Just like the budget resolution passed by House Republicans in March, this budget measure does not deny the severity of our debt problem and does not pretend that there are quick, easy fixes. It is impossible to reduce our $16 trillion debt unless every aspect of the federal budget is on the table -- from social programs to defense to entitlement spending.

Critics of the legislation argue that Congress can effectively reduce the deficit by cutting defense spending while leaving funding for social programs virtually untouched. Even a cursory examination of the numbers demonstrates this is blatantly untrue. Out of $46 trillion in total federal spending projected for 2013 to 2021, defense spending accounts for $5.3 trillion -- compared to $11.3 trillion for domestic discretionary spending and a staggering $26.1 trillion for entitlement programs. Frankly, if we cut defense spending to zero, we would still be in debt. Likewise, relying on spending cuts to social programs would barely make a dent in the deficit.

The Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act is a balanced, responsible alternative to automatic, across-the-board spending cuts known as "sequester" that are set to take place in January 2013. There is a good reason the sequester was designed as a last resort, only to be implemented if the bipartisan "Supercommittee" failed to agree on a set of $1.2 trillion in spending cuts in conjunction with last summer's debt limit agreement. The sequester would place a disproportionate burden on defense spending and implement arbitrary cuts to vital domestic programs. Under sequester, military spending would absorb 43 percent of the budget cuts despite representing just 24 percent of the budget. Entitlement spending, on the other hand, makes up 39 percent of all federal spending but would sustain just 15 percent of the sequester cuts.

The defense budget should be scrutinized for wasteful spending just like every other part of the budget. However, the sequester cuts would have a devastating effect. If the sequester proceeds, our Army will be reduced to its smallest size since 1940. We'll have the smallest Navy since 1916, and the smallest Air Force in American history.

Unlike military spending, which declined steadily throughout the 1990s and remains at historically low levels, spending for domestic programs has exploded. Since 2002, funding for energy conservation programs has grown 975 percent. Spending on food stamps has jumped by 267 percent. With statistics like that, can anyone honestly say that there is no wasteful spending in these programs? Making gradual, targeted reductions is vastly preferable to the extreme cuts heading our way if we delay action.

The federal government is on the path to bankruptcy because, for too long, politicians have taken the easy course of ever-increasing spending. Now there are no easy choices left. Anyone who claims otherwise is not being honest with the American people. Like House Republicans' previous budget proposals, the Sequester Replacement Reconciliation Act is a reasonable plan and a significant step forward in the struggle to restore fiscal discipline.
 

"Tried-and-true conservative policies are needed more than ever to prevent a disastrous debt crisis and rein in a federal government that has grown too costly and intrusive.

"Liberal plans have failed to improve the economic outlook and have actually made it worse. I'm proud to have a 92 percent lifetime conservative rating and to have joined other conservatives in Congress to pass numerous initiatives to get government out of the way of job creation and balance the budget responsibly without gutting our defense capabilities. We will continue to fight for commonsense principles of fiscal discipline, a strong defense, limited government, and traditional values.

"I thank the American Conservative Union for recognizing me for the ninth consecutive year and for working to hold Congress accountable to the American people."

ACU Chairman Al Cardenas commented: “The ACU Conservative Award is a reflection of Representative Tom Cole’s consistent support of conservative principles on a wide range of issues of concern to grassroots conservatives in 2011. At a time when the fundamental principles of the American system of government are being challenged, Representative Tom Cole stands with those who are trying to preserve those principles.”

"This legislation is an important step forward in restraining spending. It achieves real savings by targeting wasteful spending in every part of the budget, including entitlement programs. We've made significant progress by reducing discretionary spending two years in a row, but it's essential that we also address the true drivers of the debt.

"It's impossible to balance the budget through defense cuts alone, and forcing defense spending to bear a disproportionate burden is both bad security policy and bad budget policy. Both Republicans and Democrats agree that the level of defense cuts required by sequester is unacceptable. Defense spending makes up just 24 percent of the budget but would absorb 43 percent of the budget cuts under sequester -- on top of significant cuts we've already made.

"Our military men and women should not pay the price for decades of reckless Washington spending. The only way to effectively address the debt is through a balanced approach that considers defense, discretionary, and entitlement spending."
 

The Associated Press (AP) reports that 1 in 2 new college graduates are currently unemployed or underemployed -- working in low wage jobs while they search unsuccessfully for employment opportunities in their fields of study. As a consequence of the difficult economic environment, 3 in 10 young adults now live with their parents -- the highest rate recorded since the 1950s, according to the Pew Research Center.

Compounding the problem is the massive burden of student loan debt. The total debt owed on outstanding student loans recently topped $1 trillion for the first time. School loan debt has doubled in just the past five years and now surpasses even credit card debt. Students are borrowing twice the amount they did a decade ago -- only now, their prospects of earning enough to begin paying down the debt are much more uncertain.

If current trends continue, today's young people may eventually find retirement security to be as elusive as landing that first job. The latest annual reports from the Medicare and Social Security Trustees predict that Medicare will be bankrupt by 2024 and Social Security will follow in 2033.

Most members of Congress agree that Washington should address these important issue, but we often disagree on specific policy solutions. House Republicans have passed more than 30 bipartisan jobs bills that the Democratically controlled Senate refuses to consider. Most recently, we passed legislation that grants a 20 percent tax cut to small businesses. This sector of the economy creates 65 percent of new jobs. However, a recent study found that 80 percent of the small businesses surveyed have not hired anyone in the last three months, and 45 percent of those don’t intend to. Unemployed and underemployed young people would certainly benefit from the 10,000 yearly jobs this legislation would create if the Senate will agree to passage.

House Republicans also took action to provide student loan relief. The Interest Rate Reduction Act we passed on April 27 would extend the current 3.4 percent interest rates on federal student loans for one year, paid for by eliminating nonessential spending from President Obama's health care law. The president and his party agree that loan rates should stay low, but they've proposed paying for it by raising taxes on oil and gas producers -- even though the increased costs will surely be passed along to consumers and business, who already cite high energy prices as an obstacle to hiring.

The biggest divergence of opinion in Congress concerns the overall budget. House Republicans passed a budget plan to save Medicare and Social Security for future generations, reform the tax system to create jobs, and deal with long-term debt. Senate Democrats have not passed a budget in over 1,000 days.

As discouraging as the economic news and Washington gridlock are, there is a silver lining. That same troubling AP study contains good news for Oklahoma. While reporting gloomy employment rates for the Mountain West, southeastern states, and the Pacific region, the analysts place us "on the other end of the scale," identifying "the southern U.S., anchored by Texas" as "most likely to have young college graduates in higher-skill jobs."

Despite being bruised by the toughest job market in years, young people remain upbeat. The Pew study found that 77 percent of the young adults compelled to move back in with their parents after college are optimistic about their future finances.

Young Americans have the same sense of optimism and industriousness that exemplify the unique American character, and they deserve the same opportunities that sustain the American Dream.
 

"I appreciate the fact that the president took the chance to visit Afghanistan for the first time in 17 months and address the American people on the war for the first time in over a year.

"In the long conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, our troops have done much to make our country safer and the world better. They have toppled the Taliban, brought Saddam Hussein to justice, left a functioning democracy in Iraq, killed dozens of terrorists including Osama bin Laden and degraded al-Qaeda's capabilities.

"Both Presidents Bush and Obama can take credit for these achievements, but both surely know that these battles were won by the soldiers, marines, airmen, sailors, reservists, guardsmen, intelligence officers and security forces who fought them. The credit and the gratitude of the American people belong to those brave men and women in uniform and to the families who have sustained and supported them in their long and repeated deployments.

"This is an important moment of transition in the ongoing war on terror. But it would be a mistake to think that war is over. There are still those who would strike at America. And we still depend on our brave fellow Americans in uniform to stand between the American people and harm's way."

Those dates may have seemed comfortably distant during the '80s and '90s, but in 2012 we can no longer deny that dire consequences are coming -- and soon -- if we don't take action to save these programs.

Stating the obvious, the report declares: "Lawmakers should not delay addressing the long-run financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare. If they take action sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes.”

The trustees are brutally clear about just what the consequences of delay will be. If we do nothing and let Medicare go bankrupt in 2024, the alternatives available then include an immediate 26 percent benefit cut for seniors or a 47 percent tax increase on workers.

For Social Security, bankruptcy in 2033 will mean that the Social Security trust fund will have only enough money to cover 75 percent of its benefits. That deficit could result in an immediate loss in benefits to about 14 million of the 56 million Americans who were on Social Security in 2009. Prospects for those just entering or soon to enter the workforce could be even more bleak. As Heritage Foundation expert David John eloquently puts it, "The people who will be hurt if nothing is done to fix Social Security are not unknown people of the future: They are the nation’s children and grandchildren of today."

As bad as these projections are, the trustees are careful to point out that the situation may be even worse than their estimates indicate. A variety of economic and policy factors could weaken Medicare even further. For instance, President Obama's health care law takes $500 billion away from Medicare and empowers a board of 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to make further cuts. Chief Actuary Richard Foster warns that imposing price controls would mean that "Medicare prices for hospital, skilled nursing facility, home health, hospice, ambulatory surgical center, diagnostic laboratory, and many other services would be less than half of their level under the prior law.” Furthermore, Foster cautions, “Medicare prices would be considerably below the current relative level of Medicaid prices, which have already led to access problems for Medicaid enrollees, and far below the levels paid by private health insurance.”

House Republicans have passed a budget plan that would prevent these drastic cuts by implementing structural reforms. Introducing premium support and competitive bidding to the system will make health care more affordable and accessible for future seniors without making any benefits changes for those age 55 or older or resorting to the price controls and tax increases that would result from Democratic proposals.

President Obama and congressional Democrats will attempt to score political points by falsely claiming that the Republican plan to save Medicare and Social Security will harm the programs. But their scare tactics are not nearly as frightening as the actual facts contained in the Trustees Report. The real threat to these vital programs is the status quo.
 

"In this challenging economy, a college degree is both more important and more expensive than ever. Keeping student loans more affordable gives college students a better chance to succeed, and that's good for the economy. Unlike the Democratic proposals, this legislation helps students deal with rising tuition costs without requiring taxpayers and businesses to foot the bill. President Obama should embrace this reasonable solution."
 

Statistics compiled by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation read like an indictment of a tax system that is too long, too complicated and deeply flawed. Americans spend more than 7 billion hours each year attempting to comply with a bewildering tax code that, at 3.8 million words, is longer than the King James Bible (783,137 words) and the Constitution (4,447 words). Of 143 million tax returns filed, only 85 million actually paid income taxes -- with 26 million filers receiving $56 billion in refunds despite having paid no taxes. Overall, Americans spend more each year on federal, state and local taxes than we spend on food, clothing, and housing -- by a margin of $4.04 trillion to $3.89 trillion.

The Tax Foundation uses the term "Tax Freedom Day" to recognize the date on which American workers have earned enough to pay their tax obligations and can begin keeping their earnings to support themselves and their families. This year's Tax Freedom Day fell on April 17 nationwide and April 8 in Oklahoma. Thus, the average American will work 107 days this year just to support the government. By comparison, Tax Freedom Day in 1900 occurred on January 22. Before the explosive increase in the size of government and level of debt, Americans in the early 20th century enjoyed a tax rate of 5.9 percent.

House Republicans have put forward several proposals to reform the tax system. The budget plan we passed in March would reduce the tax burden and simplify the system by creating just two tax brackets of 10 and 25 percent. Our reforms would lower the corporate tax rate from 39.2 percent -- the highest rate in the industrialized world -- to 25 percent. Just after Tax Day this year, we passed the Small Business Tax Cut Act, which will help create an estimated 100,000 new jobs per year by providing a 20 percent tax cut for every business that employs fewer than 500 people. Small businesses represent 99.7 percent of all private sector employers and generate 65 percent of new jobs. It's just common sense to let these proven job creators keep more of their profits to invest in growth.

President Obama's proposals, on the other hand, seem to be based on the assumption that Americans need to pay more taxes. If the president succeeds in his stated goal of rolling back the tax cuts in place since 2003, Americans could face a $494 billion tax increase next January. That's $3,800 in new taxes for the average American family in 2013. His so-called Buffett Rule to raise taxes on high earners may poll well, but it does nothing to create jobs or reduce the deficit. If anything, it actually adds another layer of complexity to the tax system while generating only enough new revenue to cover less than two days' worth of government spending.

Tax Day serves as a useful annual reminder that our tax system is riddled with absurdities that create inefficiency and unfairness. However, political gimmicks and tax increases are no substitute for real reform.

A nationwide Gallup survey of physicians found that the practice of defensive medicine greatly increases medical costs. According to the 2010 survey, 73 percent of doctors reported ordering unnecessary tests, prescriptions, procedures and referrals just to protect themselves from potential lawsuits. These unneeded actions account for 26 percent of overall health care costs, the physicians report. House Republicans have passed numerous pieces of legislation to reform the medical liability system. The HEALTH Act, which passed the House in March, would limit non-economic damages and establish “fair-share” rules that allocate damages based on the defendant’s degree of fault. Based on successful state-level policies, such reforms would reduce the federal budget deficit by more than $45 billion over the next ten years and could lower medical malpractice insurance premiums -- and, consequently, individual medical costs -- an average of 25-30 percent compared to current law.

Creating a nationwide health insurance market would also greatly reduce coverage costs. Under our current system, premiums vary widely based on state-imposed regulations. While the average family premium is $5600 in Iowa, coverage for families costs more than $13,000 in New York and New Jersey due to requirements that plans in those states cover a variety of expensive benefits. According to the Council for Affordable Health Insurance (CAHI), states imposed a total of 2,156 benefit and provider mandates in 2010 that are responsible for raising the costs of a policies by as much as 10 to 50 percent. Simply allowing consumers to purchase insurance across state lines would increase choices and lower costs. Not only would individuals in high-cost states be free to purchase less expensive plans from other states, but costs could decrease overall if insurance companies were required to compete in a national market. The number of Americans able to afford health insurance would increase by an estimated 12 million with these reforms, according to a University of Minnesota study.

Millions of Americans are left out of our employer-based insurance system because they are self-employed or work for small businesses that can't afford to offer coverage. According to the Small Business Administration, only 33 percent of firms with fewer than 10 employees offer health insurance, while 62 percent of businesses with 10 to 24 employees provide health benefits. Small businesses that employ predominantly low-wage workers fare even worse, with coverage rates as low as 18 percent. Under President Obama's plan, these workers would be pushed into government health care or forced to pay a fine. However, there is a better solution. Conservatives have proposed legislation to create Association Health Plans, which would allow independent workers and small companies to band together and obtain coverage as a group. Association Health Plans would give small business workers and the self-employed the same negotiating clout enjoyed by large employers, making private insurance affordable for the 45 percent of Americans who do not have access to coverage through their employer.

Regardless of the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare, congressional Republicans will pursue these commonsense policies that increase -- not decrease -- health care options. Several of these proposals have passed the House of Representatives during the past 10 years only to meet the familiar Senate Democrat roadblock. Meanwhile, health care costs continue to rise and new evidence continues to show that Obamacare is not the answer. Conservative solutions like medical liability reform, nationwide insurance markets, and Association Health Plans show that greater government control is not the way to make health care more affordable, available, and accessible.
 

With statistics like these, it's hard to take President Obama seriously when he calls the spending cuts proposed in the House Republican budget "radical." In a speech before the Associated Press days after House Republicans passed our 2013 budget resolution, the president blasted our plan to cut $5 trillion over 10 years.

The president's address -- described by various national media as "combative," "blistering," "a campaign speech," and "a full-frontal assault" -- contained too many mischaracterizations to list individually. The distortions contained in President Obama's description of the Republican budget are so outrageous they are almost a parody of standard political scare tactics and are easily refuted by a quick examination of the actual policies in the budget.

The president's outlandish claims about our proposals are the same tired arguments liberals have relied on for decades to resist reform. However, it is when the president tells the truth about the GOP plan that the speech becomes revealing. President Obama stated that the House Republican budget "proposes massive new cuts in annual domestic spending -- exactly the area where we have already cut the most." It's nice of the president to point out that conservatives in Congress cut $78.5 billion from his 2011 budget request and cut $95 billion from the 2012 budget, bringing non-defense discretionary spending down to 2008 levels. Yet he didn't mean it as a compliment, and that's the problem. Our debt is so massive it requires $50,000 on behalf of every man, woman and child in America to pay off, but our president offers no serious deficit reduction plan of his own while demonizing responsible spending cuts as "radical." Not only does the president have no spending solutions, his speech indicates he doesn't even accept that Washington has a spending problem.

President Obama's "radical" rhetoric was meant to criticize the Republican budget plan, but it should serve as a ringing endorsement to anyone concerned about our fiscal future. With a status quo that has created a $15 trillion national debt, most taxpayers would agree that Washington needs a radically different approach to spending.

"Larry Echo Hawk is a great friend to Indian Country. During his tenure at the BIA, Secretary Echo Hawk has worked tirelessly to resolve important issues of tribal land and sovereignty and to bring greater economic development, education and security to tribal lands. He has been a stabilizing presence at the BIA, and his efforts will benefit tribes in Oklahoma and across the nation for years to come.

"On a personal note, I wish to note how much I will miss Larry Echo Hawk as a friend and a dedicated public servant. As I learned traveling across parts of Indian country in Larry's company, he is a man of deep understanding, profound compassion, enormous energy and genuine bipartisanship. He has served the first Americans and all Americans with distinction and integrity."
 

Since taking control of the House last year, Republicans have voted 25 times to repeal, dismantle and defund this misguided law before it can do any more damage to the economy. Even though it hasn't yet been fully implemented, Obamacare is already stifling job creation and interfering with Americans' health care choices. New nonpartisan studies show the law's negative impact will be even worse than previously thought -- costing taxpayers $1.8 trillion and forcing between 3 and 5 million Americans out of their employer-provided coverage each year from 2019 through 2022.

While provisions like the individual mandate are well-known, some less prominent Obamacare policies are just as troubling. Chief among these is the clause establishing the “Independent Payment Advisory Board” (IPAB). As envisioned under Obamacare, IPAB would grant 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats the authority to determine cuts to Medicare.

It's not an exaggeration to describe IPAB as a rationing board. The panel of presidential appointees would have extraordinary power to make decisions about Medicare benefits. If IPAB deemed some procedures and services "unnecessary," they would have the authority to cut reimbursement rates for those services. Many physicians have already stopped treating Medicare patients because reimbursement rates are 20 percent lower than rates for patients covered by private health plans. Lowering rates further, which is what IPAB is specifically tasked to do, would severely jeopardize access to care for seniors. There is little Congress could do to prevent IPAB-recommended Medicare cuts from being implemented. Provided the president agrees with what his hand-selected board proposes, a supermajority vote of Congress would be required to override the decision.

To prevent such an unacceptable outcome, House Republicans approved the Protecting Access to Healthcare Act (PATH). The legislation would repeal IPAB and would also help lower health care costs by implementing sensible medical liability reform.

Medical decisions should be made by Medicare patients and their doctors -- not by a panel of government appointees selected by the president. By repealing this outrageous policy, House Republicans will protect seniors' access to health care and come one step closer to abolishing the president's deeply unpopular law. Whatever the outcome of the Supreme Court decision, conservatives will continue working to make health care more accessible and affordable by ensuring that patients -- not the federal government -- are in control.
 

Cole is a member of the House Budget Committee.

"House Republicans demonstrated real leadership today in passing the only serious plan to prevent a catastrophic debt crisis. While President Obama and Senate Democrats remain on the sidelines, House Republicans are taking decisive action to address the nation's urgent economic challenges.

"Conservatives have offered not one but two plans to balance the budget. Both the Ryan Budget and the Republican Study Committee Budget make the tough choices necessary to cut the deficit and avoid bankrupting our children and grandchildren.

"Every year we wait to get government spending under control, the national debt becomes even harder to solve. The Path to Prosperity Budget puts the nation on the track to fiscal sanity, and congressional Democrats owe it to the American people to stop standing in the way of progress."
 

This budget is politically viable. It passed the House last year, it will pass the House this year. Frankly, it got more votes in the United States Senate last year than any budget presented by anybody. Let's contrast that with our friends on the other side. The president's budget got zero votes in the United States Senate, a body his party controls. Our friends in the Senate haven't produced a budget in three consecutive years. Our friends on the other side didn't do so when they were in the majority, didn't do so last year. I'm delighted they'll do so this year. I think that's a step in the right direction, but that budget is largely silent on entitlement reform. My main criticism of all the Democratic budgets is not that they can't pass, it's that they're simply not serious. They don't deal with the problems that the country is facing. In my experience, Madam Speaker, a plan beats no plan.

Our friends on the other side have no plan. We do. It's a plan we should embrace enthusiastically to avert the crisis that faces our country. With that, I urge its passage and yield back the balance of my time.
 

The American people know that Congress must act quickly and decisively to rein in explosive federal spending, or we will face steep economic decline that will make a relic of the prosperity our nation has enjoyed for generations.

For the second straight year, House Republicans have offered a disciplined, realistic plan to prevent the steadily approaching economic disaster. The 2013 budget resolution recently introduced and approved by the House Budget Committee on which I serve is called the "Path to Prosperity" for good reason. Our budget blueprint cuts spending by $5 trillion, restores fiscal discipline, and puts America on course to a balanced budget.

The serious, principled solutions we've presented would not only lower our crippling national debt but also grow the economy. Our outdated, overly complex tax code is an impediment to economic growth. The Republican budget would replace the broken tax system with a simplified structure containing just two tax brackets of 10 and 25 percent. We lower the corporate tax rate, taking it from one of the highest rates in the developed world to 25 percent -- putting American companies on a level playing field with foreign competitors. While President Obama's budget would stifle job creation by raising taxes, the Republican budget would spur economic growth by keeping taxes low but growing revenues by broadening the tax base and eliminating special-interest loopholes.

Even with a more efficient tax system, our economy will remain in jeopardy unless we reduce the national debt. With entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security consuming an ever-increasing portion of government spending, it is impossible to tackle the debt without reforming these programs. The Path to Prosperity budget strengthens and saves these programs from bankruptcy without changing benefits for those at or near retirement. No one age 55 or older will see any changes to their benefits. However, future generations may have no benefits at all if we don't take action to reform the system.

In his own budget proposal, the president refused to show the political leadership necessary to address entitlement reform. Instead, the White House budget calls for $500 billion in cuts to defense spending. Numerous military leaders have publically stated that such broad, indiscriminate cuts would be devastating to our national security capabilities. The Republican budget takes a more responsible approach, protecting our defense capability and cutting wasteful spending in other parts of the bloated federal budget.

President Obama's budget is nothing but campaign propaganda that actually increases spending, raises taxes and never achieves balance. Senate Democrats haven't even produced a budget in almost three years. Only House Republicans have presented a plan that directly confronts the nation's urgent fiscal challenges.