may make the incurrence but the very existence of nuclear weapons leaves the human race ever at the brink of self destruction. particularly if the weapons fall into the wrong hands. many of these figures grew ambivalent about aspects of this nuclear order. ratings gave birth to the writings that nuclear deterrence argued passionately against the development of the hydrogen bomb. robert oppenheimer famously admitted after watching the first mushroom cloud erupt from the device he helped design that he had become the destroyer of worlds. president obama is determined

and the entire government is determined that the destroyed çworld oppenheimer feared must never become a reality. that is why we are pursuing the peace and security of the world without nuclear weapons. the awesome force must always be balanced by the weight of the shared responsibilities. every day, many of you in this room help bear that burden of professionalism, courage, and grace. of grateful nation appreciate your service. but together, we have to demonstrate to the world we are going to live up to our responsibilities. together, we will leave this world toward a world less

reliant on of their weapons. i thank you for all you do for the country and for taking the time to listen. may god bless america, may god protect our troops. thank you very much. [applause] ♪ ["stars and stripes forever" playing] ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> on tomorrow morning's "washington journal", mark schmidt will talk about president obama's first year in

office. then the commerce department's inspector general discusses a spending report on the 2010 census. later, reporter lisa mascaro will talk about president obama as a trip to nevada and about harry reid's election campaign in nevada. watchers starts each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> -- "washington journal" starts each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> this weekend, ken gormely on clinton versus starr, on "afterwords," part of "book tv" weekend. >> henry waxman, who has been in the house since 1975, spoke about the democratic legislative agenda and what he thinks are

the differences between democrats and republicans. this is about an hour, 10 minutes. >> i can see before i started, this is an uplifting experience for me to be with you. i am delighted to be here. i think those who have been involved with this lecture series for including me as one of those to give a lecture in their honor. i was a student for seven years at ucla, four undergraduate and three years of law school. and even thought( i was a political science major, i did not have any of the three honorees as professors. i do not know how i miss them. but they spoke in terms of making a connection between those involved in academia and those involved in the practical

application of the theory in real life. so i feel very close to what they stood for. and this is a lecture series dedicated to their achievements, and i am honored to be here. let me thank also those involved in setting up the program. i had to reschedule myself at the last minute, and everybody was kind enough to excuse me for my inability to be here due to family considerations. and i thank you for your kindness that is extended to me and my family, for changing the date and allowing me to be here today. just 13 months ago, president barack obama was sworn in as president of united states. he campaigned on hope and renewal of the american spirit and our political process. there was a sense, after his election, that with vigorous

leadership we could confront the profound challenges we face. and i felt that, with barack obamaç selection, this was the moment where i could finally fulfilled the reasons why i saw election to congress in 1974, and in that the first four years, and maybe his eight years of his administration we would have the chance to pursue what i've always wanted to do, a real chance of finally reducing -- producing a real change, landmark legislation. health insurance that was affordable, accessible and high quality for all americans. a sensible energy and environment policy that promoted energy independence, clean energy jobs, and reduced the a global warming pollution. prevailing over the tobacco lobby and its marketing practices. doing other important bills dealing with food safety, making

sure he that the consumer was protected from abuse in the marketplace. producing open and accountable government. and a strong america, intelligently engaging, acting decisively could protect our security when we must. so this was a chance, as i saw it, of mary principal and politics and insuring that we used our political power responsibly to advance the agenda. because of that feeling, i decided to run for chairmanship of the energy and commerce committee. i had been chairman of the subcommittee on health and environment, which is a subcommittee of the energy and commerce committee. after being chairman of that subcommittee for 16 years, the republicans took power in the house, i became the ranking member, which is the top

minority member, on the government reform committee and became its chairman after the 2006 election, and changed its name to the oversight and government reform committee, because of the important oversight activities in that committee. and after two years, after the 2008 election, i ran for chairman against the person who had been chairman for a very long period of time, john dingell, lead and ranking member of that energy and commerce committee for 28 years. but i saw the opportunity that we head of moving important, progressive legislation in health care and energy and other areasç, especially in that firt year of the president's new term, and i presented myself to the members of the democratic caucus and prevailed, and i became chairman of that

committee. i knew and that committee we were going to be the key committee on two of the three highest priorities of the obama administration -- health care, energy, and the related issue of climate change, and his third was education, but in those first to grow, legislation had to be passed and had to come through committee. it also is very much part of my philosophy that government can, should and must be a force for good. if government were not involved, there is a real gap in the opportunities that would be provided to young people in up -- and our citizens to advance to the place where they can reach their highest and full as potential, that government needed to be there to accomplish a very important goals. i wrote a book about it.

and i wrote this book after i was approached by the publisher. the publisher sonny a picture -- the publisher saw me in a "time" magazine article when i first became chairman of the oversight committee. they said i was the scariest man in washington. that entry to the publisher. -- that in treat the publisher. he said there might be a book and this. -- that intrigued the publisher. a book that would illustrate that congress can work. if you look at the title of the book -- "the waxman report, how congress will works with what you would think it was a tell- all book. but it is a book that congress really does do important things.

goals too many obstacles -- and pushed back by a lot of the interest groups that did not want much insulation, but we were able to accomplish a great deal. we passed legislation revising the clean air act and dealing with toxic substances, toxic pollutants and acid rain legislation. we passed legislation dealing with the hiv aids epidemic, the ryan white act. we passed legislation providing competition for pharmaceuticalsç by getting generics approved. and we pass legislation to provide for orphan drugs for people who had rare diseases, to the drug companies were not paying a lot of attention to them, because by definition, where diseases meant relatively few people were affected and there was not a huge profit potential is there might be for a drug that could affect and

have sales for a much broader population. and after the oversight work that i hadç done, even as chairman ofok the health and environment subcommittee, particularly in the area of tobacco, and what the tobacco industry had been doing to put our kids, to smoke their brands -- to hook our kids in stay addicted to cigarettes, we wanted to patch -- to pass legislation to stop smoking on the airlines and get the fda to start regulating tobacco, the only product that when it is used as intended kills people and is completely unregulated by the government. so we have accomplished a lot legislatively and a lot through oversight. they mentioned the hearings we had with alan greenspan, part of

a series of how the economic collapse took place and what were the underpinnings of it. we heard from préval who were doing the bond ratings. -- from people doing the bond ratings, we heard from ahead of lehman brothers, which precipitated the decline in our stock market and our economy. we heard from the regulators, chris cox, alan greenspan and others. we looked into that issue, but we held oversight hearings about the waste, fraud and abuse of government, both in how we were doing in iraq in giving out contracts to companies like halliburton and blackwater and findingç that our money was beg wasted, andç even the abuse of government in handlingç their hurricane katrina aftermath, where people saw that the government that was made up of

cronies7s and people did not believe in government functioningçó would see their promises fulfilled when the government did not function after katrina. and the people who were displaced were put into trailers that were poisoning them from formaldehyde, and we even had people in washington, in the legal office saying, if there is for melo -- formaldehyde,xdç do not tell anybodyw3 about it because we might become liable. that was the response of government itself. ñrwe did get things accomplishe. to me, it has always been a fundamental review -- the government must be involved. government must be involved to make sure the marketplace works. government must be involved to provide an opportunity for people to fulfill themselves. government must be involved in a

regulatory ways to make sure that the consuming public is protected. but that has not been the view for a lot of people after a very serious and well-nurtured campaign of 40 years -- the government is wrong. when president reagan took the oath of office he said, government is not the solution. government is the problem. we know today that we have people like rush limbaugh and one back and the tea parties and sarah palin all espousing that same line -- do not look to government. the net -- government cannot help you. government can do no good. this anti-government campaign has had a real impact in the thinking of many people of this country. they do not realize what government has done and can do. they do not realize the

contributions to people in terms of social security and medicare. they do not realize the contributions that government has made in so many other areas. i felt that even some of the bills that we passed, once they becameç law, the public took tm for granted. of course we are not going to have cigarette smoking on the airlines. some of the people, as i look out in the audience, do remember those days, but a lot of younger people here would think it would be barbaric to go on an airplane flight for 5.5 hours and have to breathe in someone else's tobacco smoke people take for granted that they could go into a supermarket and look at the nutritional labels so that they can be empowered to regulate their diets, because diet is so important to help. people have taken it for granted that we are doing something about air pollution. so a lot of things that have been done did not come easy.

they were a result of fights that i go into in my book, and çñreventually successes that sometimes did not come right away but took years to achieve. but the bills and lost work. they worked better than any of us imagine. when we look at the record of those who oppose them, especially in the environmental area, where we were told the economy would be sacrificed, we had to make a choice do we what growth in our economy or a decline and job losses? if you look at the clean air act which is probably the strongest environmental law that we have seen in the federal government, it worked to reduce pollution in an economy that has grown enormously, and the cost to reduce the pollution was a fraction of what was predicted at our hearings. you have to keep these things in mind when we hear the claims being made about legislation today.

while i wanted this experience of passing legislation to be put to good use, with the new president and a chance to get things done. the first thing we took on was the energy-climate change bill. we moved on that bill first. president obama said, should we moveç on the bill first? and i love both bills equally, but i do favor the health bill even more. it is the mainstay of my presidency. i told him, that bill is coming, but we are not ready for it right now. but we are ready to move forward on the energy bill, and i think we can achieve success on that bill in our committee and in the house, and after a success -- success breeds success. we will be ready to move on to health care. so we went forward with the energy bill. people did not think we could

get a bill out of committee. and to set a deadline. we pushed everything towards that deadline to get that bill of committee. we had three goals in mind. to we in this country of our dependence on foreign oil. -- to wean this country off our dependence on foreign oil. the second goal, reduce carbon emissions that are doing so much harm. we needed to do this on the basis of what the scientists were telling us so that we did not reach the point where we could not make a difference with what ever we did, that there would be a point where we would be beyond being able to remedy the situation,ç the global warming problem would take on a life of its own. and we did it for a third reason, the economy was suffering. as we moved to the new

technologies in the area of energy, it could revitalize our economy and produce millions of jobs. we were able to do something that we were not able to do at other times on environmental legislation. we were able to work of a blueprint, established by a coalition of business ceos and environmental ceo's. by business ceos, i am talking about the people heading up the utility's, the coal industry, the gas, oil industries, general electric, some of the major industries in this country, who wanted legislation because they wanted to know what the rules are going to be so they could make their investments for the future. there is money to be made by market -- establishing market forces to accomplish our environmental objectives. we were able to put the coalition together. -- by establishing a transition

that would be mindful of the impact on the economy, produce the market forces to engender more research, and development of these new technologies, and try to ameliorate the impact in any particular region of the country. that was our goal. we were able to get a bill out of committee. we needed to work on a bipartisan basis, the way i view it. all the bills i have passed had hit republican support. they may not and then -- have republican support. when we talked about the issues, we tried to enlist them in facing the problem and looking at the different solutions. the area of orphan drugs, some people said we needed a government takeover of the research and development of drugs for rare diseases. i said we have a vibrant drop --

private drug company in this country. let's give them the right incentives. republicans liked that idea. the drug companies like it, as well. we were able to get legislation through. çcompromise is notç a bad wor. compromise is essential to recognize the various competing interests and try to reconcile them as best we could. so i went to the republicans in our committee. first of all, i went to the rank republican. i said, let's work together. he said, i do not believe and the sides. why do i want to work on legislation? are referred him to tom friedman articles. w3even as of today, tom friedman wrote another article. even if you do not believe it is fully in the science, is an insurance policy, let's do some of the things that would reduce

our car and hamas -- carbon emissions. as a security policy, let's reduce our dependence on foreign oil. he was not moved. i met with republican members of the committee. some of them said they accepted the science that they were afraid of our solution. and i found them saying things are remembered hearing when we were dealing with the aids epidemic. the ranking republican member of the subcommitteeñr, he was from california. bill was a mean-spirited man. i do not to speak poorly of my colleagues, but i must be very open about it. she wanted to criminalize gay people and those who had the disease he viewed as prime candidates to be shipped off to some island someplace, isolated. at a time when the epidemic was taking place, primarily among gay men who had no protections

for their privacy or confidentiality of their medical records and who faced, before the americans of disability act, discrimination that was not illegal. they could lose their jobs, their health insurance, xdeverything. they were afraid. reasons to fear. there were republicans who said it, we do not agree with bill, but we are afraid to go all around him. and there were republicans who said, i do not want to take on joe barton. we ended up with one republican voting for the bill, mary bono from palm springs area. we moved the bill for it to the house. with the extraordinary effort of speaker pelosi and her leadership team, and the hard work of the obama administration, we were able to get the bill passed. then we moved on to health care. healthcare, under president

obama, he was a very modest proposal. he did not want to do anything radical. he said, let's leave people who have health insurance and are happy with it, leave them alone. let's work on thoseç people who do notok have health insurance, because they cannot get it due to discrimination on pre- existing medical conditions and the insurance companies will not sell them insurance for any price, or they are working people, for the most part, that could not buy health insurance. their employers would not give them insurance as an option. or they could not afford it. let's deal with those people by pulling them together and bring them to an exchange that would give them choices for health insurance. one of the choices we hoped would have been a public option. but choices that would bring some transparency and some competition in the insurance markets.

it was modest compared toç thoe who wanted a single payer system. was modest compared to those who wanted what was being called the wide-better proposal, which was a radical proposal. both of those would have gotten us out to date -- to universal coverage. they would have been disrupted and politically impossible. if you think we're having a difficult time with the bill to the house and senate passed, i can assure you we would have had an impossible job with anything more far reaching. but this was a good approach. that was approached we were working on it, with differences in the house and senate. in the senate, because of the filibuster, which they needed 60 votes. we had 60 democratic votes. but we could not get the republicans in the house or the senate to work with us. now, that was not the first issue that would not work with

us on. the first thing that president obama wanted to do to deal with the economy was a stimulus bill. and economists on the right and on the left were telling us, we need legislation, because there was no lending going on from the banks. and since that was being dried up, business was being dried up as well. we were losing jobs, and we needed government spending, through tax breaks and direct spending, to move the economy and stimulate it, while we are waiting to get past the difficulties we were facing. despite conservative, republican economists who were urging is upon us, no republican in the house would vote for the stimulus bill. in the senate, three republicans voted for the stimulus bill. the two gentlelady is from maine, senator snowe and senator collins, and republican senator

from pennsylvania, who decided he would support it as well. and when the senator from pennsylvania supported the legislation as a republican, he was told by the republican leadership, forget about your reelection. we are going to support a republican against you in the primary. and should you win, you will not be the chairman of the committee or a ranking member of the committee. you are taking yourself outside the family of the republicans. so, this kind of hardball has been played by the republicans stand with enormous success and discipline. why would the republicans want to do this? president obama campaigned on the idea of reaching out and purging these partisan digs -- differences. i do not remember a president going to as great lengths as

president obama has done to accomplish that goal. he spoke to the republican members of the congress, the house and the senate. he brought people to the white house. some of you here today were brought to the white house on health care because the president said, i want to engage this stakeholders. i want this to be an effort, not a democratic effort, but a bipartisan effort to deal with an extraordinary shame in our country, where we have a 40 million plus people who cannot get health insurance. and, if we do nothing, the system that we have is going to be unsustainable. health care costs are going up too rapidly. we cannot sustain a program like medicare and medicaid for government spending. to me, it is amazing what people have come up to me and said, i do not want government-run health care. i am on medicare. leave it alone. not knowing that medicare is a

government program. and it is not going to be left alone. because we cannot sustain those costs. so, the president has reached out to get republicans and democrats together, but the republicans made a political decision -- play on the fears of government, distrust of government, and we are the party in the house, we are the minority, let the democrats pass it and let them have full responsibility. if we can ship them up, so much the better. senator demand from south carolina public the stated this -- senator demint publicly stated this, this will be obama's waterloo. it used to be, once the election is over, we have to govern. then we go back to the elections and make our case. but the campaigns never end.

it is forever campaigning. everything that is being done with the eye to the next election. discredit the abundant -- income and so we can become the incumbents. that has become -- discredit the incumbents so we can become the incumbents. i think the country deserves better. i'm sorry we are at this place. but i do not think it should defeat us. we have to do what we have to do, play the hand that has dealt us. in the house, we have struggled with our majority to get the majority of democrats to produce a majority in the house. a lot of democrats have walked away from us. some of the democrats have gone to the white house and said, by an attempt -- i am in a tough district. i am better off if i vote and go on your legislation. i can get reelected. -- if i vote no.

the president said, if you defeat the legislation, the democratic party will be out of the power. the ones who will be the first ago are those in the marginal districts. they will be the first ones to lose their reelection campaigns. then the president said something even more significant. why are you in public office? you can vote and no, you can vote and no, and then what you have to show for it? nothing. we have done our best to finally get our votes in line. in the senate, after an extraordinary, messy effort, we got 60 votes on christmas eve for their version of health care reform. then with the election to fill, ironically enough, ted kennedy's senate seat, republicans have now taken a seat which will keep us from getting the 60 votes

necessary to pass legislation, notwithstanding the filibuster. but when we adopted the budget in 2008, we adopted about it -- a budget reconciliation provision. it should be a reconciliation in a grander way. but it allows a majority to pass legislation consistent with a budget that was passed. and we made sure that health care could come under budget reconciliation. and they are very -- there are very arcane rules and limits of what can be done, but there are some things what can be done. and some things that can correct the senate bill that is sitting in the house. so if we pass the senate bill, and reconciliation by a majority vote, the legislation will be completed. and the president will get the health care that he has wanted. now, people are saying, this is

terrible what those democrats are trying to do. they are trying to pass legislation with a majority instead of 60 votes. i do want to tell you, not only is a legitimate under the rules. it is the way the republicans passed the big budget cuts for the president. the big tax cuts for the president. -- bush. it is the way they passed welfare reform, that was signed by president clinton. there is a long history of reconciliation being used to get major bills adopted. and it is going to have to be the vehicle for us, if we are going to get legislation adopted this year to complete the achievements we expected to have done in the president's first year. well, i want to share these views with you, because i must

say, i have never seen anybody like president obama. i got the opportunity to meet with him a number of times, to sit at the table with him, as we negotiated what we thought was going to be a way to bridge the differences between house and the senate bill. and i pushed things as far as i could. and achieved a lot of what we wanted in the legislation. in fact, it got to be of little amusing to me, because we would go in in a number of sessions -- the president of the united states sat down with house and senate members to work out the specifics. he understood the specifics of the legislation. when they looked at how much money we could spend, the president would say, it would not like to hear this, henry, but we cannot afford this. i would say, mr. president, i understand we have to get 60 votes. i understand we have restrictions on us. but i am not giving up that

easily. i think we can do it. we finally came this close to working out the agreements. and then the next tuesday was the election in massachusetts. we have got to go back and get the job done. we have got to get the job done in health care, and we have to get the job done in half -- in energy. in energy, people are already saying it is impossible. if we cannot get 60 votes for health care, how will we get 60 votes for an energy bill? there you need 60 votes. ironically enough, in my view, which may have an easier time getting the 60 votes for the energy bill, because with the republicans being so partisan, senator lindsey graham said to me, who is a republican, a lot of republicans want to do something important. they know we have got to do something in this area. if for no other reason, he underscores this over and over

again, for our national security to be protected from being dependent on foreign oil. lindsey graham, republican. joe lieberman, independent. john kerry, democrat. are working together to get a bill and the senate. i do not want to be a pollyanna about it. it will not be easy. i think we will have a chance to get a bill through in the senate as well. s a lot we have to do, but i hope that it -- as we move theseç things forward, especiay if we get bipartisan support in the senate and especially if the american people see that the republicans are being hypocritical about standing back and not participating and are playing to the fierce, people's fears, as they talk about things that are clearly untrue like death panels and the fears of government involvement, which i çthink people should recognizes

absolutely necessary if we are going to cover 36 million people, as our bill envisions doing. w3and holding down health care costs for the future. even getting a reduction in the deficit because of the efforts to hold down health care costs that is not just good for the health care area and the people involved, but it would be a way to get our deficit under control as well. but we have got to get back to being able to be civil, to talk with eachç other, to not approh issues as democrats versus republicans, and to start recognizing that we have got to work together. that is my hope. it is the goal the president has set out. it is a goal i think he has so well articulated. it is a goal we are going to test next week, because he has invited the democratic and republican leaders and the leadership of the senate and house and the health care

irritate in the health care area to meet together to talk about health care -- in the health care area to talk about health care. nevertheless, he will put out what he thinks ought to be the bill. he will call on the republicans to say, what do you have to say? what can you do to provide coverage? what can you do to provide cost control? what can you do to make the system better? and do not just tell us start from scratch, because it is not just the work of this last year, but it has been the work of many people over decades to get us to the point where we can finally achieved the goal that was set out by it. truman and even before -- by harry truman and even before that we have an obligation as a society that cares about our economic well-being to reform health care and reform energy and to provide the jobs that our people need to get us out of the

great recession and back on track. thank you very much for this chance to speak. i know there are going to the questions. [applause] w3>> henry, let me ask the first question. >> did you write it down on a car? >> no. i cannot write. anyway, tell us what you see happening in the senate to get both the energy bill and the health care bill going? the energy bill has not even been taken up in the senate. so how do you see him making that possible? >> the energy bill has a lot of people who are supporting it. not just those who care about the in our mad. a lot of industry people, as i mentioned, -- not just those who

care about ourç environment. the president has set out what he hopes to achieve in copenhagen. it tried to enlist other countries in trying to achieve those goals as well. if we are going to have an international effort to be successful, the u.s. has got to do more. we have got to show we are willing to meet those goals. and i think that we have the basis for bipartisan efforts in the senate on health care, as i mentioned -- on health care, we will have to use the parliamentary procedure of reconciliation. and let the majority work its will and not be stymied by it one more senator elected to the senate of united states having a 49 senator -- having the 49th senator does not provide a majority. it provides and the chance to

veto, but now they have a responsibility as well to work with us on this legislation. >> congressman, i am from the school of public affairs, the graduate school for urban planning and social were for and public policy at the school. dr. keller give the polite introduction from political science. i have to ask the tough questions from public affairs. one of the first questions we have as a tough one. you have seen a lot of presidential administrations now. after one year, what grade would you give the obama administration? this is an academic institution. >> i see. i refuse to recognize the period of time and which i have to give him a grade. we are not any quarter basis, a semester basis. [laughter] you might say, we decided early on we will not do the first 100

days. we thought we would measured after the first year. i think the first year of the obama administration is now still taking place in 2010. so give us a little bit more time. i think he will get a very high score. i hope he will get an "a" on domestic policy. and of foreign policy, i think he has done very well in reestablishing a reputation of the united states, which had sunk so badly under president george w. bush. >> i gave grades here at ucla. i was a reader. >> what grade would you have given that answer? >> an "a." there was a very young professor of political science. he started off teaching at ucla. he later went on to be, the

dean -- president of brown university. he thought it was a good student. he asked me if i would read the blue books and give the greats. and i remember -- and give them grades. i remembered being so amazed at how many students could not articulate their thoughts. so, if they did complete sentences, they at least got a "c." i thought i was coherent and my answer. >> what are the prospects for financial regulation bill passage? >> i think this is something that we have got to do. the house passed a very strong bill. the american public is quite angry about the abuse by our lending institutions and the banks. in fact, one of the ironies is republicans talk about the bailout is if they -- as if they had nothing to do with it. but the tarp program was

proposed by president bush and supported by democrats as well as republicans, because we were being told by the secretary, the republican-appointed secretary of the treasury and the republican-appointed head of the fed that we were going to go over a cliff. we were convinced their right and voted for that legislation. but we cannot disallowed -- just allowed to go back to business he as usual in the financial area. i think it is essential we accomplish this now. now that chairman dodd has said he is not running for reelection. he has a chance to get that legislation through and the senate. he could not get richard shelby, the ranking republican, to work with him. but he is getting receptivity from this senator from texas -- corker from tennessee. who has indicated a willingness to work on a bipartisan basis on this legislation. the house has passed the bill.

if the republicans want to filibuster a bill on trying to regulate financial institutions after what we have gone through, if i were being called in to advise them, i would think that is not a good idea. they have not asked for my advice, but i give it to them anyway. >> there are a number of cards and questions that came in about the attitude of the democrats. and they had words in them like -- week, why not stronger? i think this is addressed to both the congress and the senate and be administration. >> i have heard people say, president obama was wrong in his approach. he should have said, this is what i want. he should not have waited for the senate to negotiate its proposal. he should have said, we have got to have the public option. we have got to have it this way. this is my proposal. vote on it. well, he could have done that.

he would have been strong, but he would have lost. you cannot get 60 votes in the senate in that way. çthe clintons came out with a complete, a complicated proposal that, as you looked at it, in an academic sense, you could see how we could make a difference. but it was a proposal that was given to the congress that was a mistake, because congress needed to be involved. and we were involved in the house, starting with the obama proposal and came out with different results in the senate in a number of areas. but the senate had to work its will. and it was not privy to see senator nelson -- not pretty to see senator nelson get a special treatment for nebraska. i thought he did himself a disservice back home. i think they thought that was game playing back home. if you really believe in it, if

you thought reform is good, he should have been for. if he thought it was bad, he should have voted against it. what is this story? we now have established what eì+ are. we are now negotiating over the price. çi do not think that fully applies here, but it does give that appearance to people. i thought it became offensive. evenç senator nelson is saying, change the provision that i got through for nebraska, because i want all states to get one of% that i was given to nebraska. that is what we are going to have to do. -- to get 100% that i was given to nebraska. president obama. he has been strong and pushing us. she has gone to a joint session of congress. he has used the bully pulpit. he has prodded and pushed us. that is what the president can do. has the congress and week?

-- been weak? even with maturities, it has been difficult. in my committee, for example, there are -- even with majorities in his been difficult. even in my committee, there have been blue dogs, democrats, who have stopped the bill from getting out of my committee. we sat down. we had meeting after meeting. it was clear that every time they raised a problem, i said, there is a way to solve it. çbut they were not really tryig to solve the problem per se, they were afraid of the legislation. it was ironic they kept on saying, just let the senate passed a bill. whatever the senate passes, we will vote for, because they expected the senate to have a weaker bill and they could be for the weaker bill. i understood what it was a politically, but they realized we had to get a bill passed out of the house and out of our committee.

differences, which became the basis for the house-passed bill. >> a number of questions are about gridlock and the lack of confidence in government in general, but in the legislature, in the senate and congress in particular. that does not even bring up your old job at the california legislature. is this something we have to live with? are there reforms that can somehow break this gridlock in united states congress? and how serious is this crisis of confidence in the public's lack of faith in the government and the congress now? >> i think a very serious. people are quite hostile to the ability of government to function, congress to accomplish the goals. even the president, as a leader of the party that is in power,

cannot get his legislation passed into law. people are frustrated. they are also being fed a lot of reasons to be fearful. how can you trust the government? whatever government does and health care, it will cost you more money. and seniors are frightened about medicare. and people get frightened about taxes. they get frightened about -- when they hear these stories. for the longest time, we did not have a specific bill. it was a work inç progress as e decided with the final bill would be, in the house and the senate, and the final bill between the house and senate. so, there are a lot of reasons for the problems in washington. the biggest reason, not just in health care, is the republican he political positioning against government, against the obama administration, against the democrats in congress, and they

are getting away with it. but i do not think it is going to be as successful strategy all the way through, because at some point, people will say, wait a second. why didn't we get anything done? was it just the democrats? where were the republicans? what did they have to offer? what do they propose to do, and why should we turn to them? i think the party and no can get a very negative reaction, especially if the economy starts improving. the real, i believe, reason for so much of the hurt and anger in this nation it is that the economy is doing so badly. there is so much unemployment and so much pain. if the economy starts picking up and people start remembering that this was not something that started when obama became president. it wasç already in full scale f economic recession by the time he took power.

i think theç public will start realizing that they are being sold a bill of goods. >> very specific follow-up to that. if you were senator harry reid, would you let theç republicans filibuster the health bill? >> if i were senator reed, and i was being told there was going to be a filibuster on every bill, i would take some bills and say, let's have a book -- a filibuster. let the republicans go out there on and on on how they do not want the legislation. i think the best target for that would be the financial reform bill. let them filibuster it. the health bill, we didç not wt to filibuster because wet( wantd to break the filibuster and get the legislation passed. çand that is why senator harry reid had to deal with a lot of difficult senate democrats. there were difficult.

if you are a single senator, you can put at( hold on bills in denominations that are quite powerful. if you are a single senator who happens to be a democrat and theyç needed every single çdemocratic senator's votes,çu were in a position to ask for a lot. áuáhpjçñç possible. çin some of them work. a&h-r:lcdq+ çpossible. a&h-r:lcdq+ i thought heçç did a masterfub 2ao pass the bill on christmassy. -- onç christmas eve. >> i have a dozen of these questions. these are students who have been working very hard on global warming issues, making telephone

calls, whereas in your office and others. but if you were -- harrassing your office andç others, but if you were to give them advice in of fighting global warming and were those issues might be, what with that advice be? çmy ad"e to you is the same idvysed%çç give to a lot of outside groups. you have got*q forceful. çmççççhe's you have got tog the debateç in the right direction. (!ñ you may not get everythingç you want. if you get everything you want, you may -- keep pushing for the right policies. that does not mean that if we do

get a chance to get a bill through, you do not want people to vote against it. çyou should say vote forç this çbill and strengthen it. try to make it stronger than it is. you have got to play a very critical and important role of legislative process. i think the public interest, lobbying -- public-interest lobbying is often dismissed because theç real lobbyists hae so much money to spend. they seem, by"ttu of everybody else, to be so much more formidable. do not underestimate yourself. you represent public opinion. we've seen ballot proposals in california where the tobacco industry and others will sponsor the proposal and all the anti tobacco groups have to say, is this has to -- this is paid for by the tobacco industry. and it goes down. let people know what is going on and why we need to get these provisions adopted into law. i too was so much for the work you are doing.

just not attack me when i have to make a compromise. >> i have a couple questions about current health care costs, and in particular, the and the rate hikes. -- the anthem rate hikes. how can those be addressed? >> we will have a hearing next tuesday on toyota. and wednesday arnie -- on the anthem health care increases. wednesday, we go into the summit. we wanted to illustrate this anthem situation is a clear reason we need health reformn because the insurance companies, especially in the individual insurance market, are looking to avoid covering people. they do not want to spread the risk. they want to reduce their risk. so they cherry pick the people they will get insurance to.

i want to question them about who faces these increases in costs saw. . some people have suggested that the ones to are being asked to pay the largest increase in their insurance costs are people that the insurance companies, and them and others, feel have too good a policy -- anthem an others. d others. they want to minimize what the insurance companies have to pay. some of the people that would lose their insurance because they cannot afford it, are going to be the healthier people, because healthier people will say, i cannot afford it and i will take a chance. people who are sick are. to say, i cannot afford it, but i cannot -- people who are sick will say,mçw3 i cannot afford, but i cannot take that chance.

i need it desperately. it underscores the reality. in the individual insurance market, the insurance companies are tryingç to cherry pick to avoid people who are most likely to get sick and cost them money. if that is antithetical toçç t insurance ought to be. and that isç what we need to point out with anthem,ç and how they are not unique. other insurance companies are doing the same thing, unless we reform the system. >> i have a number of questions, congressman, on the issue of transportation. we have an urban planning department. they range from what can congress do to get more people walking into using bicycles and public transportation to scientists here at ucla and have

it documented alter fine particle pollution at santa monica airport. why is not congress be more helpful on that? >> transportation is an essential part of our efforts for a lot of different things. but to reduce the carbon emissions, we have to reform the transportation sector. in the energy bill we adopted, there is a huge expenditure of money in developing cars that will be operated by a battery or hybrid cars that will not be run at strictly on gasoline -- which is the primary basis for the oil that we have to bring in from other countries. we need, however, to spend more money in the areas of mass transit. we have done a lot more in that area up by virtue of the stimulus bill that was adopted at the beginning of last year -- 2009. . .

it is a problem for the people who live near the airport. it is a safety concern. there is a pollution concern as well. we have been trying to deal with it. santa monica has been trying to do something, but it is a

federally-run airport. we are trying to provide changes by telling the people at the federal aviation commission they have got to be more mindful of the concerns of the santa monica airport, but that has been a tough issue, and we're still struggling. >> two more issues. one is a speculative question. that is if you had the democratic majority now that came in 1964 and health care legislation were peeinbeing put together, what would that be? >> there was that window. there was the tragedy of

president kennedy. we could not kid medicare through. we were reading end popular publications about congress -- we were reading in popular publications about how congress could not do anything. then in 1964, with the enormous majority elected in the lyndon johnson landslide, we had the opportunity to pass an enormous amount of legislation. he was a skillful negotiator, but the public support was there as well. that predated the propaganda that became so popular in the election. the government could not be trusted. people had their concerns about

government, but they knew things would not happen unless the government were able to accomplish it. at that moment, could we have had a national health insurance adopted? probably not. the american medical association was strongly against this bill. the republicans were strongly against it, although we have a liberal and progressive republicans in those days. we have a very few now, so we had some bipartisan support for medicare legislation. it is not just the numbers of one party or the other in our -- in power. if we had fewer conservative democrats and more liberal republicans, we would probably have an easier time to get progress of legislation through.

it would isolate those in the republican party who are just no. they would be an aberration of republicans who could validate some of the ideas of medicare and other issues on the agenda, but i think we are not going to pass a national health insurance bill, a single payer bill in one fell swoop. we need to put things in place just as security is put in place. then it became the basis for changes over the years that made social security better. the same is true for medicare. it has become a better system once it was put in place. i think something like what was proposed would be a better accomplishment and one we would hope to see, even if we had the

kind of democratic majority we had in 1964, and the result in 1966 was the other way, and republicans came back, winning an enormous amount of seats. republicans are going to pick up more this november if no other reason than that it is a non- presidential election year. some of those inspired by obama the candidates are not going to come out and vote. now they are not going to be out there in the same numbers in the next one, so that as part of the nature of things. what we need to do is break down the partisan barrier, where the republicans have to recognize their long-term interest is not to be the party of the south, a party of 30 batters -- of

teabaggers, of people who say no and to isolate themselves from the independencnts. they have not offered a positive appeal. they have offered a - 1. it will be interesting to watch whether we can give the kind of majority we need and the support to get things through. once we get health care passed and the president starts talking about what is in that film, i think it will be enormously popular. people have not heard the good things about the bill. they have heard the negative things, a lot of them not true regan we're hearing about transparency in the marketplace and competition in these

exchanges. new ways we're trying to hold down health-care costs are redirecting the way it is processed, by trying to make changes for everybody. i think it is going to be a popular bill, and even though it is now being accused as socialism as well as medicare, i think it will be very popular. >> one more question. i have four cards in my head. three of them just say afghanistan with a question mark. >> that is a good question. the president went through the process of trying to figure out, among a lot of fun and not very

good alternatives, what to do -- a lot of not very good alternative, what to do, and he has decided to make a commitment for a limited time to see if we can turn things around. i hope he is right, but they fear he may be wrong. we have seen this too many times. i am skeptical. i have not made up my mind, but it seems to me we are again putting our hopes in the hands of corrupt leaders who do not have the support of their own people president karzai after we win these military victims once the afghans to run their own affairs, and i am skeptical. we will see what develops, and this is a harder question then all the others.

-- then all the others. we have a military that is over extended, and we have to decide what our priorities are in this area, and i think afghanistan does not harbor al qaeda as much as pakistan, and it is a broader problem. with our own military, it strikes me ask throwing good lives after the losses we have already occurred. that is my answer, and i am sticking to it until i get more arguments. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> this weekend, michelle obama on preventing childhood obesity and arne duncan on education

policy, part of our coverage of the national governors' association. live, throughout the weekend, on c-span. >> now president of, starts an executive order starting a commission on fiscal responsibility and reform. alan simpson dan region -- simpson and bowles will serve as cochairs. >> one problem helped spark the deepest recession of the great recession, which we're still recovering from. that helped aggravate an already severe fiscal crisis brought on by years of bad habits in washington.

that required emergency action, but now, with so many americans out of work, the task of recovery is far from complete, so in the short term, we are going to take steps to encourage business to create jobs. that will continue to be my top priority. there is no doubt we're also going to have to address the long-term quandary of a government that spends more than it takes in. now when i walk in the door of the white house, our government was spending 25% of gdp but taking in 15% of gdp. without action, the accumulated waste of the deficit would ever increasing debt will hobble our economy, cloud our future, and will set on america of burden.

federal debt has exploded. the trajectory is clear, and it is concerted, but the politics of dealing with deficit is fraught with choices, and it is treacherous for washington. no one has been too eager to deal with it. that is where these gentlemen come in. they are taking on the impossible. they are going to try to restore reason and, with answers -- come up with answers. i am asking them to produce clear recommendations on how to cover the cost of all federal programs by 2015 and to improve our long term fiscal picture kerrigan -- picture.

i have every confidence they will do it because no one is better qualified. alan simpson is from wyoming. if you look up in the dictionary, it says flinty, and it has since inspector. for nearly two decades, he earned a reputation for putting common sense before politics. as the number two republican, he made the choices necessary and played an important role in a bipartisan agreements. bowles understands managing money responsibly in the public sector where he served as president clinton's chief of staff. he brokered the 1997 budget agreement with republicans to help produce the first balanced budget and nearly 30 years 3 give one is a good republican.

the other is a good democrat of of of of all, they are answering their country's call to free our future from jet. the commission was structured in such away -- free our future from debt. the commission was structured in such a way that in addition to the cochairs, four others will be appointed by me. six will be appointed by republican leaders. six by democratic leaders. they will require the approval of 18 members, and that insurers any recommendation coming out of this effort and sent for to congress has to be bipartisan in nature. this is based on an initiative i started that was proposed -- i supported that was started by senator conrad. i hope congressional leaders in both parties join this effort to

serve the national interest. we cannot wait to act, and that is why last week i signed the pay go bill. that says we should pay as we go and live in our means again. this law keeps deficit under control and the 1990's and produces surplus. it was suspended in the last decade, and we saw deficit explode again. right be -- by reinstituting it, we are taking an important step in this decade and in decades to come. that is also why after taking steps to cut back increased access, i have called for a three-year freeze on discretionary spending starting

next year. this will not affect medicare, medicaid, or social security spending, and it will not affect national security spending, including veterans benefits, but all other spending will be susceptible to the freeze. these are tough times. that is why we are seeking to reform our health insurance system. if we do not, soaring health costs will be the largest driver of our deficit. reform legislation will bring down the deficit, and i am looking forward to bringing members of congress to get this done. that is why we are proposing a responsible budget to cut what we do not need to pay for what we do. we have proposed budget reductions that would yield $20 billion in savings. we are ending loopholes and tax

giveaways for oil companies and for the wealthiest americans. these steps will provide more than one trillion dollars in deficit reduction over coming decades. but as more savings than in the administration's budget in the past 10 years. i know the issue of deficit is up for debate. some believe this issue can be deferred. there're some on the right who will not is reaching not enter into discussions of deficit without preconditions -- there are some on the right who will not enter into discussion of deficit without preconditions. we have a great stake in bringing our deficit under control, because if we do not, we will not be able to meet our most basic obligations to each other. america's problems will not be solved overnight. they are going to take time to wind down, but with the commission, i believe we are

finally putting america on the path toward fiscal reform and fiscal responsibility. i want to go thank them for i know they are going to take up their work with a sense of integrity and commitment that the american people deserve it. part of the reason they are going to be affected is although one is a strong democrat and a strong republican, these are examples of people who put country further, and they know how to disagreexd, and there is the sense that there are moments when they decide what is right -- to do what is right. that is the type of spirit they

need. i am confident they are going to give via pa viagive a -- give a path to both parties in terms of how to address this. thank you very much. there you go. everything is on the table. that is how this thing is going

to work. >> for more information on the white house ponce federal budget commission, a visit our web page, c-span.org. now health and human services secretary kathleen civilians unveils a new report on -- kathleen sebelius unveils a new report. this is about 20 minutes. >> you do? ok. good morning, everyone. i am the secretary of health and human services, and i wanted to talk to you for a few minutes today about a new report we are releasing. you can get hard copies here or

visit our web site, and the report is untitled "insurance companies prosper: families suffer." the report documents extreme premium increases some of america's largest insurance companies have requested over the last year. to shine a spotlight on what is happening to families and small business owners across the country, in this last year alone, michigan required a 56% rate hike. in connecticut it was 24%. in connecticut -- main it was 18.5% last year -- in maine, it was 18.5% last year, and this year they have asked for a 23% last -- rate hike, and most recently what has gotten a lot

of attention is the request for a 39% rate hike, which will affect 800,000 individual market customers. to give people an example of what that means if you're dealing with this as an insurance customer, we have a letter from a mother whose premium has been raised 38% recently, and that translates to her family $7,000 more a year for the same benefits package she had last year, and one of her sons has type 1 diabetes, so she really has almost no choices in the marketplace with a child with pre-existing conditions. it is impossible for her to find other coverage, so she can either pay the $7,000 extra or drop coverage altogether.

we are seeing not only is there an economic downturn, but the insurance companies are not feeling it. welfare and posted a $2.7 billion profit in the third quarter of4jbñ week before they filed for a 39% rate increase. last week i sent a letter to the ceo of end of, -- of anthom, ñia blue cross co., and asked for an explanation of the rate increases, and in part in response, the company has now suggested they will delay the increases for two months, responding to the california commissioner, to our request to come and discuss the situation with members of congress, but i think these rate increases give i highlights to why the president said a year ago we

need to address comprehensive health reform as part of addressing the economy. we will not fix the economy without fixing our health-care system. it is why he is provided -- why he is covering a week from today to sit down and talk about a comprehensive health reform plan moving forward and why he is urging congress to continue on the job they started until they finish this project for the american people. the plan is pending in congress would give additional authority to this agency, providing oversight on insurance companies across the country, making transparent the kind of rate increases filed on a routine basis but often hard to determine and hard to highlight. they would have to be available

to americans fearing it they would have to be able to see not only the rate increases but the justification for those rate increases. both the house and senate bills, then they'd medical lost, so companies would have to spend the vast majority of money coming in the store on palin medical benefits, not on advertising or see a -- money coming into dhahran medical benefits, not on average -- coming in the door on medical benefits, not on advertising. there continue to be advantages in california. for the woman who sought anthem -- saw anthem raise its rates 30%, and said she has no other option for coverage. she is typical of the 800,000

customers caught in that plan, but also consumers across the country who have no affordable option and no way to avoid the rate increases they are seeing, so we think it shines a light on the urgency for health reform, and the report is available on health reform.org or year in hard copy, and with that, i would be pleased -- here in hard copy, and there would be pleased to answer questions. >> there are other names that have come out. is this personal? are you going after a specific target? >> i think there is not an intent to select certain companies. this is pretty widespread. we are talking about the data that is available and accessible and the company's we now have

filed these rate increases, but unfortunately, they are not isolated cases. what we would like is transparency for every company and every state in the country, cities would not be picking and choosing, -- so this would not be picking and choosing, and in most places, these are very concentrated. the largest companies in every state but one are the companies we picked for their rating increases, and they dominate the market. >> this is a problem the president was talking about. can you walk us through what the democrats in the head ministration and congress are going to present as their solution to getting reform finished in the summit next week? >> i think the democrats have actually been engaged in working on solutions for over a year,

and comprehensive legislation has passed both the house and the senate. ñra lot of it has been very similar. as the president has said, he wants to hear some solutions from the republicans, who suggest they are also interested in health reform, but so far have not come to the table with any comprehensive proposal, so the opportunity is there next week to talk about the principles the president feels are very important. lowering costs for families and businesses, and again, the congressional budget office has suggested if you look at just the individual market, which our report focuses on, and look at the health and senate bill on the individual market, comparing similar benefits and what will happen with health reform, premiums will go between 14% end 20%, so addressing the costs does not lower the trajectory in

the long term to cover more folks, and it does not get away -- get rid of the current traction which locks people out of the marketplace. >> you were accused -- were an insurance commissioner yourself. don't states have the ability to take a hard-line and get these kinds of rate increases? if so, why are we not seeing more activity from the states to manage this? >> some states do, and some states do not. in california, where the rate increase was filed, thfi had te us, so companies basically put the rate increase in place, filed it with the insurance commissioner's office, and after the fact, the insurance commissioner can go back enand

deny it if it does not meet a ratio of 7%. the laws vary around the country. some do have prior approval, so in a couple of the examples, the raid had to be filed in advance, and the insurance commissioner did take action. what we would anticipate is that the first line of defense would be the state insurance commissioner. they are on the ground, but we would have a transparent process nationally with not only rates being filed in advance, with transparency, but also a national medical loss ratio, which would be covered in california, and companies would be expected to live of to that. finally, a specification that if a company wanted to participate

in the new marketplaces once they were set up in 2014, one of the criteria would be to examine their practice between the time the legislation was signed to see what they have done with their customers, so i huge profit margin and huge rate increases would make a company and the unlikely participant in the marketplace. -- make the company an unlikely participant in the marketplace her ragged >> you said this is profit-motivated. -- in the marketplace. >> you said this is profit- motivated. they are messing with people who are sicker, and it is pure economics. what is your response to the argument that is pure economics? >> i think while we do not want companies to be insolvent because no claims get paid, and there's always a balance between

making sure there's enough money to pay claims, and there is the ability in the future to pay claims -- insurance companies have made 250% profits over the last eight or nine years choregus the five biggest companies in 2009 alone, at a time when we saw a huge economic downturn, when they posted a- increase, we had insurers who had -- a-increase, we had insurers who had $12 billion in profits, so to see dust -- to suggest this is in line with health-care costs, which are exceeding typical inflation costs, these profits are wildly excessive there are also companies -- wildly excessive. there are also companies were

the top executives are paid $24 million each. huge overhead costs, so i think the ability to say what percentage of what you are collecting is spent on health payment, providers, hospitals, medicine, and what percentage is either profit or administrative overhead is something of light should be shined on, and that as part of what this transparency would be about. i know we have some callers. >> the health care summit next week -- up until now we had two democratic bills. the house and senate with no significant differences between them. is it your belief there will be one next week or are we going to get two? >> i think the president is going to say that he intends to

have a proposal he will put on the web site and make available for public consumption before the summer, said there will be one proposal. >> that one proposal would be coming from the president, and would it represent the best of the bills? >> i certainly hope so. the idea is that it will take some of the best ideas and put them into a framework on moving forward. yes? >> two questions. the spring increases of primarily affecting the older market. -- these increases primarily affect older market. are they the individual market? approximately which percentage of americans with health insurance? give me a sense of how many

americans are being affected, and the second question is, why you think health insurance companies are doing this? >> i do not want to give you inaccurate numbers. millions of americans are affected by the market, and it is the least secure marketplace and the one in which people have virtually no options. they do not have an employer working towards discounts in providers and pharmaceuticals, and they do not have group protection. they do not have group grading laws, but i do know it affects millions more now, because a lot of companies have dropped their group coverage, and more people are in the individual marketplace. insurance companies are often responsible to shareholders as well as policyholders tubman so

there is a tool responsibility in terms of making money -- a dual responsibility in terms of making money, and frankly, when you're selling health insurer, you make more money by having people who do not get sick and people who do get sick by paying less in benefits, by having a market strategy that has a healthier market place instead of the thicker the marketplace, and these are strategies that are typically employed in the individual market where they are not necessarily rules of barone that govern it kerrigan -- rules of the road that govern it. people are often on their own, so your own personal health history is what may determine your costs, and clearly, there

is still a profitable marketplace to be had common and a lot of these customers have no choice. their only choice is to pay the rape or drop the coverage. they do notñi have a shopping place to visit. >> there is an attachment to it seems to be a synopsis of the plan, and repeatedly, use the singular. i am wondering if we can take that as a signal of that is what the president wants. >> i think the press releases indicating what are the common features of the bill. they are different version.

the house contemplates a national option with the state of the out. at the end of the day you have the potential is similar framework, depending on how many states would need a framework, but i do not think the final version has been specifically determined at this point, but it will be available for the -- before the 2015 the 25th, and it will be on the web site in the next couple days. -- before the 25th, and it will be on the website in the next couple days. i cannot tell you when it will be posted, but it will be posted before then. thank you all for coming.

>> tomorrow morning, mark schmidt will talk about president obama's first year in office. and then todd zinser discusses as the new report, and then lisa will talk about the trip to nevada and harry reid and his reelection campaign in nevada. this starts each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> sometimes i say is three is a series of accidents. it is like a pile of of cars in a snowstorm. >> how did the u.s. and up and vietnam's? ted morgan on the valley of death and the battle that ended french colonial rule in indochina. >> now from american

conservative union meeting, remarks from a syndicated columnist. he spoke for 20 minutes. on saturday, newt gingrich and glenn beck will address the group. [applause] mitchell to introduce a mere journalist is equivalent to having [unintelligible] will come to its senses and have me introduce the most conservative journalist in washington. for 30 years, a political and symbol -- ensemble have been performing.

[unintelligible] please be seated and take note of the nearest exit. in case of an emergency, please remain seated and away your federal bailout. when public policy has become a punch line, nation has a problem. this is going to be a very good year and what a difference a year does make. you saw just yesterday the issuing of the mount vernon statement, part of the ferment of conservative ideas that is under way. a great conservative once said people more often need to be reminded then instructed. the american people need to be reminded of what we are conservatives and why we are getting an enormous assist from the obama administration. how to think about the

challenges ahead of us. i am trying to tell a group as opinionated as this how to think about and present the real problems that we're facing now. i propose to be old as the first grader named susie who was in a class when the teacher said i want all of you to draw a picture. the teacher walked around and came to susie and said, what are you trying a picture of? she said i am drawing a picture of god. the teacher said, no one knows what god looks like. susie said, they will in a few minutes. [laughter] in my few minutes i want to tell you how i think we can make your argument. the liberal conservative argument in our country is alive and well.

it turns on the polar values of western thought and equality. today, conservatives stress freedom. they're willing to accept greater disparities of social of come and they are regarding the multiplication of entitlement with an mentality that is with an mentality that is inimical to the liberals today tend to express the quality, not the quality of entertainment, -- opportunity but equality of outcome. they tend to regard this as enhancing the public did. therefore, they are for spreading dependency. dependency on government is not an unfortunate corollary of what they are advocating.

it is their agenda. [applause] the retreat of the state that began in may of 1979 with the election of margaret thatcher and accelerated with the inauguration of ronald reagan -- the retreat of the state has been abruptly reversed to the point of which we are blurring to the point of racial the distinction between the public and private sectors -- we are blurring the distinction between public and private sectors. no one doubts the new der -- new deal failed at the primary objective, which is to put america back at work. we are replicating its debt needs. in september 1993 with understocking the land and unemployment over 20%, the new

deal had a brainstorm, and that was to fiddle with demand and trigger a revival of the economy. they ordered the slaughter of 6 million today this -- 6 million eggs. we are smarter. we have cash for clunkers. mitch mcconnell [unintelligible] there is no education in the second kick of a meal. look how the world has changed. 16 months ago, new york city was the financial capital of the world. world. it is not the financial@@@@@@@@á @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inevitably, this makes capital a slush fund, and inevitably, it

funds crony capitalism. much of this we must face began under republican administration. for example, with detroit. it was a republican who began the socialism of subsidizing failure. i do not know why the bush administration felt so strongly about this. i think they were haunted by the searing memories of urban unrest and disorders that accompanied the bankruptcy of studebaker. y, we have an administration that can envision a world without the internal combustion engine but not a world without the chrysler corporation. what is wrong with this picture? ronald reagan said "the rule in washington is, if it moves

taxes,, regulated. subsidize it to get it moving again. that summarizes our policy. we have done with our passion to make more sectors of american society, more dependent on this town is too short circuit milton friedman's fundamental insight. we have a profit and loss system. the profit is to incentivize risk-taking. the loss side is to punish reckless risk. when you break that -- [applause] whedetroit is the largest and most lurid and garish example of the dependency agenda. let me go down the list. very soon, the two most important decisions a family makes will be conducted with a government monopoly.

from cradle to grave, aspirations of the welfare state, the marches on. one of the first things done in january 2009 is to expand schip. created by republicans and a small program. republicans thought it would stay small. it was for the working poor. now it has been expanded. families with incomes up to $125,000 a year are eligible for schip. there is no reason to expanded as much other than to raise a generation of young americans who consider getting their health care from government normal. . .

>> we have a school voucher program, allowing them to choose to send their children to private schools. the democratic party worked tirelessly to extinguish this because they want these students to be dependent on the ramshackle plantation of public education in the city of washington. there was no other reason to have a public auction in the health care bill other than to try and shrive out of competition all private providers. it was clearly a first step toward a single payer system. television at night. you are going to see competition all over your television screen between progressive automobile

insurance, arguing with dai co automotive insurance, are -- arguing with state farm auto insurance. there is no reason we are not available -- not able to buy health insurance across state lines, other than to increase our dependence. that is so obvious that even a cave man can understand it. [laughter] dependencies explains the hostility in the current administration to help savings accounts. you become eligible for tax- deferred savings out of which you pay your regular expenses. the trouble is that emancipator people, because they take their own money and buy what they want. it has been well said, no one wants is a rental car. you take care of what you own -- no one eyewashes a rental car.

it is part of the dependency agenda to stigmatize and delegitimize large portions of the private sector, such as the pharmaceutical industry. if you confiscate all the profits of the american pharmaceutical industry, you would lower the pharmaceutical component of our health care bill from 10% all the way down to 8%. in the process, you would kill the industry's capacity for innovation. insurance companies are now in for their turn on the cross. the confiscated all the profits of health insurance industry in our country, you could pay two days of american health care. part of the dependency agenda is to encourage an entitlement mentality, to encourage the entitlement mentality of which the trial bar prospers. it is the entitlement we are

told we have that if anything bad happens to us, even as a result of our own imbecilic behavior, we are entitled to sue someone to be made whole. that is why america has a this place since of personal responsibility. america has all these weird labels on things that we buy. if you go to mcdonald's and buy a cup of hot coffee, it comes in a styrofoam cup with'hot'stamped on it. all because a woman is killed and burned herself, sued mcdonald's, and collected. -- a woman spilled it and burn herself. you can buy a letter opener that says safety goggles recommended. you can buy at a clothing iron and that says do not iron

clothes on body. you can buy a child's stroller that says "remove child before folding." [laughter] i tend to subscribe to the garth brooks theory of personal responsibility, and expressed in his song, "longneck bottle, let go of my hand." [laughter] you can see the dependence agenda in the tarp program, enacted by the toxic assets on the books of banks, not one of which has been bought, wall to car companies have been bought. you can see the dependency agenda in a disproportionate share of the stimulus funds that have gone to state and local government to maintain the employment of unionized public

employees, whose wages already are 34% higher and whose benefits are already 70% higher than those of people in the private sector. you can see the dependency agenda in the very reverence for targeted tax cuts, that is tax cuts that depend upon you you to do, to buy a hybrid car, to build a wind farm, whatever, as long as you use the money the way they want you to do it. this is tax policy itself that will become increasingly a way of increasing dependency on the central government. to make people dependent on a government they are not paying for. you have all seen the graph with two intersecting lines that should terrify everyone in this room. one line shows the declining it participation in the income tax system. the top 1% of american ernie's paid 40% of the income taxes.

the bottom 50% of american earners pay 3% of the income taxes. when this administration gets in place all of its tax preferences, 60% of the american people will pay either no income taxesñr or less than 5% of their income. that is the majority that has zero incentive any longer to restrain the growth of a government they are not paying for. that is a classic case of moral hazard and it is an addiction and dependency on the government. they are encouraging and increasing dependency on government to determine the distribution of income in the united states. how else to explain why they are so desperate to continue death as a taxable event?

in my team's heyday, the philadelphia phillies won the pennant and the world series. tug mcgraw was asked by journalists, what will you do with your winnings? he said i am going to spend 80% on wine and women, and i will probably waste the rest. [laughter] if you work hard in america and save your money and reach age 65, it is a free country. if you save it and try to give it to your children, the government will come in and take a bite out of it. what is wrong with that picture? another way that dependency is encouraged is by the encouragement of india as a driver of social policy. we have been remarkably free of that in our country. that is why we are the only industrial nation that has never had a large, successful

redistribution of socialist party. envy is gaining in our country, which is a little bit odd. did you ever think that envy is the only one of the seven deadly sins that does not give the center even momentary pleasure? [laughter] i know what you are doing. you are going down the list. it is essential to a dependency agenda that you expand the share of the gdp taken in by government. a four percentage point increase has been accomplished by the obama administration in the first year, and more is coming in the name of a by u.s. attacks. that is a french word for huge government.

larry summers says conservator'' do not like a value added tax and liberals do not like it because they think it is regressive. we will get about a tax when conservatives realize it is aggressive and liberals realize aggressive and liberals realize it is a money machi we are going to have to be alert. the way to resist is to subscribe to what a good conservative economist called the monday, tuesday rule. most americans should come home xdon monday evening and say, i m done working for the government. perhaps a few should work into the middle of tuesday. that is it. the monday tuesday rule, people can understand. they can also understand the increasing drive to make more

sectors dependent on the government. can somebody explain at a time of record farm earnings we still have a farm program o? a century ago, 40% of the american work force was in agriculture. today it is under 2%. we are still feeding ourselves too well and exporting a third of what we groanew. when abraham lincoln made his one catastrophic error, creating the agriculture department, there was one ivar cultural bureaucrats for every two larger 37 farms. -- one agriculture your cry for every 237 farms. -- agriculture bureaucrat for

every 237 farms. we have seen more and more local undertakings becoming dependent on the federal government, and conservative administration is culpable in this. it was under the last republican president if we pass a bill that further led the government to lead our schools, regardless of the fact that the american family is the primary school and schools serve families -- not the other way around. . the general problem is not what rahm emanuel said, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. the real problem is what they

think, a crisis is a lovely thing to create. the crisis being created before our eyes is the crisis of the exploding deficit, which they hope will put us in a position to have to have a stampede toward an enlargement of the government's, perhaps justified by this or that commission. that is the object. çófinally, the greatest stampede of all they have in mind was the stampede that would be brought about by stimulating a synthetic crisis with regard to the climate, which would be driven by our ultimate dependency on supposedly unchallengeable clarity of scientists that would justify ever more serious government supervision of the most minute aspects of our lives.

i want a show of hands. how many of the honestly know that in 2014, we began outlaw and the incandescent light bulb? before you, that is why you are here. it was understood 100 it the years ago when it dittoed milk decided he could see over the horizon in the soft despotism could become -- the soft could become -- the soft become more extensive and milder and would degrade men without tormenting them. it is absolute detail, regular, are seen, and mild. it would resemble paternal

power if it had for exotic to repairmen for manhood, but on the contrary, it seeks only to keep them fixed irrevocably in childhood. it willingly works for their happiness, but it wants to be the unique agent an arbiter of that happiness. it provides for their security, secures their needs, facilitates their pleasures, director industry, regulates their estates, divides their inheritance is. can it not take away from them entirely the trouble of thinking and the pain of living? he went on, "is that every day it renders the employment of free will less useful and more rare. confines the action of the will in a smaller space and little by little, it still is a very use of free will from its citizens.

it reduces each nation to be nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd. ladies and gentlemen, the stakes could not be higher. that is why when we are told that it is tried -- time to transcend partisanship, it is actually time to say that partisanship is a good thing. [applause] we have to parties for a reason. we have different sensibilities, liberal and conservative. let's argue, and may the best one win. we are belabored with the idea that the american gridlock is a terrible problem. ladies and gentlemen, is an american achievement. [applause] when the founding fathers went

to philadelphia in the summer of 1787, they did not go to create any efficient government. the idea would have horrified them. they wanted us say government. they created a government full of blocking mechanisms. overrides, judicial review, and yet i can think of nothing that the american people have wanted intensely and attractively that they did not eventually get. we have more to fear from swift and from torpid government. [applause] we have a great case to make, because it was made by the giants on whose shoulders we stand. it was made by the founders. our job is to persuade the vast american middle, which is not angry. it is frightened and confused and puzzled, but americans are

not angry, and they do not respond well to angry people. they respond well to recourse to american principles. the reason martin luther king accomplished all that he did was not just that he said that racial segregation was wrong. he said it was incompatible with american tenets. what we have to now do is have similar fate in the american people, and why not. winston churchill loved our country as much as he left his american mother. he once said, the american people invariably do the right thing after they have exhausted all the alternatives. i think the american people still understand that a benevolent government is not always been a factor. they understand that capitalism does not just make us better off, it makes us better.

they understand that when jack kennedy said "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," with thing you can do is reserve a spacious portion of your life for which your country is not responsible. [applause] i think the american people still understand what milton friedman said when he said take any three letters from the alphabet, put them in any order you want, you will have an acronym designating a federal agency we could do without. i think the american people understand what robert frost meant when he said "i do not want to live in a homogenized society. i want the cream to rise." ronald reagan said ago i do not want to go back to the past, i want to go back to the past way

of facing a future." ladies and gentlemen, in this room packed full of potential, our government rests on the fact that opinion is shiftable sen. in this room are what we call a shovel ready group. so go out and shift some sand. thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> next, a speech from liz ch eney. following her remarks, dick cheney speaks for a few minutes.

much. it is such an honor to be regarded as an honor to be introduced by dave keene who has done so much for this country and this movement. thank you very much, dave. [applause] thank you to all of you. what a fabulous time to be a conservative. [applause] it has always, in my family, been a time to be conservative. [laughter] there have been some critics, you might have noticed. i had a good lesson back during the 2004 campaign in how to deal with criticism and critics from my daughter kate. she was 10 years old and she had a friend spent that night for the next morning, we were in the kitchen, i was making breakfast, and kate and her friend were on the floor of the kitchen working on an art project. the tv was turned on and pretty soon howard dean who was running

for president showed up on the tv screen. it did not take long before howard dean said some pretty nasty things about my dad. i thought to myself, "should i turn it off? what to write to hear dax? ?" i decided to act cool and not turned off. her friend said that guy is saying nasty things about your grandfather. my sweet darling little girl looked up from her art project, look at the tv, saw that it was our being, and said," in know what? don't worry, that guy is psycho ." [laughter] [applause] you well know that criticism of conservatism and protections of our demise reached a new crescendo after the last election.

all across the mainstream media, you could see so-called experts giving their analysis, saying conservatism was dead and barack obama's plan to radically re- change the nation were a done deal. a few weeks ago, the people of massachusetts told those experts what they could do with their analysis. [applause] the white house was spooked by that election. you could tell because the day after the results came in, use of the president's men, all over the airways. david axelrod and robert gibbs and rahm emanuel saying that they are populist. they are returning to their populist roots. barack obama is a populist. you have to admire that ambition. everybody in this room remembers that president obama is the president who said small-

town americans are better and that is why they cling to guns and god. now, suddenly, the white house tells us he is a man of the people. good luck with about one. [laughter] [applause] in the year that president barack obama has been in office, we have learned a lot. we've learned he is not going to govern from the center. we learn he does not believe an american ex sectionalism and he will travel the world apologizing for this great nation we've learned he will raise everybody's taxes. he will try to expend the size of the federal government until it permeates every aspect of our lives and every corner of our land. he will try to turn our healthcare system over to the federal government. we have learned he was to give terrorists constitutional

rights, including the right to remain silent he has moved. terrorists from guantanamo bay on to the american homeland. that is not change we can believe in. it is not change that the american people voted for and it is time for all of us to stand up and take this country back. [applause] nowhere has this president's policy caused greater concern than in the area of national security. a little over a year ago, as you well know, he said he would close the facility at guantanamo bay where we detain our court al qaeda terrorists. he had no plan for what to do with the terrorist and he had no national security reasons for closing the facility. it is not a surprise that he failed to meet his objectives. woody has done over the course of the last year, week by week,

continuously, is release and transfer hardened terrorists out of guantanamo bay. if you pay attention, you will see that the white house likes to make these announcements late at night on days when there are the problem is, the terrace currently at guantanamo are such bad guys that most of their own home countries do not want them back. president obama therefore, to keep this campaign promise, has to transfer them, the worst of the worst, and to america. as we meet here today, the obama administration is trying to appropriate $200 million to buy the facility, the maximum out facility and illinois, and top of the money the u.s. taxpayer has already spent on guantanamo bay. this is not rocket science.

my 9-year-old daughter, grace, asked me about this recently. she said, mom, is president obama really trying to bring terrorists into the united states? [laughter] [applause] i told her," yes, sadly, that is exactly what he is doing." she cut right to the core of the issue and she said,"man, use your brain dude. that is totally stupid." [laughter] [applause] it is not only stupid, it is dangerous also. if president obama and attorney- general holder do not get it back to this time for congress to act. we need all of you here today to help us in this effort. please go to my website, keep

america safe.com. we have a petition of the that tells president obama that terrorists belong at guantanamo, not in the american heartland. [applause] while we are sending messages to president barack obama today, here's one more -- stop apologizing for this great nation and start defending us. [applause] and keeping these terrorists and detained is important. it is necessary but not enough for us to win this war it would also have to be able to get good intelligence. there is no question that in the time president barack obama has been in office, he has

diminished our capacity to do so. 9last april, he released the details of our enhanced interrogation program. it is a program we know save lives and prevented attacks. he stopped the program and he said not to worry. he will replace it with çósomething else. hm )ill have the national security council setññ the high value interrogation program. about that same time last august, attorney general holders said he would start investigating and maybe h÷prosecuting the cia officers o kept us say that the 9/11. since then, guess how many al qaeda terrorists have been interrogated? that's right, none. during that same spirit of time, this administrationñr has been investigating, questioning, and possibly prosecuting many cia officials. [applause]

one cannot help but think they do not understand who the enemy is. let's help them out. attorney general holder and president barack obama, the cia officials who kept us safe after 9/11 are patriots. [applause] they deserve our thanks and are praised and they do not deserve to be the targets of a politically motivated investigation by your justice department. [applause] the next time you hear president barack obama say he is using every tool and at his disposal to fight terrorists, remember this -- he rebuild our enhanced interrogation program to the terrorists and then he stopped paying attention he failed. to follow up for nearly one year. he could not be bothered to make sure that the national security

council had actually established a new interrogation program. it turns out they hadn't. ;yñpresident barack obama wantso keep this nation safe, he has to make it a priority. our counter-terrorism system will erode without constant daily presidential oversight and vigilance. fighting terrorism cannot be president barack obama's part- time job. [applause] there is an equally troubling story of incompetents, ms. judgment, and presidential neglect leading up to the christmas day tech itself. the christmas day bomber was trained and armed in yemen. it is worth reviewing a bit of history here. for vice president joe biden's benefit. [laughter] [applause] during the presidential

transition, the bush counter- terrorism team briefed the obama team about the threat from yemen and what we were doing to address the threat. in june of 2009, america was attacked by a terrorist who had xdjust returned from yemen who s under investigation by the fbi and killed an american soldier. in september, the president's own counterterrorism adviser traveled to saudi arabia where he was briefed personally by the head of saudi intelligence. he had just been the target of assassination attempts for the bomber used precisely the same kind of bomb the christmas day bomber used it there have been reports that intelligence sources believe the bomb may have been made by the same bomb maker in yemen. in 2009, in november, we had the attack at fort hood where 13 americans were killed by a terrorist with ties to the same cleric in yemen who trained the

christmas day bomber. despite all that, on december 20, 2009, president barack obama released 6 yemeni detainees from guantanamo back to yemen. of course, we had a christmas day attack. that is was publicly number there is no doubt that the daily intelligence briefing of this is ministration contains far more information about threats from yemen. after all this history, on january 7, counter-terrorism adviser brennan and janet napolitano gave a brief at the white house. they said they were surprised that al qaeda in yemen was operational. [laughter] secretary of pollock, went on to say that she was surprised that al qaeda would launch an attack against us. somebody needs to get her a newspaper description. [laughter] there is no polite way to put this, that kind of incompetence

get people killed. [applause] and yet no one has been held accountable. during the 2008 campaign, president barack obama admitted he did not have a lot of experience. he told us what he did have was wisdom and judgment. [laughter] the kind of wisdom he said we would need in a nation facing tough crises. the record is now clear -- a wise man would not give the mastermind of 9/11 a platform in civilian court on american soil from which to preach jihad. [applause] qaeda-trained terrorists onto american soil [applause]

it wiseman would not -- would not fret about whether a terrorist had been read his miranda rights. [applause] a wise man would hire better people. [applause] ñthis president's policy, the very radical nature of the changes he wants to impose, imposes a duty on everyone else in this room. it is critically important that we stand up and speak out. we need to make our voices heard and read the upside is to prevent it. we have seen how much the white house dislikes being criticized and attacked. we have seen what they tried to do to fox news, the chamber of commerce, really to anyone who disagrees with them. they will fight back against us. they will try to attack.r us and they will play dirty. they will try to silence us.

but this is america. far too many brave young men and women have paid too high a price for our right to speak. [applause] join with me, right here, right now. let's send an unmistakable message to 1600 pennsylvania avenue. president obama, you never silence us. [applause] there is one man in particular

we all know who certainly has taught me what it means to have the courage of your convictions. youo% know who i am talking abt [applause] for my whole life, he has taught me to stand up for what i believe in andjutjpá is right. often before big speeches like ñithis one,ñi i asked his opinii seek hisñr advice. today, instead, i brought him with me. [applause]

[applause] [applause] >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you. thank you all very much.

thank you. knock off. [laughter] a welcome like that almost makes me want to run for office again. [applause] z$but i'm not going to do it. [laughter] i believe very deeply in something date said earlier and that is that there comes a time when those of us of our generation need to move on and make certain that the younger generation has an opportunity to step up and take on the

responsibilities that are so ñiimportant to the nation. i am enormously proud of my daughter. [applause] she said i could come with their but i had to be armed candy. [laugaiì(lc@&c+ in all sincerity, one of the highlights of my years in public office have been the opportunity to come before cpac. data's been kind enough to invite me time after time and i deeply enjoy a partly because this organization is so important in terms of keeping alive the basic fundamental commitment to those principles that have been essential in our 200 year history as a nation. as i look to the future, i think the developments we have seen over the last several months are

enormously encouraging. when we can achieve the kind of results we have achieved in places like virginia and new jersey and massachusetts -- [applause] @d@bi$; the sky is the limit. i think 2010 will be a phenomenal year. [applause] and i think barack obama is a one-term president. [applause]

again, let me thank you for all of the time and energy and effort that you have committed to our common cause. you have been fantastic. there are some great years ahead of us. it is very, very important that we succeed. i will do everything i can. most especially, i want to encourage the younger generation, most of you who are younger than i am. it is a remarkable time to be an american and a remarkable time to be conservative. good luck, and thank you all very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> now we will hear from massachusetts governor mitt romney, who spoke to earlier. his remarks are about 35 minutes. >> thank you, thank you, please set. ñiñr-- please sit. what a wonderful reception. i'm grateful to be here with all of you. it is one of my first times out in a public event since the collection. my name is scott brown. [applause]

in the newly elected republican senator from massachusetts. [applause] let me just say that one more time. in the republican senator from massachusetts. they said it could not be done. collectively we all did it. thank you very muchy veryes, the question everyone has been asking me is that drive your in the truck? yes, it is right outside. as many of the no i was called the sacrificial lamb, the longest of long shots. one democrat -- i will never forget, the one democrat said

"there is no way in myhell are republican is going to get elected to the seat once held by ted kennedy." well, here i am. for the big government spenders i'm sure that motion did not make them feel good at all. for those interested in restoring the real checks and balances and the washington. for bringing accountability and transparency back to government, it feels wonderful. i am so glad to be part of it. looking back, i can't believe how much we accomplished. it happened so fast. i have to be honest. it is not just sinking in. to think i am scott brown from

this town, and i drive a truck. here i am in washington, d.c. as the new u.s. senator from massachusetts. we collectively have changed the course of politics in america. [applause] our grass-roots campaign made headlines. and the beginning i could not have held my campaign in a phone booth. i'm here to introduce one of those guys in the phone booth with me. i've known mitt romney for many years. i have had a great privilege of not only watching him be the governor, but serving with him. he is a unique leader with a proven set of management skills from a career spent in the business, working the olympics.

and as the chief executive of the commonwealth of massachusetts. i personally know that if you want to fix a broken economy, let me give you a piece of advice. it is something i think of regularly when i think my challenges. if you want to fix something broken, especially economic policies, you have to listen to governor mitt romney. i know what he is talking about. when you get through listening to him you know what i have known for many years. he means it when he says he is committed to rebuilding the republican party. he has done it not only in massachusetts. let me backtrack. i have been known to go off script. thank god my daughter is not behind me. [laughter]

i remember when i ran for the state senate that he was the only one pushing me. he is the same person running as a u.s. senator, the first guy to push me and encouraged me. as i began, a lot of doors in the washington closed to me. mitt was there with money, expertise, but he held fund- raisers for me. he kept encouraging me to plow ahead. to keep believing. he saw in the beginning that i had a chance. for that i am so thankful. for the fact that i could do it. it was my kids, my wife, senator mccain, mitt romney and a handful. let me tell you that is my pleasure to introduceñr one of e

republican lights. a man i once called my governor. now i am even more proud to call him my dear friend. please welcome mitt romney. [applause] çó let me tell you, hey guys, the conservative movement is alive and well right here. hey. wow. well, once again the people you do not know or coming are even more excited than the ones you

did know are coming. thank you so much. please. jay is billion. i have to have him go with me everywhere. and scott brown -- i take him anywhere i can. they are national heroes and real treasures for our country. but have made real contributions. one of defending the constitution, the other making sure we keep it strong and well for years to come. it is good to be back with you. i love coming to cpac. this is a great audience. i frankly can't think of any place i would rather be than to be with you guys and talk about the things we believe in. i had a great weekend. i spent the weekend in vancouver at the olympic games, yeah. you canadians to, yeah. as always, the games were very inspiring. you probably did not hear the news this morning -- late breaking, the gold medal won last night by lindsey bonn was

stripped. it has been determined that president obama was going downhill faster than she has. our conservative movement took a real hit in 2008 elections. the victors were not exactly gracious in their big win. the media had there legs tingling. time magazine had a picture declaring that we, the republican elephant, were an endangered species. the new president claimed a change of biblical proportions.

he had everything he needed to deliver. they won. you learn a lot about people when you see how they react to losing. we did not serve up excuses or blame fellow citizens. instead we listened carefully. we sharpen our thinking. we spoke with greater persuasiveness. we take our message to journalists. and in the great american tradition some even brought attention to our cause with rallies and tea parties. [applause] i know that we have all watched very intently to as the conservative come back began in the virginia and exploded on to the scene in new jersey. as a massachusetts man, who like my fellow bay staters has

understandably been regarded as somewhat suspiciously. let me take a moment to exult in the victory of scott brown. [applause] for that victory, that stopped obamacare, and turn back the liberal tide, we have something to say you never thought you would hear. thank you, massachusetts. [applause] 2009 was the president's turn to suffer losses. not just the ballot box, but in the bill after bill in the congress. most importantly, in his failure to recognize that the economy

needed to be reignited in a powerful, effective way. also, how he has responded to his defeats tells us a great deal about him. and his team. as you recall, he began by saying [unintelligible] he gave himself up that b plus. tell that to four million americans who lost their jobs last year and millions more who stopped looking for work. explain to world wide financial markets. square that with the absence of any meaningful sanctions against iran. his self-proclaimed b + will go down in history sends the

invention of the internet. --since then. unable to convince us that his value was a success he turned to the second dodge. tried to pin the blame on someone else. did you happen to see his state of the union address? he did on the one group in the room restrained from responding. the supreme court. the president found it inexplicable that the first amendment right of free speech should be granted not just to labor union corporations and media corporations, but equally to all corporations, big, medium, small. when it was over i think most americans felt as i did. his noisy critique and bombast did not register as clear and convincing the as just asalito's silent lips form in these words "not true." [applause]

next, he blamed the republicans in the room, first condescending to lecture us on the working of the budget process, a process which many of them had mastered when he was still at harvard law school. he went on to blame republicans for the gridlock that had blocked his favorite legislation. he knows as well as everybody in the country that not one single solitary republican vote in either house is required to pass the legislation. it was in fact democrats to block him. democrats. democrats who said no to his liberal agenda after they had been home at their districts and heard from the american people. when they felt the heat, they saw light. god bless every american who said no.

of course, the president accuses us of being the party of no. it is as if he thinks that might say no is by definition a bad thing. in fact it is right and praiseworthy to say no to bad things. to sayno to cap andthe american. it seems we have failed to understand his wise plans for us. if he just slows down, makes a concerted effort to explain in words we can understand, if we just listen better, then we will get it. actually, americans have been listening attentively. they have been watching. when he barred c-span from covering the health care deliberations, they saw president obama break his promise to transparency. when the democratic leadership was in power to bribe nebraska senator nelson, they saw obama

break his promise. when he cut a special and unconstitutional deal with the unions, they saw him not just break his promise, they saw the most blatant and reprehensible manifestation of political chaos in modern memory. [applause] no, mr. president, the american people did not hear and see too little. they sought to much. here again, with all due respect, president obama fails to understand america. he said "with all the lobbying and horse-ñrtrading, the process left most americans wondering what's in it for me/" that is not all they're asking. they are asking what is in it for america.

obamacare is bad care for america. [applause] now, when it comes to shifting responsibility for failure, however, no one has been a more frequent objector to obama's approached and president bush. it is wearing so thin that it is a regular jokes on late-night tv. i'm convinced that's history will judge president bush far more kindly. [applause] you will recall he pulled this

from a severe and deepening recession after 9/11. he overcame a teachers' unions. he took down the taliban in afghanistan and waged a war against jihadists. [applause] and he kept us safe. [applause] pet on his record. i understand the loyaltyt d cheney.

[applause] i am afraid after all the finger-pointing is finished it has become clear who was responsible for president obama's lost year. president obama and his fellow democrats. when it comes time to pin the blame, pin the tail on the donkeys. now there has been a good deal of conjecture about the cause of president obama's failures. as he frequently reminds us, he assumed the presidency at a difficult time. that is the reason we argued during the campaign these were not times for on-the-job training. [applause] had he or his advisers -- even spent a few years in the real economy, there would have

learned the number one cause of failure of small and large businesses and the private sector is lack of focus. and the first rule of turning around any troubled enterprise is focus. when he assumed the presidency, his energy should have been focused on fixing the economy, creating jobs, succeeding and led the fight against radical afghanistan and iraq, and keeping us safe. instead he applied time and political capital to an ill- conceived takeover of health care. he failed to focus. he failed. there was an even bigger problem. ronald reagan used to say something like this about liberals -- it is not that they are ignorant. it is just that what they know is wrong. [applause]

too often, what he knew was wrong. he acknowledged the government does not create jobs. only the private sector can do that. the government can create the conditions, environment, which leads the private sector to add employment. but then considered not just what he said, but what he did it in the last year, and ask yourself, did it help or hurt the environment for investment and growth and job creation? announcing the 2011 tax increase in capital gains hurt. capping trade hurt. giving trial lawyers of repass a purge. holding on togm stock and calling the shots they're hurt. making a grab for health care almost one-fifth of our economy hurt.

[chanting "hurt"] president obama instituted the most anti-growth measures we have seen in our lifetimes. he called his agenda ambitious. i called it reckless. [applause] he's scared employers. jobs were scarce. his nearly $1 trillion stimulus created not one new job in the private sector. it is saved and grew jobs in the government sector. the one place that we should haveshed jobs. because he has been unwilling or unable to define the road ahead, uncertainty and lack of predictability prolongs this. america is not better off than it was $1.80 trillion ago.

[applause] will the economy and unemployment recover? of course, thanks to the vibrant and innovative citizenry of america bankthey always do. this president will not deserve the credit. he has prolonged the recession. . . they will soon be out the door. it isn't it fitting? isn't it fitting that so many of those who have contempt for the private sector will soon find themselves back in eight?

[laughter] [applause] -- in it? the people of america are looking to conservatives for leadership. we cannot fail them. it has had from its inception of vigorously positive, intellectually rigorous agenda and thinking. that should strengthen the economy, strengthen our security, strengthen our family. we will strengthen our economy by simplifying and lowering taxes, by replacing outmoded regulation with modern, dynamic regulation, opening markets to american goods, strengthening our currency and capital markets and investing in basic science and research. and by investing in basic science and research. instead of leading the world in how much we borrow, it is important we lead in how much we

build, create, and invest. [applause] we will strengthen our security by building missile defense, restoring our military might, and standing by and strengthening our intelligence officers. [applause] conservatives believe in providing constitutional rights to our citizens, not to enemy combatants. [applause] on our watch, the conversation with a wood-be suicide bomber will not begin with "you have the right to remain silent." [applause] our conservative agenda strengthens our families in part

by putting our schools on track to be the best in the world. because great schools start with great teachers, we will insist on hiring teachers from the top third of college graduates. we will give them better pay. we will put parents and teachers back in charge of education, not the ceos of the teachers' union. [applause] strong families have excellent health care. getting health care coverage for the uninsured should be accomplished at the state level, not a one size fits all pelosi plan. [applause] the right way to rein in health- care cost, and this is the toughest issue, is not by applying more government and more control and making it more

like the post office. it is by making it a consumer driven market. the answer is market incentives, not health care of by a godzilla-sized government bureaucracy. [applause] when it comes to our role in the world, our conservative agenda uses the principles that have defined our nation's foreign policy for many decades. we will support and defend political freedom, free enterprise, and human rights. we will stand with our allies and confront those who threaten peace and destroy liberty. that is what america is. [applause]