cuts to that 12% above will not solve the problem. any serious plan to tackle a deficit will require us to put everything on the table. and take on excess spending wherever it exists. a serious plan does not require us to balance the budget overnight, economists think that with the economy starting to grow, we need a phased in approach. it does require tough decisions that support from large leaders in both parties now. above all, it will require us to choose a vision for the america we want to see five years, tenures, 20 years down the road. now, to their credit, 1 deusen has been presented and championed by republicans and

house of representatives and embraced by several of their party's presidential candidates. it is a plan that aims to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over the next 10 years. it is one that addresses that challenge of medicare and medicaid in the years after that. these are both were the goals. they are worthy goals for us to achieve. the way this plan achieved those goals would lead to a fundamentally different america than the one we have known certainly in my lifetime. in fact, i think it would be fundamentally different than what we have known for our history. a 70% cut in clean energy, a 25% cut in education, a 30% cut in transportation, cuts in college

programs that will grow to more than $1,000 per year. that is the proposal. these are not the kind of cuts to make when you are trying to get rid of some waste or find extra savings and the budget. these are not the kind of cuts that the fiscal commission proposed. these are the kind of cuts that tell us we cannot afford the america that i believe in and i think you believe in. i believe it paid to a vision of our future that is deeply pessimistic. it is a vision that says if our roads crumble and our bridges collapsed, we cannot afford to fix them. if there are bright young americans to have the drive and will but not the money to go to college, we can't afford to send them. go to china and you will see businesses opening research labs and solar facilities. south korean children are outpacing our kids in math and

science and scrambling to figure out how to put more money in education. brazil is investing billions in new infrastructure and can run at their cars, not on high- priced gasoline, but on biofuels and yet, we are presented with a vision that says the american people, the united states of america, the greatest nation on earth can't afford any of this. it is a vision that says america can't afford to keep the promise we have made to care for our seniors. it says that 10 years from now, if you are a 65-year-old eligible for medicare, you should have to pay nearly $6,400 more than you would today. it says instead of guaranteed health care, you'll get a voucher and it that voucher is not worth enough to buy the insurance that is available in the open marketplace, tough

luck. you are on your own. put simply, it ends medicare as we know it. it is a vision that says up to 50 million americans have to lose their health insurance for us to reduce the deficit. who are these 50 million americans? many are somebodies grandparents, maybe one of yours, would not be able to afford nursing home care without medicaid. -- without medicare. many are poor children. some are middle-class families who have children with autism or down's syndrome. some of these kids with disabilities, the disabilities are so severe that they require 24-hour care. these are the americans we would be telling to fend for themselves.

worst of all, this is a vision that says even though americans cannot afford to invest in education at current levels or clean energy even though we cannot afford to maintain our commitment on medicare and medicaid, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy. think about that. in the last decade, the average income of the bottom 90% of all working americans actually declined. meanwhile, the top 1% saw their income rise by an average of more than 1/4 of a million dollars each. that is who needs to pay less taxes? they want to give people like me a $200,000 tax cut that is paid for by asking 33 seniors

each to pay $6,000 more in health costs. that is not right. that is not going to happen as long as i am president. [applause] this division is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in america. ronald reagan's own budget director said there is nothing serious or courageous about this plan. there's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending $1 trillion on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. i don't think there is anything courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who least afford it and don't have any clout on capitol hill.

that is not a vision of the america i know. the america i know is generous and compassionate. it is a land of opportunity and optimism. yes, we take responsibility for ourselves but we also take responsibility for each other. for the country we want and a future that we share. we are a nation that built a railroad across a continent and brought light to communities shredded in darkness. we sent a generation to college on the gi bill and save millions of seniors from poverty with medicare and medicaid. we have let the world and scientific research and technological breakthroughs that have transformed millions of lives. that is who we are. this is the america i know. we don't have to choose between a future of spiralling debt and one where we forfeit our investment in our people and our country. to meet our fiscal challenge, we

will need to make reforms. we will all need to make sacrifices, but we don't have to sacrifice the america we believe in. as long as i am president, we won't. today, i am proposing a more balanced approach to achieve $4 trillion in debt as a reduction over 12 years. it is an approach that borrows from the recommendations of the bipartisan vessel commission that i appointed last year and it built on the roughly $1 trillion in deficit reduction already proposed in my 2012 budget. it is an approach that puts every kind of spending on the table, but one that protect the middle class, our promise to seniors, and our investments to the future. the first step in our approach is to keep annual domestic spending low by building on the savings that both parties agreed to last week.

that step alone will save us about $750 billion over 12 years. we will make the tough cuts necessary to achieve these things, including programs that i care deeply about. i will not sacrifice the core investments we need to grow and create jobs. we will invest in medical research. we will invest in clean energy technology. we will invest in new roads and airports and broadband access. we will invest in education. we will invest in job training. we will do what we need to do to compete and we will win the future. the second step in our approach is to find additional savings in our defense budget. as commander in chief, i have no greater responsibility than protecting our national security and i will never accept cuts that compromise our ability to defend our homeland for

america's interests around the world. as the chairman of the joint chiefs, admiral mullen has said, the greatest long-term threat to america's national security is america's debt. just as we must find more savings in domestic programs, we must do the same in defense. we can do that while still keeping ourselves safe. over the last two years, secretary to bob gates has courageously taken on wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and future spending. i believe we can do that again. we need to not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness, but we will have to conduct a fundamental review of america's missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world. i intend to work with secretary gates and the joint chase on this review and i'll make specific decisions about spending after it is complete.

the third step in our approach is to further reduce health-care spending in our budget. the difference with the house republican plan could not be clearer. their plan essentially lowers the government's health-care bills by asking seniors and poor families to pay them instead. our approach lowers the government's health-care bills by reducing the cost of health care itself. already, the reforms we passed and health-care law will reduce our deficit by $1 trillion. my approach would build on these reforms. we will reduce wasteful subsidies and iran is payments. we will cut spending on prescription drugs by using the medicare purchasing power and speed and generic brands of medicine to the market. we will work with governors of

both parties to demand more efficiency and accountability for medicaid. we will change the way we pay for health care, not by the procedure or the number of days spent in the hospital but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries and a group results. we will slow the growth of medicare costs by sprinting -- by strengthening doctors and consumers to look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services that seniors need. we believe the reforms we propose to strengthen medicare and medicaid will enable us to keep these commitments to our citizens while saving as $500 billion by 20203 and an additional $1 trillion in the decade after that. if we are wrong and medicare

costs rise faster than we expect, this approach will give the independent commission the authority to make additional savings by further improving medicare. let me be absolutely clear -- i will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society. i will not allow medicare to become a voucher program that leads seniors at the mercies of the insurance companies with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs. i will not tell families with children who have disabilities that they have to fend for themselves. we will reform these programs but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations. that includes our commitment to social security. social security is not the cause of our deficit, it faces real long-term challenges in a country that is growing older.

both parties should work together now to strengthen social security for future generations. we have to do it without putting at risk current retirees or the most abominable or people with disabilities, without slashing benefits for future generations and without subjecting americans guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market and it can be done. the fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code. it is the so-called tax expenditures. in december, i agree to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest americans because it was the only way i could prevent a tax hike on middle-class americans. we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. we cannot afford it. i refuse to renew them again.

beyond that, the tax code is loaded up with spending on things like itemized deductions. while i agree with the goals of many of these deductions, from home ownership to charitable giving, we can't ignore the fact that they provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 but do nothing for the typical middle-class family that does not itemize. my budget calls for limiting itemized deductions for the wealthy 2% of americans, a reform that would reduce the deficit by $320 billion over 10 years. to reduce the deficit, i believe we should go further and that is why i am calling on congress to reform our individual tax code so it is fair and simple. it is the so that the amount of taxes you pay is not determined by what kind of accounted you can afford. i believe reforms should appear

-- should protect the middle class, promote economic growth, and build a model of reducing tax expenditures so there is enough savings with lower rates and lower the deficit. as i called for in the state of the union, we should reform our corporate tax code as well to make our businesses and our economy more competitive. this is my approach to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next 12 years. it is an approach that achieves about $2 trillion in spending cuts across the budget. it will lower our interest payments on the debt by $1 trillion. it calls for tax reform to cut about $1 trillion in tax expenditures, spending in the tax code. it achieves the goals while protecting the middle-class, protecting our commitment to seniors, and protecting our investment in the future.

in the coming years, if the recovery speeds up, and our economy grows faster than our current projections, we can make even greater progress than i have pledged here. to hold washington and me accountable and make sure the debt burden continues to decline, my plan includes a debt fail-safe. death by 2014, our debt is not projected to fall as a share of the economy, if we have not hit our target and congress has failed to act, my plan will require us to come together and make up the additional savings with more spending cuts and more spending reductions in the tax code. that should be an incentive for us to act boldly now instead of kicking our problems further down the road. this is our vision for america.

this is my vision for america. it is a vision where we live within our means while still investing in our future. it is a vision where everyone makes sacrifices but no one bears all the burden, where we provide a basic measure of security for our citizens and we provide rising opportunity for our children. there will be those who vigorously disagree with my approach. i can guarantee that, as well. some will argue that we should not even consider ever, ever raising taxes even if only on the wealthiest americans. it is just an article of faith to them. i say that at a time when the tax burden on the wealthy is at its lowest level in half a century, the most fortunate

among us can afford to pay little more. i don't need another tax cut. warren buffett does not need another tax cut. not if we have to pay for it by making seniors pay more for medicare or by cutting kids from headstart or by taking college scholarships that i would not be without and some of you would not be without. i believe that the most wealthy americans would agree with me. they want to give back to their country. it is a country that has done so much for them. it is just that washington has not asked them to. others will say that we should not even talk about cutting spending until the economy is fully recovered. these are most folks in my party. i am sympathetic to this view

which is what of the reasons i supported the payroll tax cuts we passed in december. it is also why we have to use a scalpel and not a machete to reduce the deficit so that we can keep making the investments that create jobs. doing nothing on the deficit is just not an option. our debt has grown so large that we could do real damage to the economy if we don't begin a process now to get our fiscal house in order. finally, there are those that believe we should not make any reforms to medicare, medicaid, or social security out of fear that any talk of change to these programs will immediately ushered in the sort of steps that the house republicans have proposed. i understand those fears but i guarantee that if we don't make any changes at all, we will not be able to keep our commitments

to a retiring generation that will live longer and will face higher health-care costs than those who came before. indeed, to those in my own party i say that if we truly believe in a progressive vision of our society, we have an obligation to prove that we can afford our commitments. if we believe that government can make a difference in people's lives, we have the obligation to prove that it works by making government smarter and leaner and more affected. -- effective. there are those that sale there is no way we can come together and agree on a solution to this challenge. they will say the politics of this city are just two broken, the choices are just too hard, the parties are just too far

apart. after a few years on this job, i have some sympathy for this view. [laughter] i also know that we have come together before and met the challenges. ronald reagan and tip o'neill came together to save social security for future generations. the first president bush and democratic congress came together to reduce the deficit. president clinton and a republican congress handled each other ferociously, disagree on just about everything but they still found a way to balance the budget. in the last few months, both parties have come together to pass a historic tax relief and spending cuts. i know there are republicans and democrats in congress who want to see a balanced approach to deficit reduction. even those republicans i disagree with most strongly, i

believe are sincere about wanting to do right by their country. we may disagree on our visions, but i truly believe they want to do the right thing. i believe we can and must come together again. this morning, i met with democratic and republican leaders in congress to discuss the approach i laid out today and an early may, the vice president will begin regular meetings with leaders in both parties with the aim of reaching a final agreement on a plan to reduce the deficit and get it done by the end of june. details inect the any final agreement to look exactly like the approach i laid out today. this is a democracy. that is not how things work. i am eager to hear other ideas from all ends of the political spectrum.

i am sure the criticism of what i have said here today will be fierce in some quarters and my critique of the house republican approach has been strong, americans deserve and will demand that will make an effort to bridge our differences and find common ground. this larger debate that we are having, this larger debate about the size and role of government, it has been with us since our founding days. during moments of great challenge and change, like the one we are living through now, the debate gets sharper and gets more vigorous. that is not a bad thing. in fact, it is a good thing. as a country that prizes both are individual freedom and our obligations to one another, this is one of the most important debates we can have. no matter what we argue, no

matter where we stand, we have always held certain beliefs, as americans. we believe that in order to perk -- to preserve our own freedoms and preserve our happiness, we cannot just about ourselves. we have to think about the country that made these liberties possible. we have to think about our fellow citizens with whom we share a community. we have to think about what is required to preserve the american dream for future generations. this sense of responsibility to each other and to our country, this is not a partisan feelings. . this is not a democratic or republican idea. it is patriotism. the other day i received a

letter from a man in florida. he started off by telling me that he did not vote for me and he has not always agree with me. even though he is worried about our economy and the state of our politics, he says "i still believe. i believe in the great country that my grandfather told me about. i believe that somewhere lost in this quagmire of petty bickering on every news station, the american dream still alive." we need to use our dollars here rebuilding, refurbishing, and restoring all that our ancestors struggled to build and maintain. we as a people must do this together. no matter the color of the state one comes from or the side of the aisle one might sit on.

i still believe, i still believe as well. if we can come together and uphold our responsibility to one another and to this larger enterprise that is america, we will keep the dream of our founding allied in our time and we will pass it onto our children. we will pass on to our children a country that we believe in. thank you, god bless you, and may god bless the united states of america. thank you. [applause]

c-span3 c [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> house republicans reacted to the president's budget speech with a press conference on capitol hill. we will hear from the budget

committee chairman paul ryan and ways and means chairman dave camp. first, republican conference chair jeb hensarling. this is 20 minutes. >> good afternoon, late yesterday, myself and chairman ryan and german camp were invited to have a front row seat to the president's redo of his budget. we spent approximately half an hour and he gave us a history lesson blaming everyone for fiscal woes except himself, attacking the path to prosperity budget and setting a new standard for class warfare rhetoric.

i don't know about my colleagues, but i thought to myself, did i miss lunch for this? i was honored to receive the information -- the invitation, it was clearly something i could watch from my office. this was not a speech designed for america to win the future. this was a speech designed for the president to attempt to win reelection. this was a speech that prioritizes the next election over the next generation. it was a speech that was heavy on aspirational goals and exceedingly light tons this of a republic -- proposals that those who are present deserve comment. first, at a time when millions of our countrymen remain unemployed, the president again proposes tax increases on job creators. if i had the opportunity, i would ask how you expect to help

the job seeker by a punishing the job creator? i know of no nation that has ever taxed its way into economic prosperity. mr. president, the deficit is the symptom. it is spending that is the disease. i am at least part in the that the president acknowledges that medicare is on an unsustainable path. however, putting price controls and rationing on steroids is not the answer. the president passes on social security, claiming that it does not appear to be any type of immediate physical threat. tell that to all all the americans who are scheduled to receive a 22% automatic benefit cut in the years to come.

again, it is very light on specific proposals. i will touch upon one more. the president claims to set up a debt fail-safe only he fails to include summer between 75 and 80% of all federal spending in his bill say. this can only lead to completely gutting national defence or adding implicit huge tax increases on those already explicitness plan. under the leadership of our budget chairman paul ryan, republicans have a different idea. the path to prosperity but it will put america on a fiscal and sustainable path to help create jobs, to ensure that our social safety net which even the president implicitly admit is going broke is saved for future generations. our path to prosperity is about

saving the american dream for the next generation, insuring that our children have greater opportunities than we have. >> we have a serious discussion with the president and the request was for all of us to be very mindful of the challenges that we face and to have an adult conversation to try to come to resolution. what happened after that is the president goes and delivers his speech in which the only concrete proposal that a proposed was raising taxes. that solution falls far short of dealing with the kind of crisis that we are facing as far as the debt concern in this country.

raising taxes is not what we need right now two days before tax day especially while we are trying to get job creators back into the game. we are serious. we have the ryan budget plan on the floor. this week. we laid out our vision and specific as to how to manage down this debt and get our economy back on track and repair the future for our kids. that is what we are about. we are serious and we care about these entitlement programs. that is why we are trying to say you have to have a safety net for those who need it but not for those who don't we have spoken to the specifics. we are serious. where are you, mr. president? >> i am very disappointed in the president. i was excited when we got invited to attend his speech today.

i thought the president's invitation was an olive branch. instead, we got a speech that was excessively partisan, dramatically inaccurate, and hopelessly inadequate to address in our country's pressing fiscal challenges. what we heard today was not fiscal leadership for our commander in chief. we heard a political broadside from our campaigner in chief. when the president lost his reelection campaign last week and we lost our effort to get our deficit under control and get our economy going. in the absence of a serious budget last year, the president created a fiscal commission. with his budget, he disavowed his fiscal commission. he adds -- he ignored the recommendations. he was to delegate leadership again to a new commission.

how are we to expect different results? the measurements of success of this new commission are lower than the measurements of success of the last commission that ended a few months ago. we need leadership. we don't need a doubling down on a failed politics of the past. this is very sad and very unfortunate. rather than building bridges, he is poisoning wells. by failing seriously to confront the most predictable economic crisis in our nation's history, the president's policies are committing us and our children to a diminished future. we're looking for a bipartisan solutions, not partisan rhetoric. when the president is ready to get serious, we will be here working. exploiting people's emotions of fear, envy, and anxiety is not hope, it is not change. it is partisanship.

we don't need partisanship. we don't need demagoguery. we need solutions. we don't need to keep hunting to other people to make tough decisions. if we don't make tough positions today, our children will have to make much, much tougher decisions tomorrow. i am sincerely disappointed that the president, at a moment when we are putting ideas on the table, is trying to engage in a thoughtful dialogue to fix the country's problems, and he decides to pour on the campaign rhetoric, launches reelection, and as a partisan broadsides against us and making it that much harder for the two parties to come together with mutual respect of one another to get things done. >> thank you. i agree. much of the speech was rhetoric that was unnecessary, not

helpful, un productive and it was far too partisan. i think it is helpful that the president admitted his first budget did not go far enough because clearly it did not. there is one item of individual tax reform that the president has put on the table which is something i have been advocating that we need to look at the entire tax code. the almost $1 trillion dollars in taxes, particularly taxes on small businesses at the rate he suggests is half of the small business income. we need the small businesses paying employees, not paying higher taxes. higher taxes are not helpful. i stand ready to continue to work on these issues but i think that much of the approach made it harder for us to do that. i think tax reform is fundamental to getting our economy moving again, getting the kind of job creation we need to help grow and that will assist in the difficult

challenge we have about addressing our debt, thank you. >> i, too, was very discouraged this afternoon when the president gave his response, when he came to talk again about a budget after he had given us a budget a little over a month ago. i was excited to think that perhaps we would have an opportunity to have some new and creative ideas. i was excited when i first came here as a freshman to hear the president in his state of the union speech knowing that this country is in a debt crisis. we did not hear any solutions in that speech and neither did we hear solutions today. what we heard was political rhetoric. we heard a scare tactics and i am very disappointed. i think we are already for democrats and republicans to get the country on the right track. and good is back to prosperity. i know that during the times

that i spend back in the district hearing from my businessmen and individuals, people are scared. they don't need the leaders here schering them. we need to give them hope. the path to prosperity budget gives them just that. i hope in the upcoming weeks as we begin to talk about this budget, we will have leadership from the president on dealing with this issue in a very positive way and giving people hope rather than the same old political rhetoric and scare tactics. >> questions? >> when you talk about rhetoric and scare tactics, you sound like you assume he will not stand by this. >> first of all, i have said that the president is not serious because his proposals are a far cry from trying to tackle the tough problems we face. we've got a detailed and specific plan on the table that we will vote on this week. the president's proposal is not a comprehensive sex.

it does not address the entitlement programs. the only concrete think he came out with was to raise taxes. this is the tired old way of waging class warfare and pitting one piece of society against the other. that is why we say the president is not serious. we are serious and we put forward our proposal and we would like to have the president dryness in a serious discussion to address the problem. >> is this an opening gambit? >> it is all we have seen. in the state of the union address, there was lofty rhetoric without any policy. this time, we are getting into the partisan attacks and rhetoric with one concrete proposal on the table which is raising taxes. that is unacceptable. that is not serious. >> this is not a plan. this was a speech. this is a plan to have a bunch

of other people set up a commission to come up with a plan and its spending and deficit targets that are less ambitious than the last plan he came up with to have a commission to come up with a plan. this was not a plan, this was punting. he is pointing to a new commission to come up with smaller savings targets that came up with last time. >> you say that the present plan does not deal with social security. the ryan plan does not talk about so security there. -- either. >> in the past, -- in the path to prosperity budget, we force congress to solution and we acknowledge the problem. different approaches have been discussed. the president said it is not a problem. if it is not a problem, you tacitly accept the status "and that is a 22% benefit cut for my

children which is unacceptable to republicans. >> i talked about this three hours ago. i was excited because i thought he would give us something on social security, a plan. the reason we put so security in our budget is to want to be delicate and make sure we could get toward a bipartisan solution on social security. we have very different opinions on health care. everybody knows that. we don't believe in government rationing so we don't want to go in that direction. we were hoping for possibly getting some bipartisan agreement on another entitlement program like social security. we put a trigger that said the president to submit a plan and the house and the congress. we thought that would help move this process and a delicate way

toward solutions. we did not get that. that is the one thing that i was looking forward to in this speech when given the indentation to, and attend. all we got is what he wants to do, chalked up as another disappointment. >> you took this present to places he did not want to go on a variety of issues. you came to an agreement friday night on the budget. what makes you think you can't take them someplace different now? >> the deal is this -- why didn't the president take the opportunity once again that he was given? why didn't he lead? we want to go in and solve this problem. we have defied all political convention by laying out what we have done in the budget this week. paul and his committee will be

on the for advocating for these very specific proposals. why is it that we are leading and the president is not. ? >> there seems to the contention about what you and the president said about lowering the rates. some of the revenue was dedicated toward deficit reduction what is a tax increase? is that more revenues or increases? >> i will tell you that there is entitlement peace where there is disagreement. we have laid out our proposals. there is nothing from the white house. as far as the tax revenues are concerned, we are proposing a change for reform so we can grow this economy. it is not just waving a magic wand expecting revenues to grow. it is putting in place an

environment of taxes so businesses can begin to invest in jobs and growth. >> the president never said he would lower rates. he said he wanted to increase taxes on certain part of the electorate. he wants higher rates and he wants them on half of the income which would be small businesses. the income commission said lower rates would affect the broader base. he said individual tax reform to be on the table largely because in order to get economic growth we need, you have to include passed through entities which is much of the way business is organized today which includes partnerships. they file as individuals. you want to have a positive economic impact, you want to make sure you get that piece. he wants higher rates. he wants $1 trillion in revenue. our approach is that we want to

have revenue-neutral tax reform. we had james baker and richard gephardt before the joint committee on taxation. they both said you have a better chance of getting the fundamental tax reform you want if it is revenue-neutral. >> would a tax increase the call for? >> no. >> the president took some hard swipes at paul ryan's plans. you are taking swipes at him wanting to raise taxes. we talk to alan simpson briefly after the speech and he said to pray for the gang of six. [laughter] i know you had a lot of issues with balsam cent. that was the senator simpson statement. is he right? >> i pray for many of my colleagues. [laughter]

-- the deficit is the symptom and spending is the disease. the president talked about shared sacrifice. the problem is on the spending side. we know that in the postwar era, revenues have averaged 18.5% of gdp. they have been temporarily down through the recession which has been exacerbated by the president's policies. in all the models, revenue comes back and marginally increases beyond that point. spending goes from its historic 20% of gdp to 40% over the next generation. you would have to double taxes on the next generation, crush the economy, crushed jobs and frankly lose the american dream if you define that as your children having greater opportunities in a higher standard of living and you have had. when we see shared sacrifice, the only thing we see our

massive tax increases when spending is the problem. therefore, it is a non-starter. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> to be a parent means you are training the people you cannot live without to live without you. >> the college admissions process her -- -- the college

admissions process, andrew ferguson was not prepared them and nothing like that had happened to me when i was going -- i was looking about college in the mid 1970's. it started to dominate that this is a very much different process from what it was. >> find out if his dead catches up sunday night his"q &a." you can also download podcast @ c-span.org/podcast. >> a few months ago i signed the tax cut for american families as both parties work through their differences and found common ground. now, the same cooperation has made it possible for us to move forward with the biggest annual spending cut in history. >> what shall be events in the current spending debate and the debate about the budget next year from capitol hill and the house and senate floor to the white house and around

washington on line with the cspan video library. search, watch, clip, and share with everything from 1987. it is what you want when you want. his year's studentcam competition ask students to consider washington, d.c. through their lens. this is the third prize winner. ♪ >> what the deal with the president of united states? 150 years ago, they formed the bureau of indian affairs. that is the subsidiary of the federal government that deals primarily with indians in the interior department. the secretary of interior of points and assistant secretary to deal primarily with the

indians. that is who we primarily deal with. ♪ ♪ the primary service that the program provides is health service. it provides the clinics and medical assistance to the 10,000 indians on our reservation. >> indian health service as a federal program that is under the department of health and human services. their budget comes to them from the federal government. this is a commitment the government has made to indians. with the taking of their land and natural resources. it is an obligation to indians just like any treaty the united states has ever signed with any country. >> the federal government provides services for repatriation programs. they provide money for language

programs and they did provide money for museum operation for a while. ♪ >> the way that the help of our government works is for grant funding. we fought for federal grants. they help some of our fund programs. they help to fund some of our programs. we do about half of our budget from federal grants. in the past, we were like words of the government. we were prisoners of war but they called us wards of the government. the united states government has determined everything about the truck was going to do as to where it would move to and how much land it would have.

we are a nation that was defeated by the united states government and that is how they treated them up to the turn-of- the-century and they started to change their policies. right now, the united states government is in a self- determination mode with indian tribes. they turn over all the things they used to do for the indians and they turn them over to the tribes so we take responsibility of that. i am the chief executive officer or the principal chief of the osage nation. we have had chiefs as the leaders of the tribe. they speak to governments and dignitaries and i do the speaking. i execute all laws this nation makes. we are structured like a three

part government. we have an executive, a congress, we have a judiciary and we have a special counsel that oversees all our mineral affairs. that is like the oil and gas business. that is the part of the government that has anything to do with revenues, enterprises. we have revenues coming in. this government oversees all of that. because of that national indian gaming act of the federal government, the indian tribes were able to do gamiing on their reservations. we of about seven casinos. -- we own about seven casinos with revenue of about $750 million per year. >> before that, we had very little revenue coming in. we were heavily dependent on

federal funding for grants and services. that has changed dramatically the tribe provides more money for these services than the federal government does. one of the things we say is that a rising tide raises everybody. the tribes entry into gaming has provided about two hundred jobs, most of them for non-indians. those are things that provide payroll and support the economy. the impact of the osage nation was measured to be about -- about 1/4 of a million dollars that we provide to the local economy. ♪ >> it is not just one part but

the entire osage reservation who has created jobs. that is probably the biggest thing they give to us is employment. ♪ >> on this campus, we employ about 400 people. >> i think the ratio is half and half. we have a payroll going out every two weeks. as a pretty good-sized payroll that goes out it in packs of this city and in tax surrounding cities. -- and it impacts surrounding cities. >> the tribal government helps the city -- they are one of the largest employers in the community. they bring a lot of jobs, a lot of people into work with the

bureau of indian affairs, indian health service, there is a clinic up their. they all meet here. that is a huge benefit for the community. those people come here to work. when they are here, they are eating, they are shopping. that is how we benefit is through the things that they contribute either monetarily or with the employees that come to work here. >> in more than 40 years, since the united states adopted this policy of greater trouble autonomy, tribal self- determination has proved to be successful. tribal governments have established, developed, and enhanced trouble institutions and infrastructure for the health, education, and welfare of their communities and improved tribal court, fire protection, and law enforcement to better protect their

communities. when tribes are in power to deal with the challenges they face, the results are tribal communities that thrive. >> go to studentcam.org to watch all the winning videos. >> "washington journal" is next live with your phone calls. and then live coverage of the house session today where they will be working on a spending bill for the rest of this fiscal year at a budget resolution for next year, 2012. and number of events on cspan 3. at 9:30 a.m., the house oversight committee holds a hearing on the debts of state and municipal government. at 2:00, a house armed services subcommittee hearing on arlington ceremony looks into the mess placement of burial plots. plots.