vote: the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 55, the nays 52 and one senator voted present. mr. reid: madam president? go ahead. the presiding officer: one senator responded present and the motion is agreed to. mr. reid reid: reid: madam pres? reid i have nine unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have my approval and senator mcconnell. i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: madam president, chairman leahy has told me that he has no need for a roll call vote on this.

i would hope that others would also agree. mr. grassley: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, james donato of california to be united states district judge for the northern district of california. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and phas nays are orde. under the previous order, all postcloture time is yielded back and there will be two minutes of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. order, please.

mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: for the benefit of the people of this country that have been listening to the complaints in the senate from senators about not approving judges, let me remind everybody that at this point, we've approved over 220 judges appointed by this president and only two have been disapproved. that's more than 99%. as far as the second term of this administration's concerned, i want to say that after the senate confirms the three district court judges that we will approve today, we will have confirmed 50 of president obama's judicial nominees during his second term. up to this point in president bush's second term, the senate had confirmed only 21. so that's 50-21 the production of this congress for approving judges. i yield back. mr. reid: madam president? i'll use leader time.

mr. president, i have deep respect for my friend, the senior senator from iowa, but he's been listening to himself talk too much and starting to believe it, i guess. everyone knows that we're in -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. reid: everyone knows that we're in this situation because of republicans slowwalking every nomination. every nomination. there is no reason -- no reason whatsoever -- that we're having votes on cloture on these judg judges. as senator leahy pointed out earlier, reported out unanimously. it is a waste of the taxpayers' time to go through the process we've been going through. and we're going to continue working to get -- move the backlog we have. we have scores of judges, district court judges, and we have a number of circuit court judges. and we're going to in the near future file cloture on all of them. if that's what the republicans want us to do, then that's what we'll do. the american people will see this colossal waste of time that

we've been going through. not only on district court judges but circuit court judges and all nominations. so i would suggest to my friend, the senior senator from iowa, he not believe his own words because it's simply not true. the presiding officer: all time has expired. the question is on the donato nomination. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the ayes are 90, the nays 5. and the nomination is agreed to. confirmed. under the previous order, there will be two minutes of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to a vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the freeman nomination.

the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. who yields time? the presiding officer: if no one yields time, time will be charged equally. without objection, all the time is yielded back. the clerk will report the motion to invoke low fewer. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of beth labson freeman of california to be united states district judge for the northern district of california. signed by 18 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is: is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of beth labson freeman of california to be the

united states district judge for the northern district of california, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 56, the nays are 42. one senator responded present. the motion is agreed to. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the majority leader. mr. reid: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the vote on the motion to invoke cloture and the motion to proceed to s. 19al

82 now occur -- 1982 now occur at 3:30 this afternoon and the time from 2:15 until 3:30 will be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: madam president, i have also spoken to the chairman of the judiciary committee and he does not desire a roll call vote on this next nomination. the presiding officer: without objection, the request is agreed to. the clerk will report the -- the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, beth labson freeman of california to be united states district judge for the northern district of california. the presiding officer: under the previous order, all postcloture time is yielded back and there will be two minutes of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. mr. grassley: i yield back my time. mr. reid: as do we. the presiding officer: all time is yielded back.

mr. grassley: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: the yeas and nays -- is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the question is on the freeman nomination. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, the ayes are 91, the nays are 7. the nomination is agreed to. under the previous order, the motion to -- motions to reconsider are considered made and laid on the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate will resume legislative session. under the previous order, the under the previous order, the

>> you can see live coverage of the senate, as always, right here on c-span2. over at the white house today president obama and house speaker john boehner held their first in-person, one-on-one meeting in over a year to discuss a number of legislative issues. the president initiated this meeting. on the way back to capitol, speaker boehner told members of the media he had a nice meeting with the president. it's not clear what they talked about. defense secretary chuck hagel announced yesterday a proposal to cut the department's budget which included reducing the size of the army to its smallest number since world war ii while also trimming military pay and benefits. we are asking your thoughts on the defense budget cuts. abdul says: obama and hagel are risking america's future in a dangerous world full of haters and thugs from russia to north korea and iran. only clueless people will be

happy about these cuts. also this from michael: the founders of this constitutional republic never intended for there to be a massive, endless military that roamed the globe starting and fighting wars. facebooking/c-span. >> what we're told both as students and as a nation in terms of the popular imagination is that there's all kinds of sit-ins and marches and demonstrations that occur, but they're really done by these famous, iconic people. basically, it's rosa parks who just was so tired that she refused to get up from the bus if in montgomery, alabama, and sparked the bus boycott, and basically a young preacher who even the president referred to during the election as this young preacher from georgia, which is dr. martin luther king jr., who sort of leads the masses of african-americans from racial oppression. so this notion that rosa sat and, you know, martin could do

this stuff and jesse could run and then barack could fly, all these things sound good, but they really, they really simplify a much more complicated history. and that complicated history really involves so many african-americans, women and men, who proactively dismantled racial segregation including ross saw parks. rosa parks was an activist. she didn't just refuse to give up her seat by accident, it was a concerted, strategic effort to try the transform democratic institutions. >> tufts university or history professor and author of "dark days, bright nights," peiel joseph and what he calls black power studies. his latest will be in bookstores march 4th. sunday he'll take your questions "in depth," live for three hours starting at noon eastern on c-span2's booktvment.

>> house ways and means committee chair dave camp is set to unveil a plan to reduce the seven existing tax brackets to two which would be set at 10% and 25%. this morning on "washington journal" we spoke with one of the lead advocates for lowering tax rates. >> host: joining us, grover norquist, of americans for tax reform. good morning. >> guest: good morning. >> host: a forthcoming plan from representative dave camp on tax reform. what's to be expected? >> guest: well, he's going to come out with a plan that takes the seven rates down to two, 10 and 25, plus another one for higher income people, so maybe three rates, and it will be sort of broader-based, lower rates, more pro-growth, joint tax committee and others predict significant economic growth from another $3 trillion over a decade. so it's a good s.t.a.r.t. there are -- start. there are some challenges, there are some things i think i'd hope to do differently, but it's the

beginning of a conversation, and it's one that we really need to start yesterday. >> host: so as far as the concerns you might have with the proposal, what are they? >> guest: well, there are three things you want to do in reforming the federal income tax. one is take the rates down. our corporate income tax is 35% in the united states. the european average is 25 so we're worse than the average european country, never mind the ones that are actually more pro-growth. the canadians last time i checked about 17.5. somebody told me it may have fallen again. they're less than half of where we are. tough to compete where we're taxing our companies more heavily than anybody else. that needs to come down opening bid to 20%, because we, unlike other countries, have state taxes. so when we say we have a 35% corporate rate, no, we don't. we have, on average in the country, a 35% country rate and 4.85% op top of that state -- on top of that state. texas doesn't have one,

california has a worse one. if you take the american corporate rate to 20, then you're average against europe, okay? that's an important step forward. the challenge is that to pay for the lower rates, they lengthen the depreciation schedules. if you buy a piece of i didn't for $100,000 -- equipment for $100,000, what you should do is expense that $100,000 because you don't have it anymore, okay? you spent it. instead, what we tell somebody is, well, we'll row you to deappreciate it over ten years, $10,000 a year or five years, $20,000 a year. once very complicated, but about a thousand pages of the code track that stuff. it'serer the terrifically difficult, and it raises the cost of capital. it makes it more expensive to buy that $100,000 machine. if you can expense it today,

then you'd actually get more growth. so three parts to tax reform. lower rates, going to full expensing so you don't double tax investment and job-creating savings and then, lastly, territoriality. we and north korea have worldwide tax systems which is if you're an american and you make money in in the united sta, the government takes some. you go over to france, the french tax it and then the americans tax it on top of what the french taxed. if you're french and you come to the united states, the united states will pick your pocket for what youened, but the french don't because their view is whoever owns the land where you earned it picks your pocket, but we don't do it a second time. we hurt americans overseas, businesses overseas who could be sending money back supporting families and helping us with our exports, and we punish them compared to other countries. it's one of the few times you say we should do what the rest

of the world is. usually, that's a bad idea. in this case we're the guys, this and tort reform are the two odd things that we do wrong. >> host: did the representative talk to you about this plan at all? >> guest: ing i talked to him a day ago and got a broad outline. no secrets, but there's going to be sort of a three-page report, a 20-page report and then maybe a 200-page report. depending on how much depth you want to go in when it's released, you'll see the broad outlines. the newspapers are starting to cover the top line issue of how high rates will be. >> host: did you talk about the post makes a 10% surtax on certain types of income over $150,000? >> guest: we didn't discuss that. they're trying to come up with a tax code handicapped with trying to make it revenue neutral on a static basis. so the government's own models say it'll create economic growth without beingless of a drag. but hay -- they don't count that. the government gets a piece of

that, local government, state government, federal government does. they don't count that when they decide something's revenue neutral. so we're kind of dealing with make believe numbers that damage the ability to have more dramatic breakthrough, job-creating tax reform. the other thing is people want to make sure every income group makes exactly, gets the same tax cut. and since people move through tax brackets, i know the guys on the left think that, you know, you're middle class all your life or poor all your life or you're rich all your life are, actually, most people at age 15 are pretty poor and 25, 30 and 40 make more money, and 75-year-olds don't tend to make as much money. the same person over life goes from one tax bracket to another through their life, and sometimes we think those are different people rather than the same guy. >> host: did you express concerns,? what was his response? >> guest: he was basically

walking through it. it's an outline of a plan and to begin a conversation. the concern that i have but i expressed and it's nothing new is that we should both go to a 20% corporate, maybe 25 individual top rate to be internationally competitive, and we need to go to full expensing on depreciation. not length and depreciation, but full expensing. and when you use dynamic scoring, when you lower the cost of capital, you get more growth. so taking the present long depreciation schedules and shortening them to year one -- remember, this is one of the things obama did right during his presidency. he said small businesses get to take the first $75,000 of their investment and expense it. and you had more investment in that area. now, if you do that for everybody not for a year or two with, but permanently, it'd be a tremendous asset to the economy. i think that's the direction we ought to go. i understand the bean counter pressures the other way, but now we get to have that

conversation. >> host: grover norquist of americans for tax reform talking about this new effort on tax reform in the congress, and if you want to ask questions about it, 202-585-3881 for republicans, 202-585-3882 for independents and e-mail us at c-span.org. tim is up first, beaver falls, pennsylvaniament good morning. >> caller: good morning. i'm not so good on all this technical stuff, but compromise, a way to get the democrats and republicans to work together. i just watched a rebroadcast of dineshty souza and bill ayers, and when you watch them, what you realize is they're both right. i know it's hard for people to hold two things like that, it's very hard.

but they're both right. they're coming from different places, but they're both right. and i don't know, compromise is -- i'm 65. so i've watched democrats and republicans compromise all my life. but all of a sudden they can't, and i'm not sure why that is, so could you speak to that? >> host: okay. >> guest: sure. it's a very good question. there are several reasons for that. the first is, you're 65. people who are older remember back in the '30s and the '40s and the '50s and the '60s and the '70s when there were liberal republicans and conservative republicans and liberal democrats and conservative democrats. so every time there was a fight, there were democrats who were hawkish on defense and republicans who were doveish, democrats who would vote for tax cut cans like john f. kennedy and republicans who wouldn't with like barry goldwater.

there was a lot of mixture. so all fights were bipartisan. the liberals, republicans and democrats would get together and fight the conservative republicans, democrats on every issue, so as you looked around the country, you saw this bipartisan argument and bipartisan agreement. now, during the lifetime of ronald reagan, this political lifetime, the two parties sorted themselves out. there isn't a single republican who voted for tax increase, there isn't a single democrat who won't vote for a tax increase. the republican post-tea party are committed to reigning if government spending, the democrats are committed to increasing government spending. so you've got a separation out, and whereas before nixon wanted bigger government, and he argued every day with ted kennedy who wanted much bigger government. so it's pretty easy to compromise between bigger and much bigger. every year kennedy and nixon would get together, the government would get somewhat bigger. not as much bigger as kennedy wanted, more than -- it grew

more than nixon wanted, but somewhat bigger. you could compromise. today the modern republican party wants lower taxes and the modern democratic party want higher taxes. both the president and harry reid they're not even going to look at a tax reform if it doesn't raise 1-1.4 trillion in higher taxes from the american people over decade. they want a tax increase. the republicans would like tax reform to be revenue neutral or a reduction in the tax burden. somebody wants to go east, somebody wants to go west, what's the come bro poise? -- compromise. the matters sorted themselves out in a normal, natural, reasonable, comprehensible manner which i think is good. people should know what they're buying when they vote for a candidate. and also the two parties want to go in starkly different directions. some issues where we can do compromise because we sort of want to go in the same place, prison reform is something that's coming up, judicial

reform. those are areas where welcomed get some -- we could get some republican and democratic agreement. but on taxing and spending, not until the democrats change. >> host: enterprise, alabama, republican line. here's jim. >> caller: yes, sir. thank you for taking my call. i've got a suggestion on this tax code. why don't we just burn the tax code we have at this time and go to a 10% national sales tax at the retail level? >> guest: okay. i'm in. [laughter] we wouldn't raise near as much as the present federal government thinks it needs to continue on its merry path at present. there is an argument, and i did a debate at the western conservative conference just this saturday with neil boarst who's an advocate of retail sales tack at the national d tax at the national level, and i argued going to a flat rate

income tax. the good news for those folks who want to reform tax code as both neil and i fair tax, retail tax people and what you just outlewinned, flat tax people agree on a whole bunch of stuff. look, there are two key things. we need to have a single rate tax. we need tax income at one rai. whether you tax it when you buy something or tax out when you earn a dollar. you tax it at one rate. why? again, i'm originally from massachusetts. in our constitution in massachusetts, you can't have a graduated or progressive income tax in massachusetts. five times the advocates of big government have tried to, through the initiative process or a&ing the constitution, try -- amending the constitution, try to put on the ballot an aggressive income tax so you could tax different people at different rates. five times liberal, democrat, blue, ted kennedy, george mcgovern has voted that down. why? because they have a very

sophisticated argument. yeah, year one you raise ted kennedy's taxes and cut mine. and after that you come back for me, and ted kennedy won't help me anymore to protect me. so if you divide people into different groups, you can mug them one at a time. and that's what you want to avoid. you want the politicians to have to look everybody in the eye and say i've got an important idea, you're all going to pay for it. you don't want people being taken out of the room one at a time, the richard speck theory of tax increases. if you can't take on everyone at once, you take them out in small groups. clinton says 2% of you, obama says 1% of you, and then as soon as they're back, they come back with an energy tax which hits everybody. first tax obama put in was the tax on tobacco, average income of smokers or in the united states is $40,000 a year. not $250,000 a year. so people who say they're going to tax the rich haven't finished the sentence. we're going to tax the rich first, then we're coming for you, but by the way, they're not

going to to be helping you when we come to for you. so tax reform, important put everyone on the same footing vis-a-vis the government, and then tax one time. not when you earn it, when you save it, if you buy stock, if you get a capital gains, if you put it in a house, if you're stupid enough to die, they might steal half. so tax it once at one rate, go away. do something else. >> host: hoar is eric from seattle. -- here is eric from seattle, independent line. hi. >> caller: hi. reagan raised taxes eight times, raised the debt ceiling 13 times. the effective tax rates for corporation is 17%, make romney pay 9%. we have over a trillion dollars worth of tax loopholes in the code and expenditures. tariff interests need to be raised. you have all these republican politicians signing a pledge for

you which really should be treason against the country of the united states for the simple fact is you take an oath with the constitution of the united states. so what i would like to ask you is this: mr. grover norquist, mr. no tax pledge. when bill clinton got his tax raise on the -- added two levels to the tax cold, president obama got his tax raised. but i would like to ask you this, your next step in your next plan is this: don't let a democratic president govern as a democrat. you're doing the same issues, you're coming out from time to time, you's involved in the plant only until the labor issues. you are still the same person, and you have really, you have conspiracy many in the treason with the republican politicians who sign your pledge. >> host: we'll let our guest answer. >> guest: okay. you know, one of the things we talked about many d.c., in washington is the lack of civility, and if you don't understand somebody's position or you don't agree with it or,

in your case, you misrepresent it, probably calling other people traitors is not the way to go, because you kind of lose people's interest or seriousness, okay? we immediate to have a civil conversation. -- need to have a civil conversation. we have a tax code that kills jobs. the if the government reduced the tax rate, you'd have stronger jobs. reagan dramatic chi took the top marginal tax rate -- and it's important to understand the difference, sir, between average tax rates and marginal tax rates, because you can drown walking across the river with an average depth of one foot, okay? it really does matter what happens on the margin. reagan, the top rate when he was elected was 70%. he took it down to 28%, and we created 20 million jobs. you had a tremendous economic boom that didn't slow down until george herbert walker bush broke his pledge -- not to me, sir, but to the american people. you can read it at atr.org.

the pledge is to the american people. i know that obama and harry reid sometimes misunderstand that. they may not have read it very clearly, but it's a pledge to the american people that they won't raise their taxes. no net tax increase. so we took marginal tax rates down when bush 41, the first bush, raised those rates. we had a stalled economy. when we took the capital gains tax when the republicans took the house and senate, we started seeing a real takeoff in the economy in the late 't-- '90s. so lower marginal tax rates create jobs. >> host: your organization was connected with the unions. >> guest: in volkswagen, the german car company, has a manufacturing plant, about 1500 workers in chattanooga. and the united autoworkers fresh off of making detroit work over the last 30 years and dropping the number of united autoworkers

from about two-thirds from where it used to be by being a rather aggressive labor union that damaged the neighborhoods and communities that they were in. and the people of chattanooga says we don't want that here. the pay and the work is quite good in chattanooga, it wasn't going to get any better. they were going to get to pay union dues, and they said i think we'll pass on that. also because those dues get spent on political activity that a lot of union members don't approve of. unions are major supporters of gun control legislation which most union members do not support, they're very aggressive in supporting candidates on a bunch of left-wing issues that have nothing to do with helping working people get through, matter of fact, work against that. so what happened was there was a vote, and the voters in chattanooga at that volkswagen plant voted no to the union even though the union had claimed that they had signature cards from the majority of the people.

they didn't show them, and at least eight people were willing to go to court to say, hey, they fudged my signature or they told me i was signing something else, and it turns out this is what i'm doing. the nlrb, national labor relations board, is a majority of people appointed by president obama who owes his two elections to organized labor's campaign and staff contributions, and he he put people on the nlrb who ruled we don't care if they're phony, go away. so we have a real problem with an nlrb that's not enforcing the law. watch for more problems, but even with things stacked against the workers, volkswagen, the german auto company, the unions in germany told the company there we'll hurt you if you don't give us these union dues here. and so volkswagen said we're neutral. actually, they weren't neutral. they didn't let opponents of the union speak, but guys in black shirts -- no joke -- black shirts were walking up and down,

union guys, uaw propagandists were walking up and down the assembly line pulling people out and bringing them into rooms to talk to them. they still lost the election even with that. >> host: so the center for worker freedom is what? >> guest: it's a spin-off of americans for tax reform. we do a number of projects on one digital liberty to keep the internet tax-free and liberty-free, the property rights alliance deals with real and intangible property rights, the center for worker freedom started over a decade ago back in 1998. we were working on paycheck protection in california. right now the unions can take your dues and spend them on politics even be you don't want to. -- if you don't want to. and so there are one of two ways to do paycheck protection. one is the portion that goes to politics they have to ask you for. they can take the rest of it without your permission, but they have to ask for the -- they have to ask for the portion that goes to politics. sometimes the unions

underestimate the halt that goes to politics -- the amount that goes to politics. or we can do what wisconsin and a numb of other states did -- a number of other states did. you can have any sort of dues you want, but you have to go ask the teacher for those dues. we're not going to take it out of their paycheck. you go and ask the teacher. >> host: so with the uaw thing, what did your organization do specifically? is how did you get involved? >> guest: there we were talking to broader community. we put up about 13 billboards around the plant, walking through the history of what the united autoworkers had done with the city of detroit, the city that the uaw drove into the ground. the job losses associated with uaw, growing membership and the political contributions of the united autoworkers which clearly fly in the face of where the workers would like to see their resources go. and what the heck is union dues going to politics.

so all of -- and then some radio ads on the same thing. so i think it was a very helpful, educational campaign. usually a company talks to its workers and says this is why we think it's a bad idea. nobody was allowed to be in the plant saying it's a bad idea, and the workers said no anyway. it was a very strong salt from tennessee. >> host: speaking of strong at the same statements, the uar said that the narrow loss in the national labor relations board election friday would have been just an issue of americans exercising their rights if it was not for the despuk bl interference of senator corker, republican state legislators and outsiders like grover norquist and the be koch brothers. gu they're a little mad because they lost. they spent about $5 million trying to organize this. they snuck guys onto the assembly line that were coming from other places that were really working for uaw, not for

vw, volkswagen. they wouldn't allow any other voices to be heard by the workers in the plant. had some billboards and radio. and bob king is the outgoing president. he's not been very successful in organizing. this was going to be his crowning achievement. everybody in the uaw knew that. they were really focused on this. and this was supposed to be the opening wedge into organizing plants in alabama and mississippi and south carolina as well. when -- had the this passed, they might have been able to use card check to force management to surrender without letting the voters vote. now i'm pretty sure that if it comes to a vote, that the unions want to organize the other plants, they will have to have a vote. they didn't want to vote in chattanooga, or they were forced to have a vote. that's the one thing vw did right, our guys have to vote. >> host: your organization will get involved in similar types of things? >> guest: oh, absolutely. not just the south. we've started in california, we're certainly very supportive of the workers' rights movement

in wisconsin where no longer can the government workers' organizations, the unions the government employs come in and take a thousand dollars out of a teacher's paycheck without their permission, without their say so, without making any cases to why they should. that kind of abuse has got to end. you know? unions can play a useful role, they have over time, a but as the uaw demonstrates, some have just been destructive of the very workers who don't have jobs because of what they did. >> host: next for our guest, grover norquist, alan, independent line. >> caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. mr. or norquist -- >> guest: yes. >> caller: i think you touched on what i was going to ask you by a previous caller. but my, i guess what i would ask you now, h.r. 25, the fair tax bill, is to come out sometime, i think, within the next month or so. would you support having the

h.r. 25 come out onto the floor of the house where it can be debated, where we can look at it, where we can have ap up or down vote on it? i'll take my answer off -- >> guest: sure. yeah, as i was mentioning a while ago, i just had a debate out in phoenix where it was 75 degrees and nice on the question of fair tax/flat tax. and i'm willing to make sacrifice any place above 70 degrees. a great life. i think we should have a lot of discussions about tax reform, certainly the fair tax is one avenue. and here's my one big concern with the fair tax. we want to make sure we end up with one tax that taxes income, consumed income, at one rate. the danger that we have is if we start a conversation about a value-added tax or a retail sales tax, the guys on the left

have always wanted a value-added tax in addition to the present individual million tax and business income tax. they want to have not two little tapeworms inside your tummy, but three. and the problem is the tapeworms grow. you can't say we're going to have three are small ones, because you end up with three big ones. and the europeans promised that other taxes would be done in, it wouldn't grow. total government spending and total government taxation increased more rapidly after v.a.t. went in p. income taxes increased more rapidly because when you feed the government, it gets bigger, it gets hungry, and it wants more. so the real danger is an income tax and a consumption tax, a v.a.t. or retail sales tax. you'd have to have a constitutional amendment forbidding that to come back before you could safely do something like the fair tax. >> host: up next is trace on our

democrats' line for grover norquist. >> caller: hi. >> guest: hey, tracy. >> caller: identify got a lot of things to say, so i'd appreciate if i'm not interrupted. you and the facts are not very good friends. we have owned a business. the first thing i'd like to say is we owned a business, and when you buy budget, that makes your business worth a little bit more money, would you agree with that? >> host: well, you just spent money and you got something of -- >> caller: does that make the value of your economy worth more because you bought that piece of equipment because you isn't more money? >> guest: if you buy a thousand dollars to buy a thousand dollar piece of equipment you didn't just make money, you traded -- >> caller: but you bought a piece of equipment that makes more money for -- >> guest: and you're short a thousand dollars. >> caller: to buy a piece of machinery that you don't have to pay a person to go, is that's why they deappreciate it over so many years, you know? you just add to value of your

company when we bought that piece of equipment -- [inaudible conversations] when you're talking about the deficit, the rate of our deficit has dropped more under this president than it did under president bush. he didn't have the wars in that budget, he did not have medicare part d in that budget. so the rate of the taxes were dropped, and the amount of money the federal government's spending has also dropped. we have got more federal workers than reagan with ever did, and how many times did ronald reagan -- how many times did he raise the tax rate? >> guest: sure. you raised a couple of very good points. >> caller: i'm not finished. i'm just beginning. >> host: wrap it up, caller, we've got to go. >> caller: he raised it 1 is times. not only that -- 11 times. anybody that really believes you're paying 35% when you own a business when there's all these tax loopholes in there is crazy. people are not buying what you're selling anymore, mr. nor was. >> host: caller, thank you. >> guest: call or or was from

georgia? >> host: believe so, yeah. >> guest: in georgia you're busy trying to get rid of your corporate income tax and the personal income tax because people are moving across the border into tennessee and into florida. so you may not have noticed it, but as you look around the country, the government keeps these statistics. people and jobs and income move into the no income tax states like florida and texas and wyoming and nevada, new hampshire, and they move out of the high income tax states. so we have a little test. this is not the united states versus france or united states versus, you know, canada where it's cold or something. just within the united states, okay? people move from one state to another, and they move companies and jobs. there's a reason why foreign auto companies that wanted to build cars in the united states don't put them in detroit. because michigan has high taxes and abusive labor laws. and they move to other states that have fairer labor laws to

workers and where they're not as abuse i to workers on -- abusive to workers on their tax policy. so you can hire more people. so it is very important where, how we have taxes reduced, because people move to areas with lower taxes. and that's a very, very important part of why we're talking about tax reform to bring rates down. and marginal tax rates, the actual tax op an additional dollar -- on an additional dollar, is what makes your decision. the average tax is a vaguely interesting number, but nobody makes a decision based on the average, okay? those are called sunk costs. those are things that have happened already. all decisions worth a candle are about the future, and the question there is what's marginal tax on this decision. and i think you will find that expensing is not only a lot simpler, small business you probably got the obama expensing idea, and you also mentioned

that under obama having gone up so dramatically the deficit and spending have both come down since the republicans took the house in 2010, and we went and passed the is sequester. so spending as a percent of gdp has actually come down dramatically from the very damaging high rates that obama took it too and hoped to keep it at. so we were able to fix that, and we're moving in the right direction. we just can't go further, and this is on tax reform, we're not going to get tax reform full stop until we have a republican senate and a republican president. and then we'll pass something with the rates that dave camp, chairman camp has put together. but i think a more robust capital cost recovery system because we won't be trying to raise taxes, we'll be trying to raise the number of jobs in the country. >> host: a couple quick things. >> guest: sure. >> host: house speaker boehner goes to the white house today to meet with president obama. the hill reporting that one of the things maybe to be talked

about, immigration reform. as far as immigration reform, where do you see it going, and what do you think of the speaker's role in whether it goes or not? >> guest: sure. look, immigration reform's about five or six different pieces, and some of those could move spoon sooner than others. we should have a guest worker program, for sure. we should take all of guys who come here and get ph.d.s, thanked hand them a visa and let them stay to work. immigration brings a lot of talent, is the it's what makes the united states dynamic. the reason we're the future and china isn't is because we do immigration, have a growing population and a more vibrant one. in japan, i'm old enough to remember when japan was the future, except they forgot to have kids. we do all of that much better than the res of the world. fair amount of whining goes on

during this process, but rewind 50 year ago and 100 years ago when our parents showed up or got whined at. but in point of fact, i think we'll see some sort of reform because we need to do something. the kids who were broughtover at age 4, okay? they're not criminals for crossing the border, and we ought to do something to let them go to college, they speak english, they want to be american. >> host: your organization opposed the debt ceiling bill. what do you think about the passage and the speaker's performance in that role? >> guest: well, the speaker was in a difficult position. there were not 218 republican votes for anything. o.k.? i would have liked to have seen attached to the debt ceiling some sort of delay of obamacare, maybe even just with putting into law the things that obama's done by executive order because with you could always undo that. he's promised people he won't end gorse certain things, but -- endorse certain things, but he

could have changed his mind. there may be 20 republicans very uncomfortable voting for any debt ceiling. the rs could not demand something in return for the debt ceiling. boehner wanted to get a pound of flesh for the debt ceiling. it was the rump group of republicans who couldn't vote for a debt ceiling. i understand their argument, but it did make it impossible to get something for the debt ceiling. so a clean debt ceiling was better than what i sent a letter opposing was an argument some people went which is that this should add spending stuff in or in order to get, buy democratic votes -- i'd like to get something, but i sure as heck don't want to have to pay a ransom for it. >> host: grover norquist, americans for tax reform, their president, thanks for your time. >> guest: good to be with you. >> the senate returns at 2:15 eastern for work on a bill that

would expand veterans' benefits. earlier today the chamber confirmed three jewish -- judicial nominations, one for the eastern district of arkansas and the other two for the northern district of california. watch the senate live here on c-span2 when members return at 2:15 p.m. eastern. >> coming up shortly, the house and senate committees on veterans affairs hold a giant hearing on disabled -- a joint hearing on disabled veterans. we'll hear testimony from the disabled americans veterans organization. see that hearing live, 2 p.m. eastern, on c-span3. >> earlier today jasoner ifman, chairman of the white house council on economic advisers, spoke at a policy conference held by the national association for business economics. he discussed some upcoming proposals that will be announced in the president's fiscal year

budget. here's one now. >> one thing you see in those discretionary levels is just how hard and painful the choices are to write a budget to that level. more -- for that reason, in addition to writing a budget to that level, the president's also proposing on top of that an opportunity, growth and security initiative that would make additional investments in fy-2015 split between defense and nondefense prior the cities, focusing on areas like basic research, early childhood education, job training and national security and financed with a balanced package of tax loophole closures and spending reforms over the next ten years.

the president continues to look for ways to make even more sustained investments in our productivity, and one of the highest priorities in that regard is our nation's infrastructure. and the president will once again propose an ambushes mull the city year infrastructure -- ambitious with multiyear infrastructure plan. at the same time, we're not waiting for congress the act. in 2011 the president issued an executive order directing more transparency and accountability in the infrastructure permitting process, and in the weeks and months ahead, we'll be building on that progress to make sure projects are getting started. as quickly as possible. at the same time, we are going to be pushing to finance that infrastructure package with the transition to a reform toed

business tax system, a step that would also benefit the economy both in the short run and the long run. business tax reform would cut the top rate to 28%, broaden the base and reform the business tax code. in the process it would expand the economy's potential by reducing distortions in the current system that skew investment decisions. moreover, that tax reform would be revenue neutral over medium and long run, but transitioning to the new system raises some one-time revenue, and that's what we would use to finance the one-time investments in infrastructure. in addition to physical capital, it is also essential that we invest in human capital through education and training. already the president has given states new incentives to improve k-2 curricula and talkin' steps to make -- taken steps to make

college for affordable. the president has repeated his call for providing every american child with the opportunity to attend a high quality preschool which isn't something you're going to see in our growth rate next year or the year after but could make a profound difference in decades to come. at the same time, we need to focus on every aspect of education from preschool all the way through job training programs and expanded aspects to apprenticeships. among the most important policy proposals to enhance the economy's productivity and long-run output is immigration reform. at a basic level, immigration reform would help counteract the slower growth of the labor force by eliminating existing backlogs for employment-based green cards and by making it easier for foreign-born individuals earning advance degrees in the united states to stay here after they

graduate. but one of the things i think economically is most exciting about immigration is not just that it expands the work force, but that it also expands per capita gdp. and it expands per capita gdp by expanding total factor productivity growth. research has found that immigrants patent at twice the rate of u.s.-born citizens, and patent at an above average rate even after controlling for their overrepresentation in technical occupations. immigration also has spillover benefits for native inventers with research finding that variations in patent activity across the states is tied to changes in states' immigrant population. moreover, immigrants are more likely to start a business and engage in other forms of entrepreneurship. cbo affirmed the this view when it evaluated the senate-passed

immigration bill finding that total factor productivity would be a full percentage point higher in 2033 under the legislation. and these innovations can translate into significant economic outcomes. fully 40% of the fortune 50 to 0 companies were started by immigrants -- 500 companies were started by immigrants or their children. while we're trying to ea tract inventers and entrepreneurs from overseas to the united states, we're also focused on selling more u.s.-made products the other direction. by completing new free trade agreements with awz ya and europe. asia and europe. the trans-pacific partnership or tpp has the potential to be the most significant trade negotiation in a generation because it includes 12 countries that are home to a combined 793 million consumers and account for nearly 40% of global gdp.

together with the transatlantic trade and investment partnership or ttip which also offers major potential allowing us to build on the more than 400 billion a year in goods and service services that our economy exports. to the european union. to make these new trade agreements a reality, the president has called on congress to enact trade promotion authority, a practice that extends back 30 years and allow ares congress to set out negotiating -- allows congress to set out negotiating objectives while insuring that final agreements will receive an up or down vote. finally, all of these piles are -- policies are part of an overall fiscally-responsible framework. our deficit has come down sharply in the short run, it's come down in the long run. our debt will be declining as a share of the economy for the next several years, but after about 2018, that debt will start

rising as a share of the economy which is why we'll be putting forward more balanced measures on both the revenue side and the expenditure side to insure that that debt is continuing to decline. >> that was a portion of mr. furman's remarks from are earlier today. you can see his entire comments later in our schedule or online at c-span.org. >> the new c-span.org web site makes it easier than ever for you the keep tabs on washington, d.c. and share your finds via facebook, twitter and other social networks. easy search functions let you access our daily coverage of events. new tools make it simple to create short video clips and share them with your friends via facebook, twitter and other social networks, or you can send links to your video clips via e-mail. just find the share tools on our

video player or look for the green icon links throughout our site. watch washington on the new c-span.org, and if you see something of interest, clip it and share it with your friends. >> earlier today attorney general eric holder spoke at the national association of attorneys general on legal classifications based on sexual orientation. he said that heightened scrutiny was an acceptable way of looking at laws with measures that distinguished among people based on sexual orientation. this is 20 minutes. >> [inaudible] can you come all the time so they can sit down and be quiet like this? this is pretty impressive. obviously, our next is a very special guest who we appreciate having here as we always have. i commend general holder for his

willingness to the attend this meeting and to speak to us candidly and openly every year or. the fact that, the fact that our parting gift for general holder when he's here today is going to be a baseball cap, i think speaks to how many times you've been here, because all the gifts we usually give out we've already given to you. [laughter] we're going to actually give you something you might be able to use. [laughter] but, obviously to, we're all familiar with general holder. he was sworn in as the 82nd attorney general of the united states on february 3rd, 2009, by vice president joe biden. in 1997 mr. holder was named by president clinton to be the deputy torn general. prior to that he served as u.s. attorney for the district of columbia. in 1988 mr. holder was nominated by president reagan to become an associate judge of the superior court of the district of columbia. prior to becoming attorney general, mr. holder was a

litigation partner at covington and burling in washington. it truly, indeed, is a pleasure and a prejudice to have you here to address us again here today, general? [applause] >> well, good morning. whoa, whoa. hello? [laughter] good morning, and thank you, mr. attorney general, for those kind words. we're going high-tech this year, i see. i usually come here and just have my little speech. i want to thank you for your dedicated service over a good number of years. we're all wondering what's next, we were just talking about that as we were walking through, but thank you for your great leadership in wisconsin and your great leadership of organization. it's a privilege for me to take part in this really important meeting. i'd like to thank the leadership team and professional staff for bringing us together this week and for inviting me to speak

with this distinguished group once again. as the attorney general said, i've been privileged to work closely with many of the attorney generals in this room cab rating on cutting edge public safety and financial crime initiatives, working together to strengthen our courts and corrections systems and to find innovative ways to reduce costs and to share resources. and some of us have occasionally found ourself toes on opposite sides of an issue. but despite the differences that we'ven countered from time to time, as torns general -- attorneys general, i think we all share same set of goals, and we're striving to fulfill the same responsibility, by protecting the safety of our citizens, by safeguarding the civil rights to which everyone in this country is entitled, by preventing and combating violent crime, financial fraud and threats to the most vulnerable members of our society, by improving the effectiveness of our criminal justice systems and by strengthening collaboration among government, law enforcement and community

partners at every level. now, for more than a century the national association of attorneys general has brought america's leading legal minds together to discuss and to advance this work. and especially in recent years through sequestration, federal government shutdown and unprecedented budgetary difficulties, you all have shown, i think, remarkable leadership at addressing the priorities that we all share. and and that's why i've made it a priority to participate many this organization's conferences since i took office just over five years ago. because at every stage of my career as a prosecutor, as a judge, as u.s. attorney here in d.c. and as deputy attorney general, i've seen the profound, positive differences that state leaders like you can make. and i understand the unique roles that you play as the chief law enforcement officers many each of your respective -- each of your respective jurisdictions. in so many ways, you and your colleagues are pioneering our broad-based everetts to

recalibrate and reform america's criminal justice systems to make sure that 21st century challenges can be met with 21st century solutions. you're responding to the same realities that are driving at the federal level, by working to break the vicious cycle of poverty, criminality and incarceration that traps individuals and that weakens communities. and i'm pleased to note that this commitment has, in many place, given way to principled action and and also to expanded federal/state partnership. in recent years no fewer than 17 states, supported by department of justice's reinvestment initiative and head by state officials from both parties -- have directed significant funding away from prison construction and toward evidence-based programs and services like supervision and drug treatment that are proven to reduce recidivism while improving public safety. now, rather than increasing costs, a few report funded by the bureau of justice

assistants, projects that these 17 states will save $4.6 billion over a ten-year period. and although the full impact of our justice reinvestment policies really remains to be seen, it's clear that these efforts are bearing fruit and showing significant promise across the country. from georgia, north carolina, texas and ohio to kentucky, arkansas, pennsylvania, hawaii and far beyond with, reinvestment and serious reform are improving public safety. and that's key, improving public safety and saving precious resources. and i believe that the changes that have led to these remarkable results should be carefully studied, and they should be emulated. and that's why last august in a speech before the american bar association in san francisco i announced a new smart on crime initiative that's allowing the justice department to expand on the innovations that so many states have led to become both smarter and more efficient when

battling crime. and the conditions and choices that breed crime. and to develop and implement common sense reforms to the federal criminal justice system. now, under this initiative we are insuring that stringent, mandatory minimum sentences for certain drugging-related crimes will now be -- drug-related crimes will be reserved for the most serious criminals. we're offering diversion programs that many that can serve as alternatives to incarceration in some cases. and as we look forward the future of this work, we'll continue to rely on your leadership and close engagement to keep advancing the kinds of data-driven public safety solutions that many of you have championed really for decades. now, this also means making good on our commitment to provide formerly-incarcerated people with fair opportunities to rejoin their communities and to become productive, law-abiding citizens once their involvement with the criminal justice system is at an end. with the justice department's strong support, the aba has done

can really, i think, important work in this regard, cataloging really tens of thousands of statutes and regulations that impose unwise collateral consequences related to things such as housing, employment and voting. that prevents individuals with past convictions from fully reintegrating into society. as you know, april of 2011 i asked state attorneys generals to undertake views in your own jurisdictions. i've made the same request of high ranking officials across the federal government as well, and moving forward i've directed every component of justice department to lead by example on this issue by considering whether any proposed rule, regulation or guidance may present unnecessary barriers to successingful reentry. -- successful reenter. two weeks ago i called upon state leaders and other elected

officials to take these efforts even further by passing clear and consistent reforms to restore voting rights to those who have served their terms in prison or jail, completed their parole or probation and paid their fines. now, i renew this call today because like so many other collateral consequences, we've seen the permanent disenfranchisement of those who have paid their debts to society serve no legitimate public safety purpose. it's purely punitive in nature. it is counterproductive to reducing recidivism, and it's well past time that we affirm the free exercise of our citizens' most fundamental rights should never be subject to politics or geography or the lingering effects of flawed or unjust policy. and i applaud senator rand paul of kentucky who's shown leadership in helping to address this issue, and i encourage each of you to consider and take up this fight in your home states. now, of course, i recognize that

in this reform and the other changes that we seek will not be easy to achieve, and none of them will take hold overnight. i know that as law enforcement leaders, your work has, in many ways, never been more complex or more challenging. and particularly in this time with budgetary uncertainty when unwise, across-the-board cuts have impacted federal, state and local programs that we depend on. you and your colleagues need all the support and off all the resources that you can get, and that's why i'm never going to stop fighting to provide the tools and assistance that state and local law enforcement leaders desperately need. i'm pleased to report that the bipartisan funding agreement that was recently signed into law by president obama will restore essential funding for a number of key law enforcement priorities by returning the justice department's appropriations to presequestrationing levels.

we anticipate this agreement will also allow us to participate in the intelligence-driven strategies that many of you have proven effective to keep offering assistance to states and localities and to continue building upon the outstanding work that attorneys general, district attorneys, states attorneys, u.s. attorneys and others have made possible despite great add v.ty if an ongoing fight against crime, against victimization and for equal rights and equal justice. this, after all, is the essential duty to which all of us have been sworn. not just to win cases, but to see that justice done. this is the cause that brings us together in washington this week, working to confront the

nets and to seize the opportunities that are before us. and this is the extraordinary task with which the american people have entrusted the leaders in this room and the challenge that all justice professionals are called to address. not merely to use our legal system to settle disputes and punish those who have done wrong, but to answer the kinds of really fundamental questions about fairness and about equality that have always determined who we are and who we aspire to be both as a nation and as a people. these are questions that drove president obama an me to decide in early 2011 that justice department attorneys would no longer defend the constitutionality of section three of the defense of marriage act. now, as i've said before, this decision was not taken lightly. our actions were motivated by the strong belief that all measures that distinguish among people based on their sexual orientation must be subjected to a heightened standard of scrutiny and, therefore, that this measure was

unconstitutional discrimination. and last summer supreme court issued a stark decision in united states v. windsor striking down the federal government's ban on recognizing gay and lesbian couples who are legally married. now, this marked a critical step forward and a resounding victory for equal treatment and equal protection under the law. more recently and partly in response to the windsor decision, a number of state attorneys general -- including those in pennsylvania, nevada, virginia and just last week in oregon -- have reached similar determine can nations after -- determinations after applying laws in their states to same-sex marriage. now, any decision at any level not to defend individual laws must be exceedingly rare. they must be reserved only for exception call, truly exceptional circumstances. and they must never stem merely from policy, hinging only instead on firm constitutional grounds. but in