quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. leahy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont is recognized. mr. leahy: madam president, i ask consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. leahy: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 p.m. the senate proceed to a vote in relation to the coburn amendment number 13. further that upon disposition of the amendment, the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. that following leader remarks on tuesday, february 12, the senate resume consideration of s. 47, the time until 11:00 a.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. prior to votes in relation to the amendments included under

the previous order, and those votes occur in the order listed. that all after the first vote be ten-minute votes and finally all other provisions in the previous order remain in effect. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. leahy: i thank the distinguished presiding officer. i he know we'll be voting -- i know we'll be voting soon, but i would join chairwoman cantwell, the chair of the senate committee on indian affairs, and the senior senator from alaska, senator murkowski, in opposing nor coburn's amendment. the amendment will remove essential protections for native women from the bill. a jurisdictional gap allows many non-indian perpetrators on tribal land to go unpunished. the problem is real. nearly half of indian women are married to non-indian men and

thousands more are in relationships with non-indians. federal and state officials are not in a position to prosecute in most cases. they are often hours away. they lack the resources and local contacts to be able to effectively respond. these non-indian men can essentially abuse indian women with immunity from any other consequences. and that really has to end. these are essential tools in combatting domestic violence. senator coburn's amendment would eliminate these crucial provisions. it would reverse the significant progress we made last year when the senate passed these provisions with strong bipartisan support. but worse, it sends the message that native women are not deserving of the same protections as other women. that's why i will oppose it.

madam president, i've said so many times on this floor a victim of abuse, a victim of domestic violence, a victim of sexual violence is a victim. in my experience, when i used to go to crime scenes with the police in my former life, no police officer upon seeing a victim ever said, wait a minute. we've got to make sure whether this victim is native or nonnative, whether this victim is gay or straight, whether this victim is an immigrant or not. the police never did that. they said how do we find who did this and stop that from happening again. basically this amendment would say we have put some abusers off

limits. madam president, i cannot vote something that would do that, and i hope the majority of senators would stay with those of us who put this bill together, stay with the bipartisan combination of senator cantwell and senator murkowski who have explored this issue and vote down this amendment. madam president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum and ask for time to be equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection. call the roll. quorum call:

mr. leahy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont is recognized. mr. leahy: madam president, i ask consent that the call of the quorum be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. leahy: madam president, i ask consent to yield back all time on both sides. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the question is on the coburn amendment number 13. mr. leahy: madam president, the yeas and nays have not been requested, have they? the presiding officer: they have not. mr. leahy: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a second, sufficient second? there appears to be a second. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 31. the nays are 59. and the amendment is not agreed to. mrs. hagan: mr. president? the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the senator from north carolina.

mrs. hagan: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. hagan: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, february 12, 2013, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that following any leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of s. 47, the violence against women act, under the previous order. further, that the senate recess following disposition of s. 47 until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. hagan: there will be up to six roll call votes beginning tomorrow at 11:00 a.m. in order to complete action on the

violence against women act. the state of the union will be tomorrow evening. senators will gather at 8:20 p.m. in the chamber to proceed together as a body. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order following the remarks of senator cornyn. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, as a preliminary matter, i'd ask consent that michael loftuss, a fellow, and angela sheldon, a senator of senator hatch, be allowed privileges on the floor during debate and votes on senate s. 47. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i come to the floor to respond to some of the debate on the violence against women act reauthorization which i believe misstate the law and the content

of the underlying bill, specifically as it relates to tribal court jurisdiction. first of all, i start from the premise that tribal courts should be able to prosecute domestic violence cases that occur on tribal lands involving tribal members, and the question is under what procedure, what practice is it appropriate for them to attain jurisdiction over nontribal members who commit these acts of domestic violence who they wish to prosecute in tribal courts. i'm not here to question the integrity of the tribal court system for tribe members. the only question on the table is whether tribal courts under the law that applies to these tribal courts, is required to protect the constitutional rights of nontribe members who they seek to assert jurisdiction over. in order to protect the

constitutional rights, the constitution is interpreted by the federal courts must be applied, and there must be an opportunity given to individuals who are prosecuted in these tribal courts who are not tribal members to appeal to a federal court if, in fact, they are convicted. now, first of all, the distinguished senator from washington, senator cantwell, has said that there is a right of removal to federal court in the underlying bill, and that is incorrect. there is no right of removal to federal court in the underlying bill. however, in the amendment which i have -- had contemplated offering, which the distinguished bill manager, the chairman of the judiciary committee said is not acceptable to him, it would include a right of removal to federal court under some circumstances, so i want to correct the record.

there is no right of removal in the underlying bill to federal court that might otherwise correct an unconstitutional provision. under the tribal court legislation -- or tribal court jurisdiction, they operate under the indian civil rights act which is by definition a statute and not the constitution, so the rights provided to tribe members and nontribe members under the indian civil rights act are not constitutional rights. they don't incorporate the bill of rights of the united states constitution which would be applicable to any american citizen tried in any state or federal court, and since indian or tribal courts claim to be corch, they don't incorporate those constitutional rights, then american citizens who are not tribal members who would be tried in those tribal courts

under the underlying bill would be unconstitutionally deprived the protections of the bill of rights which they have by virtue of the united states constitution. secondly, the distinguished senator from connecticut, mr. blumenthal, argues that habeas corpus protections are sufficient to vindicate the constitutional rights of nontribal members, but that's not the case. habeas corpus is a remedy which cannot be accessed until direct appeals are exhausted, by definition. because that's the case, under the underlying bill, the maximum length of sentence that a -- an individual can be given under the leahy bill is one year, so what would happen is someone would be tried, an american citizen nontribe member will be tried at a tribal court, that

they be wrongfully deprived of their constitutional rights under the bill of rights, but yet they could not vindicate those rights until such time as they exhausted all direct appeals, and then habeas habeas corpus would be potentially available to them. the only problem with that is it is very unlikely that that would happen before they would have already served their sentence under the underlying bill, which is a maximum of one year. thus, the habeas remedy is illusory and is not real. so, mr. president, i hope that helps clarify some of the misunderstanding under the bill and my concerns about it. we start from the premise that domestic violence on tribal lands is a serious problem, and under the current situation, these crimes are not deemed sufficiently serious for u.s.

attorneys to typically prosecute these cases. they are serious cases. they deserve to be prosecuted, but only and consistently with the united states constitution. and if the tribal courts wish to assert jurisdiction over nontribe members, the only way they should be allowed to do so is if they incorporate the protections of the bill of rights. that is something that i have proposed to the distinguished chairman of the judiciary committee but which he has rejected. and we also have to have a means for an appeal to a federal court if a nontribe member is convicted in a tribal court. that is not in the underlying bill. so it just strikes me as somewhat bizarre to have a remedy which is in the form of my amendment which would confer on tribal courts the requirement that they incorporate the provisions of the bill of rights when a nontribe member is being

tried in a tribal court and that a right to an appeal to a federal court also be included. that would remove the constitutional objection to the assertion of tribal court jurisdiction over nontribe members. but this has been rejected for some reason that escapes me. our only remedy is to go to the house of representatives once this bill passes the senate, as it will, and ironically this is a bill that historically is passed with unanimous agreement. democrats and republicans alike. it hadn't been a political bill. but apparently in a desire to make it a political statement and to somehow suggest that some people don't believe that we ought to prosecute violence against women in tribal courts, an erroneous argument has been made both by two senators who i mentioned here, which i hope my statement has corrected. we don't need to go there.

there is a solution to this, a commonsense solution, but unfortunately it's been rejected by the chairman of the judiciary committee, so our only recourse is to take the senate bill and reconcile it with a bill that will be passed by the house of representatives, which i hope will fix this provision and have it resolved in conference in a way that protects victims of domestic violence on tribal lands when perpetrated by nontribe members and when those nontribe members are tried in tribal courts. so i know that sounds a little convoluted, but it's an important constitutional right that we're talking about here, and i'm just -- i'm amazed that such a simple solution which is right at hand is being rejected here in favor of trying to make some kind of political statement that some members don't care as much as others do about vindicateing the rights of victims of domestic violence on tribal lands.

and with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, february 12, 2013. committee has scheduled a vote tomorrow afternoon i'm president obama's nomination of chuck hagel to be defense secretary.

>> off and when she said she had the podium the first lady has the posting them and she chose to use it. i think i was a quote and i think really knowing that, it was after i made the presidential radio address about this at the trip and of women and children in afghanistan by the taliban and right after that i was here visiting jenna who was in texas. we went shopping and the ladies at the cosmetic counter who worked in the cosmetic counter in the department store came up and said bank you so much for speaking for women in afghanistan.

that was really the first time that i thought, they heard me. and i think i knew intellectually that the first lady had a podium but i didn't really know it until i did that. half of the cuts would come from the pentagon and the other half from non-defense discretionary programs. today representatives of the defense contractors educational institutions and other groups held a news conference to call on congress to come up with an alternative to the automatic cuts.

>> welcome and good morning everyone. i am at emily and i'm the executive director of the coalition for health funding and the cochair of and dd united representing the full breadth of interest in non-defense discretionary programs. and dd programs are core government functions provided for the benefit of all including public health and safety, law enforcement, education and job training, veterans services, medical and scientific research, weather monitoring and environmental protection, natural resources, housing and social services and transportation and infrastructure. ndd is pleased and honored to join with the aerospacaerospac e industries association and its unprecedented effort to stop sequestration and find a balanced approach to deficit reduction that does not include further cuts to discretionary programs.

both defense and non-defense programs are equally critical to economic growth and the safety and security of our nation. these discretionary programs are not the reason for our growing debt and yet so far they have been the only place lawmakers have been willing to cut by $1.5 trillion today. non-defense programs alone have been cut a $900 billion bringing spending on these programs to levels not seen since eisenhower was president. as we saw from the white house memo on friday and as you will hear from our panel today, cuts to discretionary programs alone not only won't balance the budget, they will cripple our ability to grow our economy and provide an environment where all americans have the opportunity to lead healthy, safe and productive lives. that is what really brings us together here today because sequestration is about more than numbers on a ledger. there are real people behind these numbers and their lives

and livelihoods are on the line. these cuts have consequences and every american will pay the price. with fewer food inspectors we will be more susceptible to foodborne illness. we will be at greater risk of deadly disease outbreak as public health laboratories close. with fewer air traffic controllers flights will be curtailed. classroom size will increase as teachers are laid off. national parks will close up. we will be less safe with fewer police on the streets and we will wait longer to cure debilitating diseases like cancer and alzheimer's. today ndd united is sending two members of congress and the white house a 72 page letter signed by 3200 national, state and local organizations including those represented here today to stop the political brinksmanship, to stop cutting for cutting steak and to start

working together on a balanced, meaningful solution to our nation's debt. i would now like to invite our panel to share more details about the devastating impact of sequestration on defense and non-defense programs. we will take questions at the end of the presentation and full bios for all of their speakers are available in your press packet. we will begin with marion the president and ceo of the aerospace industries association i personally want to thank marion for the association support of ndd united and her leadership in bringing defense and non-defense together for the first time under one big tents. >> thank you emily. i can't tell you how pleased we are to be here altogether to be talking about such an important topic. i am marion blakey president and ceo of aerospace industries association and we are very

proud to represent the 1 million highly skilled and dedicated professionals who make up the aerospace and defense workforce. let me get right to it. making a few comments about this crisis we are facing. sequestration is a poison pill designed to force the hard but necessary decisions, the work of governing, compromise, negotiation to reduce our deficits and their debt. but the poison pill now threatens to have a toxic effect on our entire economy and on our national security. we have been seeing the flashing warning signs, flashing code lou with massive indiscriminate cuts to defense and other important functions of government truly do threaten our security, undermine our ability to stay ahead of global innovation race and will tank our fragile economy.

we have been saying this for months and the latest wake-up call was just the other day when we learned that our gdp is for the first time in four years going into negative territory. that is a serious wake-up call. the defense downturn has real-world consequences right now both for reducing our military might and our economic potential. and we pointed out that other government functions are affected as well. for example faa's operation of the national airspace system, nasa's space exploration program are necessary new satellite -- but these are weather satellite programs --

they range well beyond national security. the diverse group of leaders here with us today are going to attesting to this. regarding the overall economy, about six months ago we released a study conducted by doc or stephen bulic of george mason university. the study's methodology is sound and its conclusions are grim. the study says sequestration if it goes forward will put 2.1 million -- 2.1 million u.s. jobs at risk. these are defense and non-defense related jobs and they include nearly 1 million small businesses. it will cause the unemployment rate to rise by 1.5% and reduce expected gdp growth by $215 billion. 215 billion. the latest congressional budget office forecast cbo reinforces

dr. bullet's -- that will undermine u.s. economic growth. so, today we are re-releasing the study and his analysis of the potential economic impact of sequestration across the nation. let it be noted, no one can say that they weren't forewarned about the full consequences of this very bad policy. and this morning to emphasize the urgency of the situation we will be delivering to literally every member of congress and the white house a letter signed by nearly 140 fire ceos in addition to the letters that ndd is doing and that and -- ndd yet i will be delivering as well. we are urging congress and the president to work now on a balanced bipartisan solution to sequestration.

the letter states, as currently planned sequestration will have a serious negative impact on the economy, national security and federal agencies. in the current fiscal environment, we understand that defense spending must be part of any conversation about federal budget priorities. however, allowing sequestration to occur is neither responsible nor sister teach it. the letter confirms that congress and the white house can work together to make certain that any cure to our debt and deficit problems is not worse than the malady that we are trying to fix. we are realistic enough to know that our voice alone won't decide it, but as evidenced by this unprecedented gathering of disparate groups, i am gratified

that our course of voices is clearly gathering strength. i am confident that together we can whip this battle. now, let me ask wes bush the chairman of aerospace industries association and the chairman ceo and president of northrop-grumman corp. to make a few remarks. >> thank you. as we think about sequestration this is really a decision. it's a decision that our nation 's political leadership needs to make in the timeline is rapidly approaching where the conclusion of that decision. i thought it would be helpful to frame the decision space in the context of a broader u.s. economic auto. our economic model here in the united states works best when we have all of the pieces of that model working together and the premise of our model is that there are certain rules that are best performed by companies such as ours.

there are certain rules best performed by government. there are certain roles, very critical roles played by other enterprises in our society such as educational institutions, nonprofit organizations and many other enterprises. central though to that model, central to the functioning of our economy is investment by the federal government in some key areas such as providing for our national security, supporting education and supporting research that fuels the innovation that our economy needs for long-term growth. supporting and providing for the public safety and for public health. there are many rolls and we can take a long time to enumerate them all. these are all critical functions of government. the funding for these core functions of our federal government is provided by the discretionary component of the federal budget. and while total federal spending

represents about 23% of our gross domestic product, the discretionary component of spending is only about 8% of gdp. the remaining components of federal spending are entitlements representing about 14% of gdp and interest payments on the debt which are about 1.4%. if we look at discretionary spending as a% of gdp over time, and i would draw your attention to the chart just over here to peter's right, we already are are are on a track to tracked vehicle is pointed discretionary spending in relation to our national economy in 50 years. this drastic changes happening already without sequestration and let me emphasize that. this chart shows what is happening to discretionary spending without sequestration. already, we are slowly backing away from the long-term investments in our security, our

research, our education, our infrastructure, our public health, our public safety and many other core functions of government. now that level of decline cannot be sustained if america is to be the global leader in the long-term. and that is why we are all here together this morning, to really make sure there is clarity around the decision on sequestration. trying to solve our countries very serious fiscal challenges, and we all know they there are very serious challenges, but trying to solve those issues solely on the backs of the discretionary budget is the wrong answer for america. we need our are congress and the administration to work together to create a balanced approach to reducing our long-term debt. now will the discretionary budget play a role? of course it will but allowing

the sequester to occur is absolutely the wrong way to go about this. and it would produce severe economic consequences in both the near term and the long term. the loss of jobs as our country struggles to recover from devastating recession would be a real set back for our economy. the loss of small businesses across america would drain us not only of their employment and economic contributions but also their innovation and their growth potential. the impact, the very real impact on university research and student aid would haunt us for many many years. and the impacts on our public health and safety are simply unacceptable. so we have come together to help eliminate how serious the sequester could be across our country and we are here to call for action. we are here to call for our political leadership to come together to act to stop sequestration and to come up

with a solution that will continue to help america grow for many years. thank you. >> thank you so much wes and marion. i would now like to introduce our next speaker from the task force for american innovation and also an important partner in ndd united. they will share more about the impacts of non-defense spending cuts on education and scientific innovation. we will first hear from peter mcpherson of the -- president of the association of public land grant universities and then we'll hear from hunter rawlings president of the association of university. >> thank you and good morning. as you just said i'm president of hp -- aplu which has 200 research universities around the country and i priestly served as deputy secretary of treasury sometime ago working at some of

the issues that we are talking about here today. i am delighted to be here with my colleagues of science, higher education, industry and as was mentioned hunter rawlings and i are also here representing the task force on american -- innovation which is a broad coalition of industry, academy and scientific societies. we are not always at the same stage and not usually fighting but not united in the way we have been around this issue. we all see the urgent need in the problem we have before us. sequestration is a reckless tool that would force deep spending reductions across critical investments in r&d and education. i am here to say that sequestration would greatly reduce and harm our nation's

eyes flashing innovation slashing innovation capacities. research has been a primary driver of the u.s. economy for generations. basic research has been the wellspring for innovation in applied research, producing much of hours -- including the internet, gps, large square of of -- large-scale innovative circuits and much more. the federal government funds 60% of the basic research, two-thirds of the going to universities. without that basic research by industry colleagues here i know who depend so heavily upon it. sequestration cuts about $10 billion of r&d in 2013. going through 2021, the full sequestration woodcuts are indeed by about $90 billion in reduced gdp growth depending upon your study $330 billion

says the study that was just completed by information technology innovation foundation. these figures are a little bit apart from the study. moreover, the same report i mentioned talks about 200 fewer jobs in just a four year period. again the study's figures can vary some but they are all pretty dramatic. ..

unless we act, we can expect china's increase in research funding and the funding of others will mean that the relative competitiveness of the u.s. will weekend, probably in ways that go to our core strengths. sequestration is unnecessary. we absolutely must deal with the budget deficit, but this massive indiscriminate approach of counterproductive. such cuts will damp and growth and thereby reduce tax revenue. such cuts definitely earn

dealing with the deficit over the long-term. for less than three weeks away from having these massive cuts. i am here to join others in urging president obama, congressional leaders come together to defeat america's future anti-sequestration. to gather, we before you are united to ensure america maintains its place and the innovation research. >> good morning, everyone. i am hunter rawlings representing the aau, which comprises 60 of the leading research universities in the u.s. as peter said, he and i are also representing the task force on american innovation and you have a letter in your press packet from the task force that i hope you will take a good look at.

sequesters the most unpopular and had washington d.c. since the dallas cowboys. [laughter] it is mindless and will cause great harm to our country. the president hates it. speaker boehner he said. majority leader, harry reid, he'd say. and they created it. imagine how the rest of us feel about it. yet somehow our leaders can't seem to figure a way out of that. we all agree the country needs to find a more sustainable fiscal path. in my view we need a balanced approach as wes said a few moments ago that includes the spending and revenues. cuts in spending should focus on programs that are growing the most, not on discretionary spending, which is not growing, it's not the problem and has borne the brunt of cuts. discretionary spending as a part of the budget where america's

future lies. it includes such investment as research and education. cutting investment in our future is not the way to solve this problem. yet that is exactly what the sequester will do. there's a better way. we've talked quite a bit about the impact of the sequester on an economy still recovering. i want to focus on the longer-term, the economy and the nation relieved to her children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. the research is being cut so severely by the sequester affects the long-term health quality of life and economic and national security of our coming generations. it's how we figure out claim forms of energy, make medical advances that save lives and ultimately reduce the cost of health care. developed a technology that defend our country and make our fighting men and women safer and advance our economy.

more than half -- more than half of economic growth in this country since world war ii has resulted from technological advances, none of which would have been impossible -- almost some of which would have been possible without the basic research funded by the federal government. sometimes this all sounds very theoretical, but we live it every day. let me hold up for you this morning they said sheehan little iphone. can't get along without this thing. you all have one in your pocket or perhaps you're looking at right now and not listening to me. [laughter] which by the way, it's pretty standard for us professors, so it's not surprising. this device you have in your pocket and i have been nine would not exist were it not for federally funded research. let me show you why.

the gps that enables your device to guide you to your destination would not exist without the federally funded research they produced the atomic clock. so apple made this thing and they did a great job, but without the atomic clock, it doesn't work. the touchscreen, an amazing game, even i can use it, came directly from research funded by the national science foundation. we don't think about that. the liquid crystal display or lcd monitor used on the sons comes from research funded by nih at the national institute for health. the rechargeable lithium-ion battery that run these funds came out of basic research funded by the department of energy and even the integrated circuit, which you find in practically all electronic equipment benefited from federally funded research as

well as some great skill by industry. so this device that we all can't get along what came to a great extent from federally funded research. these things can't keep coming if we don't invest in basic research. that is why it has strong bipartisan support in congress and why president obama is such a strong advocate for it. but the reality of the federal budget is discretionary spending from which we fund this research is getting squeezed tighter and tighter and now the sequester cuts nondefense discretionary spending by 5% this year alone, which is really 9% given where we are in the year. the omb said this would force the national science foundation to issue nearly 1000 fewer research grants, curtailing the work of an estimated 12,000 scientists and engineers.

it would require nih to make hundreds fewer research awards. finally, in addition to research as wes and peter have mentioned, the sequester what her students through student financial aid. it would cut work-study and other financial aid programs. why would we penalize young americans working their way through college? what kind of message does that send? it is not a message of opportunity. so the sequester instead is shortsighted and it should not happen. we urge the president and congress to stop the sequester an address or fiscal challenges in a balanced, sensible way. thank you. >> thank you so much, peter and hunter. to open up for questions from the audience, if you could please state your name and affiliation, i believe we have a

microphone. we are recorded, so would be helpful if you could speak into the microphone. let's begin. >> hello, paul cars that, rollcall group. mr. rawlings with revenues. i wonder if you will agree with that or some of you think revenues should not be included? >> i can certainly speak for aerospace industries association and i think all of our member companies. we have long called for a balanced approach. to solve our nation's fiscal issues, we know you can't just pull one mother. you have to reach them pull all of the levers available to our nation to do with this. unfortunately what we've seen to date has been primarily, if you can see on the chart over to the

right, a pulling of the lever on the discretionary budgets. we think this has to be much more balanced. so yes, everything has to be on the table to make sure we make a good decision about the future of our country. >> i think all of us believe and hunter and i have a ban on record that there's a balanced approach to the big deal and that is really what we have to do the work through the regulatory budget process and we hope congress and in the months ahead. the struggle we've got right now is how do we deal with sequester right now and that's a lot more complicated and we haven't gotten the details on how to do that. what is counterproductive for the long-term situation of the country, including the deficit,

to have sequester go forward. >> and i would just add or nvd united, i for the record and not an economist, but i read what economists write and all of them say from simpson/bowles to domenici rivlin, we need cuts and revenue. right now what we need is an unbalanced approach. we've had $2.5 cut for every $1 in revenue. if sequestration were to take effect, that ratio would go $5 in cuts to everyone dollars in revenue. clearly not balanced. were hopeful in the next few weeks we can see a more balanced approach to avoid sequestration and be on a more sustainable fiscal path. >> again, this is a long-term

goal. we got to figure out how to deal with the whole picture over the next few months. >> charlie clerk with government executive. what has been the reaction from mostly house republicans who are against making revenues apart is listening to wish you all are saying? >> yes, i think that one of the things we have to understand here is that to have the kind of compromise that has lasting effect is that to be bipartisan. and that means that we're asking those sides and we are seeing evidence that those sides of the aisle are listening without question. we also are pointing out that the area that has not been considered is the question of entitlement spending. entitlement spending is everyone

understand is a very fundamental part of how you saw this equation. and certainly both sides, but its others on the hill beyond house republicans to listen to that as well. so there are several facets to this solution. >> i think this very line of question, which is certainly per reedit and their need to respond to questions reflects a month what we've got here. we've got to deal with this immediate issue because it's going to be harmful to the country not to deal with it. and at the same time, we've got bigger issues, the big deal if you will and in my view, much of this discussion has got to occur in the big deal context. but i love the dallas cowboy thing. everybody hates it here.

now they have to translate the heat into immediate action. >> other questions? >> lauri charman from cdl update. how did all of these groups come together under this big cat? >> is interesting. it's certainly a function of the environment and it's really not that unusual for us to come together and frankly some of the coverage. conversations on the hill pitting one against the other when in fact both are critical to our security safety. you can't have a strong military when you are outsourcing science and technology are when you have recruits that are obese and uneducated. at the same time, you can't drive in the united states if

you are facing threats from overseas and you feel insecure in your own home in your own community. so we are really pleased to come together. i think we've also seen we are going to rise and fall together. in this debate, that is what has happened so far. working separately was outworking clearly appeared coming together, trying something new, speaking with one voice we are hopeful we can have an impact and stop sequestration in the next three weeks. >> yes, emily, and my former life i am a professor we could not in the idea that i would be sitting next to ceo and chairman of a major defense contractor with the last thing in my mind. but i learned some quite interesting about business and that it is heavily research-based. the work we do in our research university is heavily

research-based. were both trying to do things for the future. his work and our work is actually quite close. we have many universities who work on the problems that wes is trying to soften his researchers who work on the same problems. so frankly, this makes a lot of sense because we're trying to do much of the same thing. >> i would also add that which you don't see physically represented up here, but is very much a part of this coming together is the enormous number of organizations who have been doing economic analysis, looking at the impact of sequestration and whether you're talking about cbs's, bipartisan policies that have, or the work done and of course simpson/bowles and we could go on. there is remarkable unanimity about the fact that sequestration is terrible

policy. it will result in military bofors our economy back into recession. those indicators are across-the-board. so i would plan out as i say, there's a much broader group that you don't see physically here today, but believe me, they are here with us. >> let me just add one other comment and it goes back to some of my earlier remarks. we came together because we recognize each other not only to cite sequestration, but make our economy work. our nation functions and enterprises were together from a corporate perspective we need the amazing university education and research system we have and our nation to help propel our economy. we need employees to get the benefit of great public health and safety provided by law enforcement. other parts of our economy have

to work together to grow and thrive. so it's rather natural to be here today talking about one of the greatest threats we all see to that future opportunities for our economy to grow. so in many respects, this is a natural coalition. >> is running. professor mcpherson pointed out the listing to make mistakes between the short-term sequester and long-term national debt. not much time left to have sequestered. congress is always pick the can down the road from january. but you guys be happy with another short-term solution or would you prefer to do something big to stop the thing permanently? >> i'll offer an opinion i'm not. we all know we have to solve this problem and continuing to kick the can is not the way to

solve the problem. it would be relieved if there were a short-term break ms would allow congress to come together and act in a way that we know it cannot. sure, absolutely. the deck to see congress had the opportunity to resolve this. but it needs to get resolved. we know this process is already having a big impact. it's having an impact across our country in terms of a willingness on the part of corporations to invest in higher. so this is costing our country something today already. we know it's having an impact in terms of confidence in our economy, both domestically and internationally. kicking the can is not free. it has a cost and we can't keep doing that. but if the short-term avoidance is necessary to allow the functions of government to operate as they are designed to do, then okay we need to do that. we need to be where this has to be resolved and we do have to come to resolution.

>> what makes a very important point that easily gets lost, this is already having a very negative impact. this is not something simply three weeks in the future. we see, for example, federal agencies are holding back research awards. university of california system is reported over 20% drop in the research awards to its faculty is compared with last year and wes has pointed to how businesses are already holding back details of this big uncertainty. this is not feature only. this is now. it's happening, it's negative and as someone said earlier, the last quarter of our economy is a downside because everybody is waiting to see the negative results from this. this is on us now. >> i like the tone of those last couple comments. in fact, we've got to figure out

how to deal with this because they will have a keynesian sense of a further check on this economy. but it has a confident stride i do think we have a group have to decide precisely how to deal with it. but what we have come together and say let's deal with this now. someone or soon, we need to deal with the big issues and that was everything, taxes, entitlements, expenditures below set of issues could however this happened we don't get so developed an entangled in the streets of this town which is a danger in my

view. nothing happens under and that's the danger. everybody hates it, but we can get through the five greatest struggle to figure out how to do it. but we are saying is look, we've got to do it and we hope that this augments and helps motivate the people that can do it to get it done. >> in terms of contemporary impact, our country so they cost now. remember we are observing already $487 billion cut that occurred under the budget control act in 2011. so when you see in the papers that their pink slips going, people losing jobs is very real and on top of that, as the

department of defense is announcing, we are pulling back in terms of revenues. we are pulling back in terms of the equipment in the field. we are not going forward resume and some critical assets such as our nuclear aircraft carriers just announced the other day that is necessary and yet, we cannot go forward because of the uncertainties and the overhang of sequestration and continuing resolution, which is also another problem for congress in the space. so these are immediate and very serious tracks on the economy. this has caused our gdp to go into negative territory for the first time in four years and it's happening the the last quarter. we've seen 46,000 public health or fashion laws and state communities laid-off and that does not include the numbers that are currently experiencing furlough. it's almost a joke of the work

with folks at the state level. it's furlough friday and these are folks to make sure the food you eat this morning i save that preventive services kicking the can it was an olympic sport we would win the gold medal. i recall a briefing on the hill where we had a superintendent for the schools in south dakota and she said right now she works on a travel reservation and she is for teachers. one of them, if sequestration happens, she will have to lay off. fact. and so, picture that. picture being a teacher and you don't ballot three weeks ago have a job or not. are you going to buy that new house or a new car? probably not because you have that uncertainty in all this for

teachers don't know who it is going to be. we are seeing the impact of sequestration already. that's just one story. i've heard many more from my colleagues have said for united. this is not a solution and so we are urging folks to wreck a script as they can to stop sequestration of the certainty back into our economy and people's lives so they can live their lives and make important decisions. well, we thank you all for being here this morning. it was a pleasure. thank you, panelists. [inaudible conversations] from mark

>> soon as you might expect, given the breadth of products we have, computers, appliances, one of the areas we are investing is this multiscreen conductivity because we already see many consumers multicasting. during a couch watching tv, mr. also take you on your phone or something like that.

had we link those devices to each other? how do we also linked into the cloud or link them to the internet. one very good example is the galaxy hammered that we launched. a camera now built-in with three g in 4g connectivity so you can take photos for you go and play through the wireless network, upload them to a website or to social media surveys. server and wireless conductivity to a camera. so linking products like that to the internet into each other as a big opportunity for rest of big value for the consumer. >> now comebacker performer congressmen and senators from both parties on the national debt. they called on the president and congress to come together in a

comprehensive plan to reduce the deficit. this is half an hour. >> good afternoon. i am miami tennis and i run the campaign to fix the debt. thank you for joining us today. i am pleased to be here today, introducing our congressional, fiscal leadership council, which is a tremendous group of former members of congress who have come together to turn the campaign to fix the debt, and make the case as they think no one else can because they have all been there and i'm not an experience what it's like to be a policymaker on capitol hill, trying to do difficult things in a partisan environment, but a computer in the campaign to make the case by the nation's fiscal challenges are so pressing that is so important that we were to come up with a comprehensive plan to address them.

the campaign to fix the debt is an organization that's been around for not very long, but if the mast to tremendous group of support from citizens across the country where we have over 350,000 citizens who join the campaign. we have a presence in 50 states, active organizations and 23 states and growing. partnership for 2500 plus small businesses. many organizations including health care organizations, women's organizations, veterans organizations coming together in a way a country has to to explain why making temptresses and putting in place the policies required over the medium and long-term to get ahold of our our nation's fiscal challenges is so important to the health of the economy, businesses and families across the country. i'm proud to be joined by the trendiest group of members of congress. i'm going to turn it over now to one of our three cochairs, the

other being governor ed rendell and michael bloomberg. today we have senator judd gregg will introduce a couple of people introducing this new council. thanks so much. >> thank you, maya. a great pleasure to be here so many of my colleagues who served this country so well during her their years in office and now survey bring attention to this critical issue, which is our dad. you simply can't fix this country unless you fix the debt. the biggest threat to prosperity is our dad. the ability of our generation to pass on to our children, a nation which we can enjoy is controlled by what we do on balancing our debt and getting it under control. thursday murmurings going on out there, especially in washington that they be the debt isn't that important anymore, that maybe we've gone far enough with the budget control act and the fiscal cliff.

that's clearly not true. anyone who subscribes to that probably also believes the web ducks won the world series last year. it's simply a fantasy view of the world. the fact is our debt is still going up at a disproportionately to what we can afford to pay in if we don't get it under control fairley said that congress and the president leaders in this area, we will end up as a nation which is insolvent and that is not fair to children. it's a pleasure to participate with a strong group here today and it's especially my pleasure to turn the rest of our have former chairman and a person who understands this issue as well as anyone in public service today and that is kent conrad. >> thank you, senator gregg. you know, jed and i didn't agree on everything. we had some even heated disagreement about how to solve this problem. but we are absolutely joined at the hip with the understanding that this is a problem that must

be taken on. the economic future of the country is at stake and that is not just our view. that is the view of the chairman of the federal reserve. that is the view of the head of the congressional budget office, nonpartisan. that is the view of virtually every serious subject to the economist who has looked at the long-term treasure jury of our fiscal circumstance. to be credible, we have to acknowledge progress has been made. in 2009, the deficit as a share of gdp was 10%. this year it's going to be worth the 5%. we've gone from borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend too this year, we will be borrowing 24 cents of every dollar we spend. what is most striking is not a near-term circumstance and that that combine in the next couple years. what is most striking in the

congressional budget analysis most recent analysis is where we are headed in the end of this ten-year window and beyond. the striker was done by committee for responsible federal budget took an analysis of what would've happened if nothing had been done so far, if we wouldn't have had the budget control act, if we would have had to quester. if we would've had the fiscal cliff legislation introduced about 600 billion of revenue. that is the green line. that is the trajectory would the honest nothing had been done. the blue line represents all the actions that have been taken so far. that represents the budget control act, the sequestered in the revenue that was done before the end of the year. as you can see, that still has us on an upward trajectory with

the debt at the end of this decade. what this does not show us what is going to happen right beyond the ten-year window on the debt is going to take off like a scolded cat. so anybody but thinks we've resolved this problem by what has been done so far is not dealing with the reality we confront. and i understand if you're in public life, the convenient to do is to hope, to wish, to believe that you .. to do with the problem. this is not enough to do with the problem. you can see the debt will be 80% of the gdp are close to that. i think it is 77% of gdp. as the publicly held debt. the gross debt would be 30 points higher, would be 107%. that is our debt to gdp at the end of this decade if we don't do more. so i decided that an?

it's a bad thing because first of all it's too high. second of all, as you can see the tour is going up at the end of the decade, not leveling off, not going down. more seriously, probably the best study that's been done, row coughing reinhardt did an analysis of 200 years of economic history. and what they concluded is when you have a gross debt of more than 90% of gdp, and remember, our gross debt will be 107%. their study concluded more than 90% of gdp, future economic prospects are reduced. your future economic growth is limited and quite sharply so. so this matters to the economic future of america. let's remember medicare is going to be insolvent in 11 years. social security is going to be insolvent in 20 years. that means you go to pay 75% in

social security. other ways to have a 25% cut across the board. so anybody says to you, we don't have to worry, we don't have to do more i don't think it's really giving us straight. my own conclusions as we've got to reform the entitlements. we've got to get them under control. we've got to reform the tax system because we need additional revenue in order to get this dad headed in the right direction. that is what this is all about. that is what we are urging the president to do in a state of the union to bring leadership to this issue, to remind people economic growth is the number one agenda item, the part of that long-term is that we get our fiscal affairs in order. that's critically important to economic growth long-term in the congressional budget office affirms that in their most recent report. >> thank you, senator conrad.

i am senator link in a nailbiter be with this great group of former members, for all the great things they've done. and i'm here today to say that possibly the most dangerous thing coming out of washington today is uncertainty. uncertainty that unfortunately causes folks across this country to worry about jobs, worry about social security, to worry about medicare. both programs are going to be there in the future? one of the things you got with leadership council is that we represent diverse districts. we represent a diverse districts and states across this great nation. we've maintain diverse political lease. i've watched senator gregg and senator conrad that time, but they always did come to some place where they can find some common ground and i was hearing

dealing with the dead. you see the diversity right here today in terms of background. i happened to be the token on today. we've got others, but we come today together because we fill the critical nature of what this nation is experiencing in terms of the uncertainty and steps that need to be taken. we all know the deficit we are dealing with right now, the debt problem is not something that's going to be solved overnight. we know it is going to take steps, but if we don't look at the trajectory we are seeing here and where we want to go, we won't go to take the necessary steps today or tomorrow to go to get to where we need to be. we are here today to urge congress and the president to work to come together to pass the comprehensive and bipartisan type budget deal that is large enough to really put the debt on the downward project to read. we know what is going to have to

come anything that will do what we want to do is going to have a major components driving our current imbalance in discretionary spending, entitlements, revenues, all of those things looked at another table. i have to say without a doubt what will it do what we have to do, it's not an easy task. i know my husband steve and i was looking out what it is to be fiscally response bullinger on household and family, what do we think of first? who think of her children, aging parents. we think of things important in the road ahead of us and what we have to deal with. these are things for me to bring to the table. we have to begin to take the steps that are going to look at the long-term in terms of where we want to go and what we want to do. it is important that all of us look across this great land of ours and realize there's

multiple families out there from the many millions of families that cannot debt and trying to figure their way out of it themselves. the guy to stand up tall in washington and this is a serious foreign members want to be able to be hoped will in coming up with the solutions and working through it and bringing all today will. proud to be here with us croupier and excited about being able to come together with lots of good ideas, but without a doubt i senator gregg mentioned, we cannot allow the conversation to continue, that this problem is fixed or we are even close to it. many steps have to be taken me what to make sure we are working with others to make this happen. i'm going to turn it to congressman steve latourette from ohio. >> thank you, senator. senator conrad and i are the freshest faces to spiral out of the house and senate at the end of the 112 congress. parenthetically, retirement is pretty good.

i don't have to fit on a toothpick and i can sit down the silverware, so i'm pretty excited about retirement. but i belong to something called the go big or go home coalition is in the house, so it's a natural graduation and since we didn't go big, i went home. [laughter] i was pretty sad. if you look at the opportunity last, there's moments in history with the stars should align and people of goodwill and leadership can accomplish the big deal, which needs to be accomplished as you notice from senator conrad stirred. instead, the tendency is to do small ball in the shopworn praise of 2012 was kicked the can down the road. when you delay sequester for a couple months until he got for a couple months, when you institute a tax increase that

only raises about $66 a year, which is coincidentally the same amount of money that went at the door for hurricane cindy, you've lost a golden opportunity to deal with it. the great thing of washington is the opportunity has arisen again and will now occur thankfully not in the debt ceiling discussion, that the sequestration discussion. only with a balanced approach long-term 10 years but in an orderly way keeps the doctor fixed sgr, takes care of the other cats and dogs out there, can you not have been major disruptions of sequestration, but they get to where will be. we do sadly have debt deniers in both parties and in both houses of congress. those deniers but that she believe adobe to raise revenues that we don't have a spending

problem. both are patently incorrect. such merits a state of the union address and the president has an opportunity has begun to sequestration to use leadership of the south is that only the president of the united states can use. i think this group is very much hoping president obama as he takes to develop a host as a backup about the desire to work together for a true balanced approach, not a balanced approach there really isn't balanced any halfway by john boehner and house republicans in fashioning a deal that saves the country. so at this time, it is my pleasure to call up my former budget committee chairman and it's nice to be part of a group of people you've read about in history books. so this fellow i did serve with, jim nussle. >> yeah, thank you, steve. hopefully not in history books just yet. but i am jim nussle from iowa

and house budget chairman and omb director and it was my job to hold jed and kents coast while they were fading. actually that is not true. i learned a lot from watching number together and all of us and the people on this stage all had a hand and work in the process to a successful conclusion many times, while he served in congress. so one of the reasons we put this organization together, i am on the sixth of that committee and cochair of the committee for responsible federal budget and we thought it would be important to check the sites that people who have been there, done that, have a number of t-shirts to their credit of actually having accomplished deficit reduction, tax reform, passing a budget. things like that which d.c. seemed to to be foreign concepts to her former colleagues and

friends in the united states congress, let alone in the white house. so what we want to do is just come together and have a conversation. maybe we have something to offer his foreign theaters. maybe we have something we can contribute to her friends as far as ideas, can't that, reform proposals, ways to move forward or for that matter an introduction or two. some of these folks as we can tell you don't even know each other. half the congress, 60% of the house of representatives has just elected within the last two years. these are people who don't know each other in the house, many in the senate are just getting another. so maybe an introduction, maybe a concept or to, those are ways we hope we can contribute. fix the debt has many councils. this isn't our first. we the ceo council of 150 members that are from some of

our biggest and most popular corporations that you've heard of, are very well-known. we have 350,000 active individual members fix the debt that are people that sign up that they want to hope, want to be part of. just in our short period of time, that's quite successful. we have 2500 while business people who have signed up who want to be part of the solution of fixing the debt and we have now at 83 members of this council, former members of the fiscal council and growing. everyday we have members of that organization of folks that want to help work on the solution. while we are all as bad, while we're former, a lot of different titles or current when it comes, as blanche said, to be mounted

as concerned about her kids feature in the future that will be present at the security challenge comes to bear in a negative way we all know occurred. were former members of congress, but we are current husbands and wives, people concerned about her own retirement or owning a home are making sure an elderly parent is taken care of. a lot of things are current small business people in recurrent citizens. we are current citizens who don't want to be democratic bystanders on the road to her country's ruin. they want to get in the game. we know leadership requires not just the person in the arena, the people behind them have prevented that god, sometimes the momentum and the accountability for solving any country. we are not willing to be a

bystander to this process. but we used to have fancy titles, we decided to come together to be part of a solution if we can and giving ideas, providing a little bit of back bone and momentum to this process moving forward. these folks have laid out some of the details about the challenges. we know it's not easy. it was easy, maybe we would've done it before we left. it's not easy. we know that. but we do know unless the process starts, it will never conclude in what has been missing is a conversation in the halls of congress and the coming together of all members, not just a couple that go into a small room and try and work out an agreement, but every single member to matter how long they've been there or how new they are to the process has something to contribute. we'll can attest to that and by joining together, we hope we

provided some momentum that people like ourselves, bipartisan in nature can do it on the outside. hopefully they can do it on the inside habitat, let me thank all of our colleagues for being here today in the me it back to maya macguineas for a few questions from the media. thank you. >> thank you very much. i just want to echo what you said, which is has been absolutely not because they look at this stage and how much wisdom there is in terms of hoping to get this kind of a deal done. nobody is saying that it easy. we know that it is so important to get it at deal done, but it's not always easy to explain why. if you think, the debt has become a sand and the wheels. we can't as a country move forward on any other important things we need to do to make our economy grow and to give security to families across the country. and it's not just putting in place a dead deal. it's putting a place to write a

deal to yet so much wisdom here about how it is important to get enough savings, but in the right amount of time counseling graduate. the kinds of things that will help grow the economy, not to rail growth and not hamper long-term investments by the way our tax system works. there's a lot of ideas here. but i think we all are hoping for and waiting for you need is the political leadership because what we're building is a campaign that can in no way replace policymakers who have to be the ones to make the country says, but a support system that is so diverse and broad as people understand why it's important to get this done. i want to thank all these members are stepping up in being involved away of time for a question or two if there are any. >> pop prozac in the cq rollcall. question for anybody who would like to address it. what specifically do you hope the president will say in the seat of the union tomorrow?

>> book, i would hope the president lays out the case as to why, number one on the agenda is economic growth. beyond that, i hope you would lay out why dealing with the long-term debt challenge is critically important to long-term growth. i don't know if elected the most recent cbo study that looked at three different scenarios. if you had $2 trillion to the debt, what would happen to economic growth, short-term, long-term. if you are to reduce by 3 trillion, if you were to reduce it by 4 trillion. in the short-term, we have to acknowledge you for going to be credible, if you cut too sharply, too quickly, that has an adverse affect on economic growth. we saw that in the fourth quarter.

make it of economic growth. the thing we've got to keep our eye on this if you don't reform the entitlement, this debt explodes on you and not hers to her growth in the future years. so economic growth is directly linked to what we do about deficits and debt. you've got a short-term circumstance, medium-term, long-term. this chart shows a birdie and 2.6 trillion, 2.65. that is in the budget control act cometh sequester, the revenue piece that was just put in. but what is needed to get you on a trek to the debt going down at the end of this budget window is another $2.4 trillion. we might all have a different mix of how we would do that. i think we've been light on the revenue side. i think we've been light on the reforming of entitlement side in terms of the spending that is

the 800-pound gorilla. if you look in the future, the thing that threatens to swamp the vote on the health care accounts and we've got to take it on. you know it's not impossible to do. they gave a speech on the floor of the senate by last day i talked about, if you took with the speaker was talking about in terms of spending reductions, he was talking about 500 billion in health care accounts. but nobody puts it in perspective. that is 500 billion out of the 11 trillion. that's 4.5%. we can't do 4.5%? of course we can do 4.5%. the speaker is making an impossible demand on the spending side. really? we can't do 4.5% reductions in health care accounts over the next 10 years? of course we can. the same is true on the revenue side.

the president wanted an additional 1.6 trillion, but what does the base of that apply to? $37 trillion. so he was asking for 4% of our revenue. we can't do 4% while revenue? of course we can. and if you took the speaker's spending plans in the presidents revenue plans and put them together, you would have an overall plan that would really get us on that downward slope, on that red line you see they are provided forward in the committee for responsible budget. >> on what the president might want to say. i think you may want to open the door. this cannot be done by one side. these big issues such as medicare, social security, medicaid, tax reform required the american people to buy in. the american people only buy if they think the answers are feher and fairness requires bipartisanship. i hope you would open the door to participation from both sides

of the aisle in a very aggressive way in trying to move towards a solution. the opportunity will sit there at the sequester to do something significant, to replace the sequester something significant is that a great chance to say that the data figure out how we do this together. >> senator conrad from the "washtington examiner." trying to do some math in my hand as you are talking there. it sounded like you said we need to go towards the $5 trillion in debt and deficit reduction and, which is certainly over what we were seen in the $4 trillion plan the president, was touting as his address over the weekend. i guess what is the target number here? what do we actually need to hit to start seeing those lines level of? >> the goalpost has moved somewhat. when we were doing bulls since

then, the budget control act of happen, sequester in place. we've had some revenue. but we've also had other changes that were made. in terms of the underlying testament of the strength of the economy and what revenue it is stirring often what kind of expenditures of federal government is experiencing. didn't think the disaster in new jersey and new york that increased spending beyond what was forecasted. so now, the basic numbers the committee for responsible federal budget came up with is to get us on a path that is declining in terms of debt as a share for gross amount of product requires a package of $5 trillion total. we've done roughly 2.65. that doesn't count the continuing resolution from 2011 that one could argue could be counted as well. that's another 500 billion. but if you look at cbo's most

recent numbers, that's about the size of the package you need, somewhere in the 5 trillion range to get this debt going down as a share of our economy. we are still having a dead at the end of the period, he publicly held debt of 70% of gdp. that is 100% of gdp is a gross debt. so the dotted line is for simpson/bowles would've done. you can see would've done significantly more. >> okay. i'm going to close on the point that question reminds all of us, which is simpson/bowles came out two years ago at the time recommended to save $4 trillion in some progress has been made. what is also happen if the passage of time, which is added on more years, bigger savings needed in what used to be $4 trillion now at the equivalent as they move forward

the $6 trillion. you just look at any of these programs that so clearly need to be fixed and reformed. his two years plus of not fixing our tax codes were more competitive and raising revenues in a smarter way. this too is less of not phasing in changes to programs that medicare and social security in a gradual way that would protect people that depend on them, but knowing what's going on in the corner. we didn't have so many costs are weakening the programs which need to be fixed to not putting stability into the economy, which we believe will have a real recovery takeoff. so the urgency is real. the support network is broad and i hope you feel free to come up and ask any individual questions to the tremendous group of talented former members we have with us today. thank you for joining us, the campaign to fix the debt. thanks.