will not exceed 20 minutes equally divided between the chair and the ranking minority member of the committee on the budget. the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. the committee will be in order. msnbc -- members, please clear the aisle.

the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, the distinguished majority whip, mr. mccarthy. the chair: the house will be in order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. mccarthy: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to first start by thanking the chairman of the budget committee, mr. ryan, and the entire budget staff and members on the house side. >> mr. chairman, the house is not in order. the chair: the gentleman is correct. conversations please cease, clear the aisles, bring your conversations to the cloakroom. the gentleman from california.

mr. mccarthy: i'd also like to thank the democrat members on the budget committee as well. what we are taking up today is the point of where this country goes. because this debate has taken on for quite sometime there is not one person that's not watched the news and watch the clock of our debt, $14 trillion. i want you all to imagine for one moment, just imagine for one moment what the country would hold in the dream if that clock was zero. what could we invest in? what could we build and what would our children become? but because that clock does not say zero and that clock continues to climb in the wrong direction, that's why we are here today. but it is a good today because today is the day that we turn that clock back around. we have a plan and a path to

prosperity that will create jobs even those on the outside they said would be more than one million jobs. a plan that will make us energy independent, but a plan that does something that the rest of america has to do, tightening our belts. so today when we come and have to put our cards in the voting card, i want you to think of one thing, today could be the day that we create the great america comeback. or it could be the day where america goes to the long fade into history. but the floor is made of up a micros could much of america and the -- microcosm of america and america knows we have to control this situation we're in. so today a yes vote is for jobs, for energy independence and a new path to prosperity and i yield back.

the chair: the chair notes a disturbance in the gallery which is in contra invention of the laws and rules of the house. the sergeant at arms will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and restore order to the gallery. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. we are turning back the clock. we're turning back the clock on progress and we're turning back the clock on -- the chair: the chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in

contravention with the rules of the house. the sergeant at arms will remove the persons responsible for the disturbance and restore order. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the house will be in order. the committee will be in order. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. what the republican budget does is turn back the clock on a fair deal for the american people. every person in this body today loves this great nation of ours and believes it's a special place. we have to maintain the exceptionalism of this country. we see different paths and make different choices to accomplish

that goal. the chair: the chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in contravention of the law and rules of the house. the sergeant at arms will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and restore order to the gallery. the gentleman from illinois state his point of order. >> mr. speaker, my question is about the chairfication of the rules. mr. jackson: the rules also for our visitsing guests allow the sergeant at arms to clear the chamber if necessary. is that correct, mr. speaker? the chair: it is within the authority of the chair to clear the gallery. mr. jackson: i thank the speaker. i would just encourage those to continue the civil conversation we're having about a very difficult conversation in our country. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized.

mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. if i -- mr. jackson: point of order, mr. speaker. the chair: the chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in contravention of the laws and rules of the house. the sergeant of arms will remove those and restore order and would remind all those that are listening that the chair has the authority to clear the gallery. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: mr. chairman, may i inquire as to how much time remains? very seriously, mr. chairman, if -- the chair: the gentleman from maryland has 9 1/2 minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. we all agree, we all agree we have to act now to put in place a plan to reduce our deficits -- mr. chairman, point of order.

the chair: the chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in contravention of the laws and rules of the house. the sergeant at arms will remove those responsible and restore order in the gallery. the committee will be in order. committee will be in order. the committee will be in order.

the committee will be in order. the chair: the gentleman from maryland may proceed. mr. van hollen: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to begin my remarks from the beginning. the chair: is there ox? seeing none, the gentleman may proceed -- is there objection? seeing none, the gentleman may proceed. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank my colleagues. as i said, nobody doubts that every person in this chamber loves this country and wants to do the right thing. the chair: the chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in contravention of the laws and rules of the house. the sergeant at arms will restore order to the gallery.

the committee will be in order.

the chair: the committee will come to order.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm tempted to reserve my time and yield it back to the other -- the chair: the chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in contravention of the laws and rules of the house. the sergeant of arms will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and restore order to the gallery. the chair makes this announcement for purposes of possible prosecution. the gentleman from maryland may proceed. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. as i said, i was tempted to reserve my time and allow my colleague to proceed but as i

understand that the chamber is now quiet, let me begin where i left off. and say that all of us agree, nerve this tchame chamber agrees -- chamber agrees we need to put in place a plan to reduce our deficit in a predictable steady manner. the question throughout this debate has been not whether but how we do that. and as the bipartisan fiscal commission has indicated, any responsible effort requires a balanced approach. and the republican plan simply fails on that score. and that's what the co-chairs of the bipartisan fiscal commission said. they said it, quote, falls short of the balanced, comprehensive approach needed for a responsible plan. and when you peel off the layers, what you find is the republican plan is not bold.

it's just the same old tired formula we've seen before, providing big tax breaks to the very wealthy and powerful special interests at the expense of the rest of america, except this time it's dressed up with a lot of sweet-sounding talk of reform. but at the end it's the same old ideological agenda except this time on steroids. to govern is to choose. each of us is sent here to make difficult choices. and the choices that are made in the republican plan, we believe, are wrong for america. we do not believe it's courageous to protect tax giveaways to big oil companies and other special interests when we're slashing investments in our kids' education, scientific research and critical investments in the future. we don't think it's bold to provide another, another tax

break to millionaires while ending the medicare guarantee for seniors and sticking seniors with the bill for ever-rising health care costs. we do not believe it's visionary to reward corporations that ship american jobs rather than american products overseas while we're terminating affordable health care for tens of millions of americans right here at home. and we don't think it's brave to give governors a blank check of federal taxpayer dollars and then a license to cut support for seniors in nursing homes, individuals with disabilities and poor kids. and we don't think it's fair to raise taxes on middle income americans to pay for additional tax breaks for the folks at the very top. yet those are the choices that

are made in the republican budget. where is the shared sacrifice? we have american men and women putting their lives on the line in iraq, in afghanistan, while others hide their income in the cayman islands, in switzerland, and refuse to pay their fair share to support our national efforts. and that is why the bipartisan commission, among other reasons, said that the republican plan is just not balanced. it's not. let's say no to the republican plan, let's say yes to finding a balanced way to reduce our deficits in a way that protects the values and priorities of the american people and in a way that gets our economy moving and america back to work. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.

the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the distinguished chairman of the house republican conference, the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. hensarling: mr. chairman, earlier this week "usa today" reported that we have the fewest participants in our work force than at any time in 30 years, and my democratic colleagues announce their plan to increase taxes $1.5 trillion on our economy, much of it on our small businesses. the congressional budget office has announced that medicare is going broke in 2020, and my democratic colleagues announce their plan to double down on the rationing of health care for our seniors. the congressional budget office -- the chair: the chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in contravenges of the rules of the house. the sergeant at arms will restore order to the gallery.

the gentleman may proceed. mr. hensarling: mr. chairman, the congressional budget office has announced that social security will go broke in 2037, and my democratic colleagues have announced this is not a problem, we're ready to implement the 22% benefit cut that's already in our statute. survey after survey show that our fellow citizens believe that their children, their children will be worse off than they are, and yet my democrat colleagues announce their plan to add $9.1 trillion to the national debt. mr. chairman, it's time to quit spending money we don't have. it's time to quit borrowing 42 cents on the dollar, much of it from the chinese, and then send the bill to our children and grandchildren. the republican budget will help us create jobs with fundamental

tax reform in preventing these tax increases. it will save our social safety net programs, programs that have been of a great comfort to my parents and grandparents before our eyes are morphing into ponzi schemes for their third grade daughter and first grade son. mr. chairman, the republican budget will put us on the path to pay off the national debt. mr. chairman, i heard from one of my constituents recently. he said i have never been ashamed of anything i have done in my life except leaving this in the hands of my kids. i written them a heart felt apology when they get old enough to understand what the government did to them. mr. chairman, i have a message for mr. calhoun. put that letter away. house republicans are going to stand for tyler and caitlin. we are going to put america back to work.

we're going to save the social safety net and preserve the american dream for ourselves and our prosperity. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. it's hard to see how someone would define saving the social safety net by ending the medicare guarantee for seniors, by slashing medicaid by over $750 billion, a program that disproportionately helps seniors in nursing homes and disabled individuals. it's really hard to understand that is preserving the social safety net. it reminds me of that strange statement we once heard that you have to destroy the village in order to save it. now, let's understand what happens under this budget to medicare. this budget ends the medicare guarantee for seniors.

it doesn't reform medicare. it deforms and dismantles it because it forces seniors off of the medicare program into the private insurance market. and it does nothing as it dumps the seniors into the private insurance market to control the rate of increase in health care costs. and instead it transfers to the seniors all those risks and all those costs. seniors will pay a lot more while the insurance companies will get all their medicare payroll taxes, they'll get a bonanza out of this thing but seniors will be left holding the bag. if your voucher amount -- call it whatever you want -- is not sufficient to pay for the increased cost, you eat it. and we saw earlier the fact that by the year 2022 seniors will have to pay more than $6,000 above what they would have had to pay under the

regular medicare program. if your doctor's not on a private plan that you could avoid, tough luck. this is rationing health care by income, nothing more, and i want to say something just to clear the record one more time. we keep hearing that they're offering seniors exactly what members of congress get. it simply is not true. what members of congress get is what's called a fair share deal. i encourage my colleagues on all sides of the aisle just to look at the federal employees benefit plan and you look in the office of personnel that says this formula is known as the fair share formula because it will maintain a consistent level of government contributions as a percentage of program costs regardless of what plan the enrollees elect. and it says that the government contribution equals the lesser

of 72% of the amounts o.p.m. determines programwide or 75%. the fact is that members of congress get a fair share formula. the republican budget does not give a fair share formula to seniors on medicare. it just doesn't. in fact, the way it saves money is to give them an unfair deal. it unconnects the support we give to seniors from rising health care costs. that's why seniors will end up paying so much more and more and more because you make the savings. health care costs are going up like this and the support, if you want to call it support, it is really not, coming from the medicare program from the federal government, is going like this. that's why the seniors are having to eat those additional costs. that's what the republican

budget does at the same time they do provide additional tax breaks for the very folks -- the folks at the very top. and if you want to get rid of some of the junk in the tax code you can support the democratic plan because we got rid of subsidies for the oil companies, we got rid of those perverse tax incentives to reward corporations that are shipping american jobs instead of american products overseas. if you want to start with tax reform, vote for the democratic plan. those are the choices we made, not ending the medicare guarantee. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished majority leader, mr. cantor. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: i thank the chairman, and i want to thank the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, for his outstanding leadership and all the hard work he's shown in leading this effort to put together a budget

for this house. i also want to commend the hard work of his members and the committee for bringing this forward. mr. chairman, the federal government is broke. we borrow nearly 40 cents of every dollar we spend. our debt is more than $14 trillion, and it's averaging yearly to trillion-dollar deficits. we simple -- simply cannot afford spending the money we don't have and we must simply bring down the debt. now, for years this house, including legislators on both sides of the aisle, has kicked the can down the road. americans were led to believe that we could spend hundreds of billions of dollars that we don't have and that there would be no consequences. and when it came to fostering an environment where american business could compete in the global economy, we became

complacent. this must stop. it's time to be honest with the american people. mr. chairman, we stand at a crossroads. before us lies two different paths. one defined by crushing debt, slow growth and diminished opportunity, and one defined by achievement, innovation and american leadership. mr. chairman, the house is not in order. the chair: the gentleman is correct. the committee is not in order. conversations will be suspended. the gentleman may proceed. mr. cantor: thank you, mr. chairman. by demonstrating courage and directly confronting our challenge at this critical moment, we can fulfill the promise of america and pass on to our children a nation that offers everyone a fair shot at

earning their success. the house republican budget is an honest, fact-based proposal that details our vision for managing down our debt and growing our way back to prosperity. first, we will stop spending money that we don't have. this budget cuts nonsecurity discretionary spending to below 2008 levels and freezes it for five minutes. overall, we reach $6.2 trillion in savings against the president's budget. second, we'll lead where the president has failed by finally addressing our insolvent entitlement programs. we know that these programs are the biggest drivers of our debt and the congressional budget office acknowledges that if we don't take action these important safety net programs will go broke. we cannot afford to ignore these -- this oncoming fiscal

train wreck any longer. while it may be seen by some as politically risky, we republicans are willing to lead because, to be frank, complacency is not an option. to be clear, our plan will not touch benefits for today's seniors and those nearing retirement. for those of us 54 and below it calls for reforms that will restructure medicare and medicaid to ensure that these safety nets will still be there for those who need it, not for those who don't. unlike the lofty outline the president gave in his speech this week, our budget is not a political document. we do not dream up imaginary savings and dodge specifics. in an effort to lull people into the belief that they can actually get things for

nothing. our budget is a concrete plan for getting our fiscal house in order, and we do not resort to tax increases on the very small businesses and job creators we need to put america back to work. bringing down the debt sends a message to american families. it sends a message to business men and women, to entrepreneurs and to investors. it gives them the confidence that they won't face a future plagued by inflation, higher taxes and higher interest rates. we understand that cutting spending alone is not enough. that's why our budget calls for pro-growth policies to get our economy growing and to get people back to work. families and small business people are struggling, and today, tax day, millions of them will send their hard-earned money to uncle sam.

the last thing we should be asking them to do is to send yet again more. instead, our budget calls for a more competitive tax system that will encourage the economy to grow, create jobs and spur investment in the private sector. we call for the end of crony capitalism that allows privileged industries gain competitive advantage in our tax code, and we call for a more simple system that lowers rates for all but make sure that everyone pays their fair share. mr. chairman, with this budget house republicans are changing the culture in washington from one of spending to one of savings. finally, mr. chairman, america will see that it can get its fiscal house in order after years of mismanagement. we are finally doing what

families and small business people have been doing for years, tightening the belts and learning how to do more with less. again, mr. chairman, i thank chairman ryan and his committee for their outstanding leadership, and i urge my colleagues to support this resolution. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: may i inquire of the gentleman from maryland, he has just minimum self? mr. van hollen: we have another speaker. mr. ryan: ok. at this time, mr. chairman, i'd like to -- mr. van hollen: we have another speaker -- one more in addition to myself. mr. ryan: why don't you take one then? mr. van hollen: how many -- mr. ryan: we have the right to close. and we have just two more speakers on our side. how many do you have? mr. van hollen: we have two more.

mr. ryan: all right. you'll do two together then. ok. at this time, mr. chairman ucks i'd like to yield one minute to the speaker of the house, mr. boehner. the chair: the speaker is recognized. the speaker: i'm glad we got that resolved. the american people understand that we can't continue to spend money that we don't have. our national debt has now surpassed $14.2 trillion. it's on a track to eclipse the entire size of our economy. and this massive debt that we're incurring hurts private sector job creation, eroding confidence, spreading uncertainty amongst employers big and small, discouraging private investment in our economy that is sorely needed in order for us to create jobs. this debt is also a moral threat to our country. in my opinion it is immoral to rob our children and

grandchildren's future and leave them beholden to countries around the world who buy our debt. we have a moral obligation to speak the truth and to do something about it. yesterday we took the first step in beginning to address this massive debt by passing legislation that would reduce our deficit by $315 billion over the next 10 years. it was an imperfect bill, but it was a positive step that has cleared the decks and allowed to us focus on cutting trillions of dollars, not just billions. and chairman ryan and the members of the budget committee have done an excellent job of putting together a budget that's worthy of the american people. this budget will help job creation today, lift the crushing burden of debt that threatens our children's future and preserve and protect programs like medicare and medicaid. and most importantly the budget

shows families and small businesses that were serious about dealing with america's spending illness so we can put our country on a path to prosperity. the ryan budget sets the bar for the debate going forward. president obama had an opportunity to match it. unfortunately he gave a partisan speech about the need for more spending, more taxing and more borrowing. he said he must -- he wants to target our debt problem through a so-called debt failsafe. but exempts the major entitlement programs that account for most of the long-term debt problems. and he proposed yet another commission, though he ignored the recommendations of this last one. instead of offering serious solutions, the president asked congress to raise the debt limit without addressing washington's spending problem. the president wants a clean bill.

and the american people will not tolerate it. now, let me be clear. there will be no debt limit increase unless it's accompanied by serious spending cuts and real budget reform. we delivered this message on wednesday morning to the president and we cannot continue to borrow recklessly and dig ourselves a deeper hole and mortgage the future of our children and grandchildren. the american people are looking for leadership to address this debt crisis. and unfortunately the president has failed to put a serious proposal on the table. and if the president won't lead, we will. no more kicking the can down the road, no more whistling past the graveyard. now is the time to address the serious challenges that face the american people. and we will.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i would point out that even if we adopt the republican budget, we're going to have to lift the debt ceiling for years and years to come. so let's not play russian roulette with the economy and the full faith and credit of the united states government. on the question of jobs, the question of jobs, during the clinton administration we asked the very wealthiest for a little bit more sacrifice than they have today and you know what happened to jobs? 20 million jobs were created during the administration, clinton administration. under the current tax rates, after eight years of george bush, private sector lost 630,000 jobs. mr. chairman, can i inquire how much time i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. van hollen: i yield myself 30 seconds.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. van hollen: so you see the pattern here, during the clinton administration economic growth booming, 20 million jobs created, during the eight years of the bush administration net loss 653,000 jobs. we need to continue to invest in this country and make sure that the entrepreneurs of this country can continue to thrive. we need to do this in a balanced way and i would point out that the folks who said that the republican plan this republican plan debate would increase jobs are the same people who predicted that the bush tax cuts would create jobs. that's the blue line is the prediction of the heritage foundation about what that would happen. the red is the reality. if we want to create jobs and reduce the deficit, we need to do it in a balanced way. that's what the fiscal commission said, that's what the democratic plan does. we urge everyone respectfully to vote no on the republican plan.

it's the wrong choice for america. and with that i yield a minute to the distinguished democratic leader, ms. pelosi. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank him for bringing a budget proposal to the floor today that is a statement of our national values, about what we care about, investing in our children, honoring our seniors, growing, creating jobs, growing the economy, strengthening the middle class. thank you, mr. van hollen, for your great leadership in that regard. mr. speaker, today we are taking a vote that is very, very important for the health and security of american seniors. a great deal is at stake. and i'm just going to focus on one part of this republican budget. i want to say to my republican colleagues, do you realize that your leadership is asking to you cast a vote today to abolish

medicare as we know it? because that is a vote that we have. this is not about an issue, this is about a value, this is about an ethic. medicare is a core value of our social compact with the american people. yet this budget shreds that contract which is part of the strength of our country. the republican proposal breaks the promise that our country has made to our seniors. that after a lifetime of work they will be able to depend on medicare to protect them in retirement. this plan, the republican plan, ends medicare as we know it and dramatically reduces benefits for seniors. it forces them to pay more -- to buy their insurance companies from health insurance companies where the average senior will be forced to pay twice as much for half the benefits. i want to repeat that. it forces -- the republican plan

forces seniors to buy their insurance from health insurance companies where the average senior will be forced to pay twice as much for half the benefits. as much as $20,000 per year more for some seniors. this plan has the wrong priorities for our seniors and for all americans. the republican budget, just remember these three things, ends medicare as we know it, gives big tax breaks and subsidies, tens of billions of dollars to big oil. this budget reduces medicaid for our seniors in nursing homes, sending them away from nursing homes while it gives tax breaks to companies that send jobs overseas. this budget hurts our children's education. in fact, it increases the cost of higher education for nearly 10 million of our young adults while it gives tax breaks to america's wealthiest families.

that's just not fair. it is just not the american way. here we are, yesterday we observed the 100th day of the republican majority in congress. in that 100 days not one job has been created, not one job agenda is in the works. and what are we doing? we are here to abolish medicare instead. i've heard our colleagues say that the budget deficit is immoral. it's been immoral for the eight years of the bush administration and didn't hear anybody say boo while we were giving tax cuts to the rich, having two wars unpaid for and giving tax -- prescription drug bills to the private sector. democrats are committed to reducing the deficit, we have demonstrated that we can during the clinton administration and we will.

we are committed to strength being -- strengthening the middle class, to growing our economy as we reduce the deficit and to creating jobs. the republican budget fails to do that and the republican budget will not have democratic support. we are here as one of the previous speakers said, now is the time, now is the time to preserve medicare and democrats will. i urge a no vote on the republican plan. thank you. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. -- the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, at this time i'd like to yield myself the remainder of the time and address the house from the well. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: first of all, mr. chairman, i want to thank our staffs. the democratic staff and the republican staff for all of their hard work in getting us to this moment. i want to ask my colleagues a

question. i want to ask the american people a question. you know, i remember one of the worst moments i had in congress was the financial crisis of 2008. seems like it was yesterday. we had the treasury secretary, we had the federal reserve chairman coming here talking about crisis. talking about bank collapses. and what came out of that was really ugly legislation that we passed in a bipartisan basis but no one enjoyed. that crisis caught us by surprise. it was unpredictable. we didn't see it coming. let me ask you this. what if your president and your member of congress saw it coming? what if they knew why it was happening, when it was going to happen and, more importantly, they knew what to do to stop it and they had time to stop it but they didn't because of politics? what would you think of that person? mr. chairman, that is where we are right now.

this is the most predictable economic crisis we've ever had in the history of this country. and yet we have a president who is unwilling to lead, we have too many politicians weared about the next election and -- worried about the next election and not worried about the next generation. every politician in this town, every politician in this town knows we have a debt crisis. they know that we are in danger. we cannot avoid this choice to govern -- choice. to govern is to choose. we are making a choice even if we don't act and that's the wrong choice. in the words of abraham lincoln, we cannot escape history, we of this congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves . will we be remembered as the congress that did nothing as the nation sped toward a presprentble debt crisis and

irreversible decline? or will it instead be remembered as a congress that did the hard work of preventing that crisis? the one that chose this path to prosperity. this path to prosperity charts a different course. it gets us off this wrong track. it achieves four objectives. number one, grow the economy and get people back to work. number two, fulfill the mission of health and retirement -- fulfill the mission of health and retirement security. we don't want to ration medicare, we don't want to see medicare go bankrupt, we want to save medicare. number three, repair the social safety net. get it ready for the 21st century. we don't want a welfare system that encourages people to stay on welfare, we want them to get back on their feet and into flourishing, self-sufficient lives.

so let's reform welfare for people who need it and let's end it for corporate welfare for people who don't need it. number four, let's do the work of lifting this crushing burden of debt from our children. this is what we achieve. we have a choice of two futures. but we have to make the right choice. we must not leave this nation -- lead this nation into decline. we must not be the first generation in this country to leave the next generation worse off. decline is antithetical to the american idea. america is a nation conceived in liberty, dedicated to equality and defined by limitless opportunity. equal opportunity, upward mobility, prosperity, this is what america is all about.

in all chapters of human history, there has never been anything quite like america. this budget keeps america exceptional. it preserves its promise for the next generation. colleagues, this is our defining moment. we must choose this path to prosperity. i yield. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for debate has expired. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. under the rule, the committee rises.

the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration h.r. 34 and under house resolution 223, i report the concurrent resolution back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: under the rule, the previous question is ordered. the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration house concurrent resolution 34 and pursuant to house resolution 223 reports the concurrent resolution back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the christ -- the christ have it. the question is -- the ayes have it. the question is on agreeing to the concurrent resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 235, the nays are 193. the concurrent resolution is agreed to.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause of rule 20, the unfinished business is agreeing to the speaker's apursuant to the rule of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question son agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the journal stands approved. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognize. mr. ryan: i want to thank all our hardworking staff in the house office and the budget committee who put in long hours, dedicated years of expertise to making this budget possible, to making this budget passable to making this moment happen. i want to thank jonathan burkes, marsha douglas, tim flynn, nicole fultz, jose, jim hurts, mat hoffman, charlotte,

pat, jane lee, dick mcgee, ted mccann, andy morton, courtney ryanhart, paul, austin smythe, our staff director, jenna, connor sweeney, dennis teddy, dana wade. i call him john z. that's an inside joke. brad butler. jonathan. spencer pepper. alex stoddard. i also want to thank from our personal office smith anderson, laurie, joyce meier, mike, kevin, martin, andy, my chief of staff, alison style, our interns, brad, jane, david, greg, and john. i want to thank all the hardworking staff for making

this possible. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that we be permitted to file reports accompanying 1214, 1215, and 1216 at any time through april 15, 2011. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to section 5580 and 5581 of the revised statutes, 20 u.s.c. 2223 and the order of the house of january 5, 2011, the chair announces the speaker appointment of the members of the house to the board of regents of the smithsonian institution. the clerk: mr. becerra of california. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 2303 and house order 2202, the chair

announces the appointment of the following members of the house of representatives to the holocaust memorial council. the clerk: mr. waxman of pennsylvania, ms. giffords of arizona. the speaker pro tempore: note in the orders of the house of january 5, 011, the chair announces the speaker ice appointment of the following members to the dwight d d. eisenhower memorial commission. the clerk: mr. simpson of idaho, mr. boswell of iowa. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to 2 u.s.c. 501b and the order or the house, the chair announces the appointment of the following to the house commission on congressional mailing standards. the clerk: mr. schock of illinois, chairman, mr. price of georgia, mr. latta of ohio,

mrs. davis of california, mr. sherman of california, mr. richmond of louisiana. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 206 the migratory board conservation act, 715a an the order of the house of january 15, 2011, the chair announces the following members of the house to the migratory bird conservation commission. the clerk: mr. wittman of virginia and mr. dingell of michigan. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to 22 u.s.c. and the order of the house of january 5 20, 11, the chair announces the appointment o the following members of the house to the mexico-united states interparliamentarian group. the clerk: mr. dreier of california. chairman. mr. mccaul of texas. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to 46 u.s.c. b the chair announces the speaker

appointment of the following members to the board of visitors of the united states merchant marine academy. the clerk: mr. king of new york and mrs. mccarthy of new york. the speaker pro tempore: 3ur sunt to 22 u.s.c. 276d, clause 10 of rule 1 and the order of the house, january 5, 2011, the chair announces the speaker's appointment of the following member of the house to the canada-united states interparliamentary group. the clerk: mr. manzullo of illinois, chairman. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to 14 u.s.c. 194 and the order of theous of january 5, 2011, the chair announces the speaker's appointment of the following members of the house to the board of visitors of the united states coast guard academy. the clerk: mr. coble of north carolina and mr. courtney of connecticut. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests

for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to commend the baylor university women's basketball team on an outstand 20g11 season. i don't believe there are many members of the bo yid bush body have the honor to represent two great schools who went to the ncaa elite eight in the women's you were toment. this is part of the win trag decision that includes a national championship in 2005. coach kim mulkey and the lady bears deserve recognition for winning the big 12 championship. also sophomore post britney griner was named as first team all american. congratulations to the lady bears on a great season.

sick 'em, bears, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from welve rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor judge william harrgrove iii for 30 years of outstanding service. headquartered in the county seat of doylestown, the conservancy specializes in open space preservation, planning for sustainable communities and natural resource protection. as a vocal advocate for critical natural areas in my time as county commissioner, i have a personal appreciation for the mission. mr. fits pat are rick: the judge has been an important partner in stopping the urban sprawl from ruining the landscape of the bucks -- of bucks county. he'll be missed as the conservancy continues its work.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, there is an epidemic of historical and political ignorance in our country and that an alarming 83% of americans failed the basic test on the american revolution. mr. dold: it is for this reason i rise today to acknowledge the exciting work of the american film company, founded in 2008 by entrepreneur joe rickets. he founded the company on the belief that real life is more compelling than fiction. and so he set out to produce films about incredible true stories from america's past. central to the company's filmmaking are prominent historians ensuring that each production remains and historically accurate. as a resident of the great state of illinois i was pleased that the film's first -- first produced by the american film company was "the conspirator"

which tells the true story of the lone woman accused of participating in the conspirator to assassinate president lincoln. i commend the american film company for finding an entertain diagnose an entertaining way to educate americans about our country's important history. i congratulate mr. rickets as well. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. are there further requests for one minutes? for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, over the last 48 hours this house engaged in its constitutional right of creating a pathway of revenue for the united states of america. sadly, we ended just a few minutes ago on a budget that cannot claim republican budget that it will in essence reduce

the deficit or create a surplus at any given year. i'm delighted to have supported the democratic budget that reduces the deficit and reaches a primary balance by 2018. but more importantly, i think i am very delighted that the american people will see a heart in this budget, that we will not destroy medicare, that we will not burden our seniors the extra $12,000 that seniors will have to pay. that's right. $12,000. and that young people will not be closed or prevented at the doors of college to go to school and that head start will end and medicaid for the disabled and seniors will end. i do have faith in this country, and i believe we will get a budget that is both merciful and balanced, the right way for the american people, not the wrong way. today, unfortunately, we made a wrong step, but i believe together we will make it right.

i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. are there further requests for one minutes? under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from illinois, mr. jackson, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority party. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

mr. jackson: thank you, mr. speaker. recently i've given several special order speeches about my view of the constitution making the argument for why i think it should be amended to include certain basic rights for the american people that they currently lack. these include the right to a high-quality education, the right to health care and equal rights for women. equal rights for women alone, mr. speaker, would be responsible for providing an extraordinary amount of income for 51% of households headed by women if women in our society were simply paid the same rate that their counterparts in the work force are paid. equal rights. equal rights for women alone as a fundamental right would strengthen our economy. this afternoon my special order time will be used to discuss the continuing resolution for fiscal year 2011, the

republican proposed fiscal year 2012 budget and the balanced budget amendment or what i've taken to call the imbalanced budget amendment. all three have something in common. in an ideal world, my colleague, paul ryan, would support the idea of a balanced budget amendment to the constitution, but such an amendment would have extraordinary implications for our country, extraordinary implications for our federal government, and it would be fundamentally in the wrong direction. and while the republican proposed budget of fiscal year 2012 does not have the strength of the constitution of the united states, it's clear to me that republicans and conservatives in the republican party and some conservatives within the democratic party are forcing the nation's politics into a consideration of a balanced budget amendment for the constitution. and i want to talk about that in the context of the 2011 debate, the context of the 2012 debate and such an amendment.

before i begin, i want to set the framework for my special order. president harry truman in 1946 said that all of the policies of the federal government must be geared to the objective of sustained full production and full employment. today, our country has unemployment that is nearing 9%. unemployment nearing 9%. nearly 13 million to 14 million americans are presently unemployed, many of whom are chronically unemployed. and yet in 1946 president harry truman said that the objective of the federal government must be sustained, full production and full employment. to raise consumer purchasing power and to encourage business investment. there's not been a single bill

in this congress since the 112th congress has begun to address the issue of full employment. secondly, i want to remine the american people, mr. speaker, what william jennings bryan said in 1896. i am in favor of an income tax when i find a man who is not willing to bear his share of the burdens of the government which protects him, find a man who is unworthy to enjoy the business of a government like ours. my colleagues across the aisle simplified the impacts of a measure by describing it, and i quote, tightening the belts. these cuts go to people who can't afford it.

h.r. 1, and i quote, tightening our belts, slashed programs like community health centers specifically to provide basic health and dental services to communities who might otherwise care for them. h.r. 11 tightened our belt. to the -- h.r. 1 tightened our belts, setting back cancer treatments and cures for other diseases, the impact which we will feel for years to come as medical professionals are shut to cut down promising research projects. h.r. 1 tightened our belts by hacking away of training of health professions, reducing this funding by more than 23%, cuts to title 7 and title 8 programs that help to train the primary health professionals for underserved areas, would limit the access of low-income individuals for quality doctors, nurses and physician assistants in their areas. h.r. 1 tightened our belts by

severing title 10 family planning programs and doing so we stepped back in time preventing life-saving care being offered to our nation's women, specifically women who wouldn't otherwise have access to this kind of care. the programs i've listed so far provide health services to our nation and especially to our most underprivileged populations. h.r. 1 also tightened our belingts with cuts to job training programs, head start and after-school programs, pell grants, hope 6 housing programs and high-speed rail. these programs were systematically sent to the gee teen. i'd be happy to yield. >> i ask my name be removed as co-sponsor of h.r. 1081. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman may proceed. mr. jackson: the people they

serve are not millionaires to whom we generously extended tax cuts. they are not the corporations who easily navigate tax loopholes, 1/2 gates the halls and walls of this congress every year costing our nation billions in revenue. they are everyday hardworking, middle class, public school educated, checkbook balancing, minimum wage earning, mothers, fathers and grand parties that elected each of us hoping we'd find a way to decrease unemployment and bring america back from the brink. mr. speaker, thankfully our colleagues across the capitol thought we went a few notches too tight in our belt with h.r. 1. as the senate refused to take up these cuts. much of our future, long-term budget decisions and discussions to reduce our deficit and get america back on train and on track remain in limbo. recently, this discussion had reached a fever pitch. after multiple short-term

extensions of the fiscal year 2011 appropriations legislation, the negotiations between speaker boehner, leader reid and the president had broken down many times throughout the week. we were faced with the threat of the first government shutdown since 1996. agencies were planning which workers to furlough, national parks and museums were prepared to shut their doors for the weekend, and the brave men and women in our active duty and active duty and service to our nation were prepared to continue their work without pay. then, at the 11th hour, there was a breakthrough. the 5 1/2-month continuing resolution agreed to by the leadership of the house and the senate and the president included a total of $39 billion worth of cuts. but these cuts that were agreed to late into friday have real consequences. there are significant cuts to programs like w.i.c., women, infants and children, the supplemental nutritional program for women, infants and

children, low-income energy and heating assistance programs, liheap. international disaster assistance and head start. after the president and congressional leadership agreed to giving $8.5 billion in tax cuts to the top wage earners last year, we turn around and cut programs that working families and seniors depend on. it just doesn't make sense to me, mr. speaker. again, while i was relieved that the federal government did not shut down, i'm deep will he disappointed in the process that has -- deeply disappointed in the process that has brought us this so-called compromise, if you call it. like the tax cuts to held out for the tax cuts of the wealthy, our leadership has again demonstrated that they're willing to hold up programs provided to the most vulnerable americans, and this congress is only just the beginning. as for the fiscal -- as for next year's budget, there are

some potential to succeed and others to fail. like paul ryan's recent offering. look at the facts. his proposal will reduce our nation's deficit but leaves us asking the question at what cost. first and foremost, mr. ryan intends to place the burden of ending our nation's debt on the citizens least capable of caring for themselves, the most reliant on the help of others, our seniors. the budget committee's proposal will end the medicare our senior citizens have come to know and rely on, replacing it with what can only be described as a coupon, a voucher that according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office would leave our eldest americans shouldering 68% of their health care costs in the next 20 years. who else pays the cost of balancing our budget within the ryan proposal? the burden falls next to working american families. the ryan proposal will lower tax rates for individuals with

the highest income as well as corporations. relying on raising taxes for the average americans to pay for it. if it sounds familiar it's because the same standby, trickled down failure that we placed our faith in in the past decade. despite what majority leader cantor says, during an economic downturn, decreasing the deficit does not create jobs. also cutting taxes does not create jobs. both presidents bush and obama cut taxes so much that if majority leader cantor's theory were correct, we would have zero unemployment, which we do not have. this is what the ryan plan aims to do. for 10 years, our economy has stagnated. the depap between the median wage and average wage is growing because the highest earners are the only ones receiving wage increases. unfortunately, balancing our nation's budget on the backs of the middle class does not end

there. where else would the burden of balancing the budget fall under the ryan plan? education. cuts to k through 12 education are just the starting point in disadvantaging the future of america. the proposal also makes significant cuts to pell grants. these cuts will prevent the educated yen ration of young americans our country needs to compete in the global economy. the proposed cuts to pell grants would return the maximum reward allowable to prestimulus levels, impacting millions of young americans depending on financial assistance to attend college. this will stretch the time it will take for them to earn their degrees and enter the work force. finally, ryan's budget continues to provide tax loopholes to big oil companies and cuts all federal support for clean energy, short sighting our economic investment in the future of energy. mr. speaker, i am not promoting constant federal debt.

i'm not advocating against hoping or trying for a balanced budget. but when you look through history and the history of our nation, we see that when americans were in most need during war or recession, during the great depression, we focused on solving these problems, not just reducing our debt. mr. speaker, we are currently engaged in two wars and fighting our way out of the worst recession of the modern era. the ryan intudget a new attempt at an age-old ploy to mandate a balanced budget. ending the deficit and returning our country to prosperity should, of course, be the goal, but we must also ask the question, at what cost? where do our priorities lie? the ryan proposal, like the myriad constitutional amendments before it, attempts to balance our budget on the backs of those americans who can least bear the burden. this is the history of the balanced budget amendment.

the current budget situation is most pointian when looking at the origin of the balanced budget amendment and its history. after listening to my colleagues across the aisle present the republican study committee's budget this morning, i'm apt to wonder what is it that they're actually studying other there? hopefully we'll be able to set the record straight. as a reaction to f.d.r.'s new deal, republican congressman harold knudsen of minnesota introduced the first version of the amendment in 1936. like many constitutional amendments this resolution did not receive a hearing or a vote. during president dwight d. eisenhower's first term, the judiciary committee of a barely democratic senate held its first hearing on this amendment and it again did not receive a vote. after these partial defeat the balanced budget amendment supporters shifted their focus to the states. from 1975 to 1980, 30 state legislatures passed resolutions

calling for a constitutional convention to propose this amendment directly to the states that is, they sought to bypass congress and the con fregsal amendment process. the election of president reagan and the republican senate in 1980 renewed hopes for a balanced budget amendment and passed by congress. while the senate did adopt the amendment in 1982, it failed to garner the necessary 3/5 majority in the house. this failure energized conservative groups such as the national taxpayers' union and the national tax limitation committee to refocus on state action. in 1982 and 1983, the alaska and missouri legislatures passed resolutions supporting the b.b.a., bringing the total number of these resolutions 20 to the 32, two short of the 34 needed for a convention. however, growing concern about the scope of a constitutional convention led some states to withdraw their resolution, reshifting focus to congressional action.

from 1990 to 1994, congress would make three additional attempts to codify this amendment. all failed to garner the necessary /5 majority. however, the b.b.a. made a comeback when it was included in newt gingrich's contract with america. 26 days after taking office, the new pli empowered republican majority adopted the balanced budget amendment giving conservatives their first congressional win in a decade. this appointment -- disappointment awaited in the senate where two votes fell just short of adoption. this failure, along the bnsed -- balanced budget and the budget surplus at the end of the decade sapped any congressional support for a balanced budget amendment. there was no renewed energy from republican support for the amendment in 2000 and it was included in their party's platform. the bush tax cuts, wars in afghanistan and iraq and the massive deficit spending created by them eventually led

republicans to sweep the idea of a plansed budget amendment back under the rug. by 2004, the republican party left any mention of a balanced budget out of their political platform. again, in recent years, with the advent of the tea party and the return of extreme fiscal conservatism in the republican party, there are currently 12 balanced budget amendments in the house of representatives and in the senate. there are three. i had my staff double check that for me. 12 balanced budget amendments in the house. they're all basically the same. some have even been offered by members of my own party. i understand these members' frustration. mr. speaker, i've been trying to pass my nine amendments to the constitution for 10 years now and my amendments are based on f.d.r.'s second bill of rights which he proposed back in 1944. today, 67 years later, here we are.

mr. speaker, i fundamentally believe that conservatives in congress are pushing for this amendment, not to force a vote in congress, but to rally states to act. mr. speaker, we have a troubling national debt and deficit but the balanced budget amendment is not the solution. the arguments proponents of balanced budget amendment make is as follows. like families, businesses, and states, the federal government should balance its budget. but since it does not, we need a constitutional amendment to guarantee that it will do so. nearly every state in this union has some form of a balanced budget requirement. but those states are not out of debt. their amendments have restricted their state's ability to care for their citizens in times of austerity or emergency but their budgets are not balanced. according to a "forbes" analysis of the global debt cries any 2010, every state in the country is carrying some form of debt.

these debts range from as little as $17 per capita in nebraska to $4,490 in connecticut. how can this be, mr. speaker? it's because the infrastructure of these states allow them to hide debt in capital funds. the federal government cannot and i would argue the federal government should not follow this path. congress should never seek to hide the fiscal realities from the public that bear the burden of the costs. nor should we seek the public magic beans that a balanced budget amendment will somehow make the national debt and other problems go away. debt will exist, just as new problems will arise. just as there are new threats to america, unforeseen threat, just as there are future economic calamities that we cannot see, the federal government must play some role in addressing a national crisis. a balanced budget amendment

would simply prohibit the federal government from exercising precisely the authority it needs to exercise on maff of the american people. in face call year 2012, approximately 44 states will face revenue shortfalls. many are desperately looking for ways to declare their states bankrupt. bankrupt. i say it again, mr. speaker. because this proposed amendment would place the federal government in a similar predicament. the effect in many states is calamitous. for instance, in rhode island, judges and court workers have cut pay and left 53 positions unfilled. this is still not enough to balance their budget. as a desperate last resort, the chief justice has begun toties pose of cases on back log. literally tossing them out. florida is in the same predicament. mr. speaker, a balanced budget amendment would force the federal government to deny americans the right to seek

redress and justice in federal courts for the sake of balancing their budget. in my home state of illinois, mental health services have been cut by $91 million. human service directors are fearful that these cuts will cause a real public health and public safety crisis. iowa. idaho. alabama, and ohio. are considering drastic cuts to education. my colleagues across the aisle are so concerned about handing our children and grandchildren any amount of national debt that they fail to realize we are setting future generations up for failure. states are already cutting too many services that the american people and the american work force need to remain strong and competitive. should the federal government do the same, our legacy will be an america that is uneducated, ill equipped to compete on a global level. mr. speaker, as complemplefied by its effects on the states -- as exemplified by its effects

on the states, this sounds good on its face but falls flat in reality. like an optical illusion that changes as you draw closer, the balanced budget masquerades as the savior of our budget yet in reality it threatens to permanently destroy it. according to citizen for tax justice and others a federal balanced budget amendment would do five very damaging things. it would damage our economy by making recessions deeper and more frequent. it would heighten the risk of the fault and jeopardize the full faith and kret of the united states government. it would lead to reductions in needed investments for the future. it would favor wealthy americans over middle and low income americans by making it far more difficult to raise revenues on people who can afford and easier to cut programs for people who need them most. and lastly, mr. speaker, it would weaken the principle of majority rule, therefore passing a balanced budget amendment is not prudent. it's not the right path for our

nation to follow. so let's return for a few moments to the five faults outlined by the center on budget and policy priorities and citizens for tax justice. these arguments will bring to light the dangers with which a balanced budget amendment would threaten our nation. the first fault. a balanced budget amendment would damage the economy and make recession deeper and more frequent. under a balanced budget amendment, congress would be forced to adopt a rigid fiscal policy, not just under the amendment, but under the ryan budget, requiring the budget to be balanced or in surplus every year regardless of the current economic situation. oar threat to our nation's security. a sluggish economy with less revenue and more outgoing expenditures creates a deficit, as we've seen from recent events. a deficit necessitates economic stimulation to reverse negative growth. that is why the american recovery and reinvestment act

invested in roads, bridges, mass transit, other infrastructure and provided 95% of working americans with an immediate tax cut and extended unemployment insurance and cobra for americans hurt by the economic downturn through no fault of their own. if congress were forced to function under a balanced budget amendment, deficit reduction would be mandated. even more so during periods of slow or staaled economic growth. which is the opposite of what it needed in such a situation. this consistently proposed constitutional amendment risks making recessions more common and more catastrophic for middle class families, seniors, veterans, and the poor. under such an amendment, congress is stripped of any power to adequately respond. the second fault. a balanced budget amendment would risk default and jeopardize the full faith and credit of the u.s. government while simultaneously

challenging the separation of powers. a balanced budget amendment would bar the government from barrowing funds unless there was a 3/5 vote in both houses of congress permitted a raise in the debt limit. under such a scenario, a budget crisis in which a default becomes a threat is more likely because of the limits placed on the fluidity of the debt ceiling. we're about to enter into a national conversation about what to do about the debt ceiling. that default under such a scenario becomes more likely to occur. after a default of only a few days, the long-term impacts would quickly appear. confidence in the ability of the u.s. to meet binding financial obligations would erode almost immediately. the government pays relatively low interest rates on its loans pause it pays its debts back in full anden in -- and on time. a default would mimic an earthquake. shaking confidence in the united states on a tpwhrobal scale. resulting in exploding interest rates and aftershocks felt in

our national economy. the international economy would also succumb to the rumbles of this potential disaster and our deep connection to it would cause further chaos here at home. other balanced budget proponents argue that since states have to balance their budgets, so should the federal government. indeed, many states are required to balance their operating budgets but not their total budgets. no such distinction is made by a balanced budget amendment. rainy day or reserve funds which states can draw on to balance their budgets are pointed -- prohibited by a b.b.a. many states operating under a b.b.a. require the governor to submit a balanced budget but do not require the actual achievement of it. some states allow governors to act unilaterally to cut spending in the middle of a fiscal year this condition of the b.b.a. would violate the federal constitutions accept -- federal constitution's separation of powers. the founding fathers were

deliberate in their construction of our government and the separation of powers serves as a cornerstone in our democracy. each branch has certain powers and limitations. congress, the courts, and the president work together but in distinct ways to move america forward. the threat of judicial involvement in matters of the budget is a real and present problem under the balanced budget amendment. it would weaken the balance of power, it diminishes the authority of congress as the elected representatives of the people to have the time say on taxes and spending. mr. speaker, what purpose does this body serve if this amendment passs? should we broaden the scope of judicial review brant granted to our federal courses -- courts? by subverting the power between the breaches -- branches this steps on a slippery slope of reassigning authority and moving mr. ayotte: from the values innernt our constitution. the third fault, a balanced budget amendment would lead to

reductions in needed investments in the future. since the 1930's our nation has consistently made public investments that improved long-term productivity growth in education, in infrastructure, in research and development. all of the federal highways in this country are paid for by this congress. they've helped build a more perfect union between the states, within states. all of the airports, when we with take off from o'hare airport in chicago or from reagan airport, they're all federal facilities run by the federal aviation administration. when you visit your nation's capitol and you take off from an airport, because airports function under the rigid guidelines of the f.a.a., there is a reasonable assurance that when your plane takes off from one airport and lands at another airport that the length of the runway that you take off from

and land on are reasonably the same. states don't determine the length of runways. if we're going to build a national government, if we're going to build one country, if we're going to form a more perfect union, only the federal government has the power to do that. it simply cannot be done one state at a time and in a global economy, in a global economic environment, we must move as one nation to challenge europe. to challenge the japanese. to challenge the chinese. to challenge cheap labor in cheap labor markets abroad. we must have one national standard, not 50 individual state somp standards to move our nation, our education system, our infrastructure and our research and development forward. these efforts encourage increased private sector investment leading to a surplus

and a thriving economy. a balanced budget amendment, which requires a balanced budget each and every year, would limit the government's ability to make public investments thereby hindering our future growth and thereby hindering our ability as a nation to be competitive nationally. and internationally. very important point, mr. speaker, for which i want to deviate from my prepared remarks. you see, it is just simply impossible to go one state at a time or to assume that the private sector acting on its own has the capacity to address the question of sustained full production and full employment on their own. president truman made it perfectly clear, all of the policies of the federal government must be geared toward the objective of sustained full production and full employment

to. raise consumer purchasinging power and to encourage -- employment. to raise consumer purchasing power and to encourage investment. not a single piece of legislation considered by the 112th congress has done anything to address 13 million unemployed americans. a few short weeks ago i came to the house floor after having purchased an ipad and said that i happened to believe, mr. speaker, that at some point in time this new device, which is now probably responsible for eliminating thousands of american jobs, now borders is closing stores because, why do you need to go to borders anymore? why do you need to go to barnes and noble? download your newspaper, download your magazine. chicago state university in my congressional district, freshmen class, they're not being given text books any longer, they're

all being given ipads as they enter school. president wayne wattson hopes to have a textbookless campus in four years where at this state university they no longer have textbooks. well, what becomes of publishing companies and publishing company jobs? what becomes of bookstores and librarians and all of the jobs associated with paper? well with, in not too distant future, such jobs simply will not exist. jobs is doing pretty well. created the ipad. suddenly it's made life more efficient for americans but the ipad is produced in china. it's not produced here in the united states. so the chinese get to advantage of our -- get to take advantage of our first amendment value, that is to provide freedom of speech through the ipad to the american people but there is no protection for jobs here in

america to ensure that the american people are being put to work. and i would suggest to you, mr. speaker, that the congress and the direction of this congress in its obsession with debts and deficits is heading in the opposite direction of sustained full production, again, ipads are made in china, and full employment, there are 13 million unemployed americans who are counting on this congress to do something. they certainly can't count on the state of illinois, it's broke. they can't count on the state of idaho, it's broke. they can't count on the state of alabama, the state of alabama's broke. they can't count on mississippi, mississippi's broke. louisiana is broke. the states are broke. so the federal government is under an obligation to sustain full production and full employment. to raise consumer purchasing power and to encourage business

investment in the united states. not in china. the third fault of the b.b.a. would lead to reductions in needed investments for the future. since the 1930's our nation has consistently made public investments that improve long-term productivity growth in education, infrastructure research and development. these efforts encourage increased private sector investment, leading to a budget surplus and a thriving economy. a balanced budget amendment which requires a balanced budget each and every year would limit the government's ability for years. conservatives have abused the debt and the deficit as a springboard from which to argue for smaller government and cuts to programs that serve as social safety nets to american families. although we must consider the debt and the deficit, the larger and more significant issue is the nature of the debt that we create. if you invest $50,000 in a

business, in a house or in your education, you can expect future returns on your investment. if you so call invest $50,000 in a gun collection or ammunition, what are the future investment returns? both investments result in $50,000 of debt but only one results in returns that can transform that debt into long-term gains. social investments provide the potential for greater returns in the long run in the same fashion as personal investments. even small expenditures on social programs lay a foundation for great wealth in the long-term. if the nation chooses to invest over a five-year period $1.5 trillion in the building of bridges and roads and airports and railroads and mass transit and schools and housing and health care, we could create some debt. but the increased ability of

companies to interact and to ship their goods over well-paved and planned roads, the new businesses that would sprout around a freshly built or newly expanded airport, the higher wages of a student who is well educated and able to attend college, resulting in more tax revenue, the improved productivity of employees at their healthiest would generally result in greater returns for our country. the extension of the bush era tax cuts for corporations and the rich brought about some short-term stimulus of consumer spending but similar to reagan's tax cuts, which resulted in record government deficits, the long-term damage outweighs the immediate affects. reagan's tax cuts for the rich came at the expense of investing in our nation's need for long-term, long-term, balanced economic growth. the reagan administration neglected and cut back on our nation's investment in infrastructure, education, health care, housing, job

training, transportation, energy conservation and much more. the inclination of most conservatives in both parties is to cut the debt, by cutting programs for the most vulnerable among us, our poor, our children, our elderly and our minorities. this approach, however, has been proven false too many times. a balanced budget, a balanced budget amendment would take us back to this archaic and ineffective system permanently. the fourth fault, a balanced budget amendment favors wealthy americans over middle and low income americans by making it harder to raise revenues and easier to cut programs. again, a b.b.a. ultimately favors wealthy americans over middle and lower income americans. under current law legislation can pass by a majority of those present and voting by a recorded vote. the b.b.a. requires, however, that legislation raising taxes be approved on a roll call vote by a majority of the full membership of both houses.

thus the b.b.a. would make it harder to cut the deficit by curbing special interest tax breaks and make it easier to reduce programs such as medicare, medicaid, social security, veterans benefits, education, environmental programs and assistance for poor children. wealthy individuals and corporations receive most of their government benefits in the form of tax entitlements while low income and middle income americans receive most of their government benefits through programs. as evidenced by the cuts that both parties agreed upon recently, it is far easier to cut social welfare programs than to cut spending for our military or to increase taxes. as long as spending is a political issue, cuts to those programs that assist those with the smallest voice in our government will always happen first. raising taxes. the only option to address a budget deficit aside from cutting programs is already a

burdensome political issue. the additional requirements of a b.b.a. further complicate the process of raising taxes. this means that the richest americans will likely keep the benefits they receive from our government via tax cuts. meanwhile the poor lose the programs that provide them with housing, with food, with job training, with health care and the very means to survive. this will further reinforce the growing gap between rich and the rest of our society. middle class, working poor and the destitute alike. aside from this already distressing point, when the baby boom generation retires, mr. speaker, the ratio of workers to retirees will fall to very low levels. this poses difficulties for social security, since social security has been a pure pay-as-you-go system with the payroll taxes of current workers paying for the benefits of current retirees. this was acceptable as long as today's workers could pay for today's retirees. but in the future, when there

are fewer workers to pay for more retirees, the system is going to be out of balance. so in 1977 and 1983 the social security administration took important and prudent steps toward addressing this issue. it allowed the accumulation of reserves to be used later when needed. these changes were akin to what families do by saving for retirement during their working years and then drawing down on the savings after they reach retirement. the balanced budget amendment insists that a total government expenditure in any year, including those for social security benefits, not exceed total revenues collected in that same year. including revenues from social security payroll taxes. thus the benefits of the baby boomers would have to be financed in full by the taxes of those working and paying into the system then. this undercuts the central reforms of 1983. drawing down on any part of accumulated reserves required

under present law, under a b.b.a. it would mean the trust funds were spending more in benefits in those years than they were receiving in taxes. under a b.b.a. that would be impermissible deficit spending. the fifth fault. a b.b.a. weakens the principle of majority rule and makes balancing the budget more difficult. most balanced budgets require that unless 3/5 of the members of congress agree to raising the debt ceiling, the budget must be balanced at all times. they also require the legislation raising taxes must be approved on a roll call vote by a majority of the full membership of both houses, not just those present and voting. currently, this weakens majority rule and that's what my the tea party an my conservative colleagues want. why do they want it? a 3/5 requirement empowers a minority, 40% plus one in any given year.

it creates a small group of people willing to threaten economic turminald disruption unless they get their way. i.e., the republican freshmen. with the ability to extort concessions or exercise unprecedented leverage over our national economic and fiscal policy. mr. speaker, haven't the last few weeks demonstrated how difficult it already is to reach a compromise on a budget? this provision will simply make it impossible. and the final argument, mr. speaker, is what i'm calling the ezra kline argument. there is a final fault which is not on my list, but it's a -- but it's significant enough to mention. ezra klein of the "washington post" points out in a title titled "the worst idea in washington," that under a balanced budget amendment, not a single budget of the bush or reagan administrations would have qualified as

constitutional. in fact, the only recent administration which would not violate the requirements of a balanced budget amendment would have been president clinton's and that would have been for only two of his budgets. if president reagan's budgets wouldn't qualify is this something we should even be considering in this congress? i don't think so. i've listed a few and certainly not an exhaustive list of arguments against the balanced budget amendment. the truth is, the federal government is quite unlike fiscal practices of businesses and families and states, even though we keep hearing the argument, the federal government needs to balance its budget like i do at home. the federal government needs to balance its budget like our families do. the federal government needs to balance its budget like the states do. but contrary to popular myth, except in times of war and recession, the country has a conservative record of keeping

deficits actually in line. it's when the states fail, it's when there are wars that we are fighting. it's when we are looking at unforeseen economic calamity that we need a federal government that can reach into the deep recesses of her bounty to bring about a more perfect union and keep the nation moving forward. without the federal government, the states cannot do it on their own and the private sector has shown a reluctance to do it without regulation if the federal government to make the union more perfect. let me add one final quote, mr. speaker. 1963, martin luther king jr., stood not very far from this auspicious location and delivered a speech at the feet of abraham lincoln. at the feet of abraham lincoln's memorial at the end of our mall. he began by saying, today i stand in the shadow of a man who 100 years ago set the

slaves free. 100 years later, they find themselves still trapped and still isolated in the ghettos and barrios and the rural areas of our nation. he said, mr. speaker, today we've come here in a sense to cash a check. imagine that, martin luther king jr. is looking in the direction of democrats and republicans in the congress of the united states and he says, mr. speaker, we've come here to cash a check. a check that should give us upon demand the riches of security and freedom and justice. but america, dr. king says, has issued us a bounced check. it keeps coming back marked insufficient funds, but i refuse to believe there are no funds in the great vault of opportunity of this nation. mr. speaker, i'm 46 years old. i've had the privilege of serving in this congress for nearly 16 years. i remember on september 10,

2011, when we stood here on the floor of this congress, we stood here on the floor of this congress and this congress declared that it was broke. that it couldn't find money for anything. we took a vote on september 10, 2001, to the -- to defund education programmers in most vulnerable children in our nation. every member of congress, mostly conservatives and many conservative democrats made the argument we can no longer afford to provide high quality education for your children, we can no longer afford to provide health care for the american people, that we could no longer afford it. and just 24 hours later, a tragedy, the great tragedy of the 20th century, terrorist attacked the world trade center and flew a plane into the ground in pennsylvania and landed a plane on our nation's defense system at the pentagon, just 24 hours later.

the congress of the united states that did not have the money to provide for education for our children, the congress of the united states that did not have the money to provide health care for all the american people suddenly found an unlimited amount of money. to chase down saddam hussein. and we are spending an unlimited amount of money, just 24 hours later, to find osama bin laden in a cave in after gap stan. and 10 years later, we haven't found him yet. and yet we continue to spend billions and billions and billions of dollars. so on one day the government is broke. 24 hours later, dr. king says, the nation has issued us a promissory note and it keeps coming back marked insufficient funds for priorities that matter to the american people. our government, mr. speaker, needs the flexibility to

respond in times of economic dun tourn -- down turn or in war in a way that businesses, families, and states never have to consider. i've been in the house long enough to know, now, that when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle came into the majority with large deficits and debts, i knew their first response would be to cut social spending, to weaken government regulation and underfund protection of workers' rights and civil rights and environmental protections. you name it. i wish i could say i didn't see this coming. but conservative politicians want to get the government off the backs of business. off the backs of finance. and off the backs of industry. they're willing and ready to use the current economic situation to do it. and they intend to place the burden on the backs of the middle class, of seniors, of children, of veterans and the poor. the republican budget that we voted on today does just that. the balanced budget amendment

aims to make it a permanent fixture. mr. speaker, i know we can do bert. we cannot balance the budget on the backs of middle class americans. we need to achieve america and aheave the american dream for everyone. the burden of that dream must rest squarely on the shoulders of every american that can carry it. i find it offensive that some of the most profitable corporations in this country pay no taxes and some even get a refund. i find it offensive that the richest 400 people in this country who have more wealth than half of all americans combined have an effective tax rate of only 16.6%. in the words of william jennings bryant, when i find a man who is not willing to bear his share of the burdens of the government which protects him, i find a man who is unworthy to enjoy the blessings of a government like ours.

with those wise words, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to -- 42 u.s.c. 1975, and order of the house of january , 2011 and upon the recommendation of the minority leader the chair announces the speaker's reappointment of the following member to the commission on civil rights for a term expiring december 15, 2016. the clerk: mr. michael district

of columbia the chaub laws district of columbia the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 1308, an act to extend the termination date for the commission and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey.

>> mr. speaker, pursuant to house concurrent resolution 43, 112th congress, i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the motion say greed to. accordingly, pursuant to house concurrent resolution 43, 112th congress, the house stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m., monday, maye 2, 2011.

>> order online at c-span.org /shop. >> this evening, president obama's sister will present her children's book "letter to the moon." she will be speaking at a washington, d.c., library. we will have live coverage straining online. >> may 1, "in depth" your

questions for tibor machan live, sunday may 1. >> this year's student cam competition tests students to consider washington, d.c., through their lines. -- lions. -- lens ♪ >> and god said, let there be light. and, there was light.

♪ >> in this documentary, we will change -- examine the way led light bulbs are changing the way we light the world. we will visit a local factory, and see how the federal government's stimulus money as allowing local and state governments to transition to more efficient forms of lighting, such as led. >> canyon in several different types of light bulbs on the market? >> you have incandescent, you have florescent, you have compact florescence. you have led's. >> that is about what i know of.

>> i am going to ask you if you know any of these light bulbs, and if you do not, just say pass. it is ok. did a lot like bob this is? -- lightbulb this is? incandescent light bulb. >> this light bulb? >> fluorescent? >> yes. >> this light bulb? >> pass. >> halogen. >> this is what we are going to do next. am going to show you these, annual match them up with the characters on the board. -- and you will match them up with the characters on the board. ♪

>> as you can see from this graph, two people out of 20 correctly identified led's. >> most americans use essentially the same incandescent light bulbs invented by. , seven -- thomas edison more than 120 years ago. they are famously his inefficient. only 10% of the energy that they generate becomes light. the remaining 90% is wasted as heat. i would say that sounds like congress.

>> i am going to test the heat output of each of these light bulbs by using the infrared thermometers. why you hot you hot when you not you not ♪ >> they radiate less heat. another way is what i call the test. we will place two ice cream cones under a light bulbs. the grain will be under at led light and the red cone will be under a normal light. ♪ shine on

let it shine on ♪ >> which ice cream cone would you like to eat? ♪ >> well, it sound -- starts with the core technology. they were invented by hewlett packard for talf to letters many years ago, and through the evolution of technology, they were invented which is what we use today. there are an efficient way to create light, actually.

there are a few big advantages, which is why we are selling them. first of all, they save a lot of energy. if they are very efficient. second, they contain no mercury. when you look at hazardous materials, a lot of the other white light forces -- sources contain hazardous materials. the other big advantage is because there are so small, you could get very efficient optical control, so the light goes where you actually want it. the biggest disadvantage is the price. it is more expensive for the first cost than traditional lighting, even though, over the long run it makes sense. >> i think a couple of things ruckus' to the federal government right now. first of all, there is some research and development tax credits available for our business to be able to invest in developing the led technology

for the fixtures side trip on the consumption side, we are active with the department of energy. they have a lighting section that is worrying region working on promoting that lighting. they have started, for example, a municipal streetlight consortium, where they actually go out and promote solid state street lighting to different cities in order to achieve that. lastly, part of the stimulus funds that are available today for the department of energy are available to cities for energy efficiency upgrades, and several cities are taking advantage of that block grant stimulus money to upgrade to led street lights. >> the manufacturers' proposed .o replace today's light bulbs

it will be a combination of the fluorescent lights we see today, along with new technologies, including high-efficiency halogens, and led's. >> i believe the led market will completely dominate and take over all light sources for residential and commercial applications. >> you can go to student cam.org to watch all of the videos. you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning, it is "washington journal," our live call in show. weekdays, watch live coverage of the u.s. house and weeknights, congressional hearings and policy forms. on the weekends, you can see our signature programs. on sundays, "prime minister's

questions. you can also watch our programs and a time and c-span.org. c-span, washington your way, created by america's cable companies. >> the u.s. house is now on a two week recess after adopting the 2012 budget resolution by a vote of 235-193. it was also the last day for father daniel kaplan, the chaplain of the house. speaker john boehner and nancy pelosi paid tribute. we believe with the house prayer. it is about 7 minutes. chair will be offered by our chaplain, father coughlin. chaplain coughlin: you our god

we praise you, you are the lord, we acclaim you. you are the eternal father, all creation worships you. save your people, lord, and bless your inheritance. govern and uphold these, now and always. day by day we bless you, we praise your name forever, keep us today, lord, from all sin. have mercy on us, lord, have mercy. lord, show us your love and mercy for we put our trust in you. in you, lord, is our hope and we shall never hope in vain. consent to speak out of order for one minute. the chair: without objection, the speaker is recognized. the speaker: i think all of the members should be aware that today is father coughlin's last day as our chaplain after 11 years of service. and i think all of us, not just

the members, but the officers and the staff owe a giant debt of gratitude to father dan. he's been an invaluable part of our community. not just with the opening prayer, but his counsel and guidance that he's offered to all of us. in the house's darkest hours he's been there to gently lead us back to safe haven. in between when things get really noisy around here, he tries to encourage us to stop, find some quiet time, and reflect. he was appointed by speaker hastert 11 years ago. he comes from chicago. where he will return. i'm sure that there's one person that's real happy he's returning. that's his mother who is 96 years young.

so father dan, on behalf of the whole house, i want to thank you for your service. i know we haven't always been the most cooperative congregation you might have -- i hope that you'll keep this house and the people who serve here in your prayers. and we will keep you in our. -- in ours. with that i'll be happy to yield -- mr. speaker, i'm happy

to yield to my colleague from california, ms. pelosi. ms. pelosi: thank you very much, mr. speaker. as is very evident by the response to your remarks and praise of father coughlin there is one thing the democrats and republicans in the house of representatives agree on is that god has truly blessed us with the service of father coughlin as our chaplain for the past 11 years. when we talk about him being our chaplain, it's not just he's the chaplain of the members, he's the chaplain of the staff, the staff for the carpenter that we see in the hall, service employees who are

here. we ministers to the needs of all of us here. sometimes in a very ma crow way when 9/11 struck -- macroway when 9/11 struck or tucson, an thanks, those kinds of things had an impact on all of us and father was there for us as a group and individually. we never know what joys or pain our colleagues or our workers here are undergoing or suffering. father coughlin, father dan knows more than most of us and his discretion is something that we all value and respect. father dan has served minister to the needs of the poor with the missionaries of charity in calcutta, india. he has meditated with monks in the monastery and i think he's going to go back and do some of that again. he has been a scholar at the north american college in rome.

exchanging ideas there. and he has ministered to the needs of his parishioners and that probably served him best for ministering to the diverse needs of his flock that he shepherds here. we are very, very honored. last year many of us in a bipartisan way stood up and sang the praise -- it seems so recent, but it was a year ago, and then after that father was honored in illinois for serving as a priest for 50 years, so with all of that -- for some of us it was really a special source of pride although we respect all of our chaplains, but a source of personal pride that he was the first roman catholic chaplain in the house of representatives and, and

showed that he could minister to the needs of all of the members of all faiths here. so, yes, we are very blessed by his service in the congress. we are going to miss him a great deal. we wish him well as he goes forth. the legacy that he left us is one that was not only opening prayer each day to inspire us and lift us to a higher place in our deliberations, but he set an example of civility in the congress, of confidentiality of relationships. he's a great chaplain. we will miss him greatly and we are enormously grateful to him. thank you, father coughlin.

the speaker: god be with you. i yield back. >> the house today adopted the 2012 budget resolution. speaker john boehner met with reporters ahead of the vote. he was joined by other members of the republican leadership. this is about 10 minutes. >> we will pass paul ryan's budget. i want to say congratulations to paul and the members of the budget committee for a job well done. this budget will bring more certainty to the american people. it will show the american people that we are serious about cutting spending because we all know that will reduce some of the uncertainty that is causing job creators to sit on their

hands. i am hopeful the president will begin to get serious about the long-term fiscal crisis that our country is facing. it is serious. needs to be dealt with now. we owe it to the american people and to our kids and our grandkids to begin to cut spending and transform these programs so we could save medicare, medicaid, and social security. it is a serious step in the right direction, and i hope the president will take his job as seriously as we are taking hours. >> good morning. there has been a lot of coverage that all of you have been writing about. it is the about the drama of this place. i can tell you our conference is united. we are united around the fact that we have a budget and a plan before the house today that speaks to the seriousness with

which we are approaching the problems facing this country. the budget is typically the toughest both -- vote. we have today a resounding vote of this budget of support. we are united in cutting spending. we are united in the fact that we do not believe that we should be raising taxes in this tough economy. all of these things set us apart from members in the caucus on the other side of the aisle. >> today is another example of how the house has changed. prior to republicans be in the majority, bills came to the floor, never even been read. you will notice that the cr was more than three days. today, we will pass a budget,

the most basic thing a house should do. it is not a budget that will be a political game. it is about policy, the job growth, energy policy. it puts america on a path that marks 2011 as the year of the great american comeback. no longer do we worry about fading into history. the week but just transpired -- yesterday we cut billions, today we cut trillions. >> when it comes to growing the economy and addressing the debt, the answer is really quite simple -- cut spending. today, the house republicans are coming forward with a bold plan to enter -- to cut $6 trillion over the next 10 years, and get us on a path to pay off the debt in its entirety. what is been the response from the other side of the aisle? it is the same old scare tactics. among them at the top is to scare our seniors.

they are also calling for increased taxes at a time when our economy continues to struggle. with this being tax day, i think it is important that we consider and ask ourselves do we want to be spending more money on the government, or our family? >> i am proud to be here today, proud of chairman paul ryan, the job is done, and proud to be a part of the budget committee that has drafted this great bill that is going to put us on the path to prosperity. we know that to do all things that americans are concerned about is spending too much. this balance the spending. . the second thing is jobs. this bill addresses both of those issues. i am proud to place my vote in favor of this bill today. >> if we want to create jobs, if we want to save our children

from bankruptcy, we have to quit set of expanding money we do not have. we have to stop borrowing 40 cents on the dollar, much of it from the chinese, and sending the bill to our children and our grandchildren. the path to prosperity budget will help us create jobs, save the social safety net programs, that a been a great comfort, but are more thing into a ponzi scheme for my third grade daughter and my first grade son. that is why this vote is so important to save trillions of dollars for the american people -- to save our social safety net programs for future generations, to create jobs for our or unemployed fellow citizens. i will celebrate the vote this afternoon for the path to prosperity budget. >> do you expect to hear a backlash from constituents?

>> i think it is pretty clear that if we do not make changes to these big programs, they will not exist, and the fact is that they're responsible plan put forward in the path to prosperity well, in fact, reform these programs, and make sure they are around for the long term. understand, the greatest danger that america faces today is doing nothing. >> mr. speaker, i was wondering if i could get your reaction to president obama in chicago reflecting on private conversations about your negotiations? >> i did not see his remarks. i think you mentioned it was a campaign speech. >> are you concerned about the political consequences for all your members represent?

>> i think it is important for our members to go home and talk about the crisis that we face, and the fact that the changes being proposed would not effect one senior citizen in america -- not one, because paul has made it clear that anyone 55 years and older will not be effected by these changes. if you are 54 and younger, those americans understand if we do not make changes, the programs will not be there. these are important programs for tens of millions of americans. transforming them so they will be around for our kids and grandkids -- grandkids is as -- is as important as anything we could do. >> commissions to look at these things? >> we have had commissions around here, and nobody has paid much attention. clearly, the president did not pay attention to his own deficit commission.

>> last question. >> mr. speaker, have you seen or read the plan? >> i will ask therse. >> what you think of the plan? >> i've now the to the details, but i think the plan put forward by paul ryan is the strongest step we could take it, and we are going to take that step. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> and the house adopted a republican budget plan by a vote of 235-193. surely after the vote, chris then holland said the budget is the wrong choice for america because it will provide tax breaks for the wealthiest americans and oil companies. the congressman was joined by other democratic members of the

budget committee for this 20- minute event. >> good afternoon, everybody. thank you for joining us. i am very pleased to be here with members of the budget committee, members of the democratic caucus of the budget committee. we just came from a vote in the house on the republican budget. we think the republican budget is the wrong choice for america. the question is not whether or not we should work together to reduce our deficits and debt. the question is how we could do that. we believe the republican plan makes the wrong choice for a couple of reasons. number one, it will hurt the fragile economic recovery, and it will put more people out of work and a very fragile time for struggling families throughout the country. number two, we think it makes the wrong choice as to how we reduce the deficit, because they choose to provide another round

of big tax breaks for the wealthiest americans, for millionaires and others. they choose to keep in place date, taxpayers subsidies for the oil companies, and i know everybody knows what the price at the pump is. it is going up, profits are going up, yet we continue to provide these taxpayer subsidies. we should not be doing that at the same time they are slashing and investments in our kids' education, ending the medicare and guarantee, saying to seniors, udall longer get to stay in the medicare program. you are forced into the private insurance market and you are forced to eat the rising cost of health care. there is no more medicare guaranteed. all of the sudden, payable taxes for medicare, when that takes in, they will go to the insurance industry.

if your voucher, your support, whatever they want to call it, if it is not sufficient to keep up with costs, you are out of luck, and it is designed not to keep up with the costs of health care. if that is how they save money, even as they give tax breaks to millionaires. when it comes to other important efforts like medicaid, where nursing home seniors rely on, which individuals within -- -- with disabilities rely on, they slashed that by over $175 billion, instead of saying to the folks at the very top, let's go back to the same tax rate we had during theon administration, a time when the economy was roaring, and 20 million jobs were created. no. instead of doing that, they asked working people to bear the burden, and asked no shared sacrifice of those who have done

so well. so, we think this is the wrong direction, the wrong approach for america. we will continue to fight this republican plan, and we are confident that with the help of the american people, we will ultimately defeat it. with that, i want to turn this over to alison schwartz, a terrific member of congress and the state of pennsylvania. >> thank you, chris, and thank you for all of your efforts of the last two weeks on behalf of the american people. i want to share my agreement, i believe, with most americans, which is the republican budget that was just voted on a few minutes ago is wrong for this country, seniors, all our children, and for economic growth. we offered an alternative that took seriously the national that and deficit. it does it in a different way than the republicans. we have a balanced approach to

bring down the national deficit because you are simply borrowing too much and spending too much on interest, but we will do it in a way that meets our obligations to the american people. they will end medicare as we all know what. i spoke yesterday to a group of seniors and future seniors. one woman said she was 54 years older -- 54 years old, and have made disabled son. she was sorry for herself. she was counting on medicare, and is deeply concerned about who will take care of her disabled child. all i can say to her is you have to hope this republican budget does not make it into law. that is not good enough for the american people. it will end medicare as we know it. we will not let that happen. the president said it will not happen on his watch, but every day across america we have seniors and families concerned

about their children's education and businesses large and small but want to make investment in infrastructure so we can be economically competitive. for the future of this country, for economic stability, we need to turn aside this republican budget and take a more balanced, reasonable, responsible approach, and that is what we are trying to do. was that, i will turn over to another senior member of the budget committee. >> thank you. i think the biggest insult to the american people with the republican budget is that it is based on total methodology. they base -- methodology. they base an enormous amount of growth on a faith-based idea that is if you cut taxes for the very wealthiest americans you will have unlimited growth in the economy. the only body they can get to vouch for that was the heritage foundation. no other bonafide economist will

tell you that if you cut taxes again on the wealthiest americans you will have unprecedented growth. this is a harry potter budget. they are projecting unemployment at unprecedented historical levels. they basically waved a magic wand and said these are the numbers that will restore the economy. it is not reality-based parent -- it is not a riyadh-based budget. . .

we need to develop a fiscal policy that makes sure that we encourage growth in that 90%, not further enrichment of the top 1%. that's what the crick alternative did, and that's why i believe that we must defeat this republican budget, because, again, it is a hoax on the american people. with that, i'd like to introduce betty mccolin from minnesota. >> i'm going to yield. we're all about mass transit. >> thank you. let me thank our representative, chris van hollen and my democratic colleagues on the budget committee. i am really proud of the effort we made to inform the general

public. make no mistake about it -- this republican budget stops medicare of the it puts an end to medicare. it encourages corporations to export jobs rather than jobs for the united states of america. it is for tax responsibility that grows weaker and weaker out of millionaires and billionaires and allows for oil company handouts to be the theme of the day. these are the wrong choices for america, as has been said so many times over. this is a road to uni. and we even swerved to the fast track so as to get an end to medicare as quickly as they could. this sneak attack won't work. i am proud of the democrats and the voice that they lent on behalf of middle-class america during these many days of discussion of the we had an alternative plan that will grow jobs. this plan will reduce our jobs by mill yonls. we can't afford that kind of destruction. i'm proud of the evident the democrats are making. let's not allow them to go

forward with this republican plan for the 2012 budget. thank you, everybody. >> ok. >> let me just say that, first of ', i'm proud to stand with my democratic colleagues and with the ranking member, chris van hollen, who did a wonderful job arguing the democratic case and saying that today was a sad day in our country, frankly. today the republicans made a statement that they were willing to break the social contract in our country. it is completely unacceptable to say that just because this does not impact you if you're 55 years and older to take the generation and throw them under the bus for everybody that is under 55. this is just unacceptable. if you take medicaid and put medicaid in the form of a block grant, we have states that are in crisis all across our country. if they had to deal with a block grant in the time of a recession when unemployment is the highest, that's when

medicaid needs to be most flexible. it's unacceptable that my republican colleagues have made a statement to the american people today that today ends the social contract. i just want to say that i want to thank god for the senate, because i know that this will be dead on arrival in the senate, as it should be, because i know to the american people this plan would be dead on arrival. thank you very much. >> hi. i'm from minnesota and i'm standing here today because of sheer sacrifice in the hometown that i grew up. there were people who got up every day, carried a lunch bucket down to the meatpacking plants. dangerous jobs. worked on the railroads. to make sure i had a good education, to make sure that i had a safe school to attend, to make sure that we had roads, that we had the basics in life that help communities be strong and vibrant. the budget that the republicans just passed today takes away

that underpinning of community, of shared sacrifice, of responsibility to one another in order to have strong communities. right here in washington, d.c. our founding fathers and mothers share a sacrifice to make sure that we had in this country an opportunity for everyone to be successful. and in order for people to be successful, they have to have an opportunity to get a good quality education. they have to have an opportunity to have their basic health care needs met, shelter and transportation. all that shared sacrifice is gone in the republican budget. they've made a decision that it's more important to suspend resources, to borrow money, to pay interest to give more tax breaks to 1% of america. so i'm very pleased to stand here with my colleagues in support of the democratic proposal.

and let me conclude with this -- i'm going to get on a plane in a couple of hours and i'm going to go back home and i'm going to see my brother and my sister. i'm 56. i'm going to look at my brother and sister and say, hey, under the republican plan, i don't have to worry, my children don't have to worry about my health care into the future. sorry, brother, sorry, sister, sorry, niece and nephew, you don't know what the future holds for you and your parents and their health care in their retirement years. so this was wrong, wrong, wrong. and i'm glad to be on the right side of history and standing up for middle-class fifth amendment. -- middle-class families. >> good afternoon. i represent the great state of florida. this beautiful spring day in the nation's capital belies the fact that we have dark days

ahead under the republican budget. it is very distressing for the hard-working families that i represent in florida and all across this great country, that the republican plan destroys medicare. and i think it's an untruth, a falsehood, to say that if you're 55 and older you're not going to be affected. because what the republican plan, this cynical plan does, is it causes medicare to wither on the vine now. if you're a medicare provider and you know that medicare is coming to an end, you don't have any great incentive to stay within the medicare initiative. when you combine it with the very significant ratcheting back of nursing home care that would happen immediately under the republican budget, seniors today need to be concerned. all american families need to be concerned that the republican plan is ending medicare.

medicare is that promise that was made to hard-working individuals all across this country that if they worked hard all of their lives, they would live their retirement years in dignity and in security. the republicans say enough of that and toss that by the wayside in a very cynical attempt to save the tax breaks for the top 2% in this country. those tax breaks swallow medicare, and that is the choice that was on the table for this ryan budget. it provides a very distinct -- two very distinct visions of america, one that is optimistic and hopeful and retained that promise, that social compact that, has been vital in keeping older americans and their families out of poverty for decades. on the other hand, the republican vision for america is mess mystic, it is cynical. it says to older americans, you can work hard awful your lives,

but your neighbors will not be there for you in your older years. and as president obama said the other day, but for the grace of god go i. who can say that later in life you will not have a heart attack, you will not come down with a chronic condition, you will not -- your body will not wear out? we're going to fight to save medicare. the battle lines have been drawn. the vote has been taken, and everyone has gone on record. but i can tell you that i'm very proud that unanimously my democratic colleagues say we are not going to give up on older americans. we're going to keep that promise that is medicare. and thank you chris van hollen and all of my colleagues for your leadership today. >> thank you, kathy. thank you kathy and my colleagues. we heard from some of the republican members on the floor that medicare was socialism. well, if you go back to the fight over medicare back in 1965, that's what the

republicans argued in order to try and stop medicare from ever being created. now apparently they're using that term as part of ending the medicare guarantee. we'd be happy to try and answer any questions you've got. yeah. >> what was the strategy behind voting present on the r.f.c. budget? it makes deeper cuts, so wouldn't you all oppose that as well? who came up with that plan? >> that was a discussion that took place within the democratic caucus and it was an effort to show just how far out the republicans are, the majority of the republicans in their caucus. let me just say you've seen two budgets today from the republican side, both of which would be a radical change in the direction of this country, as my colleague indicated earlier, would shatter the social contract in america. any other questions? yeah.

>> if you could put your political hat back on, how bad a vote do you think the republicans took today? >> well, we encouraged some of our republican colleagues to read the bill, because it was pretty clear from some of their comments that they had not read the bill. and let me answer your question by way of making this point. one of their talking points originally was that with they're giving to seniors is the same health care deal that members of congress have that they give to themselves. just not true. not true. what members of congress have and federal employees have is what's called a fair share arrangement. what that means is as the costs of health care and premiums go up, so does the employer's share, the government. so members of congress protect themselves against the costs of rising health care, and yet, they're asking seniors to take

a raw deal, a deal that doesn't protect seniors from the costs of rising health care. in fact, that's exactly how they make their savings in this bill. and so i only say that because i would have to ask the american people whether it's a good thing that a member of congress says to seniors, we're going to give you a lousy deal, but keep a good deal for ourselves. >> that's the makings of a pretty effective political ad wouldn't you say? >> i'll leave it to the american people to judge the facts, but i think as all of us have said, this is a wrong turn for america and really does violate the social contract in so many different ways, ending the medicare guarantee being exhibit a. >> is this a major boost for your campaign to regain the house? >> this is going to depend on what the american people decide about this. i mean, what we want is for the american people to look at this

bill. they can judge for themselves. but as i said, i think that the american people recognize that medicare is a program that has served the country well. and to deform and dismantle it and say to seniors that you can no longer choose to stay in the medicare program, you have to go into the private insurance market and face those rising costs. and if your doctor's not on the plan that you can afford with your dwindling little voucher or whatever you want to call it, you're out of luck. so that's the deal that they've given to people of america, while they've retained a much better deal for themselves as members of congress. any other questions? thank you all very much for joining us. we're going to keep fighting this republican budget and we're confident when the american people learn about it, they will help us bury it.

[applause] >> democrats this afternoon, just after the house adopted the fiscal 2012 budget resolution by a vote of 235 to 193 -- four republicans voted against it -- 189 democrats voting against it as well. no democrats voted in favor of the resolution. up next, we're going to show you a debate ahead of the final vote this afternoon from the house floor. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thanking the chairman of the budget committee, mr. ryan, and the entire budget staff and members on the house side. >> mr. chairman, the house is not in order. the chair: the gentleman is correct. conversations please cease, clear the aisles, bring your conversations to the cloakroom. the gentleman from california. mr. mccarthy: i'd also like to

thank the democrat members on the budget committee as well. what we are taking up today is the point of where this country goes. because this debate has taken on for quite sometime there is not one person that's not watched the news and watch the clock of our debt, $14 trillion. i want you all to imagine for one moment, just imagine for one moment what the country would hold in the dream if that clock was zero. what could we invest in? what could we build and what would our children become? but because that clock does not say zero and that clock continues to climb in the wrong direction, that's why we are here today. but it is a good today because today is the day that we turn that clock back around. we have a plan and a path to

prosperity that will create jobs even those on the outside they said would be more than one million jobs. a plan that will make us energy independent, but a plan that does something that the rest of america has to do, tightening our belts. so today when we come and have to put our cards in the voting card, i want you to think of one thing, today could be the day that we create the great america comeback. or it could be the day where america goes to the long fade into history. but the floor is made of up a micros could much of america and the -- microcosm of america and america knows we have to control this situation we're in. so today a yes vote is for jobs, for energy independence and a new path to prosperity and i yield back.

the chair: the chair notes a disturbance in the gallery which is in contra invention of the laws and rules of the house. the sergeant at arms will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and restore order to the gallery. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. we are turning back the clock. we're turning back the clock on progress and we're turning back the clock on -- the chair: the chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in

contravention with the rules of the house. the sergeant at arms will remove the persons responsible for the disturbance and restore order. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the house will be in order. the committee will be in order. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. what the republican budget does is turn back the clock on a fair deal for the american people. every person in this body today loves this great nation of ours and believes it's a special place. we have to maintain the exceptionalism of this country. we see different paths and make different choices to accomplish

that goal. the chair: the chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in contravention of the law and rules of the house. the sergeant at arms will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and restore order to the gallery. the gentleman from illinois state his point of order. >> mr. speaker, my question is about the chairfication of the rules. mr. jackson: the rules also for our visitsing guests allow the sergeant at arms to clear the chamber if necessary. is that correct, mr. speaker? the chair: it is within the authority of the chair to clear the gallery. mr. jackson: i thank the speaker. i would just encourage those to continue the civil conversation we're having about a very difficult conversation in our country. thank you, mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr.

chairman. if i -- mr. jackson: point of order, mr. speaker. the chair: the chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in contravention of the laws and rules of the house. the sergeant of arms will remove those and restore order and would remind all those that are listening that the chair has the authority to clear the gallery. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: mr. chairman, may i inquire as to how much time remains? very seriously, mr. chairman, if -- the chair: the gentleman from maryland has 9 1/2 minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. we all agree, we all agree we have to act now to put in place a plan to reduce our deficits -- mr. chairman, point of order.

the chair: the chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in contravention of the laws and rules of the house. the sergeant at arms will remove those responsible and restore order in the gallery. the committee will be in order. committee will be in order. the committee will be in order.

the committee will be in order. the chair: the gentleman from maryland may proceed. mr. van hollen: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to begin my remarks from the beginning. the chair: is there ox? seeing none, the gentleman may proceed -- is there objection? seeing none, the gentleman may proceed. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank my colleagues. as i said, nobody doubts that every person in this chamber loves this country and wants to do the right thing. the chair: the chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in contravention of the laws and rules of the house. the sergeant at arms will

restore order to the gallery. the committee will be in order.

>> a bit of a pause in the action in the u.s. house, as there have been numerous disturbances in the gallery. the audience watching the proceedings in the u.s. house there in the midst of a final bit of debate on fiscal 2012 spending. the republican proposal is about to be voted on. but the speaker, as you've seen, has had to gaffel order, and we understand a number -- gavel order and we understand a number of the people in the gallery have been removed by capitol police. the chair: the committee will come to order.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm tempted to reserve my time and yield it back to the other -- the chair: the chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in contravention of the laws and rules of the house. the sergeant of arms will remove those persons responsible for the disturbance and restore order to the gallery. the chair makes this announcement for purposes of possible prosecution. the gentleman from maryland may proceed. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. as i said, i was tempted to reserve my time and allow my colleague to proceed but as i

understand that the chamber is now quiet, let me begin where i left off. and say that all of us agree, nerve this tchame chamber agrees -- chamber agrees we need to put in place a plan to reduce our deficit in a predictable steady manner. the question throughout this debate has been not whether but how we do that. and as the bipartisan fiscal commission has indicated, any responsible effort requires a balanced approach. and the republican plan simply fails on that score. and that's what the co-chairs of the bipartisan fiscal commission said. they said it, quote, falls short of the balanced, comprehensive approach needed for a responsible plan. and when you peel off the layers, what you find is the

republican plan is not bold. it's just the same old tired formula we've seen before, providing big tax breaks to the very wealthy and powerful special interests at the expense of the rest of america, except this time it's dressed up with a lot of sweet-sounding talk of reform. but at the end it's the same old ideological agenda except this time on steroids. to govern is to choose. each of us is sent here to make difficult choices. and the choices that are made in the republican plan, we believe, are wrong for america. we do not believe it's courageous to protect tax giveaways to big oil companies and other special interests when we're slashing investments in our kids' education, scientific research and critical investments in the future. we don't think it's bold to provide another, another tax

break to millionaires while ending the medicare guarantee for seniors and sticking seniors with the bill for ever-rising health care costs. we do not believe it's visionary to reward corporations that ship american jobs rather than american products overseas while we're terminating affordable health care for tens of millions of americans right here at home. and we don't think it's brave to give governors a blank check of federal taxpayer dollars and then a license to cut support for seniors in nursing homes, individuals with disabilities and poor kids. and we don't think it's fair to raise taxes on middle income americans to pay for additional tax breaks for the folks at the very top.

yet those are the choices that are made in the republican budget. where is the shared sacrifice? we have american men and women putting their lives on the line in iraq, in afghanistan, while others hide their income in the cayman islands, in switzerland, and refuse to pay their fair share to support our national efforts. and that is why the bipartisan commission, among other reasons, said that the republican plan is just not balanced. it's not. let's say no to the republican plan, let's say yes to finding a balanced way to reduce our deficits in a way that protects the values and priorities of the american people and in a way that gets our economy moving and america back to work. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.

the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the distinguished chairman of the house republican conference, the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. hensarling: mr. chairman, earlier this week "usa today" reported that we have the fewest participants in our work force than at any time in 30 years, and my democratic colleagues announce their plan to increase taxes $1.5 trillion on our economy, much of it on our small businesses. the congressional budget office has announced that medicare is going broke in 2020, and my democratic colleagues announce their plan to double down on the rationing of health care for our seniors. the congressional budget office -- the chair: the chair notes a disturbance in the gallery in contravenges of the rules of the house. the sergeant at arms will restore order to the gallery.

the gentleman may proceed. mr. hensarling: mr. chairman, the congressional budget office has announced that social security will go broke in 2037, and my democratic colleagues have announced this is not a problem, we're ready to implement the 22% benefit cut that's already in our statute. survey after survey show that our fellow citizens believe that their children, their children will be worse off than they are, and yet my democrat colleagues announce their plan to add $9.1 trillion to the national debt. mr. chairman, it's time to quit spending money we don't have. it's time to quit borrowing 42 cents on the dollar, much of it from the chinese, and then send the bill to our children and grandchildren. the republican budget will help us create jobs with fundamental

tax reform in preventing these tax increases. it will save our social safety net programs, programs that have been of a great comfort to my parents and grandparents before our eyes are morphing into ponzi schemes for their third grade daughter and first grade son. mr. chairman, the republican budget will put us on the path to pay off the national debt. mr. chairman, i heard from one of my constituents recently. he said i have never been ashamed of anything i have done in my life except leaving this in the hands of my kids. i written them a heart felt apology when they get old enough to understand what the government did to them. mr. chairman, i have a message for mr. calhoun. put that letter away. house republicans are going to stand for tyler and caitlin. we are going to put america

back to work. we're going to save the social safety net and preserve the american dream for ourselves and our prosperity. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. it's hard to see how someone would define saving the social safety net by ending the medicare guarantee for seniors, by slashing medicaid by over $750 billion, a program that disproportionately helps seniors in nursing homes and disabled individuals. it's really hard to understand that is preserving the social safety net. it reminds me of that strange statement we once heard that you have to destroy the village in order to save it. now, let's understand what happens under this budget to medicare. this budget ends the medicare

guarantee for seniors. it doesn't reform medicare. it deforms and dismantles it because it forces seniors off of the medicare program into the private insurance market. and it does nothing as it dumps the seniors into the private insurance market to control the rate of increase in health care costs. and instead it transfers to the seniors all those risks and all those costs. seniors will pay a lot more while the insurance companies will get all their medicare payroll taxes, they'll get a bonanza out of this thing but seniors will be left holding the bag. if your voucher amount -- call it whatever you want -- is not sufficient to pay for the increased cost, you eat it. and we saw earlier the fact that by the year 2022 seniors will have to pay more than $6,000 above what they would

have had to pay under the regular medicare program. if your doctor's not on a private plan that you could avoid, tough luck. this is rationing health care by income, nothing more, and i want to say something just to clear the record one more time. we keep hearing that they're offering seniors exactly what members of congress get. it simply is not true. what members of congress get is what's called a fair share deal. i encourage my colleagues on all sides of the aisle just to look at the federal employees benefit plan and you look in the office of personnel that says this formula is known as the fair share formula because it will maintain a consistent level of government contributions as a percentage of program costs regardless of what plan the enrollees elect. and it says that the government contribution equals the lesser

of 72% of the amounts o.p.m. determines programwide or 75%. the fact is that members of congress get a fair share formula. the republican budget does not give a fair share formula to seniors on medicare. it just doesn't. in fact, the way it saves money is to give them an unfair deal. it unconnects the support we give to seniors from rising health care costs. that's why seniors will end up paying so much more and more and more because you make the savings. health care costs are going up like this and the support, if you want to call it support, it is really not, coming from the medicare program from the federal government, is going like this. that's why the seniors are having to eat those additional costs.

that's what the republican budget does at the same time they do provide additional tax breaks for the very folks -- the folks at the very top. and if you want to get rid of some of the junk in the tax code you can support the democratic plan because we got rid of subsidies for the oil companies, we got rid of those perverse tax incentives to reward corporations that are shipping american jobs instead of american products overseas. if you want to start with tax reform, vote for the democratic plan. those are the choices we made, not ending the medicare guarantee. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished majority leader, mr. cantor. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: i thank the chairman, and i want to thank the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. ryan, for his outstanding leadership and all the hard work he's shown in leading this effort to put together a budget

for this house. i also want to commend the hard work of his members and the committee for bringing this forward. mr. chairman, the federal government is broke. we borrow nearly 40 cents of every dollar we spend. our debt is more than $14 trillion, and it's averaging yearly to trillion-dollar deficits. we simple -- simply cannot afford spending the money we don't have and we must simply bring down the debt. now, for years this house, including legislators on both sides of the aisle, has kicked the can down the road. americans were led to believe that we could spend hundreds of billions of dollars that we don't have and that there would be no consequences. and when it came to fostering an environment where american business could compete in the global economy, we became

complacent. this must stop. it's time to be honest with the american people. mr. chairman, we stand at a crossroads. before us lies two different paths. one defined by crushing debt, slow growth and diminished opportunity, and one defined by achievement, innovation and american leadership. mr. chairman, the house is not in order. the chair: the gentleman is correct. the committee is not in order. conversations will be suspended. the gentleman may proceed. mr. cantor: thank you, mr. chairman. by demonstrating courage and directly confronting our challenge at this critical moment, we can fulfill the promise of america and pass on to our children a nation that offers everyone a fair shot at

earning their success. the house republican budget is an honest, fact-based proposal that details our vision for managing down our debt and growing our way back to prosperity. first, we will stop spending money that we don't have. this budget cuts nonsecurity discretionary spending to below 2008 levels and freezes it for five minutes. overall, we reach $6.2 trillion in savings against the president's budget. second, we'll lead where the president has failed by finally addressing our insolvent entitlement programs. we know that these programs are the biggest drivers of our debt and the congressional budget office acknowledges that if we don't take action these important safety net programs will go broke. we cannot afford to ignore these -- this oncoming fiscal

train wreck any longer. while it may be seen by some as politically risky, we republicans are willing to lead because, to be frank, complacency is not an option. to be clear, our plan will not touch benefits for today's seniors and those nearing retirement. for those of us 54 and below it calls for reforms that will restructure medicare and medicaid to ensure that these safety nets will still be there for those who need it, not for those who don't. unlike the lofty outline the president gave in his speech this week, our budget is not a political document. we do not dream up imaginary savings and dodge specifics. in an effort to lull people into the belief that they can

actually get things for nothing. our budget is a concrete plan for getting our fiscal house in order, and we do not resort to tax increases on the very small businesses and job creators we need to put america back to work. bringing down the debt sends a message to american families. it sends a message to business men and women, to entrepreneurs and to investors. it gives them the confidence that they won't face a future plagued by inflation, higher taxes and higher interest rates. we understand that cutting spending alone is not enough. that's why our budget calls for pro-growth policies to get our economy growing and to get people back to work. families and small business people are struggling, and today, tax day, millions of them will send their hard-earned money to uncle sam.

the last thing we should be asking them to do is to send yet again more. instead, our budget calls for a more competitive tax system that will encourage the economy to grow, create jobs and spur investment in the private sector. we call for the end of crony capitalism that allows privileged industries gain competitive advantage in our tax code, and we call for a more simple system that lowers rates for all but make sure that everyone pays their fair share. mr. chairman, with this budget house republicans are changing the culture in washington from one of spending to one of savings. finally, mr. chairman, america will see that it can get its fiscal house in order after years of mismanagement. we are finally doing what

families and small business people have been doing for years, tightening the belts and learning how to do more with less. again, mr. chairman, i thank chairman ryan and his committee for their outstanding leadership, and i urge my colleagues to support this resolution. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: may i inquire of the gentleman from maryland, he has just minimum self? mr. van hollen: we have another speaker. mr. ryan: ok. at this time, mr. chairman, i'd like to -- mr. van hollen: we have another speaker -- one more in addition to myself. mr. ryan: why don't you take one then? mr. van hollen: how many -- mr. ryan: we have the right to close. and we have just two more speakers on our side. how many do you have? mr. van hollen: we have two more.

mr. ryan: all right. you'll do two together then. ok. at this time, mr. chairman ucks i'd like to yield one minute to the speaker of the house, mr. boehner. the chair: the speaker is recognized. the speaker: i'm glad we got that resolved. the american people understand that we can't continue to spend money that we don't have. our national debt has now surpassed $14.2 trillion. it's on a track to eclipse the entire size of our economy. and this massive debt that we're incurring hurts private sector job creation, eroding confidence, spreading uncertainty amongst employers big and small, discouraging private investment in our economy that is sorely needed in order for us to create jobs. this debt is also a moral threat to our country. in my opinion it is immoral to

rob our children and grandchildren's future and leave them beholden to countries around the world who buy our debt. we have a moral obligation to speak the truth and to do something about it. yesterday we took the first step in beginning to address this massive debt by passing legislation that would reduce our deficit by $315 billion over the next 10 years. it was an imperfect bill, but it was a positive step that has cleared the decks and allowed to us focus on cutting trillions of dollars, not just billions. and chairman ryan and the members of the budget committee have done an excellent job of putting together a budget that's worthy of the american people. this budget will help job creation today, lift the crushing burden of debt that threatens our children's future and preserve and protect programs like medicare and medicaid. and most importantly the budget

shows families and small businesses that were serious about dealing with america's spending illness so we can put our country on a path to prosperity. the ryan budget sets the bar for the debate going forward. president obama had an opportunity to match it. unfortunately he gave a partisan speech about the need for more spending, more taxing and more borrowing. he said he must -- he wants to target our debt problem through a so-called debt failsafe. but exempts the major entitlement programs that account for most of the long-term debt problems. and he proposed yet another commission, though he ignored the recommendations of this last one. instead of offering serious solutions, the president asked congress to raise the debt limit without addressing washington's spending problem. the president wants a clean bill.

and the american people will not tolerate it. now, let me be clear. there will be no debt limit increase unless it's accompanied by serious spending cuts and real budget reform. we delivered this message on wednesday morning to the president and we cannot continue to borrow recklessly and dig ourselves a deeper hole and mortgage the future of our children and grandchildren. the american people are looking for leadership to address this debt crisis. and unfortunately the president has failed to put a serious proposal on the table. and if the president won't lead, we will. no more kicking the can down the road, no more whistling past the graveyard. now is the time to address the serious challenges that face the american people. and we will.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i would point out that even if we adopt the republican budget, we're going to have to lift the debt ceiling for years and years to come. so let's not play russian roulette with the economy and the full faith and credit of the united states government. on the question of jobs, the question of jobs, during the clinton administration we asked the very wealthiest for a little bit more sacrifice than they have today and you know what happened to jobs? 20 million jobs were created during the administration, clinton administration. under the current tax rates, after eight years of george bush, private sector lost 630,000 jobs. mr. chairman, can i inquire how much time i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. van hollen: i yield myself

30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. van hollen: so you see the pattern here, during the clinton administration economic growth booming, 20 million jobs created, during the eight years of the bush administration net loss 653,000 jobs. we need to continue to invest in this country and make sure that the entrepreneurs of this country can continue to thrive. we need to do this in a balanced way and i would point out that the folks who said that the republican plan this republican plan debate would increase jobs are the same people who predicted that the bush tax cuts would create jobs. that's the blue line is the prediction of the heritage foundation about what that would happen. the red is the reality. if we want to create jobs and reduce the deficit, we need to do it in a balanced way. that's what the fiscal commission said, that's what the democratic plan does. we urge everyone respectfully to vote no on the republican plan.

it's the wrong choice for america. and with that i yield a minute to the distinguished democratic leader, ms. pelosi. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i thank him for bringing a budget proposal to the floor today that is a statement of our national values, about what we care about, investing in our children, honoring our seniors, growing, creating jobs, growing the economy, strengthening the middle class. thank you, mr. van hollen, for your great leadership in that regard. mr. speaker, today we are taking a vote that is very, very important for the health and security of american seniors. a great deal is at stake. and i'm just going to focus on one part of this republican budget. i want to say to my republican colleagues, do you realize that your leadership is asking to you cast a vote today to abolish

medicare as we know it? because that is a vote that we have. this is not about an issue, this is about a value, this is about an ethic. medicare is a core value of our social compact with the american people. yet this budget shreds that contract which is part of the strength of our country. the republican proposal breaks the promise that our country has made to our seniors. that after a lifetime of work they will be able to depend on medicare to protect them in retirement. this plan, the republican plan, ends medicare as we know it and dramatically reduces benefits for seniors. it forces them to pay more -- to buy their insurance companies from health insurance companies where the average senior will be forced to pay twice as much for half the benefits. i want to repeat that. it forces -- the republican plan

forces seniors to buy their insurance from health insurance companies where the average senior will be forced to pay twice as much for half the benefits. as much as $20,000 per year more for some seniors. this plan has the wrong priorities for our seniors and for all americans. the republican budget, just remember these three things, ends medicare as we know it, gives big tax breaks and subsidies, tens of billions of dollars to big oil. this budget reduces medicaid for our seniors in nursing homes, sending them away from nursing homes while it gives tax breaks to companies that send jobs overseas. this budget hurts our children's education. in fact, it increases the cost of higher education for nearly 10 million of our young adults while it gives tax breaks to

america's wealthiest families. that's just not fair. it is just not the american way. here we are, yesterday we observed the 100th day of the republican majority in congress. in that 100 days not one job has been created, not one job agenda is in the works. and what are we doing? we are here to abolish medicare instead. i've heard our colleagues say that the budget deficit is immoral. it's been immoral for the eight years of the bush administration and didn't hear anybody say boo while we were giving tax cuts to the rich, having two wars unpaid for and giving tax -- prescription drug bills to the private sector. democrats are committed to reducing the deficit, we have demonstrated that we can during the clinton administration and

we will. we are committed to strength being -- strengthening the middle class, to growing our economy as we reduce the deficit and to creating jobs. the republican budget fails to do that and the republican budget will not have democratic support. we are here as one of the previous speakers said, now is the time, now is the time to preserve medicare and democrats will. i urge a no vote on the republican plan. thank you. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. -- the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, at this time i'd like to yield myself the remainder of the time and address the house from the well. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: first of all, mr. chairman, i want to thank our staffs. the democratic staff and the republican staff for all of their hard work in getting us to this moment. i want to ask my colleagues a

question. i want to ask the american people a question. you know, i remember one of the worst moments i had in congress was the financial crisis of 2008. seems like it was yesterday. we had the treasury secretary, we had the federal reserve chairman coming here talking about crisis. talking about bank collapses. and what came out of that was really ugly legislation that we passed in a bipartisan basis but no one enjoyed. that crisis caught us by surprise. it was unpredictable. we didn't see it coming. let me ask you this. what if your president and your member of congress saw it coming? what if they knew why it was happening, when it was going to happen and, more importantly, they knew what to do to stop it and they had time to stop it but they didn't because of politics? what would you think of that person? mr. chairman, that is where we

are right now. this is the most predictable economic crisis we've ever had in the history of this country. and yet we have a president who is unwilling to lead, we have too many politicians weared about the next election and -- worried about the next election and not worried about the next generation. every politician in this town, every politician in this town knows we have a debt crisis. they know that we are in danger. we cannot avoid this choice to govern -- choice. to govern is to choose. we are making a choice even if we don't act and that's the wrong choice. in the words of abraham lincoln, we cannot escape history, we of this congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves . will we be remembered as the congress that did nothing as the nation sped toward a

presprentble debt crisis and irreversible decline? or will it instead be remembered as a congress that did the hard work of preventing that crisis? the one that chose this path to prosperity. this path to prosperity charts a different course. it gets us off this wrong track. it achieves four objectives. number one, grow the economy and get people back to work. number two, fulfill the mission of health and retirement -- fulfill the mission of health and retirement security. we don't want to ration medicare, we don't want to see medicare go bankrupt, we want to save medicare. number three, repair the social safety net. get it ready for the 21st century. we don't want a welfare system that encourages people to stay on welfare, we want them to get back on their feet and into flourishing, self-sufficient

lives. so let's reform welfare for people who need it and let's end it for corporate welfare for people who don't need it. number four, let's do the work of lifting this crushing burden of debt from our children. this is what we achieve. we have a choice of two futures. but we have to make the right choice. we must not leave this nation -- lead this nation into decline. we must not be the first generation in this country to leave the next generation worse off. decline is antithetical to the american idea. america is a nation conceived in liberty, dedicated to equality and defined by limitless opportunity. equal opportunity, upward mobility, prosperity, this is what america is all about.

in all chapters of human history, there has never been anything quite like america. this budget keeps america exceptional. it preserves its promise for the next generation. colleagues, this is our defining moment. we must choose this path to prosperity. i yield. >> the house adopted that budget resolution. four republicans voted against the resolution. ron paul of texas. he is going to be speaking about the economy and congressional spending. he has not announced if he is running for president in 2012, but he has made numerous trips

to new hampshire. we will have a conversation with congressman ron paul at 6:00 p.m. eastern. >> his son's college admission process, financial aid forms, weekly standard senior editor was not prepared for crazy u. >> nothing like that had happened to me when i was the about college in the mid 1970's. it dawned on me that this is a different process from what it was. >> sunday night on q&a. >> next, remarks on how emerging the market sees have

been involved in global human rights issues. this is a conference that was hosted by the brookings institution. this is an hour. >> it is my pleasure and honor to introduce you to date cement the power, who is the director of the multi lateral affairs of

the white house, and who runs the office for multilateral affairs and human rights. she is known to a lot of people in this room, because of -- she has had a powerful voice on issues relating to human rights , human dignity, and fundamental issues of human rights in the world. a lot of what samantha has focused on in her work, in the government, is what she wrote about before going into the government. certainly, her book "chasing the flame" is a book about a great human rights defender, and this has certainly been the kind of work that she has done, and when

she was at harvard, she held a professorship of the practice of global leadership in public policy. that was at the kennedy school. both of these people were people who gave their lives for human rights. one was assassinated in 2003. this suggests that people in this work pay a price. there has been a productive relationship with samantha, and there was a conversation where i outlined our great concern, which the number of governments,

especially in the aftermath of the orange revolution in ukraine, were cracking down on civil society. and she took a great interest in that issue, and even surely, it has become an important issue for the administration. president obama spoke about this in his last un address. secretary clinton gave an address last july at the community of democracies about the issue of defending civil society, and in the u.s. was part of the campaign within the human rights council in the u.s. and to create a special -- and cement the was involved in all these things, to make these an important issue. she is involved with her important book on a problem from hell, and has been deeply

concerned with the problem of genocide. the mass atrocity crimes, and last november she took part in an important meeting that was organized in paris which was attended by other officials in our government, david pressman, the director at the war -- national security council for problems dealing with war crimes and atrocities, the ambassador at large for war crimes at the state department, his assistant. our government has positions in the white house and in the state department which seemed to anticipate potential mass atrocity crimes, and the speech that cement the gave in paris at

this conference focused on how can governments better organize themselves to be able to anticipate and prevent mass atrocities crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide. the issue for which we are talking about at this conference, emerging markets, foreign policies, the international policies of what we call emerging market the marcus is, is once he has taken a large interest in in the administration. we have talked about it a great deal. she has spoken about indonesia, india, brazil, and other countries that we are dealing with today, and the importance of their international policies. this is not an issue that she wrote a great deal about the for coming in, unlike the other issues i have mentioned, but it

is one that i know she has a very large and deep interest in , and we are really anxious to hear her thinking today. let me say something also by way of introduction, before i enter this samantha, that she has come here today because she wants to hear from you. xie -- we have a number of very interesting people who have spoken on these issues, and she hopes to be able to take feedbacks from the audience said this can enter into the thinking of the administration on these issues. the way we will organize this, we will hear from some of the, and then she wants to hear from the audience in terms of comments and thoughts, and i hope the major presenters at this conference will give their thoughts in reaction to what tsa, and then i thinking -- in

reaction to what she has to say, and then i hope this will develop our thinking in to the whole issue about the importance of how to work with what we call the emerging markets the marcus is, and why they are important in terms of the mayor of's thinking of for policy day. it is a great honor and pleasure for me to welcome samantha to this conference, and i want everybody to know that annete concerns -- considers her to be a real friend to the administration. cement up? -- samantha? >> thank you very much. i am very sorry i was not able to attend the proceedings before me, because i assure i have learned a tremendous amount, and i look forward to sit back and taking notes after you hear from

me here. i will talk today about emerging market democracies and their role in democracy and human rights promotion, focusing on those countries around which you have built this conference, and with the caveat recognizing that many of the emerging democracies have democratic traditions and human rights traditions of different kinds that the back generations, if not centuries. that said, when the president took office, the number of democracies in the world had grown in the previous two decades from 69 to 119 in 2009. the number of countries actively supporting democracy and human rights by laterally and in the international forum to remain quite static. the last two years this administration has made an effort to work with emerging

democracies to enlist their support in standing up for human rights around the world. in his view and general assembly address, which coral alluded to in 2010, president obama address the issue, the theme of your conference, head on, saying i appeal to those nations to emerge from tyranny and inspire the world in the second half of the last entry for south africa, to south asia, easter, to south america. do not stand idly by. while dissidents are imprisoned, recall your own history because part of the price of our own freedoms is standing up for the freedoms of others. in pursuing a partnership with the merging the market seized -- with emerging markets, this administration has brought several premises to bear. in a world this interconnected, we cannot allow gross violations

of human rights to go unaddressed. given the destabilizing the fax, -- over 60 years ago, the u.n. charter recognized that protecting human dignity at home is critical to preserving peace and security abroad. the president has pressed his case the other case in governments, stressing governments that protect these rights are more stable, more successful, and more secure. in short, the more true democracies there are in the war, the better off we are and the better off our fellow democracies are. second premise is that precisely because emerging democracies are democratic, they will face growing pressure from within to align their foreign policy with their domestic values and to integrate human rights concerns.

this pressure will come from young people who have not carried within the sovereignty vs. human rights baggage from the 20th-century. the evolution of the human rights debate in the united states is instructive. our coverage, are free press, and our human rights in other organizations and hard with modern technologies have highlighted a -- inconsistencies with human -- with u.s. policies, and created what i call for policy accountability, holding us accountable for to the extent to which human rights is injected into our foreign policy. we have seen countless canapes -- campaigns pressing human rights concerns at home, and it is only a matter of time we believe before these agents of change applied their tools to their own country's policies. the third premise we bring to

bear is new democracies can make a difference. we believe the future of democracy and human rights in the world will in the and turned not only on the strength of the democratic movements in those countries, and not only on the willingness of traditional democracies to stand with these movements, but also on the determination of emerging-market debt, -- democracies to tip the scales. when they take a stand, it disrupts the old alignments and paves the way for fresh coalitions to press for change. people who are suffering under repressive rule the emerging market the market sees the stand up for them. here we are seeing some encouraging trends that i would like to try to highlight. first, emerging democracies are exerting growing leadership and other venues may well paved the

way for more assertive leadership on issues central to this confidence. for example, the most famous -- famous example, helping insure the g20 has replaced the g8, and it's kicking up their economic responsibilities, emerging democracies are showing signs of recognizing and embracing the unavoidable link with political developments around the world. a second trend and this one has been in place for some years, emerging democracies are playing an ever more important role in strengthening international peace keeping. indonesia has shown striking growth on this front. they had 27 into rituals -- individuals serving in 2003, and now they have nearly 1800.

indonesia has established a training center for peacekeepers, and they are turning a -- turning it into a network hub for other training centers. both have deployed under -- over 100 personnel at the beginning of the last decade, and each now provides more than 2000 today. brazil is notable that at the time of the earthquake, when the contingent itself suffered such casualties, the government decided to double the brazilian contribution. this is not something that a lot countries would have done in the wake of such a tragedy. one cannot talk about peacekeeping without talking about india. one of the world house very oldest democracy.

in addition to being one of the leading peacekeeping ventures, india has tripled its contribution over the past 10 years with its 8500 blue helmets. we are seeing emergency -- emerging democracies reaching out to the poor. they are becoming players on the stage in a number of important ways. these new actors are less inclined to interact with less developed countries, but they engage as equals in developing solutions to development challenges. brazil has helped partners in after all -- in africa improved subsistence farmers. india is leveraging its technical expertise to develop

transformative technologies to extend food security aide. india has increased its contribution to the democracy fund, making it the second largest donor in the world. emerging democracies seemed comfortable strengthening international norms on cost- cutting human rights issues. if given fresh point of entry, into a human rights conversation that had grown stale in certain quarters, these democracies seemed increasingly inclined to partner with additional democracies. at the human rights council, countries affiliated with a group of 77 have long been at first to sing out certain countries for criticism, which they have called figure pointed. that is like brazil and indonesia have demonstrated a willingness to press general concerns taking a leadership role in creating the position

that was mentioned on the freedom of association and assembly, the first mechanism ever created to monitor this. i would note indonesia was a critical co-sponsor of that resolution, which made it possible to bring other emerging democracies along, so we were eventually able to get this position created through a consensus measure. that is how overwhelming majority of was. brazil has played a leadership role in pursuing this last session, a groundbreaking statement signed by 85 countries, calling for critiques -- calling for greater respect for lbgt persons. on the security council we see other examples. brazil has been a bridge builder on human rights on thematic

issues, which links the exclusion of women from decision making to the maintenance of international security. our commitment to open government and corruption -- fighting, corruption have proven an important bond with many emerging democracies. we're working with indonesia, mexico, brazil, within the u.n. to promote the recognition that corruption is a violation of basic human rights. indonesia has been a key partner in the efforts to advance the anti-corruption agenda. we are partnering with a group of governments to launch an effort to bring greater transparency the government budget expenditures and in the absence public officials to

harness government -- citizen engagement. this is something that the president laid out in his address last fall. the two presidents highlighted our commitment on the recent visit. president obama also launched this with india last year. countries are sharing best practices on the ways they have institutionalized practices to make it harder for officials to steal. the merging the markers these are often at the cutting edge of these efforts and help to contribute to a committee of knowledge, not only governments, but civil society and the private sector.

despite traditional reluctance to hold countries accountable, emerging democracies have shown a willingness to speak out in the face of human rights abuses. here i would offer three examples. iran, ivory coast, and libya. on iran, brazil voted to create a special position for human rights, having abstained on the annual resolution on iran since 2004. this was the first country mandate to adopted since the creation of the council. in part because of this leadership, and the willingness of the countries to follow the lead of dominant regional players come the revolution reinstating the iran human rights position passed by a wide this margin since 1997. ground hadons on the a lot to do with that vote.

india abstained on iran for the first time in the general assembly vote, always having voted no in the past. we are seeing moves from abstentions to yes. on ivory coast, which has come to a head this week, when it came thank you and security council action in response to the contested election there, in the attempt by the former president to retain power, two ideas were intentions with one another. non intervention and the importance of regional problem solving. all council members, including brazil, india, and south africa, joined consensus on press statements and resolutions. this included imposing sanctions and on others.

over time the council also called for enforcement of the mandate to protect civilians. while south africa was skeptical initially, their position deval and their support for the findings of the a.u. may have been a turning point. all emerging democracies but it in favor of the resolution which carried with it a forceful mandate accelerating the defeat of gbagbo. they still were prepared to support a robust enforcement on the ground. this solidarity that i mentioned that is responsible for the new president to consolidate control, having won the election, will prove important

in the remainder of this year. this is a year in which 17 of africa + 47 countries will hold national elections, and will be essential to maintain regional solidarity behind democratic principles. in libya, the third example, south africa joined others in support of the resolution which took the unusual step of authorizing all necessary measures to protect civilians without the consent of a sovereign government. while others abstained, brazil and india did not vote no. this referred libya and any crimes committed their to the international court. doubts about enforcement action run deep. mr.'s somewhat -- yesterday's

summit saw the bric express misgivings about using force in libya. we will need to enhance consultation over the need for enforcement of 1973. it is worth pointing out how contested countries' specific criticisms and actions are further individuals within the democracies who are trying to shift their narratives. the brazilian president has been more outspoken than her president -- predecessor on international concerns. she distanced herself last year comparing political dissidents in cuba the common prison -- prisoners. such pronouncements spark

critiques with in the halls of power in brasilia. the fifth trend that is worth fighting here today is we are seeing a number of examples of bottom up pressure from within emerging democracies to see greater attention to human rights and democracy is beyond their borders. we in the u.s. government recognize we are not the only ones who have domestic politics with which to contend. in a united states, it was the congress who pushed the executive branch to report on human rights around the world, and congress began restricting funding streams on human rights grounds. today remains -- u.s. civil society told us accountable, not only for policies at home, but for actions abroad. in a new democracy, it will take time for civil society and the

media to turn out word as well. there are encouraging signs. urma caucus playm an important role. we have seen growing indonesian citizen pride over the country's role and watching the bally democracy form as -- the bali democracy form. we have seen thousands of brazilian citizens joined a campaign to press the previous president offered asylum to a woman from iran sentenced to be stoned to death for alleged adultery. in egypt united states has launched a new initiative pledging to fund those groups that would like to partner with other human rights organizations in the region, so to try to

incentivize work beyond their borders. they have such a huge amount the offer. and revolution, it is noteworthy that the egyptian civil society has found ways virtually ban on the ground to connect with others in order to learn from their experience in moving from dictatorship to democracy. those are the trends, and i think those are quite encouraging. however, there is always more to be done at home and abroad but all of us to consolidate democratic gains to promote and protect human rights. we should not underplay genuine disagreements as we seek to forge more cooperation across borders. there are reasons our policies are unlikely to flee the line in the very near term. we have different histories. some emerging democracies few

the sovereignty shield as having protected them from external interference during the cold war. we see the lessons of history differently. some emerging democracies believe they threw off the yoke of colonialism on their own, relying not at all on external help and therefore discount the notion that such help can play a positive role in fostering democratization. we believe outside actors cannot dictate events in democratic progress, but that the have a constructive role to play, and we have come to see how the cult it is to be neutral in our dealings with repressive states. we are either factory human- rights into our foreign policy or we can be sending a signal to repress of pershing's that rights are not important to us. we are at different stages as well in democratic and economic

development. many democracies are still consolidating their gains at home. they're trying to close in the quality gaps, and would not be able to convince their own democratic voters that it would be a good use of taxpayer money to provide large amounts of assistance to countries not as far along in development. we also have different interests. while many democracies at powerful economies, they may be seeking markets. while many believe democracy is a stabilizing force, abc that process as destabilizing in the near term, especially if it is a process that occurs in their region. we may prioritize this interest in different ways receipt for it means. notwithstanding these different vantage points, we feel we are making progress together, and the president has invited more participation with emerging

democracies red -- democracies. most of the trips the president has taken in his first year's highlight the interest he has taken in emerging the market seized. he has visited mexico, brazil, and chile, among other countries. certain trips i like the full embrace of the rise of an emerging powers. this emergency -- this administration has encouraged mutual interest and respect. when it comes to coalition building, we have approached emerging democracies early in the process. we have engaged not only in new york and geneva, but also in

tals. building these relations does not come at a cost, but remain important in our effort to promote accountability. we must also build bridges to these critical hours. our most effective tool for people rising -- for spreading democracy are speaking more openly about our efforts to adjust our shortcomings. also bridging the ideological divides in the debate. president obama's success in invigorating -- ever believes human rights believe -- begin at home and one of the most powerful tools is our

example. this is including reaffirming the ban on torture and effort he has made to close guantanamo. it continues along multiple fronts-. ending the don't ask don't tell, including the united states and our record in our global trafficking reports. this has also entailed spelling out what this administration will not do. in 2009, the president announced the imposition of democracy by military force, saying the system of government should be imposed by one nation on any other. he pledged to respect all democratically elected movements that reject violence. he said his administration this -- would listen to the voices of all peaceful and lot-up by the

voices. -- and all law-abiding voices, even if we disagree with them. in speeches that have resonated in africa, asia, and beyond, the president keeps coming back to the centrality of human dignity. he spoke of the dignity of work, peaceful protests, being able to choose one's leaders, being able to speak freely and cray freely. he has spoken not only in terms of individual dignity but also of the dignity of nations deserving respect. the president and his team have made clear that elections alone cannot to democracy make. in ghana he said effort that

does not need strong men, but strong institutions. in his nobel speech, he returned to one of president kennedy's ideas. as part of his challenge to force -- emphasized the link from freedom of fear to freedom of want and gr. we have seen how important these issues are. the president highlighted these connections with the release of the first ever directed on global development, and secretary clinton spearheaded the introduction of a new tool to ensure that development its attention it deserves. we had crier these in the defense department's review, but

it was clinton who addressed the development review. this administration cost policies are rooted in the idea expressed in his nobel speech, a just peace includes not only political rights, but also economic security. beginning with his 2006 speech before the kenyan parliament, he has emphasized that corruption is an assault on human dignity. the president has stressed lasting change must come from the bottom up and the indigenous. the president has stressed that

change is not something that the and i did states or any other country can force. he says each nation gives life to this principle. grounded in the traditions of its own people. america does not presume to know what is best with the each one. this vision is not a recipe for america standing on the sidelines. the president has coupled his respect for other traditions with a challenge for countries to take responsibilities. he has expressed confidence in the universality of human rights. it is not western values because the people of libya to risk their lives on behalf of democracy. as he said in moscow, these ideals are not a monopoly of one country. he has invoked the universal declaration of human rights and the international instruments that the very government abusing

rights joined. his humility has helped us build these cross regional coalitions with increasingly willing partners. in conclusion, the obama administration has engaged in a short and long gain when it comes to promotions. we are vastly more effected in both when we are accompanied by regional powerhouses and ones that have undergone inspiring changes. a broader coalition testifies powerfully to the universality of the principles we are promoting. it denies abusive regimes a refuge they have long sought and regional blocs. the leadership of emerging democracies in his notice but the people in repressive societies. as they offer a validation change, a testament to help with

a country's fortunes can be transformed, and a model for the social vibrancy, growth, and an unbounded political horizons that come from democratic change. let me leave it at their. thank you. [applause] >> this is the time when cement that would like to hear from you. -- when smantha would like to hear from you. we have had some internal debates in terms of talking about countries just being a model and promoting democracy is by being a model or projecting or promoting. there is a consensus that we are not imposing, but there are views here across the spectrum in terms of what is a corporate,

and there are probably some differences among the different countries for which people have given papers tridymite -- papers. i might note about the internet, one of the most important things we have done is what we call cross-border war, and that started after 1989 when poland and other countries in central europe, because they believed in democracy, but to make their neighborhood were stable, reached out across borders to work for democracy, and we working not55 ngo's just in the communist world, but as far afield as burma. this is a very important to mention of what we do, and the united states believes it needs

cross-border work, too, from friends. what we want to do is hear from some of the speakers to get a chance to get a reaction to what some at the said. she wants feedback, so i will open the floor for people to make statements. she is on to say something in conclusion, but now is the opportunity for people from the floor to say something. yes, please. >> from your vantage point recently, how has the implementation of sharia affected the democratic world in particular? >> that is a question. we will take it.

was it just to me? anybody have any comments to make? please come over here. >> i am with george mason university. my comment is when we look at human rights, there seems to be a certain amount of prior to station required. -- prioritization required. addressing structural violence seems to be a more cost- effective methods than doing a direct violence approach. military intervention is significantly more costly. my question is how are you prioritizing those different comparative advantages, or cost

effectiveness, and my comment would be we should be doing more structural violence? >> what do you mean by that? give me an example. >> dealing with poverty prevention, capacity building. >> ok, i see a hand here and a hand back there. >> afternoon. i am an international political economists, and i would like very much to export deeper what we have been talking about today and yesterday around the rights type of programming over time to support democracy and human rights. just from the u.s. perspective. we could also provide that kind of feedback for the emerging democracies and how they think about programming, because one of the things we have been tracking is a decrease of

funding from the united states government overtime for democracy promotion. how are you structurally thinking about her urging congress in the budget crisis, where we can put more funding into promotion of human rights and democracy in our work around the world? how deep you see the trends you have track in your speech, that thing the congress approved the you believe there is a window of dialogue on this, because over time, there is a more productive use of our tax dollars money to promote democracy promotion. >> thank you. the administration has been very good in its budget request, but it is congress that has the power of the purse. >> that you, i am from the university of wisconsin. near the end of the u.n.

intervention, you focused on that regard for human dignity. you mentioned rule of law. you specifically cited the importance of the international -- the convention on civil and political rights. he did not mention another convention, and there are often claims for such things as the right to clean air, food, shelter, education, even some would say the right to be free of the dumping of toxic waste. i wonder how deep you feel the administration is on economic and social rights, where do they stand in relation to civil and political rights to are the a distraction or should they be handled in the steinway? -- in the same way? >> thank you for this presentation. it raises a lot of interesting issues. i was surprised that one word he

did not mention to rot presentation was china. it has been a top of on panels about how some of these emerging democracies are shaping their policies in response to china's rise, its response to pressures. it seems that there may be a time -- at times accounted dissonance between the message you are putting out, these countries see it as natural partners, that it might seem it has a privileged relationship with china, pushing too much for china to become more democratic. if you look at the entire picture, it can be disconcerting to have that ton running through the

administration costs for a policy. >> thanks. yes, are there any other -- hands -- do i see one hand? >> i am with the brookings institution. my question is on i think there is a change in discourse from democracy promotion to democracy strengthening. some of the programs that are related to strengthening our harder to measure what our impact is. in a tight budget environment, how can this increasing focus on monitoring and evaluation jive with democracy strengthening programs that are

hard to get concrete numbers for, and any thoughts on that would be appreciated. >> we do not even use the term democracy promotion any more. a lot of the active list on the ground to not like it. they're fighting. they want to support, so we use the term democracy assistance. it seems to have entered lesson that -- the lexicon. we do not think in those terms is my point. in the back. >> in his speech to the general assembly, the president spoke out about the need for new democratic powers to speak out on behalf of those who are repressed. there has been a lot of initiatives to work with these countries, but is there a plan

to hold those countries that have not made progress to speak out accountable or to press them more forcefully for a more forceful approach? thank you. >> this will be more a comment, maybe rambling. >> that is what we want. >> i think this is also partially related to the things we have discussed here already about six countries, there are two different ways of looking at what the human rights issues in the world agenda are. there is a question of credibility when it comes to either former imperial powers or

the united states in terms of your understanding of what human rights are, because there are different understandings of human rights, and a professor of wisconsin suggested that a -- a poor's country house understanding of human rights may be very different. there is your record in large parts of the world needing people to think you are being hypocritical. there's also the issue on the part of the united states being the predominant power of being very selective, even on the issue of libya. libby and bahrain are happening at the same time. i can understand why you may speak on libya, but keep quiet on bahrain. the kind of discriminatory practice that emerge where you

are usually mum or quiet, the concerted engagement, especially for south africa when we had the south africa panel. that may be domestic politics, the responsibilities of a great power. you cannot solve all the great problems of the world. how do you work on trying to break out of that perception of what the u.s. does, why the u.s. does what it does, and how you get to a more common understanding of human rights, if that is possible? and that you are engaging with dialogues with other partners, brazil, south africa, is it

because you prevail over them with political arguments, or is it because you are in a conversation with them changing your own language, your own discourse, and whenever you stand for? >> any of the other speakers prove anybody else want to grumble who i see a hand in the back there. >> i wanted to -- how does the thrust of your remarks and the importance of encouraging emerging democracies square with the kind of op-ed was published yesterday were president obama joined the heads of state -- heads of government of great britain and france, while the indians and the brazilians and the south africans were putting

out a different kind of statement? how does help your effort to p? it seems different from that approach you were stressing in your speech. >> we will take these two hands, and that we get here it -- and that will be it. >> we heard from the indonesian panel earlier, and one of the commons was about the fact that one of the reasons indonesia cannot engage as much in democracy is because it lacks the democratic credentials. i wanted to reflect on that a bit with regard to how the u.s. and gauges on democracy, and samantha has made some good points and how the united states has taken that criticism to engage differently, the openness

to talk about zero economic and social rights. drugay denied the state's on a certain -- this would allow it to plan more positive roles with the emerging market democracies. unfortunately, there are still gaps that need to be addressed. a clearing one has come to light recently, the fact that the united states does not have a standing invitation to allow physicians to the human rights council, and now the issue has come up as well. taking on board the fact that that consistency and those credentials have to be maintained as for mick and appropriately across issues and countries as possible, and to emphasize the point made earlier, bahrain is an area

where we do not see as much consistency as we would like. >> thank you very much. >> the last, relating to the u.n. security council, who spoke approvingly with what happened from the g8 to the g20. the theme of you and reform and the issue of the -- in so dominant has come up again. i wondered if he thought a change on that front could come, and how you would see that playing in to reenforcing approval for the u.s. where there is the skepticism and a critique of hypocrisy. >> thanks very much for these comments and questions.

samantha? >> i will not say much. i would like also to hear from some of the individuals from these countries in question that we have a little motto in this administration, which is we try to live by, nothing about you without you. this comes up a lot in the peacekeeping context. i would make a few very general comments in response, and i am happy to stick around for a couple minutes. on any of the civics, you guys want a fall-off, but the first on the broad question of prevention, simply to say that on structural violence and the idea that we wait too long until it becomes -- i think what foreign policy is every day is

an effort at prevention and that dealing with the causes of structural violence. i had a long session of the speech on the emphasis the admission has placed on economic development. that is a prevention tool. if you get to know the right, at better partnerships, more i think the diplomacy that we have done and that many other countries have done in isolating the ivory coast context, that diplomacy is an effort to revet violence before it comes about. you call on people to try to respect the results of democratic election we have seen that kind of violence in each -- in recent weeks.

it is not suddenly when there is an occasion in which things have gotten really bad that you suddenly start to pay attention and you say i wish that we had prevented it. we have 8 missions and our diplomats here and in the countries in question trying to do this type of work. as i suggested in a speech, the importance of injecting human rights concerns into your day- to-day diplomacy cannot be understated. that is a signal of the priority that we place on this every bit as much as our resources and our programs. one of the things that we try to do is mary our diplomacy and programs. this is challenging and critical and this is about making human

rights not just the subject of a press release or a very high- profile intervention but the day-to-day routine business of what we do. in terms of the congressional climate that came up, as was indicated, our budget requests have been very substantial. >> all of this event is online at our video library. we will head to new hampshire, fresh from his vote on the house floor on the budget, ron paul speaking. this is just getting under way. [applause] >> jesse has been working in their campaign but he is also married to our granddaughter.

it is nice to be here and it is a great place to come when people would like to hear about ideas and i have been interested in that for a long time. the suggested topic for tonight would be to deal with monetary policy. that is an easy subject. this is pretty interesting because involves everything. you have to deal with a foreign- policy if you are going to talk about monetary policy because it costs money. every war has been fought through inflation. is it possible that we are doing that again? if you have a domestic policy of welfare, well, that costs money as well. the federal reserve and the monetary policy is involved. i will tell you how i got interested in these ideas. i was not much interested in politics when i was in high

school or in college. the only time i was interested in politics was in 1956 when there was a suez canal crisis and i was a word i would get drafted. i was happy that eisenhower said, no, let's leave it alone. i was fortunate that i did not get drafted. a few years later in 1962 during the cuban crisis, i was taken out of my medical training and put into the military. it was during the medical training that some of my extra time was spent studying and reading economics. it just seemed to fascinate me that there was another explanation of academic policy other than what i had been taught in college.

that was my introduction to a free-market economics. i came across a book called "the road to serfdom." this encouraged me to read on economic policy. in 1979, the event that was predicted by the austrian economist that the old standard would break down because there was such abuse. even if -- was established in new hampshire, it was not long and and it broke down because it was deeply flawed. that was the end of the lake of any of our dollar to gold. my motivation then was to speak out because this was such a confirmation of what free-market economists had predicted. lo and behold it came. the monetary system collapsed and we had a bad decade. we have a very bad economy.

what bothered me the most was the day after it was announced, it was announced on a sunday night. the day after, everyone loved it. the chambers of commerce loved it. this was waging price controls, high tariffs on every bit of imports, absolutely opposite of everything that the free market would want us to do. the chamber of commerce loved it and the stock market loved it. there is something bizarre about one was going on. we are going in the wrong direction. that is why i decided i would speak out and the vehicle was to speak out in a political sense in a congressional race. i felt very comfortable about doing that because i knew that not much would come of it and i could talk and i could keep practicing medicine. my wife warned me, she said, it

could be dangerous. she said, you could get up -- you could be elected doing this stuff. [laughter] i assured her that would not be possible. i was not going to play the role of santa claus. i did not have confidence. i was cynical and added not think there would be anything does anyone out there that would listen to that message. -- i did not think that there was anyone out there that would listen to that message. there is a risk that you could get elected, so you have to be careful. it did lead to a double career for me. although i was in congress for four terms, i was restless and frustrated and i went back home and i wanted to practice medicine and i did that for 12 years. then i got interested again because i was fascinated with

how monetary policy affected about everything that we do. it is not that this is the most important issue for me because liberty is the most important issue. my goal in life is to do everything i can to preserve that entity called liberty which is what i believe made this country great because we had been given the maximum amount of liberty than any country before and believe me, and i believe if we followed their direction of our constitution and protected our liberties, we would be better off today. [applause] but when you think about defended liberty, you can look to our constitution. this is pretty good. i decided that the document itself is secondary. it is good to have a document, we should be very keen on following the rule of law, but

we have a document called the constitution. everyone goes to congress, everyone takes the same oath and it seems like nobody knows what they're doing. it is strange. most of them believe they are following the constitution. today, with the new congress, there is a new rule that any time you pass a lot today, any time you introduce legislation, you have to sort -- you have to site that portion of the constitution. they cite the general welfare costs. the interstate commerce clause, what does that mean? anything you want. article one, section 8, the list things that we are allowed to do. it says, you can write in the law necessary and proper to

protect this. they dissected this, they say it is necessary and proper to do so. the constitution has not restraint people from doing what we have ended up with. we have a welfare state that is not authorized. we go to war without authorization. it has not worked. i think it was adams who said that it will not work unless you have a moral people. if you have an immoral people who will send individual watching -- individuals to washington and they are not following the laws, the constitution will not to us any good. i think that we have reached this point but what i see happening now is a growing number of people that are concerned and are starting to say that we have had enough and we should have a different approach and we cannot let

people go along and say that the constitution is a breezy and living document and we have to adapt it not bother to amend it. do whatever you want and justified because it is so necessary. i think about the war issue especially on the constitutional issue. that is something i have worked on for some many years. there are too many. why are we doing this? i was aware of world war ii, i was aware of the korean war. then there was the vietnam war. during that decade, i was in the service. i did not go to vietnam. correa was undeclared, vietnam was undeclared. we fight wars constantly. was undeclared. they're supposed to be a declaration of war.

i did not like what happened in vietnam. i ended up being in congress when we were getting ready to go into iraq. it was very important to me that i'd do what i could to hold congress accountable. i was on the international relations committee as i am now and they were debating this resolution to give the authority to the president. i introduced a resolution to declare war in the committee. i said, i will not vote for it but if you want to go to war, you should declare it. get everyone behind it and we will come together and get it over with. of course, nobody voted for it. the chairmen of the committee said that you should ignore that because that part of the constitution is an anachronism.

we don't follow that anymore. i said, that is the way they look at the whole constitution. maybe the gold and silver legal tender provision. that is an anachronism we don't follow for sure. this is a lack of respect for the rule of law and sending people there that either don't understand what the constitution is supposed to me or they don't have the character to follow it. -- people that don't understand what the constitution is supposed to mean. we are broke. the technical declaration of a country that is bankrupt is when you cannot honor your commitment in money. we were technically insolvent in august of 1971. but because there has been a tremendous amount of trust placed in our money and in our wealth and a solitary, people have instead is rejecting it and

demanding that the go back to sound money, the world took it and converted and said that the dollar, even though it is not backed by gold, we will use it for gold instead. people take the money and they put it in central banks and they use it as a reserve. this gives us a chance to live way beyond our means. there is nothing to hold us in check. when you are tempted to blame all of those foreigners to doing stuff to us, there is a lot of responsibility to us because we have been spending too much money. when we come up short, we say, print up the money. as long as they take the counterfeit money, this is better for us. we have had pretty good wealth and the last 40 years but not in the last 10. wealth has been going down for 10 years. even at the end of the gold standard, 71, there was a lot of wealth created.

now, the debt is so great that the same old cliches and the same old policies of getting out of a recession by spending more money and printing more money, the business climate picks up again, it is not working. we are in a different era, a much more serious era. we have had the financial bubble crash. that was predicted. now, what we are facing is a dollar crisis, the collapse of the currency. when that happens, it is worldwide. everyone holds that in reserve banks. even today, commodity prices are going up, interest rates are creeping up, and the stock market might be going up a bit and all but this is very very shaky. because when you look at what is happening to the housing market, there are still a lot of problems there. this is expected not to be solved. we got into this mess because we spent t l much money.

we borrowed too much money, we regulated too much money. -- we got into this mess because we spent too much money. they increase the spending, they increased the deficit, increase to the borrowing, increased the regulations, increased the printing of the money and that was supposed to solve the problem. this is like a drug addict that is out of his mind and what you say is that you need more drugs. for a while, the addict feels a little bit better. they feel better about what happens is that you finally kill the patient if you don't get them off of the addiction. we have been addicted to live beyond their means -- individuals cannot do it, nations get away with it for a long time. eventually, we are called to task. that is what we are witnessing. what i see is a solution is

first looking to our traditions. it is not like we have to invent something new. we don't say that we have this interventionist economy and fiat money and we have to have something new. we have had experience off and on for centuries on this. we have only had a short example for true liberty. true liberty by our constitution. we have failed to defend those principles. it has -- the way i look at this is that it created so much wealth that wealth became the driving force and that the material benefits for all that we carried about -- were all that we cared about.

people just divided up the loot. you get away with that because we are so wealthy. when you do that and ignored the principles of property rights, sound money, finally their productivity goes down and you run out of the goods and services that you can spread around. it just passing another law because people are losing their jobs and they don't have houses, okay, more people on food stamps, more free medical care, more free education. this is not the solution. what we have to do is restore our confidence and a free society and understand what it is and we have to know that it involves most of what we knew and our traditions. the founders knew something about inflation, that is why they said gold and silver. they knew about contracts, they knew about civil liberties and personal liberties and foreign policy. they said, stay out of these

entangling alliances, notes adventurism, but trade with people and be friends with people. stay out of the internal affairs of other countries. we totally ignored it. now our president has become more arrogant every time we get a new president. this president says that we don't even have to tell you about going to war. we are in another war in libya, not that we ought not have enough on our hands. we had a rock, aphis -- we had iraq, afghanistan, pakistan. they get annoyed about that. now, we are going into libya and participating there. we have already spent a billion dollars in the past couple of weeks just in libya and we don't have any money. this is insane what is happening. oh, yeah, we have to protect our

interests. what interest do you have that you need us to go over there? if you have them, maybe you should go over there and protect them. [applause] it will come to an end. you would think that the message of afghanistan would be so loud and clear. the soviet system was brought down over afghanistan. that was the final blow. they broke down and the system collapsed. i lived through and was very much aware of the cold war. the cold war ended with a whimper. we did not have to fight the soviets because they had an economically flawed system and we have an economically flawed system. we are not as authoritarian as that system was but we are becoming more authoritarian all the time and that bothers me.

the tool that is used by those that want to move towards authoritarianism always use fear. if there is any reason to be fearful, scared the people and they will do our bidding. there is a lot of people to have been concerned on 9/11 as we all work and we should have been concerned. we should have learned the real cost. because of the fear, what did we do? a week or two afterwards, we had the patriot act passed. huge legislation. it was an attack on you. it was destroyed in the fourth amendment. it said that if we watch every single american and now we start putting our hands down on little girls at airports, all of a sudden will be will be safer -- all of a sudden we will be safer?

you have to give up some liberties for your safety. i don't believe that. i don't think that you should give up any liberty to make yourself safer. [applause] besides, i have such confidence in a free society that i think a way for all buses to be safe is to fully understand the second amendment. [applause] the stage was set and a said before and i will not go into detail but i believe that our foreign policy has a lot to do with the reason why people want to kill us. they don't want to kill us because we are free but we had already lost our way because the responsibility of security on the airline's was with the government already. they said, never resist a

hijacker and the pilots were not allowed to have guns. you are setting the stage. it was perfect for those who want to do what they did. in a free society, they would be set up more like an armored car that picks up the money. the airline to be responsible. these rules on violations and what we do for safety would be so different, it would not be the government doing this thing. once we become dependent on the government, all it will do is cost a lot of money, ruined our civil liberties, and not achieve anything, especially for a look at our foreign policy. obviously, a few days after 9/11, it was not very easy because of the political pressure to vote against the patriot act. i thought it was an atrocious

piece of legislation. [applause] we make it tends to get rid of it and change some of those things but the momentum is very strong. it will only happen when the people of this country say that this is too much, we want our liberty back and we don't want this war mongering going so overseas and that we can be made safe a lot differently than we have been. today, we have a president that took us to war and he said the reason he did not go to congress, i got my authority with the u.n. when did that happen? it started with truman. i would like to get my bill passed that says, why don't we just get out of the united nations and that we will have to

put up with them? we are dependent upon internationalism in the worst sense. a true free-market person does not disdain internationalism but it has to be a friendly. it cannot be controlled by international government. here, you have the imf, the wto, now off the, all of these government organizations. -- nafta, all of these government organizations. i call all of these in tangled alliances and i would just as soon stay out of all of them. [applause] how does it get financed? of course, we borrow money, we tax people. the cannot tax people. you put on a tax now, the economy will get weaker. taxes, even if they tried to

raise revenue by raising taxes, they will not be able to. not only will they weaken the economy, it drives more people into the underground economy. they are trying to survive and take care of their family and that is what would happen. our credit is still pretty good. i don't understand how we deserve credit. the rest of the currencies of the world and not much better. if you compare our money and our dollar to the zero, b think that you will be saved by taking at dollars and putting that in the euro? that will not help at all. -- if you compare our money, our dollar to the euro, do you think that you will be saved? the chinese are not purchasing as many treasury bills as they used to. they are not buying as many. the world will start buying less

which means that interest rates will be closed out -- pushed up. the only thing to do is to create money out of thin air. as far as i'm concerned, that is counterfeit. we should not be putting people in jail today and imprisoning people today because they want to use gold and silver, which is constitutional, and legalizing the counterfeit of the government. they want to charge people that deal with sound money -- they have made the charges of fraud and terrorist charges, counterfeiting because they want to use gold and silver as money. paper money, that is counterfeit money, that is fraud. that is unconstitutional. i am convinced it will come to an end because there is a limit.

no paper currency has lasted for long amounts of time. this one is 40 years, getting near its last legs. that is a major crisis when that happens. we were down there this week, we had two big bills, the cr and the budget. i did not vote for the continuing resolution or the budget. i don't think it will do anything to solve the problems. [applause] this year, the national debt will go up two trillion dollars and they are talking about a $38 billion cut in that cr which is not even real. that is fictitious. that is why this will have to come to an end. we don't know exactly when. there is no way that you can predicted.

there is no way for us to know that the day that housing bubble would burst, we knew it was coming and it did, somewhere in the world, it will motivate people to get out of the dollar. they are slowly getting out of the dollar. people don't want to run to other currencies but where they running right now? they are purchasing silver coins. there are some people doing that. there are people buying gold. the $1 time was 1/20 of an ounce of gold. now it is 1/15 hundred. this is at record highs right now. is 1/1500. there is evidence