is that if something is meaningful that is achieved, whether it is spending tax or repeal of obamacare or some other form of fiscal discipline, that might be a worthwhile trade. there is not a lot of confidence will negotiate with acumen. >> debt is an immoral and insidious tax on the future of america. as i said. in this constitution, it says for ourselves and our posterity. that means the future. we must not place a tax, and immoral tax on our children. >> what kind of spending caps might be an acceptable trade- off? >> you have all sorts of things. the tax limitation balanced budget amendment. senator corker has a tap fact

that organized -- updates. you have obamacare. you have generic spending caps. there are different ideas out there. my job is not to say which one isjust [no audio] to say which is best are acceptable. during the continuing resolution, they did not get much and that does not bode well for what will happen with the debt limit. >> the markets want to see and standard and poor's in their negative outlook on the u.s. said this. they want to see some meaningful, lasting, and significant -- that was their word. i call it durable and medium and long-term correction to the course that we're on. right now, we're looking at a trillion dollar deficit as far as the eye can see.

let me add a couple of little comments. i am in the private sector. we were here before this. bear stearns kamala lehman brothers, wachovia, they were taken out with accusatory language about reckless behavior. if the u.s. to read was a bank, the fdic would close and down friday night. they have run their fiscal books in an awful manner. what is interesting is when i have discussions with politicians and some in the leadership will have talked to, they are saying we need a 10 or 15 or 20 or 25 years to fix this. we cannot cut it as fast. the private sector does not get

that luxury. nothing, no family gets that luxury. . you either cut spending now, laypeople off, or go bankrupt. they turn around and say i am being extreme. i'm the one who is extreme. i am saying you are out of control. it is fascinating to me. you don't get the luxury of time in the private sector. this is a bipartisan problem. this was created in a bipartisan manner. i have known paul ryan for a very long time. i met him when he was 19 years old and he was in turn to jack kemp. i love the guy.

for the most part, he is an incredibly smart and free market and cabalistic person. however, he voted for tarp, the bush stimulus bill, medicare billd, no child left behind and the list goes on. what is he? is he for better government 40 -- or is he for smaller government? i believe we would not be in this position today if it were not for republican votes while president bush was in office and what president obama and the democrats have done since then. this is a bipartisan problem that we are in. i believe that using the tool of the debt ceiling -- i made the analogy this is like solomon saying give me a sword, i will cut the baby in half -- it is a

drastic action but it is absolutely necessary because neither side will listen, just like the two mothers who claim the baby was theirs. we need a drastic action to bring what i would call an adult kind of behavior to the budget of washington, d.c. private firms laid off people, went bankrupt in this process. government, for some reason, thinks they can avoid that pain and i think that is what a lot of people are saying appear. there cut spending now, when people off, or " big rep. and so the bottom line is and what is fascinating to me isi am the one who is extreme. we need 15 years to fix things. this was created in a bipartisan kemp. the auto bailout. i believe we would not be in democrats have done since then. this is like solomon saying i just like the two mothers whothe government for some reason minds around what is happening$1 trillion just so the average we

spent $1 million a day from the time christ was born, we would not today in 2011 have spent $1 trillion. we cannot sustain this type of spending. it is immoral. it is impractical. we came today to say we will not tolerate this any longer. [applause] >> did you say the government democrats and republicans are making more in the private sector? -- making war against the private sector? >> yes. that is the result. what about tea party people out

in the street two years ago, $13 trillion in debt fostered by the federal government in action and dollying with fannie mae and freddie mac. while the american people trusted their government representatives, they were spending like drunken sailors. but spared -- both parties. when i came out in atlanta in february or april 15 in 2009 and found 40,000 americans, the largest number of people ever assembled before the golden dome, i thought, these must be conservative republicans. when i started asking them that, they said we are democrats. i said, how can this be, you elected president two months ago and a resounding answer was $13 trillion in debt.

independents and republicans. this is about the american people being fed up with its government acting like children. >> seems a lot of steam came from the private sector. i have not heard about efforts for the tea party endorsing [inaudible] and reining in finance in terms of regulation and reforms. i wondered if you could [inaudible] square why these have gone away in terms of financing. >> the two are in bed together. i understand that. it is a government that has the responsibility of oversight. if fannie mae and freddie mac

are being overseen by the federal government and our representatives allow subprime mortgages all over the place and the business is playing to that, who has the responsibility to bring it under control? the federal government has the responsible to not be playing games of the cost of the american people. it is the american people -- we are not for a big business getting away with murder. we understand who has the responsibility to make sure it does not happen. we're after the federal government first. >> you have regulations that will be tightened up, what would you eliminate budget for the sec? >> the regulations you saw, the 2500 page health care bill. that is the kind of ridiculous paperwork the federal

government produces in which big business can hide and do their things. it is a regulation that we need to remove. we need to give the country freedom, not more paperwork. all of this is one big barrel that our federal government, i am 60 and the department of commerce, the department of labor, department of interior, all these unconstitutional departments have been created over 80 years. here. it belongs in the states. we want to see the government cut not just both parties talking about freezing spending, we want to see commerce cut. we want to see agriculture cut and the last thing is the department of defense. there is waste their but the first responsibility is to protect its people and they're

not doing anything about our borders and about the debt and they are creating their own little world where they can retire on million dollar retirements with their own health care plans and they have created a house of lords down here. >> even before the bailout bill, the financial services sector was second only to nuclear energy in being the most regulated industry. that is part of the reason we got into this. government actions like easing money policy. that was -- one the government bailed out the people who made mistakes, that is what anchored the average grass-roots american. that is why when we see these stories about fannie mae and wanting another $9 billion of bailout money, that is the problem. people want to make mistakes

and make bad bets, go ahead. do not come to the taxpayer asking for money. that is what got the tea party people angry. >> it sounds like you are saying the government is responsible for oversight but we need to get rid of regulation? >> the government is too big. it is not what the founders intended. aroundoing to be running washington taking a look at the big departments. >> you said we could raise the debt ceiling if we could do $100 billion. >> we come to the card game and we're not just handing over our chips to the liberals from the other side with the help of our house republicans. if you want to raise the national debt ceiling and we gave you eight or nine things

we might consider, including getting rid of obamacare, we are going to play our cards one step at a time. you want to raise the debt ceiling, what are we going to get in return? that is the way this card game will get played. >> let me add something to this. again, we're not all in agreement about specific issues. we are in agreement about the big picture. let me talk about this debt ceiling and raising it a little bit at a time. let's argue before we get there. if we did not raise the debt ceiling right now forever, it is stock and will never go higher. first of all, the government has to run a surplus. we borrow money from social security every month and that

adds to the debt so we cannot do that. we need to run a surplus to never rephrase the debt ceiling again. if you pick your programs, you can pick two or 10 or 100. i will take -- pay the interest and pay social security and paid defense, pay veterans's benefits. everything else in the budget, congressional pay, everything else has to be cut on average 85% to balance the budget. that is how far out of whack this budget is. what william is saying is that -- i think, if we do not raise the debt ceiling, the mayhem of spending cuts would be so far reaching and so dramatic that it would tear departments up

and parts of the economy to shreds. it cannot cut 85% of all spending like that. what you need is everybody knows they've down that the debt ceiling is going to have to go up at some point. what i believe needs to be done is it needs to be used as a tool to get spending cut and if you can do it a little bit at a time, we will raise the debt ceiling for one month. you have to vote on it 12 times this year. spending has to get down and this is the tool, the weapon of mass discipline that can be used to do this. we can get spending down quickly and balance the budget in six years of waste -- if we

freeze spending. we have to get something like that done. everybody realizes there has to be some movement in these issues. >> new zealand and canada both did exactly that, from spending in the 1990's and went from large deficits to budget surpluses. it is possible to freeze spending. that might require a short-term increase in the debt limit but get something real in exchange and that fight does not leave was hopeful about negotiating skill at the gop. >> thank you for covering this. we invite you to attend the freedom jamboree on october 1 and 2 in kansas city. >> it is september 30 and october 1.

>> we would join new -- invite you to join us. also we invite all presidential candidates to be there. thank you for a time. and has been a pleasure. -- it has been a pleasure. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> in a few moments, house speaker john boehner on federal spending and the debt ceiling. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. several live events today -- officials from the justice department and federal trade commission testify on capitol hill about protecting the privacy of smart phones and

other technology. witnesses will include representatives of google and apple. that is on c-span at 10:00 a.m. eastern. also on cspan 3 at 10:00, admiral robert papp talk about the coast guard budget request for the next year. he is before the senate appropriations committee on homeland security. later on c-span 3 at 3:30 p.m., president obama will be in now passe, taxes for a speech and immigration, the economy, and security. this june, the balance between security and liberty, the difficulties of the climate change treaty, and the limits of international law. your questions for eric posner. he will take your calls, e- mails, and tweets.

house speaker john bennett spoke at the economic club of new york monday evening about the federal debt and the republican plan to address the debt ceiling. his remarks begin after a short introduction. this is 40 minutes. >> please, be seated. good evening. good evening, everyone and welcome to the economic club of new york in our 104th year. the economic club is the nation's leading non-partisan forum for economic policy. more than 1000 guest speakers

have appeared before this club over the last century and have established a strong tradition of excellence. tonight, we continue that tradition. first of all, i would like to recognize the 143 members of the centennial society. these club members have made a personal contribution to assure the financial stability of the club into its second century and their names are in your programs and on our website. i would also like to welcome economic students from the city university of new york graduate center from fordham university and manhattan college. they are here as our guests this evening. we are honored tonight to hear from the speaker of the u.s. house of representatives, john boehner. he was sworn in in january of 2011 as the 61st speaker of the house. he is in his 11th term as representative for the eighth congressional district of ohio.

he is the second of 12 children. at the age of 8, he was already sweeping floors in the family tavern. he went on to graduate with a degree in business from xavier university in cincinnati. before entering politics, he ran a small business in the plastics and packaging industry. he and his wife debbie have been married for 38 years and have two daughters. the speaker was first elected to the ohio general assembly in 1985 and was subsequently and elected to congress in 1990. in the 104th and 105th congress, his colleagues elected him to serve as the house gop conference chairman. in 2006, he was elected to serve as the house majority leader. he has served on the house agricultural committee and as vice chairman of the house administration committee and

chairman of the house committee on education in the work force. following his speech, we will have two designated club members ask questions and you concentre questions to our president by simply be mailing them to questions@econclubny.org. please join me in welcoming the speaker of the house, john boehner. [no audio[applause] >> i would like to express my admiration for what all of you

do. you come from many different backgrounds but you are united by common interest in the prosperity and security of our nation. last night marked one week since the operation against osama bin laden, the man who orchestrated the horrific attack on this city nearly 10 years ago. bringing justice to osama bin laden was an important moment for america and i think for all of the free world. the challenges that lie ahead here at home remain formidable and i am grateful for the opportunity to share my thoughts tonight on how we need to address those challenges together as a nation. i came to be speaker by way of small business. before i ran for congress, ran a small business, west chester, ohio and we were manufacturers'

representatives in the packaging and plastics industries. my first life experience in small business was not in my business but it was mopping floors, doing dishes, waiting tables at my father's bar in cincinnati, ohio. my grandfather started the place in the 1930's and my dad and his brothers ran for decades and my sister ran for 20 years thereafter. it would be fair to say that i'm not from around here. i come from a working-class family of kennedy-democrats. my 11 brothers and sisters have done every job there ever was and grateful to have all of them. all of these efforts taught me an awful lot long before i entered government service. they taught me that our economy is a product of the american people and our economy does best

and government respects the people enough to give them the freedom to do what they do best. i believe that our mission as legislators is to liberate our economy from things that impede growth, to provide clear policies so innovators and entrepreneurs have the green light to move forward and create jobs without having to worry about a lot of second-guessing coming from washington, d.c. my message to you tonight is that we will not succeed in balancing the federal budget and overcoming the challenges of our debt until we commit our government to policies that led our economy chief long-term economic growth. our economy won't grow as we continue to give it a short-term gimmicks from washington, d.c. many problems we face go under

the misconception that the u.s. economy can be micromanaged or influenced by government intervention and dorwin -- and borrowing. rather than providing long-term policies that will help our economy, the government offers short-term fixes that will do little right away or end up making things worse over a long term. when things are not going well in the economy, the impulse in washington is to respond with something big, something comprehensive. the assumption is that it will provide reassurances to america's job creators. it usually has the opposite effect in practice. we saw this with the dodd-frank financial services bill. the financial meltdown was going across our country, millions of

americans were hit hard, but washington's response was wrong. we have a banking system that is less competitive, putting small community banks like in my district against the giant banks that the government has determined are too big to fail. we have a consolidated banking system with a small number of large firms that are operating as public utilities. we have new rules that make job creation and investment far more difficult than it should be. the government mortgage companies that led to this meltdown. they were not regulated at all as a result of this legislation. for job creators and the promise of a new initiative coming out of washington, it is more like a threat. it freezes them instead of encouraging new employees are new equipment, they make the

logical decision to sit on their hands. the american economy is the total sum of the hard work, ingenuity of the american people. when the economy grows, it is not because of some new government program or some spending initiative, it is because many people in the private sector work hard and were successful in overcoming the obstacles that we put in their way. in the rash of stimulus legislation that was passed by congress in recent years, that has been one of the obstacles. the recent stimulus spending binge hurt our economy and hampered private sector job creation in our country. the effect of adding nearly $1 trillion worth of debt, money mostly borrowed from foreign investors, caused a further erosion in the economic confidence of america and increased uncertainty for millions of private sector job creators.

this massive borrowing and spending by the treasury department crowded out private investment by american businesses of all sizes. americans were told that the stimulus would create millions of new jobs and that most of them with the private sector jobs. it did not happen. job creators were looking for certainty and you don't get long-term certainty from short- term government programs. the lesson of the stimulus era is that short-term government intervention is no substitute for long-term economic investment, private initiative, and freedom. i believe it is time to leave that you're behind. -- that era behind. we've also seen skyrocketing gasoline. there's a clear connection between high gas prices and the

weak dollar that some in washington have quietly welcomed of last few years. it is well known that when you print tons of new money that the dollar sinks. the price of food and energy rise significantly. yet the american people were told that there is nothing we can do about it. that is just not true. washington has also kept most of the american energy reserves under lock and key for decades over the clear objections of the american people, the people who actually own these resources. if we had listened to the american people decades ago or maybe three or four years ago, many of these resources would be available to us right now. it would lower the price of energy and we would probably have about 1 million people working in the energy sector, additional people working in the energy sector, then we do today. instead, washington has raised

the specter of higher taxes, creating more uncertainty for those who create american jobs. i think washington arrogance is triggered -- has triggered a rebellion in our country. yes, i don't think rebellion is too strong a word. the revolt we have seen around our country but ordinary citizens over the past few years is nothing we have ever seen in our lifetime. it is happening in part because of the arrogant habits of washington and the economic consequences it is having on the american people. i think this debt limit debate that we are starting to deal with gives our nation's leaders an opportunity to reverse those tablets and prove we are starting to hear the message from the american people. it is a chance to change course and admit that reactionary short-term washington solutions are not always the best.

creating a sustainable fiscal structure for the federal government is essential for long-term economic growth particularly when it comes to entitlements. providet a chance to certainty to job creators by signaling that our government is finally willing to take a new approach when it comes to spending and borrowing that has put our country into such deep debt. the president has asked congress to increase the debt limit to do so without preconditions. some are insisting we should not play games with this. others have gone further. one prominent figure said that people who are threatening not to pass off the debt ceiling are our version of al-qaeda terrorists. with all due respect, this is the arrogance of power and the american people will not stand for it.

this is the time to and the spending binge and prioritize what it is we will spend the taxpayers' money on. there's a reason the debt limit cannot be increased without an act of congress. the debt limit is set in statutes specifically so that the executive branch and the legislative branch have to begin to deal with each other, on the fiscal consequences of increasing the debt limit. i know there are many of you in the room somewhat uneasy co about this debate. i understand your concerns. it is true that allowing americans to default would be irresponsible but would be more irresponsible to raise the debt limit without simultaneously taking dramatic steps to reduce spending and reform the budget process. to increase the debt limit without simultaneously addressing the drivers of our

debt in defiance of the will of the american people would be monumentally arrogant and, i think, massively irresponsible. it would send a signal to investors and entrepreneurs everywhere that america is still not serious about dealing with our spending addiction. it would erode confidence in our economy and reduce the certainty for small businesses. i frankly think it would kill even more american jobs. let me be as clear as i can be. without significant spending cuts and changes in the way we spend the american people's money, there will be no increase in the debt limit. the cuts should be greater than the accompanying increase in the debt limit that the president has given. we're not -- we're not talking

about billions year, we should be talking about cuts in trillions if we're serious about addressing america's fiscal problems. these should be actual cuts, real reforms to these programs, not broad deficit or deficit targets that ponce the question to the future -- that punt the question to the future. tax hikes will destroy american jobs. everything is on the table. i mean everything. that includes honest conversations about how to best preserve medicare because without the change in medicare with millions of baby boomers about to retire, the status quo is unsustainable. if we don't act boldly now, the market lacked for as barry said which i think was the message from standard and poor's several weeks ago.

if we fail to use this as a moment to demonstrate that we are getting serious about fixing the debt, the result will be fewer jobs, less confidence, and more uncertainty. the debt limit debate is also critical because it is forcing us to make choices of the nation right now. it is a choice between the policies of the past and a new vision that acknowledges that we cannot tax, borrow, and spend our way back to prosperity. the big myth of the current budget debate is a notion that in order to balance the budget is that we need to raise taxes. the truth is, we will never balance the budget and rid our nation of debt unless we cut spending and have real economic growth. we will never have real economic growth if we are going to raise taxes on those in america who create jobs.

i ran for congress in 1990, the year that our nation's leaders struck a so-called bargain that raised taxes as part of a bipartisan deal to balance the budget. the result of that so-called bargain was that we ended up in a recession in the early 1990's. it was not until the economy recovered late in the decade that we could balance the budget. some seem intent on recycling the 1990 budget deal only this time with much larger tax increases. this is not going to happen. i have told that to the president directly. a tax hike would wreak havoc on our nation's economy and its ability to create private sector jobs but also on our ability to tackle the national debt. balancing the budget requires

spending cuts and real economic growth. we will not have real economic growth that we raise taxes and failed to address the drivers of our debt. the mere threat of tax hikes creates more uncertainty for job creators and more uncertainty results in less risk taking and fewer jobs. we are serious about balancing the budget and getting our economy back to creating jobs, tax hikes should be off the table. i was raised in my family of kennedy-democrats. before this very club in 1962, president kennedy said the following," our true choice is not between tax reduction on the one hand and avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. it is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our need to keep

rising, and economy hampered by restrictive tax rates never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or no profits." rather than increasing government spending, president kennedy told this club that we should cut taxes significantly and take steps to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital for employers. i would note that my colleagues and i are not calling for tax cuts in this budget. rather, we are calling for the end to the threat of tax hikes and a fundamental reform of our tax code. this is so we can provide more certainty for our job creators. we are calling for an end to the government spending binge that is crowding out private investment and threatening the availability of capital for a

much-needed investment in our economy. there is another myth i need to address. it is the myth that our debt challenges require pain. addressing our debt requires action. pain comes from an action. standing pat and waiting for investors, job critters, and capital markets to impose a solution on as before elected leaders can do it on their own. root canal economics has a name -- doing nothing. the greatest threat to our economy and the greatest threat to our future is for washington to kick the can down the road again and do nothing. we are urgently need to enact reforms that will protect and preserve critical programs like medicare and medicaid. if we do nothing, as some propose, that guarantees benefit

cuts for seniors. it is a crucial point in this debate -- if we do nothing, seniors benefits will in fact be cut. for those who contend that the economy is too weak and take on this challenge of an telamon reform, i will simply said that this kind of backwards. making fundamental reforms to these programs will be good for our economy and good for the next generation. it is possible to make changes in a way that will insure future beneficiaries will have access to the same kinds of options that members of congress currently have. the budget that has been put forward by our budget committee chairman paul ryan i think it accomplishes this. instead of raising taxes, a call for fundamental reform of the tax code, a party that will be led by dave camp from michigan,

the chairman of the house ways and means committee. there are also other steps that need to be taken immediately to help free our economy and support private-sector job creation. many of them are allied in our pledge to america -- many of them are outlined in our pledge to america. we can stop the environmental protection agency from imposing a back door energy tax that will further increase debt -- gas prices and destroy jobs. we can pass rains act authored by my colleague from kentucky that would require the congress to vote on every new regulation that has more than a $100 million affect on our economy. we can ask the trade agreement, colombia, panama, south korea, that will boost our economy by opening new markets to our goods.

i think those coupled with the spending reforms and tax reforms that i have outlined, these policies create a path for long- term, sustained economic growth. with such policies in place, we actually can balance the federal budget. in closing, i am humbled by the opportunity to serve in the united states congress. i think we owe it to the american people to ensure that the opportunities of our generation are there for future generations. i think we owe them a humbler government that learns to live within its means and values the entrepreneurial drive of our people with policies that on leash the awesome potential of our economy. for those of us in washington, i think this has to be our focus. this must ensure that our economy is back on track and the

american dream is restored. there can be no rest. it starts with freedom. in america, it always has been. this is the moment -- this is the opportunity to deal with our long term fiscal challenges and we cannot let this moment pass. thanks for the opportunity to be with all of you tonight and i look forward to your questions. [applause] >> thank you, mr. speaker. our president, jan hopkins will

read any questions that have been received. >> thank you so much for being with us tonight especially because i know how hectic your schedule is. we are really thrilled to have you with us. i personally want to thank you for your many years of public service. my question is -- the negotiations over the fiscal 2011 budget were settled at the 11th-hour. are you concerned a similar scenario could occur in the negotiations involving the debt ceiling? if that's the area appears to be developing, would you be willing to consider a temporary increase in the debt ceiling while negotiations on a longer-term budget package continue? >> as i said earlier, not increasing the debt ceiling would be irresponsible. having said that, i do not want to allow this moment that we have in our history to pass

without real action to solve our long-term economic problems. while there was a hard date on the fiscal 2011 budget that we just finished several weeks ago, there really is no hard data when it comes to increasing the debt limit. i would just as soon cut the deal tomorrow if i could get leaders to sit down and recognize the fact that this really is the moment and we should not miss this opportunity. >> mr. speaker, thank you. some on the left believe we can close the budget gap largely through tax increases. relying solely on tax hikes would require raising taxes by roughly 60%. at the same time, many on the

right say that we should close the gap through spending cuts alone. based on congressional budget office numbers, that would require cutting spending by 38% across the board. if we take social security and defense of the table, we would have to reduce all other spending by 66%. mr. speaker, all of these numbers seem draconian and politically impossible to me. how can we possibly solve this long-term debt crisis if one side says categorically no tax increase and the other side says categorically, no significant spending cuts? >> i have made it clear that raising taxes is off the table. raising taxes on the very people that we expectant invest in our economy and create jobs will have a devastating impact on our ability to balance the budget.

to balance the budget, we need to do three things -- we need to control the discretionary pot which is about 1/3 of the budget and this year we will spend $79 billion less than what the president wanted to spend in that pot and $38.5 billion less than what we spent last year. that is one step, one leg of the stool, if you will. secondly, we need to address mandatory spending which would include the major entitlement programs. these programs are not sustainable in their current form. let's not forget there are 10,000 baby boomers who are retiring every day. 10,000 people more every day on social security, on medicare, people living longer, access and medicaid, these programs will not exist if we don't address the problem. the third point is that we have

to have real economic growth. we cannot tax our way to prosperity. we cannot cut our way to balancing the budget. we need real economic growth if we are serious about solving america's problems. the cuts that you point out, you are right, they are draconian. we have to have controls on spending and we have real economic growth that employs more americans who are taking care of themselves and their families and contributing their share to the revenues for the federal government, we can solve this problem. we need to put ourselves on a path where we can balance the budget and pay off our debt so we can preserve the future for our kids and grandkids. >> speaker boehner, you mentioned fundamental tax reform which everybody in this room would be quite supportive of. what about prospects for the house considering a corporate tax reform package in the next

two years? should a corporate tax reform package plan be considered separate from legislation to revamp the tax code for individuals? does a corporate tax reform package need to be revenue- neutral? some members of the business community have suggested that revenue neutrality should be a lesser priority in the corporate tax reform effort. >> in the next two years, you will see the house and probably the congress deal with corporate tax reform. we're not going to use tax reform as a way of increasing taxes on the american people or american enterprises. we are the second highest tax rate -- corporate tax rate in the world. our country is less competitive as a result and we need to do this. there was a third point your question -- >> does it have to be considered with individual tax reform? >> i don't think it has to be

considered with a understand when we are talking about the corporate tax code, you also have to look at the pass through entities whether they are i don'ter 's' or llc's, think they can be treated separately. i think it will push us to do the personal side of fundamental tax reform -- i think it will be closely associated with it. >> mr. speaker, as you know, america's health care costs are racing toward 20% of gdp, twice that of other developed nations who have even lesser of comes. in my view, these costs seriously threaten what you were talking about, competitiveness and job growth. however, the america health-care

cost problem is not just the medicare problem. the private sector which accounts for nearly 2/3 of all medical spending has also seen explosive growth in health-care costs. german ryan has proposed a medicare reform plan which would limit the federal government cost but potentially shift the burden to seniors. in fact, the congressional budget office projects that seniors could see their out-of- pocket cost more than double under this plan. until now, the market has not been affected at containing health-care costs. how can we assume the market will bring down private-sector costs in the future? >> the idea that the government will drive innovation in our health care delivery i believe is an oxymoron. the private sector can bring real change to our health care

system in a way that protects the best health care delivery system in the world. i love you to death but i don't think the taxpayers should be paying your medicare premium. under the paul ryan plan, it says let's allow the american people to decide which health care plan fits their needs. if you are middle income or lower income, we will pay, like we do today, for the cost of the premiums. for people of means, there is no reason why we should subsidize pete pedersen's premium. to some people they say we cannot do this. we have to treat all americans alike. let me tell you -- we are broke. for those who have substantial means, you can pay your own premium. [laughter]

[applause] u one english? you get english. >> i am beginning to take this personally. [laughter] >> pony up, pete. [laughter] >> are there any plans for the house to consider legislation this year that will provide a tax holiday to encourage companies to repatriate profits brought in overseas? >> there has been some discussion about it. as we look at fundamental reform of the corporate tax code, i believe this is inappropriate opportunity -- this is an appropriate opportunity for americans to bring that money home where it can be invested here as opposed to elsewhere. while we are doing it, we should

be looking seriously at the territorial tax code that would prevent this problem from occurring in the future. >> from the floor -- why are taxes off the table? >> because i believe that raising taxes will hurt our economy, hurt our ability to have real economic growth, and hurt employment in our country. we do not have a revenue problem. we have a spending problem. let's address the spending problem. >> last question -- >> mr. speaker, all joking aside, i am an enthusiastic supporter of what i heard you say -- if those of us who are well off cannot participate significantly in sharing the burden, who, then, well?

i think the whole concept of reducing benefits for the well off across the spectrum is an essential element of reform. i have a final question on defense which we have not discussed. we say everything is on the table. we must spend what is at -- whatever is necessary to keep our country say but the united states currently spends more on national defense than the next 17 highest-spending countries combined. the chairman of the joint chiefs, admiral mullen said recently that the single biggest threat to our national security is our death. debt. he said the budget has doubled in the last decade and we lost our ability to prioritize. it seems to me that it is not enough to say no defense cuts and more than it is ok to slash

defense spending with little account of our national security needs. isn't it time for a fundamental review of defense spending and priorities to ensure that we have a national defense strategy that is based on today's threat and today is the budget outlook? >> pete, the number one obligation and our government is to provide for the safety and security of the american people. when i said that everything is on the table, i meant everything is on the table and accept raising taxes. the department of defense does not spend their $600 billion every year as efficiently as you would spend your money up or i would spend mind. there needs to be a fundamental review of what our defense posture is and how much we spend on it. it has to be an important part

of this debate and i will guarantee you, it will be. ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. [applause] >> mr. speaker, thank you very much for taking the time from your busy schedule to talk with us today. we wish you great success. we wish us all great success. enjoy your dinner. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> president obama will be in el paso, texas this afternoon for a speech and emigration, the economy, and security live on c- span 3 at 3:30 p.m. eastern. in a few moments, today's headlines and your calls, live on "washington journal." at 10:00 eastern, the privacy of a smart phones and other mobile technology. the house is in session for general speeches at noon with legislative business at 2:00 p.m. eastern. the agenda includes a bill that would expedite the approval of oil drilling permits. in about 45 minutes, we'll take a look at the debate over federal spending and the debt limit with republican representative robert alachua of ohio, the member of the energy and commercco