to buy an orange. it sounds good. but for the debate on social security, it is inappropriate because the marketbasket of purchase by senior citizens validated by every economic and marketing group says their largest expenditure is health care and the reason they do it on health care is because they need it to keep alive. this isn't trading a latte for dunkin' donuts. this isn't going from arugala to big lettuce. this is life. this is life on the line when we're about to cut the seniors' bottom line. we've got to get real here and talk about what is the way seniors live, what is it they

need to do to stay alive and what is it, their purchasing power. here's not barbara mikulski -- the social security people themselves say there's something called, the know, the market basket for elderly cpie. it means they spend their money for health care, for food, on energy and in many cases housing. they cannot reduce those costs. those are fixed costs for which they have no choice and no negotiating power. our citizens, our senior citizens cannot negotiate on their heat. they cannot negotiate much on their prescription drugs. oh they might go from a brand name to a generic but if their cost of living is being squeezed down they can't be able to do it. you can't substitute your

medication your insulin and substitute it for apricot juice. if the cost of prescription drugs goes up, so does medication. so i'm concerned that this chain seapie human -- this craned cpie human behavior, untested, untried, social consume is going to be the basis by which we calculate the cost of living. by the way this isn't senator barbara mikulski talking. this is the social security actuary, the actuary actually giving accurate facts. let's go to the "a" word. the actuary actually giving accurate facts. first of all they say that this is a technical fix and doesn't mean a whole lot to seniors.

actually the chain c.p.i. will fundamentally restructure social security. if we do it, we will be complicit and complacent and creating a structurally induced poverty for old people. what do we mean? well, if you look at this charge -- and this comes from the actuary that if you go to the chain c.p.i. and the purchasing power that they talk, first of all, it will go into immediate effect. then it actually cuts -- it's not like -- you know how the seniors were upset that they didn't get a cost of living two years in a row? they'll actually get a reduced benefit. and under the way this will be calculated hypothetically if

you're now getting $15,132 on social security, if you're getting it when you're 65 now ten years from now your benefit will be reduced. not only won't you get your cost of living, but your benefit will be reduced to $14,572. now, if you continue to live and you're 85, it will be reduced to $14, 148. it compounds itself. so god forbid you'll even make it another 30 years because under what the c.p.i., chained c.p.i. would do is you would essentially lose close to $1,600 in benefits. i can't believe this. i can't believe we're even talking about it. because if we're talking about going with the true market basket, what you should do is actually have this increased. i won't go through all of the

numbers, but they are significant and they are severe. now there's another thing going around here on the floor. oh senator mikulski, why are you so upset it will hurt future beneficiaries? well i'm upset because no matter what time it affects the beneficiary, it affects the beneficiary. but what everyone fails to grasp is this will be an immediate -- underline the word "immediate" -- cut. according to the social security's chief actuary if we pass this this year, people will -- this chained c.p.i. begins december of 2012. so one year from this december, it would go into effect. and that means if you're 65 years old your benefit will be

reduced that year. by the time, ten years later your benefit will have been reduced five times as much. if you make it to 85, your benefit will actually be reduced by ten times as much. this is, to me, a horrifying idea. the current cpi-w, which is the way we call the cost of living, was used in 1972. it was the only measure we had at the time, and it was viewed as an advanced thing for inflation-proof benefit. now when we look at it, what we know is that we know the purchasing power -- not the purchasing power. what is the market basket that seniors use. now, chained c.p.i. might be fine in other areas or other categories. i'm not going to debate this here today. but what i do want to do this

time, this place, i want to sound the alert. i want to ring the bell. i want to be at my battle station saying to every member of our caucus and every member of the people on the other side of the aisle please, read up on this. know what we're doing. if you're going to vote, i don't want to hear buyer's remorse a year from now. i don't want to hear buyer's remorse two years from now. i don't want to hear from the seniors in my home state of maryland say where were you barbara? did you say anything? did you do anything? so i'm saying here today get out your policy books and for god's sakes read them. read them. and don't read what this think tank does or that editorial board says. read the social security actuary. because i'm telling you, we are about to do something that is irrevocable.

you know, mr. president, i believe in old-fashioned values. and one of the great ones is honor thy father and your mother. it's just not a great commandment to live by. it's sure a great public policy to govern by. the american people every day particularly who work hard, you know and live by the rules go by the rules pay into social security over a lifetime, we said to them if you do that, your social security will be a guaranteed benefit. it will be a lifetime benefit. it will be reliable and undeniable. and it will be inflation-proof. mr. president, f.d.c. signed that bill -- f.d.r. signed that bill that created that contract. every president regardless of the party has kept that promise. and it's up to this congress not to shred the social contract on the seniors of the united states

of america. mr. president, i want to yield the floor to someone from the finance committee who's done so much work on this, such great work such due diligence and really has a grasp of both the policy and the impact that it has on the people. mr. president, i'd like to yield the floor and hope the chair recognizes my wonderful colleague from washington state senator maria cantwell. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: thank you mr. president. i want to thank my colleague the senior senator from maryland for her leadership on this issue for protecting seniors and protecting women. it seems to me that every time we have a battle that is about undercutting the benefits to women in america barbara mikulski is on the senate floor or on the halls in various meeting rooms making sure that america knows what these proposals are. and i couldn't have been more proud of her when she led all

the women senators on the democratic side of the aisle to push back on the bush administration's proposal to privatize social security. at that point in time she most succinctly told americans that women, more than any other in that age group would suffer because they live longer, they depend on social security. and if social security was privatized, women would feel the brunt of it. so i'm proud to be out here this afternoon with her to talk about this proposal that has been -- we can't tell because we don't know. we're not on the super committee, but seems to be floating around in various forms, various organizations may be talking about it, the notion that we would change social security. well i know at home in my state of washington, people seem to be confused when we're talking about our budgets and we're obviously having to make tough

budget decisions. so people around dining room tables around city halls around our state capital and here in congress are having discussions about how to have a budget to live within our means. but when you talk to them about the primary way -- and one proposal that surfaced in the last budget negotiations in july was to automatically take $300 billion of cuts right off the top as the major proposal out of a concept called chained c.p.i. when you think about that, the first shot of budget cuts would be on the backs of seniors it's almost as if somebody thought seniors cooked up exotic financial instruments and foisted them on the u.s. economy and somehow they should pay the price, when we know that's not the case. so why are people targeting these seniors now? and we're not sure if they are. we just heard various rumors that perhaps this notion of

chained c.p.i., a change in social security benefits, as my colleague just outlined, would be a proposal. so i am here to say i am not for having the seniors in america share the brunt of sacrifice with a proposal like this that would clearly be on the backs of seniors. it's not something they can afford. i know some of my colleagues may have endorsed chained c.p.i., a change in the consumer price index, to calculate inflation but that really is a cut that would increase over time and literally the longer you live, the more you're penalized. it's such a disproportionate impact to women who do live longer than men and really count on those benefits for their living. in my state changed to the -- changes to the cost-of-living adjustment would hurt more than one million washingtonians.

social security kept about 30% of washington residents who are 65 and older out of poverty. that's what it's done for them. what's more, 25% of seniors in my state live on social security alone. so there is a population that is depending on social security, and it makes up either, as i said they're living on it alone or it's making up another 21% of them it makes up 90% of their income. so i think this demonstrates that we cannot support these kinds of cuts, especially at the magnitude that this proposal is talking about. the social security office of the actuary has reported that chained c.p.i. would reduce a cola by about .3% disappoints a year. so -- .3% points a year. let's look at that example.

a single woman 65 years old in washington state would get a monthly benefit of about $1,100 a month or $13-bgz 200 annually. by age 80, if chained c.p.i. would pass, that would result in $56 per month or $672 annually cut in that benefit. so that's less food. that's less medicine. that's less vital care for these seniors. if that individual actually lived to 90 years old, it would be an $87 a month cut and a $1,044 cut annually. that, if you think about the cost that these seniors endure -- and i for one have proposed changing the market basket of goods that the c.p.i. is based on because if you think about it, we have a market basket of goods for their c.p.i. that are what the overall economy looks at. but seniors have a much more expensive market basket of

goods. they have to buy more medicine. they have other additional out-of-pocket health care expenses. and so their costs are going up at a higher rate. but this proposal, you think about it, the average monthly cost of food for a single elderly individual is about $231 per month. that's what the average is, about $53 a week. that's based on data from the elder economic security standard index. so an individual at 80 basically means they'd have one week less groceries under chained c.p.i. that's what it means. they would have one week less of groceries every month. and in my state, when you think about the average out-of-pocket health care expenses that seniors have for expenses, that average out-of-pocket expense rises by $1,400 for an

individual. so that is, if you just think about it alone the increase in health care out-of-pocket expenses basically wipes out where many seniors are for any kind of remaining income and certainly, if we put this kind of cut on top of that, it would make it clear that seniors would be getting less from social security. now, we just recently for the first time since 2009 gave seniors an increase to their cost of living adjustment. so now what are we going to do? go backwards and take it away from them? for 75 years americans have been paying into social security with the promise that they would receive these benefits in their retirement years. and now is not a time to break that promise.

so i think my colleague has clearly come to the floor with a message to our other colleagues who aren't here this afternoon to say, take a look at the details of this proposal. this is not at simple proposal about in the future someone is going to get less than they might under some other plan. this is about a cut in the benefit formula today that would impact seniors if implemented. and so i am here with my colleague to say, this is not -- our economic situation has not been caused by seniors coming to capitol hill and proposing that we have opaque derivative markets. it wasn't caused by seniors coming here saying, you know what? slates go ahead and have the -- let's have ahead and have the banks get rid of glass-steagall and so the banks can do what

they wants. seniors didn't come here and foist this economic situation on us. and yet where are the other proposals to help fix that -- yet, the number-one proposal that we saw circulating in july was to right off the bat $300 billion coming on the backs of seniors. so that same proposal is still circulating here in the halls of congress, and my colleague and i are here this afternoon to say it's not the proposal we should be considering. and so i hope our other colleagues will stand up to protect seniors particularly women who are living longer and making sure that they have these important social security benefits. i thank the president and i yield the floor. ms. mikulski: would the gentlelady -- mr. president? i'd like to take the floor to ask the gentlelady to yield to a question or two. ms. cantwell: yes, i will. ms. mikulski: first of all, i want to compliment the gentlelady for the really

wonderful teaching that she just did on this. you're a member of the finance committee in which all deliberations are dealing with social security. has there been a hearing in the finance committee on the chained c.p.i. and really have experts and senior advocacy groups come and share their views with the congress? ms. cantwell: well mr. president, i can say to the senator from maryland, in my time period there, i don't remember any hearing or briefing on chained c.p.i. that was the focus. hearing. i don't know if, you know, in the last 15 or 20 years somebody hasn't suggested or had a hearing on it. ms. mikulski: no, how long have you been on the finance committee? ms. cantwell: two years. ms. mikulski: so two years. so in the two years particularly since this has come up, this hasn't come up. another question about the finance committee which also

has jurisdiction over medicare it is the gentlelady's understanding that both in the supercommittee and other reforms that the congress's intent is to raise premiums and co-payments and a variety of other things on seniors or is that just one of those foggy things out there in the eers this? ms. cantwell: well, i can tell the senator from maryland, you know there's lots of ideas that people are suggesting. i don't know the details about the supercommittee or to say that the finance committee is backing up the supercommittee on those ideas. i know that we have to live with in our budget and we have to make some tough decisions and there are many positive things in the health care law that are about allowing seniors to stay in their homes and receive care as opposed to going into nursing

homes, very positive, actually helps reduce significantly the cost of delivery of health care. there are things in there that are going to help us get more transparency on drug prices, certainly many of us would like to have direct negotiations on drug prices and drive the cost down even further for seniors. and obviously there's reforms in there that will help us get more efficient in the delivery system. and those are things that you can accentuate by moving more quickly. i know the presiding officer coming from the state of minnesota with the mayo clinic, certainly understands about outcome-based health care and preventive medicine and all those things are things that seniors would like to see in reform that actually help deliver better care and drive down cost. so those are the proposals that i think that we should be discussing and are positive for seniors and help seniors and deliver the kind of care that is

more efficient and cost-effective. but asking them to take it right on the chin with something like this proposal is, as my colleague outlined as well, just something that we're not willing to do. so i thank the president again and i thank the senator from maryland for her tireless leadership on behalf of women in america and making sure they can make do in this tough economy. i thank the president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: calendar number 472 473 474 475 476 477, 478 479 480 481 482 483, 484 485 486 487 488

489, 490 491 and 492 and all the no, nominations on the secretary's desk in the air force, army and navy, that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motion to reconsider be made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations, and that any related statements be printed in the record that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that on tuesday, november 15, 2011, at 11:00 a.m., the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations calendar number 354 and calendar number 355 that there be one hour for debate equally divided in the usual form that upon the use or yielding back of time, the senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed that the motions

to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate, and that no further motions be in order to any of the nominees -- any of the nominations, that the statements related to the nomination be printed in the record and that the president be notified immediately of the senate's actions and that the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 226 and s. 363. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 226 s. 363 a bill to authorize the secretary of commerce to convey property of the norm oceanic and atmospheric administration to the city of pascagoula, mississippi, and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the wicker amendment at the desk be agreed to the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid

upon the table and that any statements relating to the bill appear at this point in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 398 and the senate proceed to its consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 398 an act to amend the immigration and nationality act to toll during active duty service abroad in the foreign armed services the periods of time to file a petition and appear for an interview to remove the conditional basis for permanent resident status and for other purposes. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the -- the presiding officer: excuse me, without objection the committee is discharged. ms. cantwell -- the presiding officer: and the senate will proceed to the measure. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the bill be read a third time and the senate now proceed to a vote on the passage of the bill. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: and i ask unanimous consent that the -- the presiding officer: if

there's no further debate, all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill is passed. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate and any statements related to the bill be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 320 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 320 designating november 26, 2011, as small business saturday in supporting efforts to increase awareness of the value of locally owned small businesses. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and

any related statements be printed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 321 which was submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 321 commemorating the 50th anniversary of the federal executive boards. the presiding officer: the -- without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. ms. cantwell: mr. president i ask further that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the record at the appropriate place. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, the senate adjourn until 2:00 p.m. on monday november 14, 2011, that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date the morning hour be deemed expired and the

time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. that following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business until 3:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. and that at 3:00 p.m., the senate proceed to the consideration of h.r. 3554, the energy and water appropriations bill for debate only. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. cantwell: there will be no roll call votes on monday. senators should be expected -- expect two votes at 12:00 noon on tuesday. those votes will be the confirmation of gleason and rogers nominations. if there are no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on monday, november 14.

>> extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. [applause] and let remind you also, that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

>> earlier today senators rejected a bid that would advance the resolution offered by kentucky senator rand paul dealing with the epa's position on cross-state air pollution. senators needed a simple majority to proceed to the measure but fell short by a vote of 41-56. here's a look at that debate now. it's 40 minutes.

>> i rise today in support of ris clean air, clean water,r, electricity and jobs. i t i think we can have a clean environment and jobs but not ifwe we let this administrationue continue to pass job-killing regulations. these new regulations will cross over $2 billion over a course ofade o the decade or more, may wellwell exceed $100 billion. we have these new regulations to over $2 trillion worth of regulations already on the books. the president is adding $10 billion worth of regulationsy every month and we wonder weonder. have 14 million people out of work, 2 million new people out of work since this president took office and yet we continuee to add regulation upon regulation upon r regulation. thi

so far this year, president obamat has added $80 billion worth of new regulations. if this president is serious about job creation, he needs to n cease-and-desist from adding new job-killing regulations. has to vote today has nothing to do with repealing the clean air act. i am sure we will hear hysterics on the other side. we will hear from environmental se, extremists but this has nothing to do with revealing the clean airs. act. we have rules in place to control emissions from our utility plans. we are not arguing against that. in fact we are arguing for r continuing the same rules that have been in place for some time. over the decades, our environment is becoming cleaner and cleaner. emissions have gone down with the success -- successive decade. we are simply asking that the clean air regulations already on the books stay in place and that rul

we do not make the regulations are so onerous that we put utility plants out of businesstyla and that we have an inability to supply electricity to this country. over 50% of your electricity comes from coal-fired plants andd if we shut down the coal-fired plants or if we bankrupt them as the president explicitly said inaid his campaign that would be thee desire of his policies, if that should occur, be prepared forouts brownouts in your big cities. be prepared for days when there will not be electricity but alsols beo prepared for rising unemployment as these job-killing regulations put a stranglehold on the economy. now the question is can we have clean ai cr and jobs?absote absolutely, but to have clean air and j aobs you must have balance. we are at the point of becoming so overzealous in overreaching to such a great extent that weexte

are killing jobs. we are killing industry and we an are going backwards in time. before we add new regulations, we must ask all of the currentking? regulations working?wer the answer is an unequivocal yes. in missions from utility plants have been decliningye for decades. f in fact, while coal-based power has nearly doubled in the last several decades, in missions have been reduced by 60%. i need to repeait that because if you listen tot the hysterics you would think otherwise. t you would think because theuld statute of liberty will shortly be underwater the polar bears t are all drowning and we are dying from pollution. it isg absolutely and utterly untrue.he s all of the statistics come and these are statistics from the epa. all of the statistics from

government, from thego epa show decliningt, pollution. everything about this argument is that the mrm and has been improving for decades. in fact john stossel has done asz program on this and he asked do you think the environment is cleaner nowthe or 30 years ago?ra all of our schoolchildren have been brainwashed by these environmental hysterics who saynts ve it's a lot worse now. it's actually much better now. here are some statistics. now we are. talking about regulatingng to emissions that come from utility plants. the first as sulfur dioxide. you can see within the midst of su the range here the average. s the average has been going down every decade. we have reduced sulfur dioxide just in the last six years by 45% under the current regulations. ifur we go to, and look at the nitrous fox 5 which are also

regulated under this series ofregute regulations, you can also seedies o that we have been in decline.ee the existing rules are working. nitrous fox 5 which can create ozone, are down 45% in the last five years.th the existing rules are working.all all we are arguing for is that t we not becomeha overzealous thatlo we not overreach, that the regulators and the regulations not become job-killing regulations. that is where we are headed. this administration has proposedthesere a series of member and mental changes to our laws. these are written by unelected not bureaucrats that we in congress are not for not having a say in. what i'm asking for today ispp that congress vote of approval or disapproval of these radical extremist regulations, these job-killing regulations that are coming down the pike.

if you look at jobs, you look at what will happen a to jobs, you will see that theseob regulations simply this regulation alone alone could cost as much as 50,000 jobs. indirectly the people who workk for those who would be losingeir their job, and as much as 250,000 indirect jobs could be lost from this. so we do need to ask the s importanto question are the existing regulations working or do we need to make the t regulations more strict? this is a balancing act and on balci the oneng hand we have our environment which we all care care about, no matter what the other side will say. republicans to believe in clean air and clean water but we also water believe in jobs, and it is a it's balancing act in our country and o in all of our communitiesur to try to have both jobs and a clean clean environment. but you have to look at the facts.fas. you cannot become hysterical and

say, the other side is for pollution. that is the kind of stuff we are hearing. we are all for clean air. we are f all for clean water and we are all or we should all beall for jobs. my concern is that the presidentadic has allowed radicals to take over the administration has allowed environmental extremists to take over policy and as a consequence we are losing jobs. if yous. look at what will happenook and it's important to note,t' people think they plug into the walls bare electric car that has nothing to do with coal. 50% of your electricity comes from coal. of does that mean it's perfect? ect know but we have to look at the emissions from coal-fired utility. the emissions have been declining decade after decadeng after decade, so while pow coal-fired power has nearly doubled in the last several last decades do we are having to produce more electricity from coal in the last several decades, in missions have

declined 60%. we are doing a good job with the a current rules.ul let's don't kill off industry. indus let's don't kill off jobs. whetstone put our citizens at risk during the height of theg summer and the height of the heat way from not having electricity or from the height of the cold waves in the winter and not having electricity to heat their houses.ing now the alarmists like al gore and others would have you believe that everything is worsee and that the world is on the edge of some sort of cataclysm. ifso we allow them to control our debate if we don't talk reasonably and d rationally about the facts, if we don't look at the statistics o af what has been occurring to control emissions we are not going to get anywhere. i'm asking that we base our to discussion on rational facts and o not on emotions.si o to give you an idea for some of these extremists are coming you from, there is one of a them who is a prominent extremist in this extmi

debate and she has called for a planetary law.or whatever that is, she wants a planetaryry law of one child per family because she is worried about the's carbon footprint of the worshet w polluters in the wholeoel world.horl do you know who she thinks the w worst polluters in the whole world are? humans, for breathing. she says we have to manyre breeders on the planet and the way we reduce breathers on the planet is that we will have one child per family mandated worldwide. you know how china does that? so i don't think we can let the. debate get out of control here.bout today's debate is about overreach. i would like to give you an example. if you want to see just thinking your mind about what m cities look like in 1900.looked we have a picture here of h pittsburgh where i was born,av inorn 1905 and a picture of pittsburgh today. you may not be able to see the picture from the distance but you can get an idea that around

pittsburgh there were smog and pollution and it was heavy. they say at noon on a day in pittsburgh you can go out in your white shirt and it will become black. they say at noon in pittsburgh that the street lanterns were on because you couldn't see through the smog and the smoke. here is pittsburgh today. we we are not arguing for no rules. the rules we have in place have been working but we are arguing is not to let the rules becomes so overzealous not to become so w onerous that we kill jobs and we kill industry. it has to be we want a clean environment and jobs. we have to have a balanced approach to this and we cannot let hysteria and environmentaltremm look streamism take over ourry country. the west led the industrial t revolution. life expectancy has doubled since the discovery ofbl electricity. childhood in batches mortality

have become 1/100th of what they were before electricity. for all of the advance of civilization there are advantage is and there are disadvantages. and at and we had a from an industrial society, there haveut wve been problems but we have been ironing out those problems for 100 years now and we are doing a dng good job of doing that and we shouldn't allow the regulations to become so onerous that they we begin to lose jobs. one of the things people are devout and one of thene big health issues they have with pollution h islt with regard to asthma. the interesting thing is that if you look at all theif statistics on all of the emissions from our power plants, all of these declining lines are in missions. in missions have been going down decade upon decade upon decade. the incidence of asthma has beenrising. rising, so if you are looking at this chart you would say maybe

emissions declining is inversely a proportional to asthma. while thehm other argument could be n maybe they are not related atitel all but they definitely aret proportional so you are seeingf rising incidence of asthma because we are having increased llut pollution. dec were have decrease pollution and rising incidence of asthma so either they are inverselyrelad proportional or they're not is related at all. poi thisnt is an important pointhe because what comes out of hysteria, the environmental hear extremists you people stand up and they have a million people are going to die if this goes through. the vice president recently said't republicans, because they didn't go for his jobs plan, were for murder and rape. the ridiculousness of the statistics that are brought out as truth should be spurred.nk we should think about things calmly and rationally ande decide, can we have clean air and jobs?

so when we hear the statistics let's be very careful not to getar carried away. joe swartz has written abouthe asthma and the environment and pollution and he knows is there t to pollution declines thehe prevalence continues to rise. one possible conclusion is air pollution is not a causef of asthma or not even related. every pollutant we measure has been dropping for decades pretty much everywhere. relan asthma prevalence has beene. rising pretty much everywhere. the other side will say but the l american lung associationun saysrse. pollution is making asthma worse. wha do you know what?lly the epa actually gave the american lunge association $5 million so i think theirt objectivity has been somewhat you tainted. if you look at asthma incidenceay and you say well where is asthma the worst interestingly, asthma is worse in the countries that have the lowest incidence of

pout pollution and asthmaio is actually a globalist and the countries that have the highest evidence of pollution. so as we look through the statistics, we need to bebo concerned want about the cost of these new regulations. we need to be concerned about having balance between b joben creation and between job-killing regulations. i'm afraid w what has happened is we have opened up the white t house and this administration to environmental extremists the kind of people who say that well, the polar bears are drowning.know you know the whole things on the polar bears drowning was based on two polar bears. sudden apparently they are not in decline and so the statistics and the hysteria within 50line years, the statue of liberty will be underwater. this is the kind of hysteria you

don't want to drive policy.ou is the kind of hysteria that when your brother-in-law went to a million of people are out of work since this administration came into power, we need to be concerned about regulatory votaries. andrn everything we are concerned about is what will happen with these new regulations with electricity rates. we have a map here that shows across the united united states what will happen. when you think about your electricity rates going up andhi the expense do this, think about whonk gets hit worse. the working-class and seniorzens o citizens on fixed incomes. they are the ones who will suffer from rising electricity rates. it's the person who depends only check on their social security check of and has no other means of supporting themselves and isting trying to pay for their electricity. in some regions electricity canty go up almost 20% with the series of regulations that thisroposi administration is proposing. this is. throughout the country.

it's more in some areasre thanl others but it will go upcally, dramatically and that is the danger of allowing these new regulations and what will happen to electric rates and poor people in the winter oregon this summer will be able to afford their electricity because the cost of these regulations iseal. real. the cost of these regulations will be passed onto the consumer and there are dangers, significant dangers of their being large cities where there's not a lot of electricity to e go-round and to the electrical grid is overwhelmed.e go as we go forward, and as you begin to hear some of thester hysteria that will occur from the otheria side be aware that what we are arguing for is not the elimination of regulations. we are arguing for continuing the existingth regulations which the two in missions that we are talking about have declined significantly over decades. decne sulfur dioxide has declined overes

70% over the last three decades. nitrous oxide has a client over 50% over the last several decades. so the question is if we are doing an adequate job if we are doing a good job, if emissions are going down, why would we want to impose new rules that will cause loss of jobs and will cause an increase in the rate oftric electrical cost? one of the reasons might be if you are cynical, one of the reasons might be because the president wants to report his campaign contributors. for example solyndra, the owners of solyndra which makes solar panels, or did, they have nowy've gone bankrupt after the $500 million worth offter your money, perhaps this is more of a political argument that hement tha doesn't like certain industries but he likes other industries and so he is willing to spendnd your money, $500 million worth, on one company.-

salanter went bankrupt recently and $500 million is still a considerable amount of money. i will put that in perspective. in kentucky we get over $400 million about $420 million to pay for roads annually each year out of the gas tax that younnually pay. 35 states get about the same amount, somewhere under $500 million yet the president saw fit to kiss he has beenon consumed with thissu environmental extremism, he saw fit to give $500 million, more than 35 states get further highway funds he w he saw fit to take that moneynd and give it to one contributor because he has decided that he wants more expensivehat electricity. he wants h electricity that is produced by people who have been his campaign contributors. so as we look at adding these neddw regulations, these need to be put in context.. we need to look at and seriouslybo think about whether we want our country to be taken over by

environmental extremists we whether not we want or care about can we have a clean environment and jobs? i think we can have both. i think we can have those clean air, clean water and jobs but itced will require a balanced approach. in my fear is that these regulations go forward that the balance will become in balance,l be that there will be job-killing regulations t that causedth electrical rates toat go up and significantly more economic problems in their rds so m mr. president i call at thisy time for my colleagues to consider supporting this resolution which will be a disapproval of these new and onerous regulations and i reserve the remainder of my time. and. >> mr. president?lifo >> theia senator from california

is recognized. whe >> mr. president will you letn me know when i've used five minutes and that i'm going to yield toeid senator reid for up to eight minutes?es >> the chair will do so. >> i have to say, and i want to be c be clear about this if the paulit resolution passes, which i don't think it will come it's soe extreme, people in 38 states, peopl 248 millione people would be adversely impacted with filthy dirty air and i would ask the unanimous consent to place into the record the list of the 38mr. pr states mr. president and the impact on the people they are. >> without objection.ate >> in the senator's own state of kentucky, in his own state of ken kentucky, thetu prediction is, based on science, that between 530 people and 1400 people will succumb to premature death. not

so we are not talking about some political argument. we are a talking about the veryf life and death of people we represent. i want to thanks senator durbin whitehouse shaheen for speaking out on the floor against thehe paul amendment but i hope today we will have a p big vote because we are dealing with the health of the people, with the health of the children, with the ability of the people to worke if because if you can't breathe you can't work mr. president, and we are dealing with jobs, many many many jobs, over a millionre jobs, that are created as aof result of clean technology. now, senator paul insulted the people of america. there was a poll just taken lastmont month. 67% of voters support the cross

air pollution row. that's 85% of democrats and 48% of republicans. are they extremists? no. they are mainstream. are the groups who support this rule extremists? and i think the senator owes an apology tv american lung association for making it sound like we are for air pollution rules because again it is some kindgett of payoff. it is an outrage, complete outrage. does he think the national association of county and health officials are extremists?n how about the american nursesatio doe association?they'r do you think they're stream is? does he think president richard nixon was an extremist when he signed the clean air act and he said, clean air clean water, open spaces these should once

again be the birthright of everychard american. does he think richard nixon was an extremist? now let's talk about what het? wants to do.he he wants to repeal a veryimpoant rule that' important role that is going to clean upcl the air that is going to reduce toxic soot toxic poisoned soot and smog forming air pollution that impacts air quality for over 240 million people. ballot be say this. mr. president, i know all of us, every one of us, 100 of us in this chamber would condemn it if i somebody took all their garbage and put it on the lawns of the next-door neighbor. that is what this cross air i pollution rule is about. it's about states that don'ton, ey crack down on pollution. they have smokestacks that loadisn' the pollution into other states and they say is that wonderful?

we don't really have any problem here. it's your problem. when i made this analogy senator harper correctedrp me.ou're he said well, you are right andit it's a good analogy as far as it i goes but garbage isn't usually poisoned. a so i amend by analogy to say this. if we knew someone had garbage that included poison, and they took that garbagend that included poison and put it on someone else's front lawn, that would be a terrible thing to do and it would be the moral responsibility of that party to clean it up and not do it again, and that is what this rule is about.w, i w now, i want to talk about specifics rather than be fake. this rule that senator paul speaks to cancel out repeal,o prevent up to 35,000 cases ofeath

premature death, 19,000 emergency room and hospital visits, 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma attacks and 1.8 million lost work and school days that is estimated to provide up80 to $280 billion in annual benefitsby by 2014. so all this flailing around and calling peopleun extremists simply cannot erase theis fact that what senator paul is doing is extreme, is hurtful to our people. how many people feel good when they look at a child like this who is desperately seeking air desperately seeking air? here is the x. taylor, here is the inhale there. exhale from the dirty plants andan i inhale the clean air, and it reminds me of the a story i just

read in "the new york times" that talked about china china where the end of the day, what the happens there is --r has >> the senator has used five minut minutes.uldsk >> i would ask for five minuteshe and then n i would yield eight to senator reid. in china the leaders there are arrogant and they are elitist and they surround themselves with air purifiers in their offices, in their homes, and the great hall of the people where they work, which is off you land but the rest of the people in china have to breathe the filthy dirty air.ch on a recent trip there, i did not see the sun. our group did not see the sunr. for seven days. see china's leaders are largely insulated from aging's famous bel air.sulated

that is the story of the times. theth privileges of china's elite times. include purified air. while i don't think anybody thought to be able to insulate themselves from the quality of the air. we have to clean a up the air for everybody, not just the elite few. so i think that senator paul, that his cra his resolution under the cra, should be soundly defeated and at this time i would yield eight minutes toenat senator jack reed. >> the senator from rhode island.r. psi >> mr. president i appreciate very much thdee senators from -- the senator boxer. the custom as they think we are going back and forth. if you want to finish her you statement. >> i would just like to address that ifrs. i could for a minute. i was going to speak for a much longer block, but i didn't.n't. i yielded a time to senator reid

and i retain the time that ihe te have. soth i only did it because he was trapped in the hearing but it iss up to the two of you. >> i think senator if you want to finish her statement than recognize senator coats that would be appropriate.priate i think it is appropriate to open alternate back and forth.: i'm >> i am happy to retain my time and in yield to the senator. >> thank you thank you senator from california.hank the if s the senator from california witth wants to finish her time, i'm happye to -- my understanding is we are going back and forth and i think we should stay with that order sosor appreciate the senatorth from rhode island support for that.ing u agreed on procedure. i am standing up here to, mr. president in support oftor senator paul's resolution. w the word extreme has gotten thrown around here an awful lot.

i just walk down to the floor. wke what is being sought here is not sout extreme. under the clean air act there have been extraordinary gains in terms of air pollution controls. o hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent over the last couple of decadesco to provide some much-needed, much appreciated clean air all across the country. w are we 100% there yet? no. are we a long way towards gettingno w there? yes. the issue for usth today is can we allow sufficient time for utilities that are spending these hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars to continue the process ofla retrofitting their plans and providing utilities, providing energyov to consumers and businesses at a reasonable rate. in thera midwest where a lot of these plants exist althoughltho this covers 27ug states we make

big stuff.s we make cars and we make trains and we make automobiles and heavy machinery. it takes electricity to do that. our economy is not based on maple syrup or wine from napa valley. it is based on, huge industries producing whatam america needs to moveeo people around and to create the kind of economy that all of usal have enjoyed. it also provides a lot of jobs. we have spent literally hundreds of billions of dollars in complying with clean air actean ai regulations and we have come as, a w long long way.long there is nothing extreme to talk about ab here on either side i believe because of the record its speaks for itself. question is do these utilities that produce this energy that is needed to run this economy have

time to finish what they started? senator paul has basically said look, this rule that has come out at the epa basically says you have got until january 1 and that's it. i have got a plan down on thent o ohio river that is spendingr sndin hundreds of dollars in retrofit. they can't meet the deadline and they are now in the position of having to decide whether toec throw this money away and waste a everything that they have already put in and they are halfway through the process and close the plant down completely. six plantssi will close down in indiana it's projected and an increase in utility rates not just to consumers but to our manufacturers at the level of 20 to 25 to 30% increase utility rates at a time whenut our economy is struggling. is this something we want to add, particularly for industry that is committed toed goingust

forward but just needs a little bit more time? that is the purpose of this resolution that is being offered before us and i'm hoping that we will take a reasonable view of the gains that we have achieved over the decades v we have been atchie work. the clean air that we d have achieved, the commitment to the h t goal, the final goal of theclear clean air act that doing it in a a reasonable timeframe and cost-effective way that doesn't throw our economy into a furtherf level of stress in terms of the number of jobs that we need and the amount of money that has to be h spent to achieve that. with that mr. president i yield thwie floor. isld. >> the senator from rhode island. >> thank you very mucht, i mr. president. in mr. president i rise in strongl by opposition to the proposal by senator p bob soup preempt him up foundation of the air pollutionion rule. we recognize throughout this

country extraordinary employmentisland challenges. in rhode island particularly but in every state and these are challenging times, but our focus should be not beyond undermining protections for the public public health p h protections. o are stroka should be on jobon creation as the president has suggested through his job back. sho that is what we should be doing.this this is one of a i series ofals -- a proposals and i have seen manym of them as the chairman of the subcommittee on interior appropriations to essentially evisceratess the if ability of the epa to protect the health of this country and its people. what is struck me during these debates is that we are sort of in a way victims of w our success. i'm old enough term o member when the cuyahoga river in cleveland was on fire because there was no

control effectively of what was being dumped into rivers and streams throughout this country. clean-air was something that was sought after goal, not a reality in so manyhe parts of the country. features look at the experience in the state of california, senator boxer state in 1976 there were health advisories constantly because of the poor air but a combination of epa regulations, californiaeen regulations, have seen the average of these health alerterly days in which the frail and elderly couldn't go outside, n young children were advised noty to play outside and was very u difficult to put up with the smog in the congestion fell from an average of 173 days a year half the year in 1970, to about six daysto in 2000. a that was an accident.f that was because of effective implementation of the clean air act which as senator boxernato b pointed out, was spearheaded byoxed president nixon in the 1970s. sen

this attempt by senatorat paul is one of many to reverse that a progress and the assumption thingsn will stay the same. no, they will get much worse actually. this rule has been carefully evaluated. it has been through several different procedures rulemaking processes. e has been estimated effectively and carefully that between 34, 13,034,000 lives would be saved that would otherwise be affected and shortened because of smog and pollution. they would avoid 15,000 heart attacks, 400,000 more asthma attacks and emergency visits allth of that atat tremendous cost andindustry indeed the industry of about two to $3 billion pales in comparison to the conservative benefits. 120 to $280 billion at this rule goes into effect.into

now, the essence of this rulectivy, effectively though as senator boxer also suggest is making us ngh all betterbo neighbors. we have a 10% unemployment ratede in rhode island and we did note specialize in wine or maple syrup. weiss to be a manufacturing center. manufacturing requires electricity. we have very high electricity costs.be why? because our state has to compensate for the pollution coming from these other states. this is a tax. the present situation without this th rule is attacks on small business and particularly manufacturing in rhode island. we want a rule that requires the polluters to pay the full cost of their pollution so if the disseminated from the midwest and being transported to rhode island those people creating itsp should be paying for it. that is the way of markette should work.ho weul are paying for it. we are effectively subsidizing

lower electricity rates in parts of this country that are taking jobs from rhodear island. it is f not only unfair, it's bad policy. pe in rhode island specificallyzone only 5% of ozone pollution is from local or in-state sources, 5%. 95% comes from outside of our borders particularly the trapo midwest. it is transported. that is at the heart of this rule, to give us a chance not only to protect ourselves and to pollu control heonr own pollution but not be subject to the additional cost as this pollution moves t across the country. we are in a situation where we are essentially being imposed upon dramatically and this ruleo will try to strike the proper balance, and it will try toose incentivize those producers of pollutionpr to prevent theet u pollution. it will let us be more competitive. it will allow us to go ahead and

essentially have a much more level playing fveield when it comes to what we are all talking about, creating jobs. it is awfully tough to look at businesses that are making progress and being told that one of their key cost is electricity in one of the key factors is all the pollution controls that we have to put in place not becauseenerin of what we are generating but because of 95% of our pollution is coming from other states. this rule makes sense in everyan dimension and to undercutd thisgoin i rule is going i think to do great in justice to the health of the american public and thentia economic o potential of statesount. throughout this country. let me say something else too. we often see this i think as a one-sided course. oh, these utilities are going to going have to go aheado and put off of these controls on.

well guess what? they are hiring americanskle workers, skilled workers, to putd od in place products which i hope are produced in america. all that contributes to our economy and so from many different ways i would urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. it is efficient, it isp effective. it will actually help our cerin economy. it will certainly help the ari quality of life for americans in those states that are suffering from the pollution of other states that are essentially f paying for the pollution of thr states throughout the country.lowi if the winds are blowing the other way i dare say many of my colleagues will be standing up and arguing exactly the. opposite. at that mr. president i would yield the floor. >> that debate was from earlier today. senators went on to reject a bill to -- a bid to advance at resolution on the epa's position on cross-state air pollution.

members needed a simple majority to proceed to the measure but it fell short by a vote of 41-56. today the chamber also passed a bill to repeal the requirement that the government withhold 3% of payments to contractors. that vote was 95-0 with maine senator olympia snowe voting present. the senate is out of session tomorrow but members return monday at 2:00 p.m.. also next week we expect more work on 2012 federal spending. current funding expires november 18. follow the senate live here on c-span2 when members gavel back in.

he has been visiting colleges around the u.s. speaking about the economy, american discontent with washington politics and finding the american dream. a protest erupted just as the republican leader was starting his speech. this is an hour. [inaudible conversations]

>> good morning. on behalf of rice university and the james a. aker the third institute for public policy, we will commute to this form featuring the majority leader of the u.s. house of representatives, eric cantor. we are honored to welcome you to rice today represented cancer, and thank you congressman for taking the time from what i know it's a very busy schedule to share your thoughts with us today. as an institution of higher education, rice welcomes free and open discussion of important issues of the day and we encourage many points of view about those issues. this openness to buried positions of opinions reflects our values of community and respect which are a central axis of the fabric that draws us together as a university. and an essential part of our mission is to foster what justice william brennan called

the marketplace of ideas and open and vigorous civil exchange of ideas and information we hope will lead to better solutions to the problems that face our country and our world. we welcome representative cantors precipitation and in particular in promoting the role of the university at the center of scientific innovation. we also have the privilege this morning of visiting with one of rice's alum representative pete olson who unfortunately could not join us for this forum. i want to also thank ambassador and his staff at the baker institute for hosting this event and for making the baker institute a vibrant center of

the university's public policy debate and analysis. representative cantor, you have come to rice at a very special time in our history. next october we will celebrate rice's 100th anniversary. we have already begun to commemorate the remarkable journey that has transformed rice from a small but old institute on the edge of an undeveloped prairie to a prestigious international university close to the center of the fourth largest fourth-largest city in the country. your visit is part of a long-standing and ongoing conversation that takes place across our campus and especially here at the baker institute about national and international issues that face us as a country. in this, the beginning of our 100th year, we are especially pleased to welcome you as a national leader to our campus and to participation in our centennial celebration.

representative cantor received his law degree from the college of william and mary and his masters degree in real estate from columbia university in new york. following service in virginia state government representative cantor was elected in 2001 to represent the seventh congressional district. he quickly emerged as a leader and the republicans took over the majority after 2010 elections and he was chosen by his colleagues to serve as the majority leader for the current 112th congress. he is the author, co-author of of "the new york times" best-selling book a new generation of conservative leaders. this past summer he was the lead republican negotiator during the debt negotiations. through these effort he has earned a reputation as a strategic thinker and influential conservative within the republican party. please join me in welcoming majority leader, eric cantor, to

rice university. [applause] >> good morning. [background sounds] >> free speech does not include the right to interfere with the expressions in ideas with which you disagree. you will be escorted away from this forum for not respecting the fundamental principles of free speech within the university.

[chanting] [chanting] [chanting] [chanting] >> contrary to those fundamental principles of free speech should

not interfere with others with regards to whether you disagree with their views are interfere with the access for those who come here to hear those views whether we agree or disagree with those views, so congressman i apologize for that interference and we welcome you once more back to the podium. [applause] >> thank you. [applause] >> you have to say, only in america, and we are here for an exchange of ideas and mr. president i thank you for that, thank you for the kind introduction. ambassador at thank you very much as well. it is great to hear at rice university in houston, the energy capital of the world. and i am told as the president just said, that you will be celebrating the 100th year of this fine institution and the

excellent innovations that you have developed a reputation around. i also want to thank you my good friend, my classmate, john culberson for being here and all the tremendous work that he does for the residents of the houston area and for his leadership for texas. john, thank you. james baker, iii for whom this institute was named, wrote a book called work hard, study and keep out of politics. today he might rephrase it to read, work hard study and keep politics out of it. too often our politics our government have become obstacles to a american progress for prosperity. one thing i hear over and over is the only thing that worries us more than what washington has done to us is what washington will do to us next. so it's easy to bemoan our politics. no doubt, they are fêted in a

troubling -- headed in a troubling direction. evened so it falls on all of us to identify the real problems and work toward common sense solutions. it is no badge of honor that politics, government or washington have become our newest four-letter words. we must ask what has washington been wrong to make so many rightfully resent it? today i believe many people feel that it has encroached on the american dream. that dream is built on hard work, education and it is being challenged. so is the hope that it always sets of us apart and made america just such a place. so many people today are asking what the future holds for our country and in a much bigger way wondering, what kind of country do we want to be?

who are week? what is it to be america american? just as important what must we not become? when i think about the kind of country i want, when i think the country i want to leave my kids, i think about a grandmother story and about how my family got to america in the first place. my grandmother and her family fled religious persecution to come here at the turn of the last century. like so many of her generation in eastern europe, my grandmother faced a future, no matter how hard she worked, no matter how smart she was, there were limits. because of who her parents were where she was born there was only so far she could go. but our country is not like that. it must never be america offers

immense and authentic opportunity. my grandmother eventually made her home in a working-class section of my home time -- mactown of richmond. as you can imagine in in the early 20th century the south wasn't always the most accepting place for a young jewish woman. widowed by age 30 she praised my father and uncle in a tiny apartment above the grocery store that she and my grandfather had opened. she worked day and night and sacrificed tremendously to secure a better future for her sons. and sure enough, this young woman who had the courage to journey to a distant land with hope as her only possession lifted herself and her children into a more comfortable, secure and opportunity filled place. to her, it was about doling a

better life to leave for her kids. she made her own american dream into reality. this made her an american, not middle class, not working-class, not upper class, just an american period. through hard work, her faith she was even able to send her two sons to college. all she wanted was a chance a fair shot at making a better life for her and her two sons. she got that shot and she made the most of it. now this is not just the stuff of american dreams, but also something much more. it is the grand american promise, the promise that if you work hard and play by the rules our nation affords you an equal

opportunity to make a better life for yourself. .. everyone has access to an opportunity to earn their

success. the basis upon which america was founded and run its is providing people with the equality of opportunity quality of the outcome to read this distinction is important. it is that having point between what america has always been and still is though left them when s and what someone in america should become a and this is what i am here to speak to you about today. there is a ladder of success in america however it is a ladder built by notte washington but when hard work responsibility and the initiative of the people of our country. my grandmother worked her fingers to the bones so her sons could have a better life than she did. her sons, my dad didn't disappoint her. he respected her sacrifice to send to college and took that

opportunity and started his own business and real-estate with little more than the drive to succeed. emulating my grandmother's work ethics he was able to provide a quality-of-life for my brothers my mother and me. why? for the very same reasons that inspired my grandmother. he wanted a better life for all of us. it is this foundation hard work faith, family an opportunity that provides each of us with a prospect of unlimited potential in america. each generation is able to get a little further ahead, climbing up the ladder of success in society. how quickly you move up or sometimes down should be up to you much of the conversation in the current political debate today has been focused on

fairness in our society. republicans believe that what is fair is a hand up not a handout. now we know that we don't all began life's race from the same starting point. i was fortunate enough to be born into a stable family that afforded me the tools i needed to get ahead. not everyone is so lucky. some are born into extremely difficult circumstances, facing severe obstacles. the fact is many in america are coping with a broken families, dealing with hundred and homelessness, confronted daily by crime or rampant drug use. as recently i was asked what does your party say to a 9-year-old inner-city kid scared to death a growing up in a life of poverty? what can you do for that little girl and? well we know there are no easy answers, but i believe that child needs a hand up to help

her climb the ladder of success in our country. she also needs guarantees in life. she needs to know the rules or the same for everybody to read that although she may have to work harder than many of us, she needs to know she will have a fair shot at making it in this country. she also needs to get into edges of a solid family around her in a community that encourages her to learn and work hard. she needs some semblance of stability. the question for us is how can we help provide it. stability starts at home but can extend to places of learning as well, especially for those children facing the toughest circumstances. we need to ensure access to the best schools available in her area. if that is a public school, great. some say charter schools help provide greater stability and i

wholeheartedly agree in fact president obama has support for charter schools. earlier this year the house of representatives passed a bipartisan in pelerine parents to call the charter schools fact that encourages states to support the development and expansion of charter schools to rebuild also streamlines federal charter school funding and to reduce administrative burdens. in california parents have banded together to ensure schools are being held accountable and can transfer their kids to better schools or even start a new one where it is needed. kids in many cities actually wind up for the lottery for open slots at better schools. no child should be forced to stay in the school but is failing her to read every child in america deserves an excellent education. it doesn't matter where this failing school is, in the city or suburbs, wealthy or poor town better schools benefit

everyone. this little girl deserves a hand in attending a better school a chance a greater stability and the opportunity for success and happiness. as a nation, we must make education a priority because if our kingsdale, we fail. but parents also can use a helping hand. take the single mother living somewhere in houston after she put her could this to bed and pressed her head down at the end of each a grueling day she may be wondering if her job will be there in the morning. she's probably stopped dreaming about moving up the ladder. she's more likely just worrying, hoping, praying she doesn't fall down or off of it. we need to find a way to restore her faith that moving up the ladder in america even slowly is

still possible in this country. that mom sacrifices most of her life for her children. she lives paycheck to paycheck. maybe she works out to or even three jobs and has to worry about how she can take her sick child or parent to the doctor. maybe she would like to attend a school play that her little girl is performing and that has to work. what is the working mother supposed to do? how can we provide both her and her kids a little more stability? when asked many working moms say what they need most is a little more time with their kids. we should find ways to encourage employers to provide working parents greater flexibility. everyone plays a role in educating children. if parents have the opportunity to be engaged with their children, it will only increase

their potential for success. one option is to allow private sector workers with the ability to negotiate with their employers to choose between comp time and overtime pay a benefit that federal, state and local government employees have enjoyed for many years. now does this solve all problems? of course not. but maybe with a little hope and a helping hand that makes life just a little bit easier, that single mother can send her kids to college. maybe one day her children will be like you. as students here at the institute, you will be much better position than most to land a job after graduation. but for the majority of a young people, it is a small business that will give them their start. these employers are the restaurant owners, health care

providers, the small family farms, small high-tech start-ups. small businessmen and women are the key formula to success of opportunity in america. each one of them took a risk and did whatever they needed to make it work. they dipped into their savings to start their dreams. they committed countless hours and determination. they have committed themselves and their lives in pursuit of this dream. the small business men and women may just employee a few people but each one of those people was able to start building a better life for the family just because one person to be risked. that's why we should make it easier for them to start their dream. last week the house of representatives passed for a bipartisan bills that reduced regulation on small business owners giving them a hand out to achieve their dream by easing

access to capital. the bottom line is it is all about lowering the threshold for entry into the marketplace will leave the playing field. we need to get the government out of the way so that investors are able to invest in a startup or business. now, in america, happiness is defined as a pursuit, and that the definition of a curse from our founders and the declaration of independence. pursuing both happiness and independence derived from the ingenuity and the grip of the american people come not the american government. america is a special place, different than any other on earth, and here is an illustration. i received a letter last year from a student, a graduate from stamford who happened to be

working in inland and was amazed how entrepreneurs were regarded in europe, how opportunities seem limited how existence seemed dole and house hope was missing among his friends in the u.k.. the friends he's met said they couldn't imagine an entrepreneurial hotbed like silicon valley existing in europe or how they handle such an amazing change to have a chance. he wrote starting a business even if you fail on the process is a badge of honor in the u.s.. but in europe, and entrepreneurship is often found upon, and consequently the best and brightest are afraid to give risk. even though they are very smart and educated when i asked them about their career path never mentioned starting a business. now think about that. in america starting a business

isn't something just possible it's something expected. however, today that is now being questioned. people have become afraid to take a risk. many have lost their optimism about the future. people in america are frustrated and the coarse stems from the belief that the same opportunities afforded previous generations no longer exist today. at the core of the frustration is the playing field is equal. in a recent poll 82% of americans think that their children will be worse off than they are. now what happened? what happened to the hope of surpassing the success of your parents? what happened to the unyielding american that socialism and the sense that in america impossible dreams or possible?

instead, there are those who want to provide america by turning those with less against those with more. they claim these people have now made enough and haven't paid their fair share. the truth is washington needs to stop taking the income of hard-working american taxpayers and instead start rewarding their success. think about it. how many of you really do think that washington spends taxpayers' money well? even if you believe washington has the best of intentions, its track record isn't good. which our 14 plus trillion dollar debt shows. instead of asking americans to give even more, we arbiter of stopping tax increases and instead forcing washington to do more with less for once.

why shouldn't we create simple clear and fair rules that apply equally to all americans? and then let you the people, decide for yourselves who you will become, how much you can earn and what you will do with your life. instead, we see so many in washington putting us against one another. that terrace to deflate the aspirational spirit of our people and save the american dream. i believe it is time to regain that aspirational spirit. we have to double down on the american dream. we should all be trained to achieve. the most successful are the position to use their talents to help grow our economy and give everyone a hand up the ladder and the dignity of the job. we should encourage them to extend their creativity and generosity to helping build the

community infrastructure that provides a handout and a fair shot to those less fortunate like that little nine-year-old girl in the inner city. these successful people, these groups if innovators are the leaders of companies that create life-saving drugs for sick parents and children. they are the people here at rice and around the town that take risk to companies and employee our family, our neighbors and our friends. they are also the social entrepreneurs who support a charter schools, the opportunity to question some private job-training programs, the community centers and other elements of community life that provide stability and constructive values to children and their families who are struggling they are trail blazers like steve jobs, a man who started with an idea in his garage and into the providing

life jones and ipad to millions and change the world. job building and community building our what successful people can do to read through his example, you can see that america needs more than just a jobs plan. it means a steve jobs plan. in a steel jobs plan whether you are republican or democrat doesn't matter. in a steve jobs plan no one regardless of their condition believes they are unable to rise up. and in a steve jobs plan, we don't believe that those who succeed somehow take away from those still working their way up the ladder. why? because those who earn their success not only create good jobs and services that make our lives better, but they get back and help everyone move just a little bit further of the latter

and everyone can win. so instead of talking about a fair share or spending time trying to push those at the top down selected leaders in washington should be trying to ensure that everyone has a fair shot in the opportunity to earn success up the ladder. the goal shouldn't be for everyone to meet in the middle. we should want all people to keep moving up and no one to be pulled down. how long do we do that? and cannot simply be about wealth redistribution. you don't just take from the guys at the top and give it to the guy at the bottom and inspect our problems to be solved. it does have to be about fairness though. over the last few years america has seen too many favors for the politically connected to many handouts for the most responsible, and then a large

bill for everyone else. this is a step backwards. it does injury to the american dream come and give my eletes that american progress. hertz and her real lives and dollars this country that we love and punishes the exact behavior we must be word if ever we are to grow our way out of this economic darkness. let me tell you what i'm talking about rewording. a recent survey of over 500 successful entrepreneurs found that 93% came from middle or lower class backgrounds. most of them were the first in their family to launch a business. we should reward them. we should try to make moving up the ladder used a little easier for them. we should help do that by making sure the fairness of every level of the economic ladder we must ensure those that view the battle for held accountable and

of those who work hard and play by the rules can get ahead. we must ensure the solution to the wealth disparities is wealth mobility. we must give everyone a chance to move up. stability plus mobility equals agility, and it is an agile country and society people are climbing and succeeding. the key to economic empowerment is ensuring that the income mobility. to me economic empowerment means you can make more and achieve more this year than you did last year and for too long indicators reflect the reverse. to many people are not moving up, and our efforts should be geared towards securing out how to accelerate income mobility. from how we help those who are unemployed get back to work to encourage entrepreneurs from start-ups, to encourage the best

and brightest to stay here in america there are many solutions that will hold people succeed and grow this economy. as americans, we care about everyone. we should want everyone to be successful. we want everyone to see the path forward. veterans day is tomorrow, and as a nation, we will celebrate and honor those who have served. and each of us that seize the opportunity to give rise to the american dream, we must honor those who've given their lives to that dream ended the those in this country most of all let and each and every one of us of the 9/11 generation work just a little bit harder to ensure the america that our troops come home to his more the of them and their sacrifice. there's a book entitled man's

search for meaning. it is one of the most influential books of the 20th century written by a man named victor who had a vision that i share. on the east coast of the great country stands a statue of liberty. on the left should stand a statue of responsibility. in my vision when they joined hands, the american people create a bridge that spans the whole country of opportunity and on the pillars of that bridge, we must select we must direct our letters. with those who are successful extending their hands to those who wish to climb. it is students like you the successful leaders of the future who can be the designers and builders of the latter's. it is you who can determine the

dimension, to the devotee and direction of america's letters. and who knows, some of your life forever change the world like steve jobs. as he moved upward don't forget that we want everyone to be moving up toward alongside of you. as you move upward, hold out your hand and help others just a little further of the latter. help them move up in your school, your community in your workplace. that is who we are as americans. that is what we do. we should all be committed to america's rising. thank you very much. [applause]

>> the majority leader we felt we would begin i ask people to respect that very fine line between the question and the speech and make the questions as brief as possible. we are starting with four student leaders and i want to emphasize we know neither one of us know the questions are. you may know the answers are without knowing what questions are fifth to hit a four student association. >> thank you mr. majority leader for joining us today i along with my fellows are excited and encouraged to your the education remains a top priority my question is considering the national economy and increasing global competitiveness what can congress do to ensure students remain and feel inspired and confident now and in the next

ten years? how are you putting american universities of the top? >> what we respond by saying first of all american universities rice being in the premiere rankings, are on the crown jewels of this country. because if you think about where we are headed this century as a country and how we are going to continue to lead your going to continue by being innovators. that innovation stems from the kind of effort and research that is ongoing at places like rice and we have to be committed as a country to allow an unfair for that research to continued. that means from a funding standpoint and creating an environment of public-private partnerships that means creating an environment that we can to cut research and those ideas and that innovation and translate them into commercialization bring them to market what we're

seeing is that process has become too difficult in the country and so as students who are going to look for opportunities and jobs when you graduate and that same difficulties in translating that resource into commercialization is dead for job creators in this country it's too difficult because right now the risk is too high. we need to think as america we've got to be competitive, we've got to be able to match the efforts of our competitors in the far east and south america and the rest, and we have finally about the mentality of an economic developer and to adopt a competitive strategies that we can win and we have a lot of work to do as far as tax policy regulatory policy and access to capital in the markets. >> i would like to say at rice university we are excited you're

here today and we have the opportunity to talk to you and many of our students are aspiring leaders and look to you and we are really supportive of what you do and think you again for coming here today. >> thank you. >> the second question is from the student association. >> hello. [laughter] >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> on may 4th year graduate student in the program and i'm also a [inaudible] science and technology program. my question is a follow-up to the last several years we have seen several of the major science agencies their budgets remain stagnant and i am wondering the budget in the next several months hopefully comes to an agreement.

where do you see this audience budget and ss nih the doe, how do you see that affecting the economy and job opportunities for the phd students coming into the market and specifically within nsf and provides most of the outreach opportunities running the gamut for all of the different fields. how do you see that affecting the progress that america is making? >> first of all, coming out of the house of representatives we have put a priority on research and again that goes back to the comments earlier about the need for the university such as this to being in the forefront to help the country lead with innovation. that also the goal occurs in the

context of the very difficult fiscal outlook for the country. i think all of us know that we are generating deficits for over a trillion dollars and have done so the last several years, and we have to choose. his research is a priority that there will also be tough, and to what, what will be the necessary decision making telcos flow and that is a decision that we are just about in the process of considering is what will be the structure of the research grants going forward, what will that be and the mindset of centralizing the research grants research dollars, grants and in our country we have seen a proliferation of a lot of innovation. it isn't just occur at one

university obviously to be we have a much more of the real competitive research environment in this country, and i think it is assumed as well that we've got to make sure the efficiencies the we need are being achieved as we continue to try to assess all be competing well as our research still but which we want we also have to as you know consider how it is the we are going to take those ideas to market and create the opportunities for those and the rest and much of that has to do with the environment for people in this country to take risks and the environment of this country offers to the global investors to come here and take risks and to build enterprises and right now we see an alarming rate of decline in the startup world in this country. we see a decline in a number of

the ipos in this country versus elsewhere. we have got to make sure that we get our regulatory system under control so that sensible in terms of regulation that we make sure, we make sure the government is not the one that determines who can and can't succeed. we have an even playing field for everybody. we have to have jobs, we have to have the best and the brightest coming here and staying here. if we have and continue to have people from arnove of the world wanting to come to rice and other universities we have to provide incentives for them to stay because they can help create jobs. they can help us grow our economy. this is all a part of the discussion we are about trying to maintain a competitive america in the 21st century. >> we have to more set of representatives and then we will open up. a young democratic leader of

whom. >> thank you for coming, representative come i had a more specific policy question the temporary payroll tax cut is set to expire at the start of next year and this would result in $120 billion of higher taxes for working americans how will the house leadership respond to the president's call for the payroll tax cut extension? >> the house leadership and republicans in general do not believe that taxes should go up on anybody especially in the economy like this so that provision as you rightly pointed out is a priority for the white house and is part of the discussion on moving about how we resolve the budget issue by the end of the year and we will

focus on that we don't believe taxes should go up on anybody. >> the conservative leader and funny. >> congress and, like you i worry about the nation's ballooning debt, but i am a little unconvinced about the balanced budget amendment which you have been a proponent of. justice scalia said such an amendment would result in a lot of lawsuits because what a balanced budget is up to the courts. i was wondering how we resolve this if we passed such an amendment? >> obviously the courts are going to have to resolve it. the thinking is a balanced budget amendment would be on the check on the unbridled spending in washington. we continue to spend money we don't have and continue to rely on the confidence of global investors as well was both

domestic to buy our debt and if we don't demonstrate that we are going to be a valuable ongoing concern fiscally, then we will no longer be able to be the country we are and all we have to do is look to europe right now. so we believe strongly that a balanced budget is something we should have. the discussion i guess that question could be determined in the courts and most americans have to live within their means whether in their households or the businesses and most states have a balanced budget amendment, and exist in a way that has not been challenged in court so we are hopeful but we can move towards that end. >> if you have a question, please come line up behind one of the microphones and be as brief as you can because we have

little time and frankly will only have time i open for four questions as devotee is quick. >> i had one quick question for you about the republican platform on the spending increases. understand right now there is an ideology of the spending or reducing spending. so what causes -- is the republican party increasing spending? what causes them to increase in the status quo? what would justify spending increase? >> right now we are all facing this incredible deficit and the debt that we are all going to pay for, not just you and the future generation because it will come to roost now and so what it should be about is asking what are the priorities, what are the player ortiz for this country? obviously national defence and the security of the country comes first and foremost or we

won't have a country. we have got to make sure that we are adequately funded and one of the challenges for us is how are we going to continue to lead and be the world's superpower that we are if our economy is not strong, and so then it says there are we going to go in terms of either spending dollars or affecting the reform to get the economy back on track. so it is about defense security, the economy. obviously we care about health care. that is personal for everybody. and this country spends a lot of money on health care and there has been much discussion and debate this year because we have to do something to deal with the spiralling cost and unfortunately the bill that passed a few years ago didn't do that and the congressional budget office is now validated the health care bill does not arrest the spiraling cost in this country. and many of us are very fearful

it will affect the kind of quality that most americans get. so we have to put some effort into the designing of the system whether it is spending money or affecting the reform that helps get to the outcome that we want. >> i will be quick. >> you talked a lot of the inner-city girl ensuring the quality of opportunity. i was curious currently with the economy i guess the way it is with the house pledge to not raise taxes with our i guess idea of doing more with less. how do you plan on paying for those educational opportunities specifically? you mentioned the charter schools, and that's great but for the public schools are out there how do we ensure that they continue to exist, teachers continue to i guess the the most effective, how we pay with that if we are not raising taxes and the economy is struggling?

>> festival we have to get growth going again. under any scenario we need the economy to get back on track and i spoke a lot about the uncertainty that excess and holding the capitol back and investors. as far as the public school system in the country, all three of my children were up in public schools, good public schools. but unfortunately a lot of children in this country today are not and don't have good public schools. we have to see how you make them good and the evidence shows it is not just money it's not just money because some of the highest cost schools in the country are the least performing so clearly we have to effect the reform and you said just about raising taxes to the problem right now is not this, you have a budget situation that is disproportionately caused at the federal level by health care entitlements. it's because the demographics of

the country and the promises that have been made. the facts are 10,000 people every day turns 65 and become eligible for medicare and the medicare program in this country is funded through premiums and taxes. the revenue derived from those covers a little over half of that program. so if you think about that every day comes 10,000, you are 50% in the whole. you can't sustain that. you can't tax your way out of it or grow your way out of it. that's why we have proposed to reform the system and maintain the safety net of our entitlements for those who need and that's why we've got to do that. if you don't do that and then you raise taxes you are in essence digging the hole deeper asking the job creators we so

desperately need to create jobs and get the growth going again you are asking them to throw good money after bad and what you're also doing by raising taxes right now if you are not going to fix the problem you are exacerbating the jobs and economic growth crisis because it is counter intuitive on those we want to invest because it raises the price of that and the lessons likely to returned. >> you mentioned your grandmother came over from europe to escape the discrimination based on religion and assigned equal opportunity of the united states and throughout the history of the country what we do is to enact legislation to protect those to get equal opportunity due to discrimination. what i want to know is why in 2007 did you vote against the employment nondiscrimination act the would protect people based

on orientation from discrimination in the workplace? >> none of us on either side of the kafeel or either side of the political and philosophical spectrum want discrimination for anybody. you are right. this country was built on equal opportunity and all people should be treated fairly. that particular bill was designed so that those employers who want to in particular the faith based employers who wanted to be able to hire individuals to further the mission of a private entity from a face standpoint making the case they were not going to be able to do so in the wake of that bill was crafted. that's my vote but again i understand your question to all of us should be driving towards equality of opportunity for everyone no matter what your background or what you are pursuing. >> i would like to thank you for

coming to rice and we also appreciate your steadfast devotion to creating opportunities for all americans and my particular question concerns the american tax code he spoke to some members just about a week ago and she mentioned some of his criticisms was that the american payroll tax cut of $108,000 as well as the sales may be neither progressive nor equal rather regressive as well as the talks for people in the highest income brackets may spend ten or 15% of their income on goods the higher percentage of the income goes and is taxed even more than the higher income brackets. i would like your thoughts on what needs to be taking place if

any to inform the american tax policy. >> most of us and i have to believe we need to reform the tax code and for a variety of reasons we have a tax code that really skews the allocation of capital and in getting in the way of life think our return to growth in this economy. you speak of the sort of fairness issuing the tax code and i agree the tax code doesn't breathe fair results and we have to look to see to make sure that it is a balanced approach. you have a 46 or 47% increase of people in the country don't pay any income taxes. i think everybody should have some skin in the game even if it is a dollar we ought to have people willing to make sure the they are part of what we are trying to do, not just of those who receive benefits and don't pay on the income side, though

we do need to be careful. we need to be mindful of those at the lower end of the spectrum. we don't want to disproportionately burden them know. the wheel to be looking at seeking how we can bring down their rates. i mean, we know from a competitive standpoint our corporate tax system is extremely noncompetitive. next to japan we are the worst in the oecd countries and again going back to how we voted in the economy, you are not and to provide an incentive for people to other corporations or business here with that kind of tax system. we also is a vintage of the american based multinationals many of whom are headquartered in the city. and when you look at other localities around the world that don't treat their counterparts or their competitors like we treat them, they are going to begin to take a second look whether it makes sense to headquartered here in america's we have to look to bring down the rates. we've got to look to fill the loopholes that are appeared in the code of the life vindicate

to read those polls tend to skew the allocation of capital. we don't want that. we want a simpler and fairer code that everybody can abide by. >> we are actually over time. let me take two more questions both questions and -- >> you can choose what is your combination -- >> on a different topic, when abortion was legal women had them and thousands died or were physically maimed. this, according to your voting record, if you outlaw abortion is that acceptable collateral damage? thank you. >> i don't know how to combine that with another. [laughter] if you look at my voting record and what we do in congress is we work to make sure that tax

payers' dollars are not used to fund abortion and that is what my voting record will reflect. >> thank you. >> last question. >> you mentioned a leader in the energy industry and with companies like solyndra showing how a way to taxpayers' money but also get samples like brazillian ethanol or the tax breaks given to the oil industry in the depression showing they can become the crux of the country's industry, how does the united states help the emerging renewable energy market growth in the united states on other countries are offering these kind of handouts that could give those companies an advantage? >> that's a great question. we've got to strive and drive towards sustainable growth and your right energy security, the future is of the utmost importance and i was actually here in houston yesterday and

visited some of the employers in the business here about trying to do that and in fact right now ought we want a much more diverse energy future, this country has been very blessed with a lot of resources in the fossil fuel arena and as you know many of the companies here in houston are spending a lot of resources and time trying to pursue the exploration and production of the energy here in a clean and responsible way. and what i think would work for them what worked for the industry players in any sector that is certainty, that is a environment in which the tax code and the regulatory policy does not impose greater cost and risk. again we have to have a balance because we want to do it clean and we want to do it responsibly. but i think that we can help compete in the clean energy world as well as any other industry by an environment to enervate to invest capital

which involves certainty in the r&d tax credit, which involves a tax code of marginal rates and capital gains rates of competitive that globally. because all things being held equal, if we can accomplish those things, i guarantee you people will want to come and do business in america as we have plenty of work to do to address those basics, and i think that we can compete in any sector. >> please join me in thanking the leader. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> i started telling about my symptoms running outside without even knowing what was going on he said to me have you

ever been in a war? but when and in this room with 80 people started falling this not coming out of my nose. have you ever been in a war? it was that simple. >> next chairman ben bernanke defends the federal policies regarding the economic recovery. he said the fed remains committed to encouraging growth and supporting job creation. from fort bliss in texas this portion is 40 minutes. >> good morning. how are we doing this morning? >> we of quite a treat this morning.

unique opportunity to engage with and talk with the chairman of the board of governors of our federal reserve system. unbelievable, and this is actually his first visit to a military installation since becoming the chairman of the federal reserve. but we also think looking back in history that since the federal reserve act of 1913 this may be the first time that any chairman of the federal reserve has ever come to to engage with soldiers and families and we know his job is pretty tough. this economy of ours is a tough economy which and we will have a lot of questions to do with the economy and other things of concern but just a little bit about chairman bernanke, he's from south carolina, a small little town in south carolina and he went to harvard, got his ph.d. at mit, was an economics professor at princeton and stanford and in 2006 he was

chosen by a president george w. bush to be the chairman of the federal reserve board but was also chosen to be a member, one of the seven appointees to was a part of the governing board which is a 14 year term but as the chairman has for years and he was just renominated last year in 2010 by president barack obama for a second term again showing the bipartisan nature of his job and just a little bit about our federal reserve as you know federal reserve bank is our central bank. it is a bank's bank the bank of our federal government. there are 12 regions, federal reserve bank regions and today we also have the president of our regional federal reserve bank in dallas mr. richard fisher and it's good to have you here sir. our federal reserve's has three or four general areas oneness'

conducting our monetary policy as a nation supervising regulating our banking institutions. maintaining the stability of our financial systems and then providing financial services to our lending institutions or depository institutions the government and foreign official institutions overall including playing a major role in operating the nation's payment system. and as the chairman, dr. bernanke also meets regularly with the president secretary of treasury and of course testifies before congress with the senate and house and is a major player in our world economy and in addition to visiting us here at fort bliss he also took the time voluntarily to greet our soldiers coming back from iraq this morning at 3 a.m. and we thank you for that. [applause]

>> but to the big texas welcome to dr. bernanke. [applause] thank you congenital. good morning. it's an honor and privilege for me to join the men and women of fort bliss today. as somebody that puts a high value of public service i want to thank the soldiers here for their service to the country and for helping to make the world a safer place. i admire your professionalism and dedication. i want to thank the family members as well. service members cannot achieve what they do without sacrifices of their families. we surely be proud of what the office stands for. you may be wondering what the chairman of the federal reserve is doing traveling to an army base in texas. well, as part of my job i meet regularly with all kinds of

groups and different backgrounds and experiences, different perspectives on the economy, and i try to explain what the fed is doing and understating i think it is an opportunity for me. i know the people in the military service like all americans. georgetown must be struggling foreclosures and have difficulty getting a loan if to buy a car or house or have family members struggling to find employment in the market and you may be wary but you're own job prospects as time comes we lead the military. i appreciate this concerns a very much and i said i'd spend a little bit of time telling you with the federal reserve is doing to help strengthen our economy and increase economic opportunity. i also want to make sure that you are aware of special financial protection for people in the military. just this tuesday or early this week, i met with holly petraeus

in the bureau. mrs. petraeus and i share a commitment to ensure the men and women to protect the security of the country are themselves protected from financial practices. also will also share a few thoughts about what to do to give yourself the best shot at a promising financial future. a few words about the federal reserve. at the federal reserve we are working hard both the central bankers and the financial regulators to help restore the nation's prosperity. in 2008 and in the early 2009 the world suffered the worst financial crisis since the great depression, a crisis which had been left unchecked it would have resulted in the global financial meltdown and collapse. working with policy makers around the world, the federal reserve acted forcefully to help stabilize the financial system and halt the economic slide.

our economy has been growing and adding jobs in the last few years now if. for people i know it feels like the recession never ended. the unemployment rate remains very high command more than two fifths of the unemployed have been out of work for six months or more. the highest ratio since world war ii. these problems are very serious and we of the federal reserve have been focusing intently on supporting job creation. supporting job creation is part of our order so to speak. the other half is controlling inflation. or in the language of the law that sets the mandate for monetary policy the federal reserve is required to see both maximum employment and price stability. we pursue these important goals by influencing bill level of interest rates and other financial conditions. my colleagues and i on the federal reserve monetary policy the quote price stability with

inflation meeting at 2% or less. that rate is low enough people can make financial decisions without having to worry much about the rising costs but haughey enough to keep the economy away from inflation, falling wages which is both a cause and a symptom of the extremely weak economy. although spikes in the holy land food crisis and other factors pushed inflation up earlier this year, inflation appears to be moderate and as we expect based on the best information that we apparently have we think it will freeman recently close to the objective of 2% or a bit less for the foreseeable future. in the longer term on a trade policy is the main determinant of inflation comes of the federal reserve policymakers have considerable latitude to choose the inflation goal. in contrast, the maximum employment, the other half of the mandate depends on many

factors outside of the federal reserve controls such as the skills of the workforce and the pace technological innovation. .. keeping short-term interest rates near zero and raid such as mortgage rates at the low the lowest levels in decades. keeping borrowing costs very low supports consumer purchases on houses cars and other goods and services as well as business investment in new equipment,

software and utilities. over time, greater demand on the part of household ens businesses leads to increased economic activity and employment. like other central banks around the world, one way in which we have put downward pressure on longer-term interest rates is by purchasing high-quality, longer-term securities in the yields market. specifically in our case u.s. government securities and federally backed mortgage securities. it's important to understand that this type of activity is not the same as government spending. we will sell the securities back into the market or simply allow them to mature as part of the process of tightening monetary policy when the economy improves. in the meantime we earn interest on the securities we hold. in fact the federal reserve securities purchases and other actions during and after the crisis have had the side effect of reducing the federal budget

deficit. last year and the year before we returned a total of $125 billion to those earnings to the u.s. treasury. and payments to the treasury in the current year will be quite substantial as well. in addition to our monetary policy role the federal reserve shares responsibility with other government agencies for regulating and supervising banks, protecting consumers and their financial dealings and fostering financial stability. we are working with other agencies to significantly increase the financial reserves that tanks, especially the largest banks, have -- must hold against possible losses. the fed and the other agencies are also toughening the restrictions on the kinds of financial transactions that banks can undertake and working to ensure the banking compensation packages do not give incentive to take excessive risks. we are requiring banks to compensate and desist foreclosed

upon homeowners who are unfairly treated. importantly we are working to increase the resilience of the financial system as a whole against financial and economic shocks that may appear in the future. we are also clapping with with the federal deposit insurance corporation to implement new rules that will make it easier for the government to unwind big financial firms if they get into trouble rather than being faced with a terrible choice of either bailing them out or risking the collapse of the financial system as they fail. of course the federal reserve was never intended to shoulder the entire burden of promoting economic austerity. fostering healthy growth and job creation is a shared responsibility of all economic policymakers in cooperation with the private sector. spending and tax policy is of critical importance but it wide range of other policies pertaining to labor markets, housing, taxation and regulation

for example, also have important roles to play. the federal reserve along with other agencies is working hard to enforce such during thinning and regulations that protect mortgage borrowers credit cardholders and other consumers and other financial services. the people must room should be wearing particular the special rights to protections provided to military personnel by the servicemembers civil relief act, s. cra. this law's purpose is to allow servicemembers to perform their duties without worry of foreclosure, eviction or civil prosecution under those circumstances. this law caps interest rate for debts incurred before servicemember begins active duty, prevent creditors from foreclosing on a home or repossessing a car without a court order brick gives servicemembers the option to terminate residential property in motor vehicle leases. it stayed civil proceedings while servicemembers on active duty and entitles servicemembers

to read -- reinstatement of health insurance that was in effect before their military service began. additionally the department of defense rules regulate the terms of certain kinds of high cost loans to servicemembers and their families such as payday loans, tax refund participation loans and motor vehicle title loans. it takes more than rules, however sound, and enforcement however diligent, to provide you and your families with the promising financial future. so while i have the pulpit so to speak, but he offered a few pieces of advice. first why you were in the military, take advantage of trading opportunities. nursing and health care mechanics, computer programming police and security work for example transfer to civilian jobs. the military also offers training in various life skills. for instance this morning i

visited the army community training center which offers classes on such financial topics as debt management understanding credit car buying and protecting against identity theft. more broadly according to recent study 80% of veterans said their military experience helped them to get ahead in life. they said the experience helped them to mature, help them to work with others and will their self-confidence. the value of military experience reflected in the fact that the unemployment rate for veterans tends to be lower than the rate for non-veterans. the second piece of advice when you leave the military take advantage of education benefits for veterans. the post-9/11 g.i. bill pays for tuition and fees a monthly housing allowance and books and supplies. keep in mind that on average high school graduates, people with college degrees earn twice as much and suffer half the rate

of unemployment. and finally, educate yourself about your own personal finances. research by the federal reserve right here in fort bliss shows the financial education pays off. beginning in 2003 the federal reserve collaborated with the army emergency relief, u.s. army some financial assistance organization to provide a two-day financial education course taught by the staff of san diego city college. is taught to younger enlisted soldiers mostly men in their early 20s. we surveyed them about their financial history and activities at the time of the course and we did follow-up surveys in 2008 and 2009 of both servicemembers had participated in the course and soldiers who had not. we found that soldiers would take in the course were more likely to make smart writing to choices such as comparison shopping for major purchases saving for retirement and educating themselves about money management. there were less likely to make

questionable financial choices like paying overdraft fees, taking out car title loans and continually running credit card balances. making good well thought out financial decisions made all the difference in their financial future. i began my remarks by describing some of our country's near-term economic challenges. i want to end by sounding a note about this. the u.s. economy remains the largest in the world is a highly diverse mix of industries and a degree of international competitiveness that if anything has improved in recent years. the united states continues to be a great place to do business with a strong system of laws and entrepreneurial traditions and flexible capital and labor markets. our country remains a technological leader with many of the world's leading research universities and the highest spending on research and development of any nation. ultimately these drinks will

reassert themselves if our country takes the steps that are necessary to prepare for the future. for example by putting the federal budget on a sustainable path, and improving our primary and secondary education systems. the federal reserve will certainly do its part to help high rates of employment in a context of price stability. let me in by again expressing my deep gratitude to all of you for your service to our country. and i'm happy to respond to your questions. thank you very much. [applause] >> thanks, anybody have a question? yes, maam. >> my questions are my question is what lessons can the nation learned about healthy if not robust economy in the army towns, sir?

>> army towns? >> army towns. el paso is a great example of military civilian cooperation. i've been getting a little bit of a taste of it with my first visit to el paso but fort lewis is expanding, bringing a lot of people here creating services on the base and off the base and looks to be a real plus for the local area. el paso did have a downturn like most of the rest of the country during the recession that we had in 2008 and 2009, but it was less than in other parts of the country. it is clear that this has been a very productive development and i think it's very positive the way that the school cooperation on issues of education, housing, development. has been a real positive i think in his role model for how military civilian leaders can

work together to create a good economic environment. yes, maam? >> cert, while i was deployed in afghanistan last year, the congress engaged in risky practices by not passing the budget to until the 11th hour and decide whether to raise the debt limit to the point where soldiers were faced with the threat of not being paid while they were deployed while we were in afghanistan. what kind of influences the federal reserve have in the budget process and with congress to attempt to have them avoid making such risky i guess, practices? >> it's a great question. alternately of course the federal budget is developed and passed by the congress and approved by the president, so that is where the responsibility lies. the fed tries to help where we can. we try to advise and provide information but obviously it is not our decision.

that being said we were very concerned about the debate in july and august about the federal debt ceiling. these expenditures and the taxes that are to been decided by the congress of the difference between the two is how much you have to borrow. the amount you have to borrow his already been decided so what they were fighting about is basically are we going to pay these bills are not? i think of you make a decision about how much you are going to spend given your income, you know, once you make that decision you should pay your bills. it created a lot of problems as people were concerned if the debt limit had been passed, either we would have defaulted on government debt which would have been a huge problem in the financial markets, or government could not have made his payments and would have had to cut that on any number of things. it's hard to know exactly which order they would cut that a large fraction. this was a very negative event and in fact we have seen the consumer confidence drop quite

significantly around august and i think part of it had to do with the question about how well is our government doing what it needs to be doing? so, indeed i would make one additional point which is that the credit rating agency downgraded u.s. treasury bills and bonds and its reason for doing that was not because they didn't think the u.s. could pay its bills. they were concerned that the political process was not able to deliver good fiscal results. that is a real concern so i think it's in everybody's interest for us to work collaboratively together and to stay away from that rinks and ship. that being said it is very important, let me be clear, that we address the long-term fiscal issues that we have and we have a supercommittee right now that is thinking about that and of course there is a lot more to do even after that, but it's important to do it the right way. it did cause a lot of problems. yes, sir.

over here. >> high dr. bernanke. i have two questions. the first is, with the recent release of the vatican's financial manifesto and the recent calls within the united nations for the debts jubilee what is the federal reserve's position on that and secondly, with the possible breakup of the e.u., how was that going to impact the united states if the e.u. slams down to a smaller member nation bloc? thank you. >> those are two tough questions. on the first one, it is certainly true that debt is a big part of our problem. we have an overhang of debt. we have a lot of debt which is interlinked with with the order fault and causing problems for financial system and for the borrowers, and households trying to improve their balance sheets,

trying to pay down their debt trying to reduce their credit card balances, are part of the reason why spending has been relatively good in that it's been a factor in slowing the recovery. i think where possible we need to address issues and the various ways to do that. one good way to do it which i will mention is through dealing with people who have mortgage issues. so the federal reserve has been an advocate for a long time of banks and services working with troubled borrowers to modify mortgages so that the borrower can stay in their house and be able to make payments. there are many ways to do that and it's not always successful but that is clearly an example of reducing debt burden and it's good for the housing market, it's good for the hour war and it's good for the bank and that is really something that has been very constructive. and likewise whenever there are

other debt situations which are unsustainable, then when an individual family for example is just snowed under by its debts, then clearly counseling bankruptcy is needed whatever to get that situation straightened out is one option. on the question of the e.u. as you know, there is a lot of stress now in the european union and the eurozone related to the debt obligations of greece and other countries. just to give a moment of background, there are 17 countries and what is called the eurozone would share a common currency, the euro and have a single central bank, the european central bank. in that respect the eurozone is similar to the united states which 50 states in the united states share a single currency, the dollar and a single central bank, the federal reserve. it is important in way in which

these two situations are quite different. in the united states with the federal government which oversees the budgetary and fiscal decisions for the country as a whole so if one state has trouble, and can't make its taxes and expenditures match, the federal government is still there to pay social security payments, medicare payments and to transfer money as needed to help individuals who are in trouble. in europe by contrast you have 17 different countries without a single government, without a single central fiscal authority and so it is much more difficult for them to move money between countries because it requires essentially the cooperation and coordination of 17 different parliaments of congress so to speak. so that it's been the nature of the problem so you have a number of countries starting with greece that it had difficulty meeting their debt obligations.

there is no single fiscal authority that can help them out. the concerned the europeans have is that the banking system of europe owns a lot of the debt in this country and therefore if there was a default, that would cause a lot of pressure on the banks who would lose all the money on the balance sheets and that in turn could create a huge amount of financial stress not only in europe but it the world as a whole set is so it is a difficult situation. now, europeans are quite aware of this obviously. it will create a lot of stress that their economy so they have been through a series of plans which have attempted first to help the countries in trouble to pay their debts, to help the greeks for example to meet their obligations by lending them money. secondly, to strengthen their banks by more capital so they do lose money they will still be strong and third by trying to put up what i call a firewall

that is a guarantee that if another country comes under pressure, that the europeans as a whole will protect that country and prevent the problem from spreading from country to country. it is a phenomenon called contagion. they have been trying to do those things. so far they have not obviously stop the crisis. they have taken a number of steps. it's really important that they implement the steps and they execute them forcefully and take whatever actions are necessary to stop the european crisis. this is important not just for europe let me emphasize. is important for us an important for the emerging markets because the financial system comes under under -- back that can have bad implications for the economy so it's very important if they do that. that is really the current issue. the issue is rather not they can stabilize the system and restore confidence in the budgetary situation of a number of countries which have come under

a lot of pressure from lenders. any other questions? the gentleman over here. >> thank you. sir, my wife and i are small-business owners and i'm just curious as to what you are doing or what the federal reserve is doing to help small businesses? in the earlier you said you are lowering the loan rates, but that doesn't help whenever we have to have you know 100% collateral down on just to secure a loan. so i guess my question is, what is the federal reserve doing to help small businesses to help create jobs? >> that is a very good question. as you point out small businesses, especially young businesses, are a big heart of the job creation process so it is in the interest of the whole economy, not just individual small-business owners, to get small-business lending and small-business activity back on track. it is a significant problem.

banks are lending quite freely to large businesses and large businesses have access to all sorts of corporate bond markets and lots of crashed so credit are not a problem at this point for the larger firms. the smaller firms rely on collateral, relied on values of homes or other types of securities are finding it very difficult. it's not an easy answer. we have been very engaged in this issue and we have been meeting regularly all over the country with small businesses with lenders, with government officials and others. in fact we just had a small business conference with the fed yesterday. i delivered the opening remarks yesterday and there was talk about solutions and approaches to help small businesses in terms of providing them with whatever assistance we could give them, technical assistance, how to make better loan applications, how to improve their business operations and so one with a lot of discussions in those meetings. more probably what we have been trying to do is bank regulators is take a balanced approach and

you know what we tell the banks we provide what is called guidance to the banks into our tank examiners. when you evaluate a small-business loan, it is a creditworthy loan, the borrower can pay it back, on me that the collateral value has fallen, you should make that loan. it's good for the bank because you are making a good loan. it's good for the borrower but it's good for the economy too. now they don't want banks making bad loans. that's how we got in trouble in the first place and we have got to be reasonably prudent to make sure that our words have appropriate prospects and whatever collateral is relevant but we are impressing on banks to -- if you are tonight, say i would like another review and a second review or you can meet with the counselor and they will make suggestions about how to address it. i would suggest meeting with a

number of different banks and trying to get it ice from them about what parts of your application need to be strengthened. again i realize it's difficult but our evidence has been things are getting a little bit that are as banks have become more willing to lend and as the economy strengthens and as the prospects of small businesses look better i think the situation is going to improve. >> yes, sir. i had a question about -- you mentioned earlier the bond has been downgraded by standard & poor's. what is the likelihood of another agency, credit agency doing that to the united states and what effect would such a downgrade have in terms of being able to repay her interest in getting people to invest in the economy? >> as you mentioned and i noted

earlier, the downgraded u.s. treasury debt the summer based on its assessment of our political process and their ability to have a reasonable balance in our budgetary matters. i am not aware of any near-term plans. the other agencies, as far as i know, don't have any immediate plans to downgrade the u.s. but of course they are always reviewing and always trying to make a determination about what to risk the bonds present to investors. i think in some ways it is a secondary issue. after all after s&p downgraded the u.s. treasury debt interest rates we pay on our debt actually went down rather than up so in other words, the downgrade didn't scare off any investors in terms of being willing to buy those treasuries. in fact u.s. treasuries remain a

safe haven and whenever you see a situation, whenever there is an increased volatility in the market because of some concern about europe or something else that is causing worries, what you see is people come in and buy treasuries. they do that as among the safest and liquid investments in the world so in that respect the downgrade or any potential downgrade hasn't really at this point, done damage to the united states economy are to our fiscal situation. but the underlying point is that you are not on a sustainable fiscal path on our current plans and current programs. our national debt is going to begin to accelerate and eventually it would basically get out of control unless we took other actions to change that. so it is very very important and the supercommittee is one step. is very important that we take

measures to try to establish a stable path for our national debt over time. one of the key issues here of course which comes up over and over again as we talk about the future of our economy is the fact that our economy is a gene. are public average age of our citizens are decreasing obviously over time. that means more people will be retiring and more people are going to need additional health care because they are older. health care costs are rising at a very rapid rate and we have by far the highest health care costs of any country. he did even so we don't necessarily have that her results in terms of health care. so given all those things, we have a very serious long-term problem in terms of our ability to provide decent living standards and good health care to our rapidly aging population. so the real challenge here that has to be addressed if we are going to see balancing our

budget. that means in particular i would say the biggest challenges are on the health care side. we need to find ways to deliver quality health care to everybody efficiently in a way that doesn't break the bank. right now we are on a track that can't be sustained. >> good morning mr. chairman. in regard to the european union and their economic issues question, what type of far-reaching effects will there be from this, and how well they affect the u.s. specifically? >> well, there is definitely a significant risk of their. the world's financial markets are highly interconnected so if there were to be a substantial increase in financial stress in europe, say because of an unexpected default by one of the

countries, that would create a freezing up of credit, a withdrawal of short-term funding, a decline in stock rises, all those negative things would happen not just in europe but around the world as we saw a few years ago when the financial center freezes up. it has very serious implications for the economy so it is very much in marriages and the interest of the emerging world as well as the interest of the europeans for them to find solutions for that situation. so it is not something we would be insulated from although the fed has done as well as we could to maintain stability and keep anatiere policy as stable as necessary to minimize damage. i don't think we would be able to escape the consequences of a blowup in europe. so it is very very important that they try to address these issues.

>> that was a portion of today's town hall meeting with federal reserve chairman ben bernanke. if you want to see the entire event we will show it tonight at 10:4 the eastern on c-span or you can view at any time on line on c-span's video library. ..