>> the measure will cut billions of dollars in spending. we expect the house to be in only a few minutes. you are watching live house coverage on c-span. aptioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c., april 11, 2011. i hereby appoint the honorable kevin yoder to act as speecher -- speaker pro temporerary on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speakerer of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father coughlin. chaplain coughlin: lord god, reward with your blessing and long-standing grace all those who have served and continue to serve in this respected chamber of the united states house of representatives. together with the honorable members and their personal and committee staffs we give -- we beg your blessing, upon the

parliamentarians, the clerks, pages, cloakroom and security personnel who work on this floor. they keep this noble institution functioning for the working of government and the good of the nation. lord, these your committed servants are proven safeful witness to history in the making and silent witness to your divine providence guiding and protecting your people both now and forever. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stand as i proved. the pledge of allegiance will now be led by the gentleman from michigan, mr. amash. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of

america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on the budget for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 34, concurrent resolution establishing the budget for the united states government for fiscal year 2012 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2013 through 2021. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the union calendar and ordered printed.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. >> the house just filed a

continuing budget resolution. the deal that house and senate leaders and the obama administration reached covers the 25 weeks remaining in the fiscal year. health care, job training initiatives, and agricultural programs. the house comes back tomorrow at noon to work on the budget on wednesday. you can watch lighthouse coverage here on c-span. also on wednesday, president obama will lay out his long t-term plan to lower the budget deficit. >> i was able to sign a tax cut for american families because of

both parties found common ground. now the same cooperation has made it possible for us to move forward with the biggest annual spending cut in history. >> watched all the events from the debate about mr.'s budget, from capitol hill and the house and senate floors, to the white house, and around washington kamal for online with this is video library. search, watch, and share everything we have covered since 1987. what you want when you want. >> later, the nato secretary general talks about the situation in libya. then we will talk with buddy roemer who formed a presidential exploratory committee this month. this is 40 minutes. host: plenty of more but the

discussion now. maya macguineas is our guest. thank you for being with us this morning. you wrote an "the washington post" this weekend -- you are in search of the goldilocks budget. guest: we are starting to see more plans of what is out there. years ago, those of us who were worried about this, were starving for people to get specific. the budget that came out was much too weak in that it does not address the fiscal problems that we face. the good news is, we are going to hear from the president this week, something that is more forceful. we just had the house budget committee chairman, paul ryan, which a lot of people have called his budget bold and

courageous. it talks of the changes to the budget. there are a lot of good ideas in there. i think a lot of those ideas are also probably too old for the task at hand, which is getting something in place this year. the deficit situation we face is troubling enough. we have to pass something this year that will address it over the coming years, multi-year budget that will reassure credit markets and let people know what is expected. and then continue to have conversations about health care reform a other things. congress and ryan's puts out big ideas about that, but they are not the type of thing that we can t into law. it is almost too big and it is also lopsided. it focuses on some parts of the budget very aggressively. it does not do much in defense, other than what is already planned. and importantly from a policy

and political perspective, it does not cut taxes. although we'd love tax cuts, we have to put everything on the table. also because the problem is so large, we need to look of all parts of the budget. the fiscal commission, last december, put out a bold plan that touches all parts of the budg. it really looks at everything, from the fence, to help care, to how to strengthen such as a charity, reforming the tax code, and they end up saving $4 trillion over the next decade. and it doesn't in a way that i think both sides believe are balanced. -- does it in a way that i think both sides believe are balanced.

a lot of people agree this is the right starting point. i also talked about how the white house is talking about a narrative. let's protect public investments while we do this. let's make sure not to go so fast that we do not dismantle the economic recover those are all important point. congressman paul ryan said the money to looat more structural reforms to entitlement programs. in many ways, they are structured for the past and not the future. we need to rethink how we do things in health care, how social security is structured, to make sure there is space for all of the other things you want to do. so i talked about taking pages from that playbook, but taking what t white house commission put out there for a good starting point. hopefully, we can have a good discussion to bring forth all of these ideas. but we saw in this recent cr -- this political fighting -- i

know it is reality, but we have to focus on bipartisan solutions, focusing on members of congress working together. that is why i am in atlanta today. senators chambliss and warner, who have been spearheading the effort, putting this into something that people can agree on, with members of the senate, including senators coburn, durban -- they are trying to change the debate by working together. i am down here because they will be speaking to a greabig group f people. that is a long answer, but it is important that we give it to a discussion about fixing the budget. it will take everyone on it. time is not really on our side. host: phone number are on the bottom of the screen for maya macguineas, a grant wood of

harvard, has also worked at the brookings institution. -- graduate of harvard, has also worked at the brookings institution. we are talking about the white house and gop's budget plans. we would get to your phone calls in a second. more about this so-called gang of six that you talk about. you say -- a little bit more on this effort from this group of setors, this gang of six. is it realistic to think that what they come up with can get widespread approval? guest: it is the best hope we have of getting something done that will fix the problem, that well make people feel like they have been treated fairly. this will not be easy. we have delayed too long in

fixing our fiscal problems. body should kid ourselves that we should just cut waste, fraud, and abuse, reduce international assistance. this is going to have to involve things that people in washington do not like talking about. it will have to have real spending cuts, real changes in revenues. the good news is, voters are willing to thatif they believe they are treated fairly, so they are not the only person that is part of the solution, and if they believe this will actually fix the problem. it is no fun to go through so much work and have to do hard things and not have fixed the problem. i think the gang of six is doing incredible work. they have been working tirelessly for a number of weeks on putting this into a form that

they can all agree on. but it goes beyond that. recently, senator bennett and johans brought together 64 senators saying that they would support this work, encouraging the president to get involved. one year ago, many of us were looking at the senate saying, how can we get anything done, they cannot agree on anything? well, we have seen exactly how you want to see the senate work. a number of senators came together and said we have a real problem that is threatening the nation's fiscal health and we need to find a solution that we can all agree on. not everyone will love it. i am sure they are pushing themselves to come up with something that they can all agree on. you have different political beliefs. senators durbin and kurt -- coburn to not often see eye to eye, but they believe that the

debt poses huge challenges to our economic recovery and to the next generation. so that is the model of how you want things to work. low and behold, the senate has put forth the model of how things should work. it looks like a functioning body again. beyond the fact that they may come up with a proposal that we can work with this year, it has freed new life into the senate and so many other colleagues are supportive of what they are doing. there is no guarantee we are going to get this done, there are a lot of political land mines along the way, but those word about putting together a balanced package and addressing this, should be pleased about the after that the senators are putting into this. it is a step in the right direction. host: first phone call from herald. columbus, ohio. caller: i would like to make a suggestion. my suggestion is we are to use

to casting these arguments in terms of republicans, democrats, liberal, conservative. if either party had two-thirds of the house and the white house, they still would not do anything because there are so many vested interests in every program. for example, this $30 billion, i noticed it and not talk about where they are cutting. it is sort of an ephemeral figure of they are just talking about. i bet we will not see any specics. host: have you seen any specifics yet, maya macguineas? guest: i have not. i think they are still being worked out. i am always disturbed at how we try to put these twouckets of democrat and republican out there. you cannot break of all the policy that way, and you cannot move forward on fixing them if

you set up two warring camps. the notion about democrats for his republicans is not very good for getting things done. these things are hard to do. of coue, there is a constituency for everything. you can believe the people who will beffected by cuts are the ones you will hear from. and the rest of us, whether it is cuts in defense, agrulture, energy, health care, whatever program that would help to close the budget gap, we will not be cryings loudly, thank you for improving the budget, as t people directly affected. thereby, you have a lobbying industry, who is able to push backn the changes. what we will hear in the coming months is, i'll want to balance the budget, but do not touch this, did not raise this tax, spending program.

everything has to be on the table. certainly, there are parts of the budget that should be more protected than other parts. projected investments are important for our long-term growth. a lot of things that we call investments do not work. we have to be more rigorous in terms of what is working. i happen to think protecting the safety net, allowing those thingso continue, it is important. i also think the game about how we reform the tax code is critically important. taxing more of things that we want, like incomand savings, is not good for the economy if we do not tax things that we do not want, light pollution or consumption. the best placto start there is

the over $1 trillion that we have it in tax breaks. all of these credits, deductions, exemptions, exclusions, cause a loss of over $1 trillion a year. if he were to get rid of the bulk of those, you can bring rates down so aggressively and close the fiscal gap, that you have managed to improve the economy, me the tax code symbol for everybody, get rid of a lot of these distortions that tax breaks cause, and reduce the deficit. but as the caller pnts out, every person and industry that benefits from the tax breaks will say, we want to look at these, but leave mine alone. we have waited too long to fix the problem. it will now be a large solution that is necessary and everyone will have to be in it together. but i think there is something good about that.

once you realize the task at hand involves all parts of the budget, it does not have to pit people against each other, as much as other budget deals in the past half. this is about voters caring about the well-being of the country. closing the deficit and debt is not just a mathematical challenge. it is how you really strengthen the economy, we focus the budget on the right priorities, come back on the principle that sothing is worth paying for, get back to a healthy budget. the economy will prosper. that will be the right thing to do for court workers, future workers, and it is really in the best interest of the country to come together on this. hopefully, that is the mentality that phes us forward. host: meant the end, texas. donald, you are on the republican line. caller: everyone keeps saying social security and medicare is

in trouble, how to fix it. in 1937, when social security was founded, the law stated that the money would stay in the trust fund and would not be transferred into the general fund to be spent for another purpose. for the last 30 years, secretary of treasury in congress have spent the money to the tune of about $30 trillio in 2009, on c-span, i watched former secretary of the treasury paulson talk about how he had put 1.3 trillion dollars into the general fund. all of you experts -- nobody discusses this. it is as if this did not happen. host: any current thoughts of w social surity plays into

this? guest: it iour largest government program. right now, it is on an unsustainable path. best thing we can do for this program is make sure that we put it back, so that it is sustainable. but will require some changes. we talk about this a lot. there have been a number of proposals out there to fix social security, and most of them look at the same basic ideas. we are living longer than when social security started. while the retirement age have gone up gradually, need to think about ways for people to work longer, especially in jobs where they're able to. for many of us, you will be able to work longer. that is an important part of the solution. fewer and fewer people are working to support more and more people who are in retirement and living longer. we need to find a way to have

people age as productive flee as possible. stay in the work force part- time, the more flexible about this. another thing we need to think about is where we are " too slow the benefits. benefits and social security cola nasser -- much fasr than inflation. there are a group in the top and middle that want to slow that inflation, while making sure that, one, nobody that is retired is currely affected. second, people who depend on the program, hopefully, in fact, have their benefits increase, because they are not really generous. and a third possibility is thinking about how to get more revenues into a program. the taxable maximum is capped. you could increase how much goes into the program. we know how to fix social security. in fact, it is a lot easier than

health care. that is the biggest challenge facing the budget. and we do not know how to slow the growth facing the budget in terms of health care. however, with social security, emotions run high. i hear a lot of scare tactics trying to influence seniors. i do not know anything about drastically changing benefits for seniors, current retirees. in fact, they tend to grandfather people for a long time. if we started making changes a decade ago, we would have pared people more for making the changes. also, more people know that social character is a good program, and want to make sure that it is there for younger workers, people who will need those retirement benefits later. in order to do that, we have to make changes now. the government trust funds, which has saved some of the money for social security, was

used for other government spending. that money is government treasury. it is owed to the trust funds. it will be paid back to the trust fund, but has a profound effect on the rest of the budget. host: let me go ahead and get some other phone calls. portland, oregon. denise. what is on your mind? caller: i am on social security disability. i have been for about five years. i live on less than $1,000 a month. i would be more than willing to give up some of that to support future generations, get your social security's -- get their social security. i would like to know how that relates to wealthy people's tax cuts. people making over $200,000 a

year -- i am not sure where the tax break is right now. host: hold that thought and we would get back to our guest, jim from michigan. caller: hello. i will but somebody to answer, a question on paul ryan's budget. the democrats must of by eliminating single payer. the government gets the worst of it, that is why it is so expensive, because of seniors. you get this voucher. what insurance company is going to want to insure a 70-year-old with cancer. -- with cancer? host: take that voucher idea, which has been out there, as part of the medicare pla

workable, in your view? guest: is, in my view. i wanted to both questions. -- it is, in my view. when it comes to health care, we do not have all the answers in terms of how to control cost. one thing we have to thinkbout is how to put a budget on health care. health-care spending by the federal government is basically open ended for medicare, medicaid, veterans', tax breaks for health care -- all of these things are not in the budget. most of the programs, the rgest share, or on automatic pilot. it just keeps growing automatically. that is probably not the best way to do cost control. there is growing support, which i agree with, to find a way to have a health care budget, which was then put the pressure on how to control costs. one option is the premium support option, with paul ryan

has. this brings the dollars back to the individual in a way that they are not now. they direct the insurance where they would be spending it on the insurance, and it puts more skin in the game. it makes it more price sensitive. a bigger issue is how much support for those premiums would grow. they grows budget, very slowly, which is why he is able to generate such tremendous savings in the outears. but the cost would go up slowly for the premiums for the idea. my personal preference is to look at that as a structural change, but also think about how you allow vouchers to grow more quickly. we want to bring down their growth, but we also have to recognize, part of the reason that costs are growing is because new technology brings along things that people want is

the cream and support model, which is good. there is the public option model, which fell off the table, but people should bring it back. there are hybrids, working with a traditional medicare proposal, which is something that people have brought up, which is useful. we have to think about structural forms and we have to realize, none of it will be easy. with health care, we keep on coming up with new thing that we all want. we have to realize that that mean that we will have to pay more. the first caller, i thought it was great. she said she was willing to be part of the solution. that is a powerful thing that policymakers need to understand. the voters are tremendously generous on helping about this. was in the airport last week and somebody came up to me and said -- they were on social security -- they said they would

give up half of the benefits if they knew that it would strengthen the program for their kids and grandkids. that is something that you do not hear often enough. people are willing to do a lot. host: before we get back to call tweet --a our guest is maya macguineas. we have a phone call from olney, maryland. chuck. caller: i have a couple of questions. if we had invested all the money the people contributed to the social security fund and invested the money -- it is supposed to be a trust fund. therefore, if we invested that money and we had anverage return of 4% for the last 50 years, we would not be having the discussions. there would be so much money in

the trust fund to fund everyone for the next 100 years. i do not understand why they keep a laumann the deferment to borrow this money and use it to fund everything they are funding and we get no results. host: sharon is on the line from oregon. democrat's line. caller: i just wanted to say, my husband and i retired in 1999. when we quit working, we were under the assumption that our 401k, money in the stock market was going to tie us over until we reached 62, which was when we could collect social security. at this point, we have nothing left. you have to commit to the five- year thing, where you have to

stay on, just getting a certain amount of money every month. my point is, social security was not set out to be a welfare program for people. everybody paid into it, the rich and the score, and it was an insurance policy. now, i hate when i hear that nobody is going to get hurt. guest: there is a lot in there, and it is a a good reminder that social security is one of the harder issues to get into, because people he a ry different senses of what the program is meant to be. here is my belief -- it involves a lot of different approaches to socialecurity is important because it is a base amount that will help people have guaranteed savings of se level, and those things can only be guaranteed a

long as the program is funded. we don't have a revenue stream to cover. we shouldn't be making promises without a plan for how they add up. social security should not be anybody's isolde timing, because you also need to have personal savings, -- social security should not be anybody's soule retirement, because you also need to a personal savings. the program was an intergenerational program. we started paying benefits out right away. the money isn't safe for me, it go directly to my father, and when i retire, my kids' tax dollars go to my benefits. for quite some time, we get additional funds that we saved in the trust fund and they were invested in u.s. treasuries, and that money was spent to finance

other parts of the government. that is one of the complicating factors now, that we have to pay the trust funds that we owe money to and the budget is in such poor shape to do so. it was never a defined contribution program where you saved the amount and will be there upon your own retirement. there are other components of the budget that do that and i open to having savings as part of the social security system. i think that makes an awfu lot of sense and. the bottom line is we need to be saving more for retirement. we are not saving enough. that is part of what we have just seen in the economic crisis recently. we need to find more ways to encourage savings, and that should probably be diversified said that we of the social security covering up part of it and we also have personal savings covering a part of that. there is a risk in social security that we have promised more than we can pay, and we need to fix that and make sure we have a system that is structurally sound so that people now when they can expect.

it is impossible to give 100% security, but we want to have a couple of different approaches to savings for retirement so that we are more secure. my personal belief about fixing social security is that the most important thing the people who depend on the program are protected. i do think, as somebody who has looked for all the different numbers and no one is going to take to fix the system, -- know what it is going to take to fix the system, is to ask people who can contribute more have a little bit less benefits to do so. they are willing to do that if they know that the program will be strengthened for their kids. and working in the longer for people who can -- it is key to stopping this program work and key to our economy is thriving in -- it is key to helping this ourram worke an key to

economy is thriving in the future. we need to make sure that the promises we have made are realistic and assure future generations that they can at the same security the generations in the past had. host: an e-mail on the taxes. "solution, if you hold american citizenship, you pay american taxes." texas, you are up now, independent line. liker: it looks everybody in the last two said what i was going to say, so we need to educate our politicians at every level. they have a spending like drunken sailor thing going, and if they need to be reeducated.

we may need to get them all out and get new people that may have some sense in their head. that is my comment. host: 90, republican call for -- maggie, republican call for maya macguias. caller: common sense in this country is dead, and it has been approved this morning. i heard a lady call from oregon saying that she has been on social. for five years and she is willing to give back to help the system. everybody screams and cries about customer service representatives somewhere. people whohese call in from the telephone be a customer service representative back home? you can have jobs back here. i just don't understand it. host: "the wall street journal"

focuses on the president's speech on wednesday and says taxes on the table. in the paul ryan budget, are there any tax increases at all? guest: there are tax decreases overall. he cuts some of the tax base i was talking about before. all kinds of credits and deductions and exemptions and exclusions. he does a tax overhaul -- we have not seen the specifics of which ones -- to generate savings. overall, hisudget is aggressive on tax cuts, not increases. host: what is your sense of the president's proposal that might come out, i tax rate of those -- higher tax rate on those making a quarter of a million or more. guest: my sense on taxes it's that we do not talk about it in a realistic way in this country. the event that there is no political interest from either party to really -- given that

there was no political interest from either party to restructure the biggest problems we have, taxes are going to have to go up. i don't know why we are not able to have more of a realistic discussion on this. nobody likes to pay taxes, but if you want to spend money on things, you have to be willing to pay for those. that is a simple principle of budgeting. there are a lot of "no new tax" pledges, and if somebody makes that pledge, they have to show how they would it ever bring the deficit down without raising taxes. there is also a pledge from the white house not to raise taxes on those making less than two water to thousand dollars a year could -- less than $250,000 a year. i think we are going to have to go farther than that, because we have growing health-care costs, an aging society, investments that we have not invested sufficiently in the past years.

at those can he a real effect on our long-term growth trajectory. we need to come first and foremost, restructure our spending and cut government spending. that is the biggest problem we face and with the bulk of the solution is going to be. but i would say, quite frankly, there is no way to do this without revenues. there is no way to do this without cutting into some of the programs that people are committed to preserving to get on top of the fiscal challenges we face. what is critically important is that we do this in a way that is art for the economy. raising taxes does for the most part have bad effects on the economy. there are ways to reform the tax code that would be good fo the economy and would raise revenues. that is the model we need to look at to promote growth. the starting point is that you brought in the tax base as much as possible, lower rates, and have revenues to close the fiscal gap. other things that are not in the

conversation as much as i would like to be is the carbon tax and gas tax. we need to get ahold of energy policy in this country and look at taxing things that are part of it would be a very important place to start. it really is driven by spending. if you look at where the growth of the problem is, revenues are going to be higher than they were in the past. i do not wanto take the pressure off what we really need to do, to reform entitlements, but we have to be realistic and everything has to be part of the solution. host: jim, illinois, thank you for waiting. you are a democrat. caller: i was getting to the point where it is just ridiculous that they want to balance all theudget on the backs of people that cannot afford it. you have got corporate welfare everywhere. they don't want to do anything about that.

they give the farmers ago companies $400 billion -- pharmaceutical companies $400 billion right off the top. my prescription is made in ireland, and another one is made in italy. at they charged us five times more than what they can charge anywhere else, because shington lets them get by with it. it is ridiculous that they just keep piling on the people i can afford it least. of the gasoline pricesoing through the roof. it takes seven months of my income just to pay my medical insurance and my property tax and my federal income tax, which i pay more federal income tax than most millionaires. host: jack in minnesota now, independent caller fo maya macguineas. caller: our fiscal ship,s has

been correctly pointed out, is sinking. it obviously has a leak. it would be proper to correctly diagnosed where the leak is coming from. at the leak is not coming, maya, from the mandatory budget or so- call entitlements. that has not contributed much, if anything, to the last 10 years of leaks, ok? take the social security off the table if you want to "help us." help us on your time at another time, ok? also, the medicare program is only 39% supported by the general funds. with the leak is, maya discretionary budget, and you know i guest: well, that is not true, that is just not the case.

what we have been having in our budget for decades now i the programs that are mandatory, the ones on automatic pilot, have been squeezing out the discretionary side of the budget. if you look at these by charts by decade, you will see that domestic discretionary, total discretionary budget, used to be much larger than mandatory, and at that is switched. it has been an ongoing budget squeeze on the biggest programs in the mandatory part of the budget now that may be how people want it brought we may want to switch some of our priorities. but u cannot say it does not have an effect on our fiscal situation. more importantly, going forward, it is where the problem is coming from. again, i would say that just because the problem is growth of certain programs, we may want more of those programs going forward. but we neeto be very thoughtful about the more money be put into programs for

seniors, for instance, the less we putting in forhildren, investing in children. is that the right to write off? it is my belf that the best thing you can do for the budget is to make an investment-focus budget rather than a consumption best focused budget. while we have had in this country is -- what we have had in this country is no for investment on borrowing. -- is an over-investment on borrowing. the ongoing squeeze is going to continue. i would say it is reversed -- domestic discretionary, where we just saw cuts, as had a lot more in terms of changes that other parts of the budget, and that is where we need to look next. host: pat, you get the last word as far as the colors go. caller: i have been listening,

and what i'm hearing from america that is a lot of mean- spiritedness. the republican partyas wasted years being the party of no. that was their platform. "we are just going to say no to everything the obama with the democratic party tried to pass." well, i am telling them you cannot say no, you cannot shut down the government, because you work for me, you work for us, and show up and do your job. now you look like clowns because now boehner has control of the house and h wants everybody to be and i-- at his beck and call. host: maya macguineas, as you

take that last fall, moveless back to the thesis -- move us back to the thesis on the goldilocks budget. guest: i don't think there is mean-spiritedness overall and that t policymakers involved are as partisan as sometimes seems. they want to get problems resolved and have a tough environment which to work. we need to give positive reinforcement to tse willing to make tough courses and cooperate and solve these problems. the fiscal problems we face are real. if we do not make changes to our budget, which threaten our economy and the threat of having credit markets turned against the u.s. we cannot let that happen. th way forward is going to have to be to allow and encourage the parties to work together. it is too hard for either party to take this on on their own. there are no good guys or bad guys here, i really believe that. we have to compromise, and

ideally, what we would do is this year put in place in multi- year plans to get over the next decade would make sure our debt is on a stable unsustainable level. we look at all parts of the budget-- stable and sustainable level. we look at all parts of the budget. that is the best step to save our economy from what a debt and deficit crisis could otherwise due to us. we have to be willing to pull our sleeves and work together. i think that the work of the fiscal commission, a lot of members of congress will come forward and y this is the number one issue facing the country. i think the president coming out this weekend starting to talk about all with the important steps -- and talk about how he wants to proceed or all important steps. for the u.s. to stay strong, this is an important step to take. i think there is a good chance we can move forw

>> tomorrow we will get an update on the budget deal reached on friday. we will talk with earl blumenauer. then a discussion with the national security team. mac destler joins us. washington journal, each morning at 7:00 eastern. later, a senate panel examines the health and environmental safety of natural gas drilling. live coverage from the senate environment and public works committee begins at 10:00 eastern. >> follow c-span on twitter.

you can also join in that conversation. join viewers call already following our twitter feed. it started at twitter.com/cspan. >> anders rasmussen told reporters that any cease-fire in libya must be credible and certifiable. this is about 30 minutes. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> good afternoon. together with nato, we are fully enforcing the mandate to protect the people of libya. nato is taking vigorous action across libyan -- libya to prevent attacks against civilians and civilian centers. we are striking with care and precision to maximize the fact -- the facts of our actions while minimizing the danger to civilians. this is in contrast to the pro-

gaddafi forces who are parading their own citizens and shelling city centers. troops are hiding tanks near schools and mosques. this is utterly irresponsible. i am concerned by the desperate plight of the residents of misrata who are terrorist by these brutal attacks. nato is keeping up pressure to make the violence stop. since saturday morning, need to aircraft have flown almost 300 sorties.

we have destroyed 49 tanks, nine armored personnel carriers, three anti-aircraft guns, and f our larger ammunition bunkers. the vast majority of the strike took place near misrata. nato and its partners have undertaken a challenging mission. it is our contribution to the world's efforts to solve the libyan crisis. i look forward to taking part in the contact group meeting in qatar on wednesday, which will provide the international framework for a lasting

settlement. i have also taken note of an african union cease-fire proposal. since the start of the crisis, nato has been in constant touch with the african union as well as other regional and international organizations. i want to be clear. there can be no sole military solution to the crisis in libya. nato welcomes all contributions to the broad international effort to stop the violence against the civilian population. any cease-fire must be credible and verifiable, as the united

nations security council has made clear. there must be a complete end to violence and a complete and to all attacks against and abuses against civilians. and that any solution to the crisis must respond to the legitimate demands of the libyan people for political reforms. nato foreign ministers will meet in berlin on thursday and friday this week and begin the meeting by discussing the libyan crisis. we will be joined by our partners in the libyan mission from across europe, and the arab world. together with russia's foreign

minister, we will focus on libya missile defense and afghanistan, the nagin-russia helicopter trust fund is up in running, and we will start to deliver a maintenance capability for the afghan air force. this is an important signal our joint commitment to stability in afghanistan. and we will meet our partners, the process of handing over responsibility to the afghan security forces has already begun. nato and the afghan government have agreed and then during -- ann enduring partnership for the future. afghanistan will one day stand on its own, but it will not be standing alone.

from afghanistan to libya, nato and our partners are making vital contributions to bring security and stability. we are working with many other nations across the group to help prevent crises, manage conflicts, and bring long-term stability. with that, i will be happy to take your questions. >> do not forget to introduce yourselves and tell us what organizations represent. >> thank you. you have taken note of the political initiative from the african union. do you think that nato and its partner countries might reduce the activities in the next couple of days in libya to get a little bit of space to see if this initiative can bring a cease-fire on the ground, or be

you think that nato will entertain activities as we have been seeing intensifying as we saw this weekend? >> first of all, let me stress that we appreciate all efforts to find a political solution to the problems in libya, including the african union initiative. secondly, i would also like to stress that the guiding principle for us will be how to implement the u.n. security council resolutions fully. that is, to protect the civilians against any attack, and our operational template will be determined by this clear goal to protect civilians against any attack.

>> you say that any possible cease-fire would have to be credible and your file. -- and verifiable. can you expand on what you mean by verifiable? who would do the terrifying? would it be some international presence on the ground? how would it operate? >> i think it would be premature to go into details as that how a monitoring mechanism can be established, but i have to say that we have seen quite a number of announced cease-fires, and they have not been implemented. for that reason, we need to establish an effective monitoring mechanism if a cease- fire is to be credible and if a

ceasefire should live up to what is stated in the u. n. security council resolutions, namely, effective protection of the civilian population. >> what are the conditions for a cease-fire? how would you consider that there is actually a cease-fire? as regards a cease-fire, it must satisfy three conditions. firstly, the cease-fire must be credible and include an effective protection of the civilian population. secondly, a cease-fire must be

controlled and supervised in an effective manner. third condition, the cease-fire must favor a political process designed to implement the required political reforms in designed equally to me to the legitimate demands on the part of the libyan population. >> i am from a news agency. i know you asked italy and the allies to make strikes, and i am wondering if you already received a positive answer from the member states, and how is

the process to replace the 50 airplanes that the u.s. they will withdraw from the mission? thanks. >> the united states is still part of our operation, and the united states provides the essential military assets to make sure that we carry out our operation effectively. we have also received pledges. i do not want to go into details with my conversations with allies, but the basic

principle for nato has always been that it is a national decision as to how national military assets can be used in our military operations. obviously, as seen from a military point of view, our military commanders would like a maximum of flexibility in the use of the military assets. >> from german television. there is a discussion about the humanitarian aid in this area, and how would this be possible? would née to be in charge to protect -- would need to be in charge to protect -- would nato be in charge? >> i am very concerned about the humanitarian situation in libya. misurata.

the delivery of humanitarian assistance. and thirdly, i do not see nato in a leading role when it comes to humanitarian assistance. i would appreciate it if the union could take initiatives with regard to the delivery of humanitarian assistance. having said all of that, i also want to make clear that if it is requested, nato will, of course,

be able to protect the delivery of humanitarian assistance, but as you all know, it is also a bit of a controversial question. to have a military organization have a part. this is why i want to reiterate once again that nato has no intention to play leading role in the delivery of humanitarian .

>> last week, at least 30% of the libyan military capabilities. how do you intend to strengthen these? thank you very much. >> how many percentage khadafy regime forces we have taken out, but definitely, it is more than

last week, and last week, the assessment was one-third of his military capacities were taken out, and after the latest strikes, it may be even more. and we want to reinforce the existing partnerships by strengthening the confrontation mechanism within these partnerships. as a substance driven corp. with

partners that grow across and . in today's world, we need cooperated security if we are to accomplish our security. in to that end, we want to reach out for the players across the globe. we have already excellent partnerships with countries and major players across the globe, like japan, australia, new zealand, south korea, and others. i think it would also give

merit to have a more structured dialogue with emerging powers, like india and china, if we are to accomplish our security missions in the future. >> in the back could >> a freelance journalist. can you talk about the communication that nato has with the libyan opposition? whether you think that type that happened earlier, it will not take place again because of communication, lack of communication? with finances already at issue before you began, the nato role in libya, how long can this continue at this intensity, before the alliance is simply stretched too far financially?

>> first of all, i do not want to go into operational details, but i can assure you that we do our utmost to avoid very unfortunate incidents, like the one we saw last week. and that we try to avoid civilian casualties. i think the decisive factor will

be to accomplish the mission as requested by the u.n. security council, and that is to protect the civilian population against any attack. of course, there are also but i think all allies are committed to live up to the commitments under the u.n. security council resolution, and that is to protect the civilian population in libya, effectively, and take the necessary measures to that end. >> speaking french]

in order to stop air strikes, and the of the question, if the situation on the ground continues to deteriorate, something from nato? >> the last part of your question? >> if the situation continues to deteriorate on the ground, would you advocate more disengagement? >> firstly, no. we have not received any formal requests as regards the implementation of any ceasefire. secondly, we have no considerations as to taking more robust measures. we are focused on implementing the u.n. security council resolutions fully, and we do not

see any need and that we take the necessary provisions to protect people with the u.n. security council resolution. if i could ask you to turn your blackberrys and mobile to mute? >> insisting that al qaeda is playing a big role in what is happening in libya, what about what is happening there? >> we do not have any information that al qaeda should

play a significant role in what is going on in libya. having said that, it is, of course, a matter of concern in the longer term perspective if this ends up in a stalemate that eventually will make libya a failed state that could become a breeding ground for terrorists and extremists, and we should do our utmost to avoid that situation. this is also a reason why i hope to see a political solution to the problems in libya. sooner rather than later.

we know that extremists can profit from long-term instability. >> i am from china central television. we know gaddafi has accepted the cease-fire proposal, so once he accepted the peaceful road map, what is the nature reaction? would you accept his exit? with the regime keep its ground?

there will be the two elements. what do you expect? >> first of all, we have heard and seen the gaddafi regime and the promise cease-fires in the past, and they did not keep their promises. on the contrary, they continued to attack their own people systematically, so i do not take such promises for face value. the only thing that counts is the reality on the ground, and a cease-fire must be credible, and we must make sure that it also involves effective protection of the civilian population. if i understand the second part of your question correctly, it

is about possible partitioning and we should do our utmost to avoid the situation. this is why from the outset, we have made clear that we feel committed to the territorial integrity and unity of the state of libya, and i think a long-term and sustainable political solution to the problems in libya should be based on a unity state solution. >> secretary-general, i have two questions. the level and amount of sorties and strikes, my question is if you think the we have arrived at

the limit of strikes, they have the ability to increase the amount of strikes and sorties, and my second question is did they totally abandon the idea of the opposition? >> -- >> in india. army the libyan opposition. >> first of all, as regards the tempo, in the first 10 days of the mission, the nato allies have flown over 1500 sorties across libya, and almost half of these were strikes. that is a rate of 150 sorties per day, and it is quite high

operationally, and the number of daily sorties will be determined by one single factor, namely the protection of the civilian population, and we will take the necessary measures to protect the civilians, and if it is necessary to increase the number of sorties in order to protect the civilian population effectively, we will do that. and as regards the second part of the question, we have been asked by the u.n. security council to enforce an arms and vargo, and nato allies have looked for this for the arms and

vargo. -- an arms embargo. >> what is the meaning of this meeting. >> there was my very successful trip to kiev in february. ,

and at the core of our discussions next friday, it will be how they can further develop the situation between nato and the ukraine. >> pakistan. >> turkey, pakistan, and afghanistan trying to reach some consensus, and yesterday, they issued a statement that pakistan terrorism is basically due to the afghan war. this discussion, which is turkey's backing, these discussions have your backing,

and nato has given consent to these talks. >> we look at solving these problems in afghanistan, and it also takes a positive pakistan engagement to prevent terrorism and to find a political solution to the challenges in afghanistan. >> mr. secretary, can you tell me which ones are with the foreign ministers meeting? >> yes, i can tell you which

have been invited, to participate in our meeting in berlin. qatar. the united arab emirates. turkey, morocco, sweden, in ukraine. >> thank you very much. we hope to see you all in berlin. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> president obama on wednesday will lay out his long term plans to reduce the federal budget deficit. this comes after friday's spending deal between the president, senate democrats, and republican house leaders. we will have the president's remarks, live from george washington university and c- span3 and on c-span radio.

>> you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning, it is "washington journal," our live call-in program about the news of the day. weekdays, watch live coverage of the house, and weeknights, policy boards. the supreme court oral arguments. on the weekend, you can see our signature program. on saturday, "the communicators ," and on sunday, "q&a," and prime minister's questions. this is all searchable on our c- span video library. c-span. washington your way. the public service created by american cable companies. >> this month, a former louisiana governor formed a presidential exploratory committee. he also served as a democrat but

changed party affiliation and is now a republican. we sat down to talk with him about the 2012 race. this is 15 minutes. -- 50 minutes. >> until recently, your name was not on the list. >> i am a businessman. i am not a lawyer. what i do is build companies, growth companies. beginning about six months ago, i became concerned about what was happening and not happening in america, and so, for the

first time in a long time, i thought maybe my skills of planning, business acumen, putting budgets together, reforming the tax code, these sorts of things, this was exactly what this country might need, and then finally, i became concerned about what i perceive to be the lack of leadership, of foreign policy that is flat. a domestic policy that is non existent comment and i became concerned -- is non existent, and i became concerned. i never saw anything like this, and as a banker, i deal with this all day long, how to manage it, how to eliminate it. i do not like it. it is dangerous. it costs jobs, portugal when you're borrowing money from the competition, and the second word that got me was indebtedness. the rest of america is hurting.

why is that. it is too big. it does not encourage leadership. i decided to explore the possibility of running for president on those issues, debt and indebtedness. >> the spring of 2011, the state of the union? >> i love america. let me be careful here. is the right place to be. our best years are ahead of us. but the state of the union is perilous. we are $14.70 trillion -- we of that. we borrow $120 billion of debt.

there were many americans working off of the farm. that is called non-farm payroll. 131 million. we are a nation challenged, and we seem to be unprepared. it bothers me. it >> so what do you bring to this race? you have been in the house of representatives. you spend one term as louisiana governor. you lost the election. you came back and lost the race. >> if you learn from your mistakes, i am probably better off than i used to be. i was a young, arrogant man. i ran for congress the first time and lost and then won four successive times easily. i like running.

i was the youngest, most different. 6%. having cleaned up air and water, feeling pretty good about myself. i changed from a conservative democrat to republican. one of the most infamous races in american history.

they had more money than i. the polls showed that by changing parties helped me six points. i lost by less than one. . it was a heartbreaking election. but i learned a lot. i learned if i make major moves like changing parties, i have to do it soon enough that people will understand it over time. that was my mistake. and i have learned that a couple of times. that is not why i run. i mean, i am the only guy who considers running who has been both a congressman and a governor. more importantly, i am one of several guys running through has built their own company. the net payroll -- i figure out

where the market is in how to capture it. i put all of that together. with the belief that we should limit the amount of money that policies should be extended. i believe this is the kind of campaign that america needs. if you like the way things are, you will not want me. if you would like to take another look, [unintelligible] that is how you put a country together. that is how you do now. we need a president who is an american, who will reach out to both parties and the independents in the tea parties and say, we must do this. if i work for reelection after being reelected, i will not to do it until there are six or seven months left.

our president's term is barely over. it is not right. we should concentrate on america, not on me, or my party. but on america. i am not a baby. i am a grown man. i am old enough to know what needs to be done. i am old enough to do it. i am excited about it. >> they recently wrote about your intention, but it did not happen under your watch. >> i was defeated by edwards, and he threw it all out. he got the legislation to undo it. they had to wait five more years after edwards to start it again. i did mine in 1988, 89, 90, 91. then edwards took over for me.

he undid the teacher testing, the three or four things we had done in education for four years. then another republican said over as governor and started those processes. when i first started in politics as a young man, i had learned from the constitutional convention to rewrite our constitution and in louisiana. i was 28, 29. i worked with edwards who had called for the constitutional re-write. i thought it was the right thing to do. over the years, we grew far apart. the issue was corruption. the issue was money in politics. i thought the governor of louisiana did not need to take unlimited checks from the oil

company and from the chemical company. the toxic waste companies. those that abuse in the air and water. edwards and i had a falling out, a police -- a polite way of saying we became political adversaries at that point. when he went for re-election the third time, a congressman, a republican congressman, jim brown, secretary of state and i, decided to run against him independently. i was lucky enough to win. >> he served his time in prison. did you support his attempt to get a pardon by president bush? >> i was the only one that did not. public corruption is the worst kind of corruption. in a nation of represented

democracy -- edwards had never said that he made a mistake. he never admitted that. he did not show evidence of remorse. there was no medical reason. i thought he should serve his time, or confess his sense, transgressions, and to show evidence that he had reconstructed himself. i saw no evidence of that. >> take is back to when you were considering switching from democrat to republican. >> we were a one-party state. 96% democratic in the legislature. we were born democrats. that was in the 1970's and 80's. when i became governor, i realized the weakness of the system.

there was no constitutional conflict that could be resolved. i felt the only way to make it happen fairly quickly was to change parties. while i served in the congress, a very conservative democrat. i love the reagan. i thought he was a great president. i had the same relationship with senior bush, not with george w.. i liked him and respected him. i had an opportunity in to change parties, set an example, and turn back 95-5 into a two party system. that is the way it is today. i was a factor in that. today, the legislature is 55-45

republican. i did it for the same reason that louisiana was a lot like egypt. i remember going to each of for the first time as a youngster -- younger man in congress around 80. mubarak was the president then. he is still around two months ago. louisiana was like that. a one-party state. they lived on welfare. the highest unemployment rate in america. this was a tough state to grab and tried to turn around. at the end of three years of doing that, i thought i needed to change parties to finish the job. >> you were in a congress with both democrats. as you look at congress and the state of these two parties, is there room for the democratic

party for the conservative and conversely in the republican party for a liberal? >> they are against finding a variety and diversity. we tended to be a nation of headlines. let me in answer you this way. in my opinion, the nation is stronger when there is a diversity of opinions that overlaps. every now and then, you will have an election where the democrats control the house and the senate. it did not work very well. i would like us to be a nation where a party leads and a second

party has constructive criticism. they work together to build america. that is why my issue is money. special interest money has way too much influence in washington. i saw in the wall street journal recently a home price list over the last year. memphis, st. louis, new york, tampa, washington, d.c., atlanta, chicago. the price of homes over the last year -- in chicago it was 7.5%. atlanta, 8%. something like that. washington, d.c., a boom town. all of the lobbyist in the big check holders. they come here not forgetting

government but to get their way in the government. they know the average people in america are trying to work their jobs. they do not have time to go to washington. who is your lobbyist? i bet the general electric has a team of them. they made billions and they did not pay one penny in taxes. i am picking on them. they are an example of what is wrong in america. the tax code should be written for plain people. we should be a tax haven for the world. we can create jobs if we rewrite it and do it. for a country -- a company like g e to not pay for a single marine or soldier to protect their assets in the world, to not pay for one a schoolteacher

or one fireman, or one police officer, it is not right. i will take it beyond the code. it is 650 pages long. you cannot read it. the lobbyists and lawyers can. we have to change america. the only way i know to do it is to run for president. the run for $100. they say we cannot run with that. i say, yes we can. if i get one person out of 100 to contribute $100 to my campaign, i will have more money in the primary than john mccain in mitt romney did the last time they ran 3.5 years ago. i will have 300 million in the primary. when you win the primary with

clean money in small amounts, you turn to face a president with whom you have a real differences. you have a classic debate and you need to out of 100. 600 million against a president that will have 1 billion. we can win. >> you talk about tax code. how do you bring down the debt and raise revenue? >> with a simple plan. all my life, my training in the practice has been business planning. i help build companies. my bank is 5 years old and a $670 million. we make money through out the recession. we did not get a penny up a tarp. tarp.n be -- a penny of a tar

it can be done. start with a target number of 18.5%, the amount of federal spending of the gross domestic product. it should be 18.5. today it is 25%, to hide. -- too high. we have to work on spending. we put everything on the table, entitlements, military, subsidies in louisiana, ethanol subsidies. put it on the table and have a five-year plan. our president only has four. congress will continue. a five-year plan to reduce spending by 1% of gross domestic

products every year for five years. the budget will come down to 18.5%. what i hear political leaders talk about spending into deficit and they do not mention a target figure, their lips are moving, they are not telling the truth. 18.5% will fund what america leads and keep as strong in the military. it will make the government lead and provide for social security and medicare with changes in both. we can talk about that. first we need a plan. and we need to budget for 18.5%. it will take five years to do is write without hurting people. without slamming people to the ground.

everything has to be on the table. you will treat some programs different from others. it all has to be on the table. i have heard the old language for 30 years, waste fraud and abuse. -- waste, fraud, and abuse. why do you need an education department when they do not teach a single child? you go through that kind of reorganization and downsizing and then you ask for management in the business practices to be adapted -- adopted. here are two examples. the number of federal employees that will retire in the next few years is 42% of our workforce. if we can take half of them and not replace them with new

technology, you would make much more and save about $35 billion a year. that is just one example. i could give you 10 other examples. we need to eliminate all of the energy subsidies and come up with an energy plan. housing subsidies, 42 billion. write down the line. -- you go right down the line. when all they can say is 38 billion out of a $3.60 trillion budget, they are wrong. they have never learned business or put a business plan together. you do not have to hurt people. >> would you eliminate the department of education or the energy department? where would you cut? >> my enemies would say he has eliminated the them. take away the bureaucratic function. they would be a resource center

data and energy policy data. if i can do it with a little money, running both, i would keep them. i would consolidate certain functions into a department of governments, which does the bloc koreans and the overhead the things that need to be done. we do not need the department of energy or commerce. what we need is a leaner government that helps companies in the people's that need help and stop growing a bureaucracy in washington, d.c. you could say the big if you do now. where would these functions go. education work staff with charge and competition.

that comes from the state. you could have a congress in your budget have a certain amount of money that would go to the state to encourage choice and competition like charter schools. a public charter schools. you do not need to the department of education to do that. when i am sworn in the office as president, it will include the statement that we will be energy independence by the end of this decade. i remember john kennedy talking early in his term about sending a man to the moon and back again safely. i remember how that made me feel. >> every president since richard nixon has been talking about being energy independent. they have all tried and failed. >> i tell you what it includes.

let me give you three points again. domestic energy. it is right next door. we will have a domestic base. no. two, we import about 15% of our oil and energy needs from the middle east and a similar nations. i would use tariffs to ration that down and produce that amount of energy domestically. it would include nuclear under the new technology. japan is 37 years old in 39 years old. nuclear as 25%. it is at 20% now. natural gas flowing from 20% to

about 40%. plenty of natural gas in this country. drilling for oil with new technology. we need to let the states time in. we need to drill on an offshore. alternative energy shutting out -- we are addicted to middle eastern oil. it affects our foreign policy and costs us money. we need an energy policy. our plan to propose an exact energy policy that will combine with canada and mexico and will leave as energy free by the end of this decade. no one has ever proposed that before.

>> with a case in this election and trying to raise money in $100 increments, you are facing a lot of competition from outside forces that may be against you. >> it does not bother me. in the long run, big money does not win. american people are not dumb. they know when you want to get something in a tax bill, you have to pay money. the average person does not have the money to match the big boys. we have to change the system. i am running against the system. long before the supreme court ruled 5 to 4, this place was in trouble. you know what congress does with

half the time? there is a fund raiser somewhere in this town today. i guarantee you i could go to a fund-raiser if i want to. by the next day, senior citizens who want to retire are hiring out as lobbyists. this place is bought and sold. the game is fixed. that is why general electric can get their special codes in the tax bill. that is why when president reagan proposed a research and development tax credit, it was a great idea. the democrats were very reluctant. they said, how do you know it works? we came up with a suggestion. let us try it for two or three years. if we show that it works, it creates jobs and make america more competitive, then we will

make it permanent. the democrats let it pass. it worked and was wonderful. it was never made permanent. they raise money with it. they go back to corporate america and say, this credit is a good idea. we need to pass it again. they do not give $2,500. they give a heck of a lot more. they give speaker fees, large amounts of money. they give to the party, 50,000, 100,000. this town is bought and sold. i am not pointing just at the republican party. it is the democratic party.

president obama ran to the president with a lot of people giving hope. he ran against the special interest money. he affected his integrity, john mccain, talking about being in washington too long. president obama, you are the same way. you have taken more money as president in the history of anybody who has ever taken the office. you did in health care without a pharmaceutical reform, without insurance companies. insurance companies are not under the sherman antitrust act. who wrote that? washington, d.c., because that is where they get their money. there is a lot right with america.

the money has it by the throat. even men who want change cannot do it. i think the only shot i have is to limit it to $100 and get more americans to join me. we can do that. raise 300 million of clean, simple -- and turn this some -- system around. i would meet with the leaders in say, look at what i did. let us change the law. let us make it constitutionally correct. let us have some definition of how we are going to run elections. our forefathers never thought it would be this way. we need to take it back again. >> every president runs on change. george bush talked about changing the tone of washington in 2000.

he said we failed in that area. how do you succeed in changing the tone in washington where past presidents have admitted it did not work as well as they had hoped? >> you are right. since theodore roosevelt, 100 years ago, is the republican party going to be a party of privilege or playing people? i am running on the money. these problems need to be addressed. energy independence, spending that is out of control. small businesses that need to be put first on our list. global trade that is unfair and needs to be change. i am in into it. you cannot do it unless you separate -- separate yourself from the money. it makes people uncomfortable.

i am very serious. if you do not change the money, you will end up being like a george w. bush, a good man but did not get it done. you will be like barack obama, a pretty speeches, but nothing has changed. i will change everything, the money and politics. watch it happen. >> how did you get interested in politics and why did you first run for congress? >> i grew up on a farm. my dad and mom are still alive. they are 89. they live in louisiana, about 10 miles from a city where i went to high school. i graduated in 1960 with a great group of class men. most of them are still buddies of mine. i grew up on the cotton farmer.

i worked. my mother and father taught me the value of work. i went off to college at 16. came the back to the farm into helped run it. went back to college at 19 and 20. then came back and formed banks and other companies that i do. i got interested in politics at an early age. my mother and father taught us that no politician had all of the interest. my mother and father taught us that no politician was perfect. my mother and father taught us that that the only safeguard we have is representative democracy and is to keep checking on our politicians. they urged us to get involved. i've volunteered working for political school board and other things. i did not run for office for a

long time. i was one of the delegates elected as be worked on the state constitution. i ran for congress and the loss. i had never run for office on a scale like that. i ran again two years later and i was lucky enough to beat the guy who had beaten me. i was the only beaten democrat in the general election in 1980. louisiana had open laws where everybody runs together, regardless of the party. that is what got me interested in politics. family interest. we were conservative in our money, fairly liberal in our civil rights and beliefs. in the deep south, we were rare. my father received cross

burnings in the turmoil in his life. our family believes that people should be judged by their character. i ran for office that way. as a conservative and i hold those views today. i was proud to change parties. i think i was the only governor to change parties while they served in office. it ended up in a train wreck for me, i was glad to do it. i thought it was the right thing to do. i like politics. i do not want my absence from politics to be mistaken. it was not that i did not care. i pay my taxes every year, and i am proud to did it. this time, it seemed indifferent to me. this time i was most disappointed in president obama. this time, i felt the country was like a tsunami had hit.

8% of the people did not have work and another 3% quit working in other 15% barely working. no new jobs created. this is time for somebody with a plan. most importantly, this was a time for somebody who either had the courage to stand against the big money. i went to school with people like this. i am a harvard undergraduate. i know those people. they are not evil. they are just looking after themselves. they laugh about it in washington. i am going to ask them to quit laughing. i am going to ask them to be american and support me for somebody better. if you can find somebody who has

a plan and get these things done in the treat the lowest man as a valuable resource, both for them. if you can, vote for me. >> politico describe your can't say -- your candidacy. a cross between huey long in the jerry brown. -- and and jerry brown. -- and jerry brown. >> i have gotten to be this way in fear of and distain for the system.

the system takes good men and women and does not let them do their job. they have to be raising money. it takes good men and women. it will not let them leave the. -- lead. many had spend millions because eye shut their business -- i shut one business down because they were polluting big time. i want my politicians to be unafraid of that. it is time to rebuild a nation. that is why at the age of 67, retired from politics, successful in business, alive and well, i have decided to try

to make this a race for the president but for rebuilding america. changing the corrupt part of our system. i have been careful not to use it much, because people think i am talking about carson. i am not. there are a few corrupt people. i am talking about a system where we do not have the lowest tax rate on earth. a system where people of a fabulous wealth do not have to pay their part. a system where the middle class are going to end up paying much larger taxes if we keep on with what we are doing now and have all of their spirit killed. this country used to produce 4 million jobs a year. in the last 12 years, it has

produced zero. it is the system that does is. the system makes things too complicated and makes the real goings on in washington something that c-span cannot cover. you are never invited into it, not one time. you are never invited where the boys do their deals. i am the only guy running for president that has been a congressman for eight years and a governor full-time and built my own company. i know this game. it is not worth playing. we need to change it. >> a couple of personal questions. are you religious? >> i am. as you get older, you begin to settle down. i got married at 19 and divorced 10 years later.

i got married after that and a divorce 16 years later. i have had my ups and downs. my parents were methodist. i have over the last 10 or 15 years become a regular -- regular churchgoer with my faith in the lord. i am still an independent soul and a center i am sure. i have a deep religious feeling. >> what were those in divorce is like for you? >> painful. it takes two to have a divorce. i hold myself responsible. i lost my focus. there was no scandal involved. i was involved. i have been lucky with my three children, two from the first,

one from the second. we are very close. we made to the agreement in the divorce. wonderful people. i got to be married about 10 years ago. i never thought i would, because my second divorce crushed me. the first divorce was bad enough. but a second one. i was governor when it happened. i cried like a baby. i was like the speaker of the house. it crushed me. i had to rebuild my life. it took me almost a dozen years before i met the piano player in my church, scarlett. she had two degrees and is a registered nurse.

she makes a living in the family. she is my best friend. we have no children. we have been married for 10 years. we have a couple of dogs and some parakeets. the gold fish died in december. two of my children live in baton rouge, as did i. one is a banker. my oldest son is elected to the state board of education. my daughter, i am most proud of her. her name is caroline in her mid 40's now. she just had a son of two years ago, my third grandson. she lives in new orleans. she runs a private organization, the executive committee for charter schools, public charter schools in louisiana.

they have about 100, one of the biggest in the country. given all of my train wrecks of marriage, i have learned -- i am trying it again. 10 years. i love my wife. she is so generous with me. she lets me be bettye, -- buddy. >> how did you get buddy? >> yue ride the school bus 14 miles -- you ride the school bus for 14 miles and you have a long name like mine, you get called

a name. it was butch. but girls said i needed a more dignified name. so they made it bettye. >> all -- buddy. >> what about your wife? what does she think? >> sheathings america needs a dose of may where we need to deal with our subject matter openly and honestly. i went to the ilo with the other candidates -- iowa with the other candidates. i was the only one there that said ethanol subsidies need to be removed. like that about me.hat abou

-- likes that about me. she is encouraged that i take a look. my children have been for politics before they lived with me when i was governor, after my divorce. and afterwards even. they have seen me in politics. their fear is that i will not relax and have fun. they do not want to lose their dead. -- datd. they like the issues and say they would be proud to have me as president. >> take the money aside. how do you win? what is your strategy? >> i will concentrate on iowa,

new hampshire, south carolina trio. i leave this interview and go to new hampshire. i just finished a week in south carolina. i run a like i am running for governor in new hampshire. no fear, i am not running for governor. personal friends, city clubs, guys i went to college with, community bankers, republicans who share my views, tea party members that would like to take it to the next step, independents who think we need to pull together. i will do that in south carolina and iowa. my expiration is in two or three things.

can i learn to ride the bicycle again? it has been 20 years. politics are much faster now. the speed in naples -- the the internet is my friend. i have contributions from 37 different states. my words go much further than they used to. the heart of my political status is to emphasize the money with the phrase, free to lead a rising nation. use the internet.

come together with a critical mass. it will take a while. the first pull i show up on -- that is the way i ran for governor. i went from 1% to 6% and i was going to win at 6%. i have to reach a critical mass. these others have a big staff and payroll. that is wrong with the government. i do not think you can be a andident's running one way is serving a another. >> you need a staff to run a campaign. >> you do. i have two barely paid staffers and a six volunteer staff members who are helping me organize it.

i am not ready to give you my laundry list, but it is very good. i go to college campuses and to recruit young people. i recruit executives that are not part of wall street. i go particularly to small businesses. i am a small-business guy. many jobs were from small businesses. the white house had a big economic summit a few years ago. "the wall street journal" has their annual ceo. there is not a small businessman there. no wonder they do not know what is happening in the world. i am getting small business people involved in my campaign. >> talk about the pace of the campaign. talk about your health.

did you have had a couple of issues. >> i am 67. i am in good shape. i'd do pushups. i do my age. 67. i have had open heart surgery 5.5 years ago. i do not remember the date. right before katrina. i am a diabetic. after 40 years of diabetes, open heart surgery is often required. i had artery replacement. before i announced my exploratory committee, i went through tests with my doctors. we did a stress test. he said, perfect.

perfect running order. i do not know about your mind, but your body is in good shape. i was not a teenager when i became a diabetic. juvenile diabetes is anywhere between 30. i am an insulin and dependent diabetic. i have an insulin pump, which allows me to run for president. i thought about this for 20 years. i could not run before. i did not have the diabetic pump. as governor, i was ok. i am here to tell every diabetics mile. look at me. i am doing this thing -- every diabetic to smile. the get me. i am doing this thing. >> you mentioned some of the

names with this republican deal. mitt romney, nuking rich. how to use size of your potential candidates -- newton gingrich. how do you size up your potential candidates? >> good people. the president cannot fix the budget. you need a president to do that and other things. the issue is we have taken the greatest nation on earth, a representative democracy. i have a question for you. you are they representing? washington is a beaumont, -- boom town. we need to take our country back. that means from a corrupt

political system. when we do, i make a prediction. i will not get my way on anything -- everything, but we will change so much. you will have an interview with me in two years and say, it is possible. you cannot change it to the other way. we will have to match you dollar for dollar. bad idea for bad idea. the new way, having small, clean contributions. >> governor, thank you for your time. >> thanks. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] 1] >> met romney said he is forming an exploratory committee to run

for president of the u.s. he ran in 2008 and lost to john mccain. besides serving as governor, he also is a businessman and helped to run the two dozen to solid city olympics. 2002 salt lake city olympics. white house spokesperson said failure to raise the debt ceiling will damage the u.s. economy. president obama will unveil his deficit reduction plan on wednesday afternoon at george washington university in washington, d.c. his plan is expected to include changes to entitlement programs such as medicare, medicaid, and social security. this is about 50 minutes.

>> the initiative seems to spark a reaction from all sectors of our society. it is to ensure military families have the support they have earned. many of you saw the press release. i want to remind you of this important event tomorrow that is the focus of the first lady and vice-president joe biden. i will start with your questions. >> a couple of questions on the spending debate. in 2006 when he of host:

[unintelligible] can you explain why it is not hypocrisy? regrets hisdent's boat and says it is a mistake. he realizes now that raising the debt ceiling is so important to the health of this economy that it is not above -- even when you are protesting the administration policy, you can play around with. you have to take seriously the need to raise the debt limit so that the full faith and credit of the united states government is make -- is maintained around the globe.

the consequences of not failing to raise the debt ceiling would be like armageddon. in terms of the impact rate on a growth and other areas. it would be devastating. one person said it could cause significant in long-lasting financial disruption. jimmy diamond said if anyone wants to push that button, failed to raise the debt ceiling, which i think would be catastrophic and unpredictable, i think they are crazy. the president through his actions in the first two years in office, when he demonstrated how he created the health care

recovery, with its deficit reduction built into it, through his agreement on friday to an nak -- enact the deepest cuts in history, it shows his dedication to the reduction. we do not need to link the raising of the debt ceiling to anything. we should do it right away. >> as early as this year, -- the there was a mistake. when did the president come to the realization that it was a mistake? >> he understands that when you are in the senate, you want to

make clear your position. there are many other ways to do it. i would say the fact that in this case, the efforts to link this to the president's commitment to deficit reduction are unnecessary because he has demonstrated his commitment. he has laid out his inner vision for a long-term reduction. the president's commitment is established. the act of holding hostage the votes would be catastrophic. the need to move on is quite clear. one question. should american people expect this to be a speech where we

expect more about principles and goals? >> i would like to not previewed the speech in any detail. he will clearly laid out his vision for the reduction and the need for it to be balanced and a bipartisan and to address the long-term drivers of our debt. for everyone to share in the burden of bringing our fiscal house in order. beyond that, i would rather not get in the details but let him do that on wednesday. >> are you explicitly will announce attaching any specific spending cuts? republicans say they will be seeking large concessions to a degree of raising the debt limit.

>> without negotiating from here, we believe that we should move quickly to raise the debt limit. we support a key piece of legislation to do that. concurrently the president is going to demonstrate on wednesday his commitment to deficit reduction. he looks forward to working together with members of congress in both parties to find a resolution to our long- term fiscal issues that is bipartisan and can be supported by the american people and that is good for the american economy. he believes separately we should raise the debt limit so that all the good work that has been done to move this economy forward, to create an atmosphere where we are growing regularly, creating jobs month by month, that all that progress is not put into jeopardy. that is what happened if we

were not to raise the debt ceiling. >> you have a gang of six out there. >> the president has set in the -- said in the state of the union and has noted sense that there has been a lot of good work on the issue. he believes that the fiscal commission he set up last year and reported its findings at the end of last year helped create an environment unlike any we have seen in washington in recent years, that creates the potential for bipartisan cooperation and compromise on these very difficult issues that require everyone to give a little bit and not get 100% of what they want. he looks forward to working with members of congress of all kinds and thinks there is ample evidence that the potential for finding common ground is there. >> why wednesday?

what did he not lay out his plan -- why did he not lay out his plan in the budget proposal? >> i appreciate the question. leadership is not about, in the president's view, laying out positions to score political points. he made a very deliberate decision as we look forward to this year and the year ahead, that he would -- because he was serious about the need to address long-term deficit reduction and debt -- that he would put forward a 2012 budget that makes a serious down payment, that demonstrates his commitment to deficit reduction, more than one trillion dollars in deficit reduction. we need to remind everyone that the president laid forward that 2012 plan two months ago.

he does it in a balanced way. it protect the investments that will help us grow in the future. he also said he looked forward to working in a bipartisan way, having a conversation with those lawmakers who are committed to doing something about this in a reasonable approach. the decision was putting up a specific plan at that time with the environment for the speech he will deliver on wednesday is we are now in a situation having accomplished what was accomplished on friday and reaching an agreement on fiscal years beginning in 2011 that includes the deepest spending cuts in history and the greatest

spending cuts as a percentage of gdp since 1982. we have an environment now, having dealt with last year's business, we can move forward and tackle some of these long- term issues. the 2012 budget that he put forward is very much a down payment on that, a blueprint for the balanced approach he believes needs to be taken. >> speaker boehner says there is not a chance that the debt ceiling will be raised without significant spending cuts attached to it. >> i will remind you of something that the speaker said earlier this year. if we were to fail to increase the debt limit, we would send our economy into a tailspin. he also said "financial disaster not only for our country, but for the worldwide economy. you cannot create jobs if you

default on the federal debt." we cannot have said it better. that is a vivid description of why this is such an important vote and why you cannot hold it hostage to something else. the president's commitment to deficit reduction was established on friday, was established in the 2012 budget proposal, in the midst of the worst recession since the great depression, in the way he grew up and work with congress to pass the affordable care act. it is important to remember, when we are talking about the drivers of the long-term debt, we are talking in sizable measure about health care spending. that measure has reproduces the deficit by $200 billion in 10 years and more than one trillion dollars in 20 years, again demonstrating the seriousness with which he takes the need to address the deficit and the long-term debt. >> you are heralding the

biggest spending cut since the reagan years. that will not even pay for what we are borrowing this month. >> i agree that the reality of our six-month continuing resolution is that it is but a portion of the problem. that is an argument we were making for a long time in urging congress to get done with that work. but it does do is demonstrate a commitment to spending reduction, spending cuts, and a commitment to making tough choices that are not the kinds of choices that in an ideal world president or the democrats would want to make, but it shows his willingness to compromise and find common ground, that it can be done. if we all work together, we are all reasonable, and all willing to retain our principles and priorities, but be willing to

negotiate on the issues in a way that allows us to reach an agreement. >> just for the government to continue functioning, the debt ceiling will need to be raised about $1.90 trillion. you are heralding $38.5 billion, or $78.5 billion. you are talking about a drop of water in an ocean. it is nothing. i don't understand how you can say this demonstrates -- >> first of all, your dismissal of the size of the spending cuts is remarkable, given the intense interest in every half billion dollars as recently as last week on the hour. all of these things are difficult. what was established on friday was that if the leaders they focused on the need to do what is right for the american economy and the american people, they can reach an agreement that is good for the

american economy and for the american people. these things build on themselves. we believe that the bipartisan tax cut that the president signed into law in december, which no one in this room, i dare say, would have predicted in the wake of the midterm election as a possible outcome laid the predicate for that kind of bipartisan cooperation we need in divided government, and has had a great deal of positive impact on the economy. independent economists will tell you that it has added significantly to our growth so far. the agreement the president reached on friday laid a predicate. all of this stuff is hard. all of these negotiations will be difficult, but what the american people should take away from what they've seen happen in recent days is that there is reason to hope that we

can work together and get the work done that the american people expect us to get done. >> does the white house have any comment on the latest from libya, the negotiations with colonel gaddafi and from the ivory coast? >> we are glad to see that mr. gbagbo has been arrested, because as you know, we have made clear that he was no longer route the legitimate president of the country, that the elections that displaced timber free and fair, and we have supported the efforts of those who would convince him to remove himself from power. we have been very involved in the effort at the international community level to help make that happen.

we welcome that development. on syria, i would say that -- on libya, i am sorry. [laughter] you can tell that the unrest in the region is broad. on libya, our response to the cease-fire is that what matters here are actions and not words. colonel gaddafi and his forces, his regime, know full well what they need to do. they need to stop menacing the civilian citizens of libya. they need to pull back from the cities and garrison themselves, and that would be a good development. we are in no way pausing, or letting up the implementation in any aspects.

the resolution continues and will continue as long as necessary. we continue to pursue our diplomatic and economic measures to tighten the noose around gaddafi and those members of his regime who continue to try to cling to power in order to achieve the result of having him step down from power so that the libyan people can decide their future and pick leaders who will respond to their aspirations. >> on the talk shows it was said that social security is not driving up the numbers right now. the fight is already going to be hard enough in getting things moving. why add a hot-button issue like social security to the discussion? it is going to be hard enough

without this. >> i think what david plouffe said is that the president has for a long time made clear that we do not believe that social security is driving our deficit problems in the near and medium term, but he also welcomed the efforts to further strengthen social security for the long term. that is the president's position and the position that david plouffe was echoing yesterday on the sunday shows. >> on congressman ryan was the plan, he said let's get past 2011 and then we can talk about 2012. are there any elements are aspects that the president agrees with in the ryan plan? >> he agrees with the goal that we need to address our fiscal issues, the things that are driving in creating debt and driving our deficits. we strongly disagree with the

lack of balance in congressman ryan approach. we believe is not appropriate and would not be supported by the american people to have a fiscal plan that relies on dramatic restructuring, reform of the programs that provide security to seniors and poor and disabled people. at the same time, it gives enormous tax cuts to the wealthiest americans. again, we understand that people will come to the table with different views. the president believes that we have to have balance. we have to be sure that we protect the most vulnerable in this nation as we approach this problem, and a plan that congressman ryan laid out does not do that. it fails the test of reaching

that balance. >> medicare and medicaid are on the table in part of the discussion. our polling shows that any kind of cuts to medicare and medicaid is -- americans are overwhelmingly against it. how does the president convinced the american people is worth taking on? >> i am not going to get into specifics about what the president will lay out on wednesday. the president understands very well that health care spending is a major driver of our deficit and debt problems. he has shown his understanding of that by the way he addressed it in the affordable care act and achieved savings in that the will save over one trillion dollars over 20 years. he has shown it in his 2012 budget proposal which achieves another $60 billion in reductions. he believes we can achieve those savings in ways that protect the people these

programs were designed to support and help. i don't want to preview the president's speech. but i will say is that it will be a balance -- he believes we have to have a balanced approach. these things have to be on the table and we have to approach them in a balanced way and make sure the programs and the approach we take in the end is balanced in terms of the sacrifice it requires and that it protects the very things that we need to invest in in order to continue to grow in the 21st century. growth is one of the most important things in terms of creating the economic environment that allows us to drive down the debt and deficit. no matter how many programs to cut, you will not get very far if the economy does not grow

and jobs are not created. going back to the debt ceiling, that is another reason it would be a catastrophic folly not to raise the debt ceiling. at a time when growth and job creation are moving forward and helping us pull ourselves out of this recession and put people back to work and create an economic environment that will allow us to address our deficit and debt issues. >> is the president telling the republicans he will not sign a bill unless it is clean? >> what i will not do from here is pretend that you are john boehner and i am the president and hash it out, but our position is clear, for all the

reasons i have laid out and that speaker boehner and congressman ryan have laid out an economist and others have laid out. we cannot play chicken with the economy in this way. it is too darn risky. it is not appropriate. yousn't that exactly what are doing, setting up the game of chicken? >> no, we are saying this is an issue that every leader in congress of both parties agrees has to be done. i am saying that the effect of the economy on playing that kind of game would be too severe, too catastrophic. it would send all the wrong signals to the markets and to

those who -- to hold hostage by a vote, in exchange for some proposal that one party wants is not the way to treat this issue. it is too dangerous to do it that way. >> isn't the dangerous thing to play chicken rather than compromising? >> the dangerous thing would be to hold hostage the simple raising of the debt limit, which everyone agrees has to be done, regardless. in those statements i read to you, they were not equivocal, they work regardless, we have to do this. so we should do it, and at the same time we are showing how serious the president is. he is showing how serious he is

about moving off of friday's agreement towards having a serious conversation about the long-term deficit and debt. >> on the deal that was reached on friday night, [unintelligible] do we have any details or do the details exists, or are they does not telling us what they are? >> what was agreed upon friday night was a fairly detailed framework that includes the things that dan laid out and the leaders agreed on, and now up on the hill, the fine print is being worked out. but the outlines of the agreement were very clear and were agreed on by the leaders. that process is now proceeding up on the hill. it takes a little bit of time, but that is what is happening now.

>> should we expect the president to embrace the work of simpson-bowles and their team? >> he thinks the work they did was extremely important. he does not agree with every proposal in it, but it was very important and help create the environment we are in now in which we find republicans and democrats who are serious, willing to address the issue in a serious way which starts with an understanding that you cannot do this unless you do it in a balanced way. you need to look at entitlements, tax expenditures, military spending, you need to look at all of these issues. you cannot simply slash

entitlements and lower taxes and call that a fair deal. he is optimistic that if the leaders are all serious and we move forward, we can actually get something substantial conflict for the american people pri >> center reed said he will not support tinkering with social security. it does not believe it is an emergency. does that say to the white house that social security is part of a deficit plan, maybe eight nonstarter in the senate? >> i am not going to preview what the president will say on wednesday it septet he also believes that social security is not the issue when it comes to our short and medium-term deficit problems.

he also will look at ways of strengthening social security to ensure that it provides needed benefits to recipients going forward. i am not going to preview what he is going to say on wednesday. >> will get to the point of primary balance [unintelligible] running of the zero yearly deficit? is that the goal of this debt ceiling vote? >> i do not know specifically what the secretary of the treasury -- i am sure treasury would be a better place to go for the answer to that question.

>> when you want to issue a veto threat, you make it known. you have not issued one, is it not fair for us to realize you have not issued a veto threat of a non clean debt ceiling? >> i am not aware of a piece of legislation we need to issue a veto threat on. we are making clear what our position is, and the secretary of the treasury has made it clear going back to january. we are not suddenly paying attention to this issue. we have been talking to members of congress about this for a number of months because it is so important. that is our position. it is not a question of issuing veto threats. it is a question of making it clear to everyone in washington and around the country how important this issue is. i know is esoteric to a lot of americans who have their own problems to deal with.

the best way to explain it is that the united states, the most powerful economy in the world, needs to be credit worthy. the impact of anything it would do, that the congress would do that suggests that the united states was not credit worthy would be calamitous. i think that is something americans can understand. it can be framed in a way that sounds bad politically, but the reality is, the united states is the largest economy in the world. it is looked to around the globe as the anchor of the world's economy and must establish through this vote its creditworthiness. >> [unintelligible] is it fair to say wednesday's

speech, that you hoped those members who fought for the president should get more serious on entitlement reform? >> i don't want to project upon members of congress what action they will take after hearing the president's speech, but i will say that it will demonstrate the president's seriousness about deficit reduction. he hopes that it will signal to members of congress in both parties that he wants to work with them in a bipartisan way to address these issues that are imported, that's a fact our capacity to dominate economically in the 21st century the way they did in the 20th, to win the future. part of winning the future is to make sure that we have our fiscal house in order. he looks forward to working with

republicans than democrats to do that. >> is the using of residence as a negotiating tool during these last minute talks, saying you can let the budget restrict this or restrict that? >> i would just say that the president made clear the lines he would not cross in this negotiation. one line he would not cross which has been made clear in some of the reporting was the insistence by the republicans that a measure be included that the funded a program that gives women's health services to poor people across the country. he also has said from the beginning that we have to make

tough choices, and he has to agree to things that in an ideal he would not want to agree to. that is the nature of compromise. you do not get everything you want, but if you know what your priorities are, you protect the very essential things that are so important to growing the economy and making sure we out compete the rest of the world in the 21st century. >> you said that the republican budget which cuts entitlements and lowers taxes is not a balanced approach. >> i think that is an effort to track to get me to preview what the president is going to say. balance include shared sacrifice. the president has made clear by his actions that he understands

that healthcare is one of the major driving factors in our deficit and debt. he has shown he understands that by the deficit reduction he has already put into place. it says a lot about the environment that we work and live in, the fact that this president signed into law a bill that reduces the deficit by over a trillion dollars does not get acknowledged as often as it should as far as deficit reduction. he continues to show in his 2012 budget proposal that savings in health care are essential to any balanced approach. you are asking me to say something specific about what the president is going to say on wednesday, which i am not going to do. savings and health care are essential to any balanced approach. that is pretty clear.

>> yesterday everyone said we should be able to reduce the deficit while increasing the debt limit. >> the point i have made is that the president's demonstration of his commitment to deficit reduction continues. it was demonstrated with his 2012 budget proposal and again when he came to an agreement with speaker boehner and senator reid to cut discretionary spending more significantly than ever before. it will be demonstrated again on wednesday when he gives his speech.

>> when did the president decided he needed to give a speech on deficit reduction? was it during the final days leading up to the agreement on friday? >> no, and has been long planned. as i have had this job and get up close to the president and the way he thinks about these issues, this is very instructive. sometimes in a way that does not satisfy the press and others in washington, he approaches his engagement in these issues always with an eye to where do i want to go? what is the result i am hoping to achieve? he has been thinking about this for a long time. he telegraphed that in his state of the union address and he was thinking about it beforehand in discussions of how he would approach this.

under any circumstances, whether there had been -- if there had never been a showdown over a shutdown, if there had never been a dispute over fiscal year 2011 spending, he was committed to addressing our deficits and debt this year, this spring, and he will do that. he will continue to engage in the way he engaged in the cr negotiations. it is not an opportunity to score political points, but to advance the cause of finding a way to do the business that the american people want us to do. that might sound corny, but it really is the way he approaches it. he will do it while protecting the principles he thinks are so important, but to answer your

question, he has been thinking about this for very long time. >> who all has he consulted with outside the white house on this? some have been very clear that the deficit is a long-term deterrent to growth. the don't want to reveal phone calls and meetings, but i can tell you he has had discussions about this with the number of people and stakeholders beyond the circle of congress and his administration. of course includes the business community, labor, and all sorts of individuals and groups that he comes into contact with. as part of the way he conducts his presidency, he has his presidency, he has conversations about th