plan. i wish we were focused on bringing to the floor the conference committee reports so that we could provide relief to 160 million americans through the payroll tax cut. with respect to the budget bill before us, as i indicated, it's just not ready for primetime. you would think that before undertaking a change which seems small, is very complicated and could have lots of unintended consequences, especially with respect to things like student loans, as i've said, if we are confining this debate and this bill to things like fannie mae and freddie mac, i have no problem. in fact, the congressional budget office already applies this methodology to fannie mae and freddie mac. but the scope of this is much, much broader than that. it goes, as i said, to all credit programs including student loan programs and will, as a matter of accounting,

mr. garrett made. every budget i've seen except the ones propose bid this president, previously and this year, never put a target out there of when we expect the budget to be balanced. and you ought to at least present a budget which says, i don't care, 50 years from now, make it some time, but tell us when, if we adopt this spending plan, when we will achieve a balanced budget. and quit adding to the debt. the question i have is, does this administration really care about deficits and debt? they talk a lot about it but their budgets don't reflect that. and i also hear a lot of talk about simpson bowles, which i support, but you know what? this administration walked away from it. >> well, there's a lot of lines and let me try to respond and i will do it quickly, mr. chair n chairman. first of all, i'm honored to be in this job and i'm honored to serve this president and honored to present this budget. on oco, i made the points, i'll repeat them. it closes the back door. i think we all agree that cbo is

mr. garrett. >> i heard your answer with mr. van hollen. you said normally you don't like to give a comment with regard to fiscal policy, tax bills in the like. and i thought really, mr. chairman? is that still your opinion? i was truly taken aback when recently the fed issued an unsolicited white paper, if you will, on housing policy whether, if you didn't advocate for you certainly mirrored much of the positions of this administration. so i don't know how the two go together. on the one hand you say you don't get involved in those areas. here you had a white paper not solicited from us. i know you're protective of your independence, when you advocate for a position like that, why would you issue such a paper when we don't ask for it? >> congressman, first, the fed has a lot of interest in housing. it's important for the economy. it's important for monetary policy. we are bank supervisors, swoe ear interested in mortgage and lending -- >> so let me ask you this then. congress has a lot of interest in monetary policy. i guess the comparable

mr. garrett. >> thank you, mr. secretary. so let me get this straight. your testimony has been so far that you agree that the tax system that we have in this country is far too complex and is not working but you're not going to give us a new tax reform system now that would be simpler. rather, would plan in this budget give us a more complex tax system until later on in the term. >> no. i know you don't like the proposal, the specific tax proposals. >> is it more complex is what you just said sfwl absolutely. if you try to get more revenues out of the current tax system in a rational way, you will do things that are complicated, no doubt about it. that's why it is better to do it through tax reform. >> you're giving us a system too complex today and giving us a proposal that is more complex. >> it is the nature of the beast. >> mr. secretary, i think of all people, especially you, that you would understand our system is to complex for the average individual to understand how to fill out their tax return, that you would be coming to us not today but prior

mr. garrett made, every budget i've seen except for the ones proposed by this president d previously and this year. never put a target out of when we expect the budget to be balanced. and you ought to at least y present a budget that says, i s don't scare, 50 years from now,f give us some time. tell us when if we adopt this ba spending plan, when we will it achieve a balanced budget and quit adding to the debt., does this administration really care about deficits and debt? they talk a lot about it, but their budgets don't reflect at. that. and i alsoso hear a lot of talk about simpson-bowles which i support. but you know what, this ation administration walked away from it. >> t.well, there's a lot. l let me try to respond. respond i know i will do it quickly, mrm chairman. first of all, i'm honored to bef in the job, and honored to serve this president and honored to present this budget. ma i've made the points, i'll repeat them, it closes the back door. i think we all agree cbo is our referee -- >> what that -- >> as to the deficit, more discretionary spending, second on deficits, i don

mr. garrett? >> thank you. appreciate your testimony today. appreciate you also being here from the private sector. you probably feel a little lonely at the white house in that respect. one point you though, you did just say there are no tax increases for those folks making under -- >> $250,000. >> -- $250,000. >> families under $250,000. individuals under 250k. >> if i am part of a family who does not buy health insurance in violation of the president's health care program and i got to pay because of that, that is not a tax on me? >> the affordable care act saves money. >> i understand that. is that a tax on me then if i do not pay that, or is that not a tax? >> i'm not sure i'm following the question. >> you say there are no tax increases on people who make under $250,000. if i make under $250,000 and i do not buy health insurance as i'm supposed to, is that a tax on me or not on me? a moment ago you said there are no tax increase. but that's not a tax? >> no. >> that's not a tax. okay. i just want to be clear on that because that's not the

mr. garrett referenced earlier in his questioning was 1977-1981 when the average was above 10%. what is the justification in taking these unprecedented rates of inflation as your assumption as you look into the future? >> i haven't looked at those precise numbers but i understand your point, i think, congressman. you are certainly correct that our forecast of inflation have errors in them like our forecast of all the economic variables. in terms of last year, there were some particular developments in energy markets and other parts of the economy that pushed inflation above what we think people had been expecting. and a number of people thought at the time most those would likely be transitory developments and the way the information is unfolding is so far consistent with that story. the change in the cpu over the past three months is less than it was in the past six months which is less than the past 12 months. the latest information about inflation suggests that it is, in fact, coming down. now, more broadly i mention two things. one is that relative to years preceding the ear

mr. garrett asked you about the individual mandate excise tax for failing to purchase government qualifying health care. i young said that was not a tax. and then i believe mr. chaffetz asked you about the medical devices tax and the indoor tanning service -- >> can i make one ten-second comment. the president has cut middle class taxes by $300 billion. >> except for everything that's on this list. >> $300 billion. >> again, except for everything that's -- when you make a pledge i guess you don't get to say, listen, i'm going to raise it some place and reduce it some place else. my question focuses on something you said early cher is on the next slide which deals with -- >> there is actually no way i'll be able to read it. >> it's right out of your budget table. s-4. you mentioned several times this is a response from the budget as to deficit. and then you are -- loathe at times talk about nominal dollars. i agree when you are talking in 2012 about a dollar, it's not the same thing in 2012 but i would suggest you can talk apples to apples nominal dollars when talking about net interest paym

mr. garrett raised the issue of the -- however you characterize it, fine tax under the affordable care act.subm you said there were no new taxe in this budget.standa if i'm not mistaken, that final. budget or tax was in existing law prior to this budget being submitted. therefore by the chairman's ownt standards those things that are in existing law you don't get ee credit for or blamed for.tandar the implication that in some wat this budget raised revenue through that vehicle doesn't meet the standard the chairman said. would you agree with that? >> i think it's important in an, this budget there are no impo increases on families earning less than $250,000 and, in factx important tax breaks, including the america opportunity tax credit which is up to $10,000 for tuition credit, tax against tuition, which is important as part of our global hich i competitiveness and ensuring that people can afford to go to college. go so the middle class is -- we need to rebuild and make sure no that we're doing the what's right by the middle class and tt this budget does that. >> thank you.heis ism going to ge

mr. garrett is recognized for one minute. mr. garrett: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the words of the chaplain who says may we indeed know the lord. mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize chaplain karen hallett on her selection as the 2012 reserve officers association chaplain of the year. she's a resident of vernon, new jersey, which is part of the fifth congressional district. the chaplain enlisted in the army in 1983 and completed basic combat training at fort dix, new jersey, she graduated from west point and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in 1988. after that, an after fulfilling her enlistment obligations, she spent 18 years in the civilian sector, successfully managing businesses while remaining engaged in full-time ministry. then in 2009 after completing her masters of divinity degree, she returned to military service as a captain in the united states army reserves. she currently serves as brigades chaplain for the 411 engineer brigade. throughout her more than 20 years of service and missionary work, she has dedicated herself to ministering to

mr. garrett, does that mean that at this point in time to transcanada has the opportunity to go to the process has not gone through the process but is making the representation to mr. thompson the property owner that they will in essence appropriate his property, even though it is below ground level? >> you know, i'm not going to put myself in the minds of transcanada. all i know is that there is a process spelled out in statute which they could. now, mr. thompson's property is going to be, is now irrelevant in this process because there's been an agreement with the state of nebraska to move that pipeline. so that route through his family's property is going to be rerouted. this is why this statute is important, and the memoranda of understanding so they can actually pick a new site and start negotiating with those land owners. >> and reclaiming my time, look, i support the pipeline but i just want it done properly. i don't want to circumvent what we have, with the proper agencies come with the expertise. and i surely don't want to circumvent what we have always been established this post in t

garrett. he says there could be as many as 10 bodies in the abandoned well. his accomplice as recently committed suicide. some who mr. genscher and 10 yester day, he led investigators to remain near the former home spot and this is outside of stockton. now investigators found a partial skull and bones. this is the second one discovered with his assistance. he agreed to help after he was is that caught by a bounty hunter. the to the investigators believe warmer some of income from those of the bones of the woman last seen in 1998. >> marty: authorities in san francisco say they did not know why a woman drove her car and the frigid water that ocean beaches haven't friday morning. fire officials said they found woman singing her partially submerged lexis. and then pulled her from the car, she was taken to hospital with minor injuries. officials say the one in use a ramp to get on to the beach and then drove about 350 ft. over the sand before she's got an award ticket the car was rescued several hours later. >> ysabel: we will take a look outside it looks to the clearing it was a treatment earlier this morning as folk d

mr. speaker, h.r. 3581, the budget and accounting transparency act sponsored by congressman scott garrett. in addition, the house will act on legislation passed in the senate yesterday commonly referred to as the stock act. finally, the house may consider h.r. 1734, the civilian property realignment act sponsored by congressman jeff denham. mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman from maryland, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his information. would ask him on the timing, the conference committee has met twice on the payroll tax cut, the unemployment insurance, and the so-called doc fix to ensure the fact that doctors are compensated and will be available for medicare patients. conference committee, mr. leader, has met twice since december 23. we adopted a motion to instruct overwhelmingly through the house to make sure that they reported back by february 17. i think you may have read my comments in the press that if we do not do it by the 17th, then we are off for a week and we will be back, 27,

mr. garrett's? >> one of your heroes. and [laughter] >> just following up on a couple of waves, with regard to do what was going on in europe, we can not second-guess them. one question i have is your presumptions on interest rates. according to your baseline the american people will be paying 1.4 trillion dollars over the next four years, but obviously, if those interest rates are skewed, that number goes up significantly, right? >> yes, no doubt. >> right now we are at the benefit of the fact we are the reserve currency of the world, and that is able to keep it down, but we saw in the private sector how those prints to change basically overnight for these various companies and that initially had good rates. >> that is correct. >> did we see the same thing in europe, that their interest rates were somewhat favorable before, but basically it overnight, the spreads extended beyond anyone's projections. is that a fair assessment? >> yes certainly in a way that interest rates will rise more rapidly than projected. slides and