We must address this unsustainable entitlement issue if we are to preserve entitlements for future generations.

But the President's 2012 budget proposal would have the taxpayers shell out $844 billion in annual interest on our debt by the next decade, over triple what we pay currently.

We need to have a serious conversation about any reform option that is put on the table.

Now, that is why I have introduced a stand-alone bill to increase the retirement age for today's 4-year-olds by 3 years, from the current law of 67 to age 70.

America is ready for this discussion, and they are demanding that we put politics aside in the interests of our Nation.

This is no longer a fiscal issue; it is a moral issue.

I support your Roadmap for America's Future, and I look forward to seeing many of its provisions included in the House budget for Fiscal Year 2012.

Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid will eventually collapse under their own weight if they are left unchanged.

I don't understand why this proposed rule is not balanced.

Why does it not inform employees of the consequences of unionization?

When you have got lawyers in front of you and lawyers to the left of you and lawyer spouses to the right of you, it is a little bit like that Jimmy Buffet song 'Fins'.

I note that MSHA already spends more than $1,600 per miner in the U.S., and OSHA spends $6 for every worker.

I would also point out that, while I heard you talking about, in an exchange with Mr. Chairman, about the jobs that you feel were saved...

I just find this completely inconsistent with what we were told at the time as part of the rationale for the Federal Government doing something the private sector had been doing in my State extremely well.

I would like to point out that the Education Department did maintain a year ago that their budget at the time could absorb the cost of this.

It is so nice to see a community college gal here in Washington.

Do we know if TRIO participants have a higher graduation rate than non-TRIO?

Mr. Secretary, here is where I beg to differ, where it is going to cost taxpayers not only 1 nickel, but $225 million additional dollars is the proposal in the budget.

This Congress has an obligation to make sure that the money that we are spending has a measurable impact on our economy.

Another case in point. I want to focus on a youth program.

But are you willing to admit that it is an increase to the taxpayers?

Have you looked at alternative ways to incentivize college completion for Pell Grant recipients besides the amount of the grant?

I am just curious about why the emphasis on spending more at the Federal level when education is really a State responsibility.

I come from the point of view that we can't afford the President's budget.

This committee has an obligation, this Congress has an obligation to make sure that the money that we are spending has a measurable impact on our economy.