and you're proposing we change ron murray to allow you to do so, yes or no? >> senator, we do propose a change in the law that would be fully paid for that would invest in the things that we believe are necessary for the economic health of the nation. >> you're refusing to answer it. i will answer it. the answer is that you're going to spend -- you're asking us to raise the spending limits by changing the ron murray law so you can spend even more than you agreed to spend ten weeks ago. and this is the way a nation goes broke. >> all right. liz, the president noted that she was, as we said, voted in 96-0, she hasn't changed, but have the circumstances changed on capitol hill. it's a different position. does she get to 96-0 this time around? >> highly unlikely. absolutely. more because this is a very controversial appointment. not as much when you get to be director of omb. but everyone knows what the secretary of health and human services does especially with this particular law. democrats can toll 55 votes, even if a few defect. and that is unlikely. i still

and the ron murray bill this year did help. i know you agree. so what i can't understand is this. general odierno, you noted that fy-16 it kicks in again. but this is the way i read the funding levels. this year we're at $496 billion. is that correct? for the dod? do you have that number? >> i deal in army numbers. >> i'm sure that's true. and another thing, we want to be sure the army is fairly treated as you work through this process. but my understanding is in numbers i have is we're spending this year $496 billion for the defense department. next year 2015, defense will get 498. the next year in '16 it will remain flat again. basically goes to 499. but the next year '17, it jumps 13 billion to 512 and increasing $13 billion each year for the next five years. that's under the sequester, under the budget control act. and they're not further cuts. staying flat at a time of low inflation, even low inflation is somewhat squeezing of your budget i acknowledge. but in the years to come, we're showing growth that actually exceeds cbo's projection of inflation. am i wrong about that? >