under current law and what we're proposing a dollar for dollar increases ared t compared to sequestration and 's rig what would happen in the years after dthat. io >> in searched on active duty. i'm still in the reserves. very important to me and my constituents. is there anything in the budget an related to base closures domestically? >> so we are calling for a bipartisan effort to create another brak commission that would look at potential for saving -- for savings in the defense department budget through a process that's been used a number of times before, i think successfully to make some hard decisions about where we locate our armed forces. >> thank you. on the first day of the 114th dy congress the house passed a so on rule change that requires day, dynamic scoring.. i don't think this is a part san issue. as you know, the concept is we should take into account the second order affects of how ld tak people do governmental changes. both democrats and republicans for example have supported the research and development tax show credit because studies show t thatinvest if you invest in r&d yo

s. however, the world was more stable than it is now. and i think sequestration will set us on the same course. as the general said, i don't think we need to go there again. shipbuilding also also will suffer from a sequestration environment. companies, not necessarily the big prize, but the companies that make the key vessels, and the things that put together the ship. the critical infrastructure is key to seapower. so mr. chairman, i understand that the -- the pressing need for our nation to get our fiscal house in order. it is imperative that we do so in order to retain the trust of our people. and to suss sustain the appropriate war fighting capability for your navy and forward presence and its readiness. unless naval forces are properly sized, modernized, at the right pace with regard to the adversary that we might have, ready to deploy with the adequate training and equipment and capable to respond in the numbers that the speed -- that is required by the combatant commanders, they won't be able to answer the call. i look forward to working with this committ

want to move five c130's out of a base somewhere, the local congress member goes crazy and tries to block it. if we are not going to get pentagon the money and not end sequestration and tell them we can't make cuts and we can't offer any as a reasonable alternative, then it lines up leaving the pentagon with no choice but to cut readiness. it's the last thing out there. they spend less money on fuel, ammunition. they repair less equivalent. we wind up with a force that is not ready. -- less equipment. we wind up with a force that is not ready. we should have a bra for examplec. we cannot offer no alternatives and leave the pentagon in a very bad spot. unfortunately, i don't see any evidence of that pattern changing at this point. leo: what is your prediction for sequestration this year? do you have any confidence a deal can be reached before that deadline? rep. smith: it is quite possible. i overheard two republican colleagues talking. one takes the position that, look, the white house is the white house. yes, we took the senate, but the president hasn't gone anywhere. we don't have a veto-proof majority. we should be talking about how to come up with a budget th

s i guess the soviet union but it is not easy to do that now. with the u.s. military is facing right now. is not an easy solution to meet those ends with full sequestration is a difficult problem to solve. >> one last question about the south china sea. we will have a lot of participation in soon but this is said good place to bring it together. what is the u.s. role of the south china sea? talk about the u.s. presence to be important but you are not necessarily gauging the u.s. military how to win the war, maybe that is a consideration but not your main consideration? what is the military and diplomacy trying to do their? >> we do have a defense treaty with the philippines but it was signed before from the south china is the edible leaves u.s. government has ever said we agree with the philippines. one could question why a and 2015 since the cold war is long over, we have planned very carefully. it is not a game in the south china sea. we don't back any nations claims. readers ever ready to resolve differences peacefully but we will not stand by to except any attempts to interfere with navigation and. but that's that china has published that beijing has

want to move five c-130's out of a base somewhere, the local member of congress goes crazy and tries to block it. if we are not going to get pentagon the money and not end sequestration and tell them we can't make cuts and we can't offer any as a reasonable cut as an alternative, then it winds up leaving the pentagon with no choice but to cut readiness. it's the last thing out there. they spend less money on fuel, ammunition. they repair less equipment. we wind up with a force that is not ready. we cannot offer no alternatives and leave the pentagon in a very bad spot. unfortunately, i don't see any evidence of that pattern changing at this point. i hope it will, but i have not seen that evidence yet. leo: what is your prediction for sequestration this year? do you have any confidence a deal can be reached before that deadline? representative smith: it is quite possible. i won't name names here. i overheard two republican colleagues talking. one takes the position that, look, the white house is the white house. yes, we took the senate, but the president hasn't gone anywhere. we don't have a veto-proof majority. we should be talking about how to come up with a budget

sequestration, fully reversing it matched by equal dollar increases for defense. if you dig through the budget to your tables and the table that i'm referring to is on page 132-s-10 that show the discretionary cap changes over the budget window, you show in your rhetorical gains for defense that are early that are taken back in the out years. after 2021 you propose reductions in defense and nondefense categories. interestingly, however the reductions for defense are almost $100 billion larger than the nondefense reductions. as you can see on the slide. and over the entire budget window, you proposed an increase for defense above the caps of $9 billion but an increase for nondefense of $102 billion. so, mr. donovan, i would ask you how do you account for this mismatch in the president's words and his action as demonstrated in the budget? >> congressman what we've done is to look at the six years replainingre remaining of sequestration and in each of those years to add back dollar for dollar relative to the baseline which is obviously based on current expected law. so the critical point that we are making is that we ought to be particularly given that discretionary

sequestration. as we know, not long ago, some were predicting that the president's policies would explode our deficit. a little history, though makes clear that the opposite is true. in the 1990's, i oversaw three budget surpluses in the -- in a row. when this administration took office, there was a very different reality. after years of runaway spending, including cap -- tax cuts for the very wealthy, and then the financial crisis are deficit reached a post-world war ii high. with his balance, economic approach, the agreements spurts forth from congress and the deficit has fallen by almost record is. the downturn since the. of demobilization since world war ii. the deficit is forecasted to decline even further in the next year. we will lower the deficit is to about 2.5% of the ten-year budget window. our nation's improved financial footing has occurred even as congress was forced to do -- still, nothing has been done to address these dangers cuts in 2016. without congressional action, funding for our national defense and keep out is like education and research will be severely cut back. the president's budget provides a path to an sequestration. in other words, a chart a speci

sequestration and government shut down.e$+ never once did the administration propose a plan to get the nation's fiscal house in order by recommending reforms to2fó]h@0ù2qñ entitlements. the =Ñjwc"ñ medicare truste, s we need to work together to save our entitlement programs and make them sustainable. we ask that you work with us. another subject you may also remember in early november of [bslast year we spoke on the phone about why hhs hasu to hold california ((sq under federal law. as you know on august 22nd 2014, the california department of managed health care issued a directive mandating that :hçl)i all plans under dmhc authority immediately includezqc all legalv:áq blaabortions.nrj this is in direct violation of the amendment, civil rights 4÷8÷ statute tfk;ñt prohibits federalrrçi &háhp &hc% taxpayer funding that discriminates because health Ä qdg entity does not provide pay for providevz$m coverage of refer f/,u what california is doing is clearly illegal. it's also

s it probably would've devastated our country. host: ok. so, stanley, are you ok with that increasing the defense department budget by about $38 billion this year over the sequestration caps, going to those budget control caps, $561 billion expected in fiscal 2016 proposal, ok with that? caller: i'm ok with the increase of the military budget to protect this country, but some of the private armies that we are supporting, like blackwater and stuff like that, i think we should cut their budget because i think they cause is more trouble than our regular servicemen, who have to live by the military code of justice. host: all right. miles is up next in iowa on our line for republicans. good morning. miles, you with us? caller: yes, i'm here. host: go ahead, sir heard caller:. caller: hello? host: you are on "washington journal." go ahead with your comment. caller: i would like to know -- i have social security. yes, i am here. host: turned on your tv could we can hear you. caller: all right, here we go. i've got 1.7% increase on my social security this year. host: ok. caller: how come congress got a 17% increase in their pay raise? let's get real. host: miles, we can talk