Host jonathan strong joins us on the phone this morning to talk about paul ryan unveiling his budget later this morning. We will have coverage on cspan at 10 30. Jonathan strong, lets talk about what we will see in this budget plan. Do we know the details . Guest good morning. He has released some of the details. He previewed the budget in an oped in the wall street journal that was released last evening. Kind of one of the big things here is that it essentially cuts 4. 6 trillion dollars over 10 years compared to current law. He is trying to put it in perspective in the oped, saying that under current law, Government Spending will increase five percent per year over those 10 years, and under his plan it will increase 3. 4 per year. The message coming out of paul ryan is that we dont have to make that tony and drastic cuts to reach balance in 10 years, which is the new feature of this budget. It is similar to the plans that he has released in the past. That is what his message is for this morning. Host so under this budget proposal, a balanced budget in 10 years with no new taxes. How do they go about this . Guest they do keep the revenues from fiscal cliff, one of the big things here, it is one of the questionable things in here. They are assuming the repeal of obamacare, which is very unlikely to happen given the current balance of power in washington. It is somewhat fanciful thinking. It would cut a lot of spending, but it is not likely to happen politically. This is a blueprint, not binding law. That is one thing that is sure to be a big point of debate as they unveil their budget this morning. Host what does he replace if he repeals the Affordable Care act and gets rid of it . Thet we dont know what detailed picture looks like yet, if there will be any details in that. Republicans have had a difficult time over the past few years rallying around a single healthcare plan. Host paul ryan also says that under this budget they would approve a keystone pipeline, and that there would be welfare reform. And they would also overhaul the tax code so that there would be only two tax rates, 10 and 25 . Guest those are a few interesting things here. On the welfare reform, i think it says that we are going to apply the model of welfare reform to other parts of the government, to medicaid, to let states have more authority to form those programs as they see fit. The tax reform picture, and the ways and Means Committee, is very keen on tax reform. There are a lot of skeptics in the capital that think there is not enough trust between the two parties right now. Host jonathan strong, politically, does paul ryan have centrist republicans with him . Does he have conservative Tea Party Republicans with him behind this proposal . Guest he definitely has the heavy hitters on the tea Party Conservative side. Who were behind the agreement to pass a budget that balances in 10 years. The moderate in the conference were initially skeptical about this, but because of some changes, they decided not to change the age at which the medicare changes would begin hitting. Republicans have been promising for years that if you are 55 or older, you will not have to worry about any of these medicare changes. They were thinking of changing that at 56. There was an outcry and they abandoned that plan. Now the moderates do seem to be on board. Host the Washington Times reporting this morning when it comes to the Affordable Care act, senator ted cruz, texas republican, said he will offer an amendment to delay funding for the Affordable Care act until the economy improves. This is an amendment to a continuing resolution to keep the government funding that the senate will work on this week. It is winning support from other republicans like senator marco rubio of florida. Jonathan strong, Senate Democrats will also unveil a budget tomorrow. Guest the Senate Budget is more notable in the sense that it has been since 2009 that Senate Democrats passed a budget. So this is going to be a more significant political test for them. The senate makes the process more difficult for the democrats over there. In the budget they have they can only they cannot lose a single vote, or else the vote would be deadlocked at 1111. So patty murray, the chairwoman , has to appease bernie sanders, independent from vermont, who calls himself a socialist, and also a centrist like mark warner. They are having trouble over there, so we will have to see. The next thing that happens for them after they pass it through the committee, it gets to the senate floor, and because of the procedural rules that surround the budget, it is a votearama, where any vote is germane. So the republicans will be planning any amendment that will put democrats in difficult political spots. It will be a big test. There are definitely reasons politically why the Senate Democrats have not done a budget for so long. Now that they are doing it, they will have to reckon with these things. Host jonathan strong, staff writer with cq roll call. , here isyans budget usa today. The headline is, third time is no charge is no charm for ryans medicare plan. That Budget Briefing with Public Committee chairman paul ryan will start at 10 30 eastern. After his briefing, we are printing planning live coverage on the meeting on gun control. The first session happened last week. Here is a look at some of that debate. Committee and a subcommittee have held three hearings on legislation related to our purpose of voting bills out today. While i believe addressing violent requires examining more than guns, guns were newly guns were the near exclusive focus of those hearings and will be the near exclusive focus of the bills at the Committee Sees fit to markup. All of us strongly affected by new town, all of us want to take effective action to prevent future tragedies. But we have different deeply held approaches to do so. What we are talking about today is freedom not only guaranteed by the constitution but what the Supreme Court recognized as a preexisting right of self defense. Individuals do not need the governments permission to defend themselves. Today gun violence rates are at the lowest level in 50 years. This is a tremendous compliment. There are many reasons for it, including longer incarceration of dangerous criminals, police practices. This drop in gun violence has occurred even as there are more guns in the country than ever before. It has occurred after the Supreme Court has found the Second Amendment to be a fundamental right and after many states have increased the ability of lawabiding citizens to own guns. The drop has also occurred despite any new federal gun control enactment in almost 20 years. But a majority of the committee seems determined to impose more gun restrictions on lawabiding citizens. Consider the assault weapons ban. This bill represents the biggest gun ban proposal in our history trade a similar ban was enacted in 1994, and the Justice Departments own studies failed to show that the band had any effect or in some of my colleagues i want to quote Donald Rumsfeld absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but the assault weapon ban did not work. Just this year the Deputy Director of the National Institute of justice wrote that, on assault weapons ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. But rather than trying something different, the first bill on the agenda is an assault weapons ban. It is based on how guns look, now the damage they do not the damage they do. Nar 15 is prohibited while nar 14 while an ar14 is exempt. The guns that it bans are not ones that are used in the military. As they are semi automatic. They are in common use for a banning large capacity magazines also fails rational basis scrutiny when the bill exempts a class of shotguns that can be continuously reloaded. The bill is not like passing a law that criminalizes speeding. It is like banning the manufacture of cars with hood ornaments from having the capacity of exceeding 65 Miles Per Hour while exempting trucks from the same requirement for it at the hearings, the Justice Department did not endorse a specific ban but said that nonetheless a band could be constitutional. They did not suggest what level of scrutiny courts would apply to a bill with Second Amendment implications. They also said that they would develop an analysis of the bills constitutionality. But it seeks but it speaks volumes when we are about to markup such a bill, and that analysis is not forthcoming. I think it is necessary to point out that had this build in law at the time, sandy hook still would have happened it would not have stopped a mentally disturbed person while stealing a gun that this bill would not have banned from his mother, shooting unarmed children for several minutes before police arrived. Background checks without notice, we were given an entirely new bill late yesterday. I know the sponsor says he does not intend to create a national gun registry, and i accept that as his intent. I would just say that the Deputy Director of nij recently wrote that universal background checks can only be enforced if there is universal gun registrations. Some stated that criminals are foiled from buying guns because they dont go to gordon to gun stores. They recognize that prohibited persons do not now submit to background checks, although they obtain guns, which is why they want to expand checks. But they fail to recognize the criminals will not be any more likely to submit to expanded background checks them they are currently. They will go around supposedly universal checks, steel guns, or by them in the black market. When the universal background checks dont work, registration will be imposed to enforce them. When that doesnt work because criminals will not register their guns, we may be looking at confiscation. There is a refusal to consider gun control of lawabiding citizens does not work or if gun control works, we would expect to see that places with stricter gun laws would have less crime than those where it was easier for lawabiding citizens to have guns. Instead, lawabiding citizens obey the law, criminals dont. Under federalism, states and localities are laboratories of experimentation. Results of different approaches coming out. Then the federal government learns which laws work better than others as it considers national legislation. But that is not what is argued for gun control. We are asked to adopt nationally policies that have not worked at the state and local level. We are told that poor results in places with gun control are due to more lenient gun control for the vicinity. But if that were true, one would expect more crime in the suburbs where guns are lawfully available than in cities where they are not. And the states where guns are not easily able to be purchased than in states where they are not. However, this is not the case. Restrictions on gun rights of lawabiding citizens do not work. Again, rather than trying to approach a different approach, supporters of gun control not only want to double down on failed strategy, they want to impose on the nation as a whole despite the Second Amendment. I do think that action can be taken on gun trafficking and straw purchasing. But because those are actions by criminals that occur across state lines, i am glad we have a bill on that subject on the agenda. I appreciate the efforts of the chairman and other senators to be receptive to changes to the original legislation. When that bill comes up, i will speak about that. The final bill on the agenda is School Safety bill. That bill originally had been a normal cost at a time when we were entering sequester. However, senator boxer and senator warner, the bills sponsors, have shown lets ability on spending announced spending amounts and other issued. I wanted to know i appreciate appreciate those efforts. Mr. Chairman, republicans will make sure that we get the finality of these bills, and not meaning any criticism, they were not ready to consider to be considered last week. We will raise a fairly small number of amendments, which is how the Committee Process works. We are not spending we are not preventing any of these bills from being voted on in a timely fashion. A number of democrats made statements about these bills last week, and i know that my members on my side would like to also. We thank you for your cooperation. The trafficking bill, stop illegal trafficking firms. As per normal procedure, i will amend it with my substitute, which is based on the text of the collinsville. I assume there is of the collins bill. Without objection, the bill as amended by the substitute is now open for further discussion and amendment. If i could, i would start the discussion. Before i make a statement, i have not talked to senator sessions. Do you folks want to make statements overall, or are you ready to go with the straw purchasing bill . It is on the agenda now, so the chairman has the right to bring it up. Or do you want the right to this . I would have statements on both, but i would be happy to address the straw purchasing bill. Out about you, senator . Stay with the amendment process. Can i speak now . Sure, go ahead. I greatly appreciate the substitute amendment. I have offered an amendment to the bill which i will discuss separately. Federal legislation needed on the subject of straw purchasing and gun when i conducted my oversight of the Justice Department failed operations fast and furious, i was told by whistleblowers that there were gaps in federal law regarding straw purchasers which should be addressed, and this is our opportunity to do it. Mr. Chairman, you have worked with me on the bill thomas making many changes at my request. I trust you think so as well because you have included the changes in the new bill. The new bill and your substitute amendment also included a revised ill by senators jill a brand and kurt on the subject of gun trafficking. Those revisions also reflect changes that i asked senator jill a brand to make, and it would be worthwhile to outline all the changes that have been made to the bill since they were first introduced. I think they demonstrate good and senator senatoe gillibrand. Ds bill wouldrang have given states and localities a oneway incentive to a dress new gun control measures and force prosecution and prosecution and incarceration of the federal government and created for the first time a situation in which violation of state criminal law was an element of federal offense. She took that provision out at my request. I raised similar concerns about the language in the chairmans bill. Senator gillibrand also made major and minor suggestions, clarifying what was intended to commit a crime, the gift exception, altering the directive for the sense for the Sentencing Commission and others. The chairman has also made changes to his bill at my request compared to when senate s 54 was originally introduced. It is now addressed only at straw purchasers, not only at all transfers on behalf of another. This allows people to buy for people as part of a legitimate business. It preserves private sales. Now the bill goes to actual straw purchasers. Those who purchase a gun on behalf of a precipitate person, senator gillibrand, you removed references a violation to state and local law, made changes regarding sales to persons who do not reside in the state. You took out language concerning false statement on the forms. Separated the rules for purchase from licensed dealers and those of private sales, also limiting the bill to engaging indirectly in the conduct that is already illegal. You have protected the right of lawabiding citizens as i have outlined in ways i believe were not protected in either the original straw purchasing bill or the original trafficking bill. As a result of the changes to each bill and to their combination in the substitute, the bill now covers only criminals and law and not lawabiding citizens. Since you have made good shown good faith, i will demonstrate mine as well for some on my side believe the bill needs more work to resolve outstanding issues now between now and when the bill goes to the floor area that is something i hope will happen with the chairmans help. With that understanding and if my amendment is adopted, i will vote to report your bill today, and i thank you for what you have done so far. Thank you, i appreciate that. You and i have worked closely on this, as we have on a number of things. Our bill is tough on criminals. As it is on prior sellers and buyers of firearms. But it is done in a way that we can engage we noted a lot of your concerns are now reflected in my substitute amendment. I understand the intent behind the amendment that you are raising. I am concerned that the amendment can the operation that is properly supervised, including terrorism and drug investigations. We all agree that the government should never permit guns to be transferred to dangerous girls as happened in fast and furious. To dangerous criminals as happened in fast and furious. Arresting a straw purchaser immediately after a sale. Having said that, the senator from iowa says we will continue to work together. Prior to the time that a bill comes to the floor. So if there is no aid if there is no objection, i am prepared to accept your amendment. Ok, i authored the amendment, and since you said what you just said, i am going to put my statement in the record. Let me say that i am willing to consider reasonable changes to my amendment provided the changes do not harm the goals of holding the department of justice accountable for gun operations where weapons could walk. Fast and furious was a debacle that will haunt the department of justice for decades. These operations need oversight and accountability, and from that point on oversight and accountability, i think that is an area where i have to draw the line, if you will take that into consideration after the bill gets to the floor. Without objection, the bill is amended by the amendment of the senator from iowa. Are there other a nimitz . Mr. Chairman . Senator corn and s