the e budget you'll be offered the larger republican conference later this week is a really good budget. i much me with at the beginning of the year. and the number that gets a lot of attention is that discretionary spending this de the beginning of this calendar year, everybody expected us to spend 7 trillion. that was the number. the cap for discretionary spending set and the budget verrol act of last year. few people, if anybody up on this stage supported. we thought it was sly worked ve get that number down. the number in the ryan budget is 1028. the931. this has a lot of traction to us for a couple of different reasons. first of all, it is the spending level from last year's budget. the republican study committee actually had a discretionary spending level in this year of about$933 billion. the number, by the way is also the same number year of ryan's budget last year, less than $97 billion. that's a coincidence, but it's true. the number gets you down to 931. 931 is entally again, but just a also the exact same level of discretionary spending the last time nancy pelosi offered a b

budget, by 75%? >> if you're talking about the baseline budget we would not dispute that. of course the baseline has a huge amount of growth going into the medicaid program. it's under current law it's growing 7 or 8% and there's also a beneficiary expansion under the recovery act of about a third. so yes, relative to the expansion there is a large reduction. >> the growth rates -- we won't go there right now. let me ask you with respect to -- there seems to be -- not a discrepancy but there is a difference in the amount of savings you achieve in the bmt in certain functions, and the amount of savings you call for through the reconciliation process. for example, in medicaid, while your budget cuts medicaid by over $800 billion over 10 years, your reconciliation instruction to the energy and commerce committee which has jurisdiction over medicaid is $97 billion. what is the reason for the difference? >> the approach on reconciliation was to replace the sequester. under the chairman's mark, the total discretionary level would be reduced from 1047 to 1028. that's $19 billion.

the president's budget request $525.4 billion in fy-13 for the base budget and $88.5 billion to support the war efforts. in order to be consistent with title one of the budget control act, our fy-13 base budget request had to be roughly $45 billion less than we had anticipated under last yaear's budget plan. over the next five years, defense spending will be $259 billion less than planned for in the fy-12 budget, a difference of nearly 9% and over ten years starting in fy-12 it will be reduced by $487 billion. to meet these new budget targets, and our national security responsibilities, we had to fundamentally reshape our defense spending priorities based on a new strategy. the department of defense has stepped up to the plate. we have met our responsibilities under the budget control act. but with these record deficits, no budget, no budget can be balanced on the back of defense spending alone. based on my own budget experience, i strongly believe that all areas of the federal budget must be put on the table, not just discretionary alone but mandatory spending and, yes, revenues. that

robert green seen it, head of the budget and policy proirts -- priorities, described the republican budget this way and i quote, we likely -- it would likely produce the largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top in modern u.s. history and likely increase poverty and inequality more than any other budget in recent times . now that is not a now that is not a budget that you have a senate that is chaired by the democratic party, majority leader and a democratic president. you are not going to get consensus on that kind of a budget. so this is essentially a statement of purpose and vision by one party. not a document that anybody thinks is going to pass. however, that is a future we simply cannot afford. in fact rkt the republican proposal -- in fact, the republican proposal is not a realistic budget at all, i say to you. nobody believes in its premise that we are going to savage our domestic programs and leave the most vulnerable out in the cold. that's not america. that's not the values we share as a country. this disastrous budget ends the medicare guarantee, increasing co

there are assumptions already built into the budget. some of them go up only a little. >> but the $2 cash fare under the indexing proposal would not go up absent further board action? executive director reiskin: that is correct. there is a rounding requirement. it continues to round down. director heinicke: thank you very much. chairperson nolan: let us hear from the public. >> public comment. vera hale followed by makr gr -- mark frueberg. chairperson nolan: why don't you read the third or fourth. >> cathy hale, revernd lang, jane martin. >> good afternoon. i am vera hale. i am going to encourage you not to increase the senior fair with your indexing. there are several reasons for this. one is that 45,000 elderly and disabled in san francisco have had their ssi checks cut. ssi is only for very low income people that have no more than $2,000 in the bank. the governor has reduced the state share so much that someone who was receiving $907 a month in 2009 lost $76, and now receives $830 a month. they did not get any cost of living. i assum

>> we started in terms of building the budget resolution. started with cbo's cbo has the -- the -- the medicare sequester in its base line. again that would be something the committees would have to deal with in, in, as they go through the process of implementing it. our overall numbers, went assumptions, in terms of what our savings are. >> i did not have an assumption, reconciliation, fixing the sequester. it applies to discretionary sequester. >> okay. income security function 600. before i go there, i want to ask committee if you have any questions now. i can come back to the remainder of it. ms. schwartz. >> thank you. iant to appreciate the ranking member q a couple mai sure i had heard what your answer to a one. because the budget repeels the health law we passed, the affordable care act, the opportunity that is taking place tohe donut hole, prescription drug coverage and seniorsttinefirst ch t$250. know it is $500. this year and gradually w presc drug coverage. because the -- this, the budget assumes repeal of the, the law. that would

i urge my colleagues to oppose the majority's budget, the ryan budget. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: i appreciate the comments of my colleague from california. i know her concern for america's seniors is heartfelt. it's one that i share as well. i hope that she will support this rule that allows for this -- for a series of votes on many different medicare solutions, some solutions are better than others, but even if she opposes the underlying budget i do hope we'll have her support on the rule because we do lay out the opportunity for folks to choose among seven different visions for solving the medicare challenge. i don't have the charts with me down here on the floor, i know my colleagues on the budget committee will bring them during the main debate, i can tell you, mr. speaker, i can picture the charts in my mind, if you charted medicare spending, go

the ryan budget has been released. we have posted that on our side as well, and you can watch the news conference of paul ryan and kent conrad at c-span.org. live to the house floor on c- span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our guest chaplain, reverend andrew walton, capitol hill presbyterian church, washington, d.c. reverend walton. the chaplain: let us pray. on the day when leaders of irish and american nations meet and celebrate common heritage and mutual drains, may our spirits be united in the one spirit. may this day bring the memory of shared anguish and struggle to stir appreciation for times when comfort and peace are our companions. may this day awaken within us wonder and imagination that inspire us beyond the confines of routine and ritual. may the contemptations -- contemplations, conversations, and decisions of the day be undergirded by wise thoughts, kind words, and humane actions. may we find god-given goodness within ourselves and within those whom we

the medicaid budget. by the tenth year. and mr. chairman, to say that you're doing that in order to repair, as this thing says, to repair the services safety net, i think people are going to be hard-pressed to understand how cutting it by one-third, a program we all know is already underfunded, is somehow repairing it. just say that this budget, it doesn'toesn't be in 20 years. and when you look at the out ye important that members keep in y clearly in the letter they sent to the chairman, that it's not based on a cbo analysis of policies that are in this plan. it's notact, b'm just going to exactly from cbo letter so we all understand. it says, those calculations, meaning those in the cbo reporte for legislation or analysis of the effects of any given policies. has not considered whe specified paths are consistent with the policyes released today chairman ryan as part of his budget resolution. they are based on the figures specified by the chairman and his staff. and i'm going to close with this point, mr

because the president never brings the budget to balance, by the end of this ten-year budget window, the president will be proposing to spend more money on interest than he does on veterans benefits or unem ploit. hi proposed to spend more on interest than medicaid. almost twice as much on interest than all nondiscretionary spending put together. that includes education and public safety. twice as much money on interest as on those things. and almost nearly as much money on interest as on medicare and/or defense. is that a plan for the future? is that really the country that we want to live in where we're spending that much money on interest payments for the deficits that we've run up during these years? our budget will spend a quarter trillion more on medicare than on interest in 2022. almost a quarter million more on medicare than on interest in 2022. you'll hear allegations that we are cutting medicare, that we are ending medicare. it's the republican plan that spend more money on medicare than it does on interest because we get our spending under control. that's what you can expec

the house republican budget would save more than $5 trillion ecade when compared to the president's budget and would do so without relying on the tax hikes that the president th solutions in this budget that puts us on a path to and full rf the president'sas a physician, that the health care law is a threat to thrdabity, to the accessibility, and to the quality of health care in our country. to pct health care that we hold dear, our budget includes patient-centered health reforms that empower individuals and eigovernment, to make health care decisions. our budget saves and improves and strengthens medicare by empowering seniors to choose from a less of guaranteed, mr. chairman -- i want my colleagues to hear this -- guaranteed coverage options. including traditional medicare. democrat colleagues do is to raid medicare of nearly $700 billion while providing no mechanism to pay this without structural reforms, the only option left to harness the skyrocketing costs inent ice co. not surprisingly, the president intends to implement that through the independent payment advisory board. the presi

we are the budget committee. when the acting director of the congressional -- of the omb was here the other day, the chairman criticized him and the administration for taking -- for saying as part of this budget we got the $487 billion worth of cuts saying that that was stuff that congress did on a bipartisan basis. today the chairman's criticizing the administration for taking those same budget cuts in this as part of this budget and savings. you just can't have it both ways. i would also point out that in addition to the security cuts made as part of the budget control act, we took very deep cuts over the next ten years in nondefense discretionary spending. those items are also on the chopping block as part of sequestration. i just would note historical note that in designing the sequester, the offer was made to our republican colleagues to say instead of having these particular defense cuts as part of sequester, we can get rid of a lot of special interest tax loopholes. they chose -- they chose to put the defen

the budget4all, not a budget for the 1% or a budget for 99%. we want the 1% to live in a good nation, fairness, economic opportunity, economic opportunity, good roads, clean water, clean air, we want this for everyone. the budget four all, more than $2.4 trillion in job creating investment. this utilizes everything to get our improvement again, a park improvement corps, student job corps and others, target tax incentives that spur clean energy, technological investment in the private sector, widespread domestic investment including infrastructure bank, $566 billion surface transportation bill, unlike what they tried to pass today, which is a three-month extension. mr. speaker, can you believe it, the republican caucus is going on and on with uncertainty and what did they do? created uncertainty by passing a three-month transportation bill. it boggles the mind, actually. and back to the budget for all, $1.7 trillion in the widespread budget. it does so in a way that does not devastate what americans value. we achieve these notable benchmarks by f

we follow the entire budget, or down. to provide feedback early before it comes to us. the one to think -- i want to thank it for being here and presenting. >> thank you and i appreciate you moving this forward so we did have an opportunity for this hearing to take place before we finalize the budget and submit it for the board's consideration. the first opportunity to consider it will be next tuesday, april 3. they could take action to approve at that meeting or could continue the item for the second meeting in august. even could continue and create a special may meeting before the end of the month but we need to get the budget back submitted to city hall by may 1. just to settle -- said context, back at the beginning of this calendar year, the sfmta board adopted the six-year strategic plan. if you could go to this line, it is a fairly straightforward plan that establishes a vision which is san francisco, a great city, excellent transportation choices which reflects alesci as the importance of the transportation system t

on the budget through the tribal interior budget council. and through this informed consultation with tribes, we included in this budget request $43.8 million in program increases in priority areas such as contract support costs, rights protection implementation and law enforcement. and chairman icaca, there are some -- the indian affairs 2013 budget request continues to provide funding for two of the department's priority initiatives, strengthening tribal nations and a new energy frontier. this budget request seeks an increase of $43.8 million for strengthening tribal nations. within this initiative, we plan to advance nation to nation relationships by seeking $12.3 million in program mattic increaskreecreases in continued the navajo gallop water project. we also plan to continue protecting indian country by seeking an additional $11 million in public safety funding. with that increase, $3.5 million will go towards hiring traditional tribal and affairs law enforcement personnel and 6.5 milli$6.5 million will pay increases. this request also

in the federal budget. according to wegmann ferguson of the financial historian, the fall of great nations is the result of their excess of debt burdens, and their path to decline defense spending is always the first casualty. failure by the administration to deal honestly with the drivers of debt specifically when it comes to government spending on health care is a failure that internals economic security and now our national security. with the call for the debt and the kremlin out of defense my entitlement spending the president's budget and my personal opinion charts a path to decline. in addition to examining the defense reductions in the president's budget i hope today's hearing in forms of the consequences to the security the would result from the cuts under the budget control act sequester. congress has a solemn obligation to ensure our troops fighting overseas have the resources the need to successfully complete emissions and adhere to our commitment to their service upon their return. every citizen

for usec within the nonproliferation budget request. i hope to hear from you and others in the department why when couples with a transfer authority request for fiscal year 2012 the department believes providing you with 300 million dollars in taxpayer money is a good investment and not a bailout. mr. secretary, i do look forward to hearing from you today about the fiscal year 2013 budget request that will help address energy and national security challenges. none of us will always agree. but certainly as we remember this subcommittee on long standing know that we can work through our differences in a cooperative and bipartisan fashion. and, again, mr. chairman, i appreciate you yielding the time. >> thank you very much. chairman of the full committee is recognized. mr. rogers? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you and your ranking member for doing great work over here. you're doing good. mr. secretary, happy birthday. happy anniversary. welcome. this week the national average price for a gallon of gas is $3.60. it's up 20 cents over las

the budget which analyst the did the budget analyst did do a report on the department of public health and 20 -- in 2003. my own department was involved in that report. i would like to recommend that the 2003 report be read before the audit plan is done so you will have an idea of what to look for in order to save money. secondly, i was very impressed by the three previous speakers. for the record, this committee is supposed to be a watchdog, not a lap dog. hopefully, we continue that tradition with the current makeup. for the record, dereliction of duty, abuse of power under the color of authority. let's put it this way, everybody knows that san francisco is a mountain to climb if you are trying to fix certain things. the only way you'll get it fixed is to put people on notice, so they cannot say they were not aware of it. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> i have no specific objection to the three priorities for the work plan. i do think it is good for the unit not to duplicate efforts. i had to other ideas that either could be audits or handled in another fashion. one is the

the navy budget request is for $155.9 billion. a decrease of $1.4 billion from last year. this is just under three hours. >> good morning, everybody. we want to welcome secretary mabus and admiral and general to the committee this morning to testify on the plans and programs of the department of the navy and our review of the fiscal year 2013 annual budget and overseas contingency operations request. we greet admiral as he makes his first appearance before the committee as chief of naval operations. we want to wish general amos good health as he returns from the flight surgeon. you look terrific. you really do. we all know about what you have come through with flying colors. we greet you. we are delighted you are here and looking so fit. we are grateful to each of you for your service to our nation and for the valorous and the service to the men and women with whom you serve. we are very grateful, also, to their families, knowing the vital role that families play in the success of careers and missions of our armed forces. two recent changes make the defense budget challengi

the general outlines of the budget resolution. i think from talking to the minority staff the thought was . we'd be happy to review the overall mark -- >> in the interests of time why don't we turn it over to questions? mr. van hollen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and my colleagues, this is our opportunity to ask specific questions related to the budget. and i'm going to start off, mr. chairman, with some. and i think everyone should understand that we received a copy of this budget just 24 hours, 24 hoursago. and i know that that procedure was similar to the procedure before. i hope going forward we can me whether you're republican or democrat that when you're talking about the budget of the united states of america everyone should have than 24 hours before they're convened at a session not only to debate it but to vote on it. anyway, i'm just again who may we've only had 24h as a result f we have some questions about what is contained in this documeve.es. in your resolution revenues are $200 billion below the current policy baseli

this is the breakdown of our budget by category. the main point for this slide is to show you that the bulk of our funds continues to go to community-based organizations, approximately 66% of our budget goes to cbo's. 27% of the budget goes to department to work orders to provide direct services to children, and families. a 11% goes to operation support. operations support includes things such as evaluation and assessment, capacity building and technical assistance for our community based organizations. so, that concludes the portion of my budget presentation portion. i wanted to take the opportunity to share with members of the budget and finance committee our children's services are 2013- 2016 children's allocation plan. unless there are any questions? >> [inaudible] >> so, one of the key provisions of the children's amendment, the charter amendment that increased the department, is for us to have a three-year planning process. last year, many of 2011, became before the board of supervisors to present our community needs assessment

year, then we have a real growth in the defense budget. we do not assume reductions in the defense budget in the outyears. we assume those savings are achieved in non-defense programs. >> if i could for clarification. you're showing in your function tables as you go out for 10 years, you are showing a certain level of spending but you're also showing levels of spending in the other functions. >> yes. >> you have this allowance at the end, $900 billion. is there anything in your budget that says that defense spending would remain at the same level in all of those functions any more than any other function? >> if you look at the baseline, it has very, very large savings already. that was our starting point in terms of marking up a budget. i think our additional savings are on the order of $200 billion. we did assume specific savings that are difficult to distribute in the individual functions from attrition in the federal work force. i believe the pay freeze we have those savition in function 920. there are sf unspecified savings. they are no

to my knowledge, we do not have any planned in the budget. however, it is up to the individual chiefs on wide education that they want for their individual sections. so what would be up to the chief to provide that an additional education. commissioner hechanova: additional questions? comments? i also want to add here, pam, terrific job that you have done. the category that i would also like to ask is on the proposed organizational chart that is currently proposed relative to what is being amended and all the appointments from the first, second, and fifth floors, and the appointments that director day has recommended, i fully endorse. the category of that action will be in lieu of being covered within the budget. am i correct? >> well, actually, having tom go into this as acting deputy director for permit services, that is a budgeted position. and the of the people that are put in acting are all budgeted positions. so it is always in the budget. commissioner hechanova: thank you. i just wanted that clarification. >> i also want to thank my sta

moving quickly on to the capital budget. is this one of those things where we have to have public comment? >> quickly, to give you an overview of the capital budget, you had already approved the 20-year capital plan, unconstrained. where we are for the next step forward is the five-year capital improvement program, constrained, meaning that we have to balance the programs that we put forthwith the revenues available. from that five-year picture, we get to our two year budget, which will come to you along with the operating budget in april. in terms of sources, this is where you will see the potential impact from the activity happening right now in washington, d.c., on us. we are fairly heavily reliant on federal formula funds, for example, for much of our transit capital improvements. if that were to significantly change, some of those proposals seem to be leaning towards the back, moving forward to maintain what we have. you will see that there are a number of other local state and funding sources for the proposed city oblig

the budget challenge the budget is solving for is $3.7 million. i do want to note while we are submitting a two-year budget, i fully expect we will be back before the commission next year, discussing the budget and making changes to that budget, based on better information about revenue and expenses. even though we will be in a two- year budget cycle, we will be revising the second year. it is not set in stone. as we have gone through the budget balancing process, we have tested these principles and kept them in mind. we have actually come up in the course of conversation as we have been making trade-off decisions about the budget. they have definitely guided our decisions. we have done out reach about the budget and proposed solutions. we have had to community budget meetings. we have been to the commission, of course. we had a positive staff meeting about the budget and we have been talking about with park advocates, particularly with the parks alliance. i presented the budget last week and we do in fact have an e-mail address citizens can use to

the c.b.c. budget significantly reduces our deficit while increasing economic opportunities and promoting job creation in every corner of our society. great deficit reduction is about making tough choices but the path to fiscal responsibility must not be on the backs of our most vulnerable communities. our budget makes those tough choices but doesn't jeopardyize social security. the fundamental choice we have to make is the choice between millionaires and medicare. the c.b.c. budget extends the bush-era tax cuts only for the hard-working middle class americans and pays this through tax reform by closing loopholes detering speculation in the stock market, the speculation that created the crisis and the recent gas price increase and millionaires who benefited most from tax cuts and bailouts in the last decade contribute their fair share. with additional revenues, it restores funding that were cut. we cancel the sequester for security and nonsecurity programs. we match the democratic alternative on defens

laws to reduce the budget. and so what our budget does is it shows precisely how we will get this budget under control and get our debt levels under control. at the end of the day, it's all about growth. it's about growing opportunities , growing the economy, lifting the debt, restoring economic freedom, reforming the tax code so that we can help have our economy reaches full potential. it's about turning our system that has become a dependent culture into an upward mobile society, getting people back into lives of self-sufficiency. if our economy grows even faster than what we produce here the results are all that much better. before i close i would like to thank my colleagues in the budget committee for all the hard work we have put together in putting this budget together. i want to thank senator jeff sessions for his lead in the senate. i am hoping to call and chairman next year. and at its core of want to basically cut say this. this plan of action is about putting an end to end to promises from bankrupt go

the ryan budget plan was talked about all over the weekend. details coming in today. it's a budget blueprint that would essentially change the tax code. it would collapse it from six individual tax brackets to two. one at 25%, that would be the top tax rate and then 10% which would be the lower rate. it would also cut taxes significantly. it would reduce revenue to the government by about $4 billion trl over the next decade and it deals with entitlement programs dealing with medicare and medica medicaid. a quick rebuttal from democrats both on capitol hill and the white house. the white house communications director saying that this plan would balance the budget on the backs of senior citizens. paul ryan was taking questions. >> just a few minutes ago, john morrison said this is deja vu all over again. we look at this concrete plan. most people aren't going to sit down and read this. >> come on, go to www.budget.gov and you can down load this yourself. >> most people are going to hear a 0-second ad and they're going to say oh, my gosh, they want to cut medicare. >> if

this is not just here, but in so many of the aspects of the budget. think the consequence of that is we are really going the already vulnerable pediatric health care work force. let me get to my second question on cosmetic user fees. the president's budget for the fda includes a user fee that would address cosmetic safety. that covers activities relating to the establishment of registration fees, set cosmetic standards and sampling of domestic products. myself and mr. dingell and others are promoteing the listing of products requiring the safety of cosmetic products and adverse reporting and giving the fda to recall cosmetic products. it is obvious the administration believes the program is in need of resources because your budget includes fees for activities like registration and standard setting. if we adopt my proposal and add on more regulations, do you agree there is a greater need for additional fees? that is my question. >> mr. pallone we share your interest in this important area. i think the fees in the budget would support according to the f

wld , the president's budgetou defici reduction. all the other government agencies here at the federal ne increases during this challenging time. but it is defense that the president has indicated he wants to see bear all the cuts. our federal government's highest io to secure the common defense of the aic and we need to make sure we're preser hedged against future threats. we have recognized that the world hasn't gotten any safer in recent years in o in contrast, the president's budget, he ance budget figures for defense and other areas at the same time h w for our defense posture. the timing is uncanny. it seems to budgetary exercise, not a strategy-driven exercise. i would just say,hinko this is a where the federal government can make some the quarterly, every four year quad ren yell defensethink that robust document that should ultimately drive our defense spending. in the absence of an administration that is prepared to lay out a morenspolicy i thi taken a very responsible defense approach in this budget. i yield back. >> thank

the president's budget requests 525 billion in fy13 for the base budget and 88 and a half billion to support the war effort. in order to be consistent with title one of the budget control act our fy13 base budget request had to be roughly $45 billion less than we had anticipated under last year's budget plan. over the next five years of defense spending will be 259 billion last than planned for in the fy budget, a difference of nearly 9%. in a virginia starting in the flight 12 and we will be reduced by four and 87 billion. to make these budget targets and then as a security responsibility we have to fundamentally reshape our defense spending priorities based on any strategy. as department of defense, they stepped up to the plate, that our responsibilities and the budget control act. no budget can be balanced on the back of defense spending alone. based on my own budget experience i strongly believe that all areas of the federal budget must be put on the table, not just discretionary alone, but mandatory spending and revenues. that is the responsible way to reduce deficits and a respo

>>> there may not be any compromise on the budget. but you'll see the two top democrats and two top republicans talking about the details. you may only hear from the pundits but tonight you will hear from the american people. this is fox news special and it's coming up now. >> standing in front of 20 republicans who are going to be voting in the republican primary shout out to the american people who you want to win the nomination. okay, clearly it's still not determined. who do you support and why? >> romney. >> because? >> his decisions on the different issues match how i feel. >> who are you supporting? >> i support romney. >> who are you supporting? >> ron paul, only man of principle and the only one who will stop these crazy foreign adventures. >> ron paul. >> who are you supporting and why? >> newt gingrich. i think he is very experienced. i think maybe the reason he is not a favorite in the republican party is because he a renegade. >> rick santorum because he is a social conservative. >> one more. >> he is genuine. he is for re

year and we have a real growth in the defense budget. we do not assume any reductions in the defense budget in the out years. we assume those savings are achieved in non-defense programs bett. >s. >> you are showing and your function tables going out tenures, you show a certain level of spending but you're also showing levels of spending in all the other functions, right? >> yes, sir. >> yet you have this allowance of $900 million. is there anything in your budget that says defense spending would remain at the same levels? >> if you look at the baseline, it has a large savings already. that was our starting point in terms of marking up the budget. our additional savings are about $200 billion. we assumed success of the savings that are difficult to distribute -- we assume specific savings that are difficult to distribute in the federal work force. we have those settings and function 920 because they are difficult to distribute across the functions but there are savings but they're not as large as the $900 billion. >> i gather that the pro

and for 2013 the budget would reduce that to 527. looking at the rising number of compensation claims, recommend that vba be provided sufficient funding for an authorized workforce of -- in fiscal year 2013 of 585 time employee equivale equivalent. to enact legislation to finally end the inequitable prohibition on all disabled veterans. and eliminate between the survivors benefit plan and the dependents compensation for veterans widows and dependents. this concludes my statement. i'd be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, senator burr. on behalf of vets and the coauthors of the ib, i welcome this time to share with you today. my main focus b will be the national cemetery administration. the most important obligation of the nca is to honor the memory, achievements, and sacrifices of our veterans who so nobly served in the force. obligate america to not only preserve but to rehabilitate and expand our national cemetery system as necessary to meet the needs of american veterans. these venerable and commemorati

is made clear in the president's budget. for the first time fha may require funding to cover its losses. i've been concerned about the solvencies of the fha fund. many of the problems facing fha are related to older books of business in short at the height of the housing boom. it will be important to recover or prevent excessive losses from older ones. i am pleased the recent market sentiment includes money for fha and other settlements will provide money to cover losses related to improper mortgage originations. these should help avoid the need for taxpayer funding, and i hope he will look for opportunities to recoup losses from fraudulent or poorly underwritten loans. additional changes to fha premiums contained in the budget represent your continued efforts to improve the solvencies of the fund and protect the taxpayer from having to cover its losses straight beyond fha, we will examine other parts of the request, which is to support hud's program straight this represents over a 3% increase. 83 percent of the budget is ded

with respect to the president's budget, what the president did was to take the tca budget control act, discretionary levels that were enacted on a bipartisan basis by this congress and he extended essentially the firewall levels moving forward. the chairman is right. workplace for two years, but if you extend the project goes forward, you stay within the defense budget he had not essentially been proposed in this budget. i want to reiterate the fact that when it came to the sequestered and how it was designed, there was a discussion about whether or not we would reach that deficit target in part by closing a lot of tax loopholes come a getting rid of tax subsidies and asking folks at the high end of the income scale to pay and help reduce our deficit and a balanced way. and the response was no. we prefer to put these defense spending as part of the sequestered by the mechanism. to his credit, the chairman of term services committee said at one point that you're forced to choose between those two, you would close the tax loopholes. i don't know if he still maintains that position. as w

vote on the budget some time in the middle of july. we have a ways to go yet, but very pleased we are almost over the first hurdle. we're glad to answer additional questions. >> when you talk about scholarships, you are not talking about cash scholarships. you are talking about what instead of paying the fee -- the fee is waived? >> correct. we are operating with a sliding scale. we have people who are paying nothing to use our programming and it slides up to about a 50% payment of fees. the criteria we use would be is your child eligible for a free or reduced lunch in the school district, for example. >> my question has to do with the proposal for cost recovery on recreation programs. i am very hesitant to raise fees on a recreation program. i've talked to a lot of seniors and different groups and people are all struggling right now in this city. the people who use our programs may not all fall into the category of a scholarship, but what they do pay is a burden to them to enjoy the recreation under taxes, but their taxes fund our dep

it's been a high priority for us at the department of the interior. this budget foresees that there will be a downsizing of additional 591 fte within the department of the interior. so we are asking our employees to do a lot more. this is, in fact, even in the climate where we have asked them to take pay freezes for many years at this point in time. but we're continuing to figure out a way of doing more with less. we also have a number of program terminations that are set forth in this budget in downsizing, $517 million of downsizing and reorganization that is included in this budget. some of these are painful cuts. the national heritage area programs which many of you on this committee have supported, those are cut so many million dollars. that's a painful cut. some of the central utah project which i know senator lee and the utah delegation have been very interested in, which we have supported and continue to work on, we have a cut in there of $18 million for the central utah project. not cuts that i would like to see, frankly. but given the tough budget times,

budget. thed our budget. the senate didn't pass a budget in 2010 and 2011 and now they are saying they aren't going to pass a budget in 2012. no wonder it is disfupgsal. -- dysfunctional. >> senator bennett, democrat, senator from colorado. is the senate responsible for why nothing has happened>> i think washington is responsible for it. there is a reason we have 9 percent approval rate. we are not getting our job done. i represent colorado third republican a third democratic and a third independent. what they want me to come home and say we have feerlly addressed the problem we are all in it together and it is bipartisan. they don't believe in go it alone priech. washington figures every excuse not to get it done. it's long past time for democrats and republicans to solve this problem. >> house and senate can't cooperate. you took an independent position as a conservative center. you are conservative. you took a conservative position. what advice dow f you have for m about bringing people togeth

the c.b.c. budget does not significantly reduce medicaid or cut food assistance or force seniors to put more of their hard-earned money to health care services by dismantling medicare and other services. the c.b.c. budgets makes tough but necessary decisions by making our tax system fairer, closing corporate loopholes and helping close those things that cost american jobs. we cannot win the future by leaving our most as a rule neble -- vulnerable behind. our success as a nation is intervovepb in the success of every community and this goal is ore flected in the congressional black caucus alternative budget for fiscal year 2013. now let me go through some of the details of the budget because many of the budgets that have been presented in the past have missing numbers or unspecified cuts or things that you know aren't going to happen. these are our recommendations for a budget and where we are on the bottom line. the c.b.c. budget starts off with an assumption as its baseline, all of the president's spe

budget. you know what the president's budget did? it wiped out over half of the spending cuts in the budget control act. can you imagine that? we agreed on $2.1 trillion in spending reductions. $1 trillion of that was voted on explicitly, and $1.1 trillion was an automatic sequester, automatic cut in spending if the committee didn't reach a long-term agreement. the committee didn't reach an agreement, so automatically $1.1 trillion in cuts were to be imposed. that's the current law. president obama's budget wipes it out. not only does he add, therefore, $1.1 trillion immediately to spending as a result of wiping out the sequester that we agreed on just last august, he adds another $500 billion in spending. his budget that he submitted just a few weeks ago calls for spending increases *f $1.-- of $1.6 trillion more than that was in the budget control act. and so my good friend, senator conrad, who chairs the budget committee, and our democratic leadership that are threatening a government shutdown because congressman ryan and the respo

the staff will give an overview of the budget. this is what we call the staff walk-through portion. i want to rorgz or staff director austin smythe. our policy director jonathan berks, our budget analyst jim herz, joining us a as well and chief counsel for the purpose of sdplarning the documents considered today. the staff is available to provide factual answers to confess members may have but are not here to enter into debate. that's what the members are here for. so let me turn it over to staff. >> we can provide, go through the general outlines of the budget resolution. i think from talking to the minority staff, the thought was plab just to go to questions. we would be happy to review the overall mark. >> in interests of time -- turn it over to questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and as, my colleagues, this is our opportunity to ask specific questions relates to the budget, and i'm going to start off, mr. chairman, with some and i think everyone should understand that we received a copy of this budget. 24 hours. 24 hours ago. and i know that that procedure was similar to the p