, i cannot be dispassionate about video evidence of individuals facilitating the abuse of minor young women in this way. we have introduced this legislation, and along with h.r. 3 i hope that the congress will take up the title to an abortion provider prohibition act. the planned parenthood received over $3,603,000,000 in taxpayer dollars principally through tettleton and in 2008 they performed 328,008 abortions with more than a million abortions performed annually in this country, abortion is a heart-breaking billion dollar industry. it mostly benefits planned parenthood. it planned parenthood is far and away the largest abortion provider and the largest recipient of federal funding under title ten, and i believe

the time has come for that to end. with that set let me direct a question to misses ruse, his testimony i found compelling as i do appreciate her on this issue across the country. it ..

>> i think the word win fall is accurate. last year, planned parenthood committed 324,000 abortions in the united states of america. if you open the doors to federal funding, federal subsidies of abortion in a way that obamacare will do it, there's no question the chief recipient is showing itself to be internally corrupt and unable to handle finances at the minimum given what's happening in california, and more than that, aiding and abetting in the abuse of minors as these videos come out one after another. incidentally, those who try to minimize planned parenthood's, the expose on planned parenthood as a single situation or one bad

egg, i just want to remind this committee that these videos, these unrecovered videos have been coming out for the last four years. they haven't got as much play as recently, and they come from 10 states, alabama, nernlings, new york, virginia. it was suggested there was a system-wide problem with planned parenthood, and they do not deserve $1 million a day of taxpayer dollars. >>y, thank you. this -- why, thank you. this hearing is on hr3 with funding for abortion, and express how the hundreds of millions of dollars that flow into organizations indirectly support the abortion efforts of planned parenthood, but i look forward to that hearing perhaps in another committee, and i commend the members of this panel for your thoughtful

comments. i yield back. >> i thank you as always. >> i hate to disagree with you, but i only suggest for the public good that private insurance is providing health insurance and the incentive is to een courage employers to provide health insurance to everyone possible, but if i can, i guess the fair question to your points is how far does this go with -- since you're the one testifying, i think it's fair, with your particular beliefs, i

know the church, i'm not sure about you, believes the use of modern birth control, the pill, is morally wrong, so would you then say we don't want to use tax subsidies or you could funding to provide to health insurance companies that provide birth control pills for women? >> i think it's a very different moral issue, congressman. >> it's still the same directive from the catholic church, suspect it? >> yes, but we're not against federal funding of abortion because catholic moral teaching is against it. we're against abortion because of the violation of the most fundamental right. it is something rejected not by only catholics, but other religion and the hippocratic oath that gave rise to medicine in the profession. it's the considered moral judgment of millions of americans who have no particular religious affiliation at all and has been seen in the past as a

crime, and, of course, today there is at least one abortion procedure that is a federal crime, and it is the killing of children who in any other context are seen even in federal law as persons who have a right to be protected from lethal harm through the unborn victim of violation. another arbitrary exception of abortion -- >> embryonic stem cell research. >> uh-huh. >> do you believe cang should impose -- congress should impose this? >> i think that's a -- well, let's say it's a very far-fetched thing to have happened. >> you don't think people's lives are saved with embryonic stem research? >> i'm sorry? >> you don't think people's lives have been saved or can be

saved because of embryonic stem cell research? >> it's far too uncontrollable, causes for too many tumors when used in animals. you can't tell what they're going to do once they're in a human body. i think it's an imaginary question, but let me answer. i understand what we're concerned about here is the use of tax dollars, tax subsidies, tax support for something that actually takes life. we are against federal funding of embryonic stem cell research itself when it involves the taking of life of embryonic human beings. in some states, pen is one, the killing of an embryo for experimental purposes is a felony, and yet the federal government is funding it. >> let me turn to the professor. it appears the issue is primarily whether or not this is federal funding, but can you elaborate to a certain extent on

the policy implications once it is decided that, i guess it was the supreme court versus the tax commission that the court upheld, once that's crossed, what are the other implications legally for non-for-profits and not just religious? >> well, i think they are as will already been said by mr. nadler, the conversion of what has been tax advantaged private spending which is understood in society as private spending that is simply not subjected to certain otherwise applicable taxes into an overt public financing of certain activities has profound implications. it has profound implications both for the extent to which has

been noted, certain recipients of those exemptions are suddenly receiving federal funding, but also it has implications for the kinds of conditions that can be attached to entities that do receive exemptions. it becomes a much more government intrusive process in which government is setting the terms and conditions as is the case with hr3 as a receipt for a tax exemption. in this case, you can only receive favorable tax treatment if you do not seek or provide medically necessary care or certain types of care. >> thank you. >> thank the gentleman, and now recognize the former chairman of this committee. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i want to again commend you.

i know you're going to be a great chair of the committee, and did have the honor to serve for six years, and i'm going to a committee where we knew that the problems would be a little bit easier to solve. i know this is a controversial committee. it always has been, and we're ensured of success on the committee i'm chairing. i'm chairing the foreign chair cheat on the middle east, so that's going to be interesting going guard. >> after this, it'll be easy, won't it? >> i think so. that's right. this hearing itself is showing evidence of that. you know, i couldn't help -- it was mentioned, ms. ruse mentioned there were 329,000 abortions committed by planned parenthood. i happen to represent the first district of ohio, the largest entity, government entity, and

abortions in this country almost wipe out the population of cincinnati every year, and it's just amazing when you think how many little boys and little girls don't ever experience the life we've all had the opportunity to experience because of this procedure which is still allowed in this country. i was struck again going back to my district in cincinnati. i was reading the story of the "cincinnati inquirer" about a doctor in west philadelphia, and the headline was house of horrors, and it certainly was, but i would argue that what goes ob in these abortion clinics all over the country is certainly houses of horror, and we shouldn't be funding that. we shouldn't be funding it at all as far as i'm concerned, but certainly not with tax dollars of people who don't want their tax dollars going to carry out

that type of behavior. talking about that doctor, i was -- according to the grand jury report on the activities that were conducted by him at his clinic, it was called the women's medical society in west philadelphia. on page four of the report, it says, and i'm quoting this, "when you perform late term abortions by inducing labor, you get babies, live, scream babies. by 24 weeks, most babies born early will survive with the appropriate medical care, but that was not what the women's medical society was about. he had a simple solution for unwanted babies. he killed them. he didn't call it that. he called it ensuring fetal demise. the way he ensured fetal dmeez

was by sticking scissors in the back of the baby's nick and cutting the spinal cord. he called that snipping. over the years, there were hundreds of snippings, and i would ask you profession rosenbaum, do you think american taxpayers should have to pay for this kind of activity? >> mr. chabot, i don't really see the connection between what is absolutely a terrible, terrible story and the tax financed issues here. >> let me draw the connection then for you. if he was doing this outside the womb, if he had snipped those spinal cords within the womb, that's perfectly legal in cr country, isn't it? should we use tax dollars to pay

for that type of activity? >> i think your question suggests that this bill involves tax dollars. the height amendment is a very clear -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> i have a short period of time here. a couple other short comments. let me ask the other two witnesses. is that legal? would that be legal say in the first trimester, third trimester, that activity in abortion clinics, or the restricks to -- restrictions to kill a child in the womb? >> yes. the only procedure that's not legal is the partial birth abortion procedures. unless he followed the steps outlined, and my reading of the grand jury report was he was not

doing, taking those steps, and what he was doing would be perfectly legal if it was done just before delivering the baby. >> i see my time's expired, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. it should be noted the gentleman was a prime sponsor of the partial birth abortion and will be a hero to me because of that. i yield to mr. conyers, former chairman of the committee, and we're going to call him ranking member for now. >> thank you very much. my congratulations. i could observe that the view isn't quite as good in the room from this end as it used to be when we were on the other side, but i'll get used to it again, i also wanted to welcome mike pence to the committee and appreciate his coming aboard.

what has gone against the planned parenthood people, i have yet to discover. they've done, i thought, a pretty good job, but he is bound and determined to defund them and i think do a great disservice to a very effective organization that's brought help and assistance to women over the years. now, mr. chairman, we talked about the fact that eleanor holmes norton was not permitted to testify. was the author of this bill prevented from being a witness here today too? >> mr. conyers, that was discussed earlier. the author of the bill could

have been a witness here if they had been chosen as the democratic witness. it was just the committee structure of the panel that's here for witnesses. >> you didn't want the author of the bill to testify? >> i didn't have a problem with that whatsoever, sir. >> well, he asked -- did he ask to testify? >> i'm not sure he asked to testify. i think mrs. norton asked to testify, and if she wanted to be the democrat witness, that would have been all right. >> uh-huh, but the author of the bill who i presume is here today, we're in the first few week of the hearing, of the 112th session, and this is a major piece of legislation, and he's not here. >> mr. conyers, the author made the decision not to testify. we don't know the reasons. >> okay.

well, let me ask ms. ruse this question. the title of this bill is no taxpayer funding for abortion act. do you know of any federal funding for abortion that goes on in this country presently? >> the potential funding of abortion and the potential subsidies of abortion are numerous. the debates last fall over the birth amendment opening up military facilities for abortions to be done then is impacted by hr3. that's still an open question. we may see a reversal under that policy, and under the clinton administration, that was reversed and opened up to elective abortions on military

hospitalsment -- hospitals. that's one example. >> and you object to that? >> that's right. >> if you knew of any others, you'd object to them as well? >> yes, october to the funding -- object to the funding of abortions sponsored with federal funds, that's right. >> you think this is an appropriate title of a bill then, no taxpayer funding for abortion act because women in service may be able or might be able to get an abortion? >> yes, that's one example of -- >> well, that's the only example that i know of, but if you know of others, let me know. >> well, the district of columbia appropriations bill last congress also opened up federal funding for abortions in the district of columbia, so that is currently an area that needs to be corrected by hr3, by

employing the long standing principle. the district of columbia often does have that appropriations right or applied. it was just taken off just a few months ago, so that would be corrected by hr3. >> well, all right, it's my impression that this is a misleading title of the bill, not federal funds, dc taxpayer funds, not funds from fed treasury. well, that's just a staffer. i mean, -- [laughter] you're an expert witness. let me turn to another consideration. as my time -- has my time expired? okay.

well, you're so kind. one final question, chairman, and thank you. section 311 of this bill protects individuals who refuse to provide abortion services. as i read it, ms. ruse, this would mean someone who refused to provide life saving treatment and allowed a woman to die as a result might escape any consequences if that were to happen. is that your understanding? >> no, not at all. what this section of hr3 does is simply stand with the long standing principle of the church amendment. that's been around for 38 years, and in that history of the church amendment, we've never seen a situation where women were dying at the hands outside an abortion clinic because they

were not able to have an abortion. now, i'd also like to mention that it's never been used to require an emergency provision of an abortion. that's the emergency treatment act. the only additional new part of it is allowing remedies, allowing someone who has been discriminated against, like this nurse, to have a cause of action, so that's the new part, but the consciousling itself is just quantifying this long standing policy. >> i'd like to have unanimous consent to put in some articles from the nation magazine, the new york review books as well. i thank you. >> without objection. thank you, mr. conyers, and i now recognized the distinguished gentleman from iowa. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i welcome you also as chairman of the committee.

i've had the privilege to serve on this committee now for my 9th year. i'm happy to see you here with a gavel and current and former colleague mr. chabot back on the committee. i look back at the debates here in the committee when we were dealing with the terminology called dilation and distractions, a nice term nor partial birth abortion, and steve laid that out in a good and clear way, and it was one significant piece of progress this congress made, and there haven't been many over the last decade or so. that was dilation and extraction, and now we have federal funding for dilation and evacuation which i have asked them to put this poster up here so we know what we're talking about. i recognize there's experts on the law here, but this is human life. i ask that each of you reviewed the process that i ask that you

familiar with this, and ms. rose? >> my answer's the same. >> you are familiar with the procedure where the tool is used to dismember the baby, and pull the parts of the baby apart and as they count the pieces up piece by piece if it looks like you get down to the point where often the head is so well formed and the bone is so structured it has to be crushed and then pulled out, collapsed, and then sanctioned to make sure the bone fragments don't bring about the high degree of hemorrhaging, and for me, i can't see much difference between partial birth

abortion and dismemberment abortion. we're here talking about legalities, a tax policy that might be prohibitive for us to prohibit federal funding for a procedure like this, this dismemberment abortion. i know the physicians, but profession, you have not addressed this from the standpoint of the complications of the taxes, and i just ask should government fund a procedure like this? >> again, i would have to respond that i am not prepared today to answer this question. i was focused on a bill that is dealing with what i don't consider to be government funding. >> but, professor, you understand that -- >> if i could just finish. as far as i can tell, there's no public funding for this procedure right now except in the situations in which one of the three very limited categories has been satisfied

under federal law. we are not publicly funding the procedure now, and the bill before us is not a public funded bill. >> i have before me data that shows 142800 abortions taken place in america just last year. we can go into the disagreement we might have. i ask that you're aware that if your testimony has impact here, then it might bring about this procedure we're looking at now and more funned by public tax dollars. i'm going to ask you then, do you have a moral position on this or just a legal one on taxes? >> i prefer actually to keep my moral positions out of the hearing. i have strongly held religious and moral views on many things. in terms of today's hearing as i said, i don't think that i see any example of public financing for this procedure except in the circumstances. >> then, since you don't, if we

can resolve there's public funding for abortions in the country, and there's testimony to that effect, would you then -- if we establish that point or are new a in a position to change your position? >> truly, i'm having trouble following the question. >> another route then. you've reviewed this procedure. have -- could you step in to an operating room and witness it? >> i am a law professor, so i presume i would never be in operating room. >> you can't answer the question whether you could observe it or no. i'm going to ask if you could conduct the procedure, you'd answer the same way. i just make this point that this is a ghastly gruelish procedure. it is dismemberment abortion. i have known people who could

not vote for a death punishment because they couldn't conduct it themselves, and they took that position. i understand that psychology. when we look at something that we're asking taxpayers to fund against their will, that's so gruelish that we can't abide looking at it or watching it or watching a full video of it or listening to the sounds that go on there, and we ask taxpayers to fund this, i think that illustrates what we're up to here, and we should go to all steps to fund abortions. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman, and i yield back to mr. scott of virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i join you in congratulating you in your new position and look forward to working with you. >> professor rosenbaum talked about the taxes and the wording is unclear.

is it your belief that the tax deduction should still go to the health policy, but not just that portion that pertains to abortion, or should the entire policy lose its deductibility if it includes abortion coverage? >> congressman, this is one the problems i had with trying to be helpful to mr. nadler. i think there's a lot of different ways in which the tax code gets implicated in this, and there's some cases that are much more straightforward than others. the affordable taxes in the affordable care act, the policy in place was the premium tax credits will not go to directly to an abortion procedure itself, but they are go to an overall health plan that includes such abortions without limit, and then there will be a little accounting procedure within the plan to try to keep the federal and private funds separate. my problem with that is --

>> just in terms of the bill, is it your intent that the entire heads of policy that including abortion coverage, should the employer lose the entire deductibility of the whole policy, or just that portion that pertains to the abortion coverage? >> my understanding from the analysis of the bill from the congressional research service is that it does not cover employer deduction. >> whatever deductions we're talking about, taxing benefits, credit, are we just talking about the abortion portion or the entire policy? >> i think we have to -- there's two questions. one is whether this is federal funding. >> it's not -- >> second question is if we do consider that, it crosses the line into being a subsidy, whether you ban the subsidies for abortion itself or for a plan that includes it. that policy decision was made

many years ago in the height amendment, federal employee's health benefit -- >> professor, you mentioned there's a lack of clarity as to whether the whole policy would lose or whether just the portion attributable to abortion coverage would not be deductible. you said that's unclear? >> no, actually, i think it's very clear that the entire policy, whatever's affected under this bill, the entirety loses its deductibility, it's tax advantage. what is not completely clear to me because of the term any deduction is whether the deductibility applies to taxpayer deductions or, in fact, could be interpreted to reach employer sponsored deductions, but i do believe it would be constructed in its entirety is it product that includes one the

procedures the difficult problems for the irs when the dedoublability standard would be met. >> we couldn't get an answer, so it must be unclear. should government funds be used for capitol punishment? >> my organization is against capitol punishment, so i think if you are going to have capitol punishment, it has to be tax funded. we're against that. we believe in the abolition of the death penalty. >> should we work together, you and me, to prohibit government funds to be used for capitol punishment? >> unless the intent is to put it out into the private sector, yes. >> could you explain the

exception for rape, why that's there? >> this recent debate about rape and forcible rape? >> no, the -- the, why there's an exception. >> why there's an exception? >> right. >> i think you have to get that answer from somebody who supports. i can understand why they want that exception. they want to be able to say that if the woman had no part in the decision to have sex, to get pregnant, then she should not have to bear this child that was part of no decision by her. my problem with that is that although that's a horrible thing, there's a lot of things that the health care system and the government should do for women who are victims of rape. i can't help thinking there's another person who has a right to live.

i met kids of rape, and they and their mothers are great people and glad it was not an abortion. the decision about forceful rape was an effort on the part of sponsors to prevent the opening of a very broad loophole for federally funded abortions for any teenager. the obvious jex to that which was helpful, the objection was saying it doesn't mean that. rape already means forcible. if you say forcible rape, that's redundant, and courts require a level of violence that goes with rape itself. when congresswoman objected to the phrase of forcible rape, she said, "rape is when it woman is forced to have sex again her will. there is whether she's conscious, unconscious, meantly stable, not mentally stable."

i think that's a good definition, and i think the subcommittee could say that's what we all mean. we're talking about cases where force is used or women have been subjected to this against their will and move on. >> i want to thank mr. scott and all witnesses' testimony on this very crucial issue to humanity itself. the proceed churl question if i could? >> please. >> in your opening statement i believe you talked about respective changes you intended for the legislation, and i believe you talked about what was just mentioned and that was rape. you also -- if i missed it, i apologize as it relates to incest as well. >> i know there's ongoing deliberations and they are trying to deal with it.

i'm sure that's being talked. >> without objection, there's five legislative days to submit to the chair additional written questions for the witnesses, and we ask the witnesses to respond as promptly as they can so their answers are made part of the record. without objection, there's five legislative days to submit additional testimony. i thank the observers, the witnesses, and with that, this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> chairman of the house judiciary subcommittee on the constitution representative trent franks there ending this hearing for today. this committee considering a measure that would eliminate tax breaks for abortions and permanently prohibit federal taxpayer funding for abortions in all programs. it would quantify a height amendment that is typically renewed annually. more live coverage today. a town hall meeting with tea party activists. we'll hear from representatives and the house tea party caucus. live coverage at 7 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. representative bill cassidy on this morning's washington journal on what the government

should do about medicaid. >> host: a republican from louisiana and sits on the energy and commerce committee, also a doctor. >> guest: yes. >> host: you talked about medicaid reform. you think the system is broken. why? >> guest: oh my gosh. if the goals are to provide access to quality care at on affordable cost, medicaid is a black hole for that. there's not -- it's not providing access because it pays so porally, but despite paying poorly, the studies show the care is below quality, and so it is not where we want to be with reform. >> host: you said the quality of care is below average. why? >> guest: well, that is not -- it's documented, but the reasons why are not entirely understood. there's a recent report that showed that those on medicaid

have worse outcomes than patients with commercial insurance, patients who are on medicare, the federal program. remember, medicaid for viewers who don't know this, is a combined federal state program that ensures so to speak the low income folk, and it's actually worse than the uninsured, so medicaid patients in some cases have worse outcomes than patients without health insurance whatsoever. why that is is not understood, but there is a problem with the quality of patients on medicaid receive. >> host: you saw a lot of medicaid patients, do you still? >> guest: i've been working in the hospital for the uninsured for 20 years. about 50 percent of my parties have medicaid. it is commentary on the state of medicaid that patients with medicaid come to a hospital for the uninsured. i teach with louisiana state university on saw patients yesterday in that hospital for

the uninsured. >> host: the impact of medicaid on states. here's the headline in the "wall street journal". florida governor seeks cut in budget. the new governor there, rick scott, is proposing transferring medicaid recipients to another plan, a move that would save $2 billion a year on average. the savings come from costs and cuts and several florida counties are exparents with a system. is that a solution? >> guest: what is a solution will vary state by state. for example, if you have a very urban area, managed care in some settings works well. if you have a rural area with not as many providers, it works not so well. i think what the governors are calling for is more flexibility. let them, if it's the state's responsibility to implement, give them the flexibility to

implement it in a way which is appropriate for their state. clearly, manhattan is different from wyoming. you can imagine that medicaid implementation takes a different picture in both areas. we should allow those states to do frankly what they know better than washington, how to implement a large program for the benefit of their own people in a peculiar way to the particular circumstances. >> host: shouldn't there be standards for this program set by the federal government? >> guest: it depends on how far those standards go. now, if you want to say, listen, you've got to cover preeing pregnancy, of course, everyone agrees to that standard. when you become picky, and the federal government can be in terms of how it's done, it's impractical. a letter states we know you're going bankrupt, here's

solutions, ways you can cut your costs, and it's hard to keep is straight face as i read the letter. it is so bureaucratic. they can have this copay, but in this area, it's this copay. there was no way a practicing physician or hospital could interpret that. it is written by a bureaucrat trying to implement in an examine room cost sharing whether or not it could work. it is -- you need to have a bottom up approach, not a top-down. >> host: medicaid will be expanded starting in 2014. the new program, the expansion of this, will be fully covered by the federal government, the cost of it. in later years, the federal matching rate declines slightly, but well above the medicaid matching rate of 90%. it will stay there. the federal government is

picking up 90% of the tab for medicaid. the issue of states paying for it goes away, doesn't it? >> guest: absolutely not. one, there are those who are currently eligible, not enrolled, who will be automatically enrolled in the health care plan. that's a huge cost expansion. even if the federal government picks up 90%, that leaves $22 billion in costs for the state. now, you can say $22 billion, for the federal government it's not that much, but let's look at the particular case of california. california has a $25 billion deficit this approaching year. their democratic governor, jerry brown, has to cut medicaid or they can't deal with the crisis, under the health care expansion that takes place under obamacare, it increases medicaid coverage and increases california's obligation by $3.25

billion. they are a state $20 billion in debt, this still increases their cost by $3.25 billion. this is still a huge amount. in my own state, louisiana, far smaller, in the first five years, it's $650 million that we don't have. i say that because we in our small state now have a $1.5 billion deficit we're addressing. add another $200 million for the states, and that's cuts to education, roads, or more taxes paid. health care crowds out spending for everything. >> host: what's the alternative? >> guest: i didn't say not have medicaid. we need a safety net. medicaid is several programs. if you will, one, it's a long term care program. clearly, it is the backbone, if you will, for how we provide

long term care for often times the elderly. it is, at it's best, it is an insurance program providing access to critical health needs. these are my patients. these are my patients for 20 years i've been struggling to get health care for. at its best, it does that. i'll read this in no particular order. the governor's want more flexibility. the men and women are state people and know their states better than washington. there is a lot of fraud. 10% of the spending in new york state is related to fraud. my gosh, 10% of tax dollars supporting this health care program that's fraud? there's a gao report that in five states, and i'm quoting, "found tens of thousands of patients using medicaid to buy illegal drugs, or by prirption drugs illegally that they sell

in the streets." that is a huge thing. on health care, my passion, there's a group of patients called dual eligibles with both medicare and medicaid. the fact there's two different payers oftentimes means the provide res are incentivized to work across purposes. we can consolidate this group of patients how they are paid for and we get better health care, we can lower cost. we need to figure out how to do more with what we already have. >> host: telephone calls, mississippi, you're on the air. >> guest: hey, neighbor. >> caller: yes, i think it's time for the republicans to give the game up. the reason i say that is because first of all, y'all did not want to support the health care bill of president obama. that's the only solution. we have a health care system designed for people to die at 65 or 70.

people are living to be 90 years old. first of all, a lot of people, the elderly are on medicare. that's government supported. that's a health care system that supported by taxpayers. the other end is medicaid. that's the health care system supported by taxpayers. the only one that is working is the insurance companies #, and you want them to have more power. i know several people who lost jobs, who get sick, and they are paid insurance for years and years and years. the moment they get sick or lose their job, they convert to medicaid. we're paying all of that through our tax dollars any way, so what better way to boost up that system than to bring people into the system that can actually pay? >> host: leaving it there.

congressman? >> guest: i called you neighbor because you are from mississippi, and me from louisiana. i'm for saving medicare and medicaid. the health care bill which most people know by obamacare, there's a lot of other names, took $500 billion from medicare, the program for the elderly, took $500 billion and didn't use the savings to shore up the program, but used it to fund a new entitlement. it took medicaid and expanded it by $16 billion. your state, mississippi, is having to cut its medicaid budget because there's not tax dollars for it. you still need to up vest in roads and higher education system. you are cutting medicaid. you just expanded probably in mississippi by 50%. you're going to take the same number of dollars, but long term, you take the small number of dollars and spread it that much thinner. now, again, and we're doing this

to create a third entitlement. the third entitlement created by cannibalizing one and expanding another which is already bankrupting states is then supposed to rescue the first two. it just doesn't make sense. what you don't understand, i want the patient to win in it this, not the insurance companies. my 20 years as a practicing physician, when it comes to medicaid, the patients don't win. those patients see me at my public hospital even though they have insurance, but they can want be seen elsewhere. one last example, greta. >> host: sure. >> guest: there was an article published in the "new york times" talked about medicaid. there was a woman with ovarian cancer. they paid the oncologist so poorly, that the oncologist was going bankrupt. he had to stop seeing medicaid

patients because she couldn't afford to make bills. here's a program that the caller praises, and i'm not doubting her motivation, that already pays so poorly, that is didn't provide access. it's the illusion of coverage wows the power of access. >> host: if president obama and republicans were able to agree on tort reform for health insurance, for the health care industry, would that help bring down costs for doctors, and then under that example that you just gave, would that help a doctor with his or her bottom line? >> guest: well, the cbo suggested that tort reform could save $54 billion over 10 years if the california model was implemented. by the way, in the health care bill that was passed, obama care, or whatever you want to call it, it specifically prohillary clintoned the -- prohibited the implementation of the california model. this needs to be achieved, but you can't use the model that the

cbo says gets you $45 billion in savings. more to your point. indeed, if there is health care, tort reform, you can squeeze out the access dollars going for defensive medicine or payments and reinvest that into shoring up medicare and medicaid. it's not the silver bullet. there's no single bullet. it's part of what we need to piece together to make the patient the process and carry. >> host: there compromise do make the health care law better without necessarily totally repealing it? > guest: the florida judge, the basis of the suit -- the florida judge who recently ruled the health care was unconstitutional, there's another issue that the 26 states brought to bear, and that issue was that the medicaid expansion

at the federal government was forcing upon the states is basically you had the state's control over the budget. it's supposed to be a federal system where the states are independent of the federal government. here's a health care bill passed that by some estimates would consume 50% of some state's budgets by 2030, so in 19 years, 50% of new york state's budget is gone to medicaid according to an independent health consultant. part of the plaintiff's argument is you are corping our ability to control the budget. if you mandate, you do this. they are not able to pay for roads, corrections, and universities. going back, part of what the complaint is about this bill is and to your point is the lack of severallability. if the judge is right, the

mandate is so central to this, you cannot remove the individual mandate without destroying the bill. similarly, if we're going to ensure states to more americans by putting 16 million of them on medicaid and medicaid will bankrupt the states, that's not something you can compromise on. that's something you have to repeal and start over with. >> host: joe, a republican, alabama, good morning. >> caller: how are you doing? >> host: thanks for waiting, question or comment for the congressman. >> caller: this bill was modeled after the romney bill in massachusetts. that was a disaster. this obamacare bill is going to be a disaster, and i just wonder if billy thinks the supreme court will rule this thing unconstitutional because of the commerce clause, and what can we do to improve health care in the nation besides this obama care? >> guest: i can tell a

southerner called because he called me billy. i went from being billy to bill, back home, i'm still billy. i cannot comment on what the supreme court will say regarding the commerce clause. is this an overreach? i can tell you, november 3 last year, americans felt the individual mandate was an intrusion of the federal government into their personal lives like they had never seen before. what we can do to reform health care if there's not an individual mandate or a big 137-page bill, you got to start from the ground up. the health care bill that was passed is a top-down approach. according to the cbo, there's going to be, i think it was cbo or gao, it's impossible to estimate the number of boards and bureaucracies needed to implement this bill. any time it's impossible to estimate the growth of

government, that is a top-down approach. what you need to do is go to a bottom-up approach where what somebody in washington tells a patient and their physician to do, but it's the patient in control and she is making decisions that are good for her pocketbook and her health care. >> host: critics of republicans over this idea of repealing the health care law say republicans haven't come up with alternatives. >> guest: a couple things. there was a couple bills submitted last year. i guess they didn't look at those. there's two or three. some people said we had too many and we weren't agreeing, and now we don't have a handle at all? we've had three last year. secondly i say, if you plan on the federal government or the republican party coming up with a 127-page bill that we have to get up and announce that we have to pass it so we know what's in it as speaker pelosi said, we're not going to do that.

we're going to have a bill as a starting point, but the american people will be on the board, and when it's passed, they will no it's in it, not something to pass to learn what's in it. >> host: mary, democratic line. thank you for waiting. >> caller: a i have a couple questions if i may. representative cassidy, isn't it true that florida on the republican leadership, governorship in the past 8-10 years has the highest percentage of medicare and medicaid fraud? secondly, why is it so many physicians are running to congress to become menders? are medicaid payments that bad for you? >> guest: a couple things. with regard to medicare fraud, i don't know if medicaid is a huge issue in south florida. medicare clearly is. i always take that as an

indictment as a federal program. many people watching are familiar with the new yorker article who went to mcallen, texas, and found that a border town on mexico that had 86% higher costs than el paso, texas in the same kind of population. there's been a study published recently in health affairs that says, yes, indeed, mcallen, texas has significantly more payments than el paso, but when it comes to the privately insured, the blue cross patients of texas is actually 7% less. medicare, a government run program, has 20% fraud in south florida. mcallen, texas, there's 100 more expenditures, and the privately insured don't have these problems. when people want a government-run program to take care of the uninsured, look at

south florida. i think, mary, we're on the same page. fraud in south florida is not because of the republican governor, but just because that's how the government registers the program. it is a federal program, not a state program. the problems with it are the federal government's responsibility, not the states. new jersey is also a state having huge budget problems related to medicaid with governor christie cutting medicaid that means patients are having problems more so getting access because of the expenditures of medicaid in of the state. that's one more state having problems before the health care reform act in paying for medicaid. .. mount sterling, ky. good morning. caller: you republicans, anything that helps the poor people, you call it entitlement.

you are not getting as good care under medicare or medicaid -- you are forgetting your hit the credit oath. we do not have the money to pay for some cadillac plan so we are pushed to the side. guest: for 20 years i worked in a hospital for the uninsured. i do not see private practice. 20% of my patients are inmates. i do not know who you are speaking of. go back to the woman in michigan, on michigan medicaid. medicaid pays below cost in many states, and apparently pays below the cost of doing business in michigan. is it the physician's fault that she has to pay her nurse, her electrical bills, rent, other office expenses, and therefore

cannot afford to take charity from a state program. i think you are being incredibly unfair. what i would say is -- if anybody is supportive of these programs and does not want reform, even though it is bankrupting states, you should volunteer to pay more taxes. we are really talking about the taxpayer. i think that governments need to live within their means. but if your opinion is they should raise taxes so they can expand these programs more, then we just differ. host: this is a story written in "cq" --

would you agree to that? guest: we do not want to allow someone in a car wreck to die on the scene. that person will be transported to a hospital where they will be here for. -- cared for. we are a just society. so the question is, how do you come up with an alternative? some of these people buying insurance -- the encroaching upon their personal liberty by this individual mandate. again, the federal judge had it right. host: is that not an incentive, what deazio is talking -- defazio is talking about? guest: what we really need to do

is create a market for insurance products, so that people can afford it, meets their needs, but not with all these other bells and whistles to pay for that drags down the cost and therefore persuade them not to purchase after all. host: allentown, pennsylvania. still, good morning. caller: i am a retiree. social security is called an entitlement because i paid into it. i am entitled to get my money out of it. explain to the american people -- you are on government-run care for yourself and your family. what does it cost you every year to have insurance because you are in a huge pool of people? what does it cost you? our taxpayers put you in there. what does it cost you to have government-run interest which are so much against?

. . by a blue cross company and the fact is it costs $15,000 a year for my family for i have an employer based health insurance, and what economists tell you is when you have an employer based policy, you're in whole year pays part of your salary if you will as a contribution to your premium and then the family or the employee puts out the other part. when i taught for the louisiana state university that was a government entity as a part of my employment package, they put up liking some dollars pretax and i put up some pre-tax but i: was all if you listen to inllene economist a part of my salary. in allentown there's lots of unions i presume in pennsylvani

it is actually one of the miss being floated out there that employer-based health insurance is somehow government run. host: what does it cost you per month for insurance? guest: it is 15,000 divided by four. host: martha's vineyard on the line. caller: i want to make suggestions that are little bit out of the box. the first is that c-span, who we consider that absolutely perfect order produced three consecutive weekends on this overall issue. one in the "book tv" format. one on medicare and medicaid and the health-care law that passed, because as a consumer of media

taking responsibility for our national issues, the big problems with this issue is the complexity creates of security. i completely trust the american people to make all the right decisions once they have the information. this is the classic the elephant and you cannot get all the parts together. dr. cassidy is doing an excellent job in my view in getting the pieces of this across. once you get the pieces and parts clearly in front of the american people, we will be able to come to good decisions. i am 63-years old and in excellent health and have private insurance. what i would like to do, and this is my really outside the box idea, is to create at the state level of reality game show in which we compete for being the healthiest individuals and groups and hospitals of providing health care in the

most efficient ways, because we love our super bowls and we could have a super bowl of get the fraud out, get the corruption out, get the inefficiency out, because that is what our time period is about. let's take this on our shoulder at the level of the individual. guest: what is your reaction? what a great call. not everyone will agree with me, but i totally agree. can we have a timeline of implementation? pwill this new plan need to new york at the example? i hope that is a great call -- i hope c-span harbors that

suggestion. that is a great call. caller: a question i have is i listen to congressman cassidy and congressman price and congressman planning -- fleming who all seem to be doctors from a section of the country that has the highest mortality rates, the lowest life span, the lowest amount of and it death rate. they seem like the people that are the poorest. ever since the democrats became pro-civil-rights and the republicans moved in to suck out the racist, they have taken control of the south. the poorest part of the country. and you talk about the roads in mississippi. they have the worst roads and mississippi.

why should i listen to these people? guest: mississippi has great roads. if you speak to carolyn from earlier, she will probably agree with your premise that republicans are bad. as it turns out, the problems of the medicaid population are the problems of poverty. the south has more poverty. if you look at california as an example, i did my residency in los angeles, there are areas which have similar rates of poverty in similar problems if you just look at the impoverished population of low- birth rate babies, high infant mortality it said rep. what you also point out is that there is a component of health care, which the health care system cannot reach. there is a component of health

care, which is clearly related to lifestyle choices. there is a study suggesting that the entirety in difference in health care spending between united states and europe is related to the obesity epidemic. i think you mentioned in this out we have a lot of problems with the obesity problem. the southwest does also. those are costs drivers of hypertension, diabetes, renal failure, i can go on. cigarette smoking causes cancer and is beyond the reach of the medical system, except for occasional you can use a patch to get someone off of nicotine. if you think about your argument, and if you look at the impoverished areas of california, those statistics are no different than the party elsewhere. it does not demonstrate house --

it demonstrates the importance of lifestyle decisions and the need to address the health care needs of the impoverished. i do not lose all credibility just because i am from region you look down on. host: rep cassidy talked about medicare and separate staff to reform it. the actual efforts -- the actual number was 250 billion in 2009. estimated to go to 8 323 billion in 2015. medicaid participants in 2009, the number was 66 million. it is estimated to be 76 million in 2020. and medicaid participants, 29 million children. and 15 million adults, primarily poor working parents are medicate participants.

6 million seniors and 8.8 million with disabilities. guest: from the federal perspective, it turns out that eds pick up 50% of the costs, and the feds pick up the rest of the cost. 16% of the health-care dollar in the united states is medicaid. i read recently that right now states met -- spend more on medicaid than they do on primary and secondary education. what the health-care bill that was passed, it is estimated 50% of budget's going to medicaid will go to 30%. in some states it will actually double. it already states are spending more money on medicaid than they are on schools, wow, that is at 22%. when it goes to 30%, they will spend more money on medicaid funds cools, roads.

states like california and new york and new jersey is already exploding. caller: i want to think congress but cassidy for looking into the medicare fraud. -- i want to thank congressman cassidy for looking into the medicaid fraud. when the thing i want to point out is i believe in the u.s. constitution there is not a constitutional mandate for the federal government to make sure that everyone has health care. i believe different states have different issues, in each state should be able to do their medicaid differently. as the congressman pointed out, new york and other states saw would do their health care differently vs texas and florida.

in one of the previous callers mentioned that some of the summer and -- southern states were more poor. in the southern states there are lots of illegal immigration issues. there are people coming in illegally and getting free health care, which puts a burden on infrastructure and health care system. host: i will have to jump in at that point. we're running out of time. guest: there is a headline this past week how the federal government is accusing new york city of a certain amount of fraud, and apparently it is big dollars because the people in new york are very upset. most americans do not want the federal government reaching in and telling them exactly what they have to do. they see the difference between having to purchase insurance because you breathe and having to purchase car insurance because you own a car. lastly, illegal immigration, clearly party is having an

impact on health reform. there should be a program does on the impact of poverty. it is an incredible issue when it comes to health care. and host: here is a question from a viewer who tweets in. we have heard this from viewers before that doctors see them for 15 minutes and they get a bill for $200. what cost so much? guest: for a private practitioner, you have an office, which is expensive. it is not just a trailer, it is a well-built office. you have personnel. you out front office personnel,

someone that allows the insurance companies, and one or two nurses, depending on the size of the practice. you have supplies. my wife is a general surgeon. the supplies that would allow her to do surgery in office are expensive. there is tremendous cost. one of the misnomers is that physicians are the ones that get all the money. it turns out 20% is what they get of the dollar. 50% of the physician's income goes for overhead. the overhead is fixed. all you are doing is compressing that which he takes home. i use the example of the pediatrician. to cut the wages by 10%. she has to see that many more patients. the reason she sees them for five minutes and set up 15 is in order to make the overhead she as a crowd more patients into a

compressed amount of time. host: that is next. -- brad is next. caller: i want to point out that the congressman has done a fairly great job of explaining the situation for medicaid. i wonder if he realizes he has not said one thing specifically for what he would do to handle the problem here ye. guest: great point. there is something called to eligible. these are about 9 million americans that are on medicare and medicaid. right now medicare and medicaid, the way they pay, incentivizes providers, doctors and hospitals, to work across personals. it is incredibly expensive.

if we can take those and streamline or make their payments so that it all incentivizes good health, that would be doing more for less. that would be one thing that would be low-hanging fruit. secondly, there is a program started under the bush administration call load -- called money follows the patient. they get the long-term care dollar and use it in the setting for which they're cared for. it gives them more freedom. it is less expensive to provide it there. if the preliminary studies regarding money follows the patient works, that is a program that should be expanded more. fraud. we ever spoken about this, but 10 percent of the cost is going to fraud and that is the most expensive program in the nation. that is clearly a place of low- hanging fruit. i have lots of ideas.

host: thgreg is our last call for the congressman. caller: we will start a little analogy. the chicken and pigs are rocking down the road. the chicken says to the pig, i think everyone should have bacon and eggs for breakfast. the pick sayg says do you realie comment on my part this will take? let's look at how we got to health care. let's have office staff colin about the way insurance companies treat them on the service basis. take a look at drug companies to drop on medicaid with incomplete drugs and marketing systems that rivals armies.

let's deal with medical device industries. host: i think we got your point. guest: although he did point out endemic problems, i can tell you that if you think insurance commercials -- commercial insurance these are bad, try calling medicaid and see how well their service is. i am not advocating for insurance companies, i am advocating for patients. i would rather have a bottom-up approach. not a top-down approach. for 20 years i have been working in the bureaucratic system. i see what works. what works is not the bureaucracy, but the patient deciding what is best for her. i think we'rere on the same pag

the federal communications commission voted unanimously today on a proposal that redirects the government subsidy to fund high speed internet. the plan makes changes to the 8 billion-dollar universal service fund used to provide telephone service in rural areas. we will watch this on to allow our live coverage of the tea party town hall. before we begin, i would like to take a moment to recognize a beloved member of the fcc staff who passed away just last week, january 31st, after a courageous battle with cancer. anita was an extraordinary person who worked very closely with so many people at the fcc.

she was known by all as a generous person with not only a brilliant intellect but also we warm spirit and incredibly positive attitude every day. even through her illness when she continued to work at the fcc making her friendships participate in all the activities here at the agency. anita had been at the fcc since 1995 when she joined the predecessor as part of the honors program. she worked with the commission and several rolls over the years, always working hard, always committed to doing the right thing to come always working on behalf of the american people. she was the original author of the fcc's troup and billing rule, and over the course of her time here at the fcc worked on a

variety of matters including lifeline healthcare issued in the timber. she worked very closely with all of the people on making the first presentation anita was an inspiration to her colleagues in the lawyer line bureau and throughout the fcc. at her memorial service this weekend, literally hundreds of people attended with an overwhelming turnout from the agency. all people who knew her directly and very sad. kenneda leaves behind a husband michael and two younger children, and on behalf of everyone at the fcc, all of the commissioners and certainly everyone from the bureau, i want to expend our sympathy to her

friends, family and colleagues as we honor her life and recognize her service to the fcc with that, madam secretary, would you please introduce the agenda. >> good morning to you and good morning commissioner pete today's agenda includes three items for consideration. first he will consider an item of broadband to all of america and spur infrastructure investment and job creation. by modernizing the universal service fund and the intercarrier compensation system while cutting waste and inefficiency. second, we will hear a presentation on the status of the reform effort to improve agencies fact based decision making. feared, you will consider a proposed rulemaking initiatives as part of the commission's innovative initiative to streamline and modernize the

collection of data over form 77. in order to ensure that the date of the commission selects and forms policy-making while minimizing burden on a voice and broadband service providers. for the fourth and final item, you will consider a notice of proposed rulemaking initiatives as part of the commission's de tuck initiative to eliminate the legacy narrow band connection and opened the architect requirement that is applied to the operating companies to a lack of relevancy and utility. this is your agenda for today. the first item will be presented by the white airline competition year and a wireless telecommunications bureau. the wireless competition bureau will give the introduction. >> good morning mr. chairman and commissioners. today the lawyer line competition between wireless

continent tissues bureaus are prepared to present a fundamental reform of the commission's universal service and inter carrier -- intercarrier. chollet we still need efficiency and said the nation on a fiscally responsible path towards making fixed and mobile broadband available to all america. recognizing the universal service fund and the intercarrier payments to gather the opinions and -- the support networks and rural high-cost areas integrated notice of proposed rulemaking is a holistic approach to reform both policies. preparing this has involved much hard work and a large number of staff whose names appear on the screen. the detailed proposals to greet the universal and intercarrier policies toward broadband. it's been enriched by the composition that many bureaus and offices across the agency who are u.s. reform workers. the wireless telecommunications bureau joins us of the table.

also see to what we are the key members of the leadership team, carroll, deputy bureau chief rebecca good heart, amy defender, deputy chief of telecommunications mandy clark, acting deputy division and the policy division and victoria golderg in the policy division. attorney adviser and the telecommunications access division will present the universal service portion of the items and for the intercarrier compensation reform. >> proposes to transform the portion of the universal service fund to provide support for telephone service in rural and high-cost areas. why all this program has enabled some rural telephone companies to deploy broadband cable lines, many rural areas received insufficient funding creating a

worldwide. in many other areas of the country usf provides more support than necessary to achieve the goals. the competitor is offering surface without government or supports several networks in a single area. there's room for improved accountability throughout the program. this notice proposes to transform the high-cost program into a new more efficient broadband focus connect america fund. we proposed modernization of the fund to support, fiscal responsibility, accountability the reform. by recognizing the great need for the reform we notice also the need to provide a transition pass and avoid flash kutz. additionally, the notice recognizes the critical role played by the partners as well as other federal agencies and comment on how to best

coordinate our efforts. as shown on the screen, noticed proposes to the transition process consisting of near-term and longer-term reforms. in the near term we propose transitioning a high-cost funding to the phase one connect america fund which would be used to accelerate the deployment of broad and in the areas. we would continue to maintain the rate of return from work by a small telephone companies while modifying some of the support mechanisms to improve incentives for operations. in particular this is the near term reform. a set of updates to the rules governing support mechanisms originally intended for small telephone companies including one, modifying reimbursement formulas have the effect of distributing support more equitably with in the high cost support mechanism, never to come phasing out the local switching

mechanism predicated on an outdated technology rationale and imposing limits on the total support line any carrier operating in the continental united states can receive. member for come establishing a feasible network to establish reasonable benchmarks for allowable capital and operating expenses. second, the notice proposes to transition interstate access support through the connect america fund over a period of a few years. originally created in 2000 as an interim part of a five-year transitional reform plan, ias has outlived its intended life span. our record to date suggests this fund is not critical to ensure the rural service and we believe funds could be more productively used to support the broadband of the vehicle. third, the notice proposes the support role and over a period of years rationalize the support for competitive eligible

communications carriers so that funding remains focused on areas that truly need support. two of the largest recipients have already voluntarily agreed to relinquish their support. noted comment on how to best use the funding through the connect america fund to the also asks whether there should be exception of the proposed rule changes recognizing they're not all similarly situated. we use the near-term reforms to establish some of the connect america fund. relies on a competitive bidding cost option two overt support for broad and deployment wife or wireless and areas across the country. the proposed national broadband map to areas that currently lack

broadband service. it would then hold a competitively new option where the process would be similar to the proposed out line and the mobility fund paid in the longer term the notice proposes the transition all remaining high-cost support america fund. this would provide ongoing support to maintain an advanced broadband across the country in areas of would be not economic to provide broadband absent the voice service as an application provided over the broadband. it seeks, on several options for determining support levels under the connect america fund including the use of an auction, use of a cost model, and potentially implementation of different approaches for different areas of the country.

the notice also proposes a variety of measures to increase accountability, establish clear goals for the program and better measure program performance including reporting and audit process these. these measures will help insure that the american public is getting its money's worth from >> thank you. intercarrier compensation, or payments between carriers for delivering phone calls. despite dramatic shift in technology, consumer behavior and competition, the intercarrier payment system remains grounded in concept from the 1980's and is overdue for an update to read the notice seeks comment on the framework to comprehensively reform icc, consistent with providing a predictable transition pass index of leading deployment of all ip networks, while also proposing near-term actions to reduce inefficiency and waste in

the system. as with the transition to the connect america fund, our icc proposals follow the two-stage framework as shown on the screen. in the near term, the notice seeks comment on the proposed rules on proposed rules to reduce incentives for wasteful and inefficient arbitrage practices, implicating by some estimates hundreds of millions of dollars a year, and to establish increased certainty in icc payments. specifically, the notice proposes the interstate access rules to address access stimulation of practice where the characters enter into the revenue sharing arrangements and offered supposedly free conferencing, chad or similar services the result in large volumes of calls going to areas with high interstate access rates. these arrangements are royce from smaller carriers whose permanent rates can be more than ten times higher than the rates

charged by the largest carriers resulting in the potential for significant revenue from icc payments. the proposed rules would require incumbent and competitive carriers participating in such revenue sharing arrangements to refile their access tariffs to reflect a lower rate more consistent with their actual traffic volumes. the notice also proposes rules to address phantom traffic or calls that lack information to enable the terminating carrier to know which carrier to build or what rate to apply to account for 8% of all traffic and to divert substantial resources towards resolving billing disputes. resources that could otherwise be directed to broadband deployment. the proposed rule modifications are intended to insure that terminating providers with sufficient information for all voice calls to identify and build the appropriate provider.

it seeks to comment on the interconnected traffic for purposes of the icc. it brings necessity to the industry. we propose to options for working in partnership and states to achieve long-term reform. under the first option we would work within our existing federal-state role reduced cherry your churches with the commission responsible for the transition of the interstate access rates and the states responsible for to transition of the intrastate. we seek comment on what incentives the commission could provide for example through the connect america fund for the states to complete the necessary reforms. under the second option, the commission would interpret the reciprocal compensation framework of section 251b5 of the telecommunications act as applying to all inter carrier traffic. in which case the set and

methodology and the states would implement the associated transition. we seek, and how to structure the reductions of inter carrier charges with the goal of completing the transition away from the current system by the time the long term connect america fund was established. the mood is also six comment on the closely related issue by structuring the financial recovery mechanism to be established at the same time as icc rate reductions began to provide certainty to the industry during the transition. we recognize some areas of the country may need access to the connect america fund as part of the recovery mechanism and we seek comment on how to do so with our commitment to control the size of the fund. by modernizing or icc policies for a broadband world, and by reducing incentives for wasteful arbitrage, we believe these reforms will promote investment in the ip facilities and spur

innovation. the adoption of the lotus requests editorial privileges. >> excellent presentation. thank you very much. have comments and i assume they will serve the transfer because if we can't expectation that has gone into it will be left for the tattered a shot at taking us where we this. looking to broadband infrastructure is one of the

great tools to build a better and more prosperous future for america. we take this nothing less than this prosperity, the global competitiveness and the infrastructure for the national civic dialogue all at stake. where the united states will continue to give rise to the economy are in no small part on the part of our communications americans urban and rural to access them. it is the bedrock of the national communications policy statute because all of us benefit from more of us are connected. let's keep in mind that for all its faults the system has accomplished a lot. good things come from a high cost support mechanism. national telephone patrician stance over 90% although we know and i pleased that this item at

allegis some areas such as the indian country remain inexcusably behind. it's been deployed in many rural high-cost areas those places were where they may never be a private sector business case for broadband and high-quality voice service good jobs have been created. here's something that it's seldom mentioned because of our universal service mechanisms we have less consolidation than consolidated sector but new times, new challenges and new technologies are passing the old system by. it hasn't had the maintenance and modernization and indeed any system to keep functioning. plus the action has moved far more advanced telecommunications rightly grown out. yet much work remains before we are all seen and of the same song sheet writing the song sheet is what we will be giving

in the months immediately ahead. the injured carrier compensation has many moving% categories that intricacies and applications and exemptions. we must be up front that phasing down and eliminating the and lots of mechanisms built be easy, will not be painless. we must face the high your true if the system is not designed to live up to the public interest or the dictator of all for insuring access to the services of americans required to participate fully in the digital age. we see some of money being wasted right inside of the need for funds in and served areas. the item before cummins disabled and predictable framework for injured carrier compensation as we rationalize the system often played with gamesmanship. we all see the symptoms of decision making deferred to much

litigation, self-help and market power as a substitute for the rules needed to minimize arbitraged, promote investment and deployment and maximize the opportunities for the new the most of trustees had gone to avoid phantom traffic and stimulation to name only the business models and ultimately the consumers the surf rely on today's outdated system our in today's i industry and consumers benefit mile-marker, guiding us along the way to the reform. we want reform the transition right away but we have an obligation to complete the transition plan this year. i appreciate working with my colleagues on this a series of stakeholders and no one is more

sigler than the public he will be living with or and my hope is that participants would come prepared to put on the table the final test and considered faults in the shape of your decisions cognizant that the commission decisions and votes were eminent and that everyone will have to sacrifice a little so the country can gain a lot to the decisions would take place as soon as possible after all stakeholders have had an opportunity to submit written comments in today's i come so we could have an open and transparent discussion on the eve of the commission votes which i am hoping and expecting will take place this year, 2011. that means a final transition plan and this is a reform of orders. to reshape the inter carrier policies to meet the national broadband goals will require a commitment should sacrifice and ability to rise above the clamor for the trapeze of the status quo has been beneficial to one private interest.

i served at the commission for many iterations and temps of some issues and made some adjustments the comprehensive reforms what is required to make it across the finish line and it is going to demand more from each and every one of us. today's item doesn't lack for questions and if there are more hope they will respond with the inquiry also needs to expand consideration about how to distribute efficient and targeted support for broadband contributions necessary to put the universal service fund on solid footing for the future recognizing that consumers ultimately bear the burden equity would suggest a fund that distribute support for broadband often require the same services to contribute to read the fourth with $3 billion will high-cost funding is obviously key to the

broadband buildup but it is for bringing total high-speed citizen and every corner of the land the sufficient time to keep globally competitive. the infrastructure across the length of the country isn't on the cheek. universal service will be a large part of the solution to read it may not be the whole solution. i also look for final action to we started down the road on this already realizing setting up and running of the reverse options for the proposals in term and long term that we played here for the connect america fund. modernizing our low-income support mechanism to support brand must also be a top priority in the federal state recommendations and identify key

issues in the life line programs and i anticipate action soon on certainly made impressive progress toward making sure the rate is able to fulfil its maximum potential going forward. e-rate is going to deliver equally amazing results in the years ahead. finally, it is imperative that and i welcome randy's comments on that. you heard me speak many times before about this so i won't belabor it here believe the telecommunications act of 1996 envisioned a will laugh implementing the statute that has not yet been achieved. maybe we can achieve it here. i hope so. the several bureaus working hard for so long on preparing this item that's a

wonderful book civil fcc cooperation and inter bureau cooperative work. my thanks to the chairman for putting this front and center with a commitment to action soon thanks to the floor staff for their contributions to the proceeding and its course to the esteemed colleagues who share a commendable desire to get on with his job and actually finished. notice of proposed rulemaking i do so with more confidence than ever in my ten years here. this is a job that can finally get done. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner mcdowell. >> thank you, mr. chairman. 15 years ago today president clinton signed into law the telecommunications act of 1996. it took almost two years for congress to pass that legislation but when it did it dormer overwhelming bipartisan

support. political junkies pass the senate 91 to five in the house, for 14 to 16. the key component of the legislation section 254 which outlines broad powers and duties for the fcc to structure the universal subsidy program. the act also defines the authority to modernize our complex inter carrier compensation rules. the fund's original mission is to make a traditional analog circuit switched voice service and affordable to as many americans as possible. congress also called on the commission however to ensure that we refine the program from time to time to ensure affordable access to advanced services. in the fall of 2008, four commissioners, two democrats and republicans, myself included, agreed in principal on many fundamental reforms of the universal service and into carrier compensation regimes. unfortunately the votes were not sufficient to carry the day.

nonetheless i remain optimistic that the five of us can rekindle the positive and constructive spirit as we take the first steps on the next segment of this very long journey. since i first arrived here at the commission, the universal service funds growth. it went from 8 billion in 2010 is troubling. equally problematic has been the unbridled growth of but contribution factor and its early stages in 1998, this to support the fund is driven from consumers' search of 5.5% of interstate revenue. today, that tax rate skyrocketed to an all-time high of more than 15%. the programs in general the trends on the spending and taxing sides of this equation are simply unsustainable. as the 21st senator program the service fund should be false

away from subsidizing inefficient 20th century systems and support the efficiency of current technology has brought about by competitive pressures. as i stated over the years my first priority has always been to restore fiscal responsibility to this program. i've long advocated for comprehensive of the entire universal service and injured carrier compensation regimes. it's like fixing a watch. it's impossible to tinker with one component of the mechanism without affecting all of its parts of the same time. the commission is choosing to take the route again by not addressing the contribution mechanism at the same time. not of you in my view piecemeal reform is better than no reform at all and as such i commend the chairman for taking on this complex and important effort. i also think him for his willingness to work with all of his colleagues to achieve consensus today and going forward. as we go forward i will work to

ensure that we contain the growth of the fund and preferably reduce the size of the fund. but i refer to the size of the fund the entire universal service fund, not just the high-cost program that we address in the proposed rule making. it is not responsible of the fcc's on savings and one universal service on such as high cost fund but expanded of the universal service. as the technology offers consumers more efficiency as resulting in the reduced cost i challenge my colleagues to work towards reducing the size of the fund over time to reflect the savings brought about bye competition and innovation. the competition supplants any ostensible need for the regulation and subsidies. in that spirit i'm delighted we are seeking comment on ways to transition to a market-driven policies such as exporting reverse auctions. to undertake serious universal service reform the commission

must have the legal authority to do so. i placed this asked for comment on the authority to support broadband with universal service funds. my opinion is the commission does have such authority to section 254. section 254, chris specified the joint board and the commission shall base policies for the preservation and advancement of universal service on certain principles, and of quote. two of the principles are instructive, first under section 254b2. congress sets forth the principal of, quote, access to advanced telecommunications and information services should be provided in all regions of the nation and of quote. in 254 the consumers in all regions of the nation to low-income consumers and those in the role in solar and high-cost areas should have access to telecommunications and information services.

it is in the gibson a classic chevron difference and the commission's interpretation of it would be upheld by the courts. i'm concerned with for some lobbying groups are pushing to propose management conditions on the funds. such policies are unnecessary and would be counterproductive to read some all stakeholders especially american consumers should be on notice the five of us are determined to go forward with honest reform as soon as possible. while today marks the beginning of the latest installment of the universal service and your carrier compensation we will do all that we can to write the last chapter with great haste and care. i look forward to working with my colleagues, members of congress and all stakeholders on these issues. a consensus can and should be found this time around.

finally, many thanks to the legions of dedicated professionals in both the wireline and wireless bureaus for door seemingly endless hours of work on this notice. you've done an outstanding job. take your vitamins and get rest tonight because we are going to need your hard work going forward to bring this home. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner clyburn. >> thank you to lead to fully participate and succeed in the 21st century economy, all citizens, no matter where they live, most have access to broadbent technology. most of us in this rented for granted the presence of high speed internet access in our homes but many regions in the nation there are consumers who are not so fortunate. i still hear stories of the persistent digital divide in the country and the significant disadvantage citizens face without broad and service for example just last week i learned of two more stories that

highlight the need for universal service reform and the small texas town a young woman who had been out of work for three months missed a job opportunity because her town has most reliable high-speed internet service are we even dependable wireless phone reception? only by traveling 70 miles to san antonio and staying with friends was she able to receive e-mail to a an employe year and completed the employ your application requirements at a local library. still another situation involved at high school student who was forced to actually spend the night in a library. to complete a writing assignment as his home had no reliable high-speed internet service. these are real stories and real people who do not question the power of broadband but right now

they are unable to access it at home. i fully agree with my fellow commissioners that the universal service fund must be reformed to bring the benefits of broadband to the millions of americans who lack access to a high-speed network with a live. the step we take today in adopting the notice of proposed rulemaking bills upon the work we began immediately after the release of the national broadband plan. regarding the service fund to provide a meaningful opportunity for every american to benefit from the broadband communications era is an action consistent with the principles set forth in section 254 of the communications act to ensure all americans have access to affordable voice and advanced communications services. while the service fund has been instrumental in providing affordable telephone service to millions of americans, it has not been as effective in

ensuring advanced services reach all american homes. indeed, it is apparent that the current structure of high-cost mechanisms of the fund has led to the support of multiple providers and networks rather than focusing on the mission congress gave to us to ensure quality of voice and advanced services at just reasonable and affordable rates rural comments were in high-cost areas. it is also apparent that we cannot be searching that our financial support of communications network is being prudently used by providers to achieve these goals accordingly it is imperative that we move expeditiously to reform by cost mechanisms to address the broadband needs of the country and to assure that support is used efficiently for both voice and broadband services available and affordable in all areas of

the nation. as a commissioner from a state i know how important it is that citizens have access to the same critical communication services both wireline and wireless and as they do in the rural areas that such services are compatible and affordable. the economic survivability of the areas is in jeopardy. large and small businesses must have access to broadband to compete in our global economy and areas especially must have broadband in order to keep and attract employers who can help sustain and grow their economies. i've listened closely to the numerous takeovers and understand that many companies, their employees and families are currently really upon the usf support to provide services to the local communities. i recognize the need for the careful balance and by providing adequate time for the entities

to adjust to any proposed transition weigel we effect with the necessary changes required to assure we know as many benefits as possible from the universal service fund. service providers and investors must and will have time to adjust so the bacon make the migrant successfully. win of areas currently served by what your life or wireless providers but for the universal service fund support continue to receive their service. that same time, how would, we must ask each company's help in identifying and eliminating inefficiencies so that the fund can benefit more consumers. as communications technologies evolve, so to must to ensure the nation as fully connected. as such, it is not sufficient to

focus on the universal service fund, we must also consider the necessary changes to the inner carrier compensation regime. ..

is >> so before we get started, i just want to lay some ground rules for the tea party express town hall, and that is we are here to have a conversation. we are all in this together. we are not here to attack anyone. we want to have an open dialogue and a working relationship, so we hope that in the future that we can do this again in several months and on down the road to see how we're working together, so please be respectful and courteous of everybody in the room so that we don't scare anybody away and they'll come back, and i ask that your questions stick to the tea party issues of fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets, and not touch on social issues. those are the issues we want to address here tonight. i ask that you please follow the guidelines #-bg and i think --

guidelines, and i think that we'll be good with that. >> tony? here you go. this is tony, helping us put on the broadcast going out to millions of people. here you go. >> i think i'm just here to help. [applause] amy is really the one making it happen. thank you for letting me be here. >> thank you, tony, and thank you hd for letting us partner on this. levi, do you have anybody in the hallway or still waiting? >> the hallway is packed, but we're just going to have to go. >> okay, so we are going to open this up by allowing each of our guests once they get here a couple minutes to give an

opening statement no longer than 3 minutes because we want an open dialogue. we're not here to have any long speeches. yellow cards have been passed around. if you have a question for the audience, you have a card. we'll collect those cards if you want to ask a question to the member of congress that's going to be up here. we have taken questions via youtube, twitter, and facebook, so we'll be going to those questions as well. [inaudible conversations] >> you, guys, give us just a couple minutes. i think it's packed out there, and they are trying to get through the hallwayment i know i've seen staffers out there asking which way to go, so give us just two or three minutes.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> still waiting for this town hall to start. members of congress and members of the tea party expected to speak here. we heard that the tea party is taking questions submitted by the audience and also questions on the tea party's twitter and facebook accounts. this is live on c-span2, expected to last a couple of hours. the senators, rand paul who you

see there, and orrin hatch expected to speak. michele bachmann will also be there as she chairs the tea party caucus. they asked representative bachmann for more information about her campaign finance report, the result of which could lead to financial penalties. a letter from the fcc asked the treasurer to itemize $1.5 million in personal contributions. they note when a donor gives more than $200 in an election, information must be included. that's what was called today about michele bachmann who is expected to be here at this town hall. [inaudible conversations] >> while our members of congress

are getting micked up, i'm just going to tell you a little bit about why we have decided to do this. as you all probably know, tea party express was playing a very important role in the elections of november of last year. we -- this movement has grown leaps and bounds over the past year and a half, two years now actually. our two year anniversary is coming up in just a couple weeks, and this movement has grown leaps and bounds, and you know, we can have rallies until the end of time, but ultimately, if we want to change what's going on in washington, we have to change the players in washington, and tea party express got involved in the political aspect of the tea party movement and the campaigns, and we all work together to bring new members of congress here to represent our principles and values of the tea party movement and to have people here that we know that we

can work with, and so we thought that, you know, we need to have an open dialogue, a working relationship because we all want to get our country back on the right track, and so we thought we would do this first, a historic town hall with both members of the house and the senate to be here and to listen to us, we the people, the constituents from around the country, and obviously people couldn't be here in washington, so we've taken questions online, virtual questions, so that's what we're doing here tonight, and i want to kick it off by introducing somebody that we were very proud to support, and out of the great state of kentucky, the south, and he has really come into washington and has shaken things up i wowed say, -- would say, senator rand paul. [applause] i'm going to rand paul first

because i want to personally thank him, and i echo the sentiments of all the constituents in the room and thank him personally for starting the first tea party caucus in the united states senate. [applause] >> thank you. well, i can't walked with a wire. see what i mean? you want me to be unhooked and come over there. i'll just stay here since i'm already hooked up. i messed up my wiring system. let me take that off because i already messed it up. all right. want me to come over there? all right, all right. now we really feel like this is a grass roots event with all of that. [laughter] thank you for inviting me. i think the tea party is an amazing thing.

i've never seen anything like this, and, you know, i was involved in politics. my dad ran in the 70s in the reagan election in 76, but i've never seen a political movement like this, and it truly is an organic movement, a movement that comes not only just from the people, but city by city. if you want to believe the tea party doesn't come from the top down, realize that every city has a tea party, and they don't always communicate with the next party's tea party. in kentucky, it's hards to say there's a unified tea party because it's city by city by city. it all came together at one time, really, i think spontaneously. i went to a tea party april 15, 2009, on the square. i was coaching baseball for my son. i said i'd be gone 20 minutes. i showed up, and there was 700 people in my small town. it's a movement. we came to washington and said,

well, the establishment is going to co-op us. i get here a week or two weeks before we are sworn in, we vote in the republican caucus to end earmarks. i hear my first san antonio. they say, well, looks like we co-oped the president. the president's against earmarks. the discussion is now about the debt. it's a real problem, and i see that and feel the significance of the debate changes because the tea party. the tea party is having an influence. i'm glad to be part of it, and i think it's important to know that it suspect even now -- isn't even now led by me, or others here, but we are part of it. we are not telling the tea party what to do. i like the way it's organized. it's us answering questions.

we can be part of help bringing the solution, but we are still asking what does the grass roots want, and i'm glad to be a part of it. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, senator. if you guys will, i guess we'll go straight down the line. first of all, thank you, all. senator hatch, the newest member to the tea party caucus, house of representatives, congressmen allen west. [cheers and applause] [applause] and senator mike lee from utah. he's new on the hill. [applause] another great conservative friend. senator lee, do you want the microphone, come up here or? >> i'll stay right here. [laughter] as you can tell, or this one works? okay. that way i can use both hands to speak. it makes it easier for me. i'm getting used to this

microphone thing. it holds me back. [laughter] i'm really honored to be here with you tonight and with some of my colleagues that are leer from both house -- here from both houses of congress. this is an important movement. it is a movement that is not a passing fad. interestingly enough, there was a profile piece done on my in the "washington post" this weekend. it was odd because it appeared in the style section of the "washington post". if somebody told me i would appear there, i was convinced tfsz a whatnot -- it was a whatnot to wear future. [laughter] in that, a certain leader of a certain party of a certain house of congress made the comment that the tea party movement wasn't going to last very long, that i would certainly outlive it. that person, that senator is

mistaken. absolutely mistaken. [applause] if he thought about it much, he would realize the tea party movement didn't start february 19, 2009 when that first meeting happened somewhere in florida. it started december 1773 when a group of americans decided they had had enough. they decided that they had been overtaxed and overregulated by a distant national government not based in washington, d.c. because this place didn't really exist then as such, but basically london. that government was o prezzive to the people. it didn't respect the concerns of the people. it operated so far from them that it was slow to respond to the needs of the people, and they decided it was time to take action, to show them what they didn't want out of their national government. it then took us 14 years to get from there, to boston in 1773,

to philadelphia in 1787, where we, as americans, decided what we didn't want. that was an important step that journey from boston to philadelphia. it's interesting. the set of principles they came up with explaning what they didn't want from the national government is still the same as it is today. the tea party movement of today reached the same conclusion that our national government far from possessing general police powers, far from passing laws that they think are important, really, our national government is set up to do just a few basic things, take care of our national defense, establish borders, adopt laws relating to patents, and my personal favorite power of congress that i hope to exercise one day is the power to issues letters mark and reprisal.

this gives you, the recipient, the right to engage in acts of piracy on the high seas. i think it would be fun to get one. i promised my teenage boys i'd get that done and we'd be pirates and you can join us. [laughter] therethere's no power in that 223-year-old document to tell us where to go to doctor and how to pay for it. there's not a lot of power of them telling us in a lot of things. that's what the tea party movement it. the federal government has limited power, and it's high time that it's legislative body, congress, start agenting like there is some limit to their power. that's why we're here. that's why we're going to change america. that's why we're not going away. [applause] >> thank you, senator lee. now, congressman allen west, do you want to stay?

>> i'll make sure i don't fall the ship over because there's a lot of people on youtube who have fun poking fun of me. [laughter] as senator o hatch asked me how are you enjoying this? i said, for 22 years i served this country in uniform and i protected the institutions that makes this republic so great in what it is. now to have the opportunity to serve in the u.s. house of representatives, i am the embodiment of the american dream. 50 years ago, my parents would never have believed their young son born in atlanta, georgia would be standing in front of these cameras. that's what makes america exceptional and great. [applause] so, while we are here, we are here to talk about the tea party. let me tell you something. there is a lot of misunderstanding of the tea party. some come at it because they

don't understand it. others attack it because they are afraid of it. if you could just recognize this is a constitutional, conservative grass roots movement that have taken the american people out so that now all the sudden people are going back, reading the constitution, reading the federalist papers, when you talk about people who now understand what you are speaking of, when you talk about the fact that people are getting together, taking these large pieces of legislation and breaking them down and having legislation reading parties and they are coming back together and putting summary sheets. this is an incredible thing happening in our republic, and it's what the founding fathers meant it to be, a representative democracy so you have people you elected to come here to be your voice and you are continuing to hold those people accountable. see, the tea party stands for really three simple things. they want effective and

efficient constitutional government. the center we talked about, understanding the left and right limits, the right and true proper mandates for the federal government, that's what needs to get in line, we have to ensure tranquility, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty. those are the mandates we have. when we have people who don't really understand, let's take, for instance, this whole thing with illegal immigration and bring them a lawsuit against a state in the united states of america, all you have to do is go to article 1 section 108 and understand that if we fail in our responsibilities at the federal government level, the state has every right to protect itself. that is what the tea party believes in. [applause] i'm actually honored that i can stand with the american people, and anyone that does not want to believe in effective and

efficient constitutional government, anyone that does not want to believe in our national security, being able to identify the threats, the enemies, emerging threats and capabilities that cause us concern, you know, i served in fort hood, texas. that was my last duty station. who would have thought that someone could stand in an outprocessive center and gun down 43 of our warriers and also civilian contractors who support them killing 13. we're on a 21st century battlefield that is completely different than any other we've stood on. we have to be certain about scarring this great land for the future generations of americans, and last and most important thing is free market and free enterprise principles of solutions. they don't believe in bailouts. they believe that there is risk out in the free market, but it is the responsibility of ceo's

and those in the private sector to mitigate the risks, and it's not about you as taxpayers to be held accountable for their failed business practices. those are the three cornerstone beliefs of the tea party, security, free market, free enterprise, and anyone here in washington, d.c. that does not believe in that, and they don't know what made the united states of american great and what we are and who we are in these incredible 234 years, and i will tell you this, ladies and gentlemen, i've been to 13 countries, three combat zones, and it does not get any better than being an american citizen, so it's my honor to be with you. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, congressman. are y'all leaving me? >> no, i'm not leaving. >> where are they going? >> they boogied out. there must be free hot dogs here. >> i thought everybody was

leaving me. [laughter] senator hatch, thank you for being here with us tonight facing all these route tea party people. >> i thanked them before on a number of occasions. i'm honored to be with these great and wonderful men. i have to admit, i'm going to vote for you. [laughter] that was true. >> what am i running for? >> whatever you want to. [laughter] >> here, i don't think your mic -- >> not working? okay, i'll get it up closer. look, we're living in perilous times. we've run this country into the ground. we now have a $14 trillion national debt. my 2020, according to the president's actuary, that's over $20 trillion. according to his own budget, we'll double the deficit in five

years and triple it in 10. this country can't take that, and we're not going to take it. the fact of the matter is we have to come back and fight for this country. i've been in the senate 34 years. i've worked on every judge that's come through, and i have to say one of the biggest issues is that presence picks the judges in the country. you really get a different set of judges when you have a democrat in the white house, and frankly, that's what's involved here in a lot of respects, but it's more than that. back in 1982, we led the fight for the balanced budget amendment, first time and only time it ever pass the the united states senate by the two-thirds vote. in 1997, i brought it to the floor at the united states senate, and we got 66 votes. there were two people who let us down at that time. i won't mention names. we had the votes, but didn't get

it done, and it had been passed through the house. we have to get armed and work closely together to get that balanced budget amendment passed. if we don't, we won't get spending under control because it's too easy to go around the current system and continue to spend. i've been in the senate 34 years, and we have never had a fiscal conservative majority. we've had 3 to 6 more moderate and liberal senators who go with the democrats on spending issues. even bill clinton from time to time, but the fact of the matter is we need to have a fiscal conservative majority that will vote for the country every time, and that's what the tea party is going to do. [applause] let's just take the health care bill just so we understand. the constitution comes under play in so many ways. i was the one who raised the issue about the job killing employer mandate and of course

the unconstitutional employee mandate. that's a big issue because if that is allowed to stand by the current supreme court, and it's going to be in the supreme court because there are differences on this issue throughout the country, and i have to say if that is allowed to stand, it will be the first time in history that that type of a situation would actually be fit within the commerce clause article 1 section 8 of the constitution. i've got to tell you, in order to have article 1 section 8 work, it's got to be an activity in commerce. this is not an activity in commerce to force people to buy something they don't want to buy. this is what you call an inactivity in commerce, and if we go that far, that means the united states government can do anything to you that it wants to, and there are no limitations. liberty is built upon limitations, and frankly, when there are no limitations,

liberty is gone. we're really fighting for some very, very important things right now, and i for one want to thank the tea party for what they've done. just today, and i'll finish with this, just today there's rumor that the administration is going to double the employer -- unemployment tax from $7500 to $15,000 so they have money for more unemployment in this country. if they do that, there's going to be more unemployment because the company and businesses won't put up with it and they'll get rid of employees. we have to wake up and realize that the incentives are what makes this country great and we have freedoms that we can assert and enjoy in this free market system. i am so grateful for this great nation and what it means to the world. i've been all over the world for our country, and i've got to tell you, everywhere we go

people have always been amazed by america, and yet, we're in threat of losing the greatest country in the world. we have to fight back, and i'm very happy to have all of you wonderful citizens out there fighting side by side with us doing everything you can to get the country back. god bless you, and thank you for being who you are. [applause] >> thank you, senator. >> well, look who -- right on time. conkman steve king, one of the rock stars of our movement. [applause] >> thank you very much. okay, okay. well, thank you very much. my timing apparently is impeccable. my wife would never agree with that. [laughter] you know, the things on my mind and just in a couple minutes here before we go to the broader panel are this. we have the calvary's arrived, 87 new freshmen. they are the constitutional

conservatives that have been produced by the heart and soul of constitutional america. they are the fiscally responsible people as well, and they arrived at just a time when we have seen a congress that spent way too much money, a president that ran us trillions of dollars into debt, and just strong enough and bold enough to turn this thing back around to where it needs to be in the vision of our founding fathers. there's much to talk about whether it's $100 billion or less than that in the cr that's coming up. we talk about the debt ceiling that comes up a couple months later. the debt ceiling is not the pivotal vote, but the cr is. the continuing resolution that if we are going to make the call, i would just extend the funding for 30 days, leverage the president and harry reid as hard as i could, and try to make as much process as i could, and then the next 30 days, it take it up again. i would do that all the way through if we need to.

[applause] and yet it seems as though that decision may have been made to extend funding out to the end of the fiscal year september 30th. it will be the largest appropriations bill times 5 voted on by congress before even though it's rolled back to 2008 levels and have cuts in it, it's still five times larger because it's all the bills rolled up into one and it's seven months of funding. i look at that and say i can get my mind around that, but here's the most pivotal component of the cr. will we shut off all funding to get rid of obama care? if we get that doarch, we can -- done, we can choose the ground to fight on, and if we are firm, there's not a dime spent by the federal government that the house doesn't approve, i think we're at the point where we will see an amendment, and it will be successful to shut off funding that's in the fiscal year to

enforce obamacare. i'm confident with that. [applause] those of you who know me know i'm not easily satisfied, and the position i have taken for -- -- [inaudible] [inaudible] oh, ready? solution is sitting there waiting for the problem. you know, since december when it became clear that when cr was passed, i've taken the stand, it took me a couple weeks to get around to it, that we must not only shut off all funding to obama care, but follow the model of the funding that shut off the appropriations bill that shut off the funding in the vietnam war. it went back to any money in the pipeline. that precedent is there and exists in other scenarios too.

we can say not with standing any other section of law, all funds that have been here to fore appropriated and that's in obamacare that appropriates funds and authorizes, we can shut those off too. if we don't, obamacare will become a growing tumor and will continue to be developed. that's where the argument is now. it is to convince a majority in the house of representatives that just shutting off funding for the balance for the year is not good enough, but shutting off funding in the pipeline with the passing of obamacare must be done. this is the ground to fight on and we can win. if we don't find on that ground, i don't know how we'll win. that's my message for tonight. [applause] >> thank you, congressman king. going to our first question. levi? >> all right, first question is right here. >> thank you, can i address any

of them? >> sure. >> i'm from pennsylvania, and i'm the cochair for the kitchen table patriot's grass root organization there. a question to congressman king is what is congress going to do to stop the fed from printing money like it's going out of style? we are finally seeing the results of this misguiding policy. >> the first answer is audit the fed. [applause] and then to follow-up on that, i think we've got to expand the national dialogue, and part of what goes on is that the american people have to be the ones pushing on congress. congress has leaders, but they are also reactive. the higher we aware the -- the higher we raise the awareness and slow down the fed, i'll certainly support that. thank you. >> our next question is coming from youtube.

>> sound? >> you have to read the lips? >> how are substantial cults going to be made without a political reaction from those who lose government benefits? >> anybody care to jump into that one? [laughter] senator? >> this is the problem of our time, and this is exactly the reason why we have to have a balanced budget amendment in place because cuts are going to be painful. cuts are painful by definition. that's why they call them cuts, they result in pain and unpleasant things, but we have to have them to prevent things from getting worse which they very, very quickly willment studies have been done recently on looking at economies that

have collapsed under the weight of excessive national debt, and what a number of economists have concluded is that once a nation's debt to gdp ratio passes the 90% threshold, it starts to really impair that nation's economic growth to the tune of about 1% a year, many instead of growing 3%, it might grow 2%, maybe 2.5% or 1%. that's painful and represents job losses at 1 million over the course of a single year. we are now close to -- we're between 90%-100% of our debt to gdp ratio. some say we're at 1 00% already. either way, it's painful. the job losses are painful. the inflation cycle we are in that's about to get worse is going to be painful, so a pain

free exit suspect an option. i wish it were, but it's not, and that's part of what the tea party movement contributes to our political national dialogue. it's this acknowledgement that a pain free exit is not on the table. we have to look at the ones doing the least amount of damage and restore some government in the process. that's why i think we need a balanced budgets amendment. i presented -- i proposed one. my colleague from my home state, senator hatch proposed another. we need a various of the balance the budget amendment to pass. congress has to be put in a straight jacket. with all due respect for those who served in the body over the last few decades, our money has not been well managed. i hope that you don't disagree with me too much on that. i hope that's not too much of an overstatement. [applause] and so congress has to be put in a straight jacket so that it can't continue to do this. we have to draw this line. once that line is drawn, then we

can fight about where exactly the cuts will come from, but we have to fight that battle first, and we have to win that battle first, so please contact your members of congress, make sure they vote for this. >> yes, congressman west. congresswoman bock man, welcome. [applause] >> i think an another aspect we have to ask ourselves is the ultimate ideological question in the united states of america now is can this country survive as a bureaucratic man of state because that's what we're talking about. we're talking about when you look at the objective of this current government, if they can get more people wedded to government by academic or employment check, what happens when the entitlement class supersedes the working class? it is over in this country. when you look at the progressive tax code system with 47% of

americans not paying federal income taxes, you know, right now, and we just already talked about how they want to raise the unemployment taxes on our businesses. the whole goal is to make more americans victims and more dependent. that's nonet who we are. if we allow to to happen, the united states of america, as we know it, we will not pass it on to generations to come. i dent think anyone here wants to be the first generation that leaves something less to their children or grandchildren. we have to recognize that. by 2045, if we don't get programs under control, that consumes our entire gdp. we must right now go out and tell people the hard truth, and i think for the first time the american people are willing to hear the hard truth. they know what is facing us, but if we are up here in washington, d.c. continue along with the

belief of election cycle sound byte rhetoric telling people every 2-6 years what they want to here so we get reelected, then we'll go down the road of provision. it is time for visionary leadership to stand by saying it's a tough road ahead. we're americans. we find a way out. look at the first battle of world war ii, the second corp. of the united states army got their butts handed to them. they went to the table, brought in a new leer, and kicked -- leader, and kicked tail from there on. we have to reassess our principles and get back to kicking tail. [cheers and applause] >> congresswoman, bachmann, thank you for joining us.

she's on a tight schedule, and fit it in to be here tonight, and so we would like just you to give us a few minutes of why you are here and why the tea party movement is important, and then i have a question for you. >> well, there is only one reason i'm here, and it's because of everyone in the room and everyone that is watching. they are the reason why i think all of us are here because we heard what the american people were saying in the last two years, and we resinated with the american people. we agreed with them, and we were thankful for them because we saw that all of you and all of the people that are watching are the calvary that came in and did the rescue work in this last election. we're so grateful. i think what we saw more than anything from the election of really 2006 and especially the election of 2008, we saw such a change in this country that we've never seen before. i'll be 55 years old.

i never, ever thought i would live to see the day when the federal government would own the largest banks in america, private banks, or when the federal government would own the largest insurance company in america, aig, or the fact that the federal government essentially just took full ownership of fannie and freddie, and those are not crazy aunts and uncles in a room somewhere or down in the cellar. that's the federal government that owns over 50% of all private home mortgages today, so for anyone listening, half of you that have a private home mortgage, the government owns your home right now. think of that, and the government also for the first time owns large car companies in america and own 100% of the whole student loan industry, and then i think that the final thing was the frosting on the cake is the federal government

taking over the health care industry because that's what it is. they will eventually realize their goal of collapsing the private health insurance industry, and then they'll take it over. that's their goal. president obama said from the beginning, he wanted a single payer system. what's that? that's the federal government. that's the federal government as provider of health care. that is not the system that brought up this country. we've always been about free markets. that's who we are. that's the beauty. if you look through all of our history, we've been about risk takers, the people that came to the united states, other than native americans who were here, all of us have the same story. our story is we come from someone who was a risk taker from their home country, doesn't matter what the country is, but they took a risk and they came here. they knew when they came here, they weren't coming to a well

fair state or coming for an unemployment state or for health insurance. they were coming here for the thrill of writing their own ticket, whatever their abilities could take them to whatever heights, that's what they could do. it's so uniquely american, and what's wonderful, this country didn't atrack rich people. if you were rich, you were going to stay where you were. you were doing well. we didn't attract nobility. who did we attract? people who wanted a better life and were willing to do what it took to get it. when they got here, necessity was the mother of invention, and so they worked and they made it happen. this was the place literally where dreams came true, and we had done that. you realize there's been 21 generations in this country? 21 generations, and for 21 generations, every generation has successfully passed the

torch of liberty and freedom to the next generation, and i think what's very different right now in 2011 is that i think that question is up for grabs on the table. no one is really quite sure if we will successfully transfer that torch of liberty to the next generation, and i mean the kids today who are 18-24 years of age, will they successfully come to their prime earning years in a country that is truly free? i think it is almost breathtaking to even say it, but can we truly say that today we are truly free? are we truly free? i think when we know that we have obamacare hanging over us, and we know that we have the epa under orders of president obama to despite the fact that congress didn't pass the law for cap and trade, the president is,

you know, full speed ahead. let's put it into place. is that what the american people want? are you kidding me? they don't want a new national energy tax. isn't it enough he's already taken over the rest of the economy, and now e he wants the energy economy too? no, you can't have it. that's what i see people watching tonight or by radio, people are saying, we want the american dream back because even though we aren't guaranteed an income or guaranteed health care, we want the right to choose our own destiny. we don't want the federal government to make that choice. that's what i see. [applause] >> real quick, i have a question from oklahoma. he says, how do you respond to

the criticisms of the tea party and house of representatives is devicive and not in the best interest of the nation? [laughter] >> well, scott? [laughter] i would say you haven't been to the tea party caucuses in the house and in the senate because far from being deviesive in any way, what we're trying to do is bring together a great unity. that's what we saw in the last election because quite literally, the umbrella and grew that held us all together is the very parchment of the declaration of the independent,s constitution of the united states, and the bill of rights. that's our umbrella, and that was so wide we saw democrats come under that em brel la -- umbrella, independents, or no political party at all, people came together under what?

the very bipartisan provisions of our founding documents, and that's what i think everyone here outside believes in, our founding documents. they cannot be improved upon. they are brilliant. we believe in them, and i think that people in this room together with the people that are watching tonight believe in those documents. that's not divisive, and if any, all we're trying to do isic night that love affair that all of us have with america's foundings. that's what the tea party is reminding us, to republish those documents in our heart, and that's the only unifier that's not divisive. [applause] >> thank you so much, congresswoman, thank you. [applause] >> i'm being given instructions by somebody -- >> thank you very much for allowing me to be a part of this. you have great people up here by

the way. [applause] >> as michelle leaves, i want to say -- some criticized her accuracy on history, but she said 21 generations of americans. i'm thinking where's that number coming from? thomas jefferson described a generation as 19 years. you're right on target only maybe understated by half a generation, michelle. i want to say that. you got it exactly right. [applause] >> thank you. see you later. >> thank you, congresswoman. [applause] >> thank you so much, congresswoman for coming and joining us. she is truly a leader and a strong voice for us tonight hill, and we -- on the hill, and we appreciate her. the next question is coming from online, jim young, in utah, and he says, will the realistic

response to obamacare be similar to congress' last hl3400, what provisions are in it, and will it include tort reform? >> the president said he's for tort reform. don't believe it for a minute. one of the hardest -- one the greatest groups of the democratic party has been the lawyers, and he's not going to defie those. they talk in terms tort reform, but they really don't mean it, and i don't think he meant it. he can't mean it, and it's the same thing with regard to the unions. the unions spend a billion dollars on local state parties. that's something that's been very noticeable to me over the years because about 40% of the unions are republican, and yet

100% of the money goes to liberal democrats. you know, all i can say is that, you know, there's a real difference between democrats and republicans. i was a democrat all the way through byu. you have to really be a strong democrat to make it through byu as a democrat. [laughter] i really started to look at things, and realized my, gosh, these people are not me and don't believe what i believe. that's not conservative democrats, they can be helpful from time to time. that party is dominated by special interests groups that are the most liberal in our country, and they can't take them on, and he won't take it on. tort reform, i'd like to see it because i said 25 years ago that it's costing us aleast $235 billion a year in unnecessary

expense on medicine because of the mitigation -- malpractice litigation. i was in a position to say that because i was a medical liability defense lawyer, doctors, hospitals, nurses, health care providers, and most of those cases, a good 90% of them were frivolous. they wanted the expense cost. you can make a good living as an attorney if you get the defense cost. in a day of run away juries, naturally, you know, you could make a lot of money just by bringing the cases, and insurance companies are hard pressed not to pay the defense cost because they never know whether they'll get a run away jury or not. i hope he means it. i don't think he can do it or means it really, and it's nice rhetoric, but i don't think there's any reality to it. >> thank you, senator. let's do another qea.

i know we're all short on time, so let's move straight to lisa miller from alexandria. her question is open. whoever is feeling brave can take this one. oh, yeah, there you go. here, i'll give it to you. >> thanks. okay. you have a bill before you, the senate does, the faa reauthorization, and as i read down the bill and what they want to add to it, i noticed that you don't have any privatization of air traffic controllers, and right now they want to fill it up with torque to provide satellite technology, and in 2001 of february, they were talking about privatetizing it so that the air traffic controller or the airports could access private financing for this satellite technology. now, 10 years later, no privatization, and no satellite

technology, and now they want to propose us paying for what they can get in a private sector. what will you propose? anyone? >> we are way behind in technology with regard to the airports in this country. something has to be done there, and technology is way above the current system, and so that's what they are trying to do, but i can't remember the exact figure, but it's like $8.7 billion to do this, and you're right, we have to scrutinize everything that comes up. we do want people to be safe. as far as privatization, you know, i'm not sure, i'm not sure that it's not privatetized right now because i do believe that you have, you know, ever since reagan, it's been a little bit different than it's ever been

before, but keep in mind we have 53 democrats in the senate, 47 republicans, and what i'm counting on and don't mean to change the subject, but i'm counting on great people of the house to take it not senate and put materials to the senate that literally causes the senate if they're going to vote against them, they have until the year 2012, but we sure want the air traffic system to be safing, and we -- safe, and we want i highest and best methodology to be used in that system, and it would be satellite methodology, no question about it. >> any other responses to that question? if not, we'll take a 5 minute break. get a little air. it's hot in here. we have quite a few questions coming up and many of them are addressed to -- >> we don't need a break.

>> you're doing okay? >> yeah. >> you want to keep it going? you guys okay? >> okay, let's do it. >> we might not look like much, but we can handle it. [laughter] >> maybe i was getting tired. this next question is from bruce. are you here bruce? in the back. okay. i'm going to read it. his question is have you considered e elimination of the income and payroll taxes as a single issue to consolidate all tea party groups to restore freedom and unit small business owners to win back the white house? >> anyone? >> my answer is yes. i wouldn't define it quite that way, but sometime in 1980 i was audited one too many times in a row, and i had to decide whether i was going to stand on principle and lose my business or borrow the money and pay the

irs. to this day, i was right, they were wrong. i paid. it was hard for me, but it was a matter of survival. i went out and climbed into my old bulldozer with smoke coming out of the exhaust and my ears, and i concluded we needed to get rid of the irs entirely, and how we would do that. [cheers and applause] [applause] it took me not very long to come to a conclusion the only way you fund the federal government if you're going to eliminate the irs and the internal revenue code is you have to do is by a consumption tax and it has to be level, across everything, you have to tax pharmaceuticals and pampers and everything in between. that's how you keep the rate low, but just having come back from the valley and the reagan ranch and library, ronald reagan said, you know, what you tax you

get less of. if you look at it by definition, the federal government has the first lien on all productivity in america. they tax all earnings and investment when they get what they want, the governor taxes, and then you get what's left. if we put it on consumption, let people earn what they want, invest, save all they want to, we'll see the economy grow and we'll attract trillions that are lost overseas in capital gains tax. i better stop right there. [applause] i'll burn up all your time. there's more dialogue this weekend on that. >> perfect. amy, questions from witter or facebook? >> yes, i do. actually, i'll take a question for congressman allen west.

>> thank you for being here, each of you. there's talk about the debt ceiling, and from both ends of the spectrum, there's no on the debt ceil r or yes, and now there's rhetoric of yes, if, and a lot of people use it as a negotiation tool. our congressman, dan webster and district ate said yes, if we get a repeal of obamacare, and i think there's a lot rhetoric. are you no or yes? >> i've been on record many times saying that i see that this vote comes up as an opportunity for leadership. i think there's an opportunity to leverage things to make sure this federal government is fiscally responsible. there's four things i look at. the number one thing is we have to cap government spending. it's between 18-20%, and now we're on our way to 26%.

the second thing to do is having a balanced budget amendment at the federal budget level. most of our states have budgets, and you can't run a home without a budget. the thirds thing is we have to have the courage to stand up saying the big three entitlement programs needs to be taken off the auto pilot. we need to strengthen social security and stengthen medicare, but we have to look at how do we incentivize healthy living and create options for the american people to allow them to be the ones in charge of their retirement, and the last thing and most important condition for me is to cut the corporate business tax rate. the president said in the state of the union address, and now we should hold him accountable to do that. truly, ladies and gentlemen, if we want to spur on long term sustainable economic growth, it does not come from the growth of our public sector, but from the private sector. if we are going to allow the

private sector to grow and hire, it does come from eliminating the capital gains tax and gains tax and culting corporate tax rate. that's why a lot of people, it's funny, they don't ovens the importance of extending tax rates is not about punishing people who are quote on quote rich, but there are many small businesses who operate as corporations. if you had raised the top two income bracts, now there's a 5-6% tax income increase on the small business owners. the debt limit gives us an opportunity to be fiscally responsible moving forward. that's why, unless those conditions are met, allen west says no. [applause] >> okay, we're going to take another youtube question from waco, texas.