Chris Van Hollen

Well, they have been on GAO's High-Risk List since 1995. Isn't that the case?

Now, Mr. Dodaro, we have not seen the Pentagon pass an audit in recent memory, if ever. Isn't that the case?

It is a fact that the Defense Department budget is more than half of our discretionary budget. Isn't that the case?

And, in fact, Mr. Chairman, on an annual basis we pay more in tax expenditures than we do on Social Security. Isn't that the case?

Do you agree it would be best for the economy if Congress' budget and tax decisions do not increase the Federal debt relative to the current baseline?

This Congress made a very clear decision not to do that but to apply it on a forward-looking basis

Senator Sanders made the point with respect to pensions.

I want to drill down a little bit on some of the comments you made about Federal employee compensation.

There is no question that the debt is on an unsustainable trajectory under current law.

We want the money to be used effectively, not just thrown away.

If you were to eliminate a lot of those programs, you would have close to 40 million more Americans in poverty.

Large and growing Federal debt over the coming decades would hurt the economy and constrain future budget policy.

I just wanted that clarification.

Is there a way for CBO to do that kind of analysis?

The question is how we as a society decide to allocate those costs and whether or not we should ask folks at the very high income scale to, for example, pay more payroll taxes

One of the things that Senator Sanders has been pointing out is that we can actually do a lot when it comes to trying to improve the solvency of Social Security through reducing some of those tax expenditures

If you were to adopt the bill, the reconciliation bill, the Republican repeal of the Affordable Care Act that went to President Obama, which he vetoed, we would immediately see premiums go up even further, significantly further, 20 to 25…

I hope that in this, a lot of the heated rhetoric around immigration, this was a bipartisan bill which would increase economic growth, reduce the deficit, improve the solvency of Social Security.

There has been a lot of talk lately about reducing immigration to the United States, and I think it is important to remind our colleagues that CBO did an analysis of the bipartisan immigration reform bill that passed the Senate a couple of…

We talked a little bit about economic growth and the impact on deficits.

Do you dispute the GAO finding that it cost the taxpayers over $1 billion the last time we had a real showdown on this issue?

The President has said that he wants to close the carried interest tax break. Will you agree to close that tax break for the purpose of reducing the deficit and the debt?

I agree we have a long-term challenge. You have signed in the past the Grover Norquist pledge that says you will not reduce one tax break for the purpose of reducing the deficit.

I just want the record to show, Doctor, that you said he distorted your position, not me.

We all want to use these programs to create opportunity so people can lift themselves up and become self-sufficient.