used them and worn them out. we have a responsibility to lead when we can and i just don't understand this administration has done that. >> the caller is referring to the russian president celebrating. here is the headline on cnn's website, putin at concert in red square celebrates first anniversary of crimea annexation. what needs to be done? >> let's see where failure of leadership hurt us in the current situation. that's very obvious. people made this point. i think that vladimir putin was emboldened when our president said there is a red line in syria and if you cross that line you will be -- you'll be held accountable for that. and they did and they weren't. and our allies and our adversaries notice that. i think actually the stage was set for that earlier in syria when the administration vacillated so much in their response to that. we're doing to do this we're going to do that, we don't

really know. that's what started that. that red line really was a defining moment for many people. and it is clearly emboldened the russians and others, and now we pay the price for t the problem is much harder now because we have locked down that path and it is harder to back up on it. >> back to calls. guy is next in glen birney, maryland. democrat caller. hi glen. or guy excuse me. >> just like to talk to your guest there, i don't know a whole lot about war. but once the first bomb goes off or the first individual that kills, you don't know how far this thing goes. it is easy to start them. it is difficult to end them. and i don't know how we can tell who is the enemy and who is the friend, who is the threat and who is not. but yet when we get there they know we're there because we don't look nothing like them. once you start killing off people's father, then people's brothers and sons, what do you

think their family members are going to do? they're not just going to go away. the united states will have that threat forever. >> caller, i agree with you. it is easier to start wars than it is to end wars. we're trying to avoid starting a war. look, as a member of the military, an air force pilot for 14 years, i know and i've seen and i've experienced the loss that can come from u.s. involvement and we lose our soldiers, those young and women the best people that we have that this nation has to offer, you know that is a terrible price to pay. but you don't protect yourself from a position of weakness. and you don't avoid wars by becoming weak or subject to impo significance sition of other people's wills. you tread the line where you keep america strong and you're not overly aggressive. but it is not my intention or

anyone i know who would like to involve the u.s. more militarily overseas. just the opposite, we're trying to avoid that by putting ourselves in a position where we're strong enough that we don't have to get involved in that way. >> let's talk to chris new port richey florida. republican. >> yes, good morning congressman and greta. as a republican, i want to say i agree with one of the first callers, the democrat caller younger guy, who called in and said our interference over -- in the middle east has been substantial and caused a great deal of turmoil. and blowback against our policies that have ensued since then. i'm talking about the 1950s, when the first -- one of the democratically elected presidents of iran was overthrown. and the shah of iran was replaced and our cia was involved in that. it is on the record. it is a fact. it happened. so let's fast-forward.

so here we are now, and we have over $4 trillion and countless lives lost. not only u.s. military, but the millions of iraqis, other people have been killed and poisoned with sarin gas and all kinds of other stuff going on over there. we are mired in debt in this country, $18 trillion and counting. and yet we're talking about going back into another war. what you're talking about is negotiations with iran is not really negotiating with iran. we all know that we're told basically this is that we have to do, we can't trust iran. we can't sit down across the table from them. that's baloney. we have to negotiate. we cannot leave the world constantly and have our military all over the world and what is going to happen here?

i don't get it. >> no one is proposing we attack iran. we're trying to avoid doing that. that's the whole point of this, to avoid another war. to the caller's point of going back to the '50s, there is no question that u.s. foreign policy is fraught with mistakes along the way. and especially in this part of the world. it is a very chaotic part of the world, it is unpredictable. this is all sorts of unintended consequences. it is hard it look down the road, even a few months let alone a few years or generations in some case and predict or to know what exactly will happen as a result of your policies now. but i do think that we know a couple of things. we know that the u.s. involvement there helps stabilize the area. that the u.s. has been a force for peace in many cases and in fact i would argue in almost all cases rather than a force for instability and war. we know as you said caller, that the negotiations could have a positive outcome. but we have to be committed to

having a treaty or agreement that is in our interests. and that protects our interests and the interests of our allies in the region. that's the whole point of this is to have a strong agreement that protects us rather than a weak agreement that makes it so we're less secure in the future. that's the whole point of this, that's what we're trying to do. >> farmington, utah, larry a republican. >> yes, good morning congressman. happy to be one of your constituents. >> good to hear from someone from utah. >> you mentioned your recent travel to northern africa. and i know the international guard has a special relationship with folks there in morocco. can you talk to the value of such relationships and what is going on there, with what you learned while you were there. >> that's such a great question and a great example of where u.s. involvement can have a positive effect. and bring peace and stability to the region. and -- or to a nation that is

looking to us for help. that is the state department set up the special partnerships between various states, national guards and nations that could use their training or their leadership or input. utah national guard was teamed with morocco my brother-in-law he was involved with instituting that. general burton now is carrying -- >> we'll leave this discussion and go live now to today's white house briefing with spokesman josh earnest. >> before we get into my part of the briefing, i have brought with me the president's senior adviser brian deas who will talk about the climate change announcement that the president discussed a little bit today during his trip to the department of energy. so brian has a little bit of a topper. he'll take some questions on this topic. and then we'll get to other questions you may have today. okay? brian? >> thanks.

so i'll be brief about the announcement that president made today and then happy to take questions if you've got them. so we just returned from the department of energy before traveling over there the president signed an executive order which sets a new goal for the federal government to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 40% over the next decade. that's in comparison to 2008 levels. the executive order also commits the government to increasing the share of electricity that the federal government consumes from renewable sources to 30% by 2025 as well. the commitments today build on goals that this administration set in 2009 around greenhouse gas reduction. those goals are ones that we are well on our way to meeting and the progress we have made over the last several years gives us confidence that we can up our ambition and set these new goals

today. indeed, last year, the federal government used less energy than we have in the past in any given year over the past four decades. the reason why this is a big deal is that the federal government is the single largest consumer of energy in the united states. so our actions have an outside impact. in terms of making this a little bit more concrete this is really a triple win for the environment, for the economy and for the american taxpayer. just to put it in concrete perspective, the announcement that we made today and the commitments that were made today will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26 million metric tons between now and 2025. that's the equivalent of taking 5.5 million cars off the road. that also happens for more cars than are registered in the state of massachusetts, which is my home state.

the actions will also save up to $18 billion in taxpayer resources because our agencies will consume less energy or they'll consume it more efficiently. those are resources that can be better deployed for the objectives of the agencies have set out to tackle. and importantly, this is good for the broader economy because of the actions we take encourage the businesses that do business with the federal government as well as their suppliers and others to be more energy efficient, and use more clean energy as well. so one of the things most interesting about and promising about this announcement was the president, after touring the roof at the department of energy and seeing some of the solar panels that are up there joined a roundtable of companies including who's who of the fortune 100 including ge northrop grumman, ibm all of

whom came today to actually make their own commitments on reducing their own carbon pollution in the coming years. and what they told the president and the conversation that we had was really around the ways in which when the federal government acts as a catalyst for technology or as a catalyst for investment, it enables these companies to push the envelope themselves and to push their supplier net workwork, we heard about the impact on smaller businesses in the supply chains to these companies. and so overall, sitting around the table, we had businesses that represent $45 billion in contracting with the federal government. and they explained the leveraging impact that these commitments. this is just another example from our perspective of reinforcing that we don't need to choose between encouraging strong economic growth that is consistent with middle class economics, and which helps

create good jobs here in the united states and actions to protect our planet for our kids. it is another example of the president staying on offense, taking actions that he can to try to help encourage this process forward. and it is a -- this is a signal to the international community as well that in a year when we are working toward a global agreement on climate change that we'll continue to do our part and encourage other countries to do so as well. so it was a good announcement, an opportunity to hear from the private sector opportunity of the president to get out and get a little bit of sun on the department of energy roof and with that, happy to take any questions you guys have. >> justin, since we have you, excuse me i actually wanted to ask about keystone. another area that is now in your

portfolio. two questions. the first is we have kind of heard more pessimistic tact out of the president lately as he described the project. does that -- is that an indication he is as kind of the date for having to make a decision on this nears that he's more pessimistic about the project, and the second part that i this is the extent to which you see keystone being a negotiating point with other countries as you try to -- >> so as you know and as you've heard josh say many times, this is a -- this is an issue in the process in the state department. and that process is where it is. and so i don't have any news on that. and i think that the president has spoken to this issue but has also been clear as he's doing

that that the state department process is moving forward and will conclude. i will say that, you know, one of the things that i think the president has reinforced and you've heard in the president's comments on this issue is his view that we all should be setting our sights substantially higher than the debate around this one pipeline and that there are -- there is a lot of opportunity to improve the country's infrastructure. and help encourage this move toward a clean energy economy if we could engage in that debate, our hope is we'll be able to do so. >> does that mean the president would be willing to include keystone as part of a broader infrastructure package? is that kind of -- we hear that phrase from you guys a lot. is that what it is intended to mean? >> i think what it means is that there is a process that is

ongoing and is going to resolve itself around keystone that we are not getting into or commenting on. it means separate from that process, the president thinks it is very important that we have not only a discussion about doing something more aggressive on infrastructure, but congress actually starts moving and showing a commitment to do so. >> jeff? >> couple of follow-ups. on your initial announcement, do you know of the percentage that the government represents in terms of emissions in the u.s.? just sort of to put that into the context of industry and otherwise? and as a follow-up to justin's question on keystone, your predecessor, john podesta, chose to recuse himself from advising the president because he has strong views on the project. do you have strong views on the project and how are you advising the president? >> so to first question, the federal government is the single

largest consumer of energy in the economy within our federal footprint we have hundreds of thousands of buildings. that includes the department of defense and in fact the department of defense is responsible for the nonoperational portion of the department of defense responsible for half of the energy consumption. so our capacity to both directly reduce energy use and reduce greenhouse gas emissions is significant, but also as the largest consumer in a market, you have market power to help drive innovation and drive change outside of the federal footprint. so i think that the potential for this announcement is best understood in that context and in particular i think that that's what was striking about

having these -- the private sector at the table today was we heard from them loud and clear that the administration and the federal government set standards and focuses incentives on certain innovative technologies it really drives a lot of investment and a lot of change not only in their companies but throughout the supply chains. with respect to the second part of the question, i'm not going to speak to john, you know. from my perspective, this is an issue that is in a separate process and we are focused on that process running its course. >> the length of time that has been -- looking at this surprised a lot of people. does the president expect to get the recommendations in this calendar year? >> i have nothing for you on

timing. >> so this maybe wouldn't even reach his desk for decision by the end of his term? >> i have nothing for you on timing so -- cheryl? >> thanks. so 40% reduction target is for direct greenhouse gas emissions. how do you define direct versus indirect in the government. and also does this apply to your suppliers and vendors and contractors? >> so the answer to the 40% is it is direct, in terms of consumption of energy by the government. the way in which the government consumes energy is often associated with contract activity because we have contractors who are running a federal facility, or in other cases we have contractors where we enter into performance contracts where they are actually putting up the up-front capital, doing energy efficiency

improvements and then being paid back through a stream of the energy savings. so the -- the work of the businesses who contract with the federal government is very integral to achieving this goal. there is a separate issue which is those companies that are those contractors making commitments about their own activities and that's what was, i think, exciting and new about today's announcement, was that these were companies -- this was ibm, and ge and northrop grumman coming to the table, not only committing as a contractor to help the federal government achieve the 40% goal, but to make commitments within their own corporations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. you have a company like ibm saying they're going to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions by 35% by 2025. part of why they're able to do that is because the innovation and the investment that the

federal government is driving helps them achieve that objective as well. >> major? >> brian, as specifically as you can, can you tell us what allowed the federal government to get to where it has gotten and innovative things or lessons you've learned from those successes will drive you to the 40% goal. >> sure. i think it is a couple of things. we have seen these play out over the last several years. the first is we have seen a substantial reduction in the cost of deploying clean energy and some of these energy efficiency technologies. so we -- the department of defense, for example, is moving out and deploying solar in -- on base, on military installations and they are meeting and exceeding their targets and objectives in part because the cost of solar has come down more quickly than anticipated. >> that has a cost opportunity

for them and also mission oriented opportunities because of the reliability of having on -- not having to rely on the electricity grid. it is solar flare season. the second thing is that the -- the data analytics have improved substantially, which matters a lot for energy efficiency. one of the things that the companies talked about today was that by having much more data about how their businesses operate, and being able to aggregate that up they're able to identify where there are gaps in their efficiency chain, why a certain plant -- identify a certain plant as operating and see if there are valves they need to tighten or hoses they need to clamp up. the president referred to this today as a fit bit for business. i think that aptly characterizes it in some of the progress we made on the data side has

allowed us to do that. and then i think the third is innovations in the way we contract. and so as i was just mentioning, one of the things we're doing now is we're setting a goal of doing $4 billion in energy performance contracting, which is the idea that rather than the federal government having to put taxpayer dollars down to upgrade a building we contract with an outside provider who pays the up-front cost and then gets repaid out of a stream of the savings that come from reducing the electricity costs. and because the investments here are well proven that's becoming a model that is working both to encourage more activity, but also bring the private sector in, in an innovative way. >> i've been reading a lot about the military use of biofuels like algae to power everything from aircraft to this green

fleet that the navy keeps talking about. bring us up to date on that and how close are those things to becoming operational. >> so that's a place where i think the armed services and in particular the navy see substantial promise. a lot of the work that is going into that area right now is in the r&d space. in the services and the defense department, but also at usda and doe and investing in applied research to better understand the potential and also the mission impacts of relying on these types of fuels. so i think our view on that is that there is real promise and real opportunity. it is going to require us to maintain a consistent program of r&d investment, but i think that we still see it as an area of

real promise going forward. >> when will they be able to wean themselves off the conventional fossil fuels that you've been hearing about for quite some time. >> i can't tell you with precision. i can tell you that the -- that the opportunities are increaseing increasingly becoming cost effective. and that as you think about where the military is deployed around the world, and the circumstances that they're put in, the ability to have alternative sources both of electricity, where you're not reliant on the grid, but also fuels, is increasingly important from a mission standpoint and cost standpoint. we're quite optimistic we'll be able to push the envelope in those spaces. that's part of the theory of the case behind the announcement that we're making today. >> thank you, brian. >> thank you, guys. >> all right. now back to our regularly

scheduled programming. i know there is a pool spray at 2:00 in the oval, so if there are some of you that have responsibilities for that i will not be offended if you sneak out the back. julie, you want to start us off with questions. >> the he's lachlislamic state claimed responsibility for the attacks in tunisia. has the united states been able to verify those claims? >> we extend our deepest sympathies to the victims of the heinous violence in tunisia and condemn in the strongest possible terms this terrorist attack which took the lives of innocent tunisians and tourists visiting from other countries. the president's top counterterrorism adviser spoke to her counterpart who is the tunisian minister of interior mohamed garsali. she made that call to express condolences, to offer u.s. support and assistance and pledge solidarity with tunisia in the face of terrorist violence. the united states is justifiably

proud of the robust cooperation that we have with tunisia on counterterrorism and on a range of broader security issues, and we continue to stand with our tunisian partners against terrorist violence. we have seen reports that isil claimed responsibility for the attacks. while we're not yet able to confirm the voracity of the claim, the tactics that we saw at the bardot museum would be consistent with tactics that isil has previously used that show a blatant disregard and brutality for innocent civilians. >> tunisia has been held up as a country that perhaps came out of the arab spring as more of a success than some of the other countries in the region. if this is the islamic state moving into tunisia, what does that say about tunisia's stability, the ability to fend off islamic extremism? >> well i'll say a couple of things about that. the first is we know there is a long border that tunisia has with libya, a rather unstable

place right now. and that is why the security cooperation i referred to earlier that exists between tunisia and the united states is so important. and that is -- that was the substance of miss monaco's call today. and i'm confident we'll continue to be in touch with the tunisians in the weeks and months ahead as we talk about efforts that we can make to supplement their efforts to provide for security in their country. they obviously live in a very volatile and even dangerous part of the world right now. and we certainly are interested in doing what we can to try to support the tunisian government and the tunisian people as they confront this threat. >> prime minister netanyahu seems to be backing away from his comments during his campaign about not allowing a palestinian state while he's in charge. he says now that he would allow that if the circumstances change. yesterday, officials here and at the state department were saying

you took netanyahu during his word at the campaign there would be policy ramifications for what he said. based on what he said today do you think the comments were just a campaign pledge that he always intended to back track on? do you take him as his word today that he would allow for palestinian statehood? >> well i did have an opportunity to read quickly a transcript of the interview he did with nbc today. what is apparent is that in the context of the campaign and while he was the sitting prime minister of israel he walked back from commitments that israel had previously made to a two-state solution. to be clear, the united states, for more than a decade under both democratic and republican presidents, has strongly supported this approach to trying to address the conflict between the palestinian people and our allies in israel. and it is worth pointing out this was a policy supported and

in place under both democratic and republican presidents. it is a policy that was and has on more than one occasion been unanimously supported by democrats and republicans in congress. as recently as december of last year the united states house of representatives on a voice vote. so essentially without objection, passed the u.s./israel strategic partnership act in which the pursuit of a two-state solution was identified as our goal to resolve this conflict. so it is as we mentioned yesterday, cause for the united states to evaluate what our path is forward given the prime minister's comments. and so we'll have to see what sort of policy and priorities the prime minister chooses. but we certainly are in a

position to evaluate our approach to these issues given the prime minister essentially backed away from commitments that israel had previously made to this effort. >> and you stand by that, that the need to re-evaluate, to look at your options, despite what he said today. you don't think now based on his flip back that what he said previously was a campaign promise to get votes? >> well i mean the motivation of the prime minister and the comments he made, i think even just earlier this week, is something you'll have to take up with him. what is clear is the united states has been clear about our policy for some time. and it also merits pointing out that we pursue this policy not just because it is convenient, in fact, it is not convenient. it is rather difficult as is well chronicled by all of you in this room but we have been in pursuit of this goal because we believe that it is clearly in the best interests of our closest ally in the region.

we believe it is in the clear interests of israel to establish a jewish and democratic state of israel living side by side in peace and security with a sovereign palestinian state. that is a way for us to diffuse tensions in the region. won't diffuse all of them. it would substantially reduce tensions in the region. and it would, of course, serve the national security interests of the united states, but it is the best way for us to provide and protect the israeli people. it doesn't remove all threats but it is the way for us to resolve what is a prominent point of contention, in this region of the world. and the comments from prime minister netanyahu to walk away from that commitment, just this week, has prompted the united states to evaluate our position on these matters going forward.

>> when you say you're evaluating the position, what does that mean exactly? what is the outcome of the evaluation look like? >> well, the commitment to a two-state solution has been the bedrock of a lot of u.s. policy toward this region of the world. in terms of making decisions at the united nations and other multilateral fora, the united states has repeatedly intervened in some of those debates at the u.n. and other places by saying we should -- the best way for us to solve this problem is to get the two parties to sit down at the negotiating table resolve their differences so that this two-state solution can can be realized. so that principle is one we have applied in a variety of settings to to do serve as the basis for

decisions that have benefited israel. and that have protected israel from isolation in the international community. but now the prime minister of israel says earlier this week days before an election that this is a principle that he no longer subscribes to and his nation no longer subscribes to. that means the united states needs to rethink our approach. that steps that -- that this principle has been the foundation of a number of policy decisions that have been made here and now that that foundation has been eroded it means that our policy decisions need to be reconsidered. and that's what we will do. >> that sounds like a statement that israel should no longer expect u.s. protection in the u.n. >> i don't want to leave you with -- >> in the u.n., which is what you just specifically mentioned. >> that is one example in which this policy decision has served as the basis for a substantial number of policy decisions.

i'm not suggesting that any policy decisions have been made at this point. i don't want to leave you with that impression. in fact what i've tried to say is that understandably it prompted us to re-evaluate the strategy that we will put in place to make those decisions. and that will be something we do moving forward. >> that's an example of the united states, a place where the ramifications from the shift could manifest. >> again decisions that -- steps that the united states has taken at the united nations had been predicated on in idea that the two-state solution is the best outcome. now our ally in these talks has said that they are no longer committed to that solution. that means we need to re-evaluate our position. >> do you think israel will be more isolated now after prime minister netanyahu's rhetoric

and re-election? >> well i think that is something that is hard to predict from here. it merits pointing out that the united states continues to be committed to the kind of military intelligence and security cooperation that has characterized the relationship between the united states and israel for generations at this point. the reason for that is those -- those relationships are essential to the security of the israeli people. and prime minister netanyahu himself has observed on at least one occasion that the security cooperation between the obama administration and the israelis has been unprecedented and its depth and the president is committed to continuing that cooperation but had it comes to other matters and when

evaluating our own approach to resolving the conflict between the israelis and the palestinians, that is something that we're going to have to evaluate in light of the prime minister's comments that seem to walk away from some commitments that have been long held in israel. jim? >> josh, was the president personally disappointed in prime minister netanyahu's comments? >> well i -- i would certainly acknowledge that the president is aware of the comments and noticed them. i don't think i would characterize his reaction. but i think that the -- there are obvious policy implications for prime minister netanyahu's comments. and it has in the mind of the president and other senior members of his team created a need for the united states to re-evaluate our approach. again, because of the statements from prime minister netanyahu didn't just walk away from a

policy position that this president believes is in the best interests of all involved, he actually is backing away from commitments to a policy position that has been supported by the president's republican predecessor, and supported as recently as three months ago by every single member, democratic and republican of the united states house of representatives. >> and the one comment that the prime minister made that we haven't talked about yet, he said in a facebook video or posting on facebook that arab voters were heading to the polls in droves. i know during the gaggle yesterday, josh, you sort of volunteered a reaction to some of those remarks. and i'm curious why you decided to do that. it seems to me, and i think it would seem to a lot of people reading into that, for you to volunteer, that means that comments with not taken very well here at the white house. >> well, i think that that --

that comment and that tactic was something that was noticed not just here at the white house but i think around the world. and that cynical election day tactic was a pretty transparent effort to marginalize arab israeli citizens. and their right to participate in their democracy. and israel rightly prides itself on a vibrant democracy. but one of the core values of a vibrant democracy is ensuring that everybody has an opportunity to participate. and those comments and those tactics certainly do not reflect a commitment to those values and the thing i pointed out yesterday is also important, that we had a number of associations where we discussed the relationship between the united states and israel. you heard me point out one of

the things that binds our country together so closely is our shalled values and a commitment to the values that are deeply integrated no our country, government, and our citizens these kind of cynical divisive election day tactics stand in direct conflict to those values. and that does have, again that does erote at the values that are a critical bond twenty two countries that is why i felt like i needed to -- even though i wasn't asked about it, to make note of it. >> you said you don't want to characterize the president's reaction. that sounds like it wasn't very good. like it wasn't a re good re. >> i won't characterize -- if you want to try to discern his character -- discern his reaction based on the way that i

have talked about some of the policy implekss splications for the prime minister's comments but i won't characterize the specific reaction. >> i asked you if the relationship between the president and the prime minister can be salvaged in any way? is the president hopeful for that? >> i will say this is something, that again in the context of the wide ranging discussions we have had, i've been clear and this continues to be the view of the administration, that there are important bonds between the united states and israel. these are ties and commitments that extend far beyond any one president, that extend far beyond any one prime minister, and extend far beyond probably most importantly any one political party. and the foundation of that relationship includes our -- the ties between our people, the

values that we share in common that are very deeply held, and the kind of security cooperation that exists between our two countries. israel is the closest ally of the united states in the middle east and it will continue to be. bob? >> in light of the recent days and events and what we have been discussing here is there going to be another obama/netanyahu meeting in the future? >> i don't have any scheduling updates and i'm not aware of one, but i wouldn't rule it out. i got asked about the president making a phone call to congratulate prime minister netanyahu. i can tell you that already today white house officials have been in touch with their israeli counterparts to try to schedule this phone call. this phone call could take place

as early as today. there is the possibility of that -- of a conversation over the telephone between the two leaders. but i don't have any information about a future meeting. correct. okay. maria? >> mcdonough will talk to j street on monday. will he talk about this or just generally? what is the purpose of his visit? >> i haven't seen his remarks yet. i know he will spend some time talking to this group that obviously has a keen interest in u.s./israeli relations. i'm confident he'll reiterate some of the things i said about the bond between our countries i'm confident he'll reiterate the kind of important and close security cooperation that exists between the two countries. that is essential to the safety and security of israeli people. i wouldn't rule out there may be

some discussion about our autopsy go ongoing efforts to resolve the concerns over iran's nuclear program. >> is there a message? he's not going to speak to apack. >> i don't have any detailed preview to share with you. major? >> in a different context, the president wants an election to have consequences. if i hear you correctly, you're sayinging to the israeli prime minister, election rhetoric has consequences as well and you're holding him. >> call the committee to order. we have a vote order now for governing amendment ss. those with side by sides are polled and put to the lower point on the list. so the first one we start with is -- >> mr. chairman? >> senator whitehouse, yes. >> may i raise a point of order before we get to the voting other. i think it is an appropriate

point of order. we'll find out. we have been presented for the first time as far as i know in the history of the budget committee, the spending mutual reserve funds and to my knowledge the committee made no definition of what a spending neutral reserve fund it. to we're being asked to vote with no definition of what it means and there is a theory at least that the offsetting spending that would have to be cut in order to make it neutral must come out of medicare and social security and other mandatory programs out of those core programs. if what we're being asked to vote on is cuts to medicare and social security have to fund all the things. that makes a difficult decision. i don't want to be voting for what i think about, a new term that the committee has put in

place without the committee having to start a new turn. >> it was moved in 2013. >> as i understand it though this would be basically -- it would be spending cuts in mandatory spending. that's what we have been told by your folks correct. >> it is not a definition of mandatory. just a definition cut spending. >> mr. chairman let me ask again. our understanding is the way that that is written. it would mean any funding for these reserve funds would come from mandatory spending cuts and i would -- all of our members to be aware that would be the consequences of the spending neutral reserve funds.

>> you're asking me to forecast what kind of legislation would go to the floor for it and i can't do that. >> wouldn't it be up to committees to decide? wouldn't it be up to committees to decide? >> committee is right. yes. >> yes. so it could be discretionary spending, nondiscretionary spending, either one, right? i think we have -- >> we just placed -- >> i think the basic principle here that senator whitehouse raised perhaps a divide between us. we think the solution to many of our problems is not just cutting, cutting cutting, we think there are loopholes for corporations and the -- i don't know that i can support it if

all you're asking to fund it is by cutting it. if you do deficit, neutral, it would make all the difference. >> respond to senator portman i'm using the language from senator ayotte. but the chairman of the senate committee on the budget may re revise in this resolution. who doesn't look like to me it is the decision of the budget committee chairman and therefore the definition of the term would be of some significance. >> to be clear on this one all that says, if i'm not mistaken, is the committees, the authorizing committees make the decision and the chairman is the one who adjusts the bucket. that is accurate. >> he doesn't make the decision

on this. he changes the budget according to what the commit decision it. >> mr. chairman, just on this point, i have to do a but my sense is for my and this is mandatory. if you have a direction, finance committee, to go after spend your real estrait is mandatory programs. thank you. >> that's the point. >> and mr. chairman just to clarify, when we say mandatory we're talking about medicare social security medicaid, food assistance agriculture programs thattive with that we have done in the farm

bill. everything we have made commitment to, when we say mandatory. >> let me raise one other thing. this is a new -- we're wondering what it is. but spenting neutral means spenting knew rawl. you can raise taxes for this. if you're just establishing a spending neutral, you're saying you can't spend more but it doesn't say you can't raise taxes for it, just a cautionary note. >> we need to get on with the voting. the first amendment is the sender -- sanders deficit neutral tax increasing for job creation. and each side gets 30 seconds. and then we vote. >> not the way i define the

amendment, but -- here is the story. everybody understands the infrastructure, roads bridges, airports, rail system is in very, very bad shape. we need trillions of shape. with trillions of dollars in investment. when we make that investment, we can create millions of decent paying jobs. jobs that we need right now. and we pay for this investment by eliminating outrageous loopholes that corporations currently enjoy such as stashing their money in the cayman islands and paying zero in federal income taxes. i ask the court for that amendment. >> actually, the budget amendment fully envisions fully paying to strengthen the infrastructure. there will be a new highway bill in may. the budget provides the mechanism that would enable a bill to move and our authorizers to find new revenues or offsets to extend the life of the highway trust fund.

the president proposed the international tax reform. i think there's a committee working on international tax reform and some of that money would be used to repatriate that. so i urge my colleagues to vote no. >> a roll call vote. >> mr. grassley. >> no. >> mr. sessions. >> no. >> mr. crapo. >> no. >> mr. graham. no. >> mr. portland. >> no. mr. tumi. >> 92. this ayotte. >> no mr. purdue? >> no. mr. sanders. >> yes. >> miss murray. >> no. mr. widen aye. >> stabenow. >> yea.

>> mr. wardly. >> aye. >> mr. king. >> no. mr. chairman the ayes are ten. the nays are 12. >> the amendment is defeated. the grassley amendment. >> mr. chairman, it's my understanding that if i make this a deficit neutral reserve fund that will-t will be accepted, is that right. >> is that correct? >> okay. >> okay. then that's what i'll modify my amendment. >> okay. >> all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> opposed? adopted. the sanders second amendment on minimum wage. >> simple truth is that millions of americans are working in wages that are grossly inadequate. the minimum wage today inflation

accounted for dollars is far lower than it was back in the 1960s. and if we are concerned about allowing low-income people to live with dignity and earn enough money to care for their basic needs it is time for the substantial increase in the minimum wage. i would ask for your support for that amendment. >> there really isn't any need to have any kind of a fund in order to debate minimum wage. brought to the floor under any circumstances. i'd urge a no vote. >> yeah. roll call. >> please call the roll. >> mr. grassley. >> no. >> mr. sessions. >> no. >> mr. crapo. >> no. >> mr. graham. >> no. >> portman. >> no. >> toomey? >> no. >> mr. johnson. >> no. >> miss ayotte. >> no. mr. purdue?

>> no. mr. sanders. i. >> miss murray? >> aye. >> mr. stabenow? aye. >> mr. baldwin. >> aye. >> mr. kane. >> aye. >> the yeas are 10 the nays are 12. >> that amendment has been defeated. the next is the crapo amendment. >> thank you mr. chairman. this is relate to the victims of crime fund. essentially this creates a budget point of order to stop congress mugging the victims of crime act and allowing some of the most vulnerable in our society to be protected, instead of continuing to be victimized in their own homes and having congress rob the very fund that is designed to protect them. and i think we can go on a voice vote here.

>> acceptable. all in favor say aye. opposed? that amendment has been adopted. senator murray. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment fixes a problem which we all know is coming, which is sequester based on agreement if two years. basically, it makes your defense and nondefense equally. this keeps us out of a giant nightmare this fall that i know is coming at us if we don't deal with it in this budget. i urge your support. >> we do take seriously the call for future legislation regarding possible modifications to budget control act. and we'll take a look at that budget control act right after april 15th when we get the budget done. and so there's a highly flexible deficit neutral reserve fund to address the matter already in the resolution.

however, this amendment is a tax and spend amendment. and it calls for unspecified tax increases of $157 billion increased discretionary spending today. i would urge my colleagues to vote no. some mr. chairman, i would just note that the underlying bill has $5 trillion in spending cuts. in the sequester replacement we replace it with $157 billion in tax increases. this is much -- this i think is the fair and balanced way to do it that is critically important to do it and builds on the murray-ryan agreement. and it for sure mean that this congress will not experience the nightmare of sequestration this coming fall. roll call vote? >> roll call wrote is requested. >> mr. grassley. >> no. >> mr. sessions. >> no. mr. crapo. >> no. mr. graham. >> no. >> mr. portman. >> no.

>> toomey? >> no. >> mr. johnson. >> no. miss ayotte. >> no. mr. corker? >> no. >> mr. sanders. >> yes. mr. stabenow. >> yes. >> white house. >> yes. >> barner. >> aye. >> baldwin, mr. king mr. chairman. >> no. >> chairman the ayes are 10 the nays are 12. the amendment has been defeated. next be the graham overseas facilities. >> this is deficit neutral reserve fund to be used at our diplomatic facilities overseas in light of threats we face i think say veryis a very prudent thing to do. >> anyone wish to provide opposition? if not, we'll proceed to vote. all those in favor a aye.

those opposed? >> the ayes appear to have it. they do have it. the amendment is passed. next will be the white house amendment. the whitehouse amendment. >> thank you very much. this is the amendment we talked about that would add the information into the budget report of the amount of federal revenue that doesn't come into the budget but instead is dislocated, i guess i'd say by the tax code. i think the important information. it's a neutral amendment in the sense all it does is add information sort of like senator johnson's. i'd ump the amendment's passage if we can get that. >> senator portman. >> mr. chairman i think it would be useful information. i plan to support the amendment. >> is there -- of course, you

should realize that section 308 of the congressional budget act already requires that provide the committee with tax expenditure projections. and those are publicly available. and the budget resolution capes annual revenue estimates that implicitly include all tax expends tours. so if a member wants to increase or decrease tax expenditures such amendment can be offered by changing the total according line. t make no, sir more sense than providing the separate line item for each program in each budget function. so i would urge my colleagues to vote no. >> roll call vote is requested. mr. grassley. >> no. >> mr. sessions. >> no. >> mr. crapo. >> no. >> mr. graham. >> no. >> mr. portman. >> aye. >> mr. toomey. >> no. >> mr. johnson, aye.

>> miss ayotte. >> aye. >> mr. cork? >> aye. >> mr. purdue. >> no. >> mr. sanders. >> mr. widen. miss stapen know. >> aye. >> mr. whitehouse. >> aye. mr. baldwin mr. kane. will king. mr. chairman. >> no. mr. chairman the ayes are 16 the nay, 6. >> that amendment is adepartmentopted. the next is the portman export amendment. i think there's a democrat side by side for this one. >> do you want to wait and do the side by side or do it now? i was told you want to wait. >> we better move up. >> are you ready? >> we are ready.

>> side by side. >> side by side? >> no? >> one of us have. >> why don't we wait and do it when we have a chance to look at the side by side. >> we'll move that down on the list so everybody can recruit side by side. >> there's a modified -- to modify the amendment? >> see if you can get that. >> okay. >> next. the next amendment is the stabenow amendment. >> she's going to modify the change date. >> okay. >> mr. chairman. >> senator portman. >> in the interest of expediting this process, i've now had a chance to look at the deficit

neutral reserve fund, side by side amendment by mr. sanders. i just ask mr. sanders a question, the way i look at it it's identical to my amendment -- >> you can talk into the microphone a little bit for last sentence. >> that is the main point but also includes the language without raising new revenue. to strike that language. essentially what we're doing is agreeing with your basic tenet but we're making it deficit neutral. >> yeah. i would be happy to support the alternative. this san opportunity for us to go on record. it's an important statement for us to make on export promotion. as i said earlier, the intent here is not to decrease spending, increase spending or increase or decrease revenue. with that, i would be willing to accept this as an alternative if my colleagues would like a voice vote. >> you're modifying --

>> yes, i'd modify my amendment. >> i thank senator portman very much. i think we're all interested in increasing exports. >> a voice vote then unless there's an objection. all those in favor say aye. opposed. accepted. >> senator stabenow's would be next, but she changed her amendment, i understand haven't gotten to review that. so we'd ask to have that in the next. >> okay. >> are you ready for your amendment now or -- >> well we're asking that you wait because you made some changes. >> i understand that you're asking that i wait until the end of this grouping as i understand it. >> yes. >> you want her to wait until the end of this -- >> well, we hope we can have it reviewed by then. >> we made a small change so if you'd like to -- >> small change, huh?

okay. we'll see if we can comply with that. the johnson, long-term spending. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm hoping we have that continued bipartisan spirit that information is a good thing if we're going to really solve a problem, we need to define it properly. and we have to admit we have it. again, my amendment is pretty simple, we've got the chart up on the big screen again that the definition of this problem really is a demographic problem. all of these problems to the generation, we see the exploding deficit. just asking the cbo when they report there alternate fiscal scenario on the baseline, gdp which we've added to the amendment as senator king suggested, just in part, the dollar amount over the next 30 years. i hope we can voice vote this. >> mr. chairman, i compliment

him on the biggest exhibit we've ever seen. >> all those in favor say aye. >> all: aye. >> opposed. the amendment is passed. the next is the warner amendment on irs notification. >> mr. chairman senator johnson, i have it simply says that the irsing out ought to allow american citizens know if they're victims of identity theft, if the irs has that information. we'd hope that the irs would move on this administratively, they have not moved on it to date so we're moving it along. >> i hope we voice vote this unanimous consent. >> it would give the irs the ability to share what is known as confidential information of somebody who's been a victim of identity theft. >> somebody whose been a victim

the identity theft that the irs knows. the irs somehow interprets the regulations right now that they can't even tell that victim that their identity has been stolen. >> i haven't been a victim myself and haven't been inconvenienced by it fairly recently. i think that we should improve the ability to respond. they do have some sort of program, and they did work through it. but it probably could be improved. it's a dangerous problematic thing if it gets worse and worse. >> yes, sir. >> is there an objection to voice voting this? all those in favor say aye. >> all: aye. >> opposed. the amendment passes. the next one is the wicker cbo score. >> thank you. thank you. first of all in order not to run afoul of the longstanding

requirement of the committee, i delete from my amendment the words "or ranking member" so that the chairman of the but or house committee may make this request. but basically, this is along the lines of the whitehouse and johnson amendments providing as much information as we can about the out-year impact of major spending legislation. >> he just took out "or ranking member." >> opposition? >> for a point of clarification, was that a modification. amendment? >> yes. >> okay. >> so we'd be voting on the amendment as modified. any objection to a voice vote.

seeing none, all in favor say aye. glnchts >> all: aye. >> those opposed? it passes. >> the next amendment is the senator baldwin amendment. >> all right. i, too, would like to modify my amendment to strike the "ranking member" and keep to the long tradition of the committee in both the house and senate. but as a reminder to all, this is the amendment that has committee on taxation provide a supplemental estimate that evaluates the distributional effect of revenue changes across income categories. another very useful piece of information for to us have as we evaluate tax policy. and i urge a voice vote.

>> any opposition? seeing none, all those in favor of amendment say aye. zblmplts aye. >> those opposed? >> mr. chairman. >> senator portman. >> the vote is already cleared out. i would thank you for dropping the nontraditional approach in terms who have can ask for it but second in the ability of the tax committee and cbo, indicating they don't have that about the now but something that we can move forward. >> the next amendment then is the cork erer.

>> yes, sir. i would hope this would be by voice. it's for informational purposes only when we are raising the bca caps or transferring money from the general fund on to the highway trust fund. that if we're to keeping us from using gam ex-. we'd have a 30-year score, instead of just ten. the ten-year score is the one that guides us but the 30-year score would help us know whether we're use gamex like the second 30 you're actually losing money. i hope this will be approved. opposition. seeing none. ready to vote do this by voice vote unless there's an objection. all those in favor say aye. >> all: aye. >> opposed?adopted.

>> merkley student loans. >> i think we all rec nice that student debt is having a huge impact on the sense of responsibility on our chirp and american families. and this prescribes no particular solution, but whether it's low interest rates, whether it's in enhancing the grants under the pell grants or other programs approving the stratford loans. this provides the deficit neutral reserve fund to help accommodate and recognize that this is a significant problem facing america that we should work to try to address. >> i think that we're all concerned about the cost of college and the student lope an debt. and i note that the average graduating senior owes $33,000 in student loan debt. that's eclipsed credit card debt at the present time.

but the one reason white chairman's mark already contains a reserve fund in the higher education act is because it's due up for reauthorization. and that should be an appropriate vehicle for any specific reforms that want to reduce the cost of college and the need for student borrowing. i look forward to working with chairman alexander and all of the rest on that committee before we make sure it gets reactivated before the out of date. so i would ump my colleagues to vote no. is there a request for a roll call? there's a request for roll call vote. the dleshg willclerk will call the roll. >> mr. graphly. >> no. mr. sessions. >> no. mr. crapo. >> no. >> mr. graham. >> no. mr. portman. >> no. mr. toomey?

>> no. mr. johnson, no. >> miss ayotte. aye. >> mr. wicker? >> no. mr. corker. >> aye. >> mr. sanders. miss murray. mr. widen miss stabenow. mr. whitehouse. mr. americaky. aye. mr. baldwin, mr. kane, mr. king mr. chairman. >> no. >> mr. chairman, the ayes are 11, the nays are 11. could you repeat those numbers for me please. >> the ayes are 11 the nays are 11. >> on a tie vote the amendment fails. the next is the purdue amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment simply creates a spinning reserve fund aimed at cfpb to the regulation process.

the last thing we need is a rogue regulator without any oversight of congress. that's the intent of this amendment. thank you. >> opposition? >> mr. chairman the cfpb is funded by all other bank regulators without appropriation, to incesulate it. but it is overseen in numerous ways. including mandatory audit by inspector general. mandatory rules before congress. rule making requirements and the ability of the oversight council to overturn regulations. >> i would urge my colleagues to vote yes. >> as per roll call vote, please poll. >> mr. grassley.

>> aye. >> mr. sessions? >> aye. >> mr. crapo? >> aye. >> mr. graham? >> aye. >> mr. portman. >> mr. toomey. aye. mr. johnson aye. miss ayotte aye. mr. wicker. mr. corker mr. purdue. mr. sanders. no. >> miss murray. mr. wind miss stabenow -- wee leave our coverage of the senate budget committee's markup proposal. they have informed us that this meeting will continue until it's done. also you can continue watching this meeting on our companion network c-span. it is a celebratory day here for us at the c-span networks today. today marks the 36th anniversary of the house of representatives first being televised. and representative al gore made that first speech. you can see his comments only at c-span.org. created by the cable tv industry

and brought to you as a service by your local cable or satellite provider. the hill reports that president obama has taken a order to cut government's greenhouse gas emissions by 40%. also directing the federal government to get 30% of its renewable resources by twnts2025. the president spoke at the city club of cleveland. he talked about complete and the middle class and criticized the budget proposal. he then took questions from the audience. this is about an hour and a half. ♪ ♪ hello, cleveland. thank you so much, thank you. thank you, everybody, please, please, have a seat. it's good to be back in

cleveland. let me begin by thanking paul for the wonderful introduction. i want to acknowledge some of my favorite members of congress. senator is shareerrod brown is here. i actually like his wife connie a little more. [ applause ] i'm not alone in that. but he's okay, too. congress wom congresswoman cathra is here. and congresswoman thud is here. mayor jackson is here. thank you so much, mr. mayor. he's around here somewhere. i want to thank don and the members of the city club for

inviting me here today. it is wonderful to be back in the city. and i see a lot of friends. in some cases, mentors, pastor it's wonderful to see you again. otis moss is one of my favorite people so -- [ applause ] but every sitting president since roundnald reagan has come here to the city club of cleveland to take your questions. and that's because this is an institution that reflects what is a truly american ideal. and that's the belief that all of us have a role to play in resolving the most important issues of our time. in a democracy, the most important office is the office of citizen. and the city club traditionally reflects that. now, over the course of my presidency, one that began in

the depths a historic crisis no issue has been more important than the future of our economy. it's certainly been of great interest in ohio and in cleveland. no topics weighed more heavily on the minds than ordinary families. and no subject is more worthy of a great big open debate. 75 years ago another president came to cleveland to engage in this debate. he was nearing the end of a second term. eight years in office marked by a devastating depression. a hard-fought recovery. fierce political divisions at home. looming threats overseas. but for all the challenges of the changing world, fdr refused to accept the notion that we are anything less than the masters of our fate. we are characters in this living book of democracy he said.

but we also its authors. it falls upon us now to say whether the chapters that are to come will tell a story of retreat or of continued advance. that's a pretty good summary of where we are today. that was the choice that was laid out back then. a story of retreat or a story of continued advance. america chose the latter. and we're better for it. and three quarters of a certainliry later we face a similar choice. in a world changing even faster than his do we retreat from the realities of the 21st century economy? or do we continue to advance together? to renew this country's founding promise of opportunity for everybody, and not just some. so before i take questions, i want to spend some time talking about that choice.

and i want to set the stage by talking about where the economy is today. following the worst economic crisis since the great depression, in fact, by some measures, the contraction of our economy was faster and deeper than the great recessions. it has pulled out of there faster because we have learned some lessons from the past. we're now in the midst of longest streak of private sector job growth 16 consecutive months. five straight years, 12 million new jobs. [ applause ] america's businesses have added more than 200,000 jobs each month for 12 straight months. that's the first time that's happened in nearly 40 years. our unemployment rate has fallen from a peak of 10% in 2009, when i first came into office we were losing jobs at a pace of

almost 800,000 jobs per month. today, the unemployment rate is at 5.5%. [ applause ] just last year we saw the fastest unemployment rate decline in 30 years. and one of the most hopeful signs, middle class wage, are finally starting to tick up again. finally starting to go up. now, this progress is no accident. first and foremost, it's the direct result of you the drive and determination of the american people. in fact, i'm going to take a little credit. [ laughter ] it's also the result [ applause ] -- it's also the result of decisions made by my administration in partnership from with some of these member

of congress who are here to prevent a second depression. and to lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity. and a lot of those decisions were controversial. and then there was a lot of resistance and obstruction. but we decided to continue to advance. we believe that if the last decade was defined by outsourcing of good jobs over ss overseas, then we could define this decade by bringing back good jobs to america. today there are more job opels at any since 2001. the auto industry that we rescued despite the fact it was fought popular at the time was tiger on all sill laerpdcylinders. and fastest in nearly two decades, over the last five years, manufacturers have added

jobs the a rate not seen since the 1980s. everybody talked about manufacturing being dead. you know what, manufacturing's actually growing at a faster pace than the rest of the economy. and more foreign companies are realizing that made in the usa is a trademark to be proud of. and they're choosing to invest in america. something i'm going to discuss next week at our select usa summit where we get local and state officials and economic development organizations to meet with foreign investors from around the world in one-stop shopping to start getting more investment and more businesses right here in the united states. we believed that we could prepare our kids and our workers for a more competitive world. today, our youngest students earn the highest reading and math scores on record. the high school reading hit an

all-time high. more americans are earning their degrees than ever before. we believed we could grow the economy and create new jobs even while we were reducing our dependence on foreign oil and even while climate change and protecting our planet. today, america is not just number one in oil and gas, we're number one in wind power. last year was the biggest in history. we're introducing three times as much wind power and ten times as much solar power than we can when i came into office. [ applause ] every three weeks we produce as much solar power as we did in all of 2008. and just last month the world's largest solar installation came online in the california desert. the solar industry is adding jobs ten times faster than the rest of the economy. and meanwhile thanks to lower gas prices and higher fuel standards the typical family

this year should save more than 700 bucks at the pump. we believed that sensible regulations could prevent another crisis. and shield families from and encourage fair competition. and today we've got the tools to stop taxpayer funded payouts with credit lending practices saving billions of dollars to american consumers. and oh by the way, there's this thing called the affordable care act. more than 16 million more americans have gained the security of health care coverage. we've cut the rank of the uninsured by a third, thanks to some tough crowd votes by these members of congress. last year, the growth and health care premiums, the costs for

business matched its lowest level on record. if premiums had kept on going over the last four years at the rate they had in the previous decade. the average family premium would be $1800 higher than it is today. now, we don't get a lot of credit for that. but keep in mind that some of the reforms that we're putting in place are not only gimp more people insurance, but we're actually reducing the overall costs, 1800 bucks in people's pockets. they don't notice it because it's what didn't happen. that's $1800 that firms can use to hire and invest. $1800 that you're spending on a computer for your kids. or to help pay down debt and stabilize your finances or put into retirement. and finally, we believe that we can lay this new foundation for growth while still getting our

fiscal house in order. you'll recall that when i first came into office, deficits were skyrocketing. partly because the economy was plummeting. less tax revenue coming in. more going out. and the notion was that the steps we took to ensure the economy were covered was going to cause even higher deficits. red ink, as far as the eye could see. well, since i took office, we cut our deficits as a share of our economy by about two-thirds. two-thirds. [ applause ] and looking forward on long-term deficit projections have improved as well. in part because we've done such a good job in controlling health care costs. the affordable care act alone will cut our deficits by more than $1 trillion over the next

two decades. the slowing growth in health care costs has saved the medicare system tens of billions of dollars. health care was the single biggest factor driving up the deficits. it's now the single biggest factor driving them down. this is progress that every person can be proud of. now, we've got a long way to go. i'm not satisfied. i know you aren't, either. we've got a lot more work to do. any american will tell you that. but we have emerged from what was a once in a generation crisis better positioned for the future than any of our competitors. we've picked ourselves up dusted ourselves off. retooled retrained, refocused. the united states of america is coming back.

now, i want to return to the issue of the debate that we were having then because it bears on the debate we're having now. it's important to note that every step that we've taken over the past six years we were told our goals were misguided. they were too ambitious. that my administration's policies would crush jobs and exploit deficits and destroy the economy forever. remember that? because sometimes, you know we don't do the imstandpoint replay. we don't run the tape back. and then we end up having the same argument going forward. the republicans on congress our policy would diminish stock prices. diminish stock markets. the stock market has doubled since i came into office. corporate profits -- corporate

balance sheets are stronger than they have ever been. because of my terrible business policies. one republican senator claimed we faced trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. another predicted my re-election would spike gas prices to $6.60 a gallon. i don't know how he came up with that figure. [ laughter ] $6.60. my opponent in that last election pledged that he could bring down the unemployment rate to 6% by 2016. next year. at the end of next year. it's 5.5 now. [ applause ] and right here in cleveland the leader of the house of republicans, a good friend of mine, well, he captured his

partisan economic experience by critiquing mine with the very same question where are the jobs? i'm sure there was a headline in the "plain dealer" where's the jobs? stock market has more than doubled. deficit has been cut by two-thirds. health care at its lowest rate in nearly 50 years. clean energy doubled. i've come not only to answer that question, but i want to return to the debate that is central to this country. and the alternative economic theory that's presented by the other side. because their theory does not change. it really doesn't. it's a theory that says if we do a little more than just cut taxes for those at the very top, if we strip out regulations and let special interest write their

own rules, prosperity trickles down to the rest us. and i take the opposite view. and i take it not for ideological reasons but for historic reasons. because of theest dense. of the evidence. we know from the facts. that are there for all to see, that america does better, our economy does better, everybody does is better when the middle class does better and we got more ladders for people to get into the middle class if they bapt to work hard. we do better when everybody grows together top middle bottom. we do better when everybody has the benefit of contributing to america, but to contribute to america's success. we know from history when we stray from that ideal, it doesn't turn out well. we've now got evidence there say better way, there say better

approach. and i'm calling it middle class economics. for the first eight years of this century before i came into office, we tried trickled-down economics. we slashed taxes for folks at the top. stripped out regulations. didn't make investments in the things we know we need to grow. at the end of this eight years. we had soaring deficits. job losses, an economy in crippling recession. in the years since then, we've tried middle class economics. today, we've got dramatically lower deficits, job creation and an economy that's steadily growing. so, when we the american people, when the public evaluates whose got the better argument here, we've got to look at the facts. it's not abstraction.

there may have been a time when you could say those two theories are equally valid. they're differences of opinion. they could have been abstract economic arguments in a book somewhere. but not anymore. reality has rendered its judgment. trickle-down economics does not work. and middle class economics does. and that's what we should keep in mind when we think about what's going to take us forward. not down a path where we slow down businesses by slashing investments in the future. not a path where we put our economy at risk again with government shutdowns or fiscal shutdowns. and not a path where just a few of us do spectacularly well. and folks who are working hard see their income, their wages, their financial security erode. we need to go forward to the economy that's generating rising income and chances for

everybody that's willing to work hard. and i continue to advance where we advanced in our future. give working americans the tools they need to determine their own fate. research. education. infrastructure. job training. we know the recipe for growth, and we know we can make growth broad-based. and we can raise incomes and wages in the process. and those income and wages then get plowing back into businesses and investment. and we go down the virtual. now, a good place to start down a stronger path involves america's budget. a blueprint for where we believe this country should be. where should we go. a budget is not just numbers on a page. it reflects our values and our priorities. republicans in congress have been working hard to reposition

their rhetoric around the economy. they started noticing that people would like to see someone champion the middle class and folks who are trying to get in the middle class. so we've seen a shift in how they talk about the issues. there's one republican who said she couldn't agree with me noor we need to be helping working moms and dads more. another wrote a policy memo saying that republicans must define themselves the party of the american worker, the party of higher wages. another umped his party to shout at the top of its lungs that gop is the ticket to the middle class. now, this is good. this is a good development. i'm encouraged by this because once you get everybody talking about the same thing, now we can decide, all right, how do we do

it. if we can at least share our goals, if the goal is strengthen middle class, creating more opportunity for the middle class, raising wages, that's good. there's nothing i like more than an opposition party that works with me to help hard working americans to get ahead. i don't have another election to run. come, let's go, let's get to work. now, the problem so far, at least, the rhetoric doesn't match the reality. the walk doesn't sync up with the talk. and all you have to do is look at the budget that house republicans put forward just yesterday. it's a budget that doesn't just fail to embrace middle class economics. it's the opposite of middle class economics. it doubles-down on trickle-down. i don't expect you, by the way, to read the budget.

theirs or mine. but you can do some fact checking on this. their budget rolls out even more to those who already have the most. makes massive cuts to investments that benefit all of us. asks middle class families to foot the bill. it's a budget that claims that reducing our deficit should be our very highest priority despite the fact that the deficit's been reduced by two-thirds. but its very first proposal its centerpiece is to spend trillions of dollars at another giant tax cut slanted overwhelmingly to those at the top. if you're claiming that deficit reduction is your number one priority, how can you start by giving a tax cut to everybody? at the top, and not doing much to help folks down the economic

pyramid. under the republican budget millionaires and billionaires would get an average tax cut of more than $50,000 per year. translation -- the average millionaire would take home as much in tax cuts as the average middle class american makes in an entire year. now, they say they'll also close high income tax loopholes for folks at the top. which i put very specific proposals for how we can do that. their budget does not name a single loophole it will close. not one. this budget does provide nothing to prevent tax cuts for expiring for 26 million working families and students. i mean, these are folks who for almost two decades now have gone without a raise. but their budget lets these tax cuts expire. that's the equivalent of $1000

a year pay cut for these families. so, you can call cutting taxes for the top 1%, while letting taxes rise for working families a lot of things. what you can't call it is i'll take it to the middle class, right, you can not do. allowing tax cuts for working families to expire doesn't get you close to this budget that is $5 trillion in deficit reduction. leaders say we need to bring down our deficits. my budget would keep our deficit below 3% of gdp. that's a rate that most economists believe protects our fiscal health but because house republicans want to balance the fiscal budget without sacrificing any sacrifice of the wealthiest americans that means everybody else has to sacrifice

more. middle class has to sacrifice more. those working to join the middle class have to sack nice more. the authors of this budget were careful not to get too specific about the cuts they propose. and no matter who you are, somebody else is going to bear the burden. but compared to the plan i put forward, if the cuts they've proposed were to fall equally on everybody, here's some of what would happen in the next few years. we'll get to the questions, i've really got to bear down on this thing. investments in education would be cut to their lowest level since 2000 15 years ago, at a time when we know we need to be upping our game in education because of competition around the world. 150,000 fewer children would have a chance to get early education through head start. more than 8 million lower income students would see their financial aid cut. investments in job training would be cut to the point where

more than 4 million fewer workers would have the chance to earn higher wages through programs to help them upgrade their skills. we would end partnerships that helped 30,000 small manufacturers grow their businesses and create good jobs including right here in cleveland. these aren't just new cuts. these are some of the greatest hits on this broken record. and just as more working families are finally beginning to feel some hard-fought stability and security in their lives, the republican budget would strip health insurance for millions of americans. it would take away coverage from millions more who rely on med kashgsd medicaid, including right near ohio. it would try once again to gut the center of the guarantee by turning it into a voucher

program. instead of the program that health care will be there for you when you need it you get a roll of the dice. if you get sick and that voucher is enough to cover the cost of your care then you win. but if not, you lose. programs that help low income parents care for sick children or buy food for their families or put a roof over their heads, all of those would be in the crosshairs. and at the time of new and evolving threats overseas, the republican budget, despite all the talk they have about national security would actually cut our core national security funding to its lowest level in a decade. and still those at the top aren't asked to sacrifice a single dime. so lower taxes for the most well off. higher taxes for working families. gutted investments in education job training infrastructure.

military and our national security. kicking tens of millions of americans off of their health insurance, ending medicare as we know it. if you have heard these kinds of arguments about these kinds of budgets before. that's because you have seen this kind of budget before. republicans in congress have put forth the same proposals year after year after year, regardless of the realities of the economy. when the economy is in a slump we need the tax cuts. when the economy is doing well, you know what, let's try some tax cuts. we know now that the gloom and doom predictions that justified this budget three, four five years ago were wrong despite the economic progress. despite the mountains of new evidence, their approach hasn't changed.

and there's nothing wrong with changing your opinion, if the underlying facts change. serious economic proposals change when the underlying assumptions are proven false. if republicans believe we should adhere to a set of abstract principles even though they hurt the middle class then they should make the case. show us prove it to us. if they believe it's time to end the social contract that sustains so many of us the basic bargain of shared sacrifice and shared responsibility toneown it, and make the argument. you can't credibly change the vision of helping working families get ahead. it's the same argument i'm having about health care. it was one thing for them to argue about obamacare before it was put in place every prediction they made turned out to be wrong. it's worked even better than

even i expected. [ applause ] but it don't matter. evidence be damned. it's still a disaster. well, why? the truth is the budget they're putting forth and the theories they're putting forth are a path to prosperity for those who have already prospered. and in that sense, it's a story of retreat. and i'm offering a different path. the budget i put forward is built on middle class economics. the idea that everybody does best when everybody get thirst fair shot and everybody is doing their fair share and everybody plays by the same set of rules. and it reflects the realities of the economy for every american to get ahead with the tools they need for the constantly changing world. it means working families feel secure in an every changing economy. that's why my budget makes new investments to make it easier

for folks to afford child care, paid leave and retirement. lowering the taxes of working families putting thousands of dollars back into their pockets each year. middle class economics means preparing americans to earn higher wages down the road. that's why my budget makes new investments from pre-k to career job training. i want to make sure that all our kids get a good education. and that young people can afford going to college without getting buried under a mountain of debt. [ applause ] and so we're working with private companies and community college, and universities and businesses to provide apprenticeships and on-the-job training 'other pathways to the middle class. and i've proposed make two years of community college as free and universal as high school is today to up our game. [ applause ] a third more world class

economics means building economic economies so the businesses can keep churning out high paying jobs for workers to fill. right before i came here i went to a manufacturing incubator right here in cleveland where smaller companies are making everything from airplane parts to medical devices to whiskey. i did not sample the whiskey before i came here. [ laughter ] although i'm taking a sample home. [ laughter ] [ applause ] and this partnership is bringing good manufacturing jobs back to cleveland. the republican budget would cut the whole thing entirely. if something's working why would we get rid of it? we should invest in it. which is why today i announced nearly $500 million in new public and private investment for american manufacturing. [ applause ] and that includes -- that includes a new manufacturing hub

that will make america a leader in pros high-tech fabrics for uniforms our soldiers wear in battle. 21st century businesses 1921st need 21st century infrastructure which is why my budget invests in modern ports and stronger bridges and faster trains and the fastest internet and invest in basic research so that the jobs and industries of the future are created right here in the united states and we can pay for these investments in a responsible way, not by adding the deficit. we just need to cut wasteful loopholes and ask those at the very top to pay their fair share and reform our tax code to make our businesses more competitive. >> and we can keep our exports and protect our workers with a strong, new trade deal. first in asia and then in europe that aren't just free, but are also fair.

i've had a lot of conversations with delegations from ohio about this because here in ohio a lot of past deals didn't always live up to the hype and that's yet trade deal i'm negotiating now the transpacific partnership will reform nafta with higher labor standards and higher environmental standards, new tools to hold countries accountable and would focus on the impact it's having on american workers and would make sure that the rules of the 21st century economy in some of the largest markets in the world aren't written by china. they need to be written by the united states of america and that's what this does. so helping hardworking families make ends meet. giving them the tools they need for a new economy. revving the engines of growth and competitiveness. that's what middle class economics are. that's where america needs to go. if we make these investments in ourselves, our prosperity and

our future this economy will not be stronger a year from now or five years from now it will be strong for decades and it falls upon us now. remember those words from fdr. it falls upon us now, and the chapters will tell a story of retreat or a story of continued advance. i believe in continued advance. the challenges that this generation of americans have faced are less dire than those that the greatest generation endured, but we've got the same will. we've got the same drive. we have the same innate optimism required to shape another american century. we know what works. we know what we have to do. we've just got to put aside the stale and outmoded debates and reject failed policies, embrace the policies that we know work. embrace the promise of the future and we're not going to

just move forward we'll write the next great chapter of our continued advance in this living book of democracy. thank you cleveland. god bless you. let's take some questions. come on. [ applause ] >> so, paul, i can just start calling on people, right? okay. i like that. so the only thing i'm going to do is raise your hand. i'll call on you. if you can stand up and introduce yourself and i'm going to go boy, girl, boy, girl. [ laughter ] all right. we'll start with that young lady right there. no. right here. you. >> thank you. >> what's your name? >> my name is colleen cotter. i'm the executive director of

the legal aid society of cleveland and my question for you, mr. president thank you so much for coming to cleveland. my question is you talked about the importance of everyone playing by the same rules. unfortunately, millions of american, because we do not have the right to court-appointed counsel in civil cases do not have the protection whether it's tenants, consumers, foreclosure how do we address that very important issue? >> as you know we've worked hard to continue to support legal aid around the country. this was a target of slashed budgets early in the previous administration. we have not fully recovered and with the existing congress it's unlikely that we get the kind of bump up that we need. >> two things we can do, i

think, is one in addition to the federal government helping i think we can elicit more from law firms than they currently cough up. young lawyers are eager to participate if it's structured properly. the other thing is to create in various jurisdictions more fisht, effective civil procedures potentially that can streamline the process. because a lot of the clients that you work with, we don't need a full-blown court process and filings and motions that's taken forever and oftentimes when people are in desperate straits they've been cheated on something by a landlord and they bought a product and turned out to be faulty and they're trying to get some relief. they can't necessarily afford some lengthy process and your

office should be reserved for the toughest cases. so are there ways in which we can structure more effective mechanisms. that's going to necessarily operate jurisdiction by jurisdiction, but some jurisdictions have come up with some creative ways to fill the holes that arose as a consequence of the legal aid cuts that took place a long time ago and what we should do is highlight those best practices and see if we can get them duplicated across the board, but thank you for the good work that you're doing. i'm proud of you. all right. a gentleman's turn. let's see. right there. you. yeah. nice-looking bow tie. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> my name is greg hutchins and i'm the superintendent of shaker heights city schools. you've visited us twice already. >> great school system. [ applause ] >> i wasn't superintendent, but it was and still is a great school system. my question is the community

college initiative and how it affects the middle class. i think that some of our community colleges here in chief land as well as across the country, they get a bad reputation that they don't provide a high-quality education which i believe that they do. how can we better convey a message to all of our constituents and possible future community college-enrolled students. how can we convey the message that the community college does have a high-quality education and we can prepare our kids? >> i'm doing my darnedest to advertise because one of our greatest comparative advantages is our higher education system here in the united states. obviously, we've got the best universities in the world and people flock from everywhere to try to get an education but we also have an unparalleled

community community college system and there are places like lorraine that are doing great work but the challenge we've got is that they're underutilized, oftentimes we're not linking what community college is doing with high schools on the one hand and four-year universities and businesses on the other. so part of our initiative is not just to make the first two years of community college free because not everybody needs a four-year education. some people may be interested in graphic design or interested in manufacturing processes or even in some cases high-tech job that don't require a four-year degree, but they do require some advanced training and if they can get that first two years free without debt, plugged into a business, they've saved money.

they don't have all those student loans to pay. they can work for a time, learn more in their career and maybe they go back and decide to get a higher degree. >> if they decide to take the community college and then springboard into a four-year university they transfer their credits and they just saved themselves half the court of the four-year college degree. so what we're trying to do is to create more and more partnerships suited for the particular inclinations, aptitudes, needs of the public. in some cases what's needed, for example, for a mid-career person is a quick training program that gets them in a job right away. so increasingly, what we're doing is working with community colleges to reach out to the businesses in their community where there are job openings and

have the business help design the training program collapse the training program and a mid-career person who needs a job right away maybe a single mom or a guy who has been laid off and now needs to get back in the workforce. they don't have the luxury, necessarily of two years of study. get them into something where six, eight ten weeks of training and right now, if you complete this successfully we know there will be a job for you because the business helped design the program. if you are a high school student who is interested in doing something that doesn't necessarily require a four-year degree we're getting community colleges to link up with the high school ahead of time the high school student can then start getting credit