costs of disasters from within the existing budget. so rather than us relying on emergency supplements to fund the disaster relief -- supplementals to fund the disaster relief, this is something the president failed to address in the f.y. 2011 budget request. supporting the cost of security demands truth in budgeting and this congress is delivering where the president and o.m.b. has failed. having said that, the department of homeland security is not immune from fiscal discipline. and underperforming programs have been significantly cut in this area. by implementing these cuts, we are not choosing between homeland security and fiscal responsibility. both are serious and national security items must be dealt with immediately. that is precisely why this c.r. also includes sufficient funding to sustain the crucial

-- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. aderholt: can i have 30 seconds? 30 seconds? mr. rogers: i yield 30 seconds. mr. aderholt: this is precisely where this c.r. has sufficient funding to sustain critical operations at the front line agencies such as c.b.p., coast guard, i.c.e., secret service, t.s.a. and the department's intelligence office. madam speaker, homeland security is far too important to be subject to budget gimmicks and inadequate justifications. the homeland security title of this c.r. responsibly funds programs vital to our nation's security and will help get our federal budget on track. i thank the distinguished committee chairman for yielding the time and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. dicks: i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. farr, who's the ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee on agriculture and rural development. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes.

mr. farr: madam speaker, thank you very much and thank you, mr. dicks, for yielding. . i rise in appreciation for the hard work that's gone on in our appropriations committees. when you think about it, this saturday will mark two months from the day that this house passed h.r. 1. which is a really draconian bill that put all kinds of riders and eliminated all kinds of family planning money for things like planned parenthood. it sort of new the price of everything and value of nothing. i would like to compliment the republican leadership for coming around. it's a much better improvement than h.r. 1. it also shows they are not whetted to h.r. 1. the message goes out that they makes adjustments. they restored nearly all the $1.9 million. 9% higher than h.r. 1 in overall spending. the w.i.c. program, the program that feeds low-income women,

expecting children or have children, is funded at a level sufficient to support what we think will be the participation levels this year when a lot of people are unemployed and in poverty. the food safety activities at the usda are increased by more than 8% over h.r. 1. they broke the h.r. 1 hold and have come up and i compliment them for that. the food and drug administration was increased by nearly 17%. 17% in an earla when we are worried about food safety and the issues of food safety. the mcgovern-dole program which is food aid to foreign countries provides our american food to really needy countries is nearly twice what it was in h.r. 1. the rural and water waste programs are 30% higher than h.r. 1. but agriculture title really falls short in the -- from the president's request of 2000, particularly in the emergency food for people around the world

who are in desperate need. we take surplus american food and give it to countries that are really starving. while we are trying to win the hearts and minds of people, we need to have this program not decreased but increased when the world's in a lot of hurt. lastly i'd just like to point out that what really bothers me is that we are putting $5 billion more in the defense department at the same time cutting $25 million from the peace corps. the peace corps is only $400 million. it's a small weapons system for the military, the entire thing. we have 7,000 peace corps volunteers in 77 countries, 10 more countries want us. 14,000 americans want to be in the peace corps, and we are cutting it? you can't win the war without winning the hearts and minds. the war corps of $5 billion isn't going to do as much as the peace corps. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes to the distinguished chairwoman

of the financial services subcommittee on appropriations, the gentlelady from missouri, mrs. emerson. the chair: the gentlelady from missouri is recognized for two minutes. mrs. emerson: thank you, mr. chairman. madam speaker, when i took hold of the gavel of the subcommittee on financial services and general government, i took to heart the responsibility to reduce federal spending on behalf of future generations of americans. the financial services section of this act provides a total of $22 billion. $2.4 billion or 10% reduction from fiscal year 2010 levels and reduction of 3.4 billion or 14% from the preeze's fiscal year 2011 request. deciding how to apply these deductions was challenging. our propensity to spend now and repay with interest has saddled our children and grandchildren with $14 billion of debt. as such the money in this act is directed at high priority programs such as court security, counterterrorism, drug cold task forces and small business

assistance. funding for new construction by the general services administration is dramatically reduced to gain control over management and operation of the federal building inventory. other programs are selectively reduced including programs within the executive office of the president and the treasury department because these two agencies should be the model of efficiency and economy for the rest of the executive branch. the act measurably improves oversight and accountability of the executive branch by requiring a new annual g.a.o. study of all financial services regulations, including the consumer finance protection bureau, a new g.a.o. study on the use nulness and accuracy of the consumer product safety commission, consumer complaint data base, and the elimination of four executive branch stars not confirmed by the senate and not accountable to the people. they act also includes $77.7 million for school improvement in d.c., including a $2.3 million increase for opportunity

scholarships. this funding along with the speaker's language to re-authorize the program will increase educational opportunities for low-income students in the nation's capital. this effort represents an important starting point for our committee and our congress and i look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mrs. emerson: thank you, madam speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. dicks: i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from georgia, mr. bishop, the ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee on military construction and veterans' affairs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. bishop: thank you, madam speaker. thank you to the gentleman from washington for yielding. madam speaker, today marks the end of the f.y. 2011 process. a process that should have been completed a long, long time ago. failing to stop a government shutdown, would have destroyed the american people's confidence in the ability of congress to

govern. thankfully with only minutes to spare last week the house, senate, and white house came together to avoid a government shutdown, striking a compromise to keep our federal government running for the remainder of f.y. 2011. this bill is by no means perfect. i'm particularly concerned about the impact of funding reductions to several areas, including $35 billion cuts in pell grants for our students. $700 million in cuts while local and state law enforcement personnel, the people who keep us safe, i'm also very concerned about rural, agricultural communities, cuts in $433 million to the foreign service agency for direct and indirect loans. madam speaker, this bill is a far cry from the draconian meat cleaver approach of h.r. 1 and i hope my colleagues will think about what we just went through and use this final resolution as an example of how we should

approach f.y. 2012. our country cannot afford to repeat the irresponsible process going forward that we resolve here today. democrats and republicans on both sides of capitol hill must work in a bipartisan fashion to produce a responsible budget that will help grow our economy and responsibly reduce our deficit. this spending package becomes law, congress will have made the largest cuts to discretionary spending in the history of this body, cutting nearly $40 billion from the f.y. 2010 budget. the c.r. provides 73.1 billion for military construction and veterans' affairs, which is $3.4 billion below the f.y. 2010 enacted levels. construction accounts are conformed to the f.y. 2011 national defense authorization act, which included reductions in the budget request for f.y. 2011. savings were found by taking reductions in unobligated appropriations from years past, as well as cap turing savings

from projects that have been coming in under budget. the c.r. also includes a reduction of $160 million below both the request and the f.y. 2010 level for the department of veterans affairs. to reflect cancellation of information technology development programs as well as i.t. program policies resulting from portfolio management reviews. the c.r. also removes funding for the civilian pay race that was included in the f.y. 2011 advances of the v.a. following the president's decision to freeze pay. in addition, the bill rescinds $75 million from prior year unobligated construction balances. it also rescinds $12 million from the veterans benefits administration for initiative to place a printer on every desk. some of these are commonsense reforms that save taxpayer dollars and help put us on a path to fiscal sustainability. many of these reductions in milcon-v.a. will taken in the

full year c.r. passed in the last congress. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. bishop: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield a minute and a half to the distinguished chairman of the military, construction, and v.a. subcommittee chair on appropriations the gentleman from texas, mr. culberson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. culberson: the military construction and veterans' affairs portions of this bill vividly illustrates the importance of passing our appropriations bill as soon as possible. our war fighters in the field cannot afford to have any air bubbles in the logistical pipeline that supports their operations. their families, their loved ones cannot afford to have the barracks, living quarters in which they are housed to be delayed any longer. the marine corps urgently needs bachelor enlisted quarters to get done. marines have had several billion dollars worth of projects already delayed.

as a fiscal conservative i want to see more cuts. i'm committed as our chairman is, as our speaker is to balancing the budget as fast as humanly possible. this is simply the first step in a long war to get us back on to a balanced budget. to restrain federal spending. we dramatically reduced with the chairman's leadership and the speaker's leadership the national credit card limit by $38 billion. the largest cut, nonwartime cut in the history of the united states after the drawdown after world war ii. we have actually seen reductions for the first time, madam speaker, in this bill. i ask asked the staffers when i came in, brand new to this job, to find savings that would not impact the quality of health care for our veterans our reduce the quality of the housing provided to our men and women in uniform. we have done that with con strucks, savings. we have done it by taking money that was not yet used for information technology. we have done it by reducing money that was taken away, money already there and unspent, both

at the veterans' affairs committee and construction accounts. but above all, we preserved the quality of life for our veterans and the quality of our health care while saving money. it's an important bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. dicks: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from california, ms. lee, a valued member of the appropriations committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. lee: thank you very much. i want to thank the gentleman from washington for yielding and also for his leadership. i rise in strong opposition to this the continuing resolution. budgets are moral documents that reflect who we are as a nation. they are not just about dollars and scents. these cuts won't create jobs, foster economic opportunity, or provide pathways out of poverty. instead it eliminates billions in investments in our work force, our transportation infrastructure, our small businesses, and most importantly in our people.

it's a bold assault on millions of people who rely on our safety net. these budget cuts and warped priorities should be a moral outrage to every member of this body. that's why 36,000 people and approximately 30 members of congress have joined the faith community in a 24-hour fast to highlight the enormous impact the devastating impact of these budget cuts. this bill is nothing more than a tea party checklist of targeting programs that help the most vulnerable. $504 million from the w.i.c. program. $300 million from cops. $125 million from dislocated worker assistance programs. $49 million from mentoring children of inmates. $17 million for title 10 family planning programs. and $25 million for veterans' affairs supportive housing vouchers. instead of targeting low-income and middle-income individuals and the residents of the district of columbia particularly and especially low-income women, and women of color, we should be serious

about getting our bloated military budget together and reduce and end these three wars in iraq, afghanistan, and libya. we could save billions, mind you, billions of dollars by ending these wars. madam speaker, we should reject these cuts which hurt our most vulnerable populations and the residents of the district of columbia. it's shameful, a moral disgrace, and i urge a no vote on it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: may i inquire of the time remaining on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has eight. and the gentleman from washington has 7 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i yield a minute and a half to the chairman of the legislative branch subcommittee on appropriations, the gentleman from florida, mr. crenshaw. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. crenshaw: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, let me just remind my colleagues that when we vote yes on this resolution, we will be able to say that we have led by example.

we were told that we should take the budget cutting knife and look at every agency and make them do more with less. to be more efficient. and we thought we should lead by example. the best way to lead by example is to take that budget cutting knife and turn it on ourself. and that's exactly what we did. over one half of the cuts that were made to the legislative branch subcommittee, which i chair, were made to this house itself. we cut the office account of every member of this house by 5%. we cut the budget of all the leadership offices by 5%. we cut the budget of all the committees by 5% except the appropriations committee which we cut by 9%. . so we have led by example. now, some people will say we cut too much.

some people will say we haven't cut too much. people aren't going to remember the numbers but what we will long remember is this is the day that we changed the direction of this country. this is a day that we turned the ship of state in the right direction. they'll remember this is the day that we stopped this cultural spending and started a cultural of savings. they'll remember the day we stopped spending our future and we started saving our future. there's a lot of work to be done, but let's clean up this mess, let's move ahead and let's get ourselves on the path to permanent prosperity. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. dicks: i yield myself 2 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. dicks: it's another week in congress and we are voting on this appropriation it's bill, h.r. 1473. i'm pleased at the 11th hour last week we were able to reach an agreement, an agreement that

made it possible for military wives around the country would be sure to get their paycheck. this had to be done. we kept our parks open. we supported our men and women in uniform around the world, and at the same time i think we minimized the damage of h.r. 1 in this bill. the bill that is now before us contains current levels of head start including the increase spots for newborns to 2-year-olds. it helps protect the pell grant program. it is the good bill on defense. my good friend, bill young, has done an amazing job and i appreciate so much mr. rogers taking on bill from last year and putting it into this bill. the community services block grant program is restored. w.i.c. is restored. head start is restored. yes, there's some things i don't like. no high speed rail money. some other investment accounts.

literacy programs, some of them were taken away. some of the cuts in homeland security were not the best. but as with any compromise some members will see a glass half full and some will see a glass half empty. members will have to consider all the ramifications of this compromise and vote their conscience. we need to move on to the f.y. 2012 appropriations bill. the bottom line is this bill must pass today. let's get it done so we can fight against the ryan republican budget. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: i yield one minute to a new member of our committee, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. dent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. dent: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in support of this legislation, h.r. 1473, the fiscal year 2011 spending

agreement. it's not a good -- it's not a perfect bill. cutting federal spending seemed impossible but today we're cutting nondefense spending by nearly $45 billion or 7.7% from the fiscal year 2010 level. now, madam speaker, we have in fact turned the proverbial ship around, the aircraft carrier around when it comes to federal spending. we're not debating how much we're going to increase spending. we're debating, however, we're going to cut spending and how much we're going to cut spending. that really represents an enormous shift in the culture of this place. you know, from the transportation accounts we cut $2.9 billion from the high speed rail initiative. from h.u.d. the bill will force public housing agencies to operate more efficiently, raines in spending for development programs with a history of inconsistent

results. so we have a lot here to celebrate today. you know, in november the american people voted for change and the culture of that change is occurring. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i want to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to a new member of our committee, the gentleman from ohio, mr. austria. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. austria: thank you, madam speaker. and i'd like to thank chairman rogers for his hard work and his leadership to finally get us here, to finally get a package before us that should have been done last year that officially ends the stimulus spending binge, that funds our troops, that represents the largest nondefense cut in american history with nearly $40 billion in real cuts. certainly many of us would have liked to seen more cuts included in this final package. as the speaker mentioned earlier, unfortunately republicans only control half of one third of the federal government. until the senate democrats and

the administration, president, decide to get serious about stopping the borrowing and cutting spending we're never going to achieve the spending cuts that the american people have demanded. so what does this c.r. mean for us today? for starter, it means approximately $40 billion of less borrowing. this package sets the stage for trillions more in spending cuts that we will vote on later this week. it reduces our own budget here in congress by $100 million. it defunds four of the administration's czars. it fully funds our men and women serving in our country, some in harm's way. it reduces the backlog and fully funds our commitment to israel, one of our most important allies, while cutting nearly $78.5 billion from the president's 2011 budget. madam speaker, is it a perfect spending cut package?

no. but it is a real $40 billion start toward the 2012 budget bill will -- that will begin digging ourself out of the budget deficit and putting our nation on a path toward prosperity once again. madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. who seeks time? mr. rogers: madam speaker, i yield a minute and a half to a new member of this body, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. landry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. landry: madam speaker, i am a tea partyier. i have a tea party poster in my office. my constituents gave me a chainsaw to use to cut the government strength. i am extremely pro-life. this bill will prohibit funds

-- funding abortions in d.c. it defunds planned parenthood. the fact that the last congress did not pass a budget left uts in a mess. sometimes we have to wring the mop out twice to clean up the mess. this bill will cut money, money that will have surely been spent had we not taken control of this body. do i think the cuts are big enough? no. but as my mother warned me of being penny-wise and pound foolish. if we don't pass this c.r. our brave men and women in uniform will not be paid. i am upset that the president and the democrats in the senate -- i served in the national guard for is 1 years. i understand the sacrifice our brave men and women and families make to preserve our freedom. the army range creed states, among other things, that they shall never fail their comrades, they will never leave

a fallen comrade and embarrass their country. i will not fail them, i will not leave them and i will not embarrass them and their families who are political pawns in this game. we should not let this happen again. i urge my colleagues to support the concurrent resolution, get the ball rolling, hang in there, wring out the mop this time and together we continue to make history and clean up all the mess. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. dicks: i yield five minutes to the distinguished democratic whip, mr. hoyer from maryland, who has been a real leader in our house. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for five minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman from washington for yielding. thank you, madam speaker. this piece of legislation will provide for the funding of our government from now until september 30 of this year. while i do not want to engage

in a debate looking at the past, but we are here because we did not fund the government in the last congress through september 30. and frankly there's not much use in pointing at one another as we've been doing. there was an omnibus that was on the floor at the urging of the leader in the senate, and it was not able to get the 60 votes necessary because those of you on the minority side of the senate did not give votes to do that. notwithstanding that, the issue today is not what happened yesterday but what's going to happen today. and we have a choice to make. we have a choice to make in a divided house, in a divided congress and divided government

. the speaker talked about divided government. and that choice is whether we will come together, work together, try to make the best possible agreement that we could make and then move together. i think the american public expect us to do that. during the course of the debate some days ago i referenced with the chairman of the appropriations committee who comes from kentucky, another famous kentuckyian, henry clay. henry clay came to this congress and was elected speaker on the first day of his service in this congress. interesting enough, he was speaker during the eighth congress, during the 10th congress and during the 13th congress. he served for some 10 years as speaker. he served, also, in the united states senate and, in fact, was deemed to be one of the most

outstanding members of the united states senate. he is unique in history. and he said this, and i will repeat it. if you cannot compromise you cannot govern. and what he meant by that, of course, was that the american people in 435 districts and 50 states -- not 50 states, of course, when he was speaker, -- go to the polls and elect people to come to washington to represent them. and not surprisingly in a democracy they have different points of view. they have different per expectives. they have different -- perspectives. they have different priorities. they come from different geological concerns. their districts have different interests. and so it should not shock any of us that there is not agreement in 100% of the cases or sometimes 70% or sometimes 6 0% and perhaps not even 50%.

but there does come a time when the american public expect us to be able to act. gridlock is not what they voted for. madam speaker, i will vote for this resolution. i do not vote for this resolution any more than anybody else on this house floor will vote for or against this resolution because they like everything that's in it or dislike everything that's in it. if i were writing this resolution the priorities would be different. i heard my friend, rosa delauro, who is now the ranking member on the labor and health subcommittee. very frankly, if i were on the committee, i'm the second ranking member of the appropriations committee, i would be the ranking member of the health subcommittee and i would share her views. i do share her views. i think the priorities that we have agreed to in this resolution are not my

priorities, but we have reached agreement. the president of the united states, elected by all the people, the majority leader of the united states senate and the speaker of this house worked for literally weeks to try to come together to forge an agreement so that we could fund government for the balance of this year. it's not useful to blame anybody as to why we're so late on this, but it is useful to say that we are about to embark after we pass this piece of legislation a critical debate on the differences we do have in the priorities of this country. very substantive, deeply held beliefs on the differences that exist between our two parties. and the budgets that will be offered after we pass this

resolution on the budget for the 2012 year -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hoyer: are going to be the substance of our debate. i would hope at this period of time, madam speaker, that we pass this resolution, keep our government functioning and come together to debate the real priorities of this country in the next bill. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: may i inquire of the time remaining, madam speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has 2 1/2 minutes, and the gentleman from washington has 30 seconds. mr. rogers: i have one additional speaker if the gentleman wants to yield time. mr. dicks: i have 30 seconds. i just -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has --

mr. dicks: i think he has the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: he has an additional speaker. mr. douks: that will close. i have to finish now. i just want to say i thank the chairman and i look forward to f.y. 2012 getting on to the -- our appropriations bills and our commitment to the house that we are going to have open rules. we are going to have subcommittee markups. full committee markups and give people a chance to be involved in the process as they have not been in the past. i yield to the chairman. mr. rogers: i join you in that commitment. that's what we are planning to do. i just want this bill over with. mr. dicks: i'm with you. let's get it over. thank you. yield back. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i yield the balance of our time to the chairman of the interior subcommittee on appropriations, the gentleman from idaho, mr. simpson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from idaho is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. simpson: let me thank you

for all the hard work you have done on this appropriations bill. i know it's been tough. mr. speaker, the budget year, budget for fiscal year 2011 is six months and two weeks overdue. it's time to finish this budget. through this legislation chairman rogers and the appropriations committee achieved what some thought would be impossible. we have succeeded in cutting $40 billion. that's $40 billion from current spending levels. no other single bill in history has cut more spending. think about that for just a minute. while the $40 billion reduction in spending, it is $40 billion contrary to some of the reports that have been out there that that it is $300 some-odd million. this is $40 billion in real reductions in spending. while this is $40 billion, it is just a step, but it is a step in the right direction. we should also think about how the nature of this national conversation has -- on spending has changed. for several years we debated in congress how much we were going to increase spending each year.

our debate today centers not on whether we should cut spending, but how much spending should be cut. that is a sea change in the debate both in congress and in the nation and it's a change in the right direction. the interior subcommittee which i'm privileged to chair has cut spending by 8.1% below the f.y. 2010 enacted level. virtually every agency within the budget has been cut. the c.r. cuts e.p.a. funding by $1.6 billion or 16% below the f.y. 2010 enacted level. funding levels for land acquisition programs are reduced by $149 million. and on and on. even with these deep cuts, funding levels for operational accounts are sustained to prevent employee furloughs and closure of national parks, furlough, smithsonian museums, and other sites. let me just say for a minute about the energy and water appropriation. although no funds were included in the energy and water appropriation to continue and

proceed to build yucca mountain, i don't want anyone to misinterpret this vote. congress has voted and spoke many times on the issue of yucca mountain. do not misinterpret this vote that this is a vote against yucca mountain. what we are saying is to the n.r.c. is proceed with yucca mountain and n.r.c., do your job. which they have failed to do. as i close my remarks, i want to echo what both chairman rogers and ranking member dicks said about the staff. unless you have been on this committee or on any of the committees, the public generally doesn't know the hard work that goes on behind the scenes to make this all possible. i want to thank the staff of both the appropriations committee and really the staff of the house, the staff that sits up here on the dais, they do a tremendous job for us for which this congress would not be able to operate as effectively as we do. some people think that's not too effectively. we wouldn't be able to do our job. most people don't understand

that when we went home last friday after extending the government funding for a week, we went home. they were here all day saturday until well into sunday morning and then all day sunday until well into monday morning in order to get the job done so we could do this for the american people. so i want you to vote for this budget. i urge an aye vote so we can get on with debating what the minority whip mentioned, the important priorities for the f.y. 2012 budget in the ryan >> the house passed this year's spending bill. one of the 79 republicans voted for the bill. 81 democrats voted for the bill. the senate passed the measure 81-19. 15 republican senators and voted against the bill along with three democrats and one

independent. in a few moments, congressional leaders talk to reporters about spending and budget bills in congress this week. house speaker john boehner is first followed by democratic leaders in the senate. after that, the former chairman of the president's commission on fiscal responsibility, erskine bowles and alan simpson meet with president obama. later, treasury sector -- treasury secretary timothy geithner says he believes congress will raise the debt ceiling in may. a couple of light is best to tell you about tomorrow on c- span2. first, a hearing from the house natural resources committee about the conflict between embar metal walls and border security. that is it 9:30 a.m. eastern. at 12:40 eastern, the brookings

institution and the national endowment for democracy host a discussion on emerging democracies and human rights. we will hear from the senior director of the national security council office of human rights. >> this weekend on a booktv, the politically incorrect died of socialism. kevin williams and defines socialism and how is it is at work today. carla peterson recounts the lies that african american elites in the 19th century. you can find the complete schedule at booktv.org and get our schedules e-mail. >> next, house speaker john boehner on the spending and

budget measures are making their way to congress this week. he met with reporters in the war -- before the house voted on this year's spending bill. >> good morning, everyone. republicans in the new majority are listening to the american people and working to create a better environment for private sector job creation. our energy initiative, and lookit rising gas prices why -- i expending energy production. we succeeded in eliminating the unnecessary paperwork requirements for small businesses. we take aim at excessive regulations and voted to stop the epa from imposing a job cutting energy tax. today, the house will vote on the largest non-defense spending cuts in our nation's history.

three under $15 billion over the next 10 years. but -- $315 billion over the next 10 years. the bill eliminates one of obama's -- what about the care's programs. programs.re's we was been less than what the president went to spend this year. barack obama started this year by calling 40 spending cuts. now we are cutting $315 billion and there is more to cut. this is not perfect. it is no cause for celebration. this is just one cut. tomorrow it the house will vote on chairman brian's budget.

the ryan budget cuts $6 trillion over the next decade and pace of our debt while the president's budget would add nearly $9 trillion to the national debt. the ryan budget protection preserves programs like medicare. president obama has another way to do that. his budget does nothing and guarantees more debt and spending cuts for our seniors. the ryan budget prevents tax hikes and reforms the broken tax code. president obama called for $1.50

trillion in new taxes. the ryan budget says the bar for the debate's going forward. president obama has not produced any kind of a plan that would match it in any way. instead he is asking us to raise the debt limit without addressing the real problem of spending cuts and reform. this will not happen. this will not pass the u.s. house. instead of joining the discussion yesterday, the president gave us more of the same -- a partisan speech about the need for more spending, more taxing, and more borrowing. we heard a pitch again yesterday about the need for another commission even though the president utterly ignored the last one. the american people are demanding leadership to help create new private-sector jobs and adjust our spending-driven

debt crisis. paul ryan and other republicans are continuing to listen to the american people and addressing their concerns. >> tomorrow, congressman trent franks will be holding a hearing. >> a lot of committees, a lot of hearings -- the committee process is important to this institution. i think addressing any question in american society is legitimate. >> in 2006 and 2005 democrats really went after president bush, essentially blaming high gas prices on him. in your view or print the obama's policies in any way responsible for the high prices americans are currently experiencing at the pop? >> when you look at the fact he shot of almost all of jailing of

the in the united states in new areas -- you can hardly drill in the new mexico, areas of alaska -- it made it hard for american energy producers to produce more energy. if you look at the regulatory environment he is creating, it makes it very difficult to develop new coal, makes it very difficult to produce natural gas. these policies are getting in the way of us moving forward to more energy independent. that is why our american energy initiative is about doing all the above, but is also about trying to get the administration to stop the regulatory juggernaut that they held under way aimed at american energy producers. >> do you think you will have any discussions with democrats

about bringing them over to your side? >> i expect the first step of that today. >> there is new analysis out that say the impact is much less. are you worried that that will cost the republicans? >> there is certainly some confusion. we are cutting $38.50 billion that has already been authorized and appropriated. anybody who does not believe this money would not be spent if we do not act is kidding themselves. this is real money and these are real cuts. that is what the senate budget committee made it clear that over 10 years it would save $315 billion at the baseline. >> today is or one on that day

as speaker. congratulations. if you had to grade yourself, what grade would you give yourself? >> might think the biggest accomplishment is this -- the spending debate in washington has turned up 108 degrees. when we started this year, the president wanted the new spending cuts. the president did not want to deal with the long-term physical crut -- fiscal crisis that is affecting employers in america. we are going to take a step today to cut $78.50 billion in spending below what the president would have spent. we will save $315 billion. it is the largest building cut in the history of our country. the debate will start later on today and continues tomorrow on the long term crisis in making

sure we save programs like medicare and medicaid. it has shifted 180 degrees. i believe the shift in debate is the biggest accomplishment we have made thus far. >> you have to have democratic support to pass the bill. does that say something about discontent in your congress? >> it was a bipartisan agreement to cut the spending. while we had to drag them kicking and screaming to the table, we finally secured these budget cuts from them. i believe it will pass with a bipartisan majority today. >> one of the things the president said yesterday is that he will not sign an extension of the tax cuts again on the upper-income. >> i heard that one year ago.

he did. >> is there any compromise on that? >> raising taxes on the very people we expect to invest in our economy and create jobs is the wrong move. washington does not have a revenue problem. washington has a spending problem. >> [unintelligible] >> i do not know how they will perceive this. i do not think anyone around the table yesterday reacted very well to having this conversation. they seem to take that into account. i hope they take it off the table. it is time to get serious. >> do you expect that conversation to be part of the debt ceiling conversation? >> i have not made any decision

about what will be part of raising the debt limit. clearly, the direction of the u.p.a. with their regulations will cripple our economy and cripple the ability of employers to create jobs. where are the jobs? this administration is doing more to more job creation than they are in try to help it. thank you. >> democratic senate leaders also spoke to reporters about the budget and spending bills in congress. this is 20 minutes.

>> we are here to talk today about how unfair the ryan house budget proposal is. the house budget is dear to many people in our country. i want to talk about what it does to medicare recipients. i understand the difference between having medicare and not having medicare. my first elected job was in southern nevada in clark county. i was elected to the hospital board of trustees in the largest hospital district in the state. it is a indigent hospital. but during my first time on the hospital board, when seniors came to the hospital, 40% of them had no health insurance and the way of paying. when they came into that

hospital, a father, brother, mother, son would have to sign for them. someone would have to be responsible for that bill. we had huge collection agencies go after those people to make sure the bill was paid. while i was on the hospital board, medicare came into being. after medicare came into being, people over age 65 did not have to worry about their hospital bill. that is the difference. is medicare perfect? of course it is not. there are a lot of things to be done to make it better. i know the difference. i have seen the difference between having medicare and not having it. what the house republican budget proposal does to medicare is change it as we know it. it turns it over to the insurance industry and people

would be left looking for a doctor who would take their case. a lot of them would not because it would be hard to get paid for that. we are comfortable that we have to have a different approach. i am very satisfied with the direction the president is taking. he has cast a wide net, making sure there will be some shared sacrifice, which is so important to work our way through this budget problem that we have. >> i spent some time on the fiscal commission and another conversation on the budget reflecting on $4 trillion. when the house budget came out, i took a look at it. virtually no cuts in terms of

pentagon over spending and waste. virtually none. they ended up saying, "we need to continue the tax cuts for the wealthiest americans as we try to bring our deficit virtually no revenue is being put toward the deficit. the cuts are coming from domestic programs, but more importantly, they are coming from medicare. the house republican budget will end medicare as we know it. after 50 years of success -- success proven by the fact that seniors now live longer, are stronger, or more independent, and are healthier than they ever were before medicare -- house republicans have said they want to and medicare as we know it. how do they want to change it? they want to more than double the out-of-pocket expenses for senior citizens to continue under something they call "

medicare." when it comes to the drug benefits, they add another $3,000 in costs. our crop estimates today means it will be an additional out-of- pocket expense each year for every senior qualified for medicare of more than $10,000 for medicare premiums as well as prescription drugs. you tell me how millions of americans who are retired on fixed-incomes can possibly come up with $10,000 a year to keep the care they have today? that is the wrong way to go. if that is the way the republicans believe we will balance the budget in america, at the expense of senior citizens under medicare, i think they are in for a rude awakening. medicare has liberated seniors so that they can have the very best quality care. they can leave independent and quality lies because of medicare. the house republican budget would put an end to that. hashe president's speech

sprang be debate with republicans that will rage long after we resolve the debt ceiling. the debate is a debate we welcome. we have been waiting for it. it is a debate we will win. it is quite a different debate than the one we will finish up today after we pass this year's budget. that debate was important, but the one to come as much higher stakes. the debate about this year's budget was about spending levels. the debate ahead of us is about more than spending levels, it is about the role of government itself. it will be one of the seminal debates in the first quarter of this new century and will determine what america is like. the fact that the president has drawn a clear distinction with the republicans and their ryan

budget brings the debate finally to a head and we welcome it. the house republicans are not trying to balance the budget. they fundamentally what to alter america's relationship with their government. tomorrow they will vote on their 2012 budgets that has created waves of controversy, for good reason. the budget plan will end medicare in order to pay for an extra tax break for medicare. the paul ryan budget proposal will bring down the top rate from 35% to 25%. this would make it the lowest level for the very wealthy since 1931 when herbert hoover was president. talk about trying to turn back the clock. in order to pay for each million there to get a new to do thousand dollar tax break, -- $200,00 tax break, seniors would

have to pay more for health care. we had the opposite approach. we want to put the tax breaks towards reducing the deficit. if we are serious about reining in medicare spending, there is a better starting place and the ryan budget. the health care bill was passed by congress last year. republicans are patting themselves on the back slightly for leaning on entitlement reform, but when it comes to reining in the cost of medicare, the truth is the president did it first and he did it better. medicare has cost issues, no doubt, but we should amend it, not end it. that is what the ryan budget proposes. in recent weeks they had been patting themselves on the back for taking on tough challenges. but a closer look at the proposal shows it is not bold at

all. it please pentagon spending untouched and revenues untouched. this budget it used his party's orthodoxy. it is a rigid, ideological document. this document -- does columnist saying it took courage, i do not buy it. the president takes the all of the above approach to taxes and deficit. it has balance. unlike the republicans plan, it is the middle class first. we urge the house republicans to go back to the drawing board and come up with a fair proposal then be ryan budget. no plan to end medicare as we know it will ever pass the senate. they should take off their ideological straitjacket and, if they do, we can reach a compromise on the deficit in the coming months. john boehner needs democrats to pass this year's budget.

the one need them to pass the long-term deficit reduction plan as well. the sooner he abandons the tea party, the sooner we can have a compromise. we hope the coming debate will yield a compromise, but if it cannot, we will be happy to take this contrasting priorities into 2012. now, finally, democrats have the high ground. >> the last couple of years have been very destructive to families, businesses, communities, and to agencies across this country as the economy went decidedly bad and people had to come together at every level to balance their family budgets, their business budgets, and their community budgets. they have learned a very important lesson -- everybody has to sacrifice a little to get to a place where they are more secure. families have done this.

businesses have done this. government agencies at every level have done this. when the republican budget came out and error buddy said where the sacrifices, that it was very clear. there was sacrifices on everyone except one group of people, millionaires and billionaires. they have been walled off. family businesses, people across this country do not see that as fair and neither do we. everybody has to sacrifice to get to a place where our government and our country is in a stronger place. but even more than that, the budget, the republican budget that came out is a smokescreen to kill a program that many of them have never supported and that is medicare. we just went through this last week when, for weeks and months, we heard that this year's budget

battle was all about cutting, cutting, cutting, and cutting programs. then we find out what they really wanted to do was to cut preventive services for women's health care. it was a direct attack on health care. you see it today on the floor where a condition to getting a vote on the sea are -- on the cr, you have to get a vote on limited funding. they are not even equal. it is a smokescreen about balancing the budget. the real goal is to kill medicare. we will not stand for that. the budget approach that the president put forward is balanced. everyone is at the table. everyone has to make sacrifices. and we protect the values that are so important to american families of being able to send their kids to college, know that they have health care when they retire, and they do not have to pay more to someone else.

>> we will take some questions. >> yesterday, you sent a letter to the president were you asked him -- are you disappointed with the approach the president has taken? >> i did not ask senator schuman to sign the letter because he is the chairman of the said committee. i felt that would be inappropriate for him to do that. but the letter was important. i believe that the executive department has the ability to do things administratively without passing a law to make it better for these young men and women who, for no fault of their own, came to this country. they have been here for at least five years. they came here before they were 15 years old. and we believe they should be will to go to school when they want to go to school. we believe they should be able

to go into the military. i think that a lot can be done administratively. i would also say that, as someone said to me, you're asking the president to not go after these people criminally. that is the whole point. the justice department has a lot to do. they have a lot to do without going after these young men and women who simply want to join the military or go to school. >> senator, the president has said that he is not willing to sign an executive order or do a decision that would protect all of these so-called dreamers. the white house reaffirmed this today. what you think the letter can accomplish? >> we sent the letter to the

president and we want him to reaffirm this. >> how important is it that the gang of six act soon so that they can have an alternative to the ryan plan? >> i have plenty to do without telling the gang of six what to do and what they should not do. he knows the timeline better than anybody else. he knows he will do a budget. when he decides he will do it, he will do that. >> can you pass a clean debt ceiling increase out of the senate or will you have to add either budget reforms or budget cuts in order to get something through? >> i am not lamenting the fact that the need to raise the spending levels of our country, the debt limit, i am not lamenting the fact that we're taking a serious look at long- term spending in this country. there's nothing wrong with that.

i think it is really important that we do that. that is why we have wide-ranging support to do something about the deficit that this country faces. if you look at why we are in the whole we are in, there are two wars attali not funded, borrowed money. we have all of these tax cuts, borrowed money. we have a presidency that lost 8 million jobs. and we find ourselves now with this tremendous problem we have with finances in this country. the world is looking at us to do the right thing. i think it would be fine if we just raised the debt ceiling. but i think it is even better if we raised the debt ceiling with some long-term goals to help our country meet its obligations to the world community. we do not have to attach anything. the debate can be separate to that. we do not have to have a lot of things attached to raise the

debt ceiling. we can do that separate. i hope that all the proposals that have been talked about -- i know that the president's proposal has nothing to do with attaching it to the debt ceiling. it will be a separate piece of legislation that we would take a look at. >> house and -- house and senate republican leaders say that anything involving higher tax revenue is off the table for them as far as bipartisan participation is concerned. are you concerned of any deal that includes revenue? >> republicans have drawn a line in the sand. we have not done that. with medicare, in my opinion, with the republican budget out of the house, it leaves medicare

lifeless. we know that medicare is not a perfect program. we did not draw a line in the sand. they should not draw a line in the sand with the tax measures we are looking at. the american people understand, by an overwhelming majority, but there has to be a fair treatment and that is why democrats, republicans, independents believe that there has to be a better direction with our tax system. our tax system is broken and needs to be fixed. how can we have a tax system that taxes the american people about $1 trillion a year and gives benefits to 100 billion. no people who make a billion dollars a year should give more. it is the right thing to do. >> lacks question. the -- >> last question.

>> [unintelligible] that the republicans in the room are not pushing for changes in medicare? >> i will not talk about what happens in the room. we made progress. we are not there. we hope to do it very soon. >> president obama met today with the former co-chairman of the president's commission on fiscal responsibility. after their oval office meeting, erskine bowles and alan simpson spoke with reporters. >> yesterday, i laid out a plan to cut $4 trillion from our deficit. it is a balanced plan that asks for shared sacrifice in order to

provide shared opportunity for all americans. and i am very pleased today to have erskine bowles and alan simpson, the chair might as well commission. frankly, it is the framework that they developed that helps to shape these issues. as they pointed out in their bi- partisan effort, it is important that we put everything on the table. we have to make some tough decisions when it comes to domestic spending. we have to look at everything, including our security spending in order to achieve the goals that we need. it is important that we look at our tax code and find a way to work together to not only simple fly and make the tax system more fair, but also that we use it as a tool to help us achieve our

deficit target. it is also an important -- and i think these gentlemen share the view -- that we cannot exempt anybody from these efforts, that is not a program for us to ask for sacrifices from everybody except for the 2% of americans who are doing the best, but rather that we should ask everybody to participate in this effort to get our fiscal house in order. my main purpose here today is to once again thank them for their outstanding work, but more importantly to listen to their ideas on how we move forward. no matter how we may disagree between parties, no matter how much we spend time debating the issues, at some point, we will have to come together as americans. yesterday, i brought together the leaders of both chambers,

leaders of both parties to discuss with them how we can start moving rapidly to get some of these major issues resolved. i am pleased that the vice president biden will be leading up that effort. we will need the help of citizens who serve this country in extraordinary ways in the past and who are considering to do so in their spare time. i'm looking forward to having them as partners at this important time. >> following the meeting, the former commission co-chairman spoke with reporters outside the white house. >> we had a very serious, very constructive meeting with the president. he had the vice-president and the secretary of treasury in there. he gave us a chance to talk about our ideas. he was very candid in saying that he is on board with a plan that largely is built on the recommendations that we put forward. i think he has come out with a

solid responsible plan. while it does not have as much deficit reduction as quickly as we do, it does have $4 trillion worth in deficit reduction. what alan and i -- now is the time for action. this era of deficit the nile has to end. it is over. this is the moment of truth. you have the president's plan. you have the right in plan. now we hope that these six very brave and bold senators, senators conrad, craig volk, coburn, chambliss, and warner will be able to take the recommendations and come up with legislative language plan that we can vote on, at dawn, and that we can do something -- act on, and that we can do something to work on this deficit. >> obviously, there are many

good things in there. joe biden will be the point person. he has a remarkable political gift. he can do things. he has the president's full accord. he discussed some of the things he would do. there was a lot of not taking on -- a lot of note taking. at some point very soon, the gang of six will put out their plan. if anybody else wants to put in a plan, we suggest that they do so. that would be wonderful thing. then we will just mess around with all the plans and see what is the best results. but the figures of our commission, erskine and mine and the others and the white house, are very close. the gang of six will be very close. mix them all up. paul ryan has a plan. stokowski has a plan. do what you do way new

legislate, which is like making sausage. >> the important thing is that we have action to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over this next decade. we bring down the deficit so that americans can be competitive in this global economy. >> as many of you know, alan and i urged him to go earlier. i think we were probably wrong. they told us to have patience. they said that they wanted to get through this short-term problem that we have with this year's deficit, which ended up with $38.5 billion bipartisan deficit-reduction. once they got by that, they were ready to tackle this long-term problem. so i think the timing was fine. >> i am much more worried about the substance than i am of the town. the substance was fine. i think that is where i will

stick with my comments. >> how confident do you think they will be -- how confident are you that there will be able to achieve this by the end of june. >> i do not have a crystal ball. all the plans say they have $4 trillion in deficit-reduction. that is the key. we can look at the plans and get to real action. >> having spent 18 years here and watching people set dates, it is a lost cause. the worst thing you can do is to say that by this date we will be there. it is just impossible to say. if you give the number, then the s and days pass and it is just not worth it. >> the president knows it, paul

ryan know is it, of the democrats know said, and the american people know it. i have two things to say to you. if you spend more than you earn, you lose your butt. if you spend a buck and are 40 cents of it, you have to be stupid. if anybody thinks that the government can spend a buck and borrow 40 cents, it is the same.

>> in a few moments, treasury secretary timothy geithner says he is confident congress will raise the debt ceiling went is reached in may. then more about the president's spending plan with economic advisor gene sperling. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> tomorrow morning, we will focus on the budget and the debt ceiling. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow.

first, a joint subcommittee hearing of the house natural resources committee hears from customs and border patrol agents and the interior department about the conflict between environmental laws and border security. that starts at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 2. at 12:40 p.m. eastern, the brookings institution and the national endowment for democracy post a discussion about this cute -- about democracy and human rights. samantha power senior director of the security council office of human rights. >> to be a parent means that you will train the people you cannot live without to live without you. >> the sats, college rankings, guidebooks, financial aid forms, weekly standards andrew ferguson was not prepared for crazy u. >> nothing like that had happened when i was thinking

about college in the mid-1970's. it was starting to dawn on me that this is a very much different process from what it was. >> find out if this dad catches up sunday night. you can also download a podcast, one of our many signature programs available online at c- span.org/podcasts.

>> treasury secretary timothy geithner says he is confident that congress will raise the debt ceiling because lawmakers know the consequences of not acting. the secretary was followed by house energy and commerce director henry waxman an. this is a little less than an hour. [applause] >> this is a great pleasure to be here. we are glad to be partners and more delighted that secretary geithner has agreed to be interviewed, not challenged. >> happy to be challenged. >> will we get a budget deal then? [laughter] >> excellent question. i think this will be the dominant economic policy challenge for the united states if you just look out the next

several years. as you know, we spent the last two years preventing a great depression, laying the foundation for an economist and a growing up again -- growing again, cleaning up its financial mess, changing leadership in both houses in december was tax measures for individuals and businesses. we reached agreement last week on how to reduce spending in part of the budget. this is the time where, for the sake of the economy overall, we need to shift attention to building a political strategy to lock in financial reform to restore sustainability to the u.s. fiscal position. it is important to do that because you need to give investors, businesses, individuals confidence that the political leadership in this country can do that, that we can go back to living and our means.

any to lock in a multi-year programs of the people can begin to adjust. even though these deficits are unsustainable and they are very high in historical terms, they are much more manageable challenges than many countries face and is completely within the capacity of the united states to lock in reforms of which are now that the economy can handle, can absorb without putting undue burden on middle- class americans and without undoing basic commitments to give seniors access to health care or a guaranteed pension benefit. those are things we can do. but you have to start now. you have to lock in a set of reforms. you want to get congress to put constraints on itself that will force the reduction deficits substantial enough, deep enough

that we cannot just stabilizing our debt burden, but bring it down over time. we have very different ideas about how to do this, what the right thing to do for the economy is. it is important for those who look at the economy to understand this. when you have the leadership in congress both increasing the same basic target for deficit reduction, roughly $4 trillion over 10 years or 12 years, so that our deficit falls below 3% of gdp, which is below what we call primary balance, which is a level that you need to start to pay down the debt burden, when both sides embrace that and your debate is about how to do it, you have made the fundamental shift that is very important. that makes it hard for future president and future congresses to decide that you can live with the risk of higher deficits in

the future. in need to take that off of the table for the sake of the economy as a whole. in the two lockean reforms to give people confidence. i think we're in a much better position, politically, economically, to make progress, a better position than we have been in the last two years and, in many ways, then we have been in the last decade. >> we will get too complicated politics in a minute. in terms of the market, the two strategies that picco announced -- i wonder if, in the light of that statement, that you feel there's some pressure in the markets to get a solution and that this may also have a constructive influence in the discussions in washington. >> if you look at the market's overall and how people feel about the world now, i think

there are two things that are evident. one is, despite the risks in oil, despite the financial challenges still in europe, despite the tragedy in japan, despite the headlines the script for recovery, would you still see is gradual healing, a gradual strengthening and confidence that the world economy will increase at a gradual rate. as that happens, which you see is the encouraging signs of people willing to go out and invest again, employment growth increasing, people taking more risk again. that is a sign of improvement, of healing, and it is a necessary condition for healing. you also see a lot of confidence in markets that the american political system will be able to get our fiscal path on a sustainable position.

if you look at what we pay to borrow, the world basically believes that our problems are more manageable and that our system will solve it. but we have to make sure that we are learning that confidence every day, but hoping it is the same. we have to act to justify it. it is important to the health of our economy that we find a way to lock our political leadership into instead of constraining it to demonstrate to people that we can live within our means. you heard the president say yesterday, if you are from the progressive side or to the left side of the political spectrum, you understand this is the essential because everything that democrats care about, the capacity to invest in education, make sure the government can support innovation, rebuilding our infrastructure, meeting

commitments to the elderly or to the poor and disabled, those things required demonstrating we can live within our means. you can demonstrate that, you will lose the capacity to finance those things. but we want to make sure that people on the right understand that we can achieve this restoration of ballast water fiscal position without abandoning the key elements. our safety belt is dramatically thinner and more narrow than what exists in most of europe. we have a much smaller commitment in that context than is true in many other major economies. we can afford to sustain that commitment. we have to reform how we use health care and other changes that we ought to make. they are difficult changes, but they are within our capacity to solve. it is absolutely important to do. it is not just because of the

market. it is the right thing for the economy and that will guide is. >> there is a core constituency on the right, loosely defined, but that is absolutely, fundamentally opposed to increase spending and want to cut back on government. >> opposed to increasing spending. that is right. " yes. how is the administration going to handle this upcoming vote to raise the debt ceiling? it is akin to something around $50 billion. there is a core group of american people who will not support that. >> we are unique among nations and which congress has imposed upon itself the obligation to raise the limit beyond what we can borrow. congress give itself this other separate vote periodically, which they regret, because it is

painful and difficult to do. but they will do it. they understand that you cannot take any risk. there is no conceivable way this country, this city, this government can court that basic risk. it would be irresponsible to do so. and you cannot take it too close to the edge. the leadership met yesterday morning and see what they say in public -- of course, will we recognize that america will meet its obligations. but we want to take advantage of this moment to try to, in a sense, lock everybody into a physical world, the constraints, that over a number of years, we can bring our fiscal position

down to a sustainable position. we will do everything we can to maximize -- we can build a political coalition that will make that possible. they will not take this and they cannot take this too close to the edge. it would be irresponsible to do so. i think they understand that, to. >> but can the republican leadership deliver the votes? >> they have to. of course there will. i can -- of course, they will. after the election, when they took the majority, they knew it would be hard for them, but they knew they had to do it and they need help from us. they recognize that. >> why did not the president come behind the bipartisan deficit commission panel that actually produced quite a sensible and credible plan for reducing the deficit?

the markets responded rapidly. he seems to have waited a long time. >> i do not agree with that. i am not the best person to rest on the timing, but let's go back in the history. the president set this up of around 15 months ago. they put out, i agree with you, a very balanced, elegant, very politically elegant design last december. our judgment is that that will be the foundation for the debate in the united states. the president initially gave it the qualified embrace. but we spent the last four months or three months looking through -- you know, he is the president -- looking through how you can do that in a detailed way in a way that you can legislate.

we saw him yesterday embrace that basic structure. >> there are some few changes in the basic balance, but it has core principles and basic foundation. now that we have the budget for the rest of this fiscal year, which has only five months left, now that we have that done, it is the right time to shift the focus for the long term. >> "the financial times" does believe in interactive journalism. i will open up to questions from the audience. if you would like to just put up your hand, please do not make a statement. it has to be a question. sent to you are. that would be good. the gentleman in the front. >> klaus ziegler of german television. one of the key elements to create more jobs seems to be doubling export. if you look at the exchange rate of the dollar now, is this the right way to double exports?

how successful have you been in the last year? >> u.s. export growth has actually been very rapid and pretty encouraging. when you think about the u.s. economy and you look past the trauma caused by this crisis and all the damage caused by the crisis in the united states and look at what is happening in the economy as a whole, it is pretty encouraging. you see very strong growth in productivity through the crisis. you have pretty rapid sustained private investment growth now. which is good. and you see strength across the american economy. it is the best time in agriculture in a generation in the united states. if you look at high-tech, across much of manufacturing, it is a

very encouraging. we, like germany, in many ways, are uniquely positioned to benefit from the fact that to have this most rapidly growing in most parts of the world and early stages in a very long boom or expansion. we are uniquely good at producing the things that they need and they will consume with much greater intensity. that is anchoring a very substantial rise in exports, which is very good and in encouraging. how would expect that to continue. of course, the fundamental challenges is trying to make sure that the quality of education in the united states improves, that the investments we create in the united states are strengthened. we are about to launch a corporate tax reform with that objective, that we are preserving the classism government to preserve the things that government really has to do.

those things are very important to do. there is this debate about the budget position. it is so important because the challenge is not how you restore gravity to a fiscal position on a sustainable path, but how to do it in a way that allows you to invest in the things that economy is required to grow over the long term. we can absolutely afford to make those basic investments. of course, it is not only about money. it is about reforms with incentives that can create a stronger basic infrastructure for market economies to do well. the signs of recovery are pretty encouraging. even though unemployment is still very high and we have the housing market that is still in a state of some trauma, that will take years to heal

overtime. but there are other basic parts of the basic u.s. economy that look very resilient, very dynamic. if we can get this fiscal consensus, fiscal reforms in place, then we will come out of this in a very strong position as an economy, much stronger than we were coming into the crisis. >> can we go to the other side? otherwise, i will get accused of bias. >> mine is a sociological question. why is it so difficult to attack the problem of tax increases after the top rate has gone down from the 90% in eisenhower days to 95% to a rate that no other the maastricht ec has for the top ranks, not to speak of the 15 -- not to speak of the 15.

>> you are exact -- you are asking exactly the right question. let me explain why that dilemma makes it so opportunistic for this country. you mean -- unique among the major economies are revenue to gdp ratio which is very low. unlike many countries, we have the capacity, with very modest changes in tax reform, to get ourselves in a position where we restore sustainability without the risk that we will hurt future growth, damaged the incentives for investment for capital formation. we are in a much stronger position. but we have to solve this political problem. you're right to point out that, in the united states, the average tax rate for the wealthiest americans is very low hysterically and very low -- it is unsustainably low.

the way to think about the choice we face here is, for the united states to keep those rates where they are, either we have to cut very deeply into what are already thin programs for the elderly and the disabled or to afford them or you will have to ask me to borrow trillions over the next decade from china and others to fund them. that is not an acceptable option for the united states. obviously, we have to confront that. again, i take the more optimistic side. what you should include in that, with relatively modest changes in our basic tasktax system wito plausible rest on how well the economy functions, how we grow incentives for capital formation, we can get ourselves back to its fiscal position. we have to find a way to solve the politics around that, but it is a manageable situation for the united states.

>> the budget discussions will dominate washington, not just four weeks, but for months. why will it take so long to come to some kind of resolution? >> if you think about how americans view themselves as a people, they view themselves as very strong, very independent, very tough, but still fundamentally generous. our political leadership, in many ways, seems less willing to treat them as relatively strong and a generous and tough and able to make these basic choices. you need to put in a system to embrace that fundamental difference in americans. not just in the basic imperative

of living within your means, but it requires a basic balanced approach with a recently shared burden across the political spectrum. -- with a reasonably shared burden across the political spectrum. your question is an excellent question. the economic imperative for us is to find a way to lock the leadership of both houses and the sick to branch into a set of constraints over a multi-year period to a degree where they can agree to do that. they need to spend more time to resolve these fundamental debates about the shape of tax reform. that will take more time to resolve. but the necessary condition at the beginning of this is to lock people into that same objective. for the sake of the economy, for the sick of confidence, for the sake of clarity for the business committee, for individuals, you have to lay out the specific

path. you did have a debate on how to resolve some components on it and take your time to resolve it as long as you lock people into that agreement. >> back in 2008, you were in the middle of this debate when the financial system that almost melted down after lehman brothers. there was a critical vote in the house of representatives on the tarp bailout. it went down. i would be fascinated to hear from you what you think, one, that was such a sobering lesson for the elected officials in washington that they will do the right thing coming to fort on the debt ceiling and some of these other critical votes. or do you think whether the same thing might happen because people want to push it right to the edge and, in the end, the top vote -- the tarp vote was a

moment when it showed that the american democracy worked even though they did the wrong thing and came back to do the right thing. >> there is no responsible case for taking that risk again. as i said, i am confident that people will be responsible for making this work and understand they cannot take that risk. think of it. this is the united states of america. only two years away from a cataclysmic financial crisis, more powerful than what caused the american depression across the financial system, huge damage to our credibility, a , justoss in conferencconfidence starting to repair that. we moved very aggressively to fix this mess, recapitalize their financial system -- we have gotten back most of their investments in the financial system.

it was the least cost/most effective intervention in our history. the idea that having come out of that with unemployment still at 9%, a huge amount of drama still out there, the idea that washington would court that kind of risk now is inconceivable. it would be deeply irresponsible to do it. people abdicated up their -- people who advocated up there, they would say that it was a leveraged. if the ticket to close to the heads, they will own responsibility for that this calculation. >> i live in frankfurt with my wife. i have a two-part question. number one, i read an article in a german newspaper and it says

something like the u.s. federal taxes only support three programs, medicare, medicaid, and social security. is that true? >> yes. >> second question, is there any consensus or thought about a federal vat? >> no, there's no enthusiasm anywhere for that. again, let me take the positive side of that. what is useful to recognize about our fiscal mass is that you can close this gap. you can put us on a path where we can reduce the debt burden without a revolution in tax policy, like what we have done for insurance and pension benefits for the elderly. it does not require a radical restructuring of those basic things. it is very difficult to do. it is very tough to do, much

less tough than it is for other countries because the challenges are great. what are tough, difficult, politically contentious consequential changes, you can get yourself sustainability. >> we are running close to time. jim, a jump in there. take to questions at once. >> thank you. congressman ryan finally broke through the avoidance of talking about the entitlement programs with a proposal that we shifted good deal of the cost to the individual. expectedly, the president reacted rather strongly to that. what is the alternative? this is the number one problem in terms of getting the fiscal house in order.

>> in light of the front-page article in "the new york times" today, were you too soft when it came to holding responsible some of the senior bank executives and when it came to their role in creating this financial crisis? >> i will take them in order. you're right. the fundamental long-term sustainability problem is produced by the basic reality that, while we are a debtor country than all the other major economies, and although the public share of public health care cost is much smaller in the economy, we're living longer. the cost of living longer is rising dramatically because of the quality of technology and

health care and how expensive it is. that is what drives our long- term challenge. the only way to deal with that -- it is an economy-wide problem, not just a question about the taxpayers -- which is to slow the growth in health care costs. that requires fundamental reforms placed in the affordable care at last year, which have to build from to change how americans use health care. if you do not do that, you still need the economy, not just the taxpayer, with unsustainable growth in health care costs, so the strategy that the president adopted and will be the dominant strategy for the country will be reforms that cannot just sit them from the taxpayer to the private sector -- again, to ask the relatively poor or the unfortunate for the disabled or the seniors in orbit -- in

nursing homes to absorb a very dramatic increase in the cost of those basic things is something that is not necessary for us to do as a country. it is the something that we would embrace. but you have to focus on reforms, lower the rate growth, and control costs. if you think about the strategy we adopted to fiske are -- to fix our financial crisis, where we tough enough? that is a question, in many ways, for the people responsible in our system for enforcing laws of all land. we have a very good, very strong set of legal actions which is their job to enforce. but on the basic question of did we get the basic balance right, was it tough enough? i offer the following things in contrast to what happened around the world cared first of all, we

forced a dramatic restructuring in the basic finance in the united states. if you look at the firms that existed before the crisis, investment banks, non-banking financial institutions, with brutal force, we took the weakest of the system. they no longer exist today. much more dramatic and greater restructuring than happened with others. in the united states, assets in the banking system are about 1 times the size of our annual gdp whereas, in the u.k., it is five times. in germany and france, is about five times gdp. we have -- we were much more aggressive in forcing the recapitalization of the financial system and we have had much more capital coming in

because we were much tougher in forcing people to examine the scale of losses and expose them. that had a dramatic consequences for the equity holders in those institutions. we left them with a market test of the viability by forcing them to disclose their scale of losses. and the reforms that we legislated and implement now will give us authority we did not have before the crisis to make sure you could contain the growth and leverage and risk taking within banks and outside of banks that can cause systemic crisis. i just want to underscore that the great strength of our financial system before this crisis was always that we had a level of disclosure, a level of innovation, a level of efficiency that it really was the best place in the world to take the savings of the world in

and guide them to the companies that have come to dominate. for that to happen, you need two things. you have to have much more confidence in the basic integrity of the system. and you need to have a more stable system, a more resilience system, so we do not leave the business customers at banks, much less individuals, vulnerable to the consequences when people are allowed to take on too much risk. we got something terribly wrong in the united states, but we are in a terribly good position. i must say that i am confident that this financial system will emerge again as the basic standard for how to run a more efficient system, better at allocating capital to ideas, but

with more integrity, better disclosure, better enforcement, better constraints on risk- taking, better stable and more resilient. but we're still at the beginning of that process. >> you'll almost said the gold standard. >> i did not say that. [laughter] >> we are out of time. we please join me in thanking the secretary for a very informative discussion. [applause] this is at a time when pressure on his time is so great. i have been told -- please stay in your seats so the secretary can get to his next appointment. >> thank you, mr. secretary. [applause] okay, right now, we're changing from the executive branch to the

legislative branch. we have the honor and pleasure to welcome one of the most experienced congressman in this country, congressman waxman, who is also operating this morning on a very tight schedule because he has to be back on the hill by 9:30 a.m. for a hearing. congressman, we're delighted to have you here this morning. he will be challenged as well by the u.s. managing editor of "the financial times." julian, you are the best u.k. export to the u.s. since cadbury. welcome. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much indeed for that kind introduction. what a terrific week to be having this conference. so many of the issues on the agenda today have come into real

focus. that is the upside. the downside is that time is pressing for congressman waxman and secretary geithner. i will jump straight in without any introduction and ask you -- we just heard secretary geithner paint a quite reassuring picture of what is going on on the fiscal front. he is essentially arguing, do not worry, chaps, the bull market understands our situation. they will not panic. everybody knows in the market that a political solution will be found. the republicans are responsible enough, intelligent enough to come to the table. so basically, everybody kind of agreed. there was subtext. do you believe it? >> when all is said and done, people cannot let the debt ceiling go unraised. the questions of quinces could be unknown, but could be

catastrophic -- the consequences could be unknown, but could be catastrophic. i do not think that either party would want to be held responsible for the consequences. the brinkmanship will go on to the very point where both will have to agree. but it will not be easy. i thought you planned this conference to be here this week. this is excellent time because this is the week when some money of these issues are coming to a head. we will finally vote today to fund the government for this fiscal year, even though we are already six months into it. that was wrenching. but we immediately go to the vote tomorrow in the house, anyway. i do not know about the senate. it is for the ryan budget, which

we expect will pass because the republicans have the majority. the ryan budget is now countered by president obama's speech where he finally positioned himself on what he thinks we need to do. that will start the debate. the next key moment will be when we confront raising the debt ceiling and have to get the parties to agree to do that. >> but me ask you what you thought about the contents of the president's speech. but what about the timing? certainly, there was some adamant in new market over why the president did not weigh in earlier, particularly when you have the bipartisan fiscal commission report late last year. would it have not been better for him to jump aboard late last year rather than leave it to now? >> i am not sure that he wanted to embrace every detail of that commission's recommendations. and i do not think he wanted to pick and choose and present

something as a target then for the republicans to attack. but if you wanted to stand back. there are different actions taking place. the senate has a group of six members, three democrats and three republicans, who are trying to put together a proposal that will be balanced with an increase in revenues as well as spending cuts and affecting the entitlement increases. in the house, we now have the republican budget proposal which only cuts and dramatically eliminates the guarantees of entitlement programs, like medicare and medicaid. it is interesting that they backed away from social security. perhaps that was a bridge too far. now they are on the defensive as a result of the president's speech. >> looking at the the gang of six, as they're called, from their perspective, they think

they were in the process of putting forward a bipartisan consensus. in practical terms, what the president's intervention yesterday has done is to jack up the polarization. yesterday's speech was quite the attack on the rise in budget plan. the republicans have already reacted quite angrily. it is that much harder for them to get around any joint bipartisan initiative now. >> that was not a result of the speech yesterday. that has been the underlying problem for some time. when the erskine bowles commission was meeting, the republican members in the senate voted with the democrats to embrace this more balanced approach. in the house, the republicans -- no republican would vote for it because they did not want revenues on the table. >> right. >> the question they will have to do with is do they stay with that position, no revenues,

which i think makes it impossible for us to get agreement -- >> tax rises. >> yes. we are very polite. >> jacking up taxes. >> i will try to be more british. i was trying to be appropriate. [laughter] >> the the republicans do not want to jack up taxes under any circumstances. >> they want to extend the tax cuts from the bush years. in effect, with the deficit, we are paying for those tax cuts for the very top in come at the cost of the people at the lowest income >> i can ask you about what any other package should do. given where we are with republicans saying that we don't

like obama's speech and of blaming ham and jacking up the polarization. the democrats have said that it comes down to what paul ryan came up with. what kind of probability would you attach to the likelihood of some deal being done before may or june? that is really the deadline right now? 10%? i hundred%? >> i think it is unlikely that we will have global approval on the budget. i did not hear the treasury secretary. my guess is that he was talking about reaching an agreement to

raise the debt ceiling and the republican position is that they will not agree to reach the debt ceiling until that they have assurances that this will never happen again. we are using this to pay for the debts that we have incurred. most of those we incurred when we borrowed money to fund its two wars and to give tax breaks and borrowed money to pay for very expensive expansion of the medicare entitlement dealing with prescription drugs. they did not do it in the most cost-efficient way. we have this deficit, president bush inherited a surplus and he created a huge deficit. he handed over the deficit with a recession to president obama. a bipartisan compromise

agreement, the differences are great. we will take those deficits to the campaign. in the meantime, we've got to increase the debt ceiling and i feel that we will accomplish that result because it is irresponsible not to. by the end of this year, we have to adopt the spending levels for the next fiscal year. we have those bills, otherwise we're spending a lot of time in the house what the republican majority pushing through ideologies such as the funding planned parenthood, stopping the epa from regulating. a lot of their ideological agenda and i think that it's positioning, it will not happen.

>> in terms of your ratio of spending increases, the u.k. is roughly three to one. ryan's package is 021400% on the spending cuts. where would you be on that spectrum? >> i think that 5050 is a good balance and the center for budget priorities has recommended this. we have to look at both sides of the equation. too heavily put this on the cut side will put damage to the entitlement programs. i support the entitlement programs. the biggest cost increases are in the health-care area and the legislation that the president successfully sought past which he signed which attempts to deal

with health care costs and a rational way. the ryan budget shifts the cost to the very poor and elderly to come up with an additional resources. and >> you are looking to take part in an energy committee. one of the things that is being cut as a result of budget cuts in spending on trying to find clean energy. how concerned are you that in the focus on the fiscal issues that some of the long term energy issues will get sidelined? >> i am very concerned about it. many of the loan guarantees came through the stimulus bill. every republican house member voted against it. a big part of it was to

stimulate investment in renewable and alternative energy sources. i sponsored and got passed through the house a comprehensive energy bill in 2009 which would have put a cap and trade system in place on carbon emissions which would have had three results. to lower our dependence on oil which is a national security measure. secondly, to give the markets signaled for investment. i think it would create an enormous amount of new jobs in

this economy. thirdly, to deal with the carbon emissions which cause global warming and climate change. the republicans deny there is such a thing as climate change. they believe if you ask of their view on energy, we want more supply which cannot be a solution when we consume 25% of the oil and we have 2% of the supplies. we have to move toward greater efficiency in the use of fuels and moving towards other alternatives. if we don't, the investments are going elsewhere. china is moving forward, the u.s. will be left behind. >> thank you. >> i will have to stop you there. thank you very much for joining

us. best of luck in negotiating will be a challenging cocktail of energy issues. thank you. >> thank-you. [applause] >> the economic forum hosted by the financial times also heard from the white house economic adviser gene sperling. he talked about the president's debt and debt reduction plan and to the upcoming debate over the debt limit. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> it is wonderful to get such introductions. i want to give my greetings to -- who so ably lead this organization.

ladies and gentleman, it is my great pleasure today to introduce the closing speaker, and i do remember hearing the -- gave to henry kissinger. here is camry kissinger who said, a man who needs no introduction. i will give a short introduction to gene sperling who does not need an introduction. he cut his political teeth in the 1988 dukakis campaign and on the staff of mario cuomo before joining the 1992 clinton campaign as its economic policy adviser. during bill clinton's first term as president, he served as the deputy director of the newly created national economic council.

he was the director of the national economic council from 1996 until 2000. he played significant roles in the 1993 deficit reduction act and the 1997 balanced budget agreement. i guess we have deja vu. those who remember his service recall his very effective and efficient ways. he was recognized for being able to have policy and presswork in a way that you can.

his best and highest talent is an extraordinary ability to make a substantive policy developments that make them convincing to the message people. he certainly needs that talent now. he was recalled into service by president obama. he became the president of the national economic council in january and assistant to the president for economic policy. he is in the midst of this budget battle. i am sure you will have some interesting insights to share with us. as a final point of introduction, i will read you a quote from jean from two years

ago. he noted that the president has to find the right balance between fiscal discipline and dealing with real problems. -- i will read you a quote from gene sperling. "you have to show that you can restore fiscal responsibility and yet be making gains on the country's greatest challenges like health care, energy, education." two years later, we look forward to to an update. thank you very much. [applause] i pass to -- >> thank you for that wonderful introduction. thank you for all of you to stay on later than planned. thank you in particular to gene for coming out. i will start about the issues

you're talking about with the president which is the speech he gave yesterday and the attempt to forge a not just a new fiscal direction but also some kind of plan and agreement going forward. given your experience in 93 and 97, how do you read at the current mood? the think it will be possible to work with the republicans to avert a showdown over the debt ceiling and also to get a sensible serious plan agreed in a reasonable time frame? >> well, i think that that is the $64,000 question. >> 14 trillion dollar question. >> first of all, i think that in the meeting that the president had with the leaders yesterday, there was a pretty broad understanding that not extending

the debt limit is not an option. you cannot play chicken with the u.s. fiscal credibility. this has been established in alexander hamilton's time. it is one of a hallmark of the u.s. financial regimes. you don't want to have a debt clock -- it was one thing to have the countdown clock to weather and the government will shut down, you don't want to have a countdown clock to will america default on its obligations. nobody wants that. no one should use the credibility of the u.s. full faith and credit as a bargaining chip for any policy goal no matter how sincerely they support that. i think that that does mean that we should assume that people

will act responsibly and move forward in extending the debt limit. the second question is what can we do to create greater competence with the u.s. and that they will live within their means and they will put ourselves on a path. also giving confidence that it will start coming down. the president has felt very strongly that we had to put forward a plan and there had to be a serious effort to move quickly to consider what could be done. there does create a very big issue which is is there a chance that we can come together on the broad it divide that we have in

terms of our policy visions. the second question is whether we are capable of what we disagree on help us with some fiscal capabilities. we are trying to bring together some form of negotiating process on deficit and debt reduction going forward. there is just no question, it will be a great challenge. it is very nice mentioning 93, we had a very successful debt reduction. 97, you had a balanced budget agreement. in between was the 1993 where we did have a government shutdown. 1997 really was the same actors. it was capable.

i think i used to do crossfire every month at least once. yet, we sat across the table from each other as part of the negotiating team and we formed the balanced budget team. you have to have hope. a point of where things where you are prepared for success, where things can work out, in december, after the election in november, we were working very hard to prepare for what could come out of the tax agreement. one of the things that we worked in is what can we do beyond just the issue of extending the tax cuts. what could we do that is helpful for the economy. we spent a lot of time and came

to the conclusion of that proposal for 100% expense in would be good for the economy and that there was a very good chance based on past statements. when we were working on this, you'll realize they will check their mail and go home. i must have heard that discussion 10 times. yet, you ended up having a tax agreement that was successful. you have these two other elements. you see that the payroll tax cut has been a very important push against rising tax prices and very important to this economy. that was a bipartisan agreement where these were heavily discounted. paquette you have to be prepared for success and

bipartisan compromise even when the prospects are uncertain because we are governing and we have that obligation. >> i pushed tim geithner on the issue. when you look at the tribal behavior around you, i have a background for it steady in afghan tribal politics which is good for study in washington. something i hear often from people in washington is that compared to 93 or 97, the climate is more poisonous and polarized. there is less trust and this is really about trust. that is one of the big obstacles to actually getting a sensible solution in place.

it is not just about the numbers or the ideology, it is about the tribalism. what do you think about that? would it be harder to get a deal then in 93 or 97? >> again, we have 93, 95, 97. you did have some of the same dynamics. you have very deep divisions. it did turn out that there was not a lot of agreement in '95. some of the same people did find common ground at some point. there is no question that some of this is exercise as a building trust. i talked about the tax agreements. we often have very fierce political battles with the senate minority leader mitch mcconnell. there was a decision made, we were going to have an agreement,

there was an element of trust. i can very much recall after him and the vice president spoke on critical elements where there was not a clear transcript of what had been said. we were told to go talk to some of his folks. you would have been a time that it came out. the behavior on our side and their side was very honorable and we were able to work things out. we are back to having a lot of battles. this shows that you can create some of the trust that will help us govern. the differences and the disagreements are strong.

in the meeting we had yesterday, you really did see a lot of responsible talk about the need of everyone to try to find a way to not only allow the debt limit a game of chicken or to do things that would be risky to our economy. you have to hope that whatever the political pressures are that people in leadership remember that they are responsible for governing. i know that that sounds a nineties. giving a couple of examples where people work together against all odds. october, 2008. the democratic candidate for president, barack obama, and the democrats in the house and senate helped out a republican president in a time of crisis.

you have to put politics aside when you are on the edge of a economic crisis. it is worth blending the optimism with a healthy dose of skepticism. >> what does this mean for the real economy? there has been arguments and consumer concern about the outlook for debt. business concern for the outlook of debt. one thing that actually undermines confidence. personally, i have always been cynical. do you think that any of this budget debate will have an impact on the real economy? >> well, i would say at this moment that i would not say that this was a main driver of the economy. and i do not know how much concern about the future on

fiscal issues is affecting individual consumer family behavior at this point. but, i do think that confidence is a special thing and this is something that those who are governing have to take very seriously and not ever take for granted. so, i think that you are trying to preserve the confidence that still exists in the united states. what we have seen is that when times have been difficult and the u.s. is still many ways a safe haven even in a very ugly economy, often the prettiest one in the room.

when you look at what needs to be done, ultimately need a very comprehensive deficit reduction plan that is going to significantly move us in the direction of the debt declining as a percentage of our gdp. because you are dealing with confidence, things like the president of the nine states being willing to go out and proposed a deficit reduction plan. the president being willing to work across the aisle. he is putting this front and center in the fiscal and national debate. even when it means that gas prices are what are affecting or on the minds of most american families shows a concern, a focus that i think is important for economic confidence. while we should be aiming for

more comprehensive deficit reduction plan, in this divided government with the deep divisions in our visions of the economy, we need to look for every opportunity to do things that our confidence inducing and show that we are capable of mustering the political will and finding common ground to start moving the deficit lower. >> what the probability would you attached to getting a comprehensive package this year? >> i think it is pretty tough. the you had larry on. that is all he does. >> i used to always tease him that he always used to pick 3545%. this is the stamp of picking 35

or 40% odds that is extremely unlikely. everyone should try this. if you say this, it is very unlikely, then you claim huge credit. i told you it was unlikely that it would happen. i think it is very important that we be at the table and we're happy with discussion. i think that that should be our ultimate goal. we should maintain some hope and optimism. i think that we should also be looking to see if there are things that we can agree on. deficit reduction, debt reduction, restoring or protecting economic confidence is not an all or nothing in

denver. >> unemployment. where do you see that going? >> well, let me connect these two topics and then go to that. for us, we were not apologetic about the fact that what we were seeking was 4 trillion in deficit reduction and we were aiming for 12 years over 10 years. we believe as you put forward a comprehensive debt reduction, you need to do it carefully and in a way that does not inhibit what is still an emerging recovery and does not inhibit you from investing what we will need to do to compete and in the future as the president says war that has two harsh reforms in things that we should be strengthening like medicare and

medicaid where the real issue is in sharing that we are doing something to control long-term cost growth. everything that we're doing, this is important, and you get into budget fights at times and people can claim that a particular deficit target is the end in itself. the end in itself is a growing economy was shared prosperity that helps to support the fundamental values of the economy. the insuring fiscal discipline and confidence, our debt as percentages income is a critical component. this is a component of a shut agee and you have to have that balance together. i don't think that there is a lot of upside for people in my

position in making projections. this is better to do when you are in the house side. i think the important thing is that we are seeing a resilience in private sector job creation. i think that last month was very important. hear, you had the issues of a supply disruption from japan. you have oil prices go from $3.11 a gallon before egypt to $3.79. with all that, we saw 237,000 private-sector job growth.

you are seeing a resilience. the fact that the unemployment rate dropped overwhelming because of gains of employment. this is particularly encouraging. viewers are where we were on manufacturing compared to china. jobs, we are almost at 200,000 manufacturing jobs out in the last 12 months. that has been air relatively unnoticed successful part of what the recovery is. the united states gained up to 200,000 jobs. i think there is a lot of resilience in the labor market that we have seen so far. make no mistake, when you have had the kind of great recession we have had even with 200,000

private sector jobs a month is not as much as you would ultimately prefer to move the unemployment rate down as fast as you would like. that dropped 9.8 to 8.8%. 14% in four months, that is the largest we have seen since 1984. some people have lowered their growth estimates a little due to the issues with energy prices and the last few weeks. almost across the board, i think from almost all of the private sector forecasters, when we were in december, very few people were projecting that we would even be in the eights by december of this year. the average private sector is looking at 8 and half by the

next year. this is one place that we have seen things being better than they're supposed to be. this is important and policy when you have an emerging recovery. having more by lowering the tax cuts has proven to be unimportant insurance policy. the typical family still has more dollars, for spending then they would have had. >> that seems like a good point in which to end. you need to get back carrying on

the world and save in the economy. thank you very much for your time and the best of luck. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> in a few moments, house debate on the spending bill to fund the government for the rest of this fiscal year. then, congressional leaders and meet with reporters to talk about the spending and budget bills in congress this week. then, the former chairman of the president's commission on fiscal responsibility on federal spending. later, treasury secretary timothy geithner says that he is confident that congress will raise the debt ceiling. on "washington journal," we will discuss the budget and the debt ceiling.

our guests are both members of congress. republican timothy murphy and democrat anthony wiener. a couple of life of chance to tell you about on c-span to. first, a joint subcommittee hearing of the house natural resources committee hears from customs and border patrol agents. toa couple of live events tell you about on c-span-2. the brookings institution and the endowment for democracy host discussion on emerging democracies and human rights. you will hear from the special assistant to the president who is the senior director on the office of human rights. this weekend, in the politically incorrect guide to socialism, the national review's kevin

williamson defines how it works in the u.s. today. carl peterson recounts the lives of african american elites living in 19th century new york city. then, a look at former first ladies barbara bush, jacqueline kennedy, and eleanor roosevelt. you can sign up for an alert on our website. >> the house and senate have passed a bill funding the government for the rest of this fiscal year. the agreement worked out among president obama, house speaker john painter, and senate majority leader set the senate majority leader harry reid, cut spending over the next six months. -- house speaker john boehner, said a majority leader harry reid, cut spending over the next six months. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for

such time as he may consume. mr. rogers: i'm please to bring to the floor today h.r. 13, the full year spending agreement for fiscal year 2011. this final c.r. makes nearly $40 billion of real spending cuts compared to fiscal 2010 levels while funding the government critical services and programs and supporting our nation's troops for the rest of this fiscal year. after weeks of hard-fought negotiations, all sides were able to come together in this final agreement to find common ground and take steps to help balance our budget. this legislation is a bold move for congress, one that points us in the right direction on federal spending. never before has any congress made dramatic cut such as these that are in this final bill.

the near $40 billion reduction in nondefense spending is tens of billions of dollars larger than any other cut in history and as a result of this new republican majority's commitment to bring about real change in the way washington spends the people's money. my committee went line by line through agency budgets to execute the agreement reached by our speaker crafting deep but responsible reductions in virtually all areas of government. our bill targets wasteful and duplicative spending, makes strides to rein in out-of-corol federal bureaucracies and will help bring our nation one step closer to eliminating our job-crushing level of debt. this led to the following cuts from the president's budget request -- agriculture accounts

were reduced by 14%, commerce, justice and science reduced by 12%. energy and water reduced by 12%. financial services general government 13%. interior and environment by 9%. labor, health and human services and education, 8%. legislative branch, 11% cut. state and foreign operations, 15% cut. and transportation and h.u.d., 19% cut. the department of defense is funded at $513 billion, which is a $5 billion increase over fiscal 2010 to provide the necessary resources for our oops and the success of our nation's military actions. in this bill, madam speaker, we

defundedbamaadministration czars. we said niet. ding unsuccessful education programs, advanced efforts to repeal obamacare and reduced congress' own budget. we've also put into place mandatory audits for the consumer financial protection bureau, banned taxpayer fundg of abortion in washington, d.c., and continued the global fight against terrorism. in addition, with this legislation we have ended the stimulus spending spree and have taken the next step to cutting trillions of dollars in the years to come. we stood by our commitment to eliminate earmarks, terminated unnecessary and ineffective programs and made real spending cuts that will help right our

fiscal ship. and we will continue to hold the government to a standard of responsible, sustainable spending in the future. our goal is and has been to keep precious taxpayer dollars where they are needed most, in the hands of our small businesses and individuals so they can create jobs and grow our economy. i hope, madam speaker, that my colleagues will take the opportunity to support this historic bill and finally close the book on the fiscal year 2011 budget. for those who have been saying in their career here in this body, i came here to cut spending and to bring down the size of the government, i say to them, here's your chance. if you believe in cutting spending you can vote for $40

billion of it today, the largest any member of congress has ever been able to vote for. this is historic. a historic reduction in federal spending after a two-year spending spree that increased discretionary spending by 82%. this bill will reverse that rise and will start us back down toward responsible spending in the government. now, madam speaker, before i close, i'd like to take a moment and thank these hardworking individuals who've been toiling behind the scenes now on this bill for the last several mons. little fanfare. they get no credit in public that made this legislation possible. our legislative counsels deserve our appreciation, and i want to say thanks to tom

cassidy, ryan geenlaw and their group of appropriations coordinators. i'd like also to thank janet ayers and the staff at the c.b.o. and i also want to thank the floor staff, the parliamentarians, capitol police and all those support staff who put in the extra hours to keep this institution running. and finally, i want to offer a special thanks to the appropriations committee's find staff on both sides of this aisle. those in our full committee, the subcommittee clerks, the suommittee staffs in both majority and minority. they've been given impossible task after imposble task, facing untenable deadlines, gone for days and weeks, working around the clock and yet have miraculously produced

all we have asked of them and more. and i want to especially say a real thanks to the clerk of the committee, bill england, the deputylerk, will smith, and all of the other staff that's worked on the majority side and mr. dicks and his wonderful staff have been just mag in an muss of their support -- mag in an muss of their support. dicksdicks i want to -- mr. dicks: i want to say thanks to bill and david. they have all done a phenomenal job under very difficult circumstances. we applaud all of them. ippreciate the chairman mentioning this. mr. rogers: well, they've hardly slept in three months and they worked around the clock, on weekend, at 4:00 in the morning you'd find them still there. it's an amazing performance

they contributed to this great body. i reserve the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran, the ranking minority member of the subcommittee on appropriations. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. moran: thank you, madam chair. i want to share the comments of those who worked 24/7, around the clock. madam speaker, politics is the art of compromise, and this continuing resolution is the epitomy of compromise. members on the other side of the aisle, just like many aspects of this bill, as many members on this side of the aisle dislike other aspects of this deal. the compromise reached by the negotiators produced a bill

that was imperfect at best. however, it's the responsible thing to do with the government shutdown looming. it does fund the department of defense for the remainder of the fiscal year which is absolely necessary for our troops currently in combat around the world. in the interior and environment portion where i serve as ranking member, the details of the deal do show constructive compromise at work. i am pleased that all of e.p.a.'s environmental writers were dropped, but the agency was cut by $1.6 billion. mostly on the back of states with cuts to the safe drinking water and wastewater inastructure programs. i guess when many republican governors have claimed that the stimulus money was wastefu ending, then they will not object too much to a reduction in these important infrastcture programs even though it's coming out of the pockets of their states. in a compromised agreement we

have asked disting of the gray wolves from the endangered species list. but we have secured increase funding for indian health, which is certainly the right thing to do. as mo udall once saidif you can find something everyone agrees on, you can count on being wrong. well, everyone in is by, as i said, can find something. in fact, many things, even, that they disagree with in this resolution. but in my judgment it does contain more good than bad. it may represent the only kind of legislation that can be enacted in this time of heightened partisanship and fundamental differences and political philosophy. the deal reached is a vast improvement from what this house voted on on h.r. 1 just a few weeks ago. the w.i.c. nutrition programs

is nearly $0 million above h.r. 1. legal services corporation at $405 million. that's $55 million above h.r. 1. head start is funded at $7.6 billion, $340 million above the enacted level. and $1.4 million above h.r. 1. this is in stark contrast to h.r. 1 which zeroed out title 10. may i have another 15 seconds? mr. dicks: 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. moran: because h.r. 1 was set at such a low bar,his was looked at. we can provide agencies with some certainty and stability so they can go about conducting the people's business. members will have to decide for themselves iflements disappoint them outweigh the good. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the

distinguished speaker of the house, the gentleman who toiled long and hard to bring us the largest spending cut in the history of the country, speaker john boehner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. boehner: let me thank the chairman of the appropriations committee, mr. rogers, and his staff and all the staff for the sacrifices and hard work that they put forward over the last several months in order to get us to this point. you know, for years now, our economy's been stalled and stumbling. in the private sector jobs are not being created. something's clogging the engine of our economy. that something is uncertainty. uncertainty being caused by the actions that are being taken in this town. and one of the prime causes of uncertainty is spending. our failure to do -- deal with a spending binge has been

chipping away with the economic confidence that the americans want to have in their country. and washington's spending addiction is a bipartisan problem. it didn't start under the current administration but the current administration clearly made it worse. this probm is not going to be fixed overnight and this bill does not fix it. the budget proposed by chairman of the budget committee, mr. ryan, the path to prosperity, does deal with the long-term problem. what this bill does, it stops the bleeding. it also starts us moving back in the right direction. does it cut enough? no. do i wish it cut more? absolutely. do we need to cut more? absolutely. but there are some who claim that the spending cuts in this bill aren't real. that they're gimmicks. well, i just think it's total

nonsense. a cut is a cut and this bill will cut an estimated $315 billion over the next 10 years. the largest nondefense discretionary cut in the history of our country. you want discretionary cuts? this bill has billions of them. you want mandatory cuts? they're in here too. clearing out some of the underbrush in the federal budget while we get ready to debate the path to prosperity. every dime in this bill that is cut is a dime that washington will spend if we leave it on the table and if you vote no on this bill you're voting to do exactly that. leaving this money on the table to be spent by unelected bureaucrats. there are some who say that the spending cuts in this bill aren't real. that they're already scheduled. well, let me show you what was already scheduled. this chart is based on a chart

produced last week by an economist at stanford university, john taylor. what shows is the difference between what the president wanted to spend this year and what we will actually spend this year when this bill passes. the difference, $78.5 billion less than what the president requested. nower there are some who want to say that this bill is just more of the same. well, if you believe that it's more of the same, this chart will show you the direction of federal spending over the last couple of years. on that 1/3 of the budget that we call discretionary spending that we fight over all year. it couldn't be more stark. it's like driving down the highway and throwing your car into reverse and instead of spending more and more and more, guess what? we're actually going to spend

less in the discretionary budget this year. now there are some press articles who have picked up on some spin from our colleagues across the aisle suggesng that the bill will result in smaller savings than advertised between now and september. and it's just not the se. it comes down to the fact that there's a difference between budget authority and budget outla. a budget authority is howuch an agency is allowed to spend on a given progm, it's the license to spend taxpayer dollars. outlays show how much an agency will spend over time based on current and prior budget authority. and these are the results of how quickly taxpayer dollars are spent. the final agreement cuts nearly $40 billion in budget authority, taking away the license to spend the money which will result in deficit savings of an estimated $315 billion over the next

decade. and when we pass this bill, washington will spend $315 billion less than it's currently on track to spend over the next 10 years. and it is just that simple. the path to prosperity is the plan that will take us where we truly need to go. this bill doesn't do that. but this bill starts us moving in the right direction. it eliminates one program from the president's health care law, cuts another program in his health care lain half. it eliminates funding for some of the administration's czars, bureaucrats that were charged with implementing the bailouts and takeovers, and guarantees that they won't be coming back. it bans taxpayer funding of abortion in the district of columbia, ensuring that taxpayer funds won't be used to fund the destruction of human life. it saves the d.c. opportunity scholahip program, giving thousands of children here in this city a chance at a decent

education. is it perfect? no. i'd be the first one to admit that it's flawed. well with, welcome to divided government -- well, welcome to divided government. i can tell that you the negotiations that went on over the last four or five weeks, they weren't easy. especially when you've got another body on the other side of this capitol that doesn't want to cut spending and clearly an administration that doesn't want to cut spending. but i'll tell you that this is the best we could get out of divided government. the gentleman referred to it earlier as a compromise. well, i'd say it was a hard fight to get to kind of spending cuts that we got, these are real spending cuts. i think this bill sets up the stage for us to begin making the fundamental changes that need to be made to put our nation back on a path to prosperity. and i would urge all of you to join me in supporting this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the

chair will remind all persons in the gallery that they are here as ests of the house and that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceed sgs in violation of the rules of the house -- proceedings is in violation of the rules of the house. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from connecticut, builds delauro, ranking member -- ms. delauro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from cnecticut is recognized for three minutes. ms. delauro: madam speaker, governing is about choices. everyone in this body agrees that we need to get our fiscal house in order, bring down the deficit and cut programs that do not work. the question before us is, how we choose to get there. unfortunately at almost every turn in this continuing resolution the majority has chosen to keep special interests giveaways to big corporate lobbyists while making middle class and working families bear the brunt of the spending

consults. instead of ending $40 billion in oil company subsidies that this contry gives out every year, they're giving them out right now, this resolution cuts $1.6 billion from our attempts to protect the environment, prevent climate change and it slashes education and infrastructure funding, biomedical research and food safety. the chrman of the full committee said a moment ago that we are going to cut this deficit by $40 billion, by cutting those programs. we could have made up that difference with the $4 billion in the subsidies that we give to the oil companies today. inead of ending billions in subsidies to big agra business it cuts funding for food safety inspections, women's health care under title 10 and virtually eliminates the national health service. instead of ending billions in tax loopholes for corporations who ship our jobs overseas it

slashes funding for vital job training services by $1 billion. it ends education programs that our children rely on like even start and teach for america. it ends literacy programs for children in the united states and at the same time we are providing dollars in afghanistan to train their youngsters in literacy by cutting it out in the united states of america. instead of ending the billions in tax breaks for the wealthiest americans it cuts -- guts community health centers by $600 million. it cuts funding for women with infant and children by $500 millon, it shortchanges public safety, it cuts biomedical research and cuts the centers for disease control by 11%. the american people expect better from us, they want our budget to reflect common sense, mainstream priorities that are good forur country, good for the middle class. instead this resolution offers the status quo on special

interest waste and that hurts people who are trying to do the right thing. this budget will hurt our economy, cost us jobs, put the health and the safety of middle class and working families at risk. it may be an improvement on the tea party budget that this house passed several weeks ago, but that was not the standard we should apply here. this resolution still gives oil companies, special interests, a pass, while hurting american families. these are not the right choices for the american people. i urge my colleagues to oppose this misguided resolution. that would be the right thing to do. we can and must do better. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield three minutes to the chairman of the defense subcommittee of appropriations, the gentleman from florida, mr. young. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for three minutes. mr. young: madam speaker, today i will limit my comments to the dision a of this bill which is

basically the defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2011. this is a bill that should have been passed last year but for some strange reason it didn't get passed. as chairman of the defense committee this year, i'm happy that it's going to become under my watch. but it wouldn't be fair if i didn't point out that the bill basically is a remnant that was crafted together with chairman dicks last year. and should have been passed. we have been functioning, our defense department, and our national defense, on a continuing resolution since last year. that is not good. the c.r. is not good period. but a c.r. for national defense could become extremely serious. we were getting very close to we were getting very close to the pot of affecting