mr. van hollins behalf to move this and get necessary waivers for mr. van holland that replaces the entire sequestered for calendar year 2013 which would cause deep cuts for domestic priorities in defense with specific policies that reflect a balanced approach to deficit reduction. this amendment protect our most honorable citizens. those earning over 1,000,004 -- 1 million per year or more. and cut subsidies to big oil. >> is there any discussion on this amendment? the chairman does recognize that the amendment the gentlewoman moves on behalf of mr. van holland is a consensus choice. i also recognize at a time when we're not trying to raise costs on gasoline that there would be a raise on gasoline. under president obama we of seen the price of students -- food substantially rise. cereal, milk, commodities rise as a result of the excessive price of gasoline, and further, that we just had a big tax increase under president obama, and i would note there are calls for increasing taxes for their. brand new revenue estimated to be 600 billion that would come in this yea

mr. van holland?ht, you know what, there's a very low standard for emptiness around here. i think they achieved it in that. look, look, it's the same story you heard during the recovery period, when republicans said the stimulus bill wouldn't help put people back to work but they were writing into government agencies saying please spend some of that money in my district to help save jobs and put people back to work. the notion, the notion that government investments, whether it's in roads or bridges or schools, doesn't help produce economic activity and jobs, is crazy. and republicans admit it. because whenever you talk about reductions in the defense spending, they say it's going to lose lots of jobs. eric cantor said on the floor of the house last september, if the sequester went into place, they would lose 200,000 jobs in virginia. and then they turn around and tell you you've got to cut spending to create jobs. look. it's, it's total nan senonsense know from the europeans that austerity doesn't wo

mr. van holland for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. again i want to thank all the members of the committee as we gather here at what is a very important moment for our country. thanks to the ingenuity and resilience of the american people, and the emergency actions taken by the president and the congress four years ago, we are continuing to recover from the worst recession since the great depression. momentum in the job market continues to grow. but we still have a long way to go to help put people back to work to accelerate economic growth, and to boost small business hiring. yes, we must and can steadily reduce our deficit and reduce and stable lies the debt but we should do that in a way that immediately reduces the job deficit. rather than a budget that immediately makes that job deficit worse. unfortunately, this republican budget fails that very simple test. the nonpartisan independent congressional budget office has shown that the approach taken in this budget will result in 750,000 fewer american jobs just by the end of this ca

mr. van holland god blessed is going to come up for the fourth time and i would do away with sequester and save us an awful lot of money with cuts to agriculture subsidies and oil companies and others instituted the buffet rule. i hope we can find it in our hearts today. for a time for the budget committee is a little bit embarrassing. i hope will be able to do that. >> we've been sequestered -- [inaudible] [laughter] >> i told them to stop talking about sequestration. >> i hometown of kentucky. >> that may be precursor. mrs. slaughter in my were before the committee this morning, asking for a budget for this year and we may have just gotten an answer. i hope we paid our bills, but we support the organization. >> mr. bishop. >> thank you, mr. chairman. before we engage in the political spin of the day in which you mind if i asked specific questions about the bill before us? i do have about three. actually i have the first with the most question. mr. chairman, i wonder if your friend and acquaintance from the good old days if you have any stories we could use -- >> i do not find those germa

mr. van holland is going to come up for the fourth time and try to get his amendment made in order and that would do away with sequester and save us an awful lot of money with cuts to agriculture subsidies and oil companies and others instituting the buffett rule. i do hope we can find it in our hearts today. the fourth time for the ranking member of the budget committee to come to rules and ask for an amendment is a little bit embarrassing, so i hope we'll be able to do that. thank you for the time. did the lights go out? >> something happened. >> have we been sequestered? 10% of the lights are out. >> i told you to stop talking about sequestration. >> i have a little trouble, howell is my hometown from kentucky, we've been buddies forever. glad to see you. >> good to see you. >> that may be a precursor. mrs. slaughter and i were before the committee this morning asking for a budget for this year, this next year, and we may have just gotten an answer. i hope we paid our bills. we're a support organization. mr. bishop? >> thank you, mr. chairman. before i engage in the political spin of the

mr. van holland is going to come up for the fourth time and try to get his amendment made in order and that would do away with sequester and save us an awful lot of money with cuts to agriculture subsidies and oil companies and others instituting the buffett rule. i do hope we can find it in our hearts today. the fourth time for the ranking member of the budget committee to come to rules and ask for an amendment is a little bit embarrassing, so i hope we'll be able to do that. thank you for the time. did the lights go out? >> something happened. >> have we been sequestered? 10% of the lights are out. >> i told you to stop talking about sequestration. >> i have a little trouble, howell is my hometown from kentucky, we've been buddies forever. glad to see you. >> good to see you. >> that may be a precursor. mrs. slaughter and i were before the committee this morning asking for a budget for this year, this next year, and we may have just gotten an answer. i hope we paid our bills. we're a support organization. mr. bishop? >> thank you, mr. chairman. before i engage in the political spin of the

both that senator murray is offering in the senate and chris van holland is offering in the house do that while the republican budget offered by mrs will have a devastating effect, not only on average working americans, but on job creation in this country. we don't think it's a real budget. we think that the consequences of the policies that are included in that budget would be very devastating to the country and to middle class families and the working people. >> sir, does this mean, though, that we're headed for a government shutdown like we lived through in '95 and '96? >> we're talking about two different things, the budget and the cr, the continuing resolution, the funding past march 27th for government enterprises, i think we'll pass that. i hope we'll pass it this week. i senate i think is going to pass it hopefully late tonight. we'll send it over to us and i expect us to pass it on thursday. the senate passed version is better than the house version. it's not a good version. we should substitute as both the murray budget does and the van holland budget does, substitute for the sequester, not adopt the sequester numbers.

joining me is chris van holland of maryland who was involved in a lunch late last week with the president. the house budget chair, mran. chris, good to have you with us tonight. appreciate it very much. you bet. how is ryan's budget to be considered a serious play when he is basing it on things that have been, and he will knows will be rejected in the future? >> well, that question in some ways answers itself. it cannot be a serious effort because there is no serious chance of it passing. in fact, there is virtually no chance of that passing. he repeals the part of obama care that will provide tax credits, that will allow more people to afford health care. he does keep the part of obama care that both he and romney campaigned against which was smart medicare savings that we achieved by eliminating overpayments to insurance companies. furl both congressman ryan and mitt romney said that that was going to somehow hurt seniors. >> yeah. >> it never was going to. but they are keeping that. they are keeping the very savings in medicare that they campaigned against, but they are cutting the tax credits and all of the prov