that omb -- that omb had stone walled the nasa budget. and since you are now the acting director, i think the constructive dialogue that we have with mr. lew having come and met with the congress and continued the discussion on nasa funding so that there was some certainty in the program i'd like to know what your attitude is about continuing those discussions? >> well, as you know, it's a difficult budget environment. nasa's held about even in this budget environment, and what we have done in this budget is to honor the 2010 discussions around the appropriation between the things like the heavy lift rocket and the international space station. i would love to continue those dialogues. >> i believe that you have, and i think that the budget was basically a flat line budget, and given the cutting edge agency of research and development that it is, it has to have some certainty in those programs. but when there is a complete lack of dialogue with omb, that's what makes it difficult and i want to raise that issue to you that has been the case

my concern is what was submitted from the omb -- to the omb did not recognize that the twick card, which you said in your testimony, would be used, and i can understand why something regulated by your agency can't apply for a twick card, but it seems like in the federal government, we can use the same database. the coast guard, the transportation, and the twick card would be interchangeable. i can tell you some of my folks are going to be frustrated if they end up having to pay another few hundred dollars to get a second card because their company transfers them somewhere. not all companies are really nice, and they say, no, that's part of your requirement for the job. you have to have your driver's license to drive the company car. so that's my concern. the proposed personal security program submits background information on all personnel within 60 to 90 days upon implementation, and you knew the underscored individuals not classified as personnel, even if they had a twick card, their information was to be submitted to dhs 48 hours in advance. was that part of the submittal to omb? beca

and one omb director made good, congratulations, leon, for continuing to exceed expectations of omb directors. quickly on this whole issue of the sequester. you said and i was here earlier listening to your testimony, that it creates risks and that's the $487 billion. you also said those are acceptable risks and explained why. this must mean this are additional risks with step two and additional $535 billion. how would you entail those risks as we move forward with the sequester as planned? >> they would be devastating. because the cuts would be made as you know, according to that formula, across the board. so it 0 would it would come out of structure and readiness. it would come out of, i assume compensation would be on the table as well. and it would come out of every area of the defense budget. and the danger is when you do it that way, you automatically hollow out the force. because what you're doing is, you're weakening every area of the defense budget by some kind of blind formula. and it mean even though we'll have a smaller force structure as a result of the cuts, they'll be ill-equip

these are not cbo numbers these are omb numbers. to make the $4 trillion claim stick that the budget does this. the top bar, the blue bar claims credit for the budget control act. $2.3 trillion. this is a law that was already passed. i don't know how one can claim that this budget achieves these things when this is something that congress passed already. i would add to that, congress passed this over the president's initial objections. he wanted a tax increase of the debt limit and only because of this house majority did we get the bca. so, let's take away that claim because that is not in your budget. you cannot claim you're achieving this when it's a law that is already passed. and now let's go to the war gimmick. which is let's claim savings on money that is never going to be spent or requested and claim it saves us $850 billion. i don't know what part of the private sector you come from, if we are saying we are saving money that we were never going to request or spend, i don't know how you can say you are saving money. and now t

you're the director of the omb, does your budget -- >> our budget is a more honest budget. it looks at what's happening. >> will the witness not answer this simple question? i just asked a simple question. >> it's a more accurate reflection of what we're going to spend. >> will it spend more or less? >> just some of the exchanges earlier today on capitol hill as members of the president's administration provide details to members of congress on the 2013 spending blueprint that, exchange with senator jeff sessions, republican of alabama and acting director of office of management and budget, jeffrey zients. a new poll out showing rick santorum and mitt romney essentially tied in the race. this the latest from the abc news/"washington post" poll. also showing rick santorum is increasing his popularity, all coming a week and a day before the next debate that will take place in two weeks before the next round of primaries in arizona and in michigan. a couple of new ads on the air in michigan. meanwhile the hill newspaper reporting negotiators could close the deal tonight that w

these are omb numbers. to make this $4 trillion claim stick that this budget does this, the blue bar claims credit for the budget control act, 2.3 trillion. this is a law that was already past. how can one claim that this budget achieves these things when this is something congress already passed. and i would add congress passed this over the president's objections. so let's take away that claim, because that's not in your budget. you can't claim you're achieving this when it's a law we already passed. so now we're down to the war gimmick. let's claim savings on spending that's never going to be requested or spent and all of a sudden claim that's going to save us $850 billion. i don't know what part of the private sector you come from, but if we're saying we're staving money that we were never going to request, never going to spend, i don't know how you can say you're saving money. now you're down to the doc fix. nobody wants to see there 27% cut occur. but it's happening. it's in law. it happens at the end

you're the director of the omb. does your budget call for spending more money. >> our budget is a more honest budget that looks at what's happening in a business as usual basis. each year we pass the amt. >> will the witness answer the simple question? i just asked a simple question. >> it's a more accurate reflection of what we're going to spend. >> will it spend more or less? >> just some of the exchanges earlier today on capitol hill as members of the president's administration provide details to members of congress on the 2013 spending blueprint. that exchange with senator jeff sessions, republican of alabama, and the acting director of the office of management and budget, jeffrey zions before the senate budget committee. welcome to hour one of "washington today" on c-span radio. thanks for being with us. a new poll out showing that rick santorum and mitt romney essentially tied in the race. this is the latest from the abc news/"washington post" poll. the survey shows rick santorum is increasing his popularity a

when submitted to omb? >> davy? >> the leveraging of twick and other credentials is part of the information collected and submitted to omb. >> i would see comfortable seeing in writing what you said, secretary beers, that the twick card -- again, we have hundreds of thousands around the country, that we don't want to also have a breakdown in redoing something. i know working with the industry and the bargaining units and everything else is something that ought to be important, and i know i'm over my time, mr. chairman. i have a number of other questions i'd like to submit if we don't have time today. >> without objection, i think my colleague and i would like to recognize mr. murphy from pennsylvania, the undersecretary of the committee, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary beers, the memo states that cfas must critically evaluate and conduct mid and long-range planning. so to that end, let me ask for your candid responses. why was this not done until now? >> i beg your pardon? >> why was some of

before i joined omb through years ago, i spent all of my time, about 20 years, in the private sector. one thing that i found was that it was often helpful to boil things down to a few key graphics. so, i'll use some graphics here on the screen to walk through the highlights of the president's 2013 budget. i'll cover four topics. first, the current policy baseline. second, the key elements of deficit reduction. then an overview of the investments in the areas that are critical to the future competitiveness and growth and finally, the bottom line of the president's budget and how it puts us on a sustainable path. first, the baseline. we believe we have a baseline that accurately reflects current policy. in essence, in business, we think of this as business as crucial. the baseline includes the extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and estate cuts. the extension of the amt and sgr, the presentation we believe is more honest than patching these year after year. enforcement of the bca caps and joint committee sequester. and accounting for future disaster costs rather than ignoring them.

i wanted to ask you what can we expect and when can we expect omb to weigh in on that issue? >> first of all, i want to emphasize this year's budget recognizes the importance of our veterans and veterans families. >> i thank you for that. >> in terms of the sequester, it is bad policy. it is bad policy all around. it would lead to cuts on the defense side that go across the board or indiscriminate totaling $500 billion. we have similar cuts of similar magnitude on the discretionary side. overall, the sequester is bad policy. we are focusing on replacing that with balanced deficit reduction. if, unfortunately, we need more issues for the sequester, we will focus on the issues you raised. >> i appreciate that. as soon as you can let us know, we appreciate it. >> will do. >> thank you. senator crapo. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to go back to something that was brought up here. it is not time yet to start controlling the spending side of the equation. we still need to stimulate the economy. we need to keep the government spending going to generate jobs. the two-step approa

>> i believe that is part of the submittal to omb. we're looking at all of the opportunities to leverage the various cards and want very much to go in the direction that you want to go. >> and i know there may need to be an interagency memorandum to work together, and i know sometimes our federal agencies do not like to do that. but we have redundant information if we are using the same data base. i just do not understand why dhs, as we proposed in two separate legislation to earlier, with aze twidc background check. is there an incident that i am not aware of that existed within the twic system but that required dhs to go beyond twic? >> i am not aware of any, sir. >> i stay pretty close to the ground there with a lot of my folks, and i have not heard one. in our area, people may not like some of the chemicals we produce, but they're produced because somebody needs them in our country. and we want to make sure there safely produce, both for the people who live around it and for the folks on that plant. every time i talk about the iss

we do as you know even better than i perhaps in your experience at omb, an awful lot of accounts in the federal government, so we look at each of those as part of our base lines. and on a single set of economic assumptions. then we try to illustrate the effects of alternatives, but not possible t that work again on a second set of economic assumptions. i think you're right to say that in 2013 that stronger economy would make the budget a little better off. also true in 2022 the weaker economy would make it worse off. so it's not the case we're systematically on one side, but illustrates the complexity of us doing the analysis and to the full analysis on two distinct economic base lines. >> well, i appreciate that. i do think it's a significant impact. you talking about 500,000 to 2.5 million jobs in 2013 alone. which is something that we ought to be cognizant of as we look at the tax cuts. i mean, in particular the pro growths one. the 2003 tax cuts might be a different kind and not all spending and not all tax cuts are equal. that's something that this committee needs to be looking at

for in this case omb actually did it the way i think we'd want them to do in terms of calculating the likely outcome. now, i just want to end with this. because i do have -- [ no audio ] i have to leave early because i have to sign the payroll tax cut conference. you raised the issue. the chairman raised the issue. fundamentally we've got to figure out a way to come together to resolve these issues. there are some basic disagreements. we believe it's important in the

. >> that tells me your ensmiemy omb. >> well -- except for in this case, omb actually did it the way i think we want them to do in terms of calculating the likely outcome. i just want to end with this. i do have. [ no audio ] >> i have to leave early because i have positive sign the payroll tax cut conference. you raised the issue. the chairman raised the issue. fundamentally we have to figure out a way to come together to resolve these issues. we believe it's important in the short term to continue to take measures that are described in the president's budget to boost the job growth. i remember more than a year ago a lot of our republican colleagues were pointing to the new government in the uk as an example of how we should proceed here. we should have an austerity budget. they're not very good. it's a good thing we didn't follow that proposal. the second is we look to the future. the secretary's pointed out that when you take the kind of measures with respect to health care that we're taking in the chairman's budget last time, what you do is shift the risk of rising health care co

acting omb director, jeffrey zients is talking about the president's budget and why it calls for a morehan doubling dividend of the tax rate for some americans. here is how the dow is shaping up. we are up 70 points on the dow. >>> big day at the nasdaq, genron leading, up 2.5%. as it's raised their out look for their ilia, that is the aging blindness drug that they have. and expedia which is up 84% and now, apple is only up 42%, but of course, we are watching to see if tit closes above $500 today but the bigger milestone could be when it hits $500 billion market cap. and believe it or not, analysts say it could be the cheapest $500 billion tech stock ever. >> it's not what it used to be. >> not at these multiples. >> thank you, see you later. 17 minutes left. time for a stat, check the comp osite, the volatility index is ba back below 20. the yellow flag, no longer being waived by the fear indicator. sue? >> at least not today, anyway. thanks bill. markets are continuing to climb higher as bill mentioned and our next guest, he is keeping an eye on the piigs yield for indicate ors of wh

deportivo, arrancamos con boxeó porque mañana a las 10 de la noche el campeón regular walters junior de la omb de los clásicos más años del mundo, arsenal vs. tottenham, este es uno de los partidos que sobresale más en la jornada 26, arsenal llega con la moral baja después de haber sido eliminado de la fa cup. con el marcador mcdonald's echamos un vistazo a la jornada del fútbol español para el domingo. - pasamos a méxico donde el domingo la 5:00 de la tarde las chivas de guadalajara se enfrentan ante el santos. las chivas llegan después de perder su último compromiso la copa libertadores y urgidos de un triunfo. es tan grave la situación de las chivas que el dueño en su afán para sacarlos del hueco decidió contratar los servicios de johan cruyff que llegará para orientar al rebaño sagrado. - este fin de semana se disputa la jornada número 10 en el fútbol salvadoreño, luis ángel firco se enfrenta al mar que. el domingo juventud independiente contra once municipal y alianza frente a la universidad del salvador. - el técnico de la selección de fútbol de méxico, josé manuel de la torre convocó al

you're the director of the omb. do you call for spending more money -- >> a more honest budget that looks at what is happening in the business as usual basis. each year we are passing. >> i just asked a simple question. >> it is a more accurate reflection of what we are going to spend. >> will it spend more or less? >> it will actually spend less money because of the deficit reduction that we have come and a baseline and reflect of the current policy. >> because of the deficit reduction can only be assumed that caused by increased taxes. but let's go back to that question. you're budget proposes eliminating the sequester than the $1.2 trillion of spending cuts we all agreed to last year difficult as it was that is a trillion dollar increase in spending is not? >> no, it's not. >> why is it not? we agreed that the current law is to cut and reduce the projected spending rate by $1.2 trillion you eliminate that and that means you intend to spend that, do you not? >> this is a very important point. the president is not

pacquiao y bradley, que se han combinado para ganar 11 campeonatos mundiales, disputara el ti Ítulo de la ombejores boxeadores libra por libra del mundo en la actualidad. por otro lado, presionado para que ofreciera detalles del derrumbe de las negociaciones con mayweather, pacquiao dijo que hace varias semanas le hablÓ por tele Éfono y le planteÓ dividir equitativamente todos los ingresos. el filipino dijo que mayweather le ofreciÓ 40 millones de dÓlares garantizados, pero ni un centavo de los ingresos de la transmisiÓn paga por televisiÓn, que podrÍan ascender a 150 millones. vamos con el basquetbol. porque los wizards despues de su gira por la otra costa, buenven esta noche a la actividad y reciben a partir de las 7 de la noche en el verizon center a los kings de sacramento. partido que puede ser para washington. hasta aqui los deportes, tendremos mas esta noche solo a las once inicia la cuaresma marcada por el miercoles de ceniza.. al regreso tenemos imagenes... los catolicos en todo el mundo vivieron hoy el miercoles de ceniza, que marca el inicio de la cuaresma... en la todas las iglesi

when can we expect omb to talk about that? >> we absolutely recognize the importance of our veterans. in terms of the sequester, it is bad policy all around. it would lead to cuts on the defense side that go across the board, they are indiscriminate, totaling $500 billion. we of similar cuts of a similar magnitude elsewhere which are not appropriate. overall, the sequester is bad policy. we're focused on balance deficit reduction. it is unfortunately you reach a point and we will address issues like the ones you raised, but we're focused on bad policy and it should be a replaced by balance deficit reduction. >> as soon as you can let us know on that, that would be good. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it i want to go back to an issue that has been discussed here and in many places regularly. it is this notion that it is not time yet to start controlling the spending side of the equation. we still need to keep stimulating the economy and keeping government spending going so we can generate jobs. the two-step approach the chairman m

on the omb-ay.ly hebrew i know. >> impressive. >> stephen: is the youth of military power in an elected way, is that a foreign policy tool or is that a foreign policy failure? >> sometimes it's a failure and sometimes it's a tool. i think when we're dealing with will it's qaddafi, the that president obama decided to use military force to destroy qaddafi because he was about to kill tens of thousands if not more people. >> stephen: you're not giving credit to obama for anything very r you? >> i do. >> stephen: how can you advise romney and like anything obama did? (laughter) >> i think when the president does the right thing it doesn't matter what party you're in. >> stephen: but the president has done nothing right in foreign policy, okay? (laughter) bin laden? doesn't count. (laughter) killing al-awlaki doesn't count. qaddafi doesn't count. supporting the arab spring doesn't count. so what else has he done. (laughter) >> he's done some things wrong h. he has a good policy in area, particularly in d

so how does omb come up with numbers that are pretty optimistic? >> well, the cbo assumptions, i think, that you're talking about assumes that none of the president's policies are adopted. in fact, the '01 and '03 tax cuts disappear both for the middle class and the upper -- the wealthiest. so i think the cbo is based on current law, and therefore, is a projection that isn't reflective of the kind of policies that we would agree on, even if we don't agree on all of them. >> probably not any of them. >> well, i don't think any of us are looking to increase taxes on the middle class, for example. so the cbo assumption would have that. so i think you really are comparing apples and oranges. >> thank you. i yield back. >> guess what, time has expired. hearing is adjourned. mr. zeinst, welcome to your first trip to the budget committee. meeting is adjourned. >> thank you.

if you want to, we can go to figure 3, directionally, is it -- >> after two or three -- >> even what omb says that after 2022 we have got a problem. that things begin to deterior e deteriorate. >> i'm in violent agreement with you, just because it doesn't start to grow in the second or third decade-- >> that's where i'm going. >> why would a budget be prepared that would kick the can down the road. let's say it's 2065 and your granddaughter has just been elected to be secretary of the treasury? how are you going to tell her to finance this? >> i hope for her sake that she's not. i think we fought a very hard fight to lock in reforms that on c cbo -- that would grow over time too. we're making a difference on that process. >> okay. >> and if we can find a way, we got to go beyond that, we would be happy to do that. our problem is that the way you have laid out to do that, in our judgment would shift too much of the burden to a middle income reti retiree. >> how would you fix this? these are your projections. >> so what i would do is i would lock in a sustainable outcome for the next decad

. >> his former omb director said he had not supported people tax cut being extended. president obama signed it and it was passed with a good bipartisan support. as it relates to your specific question, the senate rejected that. it was not part of the senate bill. the idea we will add it back in was never going to fly. >> treasuries secretary geithner came out and said that he is fine with the extension for another 10 months, but no more. i know things depend on unemployment and all of that. do you think we will have this battle again in november? >> we have a lot of things at the end of the year that have to be addressed. that is one of them. we have a sequestration that automatically kicks in because of the debt ceiling vote from last august. i read today that we are going to bump the debt ceiling again before the end of the year. we are going to have the election. democrats have not passed a budget in the senate for more than 1000 days. it looks like we will have a continuing resolution. someone made the point earlier that the lame duck will have more activity than

before i joined omb i spent my entire time in the private sector. one thing i found that was often helpful to boil things down to a few slides and given that the budget is small volumes and hundreds of pages, i thought that approach would work well today. i'm going to cover for topics. first, the current policy baseline. next, i will cover the key elements of deficit reduction. then an overview of our investments in the area that is central to our competitiveness and growth. finally, the bottom line of the president's budget and how it puts us on a sustainable path. first, the baseline. we believe we have a baseline that accurately reflects our current policy. in essence, this baseline is business as usual. the baseline includes the extension of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in the estate and gift taxes. it has the permanent extension of the empty -- amt and sgr. permanent extension makes more sense than patching these year after year. it has the enforcement of the bca caps and the joint committee sequester. we're accounting for future disaster costs r

i also want you to know that president obama's proposal, much of which we have incorporated, the omb estimate is that it saves $500 million over ten years. >> over ten years. >> yes. >> was the billion each year, so that's about $50 million a year, so maybe 5% reduction in cost. does that sound about right? you said 500 -- >> $500 million over ten years. >> that was the obama administration's estimate for across the board savings. >> across the board. >> we actually believe that this proposal will save more than that. although it hasn't been financially estimated yet. >> right. >> and actually, in that regard, we're kind of giving something to the supercommittee as it does its work to try to bring this back in balance. >> keep in mind, the postal employees are disproportionately represented in that poll. that's why there are more savings that will accrue to the postal service. >> right. >> further debate? hearing none, senator carper, would you like to respond? >> mr. chairman, in the case of reductions at retirement age, i find that 38 states do not have any reduction at retirement

with all those extensions, revenues are headed higher than their historic average according to cbo and omb puts revenues higher as a share of gdp from 2014 onward. i have three question s if you could answer them. considering the taxes are heading higher than where they have been historically, should we really be raising them even more as the president proposes in his budget? secondly, secondly has the president abandon his position that revenue should be less than 18.2% of gcht dp in his budget third, is he committed to keeping the size of government permanently higher given that spending is a share of gdp as averaged over 24%, a share, the size of which we have not seen since 1946, at the end of the second is world war and projected to remain above 22%, which is four percentage points higher than had -- than when president bush left office. >> this the budget, the revenue as shares of gdp is prompted over 19% over the window. it's not clear how they get there. that makes us recognize that refuse will need to be higher than their historic levels, that is because of the costs produced by t

. >> now, i understand that the new source performance standards are currently being reviewed by omb. can you tell me if the standards will apply to modified sources? yes, or no? >> sir, it's not a good idea for me to speculate on rules that are in review. i would ask that we wait until those rules are out for public comment. they'll go through full public comment. we have endeavored to be reasonable. >> you can understand that our people have a great deal of concern on this matter. >> thank you. at this time, recognize the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm concerned about the efforts being undertaken at u.s. epa to supplant state regulators as the primary regulators in a number of issues. particularly where the states have been sole regulators for decad decades. i'm proud of my folks in nebraska. they've done a fine job. since this is a budget hearing, it strikes me as if the federal government were going push the states aside so it with occupy the regulatory field in way it never has that you're going need lots of new bodies in you

you came late with respect to running omb, to preparing this budget. and you've got a very tough job ahead of you. with the departure of jack, you got thrown in at a late moment. so i want to tell you first before i get into this, thank you for serving our country. you came from a successful private sector career back to government. so we aplau that. the problem is, you're in the position of defending a budget that essentially dodges the most difficult challenges our country faces. "the new york times" reported that this budget is "more a platform for the president's re-election campaign than a legislative proposal." after a careful review of this budget, it's hard to disagree. the associated press quotes this budget as "takes a pass on raining in government growth." and it breaks the president's promise to quut the deficit in half. abc news reported this budget does not come close. we heard a lot of excuses from this administration for why the president broke his promise. but what we have not heard is any semblance of accountability. to the best of my

turned out to be nothing after the obama administration said you don't have to subpoena anyone, the ombs free to come testify anytime you wish. back to you. >>> thank you, scott. tomorrow, the world will look on as friends and family say their final good-bye to whitney houston. at 9:00 our time, that's pacific time, mourners will gather at houston's childhood church in her hometown of newark, new jersey, for a private funeral service. among those invited houston's ex-husband bobbi brown, kevin costner, her co-star in "the bodyguard" and oprah winfrey. clive davis will speak at tomorrow's funeral. houston's god mother, aretha franklin, will perform. the service will be live stream on the web at 9:00 pacific time. we'll have a link to watchç itn our website, logon to nbc bay area.com. >>> coming up, 4,000 passengers left high and dry after an airline suddenly goes belly up. >>> ah, the life of a hamster. coming up, we take you live to the south bay for the travel and adventure show. certainly living up to its name th m andcoore r that and more coming up in a live report. ♪ [ male announc

. >> let me take you to -- you mentioned omb. every budget cycle is give and take, obviously, between the white house and the pentagon at the end of the day and we're told by numerous foablgs that, for example, the pentagon -- the the white house did get involved, told the navy you guys have to keep one more carrier. there was a cost issue. it was a military pay increase that had to be covered at the end of the day. how much of this budget is your budget and how much of the rkr$gon÷"e#oh the white house in every budget session. we do what's called a concurrent review. it's unusual in government, but they actually have people sitting in on our fall review, the office of management and budget staff, we brief the national security staff. this year was probably more far reaching because the changes were more far reaching. i'm not going to discuss the specifics of the predecision issues that were considered, but i can tell you the white house is always and should be, it's the president's budget that we're submitting, they should be in

last week the office omb said law would not be fully implemented until, can you believe it, december 2014. in the absence of final guidance companies cannot prepare to comply with the law, cms does not seem to be taking this seriously or working to implement the law with any sense of urgency. your agency has implemented many other provisions of the health care reform law already. just think of all the ones you've already put out. the longer you delay the provision, the longer consumers will have to wait to learn about financial relationships between their doctors, drug and medical device companies. how can you wait until december 2014 to issue a final regulation when the law requires companies to begin reporting information march 2013. >> i want to clarify. the final rule -- the rule has been finalized and is out and available. we are talking about a timetable for reporting. this is a balancing act. i share concerns about relationships that may influence their health care provider's decision. health care providers are concerned that additional reporting requirements may impede their

whether that's a likely partat that's the end-point of the distribution and also again about the of the omb delay in submitting the budget. >> yes, i'm sorry. on the economic question, this2 30, the upper right corner for gdp. we show the effect on gdp on the output made in this country from minus 2.1%, to plus 0.2%. so what that means is the buyer modeling under certain sets of assumptions, it's possible the gdp would be slightly higher in 2022. however, it's important to understand the limitations of that estimate. the first is the point i made which is that we'll be possibly producing a little more here. but the larger share of the return to that production will be going overseas. so the standard of living of americans, based much more on gnp will be down in 2022 for any of the range of assumptions we use. moreover, the table went out further, what you would see is even that plus 0.2 in the upper right corner disappear and become negative. >> there's a certain year where it would be negative? >> yes. and the reason for that is there are essentially two opposing, opposing forces at work h

we're following omb fiscal guidance which did not anticipate the sequester.those dollars in mind, how did we get there? next slide. we -- i will go through each of them. starting with more disciplined use of our defense dollars. we made a number of proposals for more disciplined use adding up to $60 billion in savings. that is five years savings against last year's plan. these are the numbers that are adding toward a $259 billion. linnik -- made a number of proposals reducing expenses by terminating lower priority programs, by reductions in contract funding. i will not go through all of these. i will talk in a few moments about some forestructure cuts. we rephased cuts. better buying practices. we are doing a number of things in that area. setting goals for weapons systems earlier in their development. more use of should costs as well as the will costs. better management of service contracts. a major area where we can do better. we will try to improve information and achieve audit readiness. these are general plans and commitments. same situation we were in l

and last week the office omb said law would not be fully implen

congressman, the better approach, and i say this not so much as secretary of defense, but as a former omb director and chairman of the house budget committee, the better approach would have been for congress, both republicans and democrats and the president to sit down and develop a comprehensive deficit reduction package. >> mr. secretary, i understand that. but i'm talking as far as the strategy, wouldn't it have been a better approach to do it in the manner i just delineated. >> that would have been nice, but we$480 billion. >> i understand. but wouldn't that have been the better approach? >> of course. >> the point of fact as you mentioned, that approach wasn't what you took. what we did was give you $470 billion of cuts. and you were forced to create a strategy that worked within the parameters of those cuts, is that correct? >> that's right. >> and then based on that, mr. secretary, isn't it true that it would be virtually impossible for you, or anyone else testifying on behalf of this budget, to delineate for us the portion of that strategy that was driven by those budget cuts vers

and we took documentation that we ran through the omb that

you're now in charge of omb. and you're an important emissary and member of this administration. i understand perfectly well from discussions with cbo over many years, from hearings over many years, that because of the nature of the reform that's required it's not something that is actuarially scorable. it is hard to calculate a score for how this works. in certain very well developed areas like hospital readmissions, we have been able to calculate marrow, sort of pinpoint scores. but as a general proposition, we're embarked in what is called an experiment in innovation and it's hard to see around corners of innovation. the fact that you cannot calculate a score does not mean that you cannot set a goal. and i will continue to urge this administration to move beyond the standard it has set for itself of bending the healthcare cost curve which to me is a metric free standard and try as the different elements in the affordable care act get implemented as we learn more about this, as success out of kaiser and intermountain and gunderson and lutheran as as they prove with real savings

madam administrator, i understand the new source performance standards are currently being reviewed by omb. can you tell me if the standards will apply to modified sources? yes or no? >> sir, it's not a good idea for me to speculate on rules that are still in review. i would ask that we wait until the rules are out for public comment. they will go through full public comment. i can tell you that we have endeavored to be reasonable and to reflect the fact that technology is limited for existing sources. >> you can understand that our person have a great deal of concern on this matter. thank you for your courtesy. >> thank you. this time, i recognize the gentleman from nebraska mr. terry for five minutes. >> thank you. madam administrator, i'm concerned about the efforts being undertaken at u.s. epa to supplant state rec regulators on a number of environmental issues particularly where states have been the sole regulators for decades. quite frankly, i'm proud of my folks in nebraska and i think they have done a nine job. since this is a budget hearing it strikes me as if the federal governme

calculating the impact the change in life for accounting methods in terms of the revenue sides has omb calculated. the other implications, economically, of that change including the possible death of some businesses in the country. >> right. on the lifo, that disproportionately benefits oil and gas producers who have record profits. there was a lot of game that can go on through that lifo system. the treasury secretary is the point person on specifics around individual tax policies. so i'll have to defer to geithner on the calculation and how cost to benefits are weighed. >> i appreciate that. i have raised that with secretary geithner as well. quick question. when i'm home this weekend and anymore costco, mr. simpson says people don't care about it. if i'm walking through costco and kroger or someplace and a citizen says, why should i care whether this is a -- the deficit, debt, percentages of gdp as opposed to nominal numbers, whether it's the $11 trillion here in this calculation or in the republican budget that was passed last year, the $6 trillion, why does that matter to the aver