assurance that their livelihoods are kept in mind. a g.a.o. study published in 2009 found that it will increase in growth in communities from large metro areas to smaller areas. this is certainly been the case in my community. according to a department of defense economic adjustment survey, 17 of 18 brac growth communities identified transportation as one of their top challenges. the priority is most clear for us around joint base andrews. traffic contributes to regional congestion resulting in the average washington metro driver wasting almost 70 hours in traffic per year, not just at andrews but throughout the region. . the federal government has

helped communities address this and state and local governments have adopted strategies to, he pe indict projects -- expedite projects within the time freshman -- time frame. this years past this has happened with the earmark process, a process that's no longer available in other areas the department of defense access roads program has provided transportation projects at three affected communities. o.e.a. has also provided planning grants and funded traffic studies and local planning positions and while federal highway and transit programs can be used for many brac-related transportation needs, dedicated funds are not available. instead, brac-related transportation projects must complete -- compete with other proposed transportation projects in a given state or community. by 2009 communities had identified funding for about only $500 million of the estimated $2 billion needed to address their near term project

needs. in fact, some states and local governments have adopted strategies to expedite highway projects such as prioritizing short-term, high impact projects because the time frames for completing brac personnel moves are much shorter than the time frames for such projects. while legislation mandates that brac growth be completed by 2011, major highway and transit projects typically take anywhere from nine years to 19 years to complete. and near term transportation projects to address these challenges could cost about $20 billion -- $2 billion of which $1.1 billion is related to projects solely in the washington metropolitan area. brac-related transportation infrastructure costs are subject to a number of uncertainties. according to the g.a.o., and i quote, not all potential projects are included in the estimate, military staffing levels at some growth installations are in flux and

location decisions of military and civilian personnel have not yet been made. and pre-existing nonmilitary community growth makes a direct link between transportation projects to military growth very difficult. to complete some critical projects before brac growth occurs, state and local officials are reprioritizing planned projects and implementing those projects that can be completed quickly. g.a.o. in fact cited projects from maryland to texas and all across the country where certain low cost intersection projects -- the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. edwards: with that i would yield. and ask for consideration of the amendment. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i claim the time in opposition. although i am not opposed to the amendment. the chair: without objection with, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

mr. mckeon: when i conclude my remarks, madam chair, this will conclude our work for the day. we will come in on my understanding is we start at 10:00 empty morning, we have seven more amendments to address in the morning, plus four en bloc amendments. i would just like to at this time thank all of those members -- members who have participated , especially yi want to thank ranking member -- especially i want to thank ranking member smith, all of our staff, they've put in long, hard hours and great work. i think we've come out with so far a very good bill. i look forward to finishing it up tomorrow morning. and with that i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from maryland. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. mckeon: madam chair, i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: madam chair. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 1540 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union report the committee has

had under consideration h.r. 1540 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. frelinghuysen of new england for today -- new jersey for today and mr. jackson of illinois on tuesday, may 24, after 6:00 prime minister and wednesday with, may 25. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. mr. mckeon: mr. speaker, i move that the house do now aju -- adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

>> and allows funds for an alternative f-35 fighter engine. the house votes to take up the extension of the patriot act. coming up on c-span, president

obama held a news conference with british prime minister david cameron. former president bill clinton talks about the budget debate in washington and the house budget committee chairman paul ryan talks about his budget proposal. president obama is travelling across europe this week to meet with leaders in ireland, britain, france, and holland. he met with british prime minister david cameron in london. held a joint news conference. reporters asked about libya, afghanistan, government spending and the middle east peace process among other topics. this is just under one hour. >> thank you. apologies for keeping you waiting period is a pleasure to welcome president obama here today. we have been having a barbecue. with some of our armed service personnel from the united

states and from the uk. it was a great reminder of the incredible that that we owe all of them and their families for their service and sacrifice for all they do to keep us safe. it was wonderful to have brought -- barack and michelle. i could say a british prime minister has given an american president a bit of a growing. i will hold on to that. i got a the president well. whether it is in routine situations like sitting around the table or getting a phone call in the middle of the night, i have come to value not just his leadership and courage but the fact that to all the big international issues, he brings thoughtful consideration and reason. i know you will be thinking of the dreadful tornado in missouri and all of those that lost livelihood's, lives, and loved

ones. our hearts in britain go out to those people, too. we know the shared history of our countries from the beaches of normandy to the engine river. our soldiers have fought together. from cambridge mass. to cambridge, england. we have cured diseases together. including the massive business relationship ha, people forge friendships together. that is what makes this relationship special. what makes it essential is that it is not just about history or sentiment. it is a living, working partnership. it is essential for security and it is essential for prosperity. the president and i, together with the deputy prime minister has had some excellent discussions. we have been talking about the things we care about most. getting our people jobs, and

keeping our people say. every night, millions of british american people take the same worries the bed with them. they are asking to find a good job, are they going to get a paycheck next munhall? the truth of the world today is that no country is over living. we have got to pay our way and we have to earn our way. we did not come to politics to cut public spending, but neither did we seek office to seek the government declined or have unsustainable that. we are making sure the debt ratio will be falling on both sides of the atlantic. we are investing in roads, railways, science, innovation, and in our young people. the success of all this won't be measured in export figures, it will be the feelings of the factory worker or the engineer

in ohio. people will know that if they work hard, prosperity will be there for them and the promise of a better life for their children. the president and i had a very good discussions on security. americans and christian not need to explain terrorism to one another. both our people have suffered at its hands and they have died the other. my wife was in manhattan on 9/11. i'll never forget the five hours of trying to get ahold of her. she will never forget the new yorkers that she met that day or the sense of solidarity that she felt and that we have held ever since that day. and today, as we come up to the tenth anniversary, we remember the spirit of that city and the sympathy we feel of those that lost loved ones. there are those who say that the terrorist threat is beyond our control.

we passionately believe that is wrong. we can defeat al qaeda. and we can turn the tide on that her once and for all. there are actions we must take. when must continue to destroy the terrorist network and i congratulate the president on his operation against bin laden. this was a strike right at the heart of international terrorism. must continue to work with pakistan. people are asking about our relationship so we need to be clear. pakistan has suffered more from terrorism than any country in the world. their enemy is our enemy. we have to work, are closely with them. at the same time, this is a vital year in afghanistan. forces are fighting for side-by- side. we have broken the momentum of the insurgency and even in the

heartland of kandohar, they are on the backlog. the taliban must make a decisive split from al qaeda, give up violence and to make a move towards peace in that country. second, we must reach a conclusion to the arab-israeli peace process. i congratulated the president on his recent speeches that set out what is needed in the clearest possible terms. an end to terror against israelis and the restoration of dignity to the palestinians. states living side by side and in peace. the road has been and will be long and arduous. the prize is clear. conclude a peace process and to bring security into by extremists of one of the most profound recruiting sergeants.

that is why whatever the difficulties, we must continue to press for a solution. our third action must be to help elevate the changes in north africa and the arab world from a moment in history to a turning point in history. we have seen some extraordinary things. protesters graving bullets, people taking to the streets and making their own history. if global politics is about spreading peace and prosperity, this is a once in a generation moment to grab ahold of. it is not time to shrink back and think about our own issue in our own interests. this is our own issue. those people who just want what we have. a job and a voice. holly all share in the success or failure. if they succeed, there is new hope for those living there and hope for a better and safer

world for all of us. if that hundred is denied, they will continue to listen to the plaza's narrative of extremism. the president and i agree that we will stand for those that work for freedom. this is the message we will take tomorrow when we push for a major program of economic and political support for those countries seeking reform. this is why we mobilized in the committee to protect people from regime.gaddafi's it is impossible to a imagine a future for libya out with him still in power. he must go. we must be clear about our ambitions. barack and i came of age in the 80's n 90's. we saw the invasion of kuwait in the world coming together to

liberate the country. lives of presidents and prime ministers attending together for freedom. today, we feel just as passionately about extending freedom as those that came before us. with all son of idealism without realism does no good for anyone. we have learned the lessons of history. democracy is built from the ground up. you have to work with other cultures and not against them. real change takes time. we share the view that the partnership will not just continue, but it will get stronger. it goes beyond foreign affairs. to bring more responsibility to society and bring transparency and accountability to the government. our countries will continue to learn from each other and work with each other. as ever, it has been a pleasure to talk to the president and an

honor to have him with us today. >> thank you, mr. prime minister. i am pleased to be back in the united kingdom. i note that you have arranged for a typical london whether these last couple of days and i am grateful for that. i want to thank her majesty, the claim, and the british people for the extraordinary welcome that has been extended to me and michele. it is a shining example of the warmth and affection that our nation's feel for one another. since david took office last spring, we have met or spoken at least two dozen times. we may be leaders from different political traditions, but a whole host of issues, we see eye to eye. we took the same side in an epic match of hubble's table tennis against local students yesterday.

we won't rehash the results of that. but the relationship between our countries is one that is not just based on settlement or common history. but those things exist. it is on a shared ideas and shared values. this is a special relationship and an essential relationship. i believe it is stronger than it has ever been. i am committed to making sure that it stays that way. the joint initiatives we are announcing today represent the breadth of our relationship. we discussed our efforts to strengthen the global recovery and create jobs for our people. the investment relationship between the united states and the united kingdom is the largest in the world. that accounts for 1 million jobs in each of our economies. we believe we can make that relationship even stronger.

it is critical to our future and prosperity. it is critical to our national security, and vital to the stability of the world including international development. during discussions today, we reviewed our progress in afghanistan where the brave servicemen and women have fought to break the taliban's momentum. we reaffirmed transitioning for afghan leader this year. in concluding by 2014. he discussed the opportunities for promoting reconciliation. it must be an afghan lead process. the president has made it clear that he is willing to talk to anybody willing to end the violence, split with al qaeda and we welcome the cooperation between pakistan and afghanistan on the front.

the prime minister and i both agree that our nations have a long-term interest in assuring that afghanistan never becomes the launching pad for a tax of our people. alongside allies and partners, we have a strong partnership with the people of afghanistan. as historic change unfolds across the least, we agree that the pursuit of self determination must be driven by the people of the region and not imposed from the outside. we are committed to doing everything we can to support people that reach for democracy and leaders that implement democratic reform. tomorrow, we will discuss with our partners.

at the same time, we continue to strongly oppose the work of protesters. the colonel's attacks, time is working again gaddafi. we also discussed the situation in syria where the people have shown great courage and the demand for a democratic transition. the united states welcomes the eu's decision to put sanctions on the president in order to end his policy of oppression.

and a nation that is more unified and more secure. we have expressed our joint concern of the deteriorating situation on the ground there. we applauded the leadership in seeking [unintelligible] and there is a time when so many in the region are casting off the burdens of the past. the end md -- is more urgent than ever. it can provide a sound basis for which the sides can negotiate. as increasing tensions threatened to derail sudan's comprehensive peace agreement, lehigh recommit to a peaceful revolution to the crisis had a

calling upon the rapid reinforcement of the european peacekeepers. the also review terrorist threats. and the means of their delivery. and the unrelenting effort to keep our people safe. the lodge a joint initiative. today, before we came here, we want to thank them current outstanding a barbecue. in joint defense of our shared values, that our people hold so

dear thank you for the barbecue and spending this productive. thank you very much. >> hi nick robinson from the bbc. can you confirm that you plan to escalate the war in libya by sending ground attack helicopters? mr. president, you talked about a new war in libya. is that different between bush and the blair? >> the president and i agree

that we should be turning up the heat. the pressure is on the regime of. the rebels has successfully liberatedmuch of [unintelligible] qc is in the growth of the national transition. i believe we should be turning of that pressure, and we will be looking at all of the options for turning up the pressure in the terms of the un resolution 1973. we need to keep in force and that resolution, pressing that regimes of the people have a chance to decide their own future. those are the options we will look at. q asked a question about this relationship and past relationships. every relationship is different. i would say both of us strongly believe in the special relationship. as i said in my speech, we have

to learn the lessons of history how best to promote the values that we share. it means going with the grain of other cultures, having a patient and understanding building democracy takes time. have not believe this all can be done in an instant. i believe the partnership works extremely strong together and wanted to see the same outcome. early one to see a peaceful afghanistan that no longer requires the presence of foreign troops. and we want to see a libya where people can have the chance to decide who their own future. we have ruled out occupying forces, invading armies. resolution 1973 and allowing people to choose their own future. we are committed to doing that work together. >> i think we have made enormous progress in libya. we have saved lives of the -- as

a result of the consequences. we did so under a un mandate and as part of a broad based international coalition that includes arab countries. i absolutely agree that have given the progress that has been made over the last several weeks, he and his regime need to understand that there will not be a lot of the and the pressure we are applying. the united kingdom, the united states, and our partners are putting a wide range of resources within, consistent with the un mandate in order to achieve the pressure. ultimately, we will be successful. how we want to make sure that the libyan people and make a determination about how they want to proceed. and they'll be free of 30 years of tyranny.

have they can start creating the institutions required for self- determination. in terms of historical analogies, i want to underscore that this is not the united kingdom and the united states alone. we have a broader range of partners under an international mandate designed to save lives and insure that we did not have these sort of massacre that would lead us to look back and say to ourselves, why did we stand by and do nothing? in respect of afghanistan, and we have a broad base international mandate in a broad based coalition designed to make sure that afghanistan does not serve as a base for attacks against our people. we discussed what we said in lisbon during the summit that dismally a year of transition because of the work we have done

and the enormous sacrifices have of our military have given, we are in a position to transition to an afghan led security process. at the same time, will be engaging in the diplomatic corps that is required for an ultimate political solution to the problems there. i am confident we can achieve it. there is no doubt that the united states and the united kingdom has a unique relationship. that is going to be consistent regardless of who the president is, of the prime minister is, and with what parties will come from. there is so much of a bind us together that it is not surprising that we are typically on the international stage: to be working together as engrossed to cross purposes. the one thing that we have learned is that even as we

promote the values and ideals that we care about, even as we make sure that our security interests are met, we are using military power in a strategic and careful way, that we are making sure that as we promote democracy and human rights, and understand the limits of what the military alone can achieve. and we are mindful that ultimately these regions, the fate of these regions will be determined by the people hare themselves. we will have to work in partnership with them. that, i think kids the best example of alliance leadership and it is something that i am very proud to be a part of.

>> you have said that his exit is inevitable and the u.s. will continue with of the campaign until the attacks stopped. will you commit to the campaign until he is removed from power? would you be willing to commit additional resources if it meant speeding up his exit? prime minister cameron, you believe that nato and other allies should increase their role as other lawmakers have suggested? >> i have said from the outset that our goal, the reason that we have who intervened in libya was to protect the people on the ground. and to give the people the space that they needed in order to bring about a change towards democracy. i also was very clear in terms of how we were going to participate. we moved heavily on the front and disabling their air defense

systems, carrying the lion's share of the burden when it came to setting the stage for nato operations. and once the transfer to a place, at that point, how the primary role would be a whole range of support that utilize the america of's unique capabilities. d at is what -- that utilize america's unique capabilities. with the creditor capabilities, we have a unique capacity that we brought to bear and we will continue to do that. the prime minister and i consistently discussed on a regular basis what can we all do to make sure that the pressure continues to apply? i think that it is going to be difficult to meet the un mandate of security for the

libyan people as long as he and his regime are still attacking them. we are strongly committed to seeing the job through, making sure that a minimum, and he does not have the capacity to send an of bunch of thugs to murder innocent civilians. i believe that we have dealt of momentum that as long as we sustain him in the course that we are on, he is ultimately going to step down. we will continue to work with our partners to achieve that. we have not put forward any artificial time line in terms of how long this will pay. my belief is that the more resolute that we are now, how the more effective the coalition is in rallying all the resources

available to a. that will be able to achieve our mission in a timely fashion. one last point. and this speaks to the issue of whether the are of the additional u.s. capabilities that could be brought to bear. david and i both agree how that we cannot put the boots on the ground and libya. once you rule out the forces, then there are going to be some inherent limitations to our air strike operations. it means the opposition on the ground and the plo have to carry out its responsibilities. we will have to do effective coordination. we are doing that with the opposition on the ground. it might be a false perception that there are a whole bunch of

secret, super affective their assets in a warehouse somewhere that can be pulled out hope it will somehow immediately solve the situation in libya. that is not the case. there are enormous sacrifices being made by the british, the french, ourselves and others. bear an arrayto of air power has made a huge difference, but ultimately, this is going to be a slow, steady process in order to wear down the regime forces and change the political calculations to the point where they finally realize they are not going to control this country. the libyan people will control this country. as long as we remain resolute, will achieve that mission. there is not a host of new and different assets that can be

applied because we have been extraordinarily successful in avoiding civilian casualties. that has been part of our mission, making sure that we are targeting an forces in no way that does not result in enormous collateral damage. that means that we may have to sometimes be more patient than people would like. but ultimately, it promises a greater success and it sustains our coalition of support in the arab world. >> i agree that the key things here are patience and persistence. that is what the alliance is demonstrating and needs to go on demonstrating. t t t ofrs all, i think the president and i completely agree on this point. the un resolution is not about

regime change, it is about protecting civilians from attacking the measures to do so. most political leaders have said that it is hard to see how to employment a un resolution with him still in control of his country which is why we evidence of clear about him leaving to go and meeting to leave libya. in terms of the u.s. role, i would make this point that i am not sure is widely understood and britain are in europe. it is already a huge number of sorties and supports for the air assets that are bringing to bear our u.s. assets. also a sustained amount that has been used. there has been the unique assets and capabilities that the u.s. has that are so vital. what is it that we can all do to make sure the pressure is really

brought to bear? it is what the french, british, and americans are doing. as well as the military pressure, and don't underestimate the pressure of building of the opposition. but contacts with the national council. building support and strength from the allies. hot under estimate the extent to which we are cutting off oil products because they are using them in their tanks and other military equipment. and the steps they are trying to take to release of assets back into the hands of the national transitional council and recognizing them for us to speak to. we can keep this pressure of while showing patients and persistence that the same time. >> you have talked about the need for robust action on the

deficit and debt positions. the agreement he led the way on the issue? or has he traveled to far into fast? this time last year we talked about the case of the computer hacker that the prime minister has expressed a very clear views. have you found one? >> on your second question, we have proceeded through the processes required under our extradition agreements. it is now in the hands of the british legal system. we have confidence in the british legal system coming to a just conclusion. we await resolution and we will be respectful of the process. with respect to how we deal with debt and deficits, i said

hugh years ago, the first time i came here in april of 2009. the first d-27 that i attended, each country is different and each country will have to make a range of decisions about how to dig in our way out of the worst recession who have experienced since the 1930's. since the same time we put our countries on a path of sustainable growth that ultimately results in jobs and prosperity for the people, across the board. we have succeeded in the first part which is to yank the world economy out of recession. that was due to concerted action between the united states, the united kingdom, and other countries.

we have the other challenge, how do we sustain growth in a way that is responsible when responsive to the needs of our people? that requires us to continue to make investments in education, science, technology, infrastructure. things that help our economy is growing. it also means that governments live within their means. obviously, the nature and role of the public sector in the and i did kingdom is different than it has been in the united states. the pressures that each country are under from both capital markets are different. the nature of the debt and deficits are different. and as a consequence, the sequencing or pace may end up being different. the one thing i am clear about, we want to arrive at the same

point. the point in which we are making sure that our governments are doing what they need to do to ensure prosperity. doing so in a responsible way that does not mortgage futures heavily the mountain of debt to future generations. the other point that i think we would agree on is that this is going to be a constant process of trying things, making adjustments. there are going to be opportunities to make investments. and there will be other areas where you think how they were good ideas at the time, programs that we started have the best of intentions and it turns out they are not working as well as they should. we should put that money into programs and are working well. it means we have to make sure that we take a balanced approach. and that there is a mix of

cuts, but also thinking about how to generate revenue to there is a match between money going out and the money coming in. each country is going to have to go through a difficult and painful process. i am confident that we will come out of the stronger than we did before. the people of the united kingdom and the people of the united states wants to see a government that is reflective of their values. they take their responsibilities seriously, they pay their bills, the nature of their families are cared for. they make sacrifices necessary to ensure that their children and grandchildren are succeeding. i think both our countries will be able to achieve that. >> in the case, i understand the widespread concern about this case. it is not so much about the alleged offense which is a very

serious offense. it is about the issue of the individual and the operation of the legal system, making sure that the legal system operates properly and carefully. that case is currently in front of the secretary that has to consider reports about his health had his well-being. it is right but she does that in a judicial way. i understand the anguish of his mother and his family about this issue. we must follow the proper process and to make sure that it is dealt with in a proper way. on the issue of deficit reduction, i remember when we spoke about this at dg-20, but even before that. you first came when you were running as a candidate and i completely agree that each country is different and has different circumstances. britain does not have a reserve currency. we are not in the same position as the u.s. with the dollar. it was necessary for us to set

out on the path of deficit reduction without belli after the election. i would argue the proof has been what is happening in capital markets. capital markets treat different countries differently. what you have seen since the election is market interest rates in the u.k., bond yields have come down. when you look at what has happened in greece, portugal, or other european countries, you often see the bond rates increase. i was the risk we would have run if we had not set out on the path of deficit reduction. when i look across and see what the u.s. and the u.k. are currently contemplating for the future, it is a relatively similar program in terms of trying to get on top of the deficits had to make sure the debt is falling as a share of gdp. in the end, we share a very similar set of values about not wanting to load responsibility

for these debts of our children and not shirking our responsibilities for straightening out our own public finances. we may -- or we may take a slightly different paths, hadley and out in the same place. it is a difficult thing to do, but it is absolutely essential. we talked a lot today about national security. how is no national security unless you have economic security. that is a decision to have to make every day and the united kingdom. >> thank you, mr. president. the israeli prime minister referred to the palestinian right of return as fantasy. is that a sentiment that you agree with in any way? can you outline your views on that issue as well as the future of jerusalem. mr. prime minister, you said at the top of this press

conference that you considered the president's principles to be bold and visionary. i wonder if that means it makes you less open to the palestinian campaign for recognition of statehood before the un. >> my goal, as i said in a speech i gave last week, is a state of israel that is safe and secure. and recognized by its neighbors. and a sovereign state of palestine in which the palestinian people are able to determine their own fate into their own future. i am confident that can be achieved. it is going to require compromises on both sides.

over the last decade, when negotiators have talked about how to achieve the outcome, there have been four issues that have been raised. what was the territory or boundary of the palestinian state line. next, how can israel feel confident the and their security needs will be met? 3, how would the issue of palestinian refugees and resolved? and the issue of jerusalem. the last two questions are extraordinarily emotional. they go deep into how what the palestinians and the jewish people think about their own identities. ultimately, they will be

resolved by the two parties. i believe those issues can be resolved if there is the prospect and the promise that we can actually get to a palestinian state and a secured the jewish state of israel. what my speech did was to say, let's begin villa. where a very hard to us but transparent and perhaps less emotional issues. and whether israeli security requirements will entail. i believe if they begin talking about those issues and get a resolution, they concede the

possibility of a peace deal. they would then be in the position to have a very difficult conversation about refugees and about jerusalem. that is not something that any party from the outside is able to and goes on them. but what i am absolutely certain of, if they are not talking, we will not make any progress. and the night of the israeli people or the palestinian people will be well-served. let me make a comment about the prospects for serious peace negotiations. the israelis are properly concerned about the agreement later. -- made. hamas is an organization that

has thus far rejected the recognition of israel has a legitimate state. it is very difficult for israelis to sit across the table and negotiate with a party that is denying your right to exist. and does not run out the right to send missiles and rockets into your territory. as much as it is important for the united states as israel's closest friend and partner to remind them of the urgency of achieving peace, i don't want the palestinians to forget that they have obligations as well. and they are going to have to resolve, and a credible way, the meaning of this agreement if we are going to have any prospect for peace moving forward.

as for the united nations, i said last weekend i will repeat, the united nations can achieve a lot of important work. what the united nations is not going to be able to do is liberate the palestinian state. he only way we will see a palestinian state is if israelis and palestinians agree on a just hoagies. and so, i strongly believe that for the palestinians to take the united nations through rather than the path of sitting down and talking with the israelis is a mistake. it does not serve the interests of the palestinian people and it will not achieve that goal of the achieving a palestinian state.

the united states will continue to make the argument to the united nations and in our meetings around the world. i believe that hamas, in its own as -- a description of its agenda has not renounced violence and has not recognized the state of israel. until they do, it is very difficult to expect israelis to have a serious conversation because ultimately, they have to have confidence that a palestinian state is one that will stick to its bargain, what ever is struck. if they make territorial compromises, if they arrive at peace deal, it will mean the safety and security of the jewish people and of israel.

hamas has not shown any willingness to make the kinds of concessions that they have. it is going to be difficult for us to get a palestinian partner on the other side of the table that we both believe in. the need to renounce violence, recognize the state of israel and divide by previous agreements. i think that is going to be a critical aspect of being able to jump-started this process. >> i described the speech as visionary because i think it did an absolutely vital thing, to talk about '67 borders. if you think about what both sides absolutely need to know to start this process, how those things are in place. the israelis need to know that

america and allies will always stand up for israel's right to exist, defend itself, secure borders. it is vital that they know that their security is key to us. the second thing that needs to be done is that the palestinians need enough that we understand their need for dignity and a palestinian state using the '67 borders as land swaps. that is what is key to the speech that has been made. no side has the excuse to stand aside from talks. the president is entirely right that in the end, a palestinian state will only come about. there isn't even one there at the moment. we will discuss this within the european union and try to

maximize the leverage and pressure that the european can bring on both sides to get this vital process moving. both of us in recent days have been to i -- know barack has returned from a very successful trip. that is what i think is so crucial to what the president is saying about hamas and palestinian unity. they can have one group of people, but less and less, those people are prepared to except some of what the people are going to negotiate with desperately needed. that is why the peace process in northern ireland was successful. that is what the other side needed.

that is what we badly need in the middle east. the president's speech has got a good way to making that happen. >> it was expiring to see -- inspiring to see, after 100 years of conflict, people so rapidly reorienting how they thought of themselves, how the thought about those that once were enemies. it has a profound effect, and it is a reminder that as tough as these things are, if you stick to it, it ultimately is going to

take time. i remain optimistic, but this is going to be hard work and each side is going to have to have looked inward to determine what is in their long-term interests. finally, just very briefly, thank you for expressing your condolences and concern. we have been battered by storms not just this week but over the last several months. the largest death toll and devastation we have ever seen from tornadoes in the united states of america, knowing that we have friends that cared deeply makes all the difference in the world.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> a look at the budget debate in washington. we will hear from bill clinton, paul o'brien, and a group of senators known as deep -- put ryan, and a group of senators known as the gang of six.

commerce secretary has been nominated to be the u.s. ambassador to china. he testifies at his senate confirmation hearing. you can watch live coverage beginning at 10:00 eastern on c- span3. >> there are three days of programming this holiday weekend. from the jersey stang, new releases. paddles on feminism and favorite books. activist and filmmaker michael more. it is hosted by the national journal. find a complete schedule at booktv.org.

we provide coverage and politics, public affairs, and american history. it's all available to you on television, radio, online, and on social immediate networking site. we take c-span on the road with our digital and local content video. bringing our resources to your community. available in more than 100 million homes. greeted by cable, provided as a public service. >> the foundation held its second annual fiscal summit today. participants discussed national fiscal problems and how the federal government can balance the budget. speakers included paul ryan, and members of the gang of 6.

we begin with former president bill clinton. his part of the event is an hour. i am thrilled to be here today to talk about an important topic, and in the interest and in the spirit of the conversation that the peterson foundation has been having so far, i want to talk come start by talking to you in a bipartisan manner terry. tim pawlenty announced he's running for president and said last week he feels americans are not looking this in the eye, that the need to slash budgets without regard to sacred cows. is that even possible? >> i think it is, but i think it needs to make sense. let's not forg the terrible bind america is in right now is that in a classic economic terms this is the worst time to cut

deficits. that's the relentless stream but paul krugman writes in the new york times every day. there is a chance that if there is zero demand for private capital it's not that low interest rates eventually zero d less activity in the private-sector if you cut public investment at the same time that actually you will lose more revenue in the declining economic activity and tax revenue th you get from the spending cuts and it's going to be interesting to see what happens in the united kingdom on that because the early results are not particularly encouraging. the fury of the budget is the same one, the same theory the european central bank seems to be driving that even though interest rates are zero the benefit you normally get from reducing the debt is to ease interest rates and you get a big increase in investment they think there's some sort of

confidence premium in doing it right now when things are fairly flat. i thought the genius of the simpson report was the recommended big structural long-term changes and ask that not start until next year when the recovery was clearly plainly under way, and the work that pete peterson and michael and the whole group in the peterson foundation had done is based on dealing with this over the long run, so my view is if you deal with it over the long run and tell the american people the truth i think that we can work through this. now i know some people will say the election in new york yesterday for congress proves that's not true but i completely disagree with sat. the republicans ran to the left of the democras on medicare in the last election. the excoriated us for all e

savings that is now embedded in congressman rye in's budget carroll and the plane to the claim we cut medicare when what they did is to cut the reimbursement rate for medicare advantage and put the money into lengthening the life of the medicare trust fund and closing the doughnut hole, which according to kathleen sebelius of the paper is saving money because we are also requiring a discount on the drugs bought in volume which we should do i think. >> but do you think that the recent new york was a referendum on this issue or was it about something else? it's sometimes easy to over interpret. >> it was about medicare that the only point i'm trying to make -- [laughter] the only point i'm trying o make was an inevitable consequence of the fact the republicans ran to the less of the democrats. the attack the democrats for cutting medicare it wasn't a true charge and the democrats decided to keep what they had

done a secret so the attack would certainly work, go figure. so it happened. but all i am saying is you shouldn't draw the conclusion that the new york race means nobody can do anything to slow the rate of medicare cost. i just don't agree with that. i think what you said to draw the conclusion that the people made a judgment that the republican budget is not the right one. agree with hat, but i am afraid that the democrats will draw the conclusion that because congressman ryan's proposal i think is not the best one that we shouldn't d anything and i completely disagree with that. there's lots of things you can do to bring down medicare costs. when i was presidt, we passed the medicare reform bill bipartisan, and it saved 50%

more than it was estimated to save in the first two years so much so the congress went back and actually increased the reimbursement rates and over a ten year period to keep in mind this is more than a decade ago it saved 23% more than congressional budget office more than $0 billion over a decade. so you can do this. >> how different are things more than a decade ago when he faced 300 billion deficits when you came in office and there were surpluses as far as the eye could see? >> the deficit problem is worse because let's go back to the bidding. this started, we had neer run permanent ructural deficits of any sizebefore 1981 when the american people what the argument and the a.d. election that the government was a source of all evil and there was no such thing as a good tax or a bad tax cut. that was te beginning of america's involvement with

structural deficits. the deficits -- he debt of the country was qudrupled between 1981 to 1993. then we had for surplus budgets about $600 billion down on h debt, and my last budget obviously was mostlpresident bush's first year. we were in a recession. he proposed tax cuts, but continued to propose them so we doubled that again in the next eight yes and then we had the financial meltdown which devastated the reven steam of the government. so, this is a more severe problem, and it's more severe because i became president at hill land of the traditional cycle recession, andwhen we had a clearly high interest rates because of the debt this recession was caused by a financial meltdown and the recovery has been slow even with

the interest rates it's more like what japan went through after their collapse. these financial real-estate collapse is normally take longer to get out of the in traditional business cycle recessions, so it's tougher now. >> democrats can oversells the idea that in the years when you were president everything was rosy and now that the repuicans have been in charge for eight years and the democrats are just taking over the should be able to fix it. they are overselling that? >> i think that they are fundamentally right that the approach the took was better, but the americanif you look at the last 30 years we only get higher when things are messed up so people want to feel fixed. in 1994 we lost the congress because people didn't feel fixed yet and we were vulnerable to claims that we were socialist and all this stuff and then in 2010 people didn't feel fixed yet but in fact a lot of good

things were going on underneath the surface, including the return of america to prominence in manufacturing and the race for clean energy technology. and i hope those two things will not be reversed in henever bipartisan resolutions workout. i still beieve that essentially the same dynamics will take hold and we will have a bipartisan resolution vote because the work vice president biden and the gang of six, now fight is doing, and because they want to get reelected and people will want to see some progress on this. >> the debt ceiling there's a new poll today in "the washington post" that he research center did that shows more people are concerned about the potential of raising the debt ceiling the and of the government default. the arment that this administration is making that there will be disaster of the debt ceiling is not raised its going to send the wrong message to the world it's not takin hold with the american people.

why is that? >> because they never lived through i. nobody knows what will happen. i don't think in a lot of these areas pulling c be useful, but they can't be paralyzed because in the end people hire the president and the converse to win for them coming and to win for america, and a lot of the most important things i did as president or on popular. 80% of the people were against the mexican bailout, 74% were against bringing troops home, majority were against what we did in bosnia and kosovo when we did it. lots of other things in helping brazil and the things we did in america on the economy were not wildly popular. but i think you have to make these decisions based on where

you think the end will bring you out. of crse if the end doesn't bring you out for a decade then your toast. but we have elections every two years it's impossible to guarantee the results for all of these structural changes within that amount of time, and i think that's what happened in '94 and in 2010. >> isn't leadership about bringing people along even for the tough decisions? >> absolutely. but i think what you have to do there is as far as i know there's been no national address and the consequences of america defaulting on its debt. >> should there be? >> yes but not yet. i'm not sure it's going to happen. whatever the polls say. if we default on the det once for a few days, it might not be calamitous, but if people felt we were not going to pay our

bills anymore than they would stop buying our debt. one of the really troubling things to me about the decision to maintain all these big tax cuts and not address someof the other structural problems of the debt is that we borrow increasing amounts of it from countries that enjoy with us and as a result of that, what we should have been doing in the last decade which is going to a future debt was less totally dependent on finance housing and consumer spending and have more manufacturing and green technology that required us both to have more trade agreements and more vigorously enforce the ones we've got. and since the people who were learning us money were the same people that had big trade surpluses with us are treated for slight drop to 80% in the last decade, 80% for good reasons. get up tomorrow and have an

extra cup of coffee and knock the living daylights out of your personal kitfield ander could you get a loan that they? so this is going to take some time to work out, but the main point i want to make that we started wi is i don't think that the democrats or the republicans should conclude that we can't allo ourselves to be so paralyzed by the prident and by people's preference for present certainty in the benefits that we stop reading the future. america has always been about the future can and if we stop being a future country we are going to be in real trouble. estimates we have this immediate

logjam whether it is the gang of five for the meetings that happening that vice president joe biden is trying to negotiate. the basic disagreement seems to behether there will be revenue increase is whether you cal them fees or taxes you're in the room and want to bust through some sort of agreemnt. how do you do that? >> i think you have to first of all say that our revenues when i was president were very low as a percentage of our gdp but that's because our growth rate was so high, and there is a revenue premium to high growth rates of high growth rates are not achieved by low taxes alone at the expense of fiscal responsibility. that is the lesson of my age years that is applicable to this eight years. a arithmetics still matter. as one of my greatest one-liners

when people say it would agree to why did you bring to washington when he became president i always said a arithmetics. so the idea that the lower the tax rates are the better everything will be is then debunk now for 40 years that's both in positive terms when i was president and an - terms by quadrupling the debt once and then again. so i mean how many times we have to see this moving forward before we know what in this? on the otherhand, could you have taxes that are too high or too stupid? absolutely. so what i think we have to do is to say that would it be good if the federal revenues were somewher between 20 to 22% no more of robust growth rates and maybe someday they would be lower again like they were when i was president? yeah. they probably can't get as low as they work until after the baby boomers. some of this is demographic. and keep in mind, the grand children of the baby boomers are

more numerous than their parents, so we will have a demographic relief from social security after 18 years and medicare after about 20, and that will be a good thing. but i think you just have to make the point -- i also think that we may have some room for tax reformhere that one of the really impressive accomplishments i think of the simpsons commission was pointing out how much money there is in the so-called tax expenditures, and i would favor returng individual rates to where they were when i was president, and maybe even across the board but certainly for the upper income people. the i think you ought to do something with that tax expenditures. on corporate taxes i have a little different take. i raise corporate tax rat and my father was important because the percentage of the federal pie covered by corporate

taxation went the way down in the 12 years before i was president. but it is very important to be internationally competitive. so our rates are fairly high compared to all our competitors. but our the polls are also fairly high. so if you get rid of a lot of the tax expenditures on the corporate side you could lower rates and still raise the same amount of money and that would make us i think look more competitive and be more competitive but then everybody would have to pay something. you wouldn't have some corporations paying 35% under and then others paying ten. >> you talked about arithmetics and i talked earlier about sacred cow. one of the pieces of arithmetic the peterson foundation and the six groups put on the table was reducing or eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction, however there was one. is that a reasonable and arithmetic target?

>> i certainly think it can be reduced. there's no question at a million dollars it continues to inflation, and there is no question since it only goes to one home and so many people with a heck of a lot of money and the absence is a determined to get enough so that something that should be reduced, and we need that -- here's what i think about how far down you should go. you need to look very carefully at these income levels and see how much in the quality has increased. and we need to try to structure the tax system that doesn't aggravate it. one of the reasons that america is not more productive in the rate is not higher is that from world war ii to roughly 1980 the bottom 90% of americans had 65% of the income in the top 10% at

35% and the top 1% at 9%. it was enough inequality to reward people for working hard, having good ideas coe starting businesses, putting people to work and not so much inequality to deconstructed the capacity to build a great middle class and a growing economy. the last 30 years those numbers have changed. the 90%, 60% drop to 52. the 10% has gone to 48. the 1% and 9% has gone to 21. so, that's too much inequality. is not sustainable. and it's the kind of thing you get if you hve all your economic growth and finance consumer spending and housing which is what happened before the meltdown, not enough attention has been given to what happened to america's economy before the financial meltdown in the last decade. we only had 2.5 million nw jobs come and solve it will hire and 9/11 attacking that but most was we didn't ve a source of new

jobs in the decade that would support devolving diversified economies so that's what i think about that. i think, as you know, people like me should pay higher xes and i think we should be careful on home mortgage deduction and everything else not to do anything to would aggravate inequality at the middle class and lower levels. we've got the only time in the last 30 years when the bottom 20%income increased in the percentage terms as much as a top 20% was in te second four years i served because we have so many jobs and that it tightened the labour market because health care costs increased only as much as inflation for the first time and because we had a lot of support for the working families and for single mothers in the work force. in spite of that we didn't do anything to stop the increasing inequality benefiting the top 1%. so i just ask you all to think

about that. i think that in the back of our mind we shld realize that as we come out of this and create more jobs we ought to create more consumers and their requires the income distribution support a middle class income and allow poor people to work their way into it. >> mr. president we solicited questions from the public direct to you and had de facebook audience vote on which one they anted to be asked and the winner was a fellow named kent letcher of albany oregon and the question is why is there so uch focus on reducing the indolent programs as opposed to the military or other forms of spending? >> welcome for the same reason the sat and weigel banks. that's where the money is. >> i think you do have a point. let's talk about it. non-defense discretionary spending is only about 13% of

the budget. and that's -- there are savings to be had. the gao did a study i am ure a lot of you have seen which determines for example all the different programs i think like 19 different adult literacy programs. that is just a small example but there is a few billion dollars. it's not -- it's not a significant amount and in terms of reinvestment in the future personally if it were me i personally would favor looking at that study, implementing all the things we did in the government plan which saves $136 billion over a ten year period and i would like to see that money reinvested in the non-defense discretionary spending that its future oriented and green technology bringing back manufacturing and biotechnology in a reauthoration and expansion of the new market initiative which

rewards investments and relatively poor areas in america that's what i think should be done. there is money there and it's not dramatic. then on defense i agree defense is 4% of our gross domestic product. medical pending is 17.2% and almost half of that is government insurance of some kind or another. so there's a lot more money in alth care. also on social security was meant to be self sustaining and with the retirement of the baby boomers it won't be any more. but i think there are progressive and fair and decent ways to reform social security, and i think medicare and medicaid cannot produce savings in good conscience unless they are part of a comprehensive plan to bring down the rate of inflation in medical cost. you simply can't have medical costs, but three times the rate of inflation every year in and

you can't justify america spending 17.2% for canada being the net highest country at 10.5, germany and france rate first and second for overall out comes at 10%, and america ranking somewhere in the high 20s to 30s in the overall effectiveness of the health system everybody just assumes we can't do everything about this but if you break down where we are out of whack with the rest of the world, you see that the biggest category is rooted in paying for a procedure instead of for health care. and having no comparative studies of cost and outcomes. pennsylvania i think is still the only state in the country requires all the hospitals to file the charge for various ocedures and attempt to determine the competitive results. and what they find every year is

there is literally no connection between what is charged and what results were given. so that's the biggest. the second biggest by far are the administrative costs and profit margins related to the way we finance health care which is one of the things that is also a source of problems between the republicans and democrats because the republicans want to put more people than the insurance system and claim that individual consumers will have bargaining power. it's just not true. in 2009 and the death of the recession and before the pasage ofhe health care bill so it wasn't availae to blame insurance companies raise rates and in 2010 and this year claiming i'm sorry, i know we don't have cost raises but we have to have these huge reserves when of this terrible obamacare comes into reading to thousand 90 didn't have it to blame yet profits went up 26%, 5.5 million people lost their insurance, 3 million went on medicaid and a balloon that the deficits of the federal and state government.

you can't have an unregulated defect a monopoly in most states one or two companies have 80% of the market. and you don't if 30% of minister of cost in the system which is what it is to come the insurance companies, hospitals, the other providers, the employers and the individual the insured all the paperwork cost nobody else is over 19 this tune of $15 billion a year in the trillion dollar difference we can't have that. now there are other things. we have to needeadmissions and medical errors, if we of the quote save a fortune and the government entity the va hospital network was the first in the country apparently to uniformly applied the procedures

to reduce debt at missions and costs about 15% of the problem. lifestyle choices particularly related to obesity and exploding diabetes are a result of that. $150 billion of this. and then we, according to the mckinsey study, we pay about $66 billion more for medicine and we would if we lived in any other country including the pharmaceical producers and other countries. >> yet mr. president even supporters of the new health care law which you know the american public as previously split over, even they say that the healt care law may not have done enough to address the things you're talking about to bring health care costs down. >> i agree but when my position, you know, when i was out there making appearances in the last campaign i said look this law is not perfect but this is a huge complex issue. what we should do is continue to

improve, not repeal it. the argument for repeal i can give you in a second. i know this is a complicated issue and we haven't talked about malpractice reform or the end of life care which is a big part of this, but the real reason there was a big push to repeal instea of to reform is one line in the health care law that says if you are in short in a bg plan 85% of your premium has to go to health care and promotion if you're in a small plan 80%. and my goodness the insurance companies act liket's the end the world but in minnesota where more and mre plans pay for health care and pay for procedure they are already at 91% statewide. and if you takblue cross blue shield of north carolina for example there's already an 87%. it's not an unreasonable requirement and i believe it's going to hold. ese things will bring down health care costs compared to the competitors over the next

decade but we've got to do much more of them and basically there ought to ba national system like pennsylvania that has real reports on a regular basis about the cost and result. and will create, that will give consumers power. and wouldave a huge impact if we do it. >> can i get back to the question for a minute because you said it is not the power that health care -- too i think there are savings. we have to include the defense. this gentleman's ? is there so much focus? most elieve we need a strong defense and we do but increasingly are national security is affected by climate ange from a resource depletion, the so-called power conflict of religious and other

political conflicts, so the national secity is going to have a broader meaning protecting the borders and all that. i think that some of these weapons systems have to be eliminated. now that congress eliminated and believably we had the joint strike fighter which i spent a lot of money trying to develop and i believe that is why should a free service have to have its own fighter plane? it was a good idea. so when they save money on that the turnaround and say an engine might fall off let's give a wholeother company a contract to produce another in jim it was not a good thing. they got rid of it finally, but the marine corps also has to eliminate a fighting vehicles it is being poduced as a 5 billion-dollar article to congress used to do that. we have 11 of groups the chinese navy has been dramatically modernizing. they have great diesel power submarines that go deep, fast and quiet but they only have one

carrier. do we need 11? ke in mind every time you do that someone in america loses a job, but in the and, if the money is properly einvested to get more jobs. that's what happened when we had the base closing in my first term we just used those resources to build a different kind of economy. i think that there isno question the defense will have to be a bigger part of this than it has been so far. >> you touched on an imptant point which is there are economic trade-offs in the time the economy is struggling to rebound. while you were attempting to do these things how does this administration deal with its economic trade-off for instance if you decide to increase corporate taxes there's a strong argument to be made that you're also slowing down the, you doing that and if you cancel a weapons program, if you cancel a homeowner's aid assistance a matter how you interpret the actual effect is. the message you are sending as

you are taking jobs away, takin support away at a time we are now back on our feet yet. >> i would come by and first to think the timing is important, i think most of this should bite next year, not this year. >> because? >> because the economy is weak. >> not because the election? >> no. that he elections next week some will start before the election. it's driven by economics. second, i think that there should be an effort to take the gao study and other things that we now to cut as much prefer spending in the discretionary budgeting and reinvest in things that will create jobs. mostly manufacturing green technology and other areas. third let me say this again, i

think our corporate tax rates can be lower in a way that will be an incentive to invest in america and will raise as much or more money if we won't lower the rates before we get as much or more money out of the tax expenditure elam nations. it's not just individuals who get tax expenditures, corporations to come to wrecks of the corporate rate looks high of the bizarre thing is some people pay because of their operations are in america and they don't have the access to the deductions and others pay next to nothing so i think we can bring the rate down but we have to bring the tax expenditures down. then i see from the individual side again relating to creating jobs, we may want to move away altogether from the system that taxes labor at midd and lower

levels and in come and tax things more. you can get rid of the payroll tax altogether which is a big deterrent to creating jobs. and if you impose a progressive tax or have a tax on pollution comes so-called externality, and then create just as much money and invest more of it my problem is with the current dilemma we are in now is we need to get rid of this debt but we need to do it in a way that brings back investment. what happened when i passed the deficit reduction as we got a big drop in interest rates come spike in the bnd prices, a decrease in private investment, 92% of herger hommes were private sector jobs. right now we don't have a strategy to get there or an easy path even though the banks have

over $2 trillion in cash and only 160 according to the last in the bad mortgages. so whatever we do, what ever complex things we do, shoulde designed to trigger more bank lending and more investment from corporate surpluses off in the united states so we get enough economic activity double boost revenue if you make these other changes. >> paul rifle approach dead on arrival is it the wrong argument to be having? >> i think that he's wrong to say no matter what happens yet no matter what the circumstances are, we won't touch taxes. i've already said by woul't be against lowering the corporate rate as long as you don't lose money but making sure everybody paid something. but my position is one of your tax rate exists now are perfect as compared with anybody paying

1 dollar more. the only way to make the tax system more perfect is to have it produced less revenue. and i think that's wrong. but i don't think that the democrats can say the same thing about medicare, social security or anything else. the other thing is the medicare proposal is on the merits wrong. that is there is no reason to believe that if you cut a check to of the people on medicare all of a sudden they will have market power and drive down medicare costs and they will be better off. in all probability what will happen if the dismantle some of the other cost controls as medical costs will continue to go up and people will use less get sick and die quicker or they will be poor because they have to spend so much of their money on health care. in other words, the problem is rising medical costs. medicare is a part of a whole health care system that has a toxic rate of inflation and a

spending base today that's n sustainable. it's also one of the major reasons people don't get pay raises. employers try to provide health care in a down economy that takes the better increased revenue they allocate to labor to pay for the health care premium and to have nothing left to give pay raises. so i don't -- i did what congressman ryan for making this suggestion but on the merit it doesn't work and that's what i hope the lesson that we wil draw from the new york election not that we can't talk about medicare and have to tiptoe around because we've got to have a system that brings health care costs in li with our competitors and we do have to go back to your popular opinion question we have to have a much deeper commitment than we've had to making sure mericans understand the american health care system foss compare with others. americs are so historic we diverse to caring about or

absorbing what our competitors are doing in some areas. we have to know what our competitors are doing in every area and has to matter to us. >> use a moment ago and i know you didn't mean a heck with the election next year but we are in washington to follow politics and is there a stmach for grappling with these issues with an election they are living not only for the president obviously but also for congress. >> if i could reach a bipartisan agreement, -- >> de ifill. >> even if people disagree with the particulars, you have many examples of that at the end of the year when president and congress made an agreement on the taxing and i didn't agree with all of it, but i thought we should take it beause it's the best deal he could get and i thought the republicans should take it from their point of view of the best they could get. the american people supported overwhelmingly even though there were things almost ever american didn't like about it.

there is a real hunger for us to do things. so a lot of these polls will shift if they reach the agreement, and i wouldn't put it past the president and the congress to be able to reach an agreement next year because it is an election year and the republicans now have a majority in congress and they want to hold it. >> how do you know there is a hunter to do something big? >> you travel the country and the world. where do you get that from? >> i'm not sure there's a hunger to do something big there's a hunger to make an agreement >> but we haven't done enough, any of us to educate the american people. the main benefit of all this is to rister in people's psyche that this is a huge problem. because none of us have a vote in congres i think mr. an is coming up the unless you're in

congress unless you work in the ite house, or the treasury department, you might not have an impact, but i think -- i think that the american people want us to work together to make the big problems of the country. the only problem is we are not among the countranymore. we are the oldest democracy in history now, and every society that achieves an enormous success sometimes reaches a point where they have to reform or suffer the consequences of decline because the institutions no longer serve the purpose for which they were established as much as they preserved possessions of the leaders and the constituents of the institution. people get more interest in holding on to the president and creating the future. there's some of that in america now. and we have to create an

appetite for the future agaiby showing people both the negative consequences of nodoing it and also the positive consequences of doing it. the purpose of this is showing the negative consequences of not being able to. we also need a pretty picture of the consequences of creating the future which requires us to deal with the debt. >> my next question is where you see the political consensus but i want to put in the words of jim dickey was one of the members of the public to read from boulder colorado. what is the likelihood that the incumbents in the house and senate will vote for any kind of debt compromise or budget bill been holding the party want to get reelected? >> for i think the likelihood is greater than the democrats will do it and the republicans and moderate districts will do it. if there's any changes in revenues which can be tagged as revenue increases than in those

districts where the tea party can control primary if y have a situation which costs senator bennett in utah because he dared to have a conversation with ron wyden about health care refor in other words the situation is the problem, and so i think it's different from district to district and from state to state but there may be enough votes for a bipartisan consensus. i think it's going to be ironically easier to get the democrats to vote for the word is in consensus than republicans if they come from districts where the antitax theology school can to clear them heretics and banish them to the electoral hell. and if you think democrats are at a better position? why would you think that? i can't imagine. you think they are in a better position to agree to a cnsensus --

>> because we proved that we will do things that are controversial and a lot of us -- the only thing i think that is working on the democrats fitful in taking on controversy decision is how many got the last election for doing ings right on health care and the stimulus. but that is partly our fault because what i said, we didn't have a natiol campaign. for the first time since 1998 we ran a midterm election without a national message by the time we needed it for the and any time since 1994 and because we didn't have it we got the same result as we got a 94 but i still think democrats will work for a combination of spending cuts and revenue increases either from eliminating tax expenditures or changing rate structures. they are just mo willing to do it, and i think the -- i think the democrats would vote for some changes in medicare, but they would want to believe that they would actually woruld actuo stabilize health care costs and

not just make the elderly poor and more at risk. >> what should the national message be? should it be this, something larger, smaller? .. it presents mutually beneficial trade relations, and you have to negotiate those and fight them through and work through the details. and assess things like the relative currency values if you

want to have a balanced economy with theanufacturing sector and not be totally dependent on finance and consumer spending and housing. and so, you know, my view is that we should say that is a part of it but it is not the only part of it. as i said, we will be able to sell this debt reduction thing a lot better and bring in the deficit back to a balance if we also have a positive picture of the america we are trying to create, the kinds of jobs we are trying to create, the opportunities we are trying to create. we have a lot of other issues here. college graduates are having trouble finding jobs now. bui dropped from first to 12th in the world for the first time since world war ii and the percentage of colle graduates. we are still first sending young people to college but we dropped to 12 in degrees. we have a lot of things we can do that ordinary people will understand more than the details

of cbo scoring or the seven things you have to do if you want to get health care costs under control. and so i think that their political strategy here is to not be to run away from this, but to marry this to a positive program to put america back to work and a picture of what it ll look like if we go through the changes. if the public won't buy it then we are stuck with what we are but i don't think we suld give them a chance before we give up. they haven't had a fair chance to evaluate a real balanced plan to create a different future yet. >> since you left off is, people are so much more scattered, not only what issues are number one but also where at war and more and more places and intervene in places where it is not exactly warranted. the headlines that there are people cell phones to drive the day are not just about this issue, no matter how compelling it may be and it seems it would

make it more dill of the call to come up with a consistent but he said message for democrats or republicans in election year like this. >> well i agree with at to a point. that is, there are more sources than information and there are more things being donehat are ha to put into a clear pattern. it is what happens if you liv in an interdependent world with instantaneous transmission of information reporters look are like nets that walls. when you get right down to it, that is at the heart of this little step we have seen in america about what should be the final steps between the israelis and the palestinians. i mean there is sort of a microcosm of the larger global interdependence that you can actually see their. i agre with all that. but, the fundamental problems that i think we have in america america -- let me just contrast america with brazil for just a minute.

a guy named bill bishop who happen to be a liberal democrat wrote a book two years ago called the big sort. he is from austin texas. and he started off with a story of the one republican family that lived in his very democratic voting precinct in austin, texas were john kerry beat president bush 3-1. and this guy loves his republican neighbor and their kids play together and they talked and they disagreed and they learn together but everybody else was mean to him so he moved to another neighborhood in austin where president bush beat john kerry 4-1. and the argument that bishop makes in the book is that both neighborhoods were -- a he said america is overcome. we are not as racist or sexist or as we used to be. we don't have as much a religious presence in more. we just want to be run anybody who disagrees with us. and i think -- you are all laughing because you know there something to it, right? the action describe the

development and how a developer made a fortune in thenland empire outside of l.a. or near thereby doing a profile and finding out the people who were upper income people were almost evenly divided between republicans and democrats so he devised one side, it was a one street lung development, one side for the republicans and another site for the democrats. i could make this it. the republican development had the sidewalks and basketball courts in the back. the mocratic developments had rooms for yoga mats. [laughter] i swear to god. he sold all the houses in a nasecond. so by contrast i was in brazil at the edge of the rain forest. the other day for sustainability conference, and they got serious problems in brazil. 95% of their electricity is from renewable source -- resources. they wanted to be more even as they grow so they want to build three hydroplans.

the roblem is the dams had to be on rivers that flow fast and all the ones that are left are in the rain forest. so they have got competing sustainability arguments. serious problem. but what was the difference? here i was at this conference in this nice conference center. you had every oil company come every utility company, the head of the green party, the head of the people representing the indigenous tribes one of which will be totally destroyed if one of these big stands this bill than all these people whose interests are affected and they are sitting down having an honest, civil conversation in a two-day seminar where they'll listen to each other and try to work through this. now i don't want to be pollyanna here, but this is a hell of a deal. until this last year when brazil had slippage, they reduced under lula annual destruction by 75%. a little known fact. they got all the lockers out but they are still pushing the cattle farmers in the soybean

people in. >> do just that they are fantasizing about having that kind of conversation here? >> well i think we should. we should try and maybe we will have to go through another election but in the end, we have to listen to people who disagree with us. it cannot be possible that either the democrats are the or the republicans are always wrong. it cannot be possible that 100% of us are proceeding in bad faith. you know i basically think that the country has been badly hurt in the last 30 years by the adoption of two ideas, one predominately in business and won a government. the business idea was that corporations are not really creatures of the state. they are independent entities just like citizens and they ought to be able to whatever they want in elections itheir only responsibility is to their shareholders. since people hold shares for 15 seconds now before they sell them, what it means is that corporations have become uprooted. my generation was taught, those

who went to business school and udied economics, corporations were creatures of thesociety and they had responsibilities to all their stakeholders. yes they are shareholders that they are employees and they are customers and the communities of which they are a part. we are going to have to go back for that. the primary government idea was the one that tried for the 1980 election. the government will screw up the two-party part. the secular st. of america the founding fathers they were all perfect. just about everything that's happened in the last 80 years is rrible. government always screws up. there's no such thing as a bad tax cut or a bad regulation or a bad this or a bad that as opposed to government. it hasn't worked. look at the job numbers, look at the growth numbers, look at the productivity numbers, look at the numbers. so if we can break out of theology and get back to evidence and experience and aspirations of ordinary people, think we can have bipartisan cooperion and they think the democrats are going to have to

be willing to give up may be some short-term political gains by whipping up fears on some of these things. if it is reasonable social security proposal, reasonable and care proposal. you cannot havhealth care devours the economy. >> i have one more question for you but before that i would not be -- i didn't follow up on an illusion you made to the israeli-palestinian peace process. did all this sounds rribly familiar to you about the 1967 borders and you feel like it is moved anywhere? >> i think for one thing i think to some extent it is the tempest or the teapot and i think first, i think what the president said was maybe too much shorthand and raised a lot of questions but also it got -- remember what prime minister netanyahu said yesterday amidst all the things that are in the headlines. he also said that if he made a peace agreement with the

palestinians he was well aware at he would have to give up so much of the west bank that not all of the settlements would be included and he would have to close some. >> he never said that out loud. >> now and i think that it's been totally overlooked and he deserves credit for saying that, specially when you look at how hard it was on sharon to get out of gaza which nearly everybody wanted to do except the settlers that were living there. so, when mr. netanyahu as prime minister before and when i was president, when all the people i worked with for eight years years saying that the 67 borders were a reference point was nothing more than saying that is what we looked at the map on. like it when prime minister barak said that he was prepared to give up 94 to 96% of the west bank with land swaps in return for certain strict requirements on the palestinians including waiving a right of return. it is 94 to 96% of what?

in other words, the 67 borders for the reference.. i think that is what the president meant. he wanted -- but i also believe that before they get back to the table israel is entitled to know that in in the end there will be recognition of the state of israel, and my recollection is that president abbas has already said publicly at some point in the bush years that a he would accept the deathat arafat didn't, that i offered and b, that he would give up the universal right of return. they gave that up when they signed the agreement on the white house lawn in 1993 whether they had knowledge it or not. the israelis always said there are some families who have been in northeastern and northwestern israel forever, who are their descendents and now in those lebanese cans we will let some of them back in but if there is going to be a peace deal it has got to be a jewish state and a

palestinian state, heavy majority. everybody knows that. i even offered as a part of this deal when i was working, to raise $10 billion which is real money back then. [laughter] to resettle the palestinians out of the refugee camps either in the newtate of palestine or in the u.s., canada or wherever heck else they wanted to go the people would take them. so i think that, i don't think we should get too carried away here. if you look at t map, any operating math that any of these negotiators have used, it's clear wh the boundaries were before and after 67, and it is also clear that because the piece was not made in 2000 or in the intervening years, that the land differences will be great now. when i was president you could get 97% of israeli settlers in the west bank on 3% of the land. now you have to take 6% of the land just to get 80% of the

settlers. so i don't want to minimize the difficulty, but i wouldn't just -- don't let this thing get off the tracks here because of the way what the president said in prime minister netanyahu said has been juxtaposed. you can overstate the divide he. as long as they are both willing to keep talking about this, i think they should. there are just two other things that i think were not mentioned by either that i think it's it is a mistake to forget. e of israel's legitimate complaints with arafat was always they could never be sure they have a partner for peace. although, in 98, when we had lots of things going, with the only here in the history of israel when no one was killed by a terrorist attack echoes of securitycooperation. the second argument was even if we make this piece our neighbors will never accept us. there is no question that the king abdullah of saudi arabia's

peace initiative includes all the arab countries but syria, and other muslim countries around the world promising political economic security normalization. if i were the prime minister and i know he feels this way i would want to get it at the same time that you know if he got a simultaneous peace signing with all these countries that formalize relations, that would be worth someing. neither the president nor the prime minisr i don't think talks about that but those two things should not be ignored, given the recent developments in the arab world. >> mr. president george mitchell sat down and there is an opening for an eoy if you you of your adjusted. >> i have great confidence in the secretary of state. [laughter] [applause] they don't need may. >> i wanted and with this final. i will let you get away with that. i will end with this final question back on her main topic. you said in his view in the

atlantic you are talking about climate change for you said we are in a race against time and circumstance. is this true as well about debt and spending and do you think that the current president appreciates that? >> yes and yes. look, this is really a lot like climate change. you know if we don't change this trend something really bad is going to happen. you just don't know when. or precisely what form it is going to take. but, so yes i think we are in a race against time. secondly, that problem is already constraining our options as a country. it can strain our ability to develop a more diversified economic strategy by end of mining our ability to get investment capital as opposed to consumption capital and by undermining our ability to enforce our trade laws.

which discourages us from doing new trade agreements. i think it i terrible we have have an argadon this colombian trade agreement and the one with panama i guess it's been approved but -- and if they have made some improvements along with korea. it i terrible that you can't -- we are paying a price for this now but when we get to the point where, and then interest rates will start to rise again with more balanced global growth. no matter what mr. bernanke does. ithink the criticisms of him by the way up and wrong. i don't thi he should've started raising interest rates and the value of theollar yet. i think it would have only slow down our recovery. no matter what he does when the economy comes back, interest rates are going up. the percentage of the budget as now constituted devoted to interest payments on the debt will go up. that means he won't be tting

anything for spending relatively less on medicare or defense or nondefense discretionary budget. all you will get is sent in more money out the door. so, that is another argument we have to had to make to the american people. we are fixing to have changes in all these other spending programs to pay our interest rates to other people if we don't deal with ths. and yes, i believe the president will do things which will be politically risky, arguably to him and i think if he wasn't prepared to do if he would not have asked for vice president biden to chair this budget group. i think you just don't do that. you can't do that. if you get outed, f being unserious in a context like that, a president can pay a terrible price. so yes i think he will do that, the right thing they are. >> president bill clinton, thank you so much. >> thank you. [applause]

[applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> as we have heard, we heard

him addressing america's long- term debt. it is one of the most difficult and important issues. and this session we speak with two of the leading authorities on economic policy. the plan to pose significant change as well as other cuts in federal spending. some people have hailed the program as positive. others have not. congressman ryan? >> >> thank you.

i got caught up with president clinton. >> i saw that. it is great to have the today. we will get his comments on the white house plan. your plan to cut the deficit includes cutting spending by $5.8 billion. you do not accept any tax increases? this is included in not including any extra revenue. that is from his plan. this calls for fundamental restructuring. let's start right there. can you what this through what medicare and medicaid changes

look like over this time? the changes to medicare. medicaid, what we are doing is taking a page out that president clinton signed into law. we are implementing this to other parts of law. with medicaid we are proposing blocked grant. wisconsin we think we have a better way of doing it. we have successful programs that take years of getting

leader. this is a little lost in some of the television ads. the proposed not to change the benefits. were to the point, -- more to the point, it is to spend it on the president's health-care law. they also have one called the ipad that is for price controls. that affects currency. we recently heard that what they will end of doing -- they will get rid of that to make sure any money goes to savings and making it solvent. we say for people 54 and below that medicare will be insolvent in nine years. the trustees moved up by nine years. in order to keep the promise, we

have organized this on the table. for those of us below 54, we say we look for to cleaning it. this the same kind of system that they recommended. and subsidizing those elected with a more and those with more with less.

>> there is are those that have to do with past reforms and other federal spending cuts that you propose. but stay on healthcare. i have a follow-up on seniors. they say your health plan with increase it for 65 year olds by 30% to 40% by 2013. the private plans would have higher administrative costs. there the last negotiating leverage. why do you think that shifting medicare to fragmented systems are private payers to reduce costs? >> they show as it is working. this is the premise of that question. measuring any medicare reform plan is the measure against a

fiscal fantasy. we have unfunded liability with medicare that is growing at an unsustainable rate. president obama acknowledges that with his cap on the growth rate we do it a different way. we have experience. medicare was written in 1965. it pays for brain surgery. it is a price controlling system. it dictate the kind of prices for brain surgery. what is the evidence? what is time in reality? this is a plan that came in 41 serve the low-cost production. the drug benefits at work this

way cost 41% less of me thought it would because of choice and competition. it is competitive. issues like the plan to the fire that planning go to another one next year. -- if she does not like that plan, and she and fire that one and go to another one next year. the power comes to the senior and not to a government bureaucracy. that helps us improve the system and lower costs. monopolies do not work whether it is and insurers a monopoly or government monopoly. you want to break it up and not an unelected bureaucrats. >> how do we know that doctors and hospitals would be a thrilling to treat medicare patients under your plan if there reimbursements are lower? >> these

current status quo. they said they believed about 40% of providers will stop taking patients under the status quo. planid the president's that they think more providers will stop taking plans. medicaid is a problem in the same vein. providers are taking less. under more stress and strain it than under a market-based system with the power really goes to the person about competing providers.

>> one more question on the medicare plan. the cbo says your plan could more than double seniors out of pocket cost. is it realistic that most of be able to afford the cost increases? >> the extra $7,000 we are talking about adding to lower income seniors benefit. what we are saying is protect those who are the income by supplementing the benefits in covering out of pocket costs. it is accurate that this will happen. we are comparing it to a fiscal certainty. it is what are the root causes of help inflations to it inject

competition into the system so we can stretch our dog where further. -- where we can stretch our dollar per there? well fear people will pay more in the future. more importantly -- but here people will pay more in the future. more portly, we think we should save medicare so it is something the next generation can count on. we just heard president clinton talk about how this would work without any new revenue. you are raising taxes. some people say that is an ideology. how will this work?

>> i would not call it ideology. i recall it economics. here is the missing agreement in this conversation. if we allow this conversation to be one of mathematics, the missing in agreement is economic growth. it is job creation. the two basic things we are trying to accomplish our spending cuts and reforms and economic growth. the top tax rate on individuals to 44.8 cents. we do not agree with that. we do not think we should be raising tax rates. we do nothing wish to be taxing them more than our foreign competitors. we are talking about tax reform. just like the fiscal commission recommended. broaden the tax base and lower the other so we have a more international competitive tax system. do we want more revenues coming in? of course we do.

the way in which we think the best way to go is economic growth and job creation. cranking up tax rates and do not think will accomplish that. it will be counterproductive. i believe it will make our economy much less competitive. most of the jobs i know come from the success of small businesses to fire them as individuals and partnerships. when you a brilliant their tax rate above 60%, that will put a bigger one on hiring job creation. we had the highest tax rate in the industrialized world. the averages? a 25%. ours is at 35%. some have a lower tax rate. it is more internationally competitive. the business we are talking about should basically paid the

same tax rate. they need to clean it up. with economic growth, we get better revenue growth. >> what is some of the low hanging fruit in terms of these past expenditures that can go way and ultimately lead to expanding the broader base? >> this is where they are intending on moving through. the year in the middle of doing our research. we are talking about taking a page out of the playbook. we have more room to maneuver on tax expenditures in fiscal commission. we have to have conversations with ourself. which of the should be going away in exchange for lower rates? for those who choose to use class warfare, and the people and the companies to use tax shelters are those in the top tax break.

that dollar is actually zero. they are having a broader based system. more people are paying the money they were not paying on before. we think it is a smarter way to go. it is a leading in creating jobs. we have to keep an eye on this. we tax them a lot more than they do ourselves. you cannot fix this it cannot grow the economy. >> they did not talk about social security. you have talked about it before. it is not part of this plan. i wonder if you have dealt with social security we do not have to have some in the other spending cuts.

cutting services and the people who desperately need it. >> i have several deals i have introduced. they would have presented this 65 and above. they said it is insolvent. it is. we actually simply that you have a better chance of getting a agreement this summer. it is two times for them. we figured we would do that on social security. canade /it such that we reform at least one of our

unsustainable entitlement programs. unfortunately, we do not seem to have any interest on the other side of the aisle. we should be spending back to where was a couple of years ago. there are still dozens of welfare programs left. the idea that we have behind are seeking their reforms is you want to have a safety net that people whoo help truly cannot help themselves. we do not want it to be geared toward keeping people on welfare. we wanted to be geared toward keeping people on their feet.

this is why we consolidate dozens of job training programs to go to workers. then they can go back to school to get new skills and trade. then they can get on their feet. we are talking about transforming. they are paying off the debt. these are the four think there is seeking. >> defense spending. where are the opportunities? >> sequoyah cherry j. it has done a very good job. he has identified $170 million in cuts he believed could occurred. we believe with that. we accept it. he recommended 100 billion. the modernized the weapons.

this is what president obama proposed. we agree. republicans are of a mixed opinion. we believe you have to take some spending cuts to this agency. he cannot expect a waste to occur. we wanted to make sure we did not dodge taking spending out of deficit reduction. i would love nothing more than a budgeteer to budget for a peace dividend. here is the problem. we are not at peace. we are at war. there is only so far he can go before you start compromising the mission. we do not have the ability to budget for a peace dividend when it is becoming a more dangerous place. we do cut dividends. we do take $70 billion out of it.

it will allow this tactics to continue, it puts political paralysis in our system. then we will have a debt crisis. then what happens then? prosperity. people in need government the most. this is what we are trying to prevent. our spending is targeted toward that. we say is welfare for people who need it. it is spending on corporations. and d.c. the tax codes. we have to make a decision about our values. he should be helped the most? he should not? as soon as you do this, the more gradual and sensible they reform czar.

the deeper the whole we did, the more problems they become. >> how do you envision governors taking over their own part of the medicare issue? medicare data shows with the market works effectively. can it highlighted? >> we learn a lot. we have better market competition. i talked to several governors who brought medicaid. they believe they can make the program work better. i talked to several governors who are saying give us the freedom to customize the programs. we will make them work better. right now we are having problems. the kind of comes down to this.

does a rationing care. we have a board that 15 people make all the decisions. or does the money go to the individual? it gives them power in the market place to have competition. do you want a centrally planned system? do you want one with the providers compete against each other for our business. to make that work, you have to make sure the person is powerful. they have money and they have rights. medicare does the negotiating. medicare said that guarantee

coverage options. medicare subsidizes it based on need. that is a far better way to go. it is like the system i have. it is like the way the medicare drug benefit work. they have a lot of experience. we think it is a better way to go. you have to ration and control prices. yet detritus too many times before. i do not think we want to go down that road. >> one-quarter of medicare patients account for 85% of the program's total costs. many are receiving end of life sentences.

how will it help reduce the costs? >> it is a budget. the reynolds resolution -- the resolution is broad architecture. on the concept level, people -- you want to have a decision not made by some board, and not made indiscriminately by government. it should be made by the bennett this series of family and their physicians. he wanted to be made with all the decision. when they are facing that moment, i think they should pay more for his benefit because he is a man of means. they would have more coverage and support. those that have more should pay more.

there will be priced a poser -- there will be price exposure. the dignity is such an important overriding principle that we employ them. the last thing we should do is have some kind of arbitrary board. this is something that should be left. they should make a decision based on all the surrounding factors. if you are going into an area the government should not go to, they should put some one side fits all formula. >> are there any other items you want to ensure that the people understand our critical to getting the deficit down? >> i will make a political statement and then a policy statement. from a policy perspective, the better week -- the sooner we do it the better we are and the country.

-- we are as a country. a year ago, they said it was 76.4 trillion dollars. i am worried that both parties do this. what this ins of doing is inflicting critical paralysis.

nothing gets done. we go farther down the path of debt. we need leadership. what do leaders do? they propose solutions. we have not done this from our partners on the other side of the aisle. with get to see an actual solution. i do believe this to be bipartisan. cannot have negotiations with fear itself. we need to have responsible leaders that ideas on the table. i was happy to serve on the fiscal commission. they put dozens in our budget. it is not fix the problem. now have another commission.

can i get to this if you have political demagoguery. this is now seeped into 2011. we are fighting this politically. my hope is that we get a serious issue. we get a serious down payment on spending and debt. if there are not things can agree upon, i like to think could have a civil conversation. the country deserves is kind of debate. i believe people are headed the political facts. they are sick of the demagoguery.

they want solutions. they are way ahead of us. they deserve nothing less. >> what is wrong with the president's plan? >> it does not fix the problem. the problem is the debt crisis. it is not do anything to address the entitlement programs. i have been in charge of these things. the board is not the right way to go. even with all the tax increases, is still chases higher spending. it does not come close to fixing it. it better be a budget that will keep it under control. we had done that.

>> thank you. i appreciate it. >> thank you some much. >> this is a discussion on budget and fiscal policy. >> she heard the conversation. how does the president's plan differed? >> it is different in that it has a sense of balance and every category. the president did put forward a very serious framework. they did four trillion dollars

in deficit reduction over 12 years. it was praised by this organization. it is by virtually every validate your. this is absolutely the case that they did get to $4 trillion quicker over $10. we think this is appropriate. we want -- we do not want 9% unemployment that impede the recovery. it is important that ours you are trying to control entitlement costs that you do not stop investing in education and science paid.

they put out a serious plan. it had over a trillion dollars of discretionary spending. it had a trillion dollars of revenue. it had a plan to do $4 trillion. of what to hit the shared sacrifice point. i've been involved in several efforts. no one likes deficit reduction. it the way it happens is when everybody dislikes it equally, in a way they think is fair. if you are going to go into programs like medicare and squeeze on discretionary spending and do these things and ask for sacrifice, people know we are all in this together.

we talk about things like riots , it is not just the numbers. it is not just the extra trillion dollars. the reason it is important to look that what is happening around the medicaid side. but cannot as anyone that would be affected by it. we have inherited a huge deficit. all of this savings would be unnecessary if you burn not funding the high income tax cuts. it is important for having the kind of moral power to ask

everyone to sacrifice that you include revenue. birch yearly revenues on the most -- artillery revenues on the shared sacrifice. it is for the benefit of restoring confidence. >> i want to ask about the i pad mechanism. you heard chairman ryan talk about what he sees are negative implications on racing tacticxe on any wheone. talk about that. many people agree about real tax reform. it is required rather than

taking the highest earners up. >> i do not think anybody in case any serious discussion about our fiscal and economic future should make claims that what happens to the marginal tax rate at the top is going to be the sole explanation and whether we grow are not. i do not think that is a good idea. if you are going to look at that kind of simplistic way, and evidence of look to the. everything he said i heard in 1993. the next runs were the strongest they have in the 20th century. we had an administration did not have one private sector job growth. i'm not claiming it is that

simple. that is not my claim. i do not think it is wise for people to make a simplistic argument. history does not help. they are doing things that are significant to get the fiscal house in order. i think that is important. i want to point out how isolated the houser republicans are. it is just a spending and not the revenue problem. that is good message discipline. it is not good fiscal discipline. if you look at any serious effort, 1982 after ronald reagan was part after the tax

raising efforts. in 1983 on social security. on 86, they raise taxes. in 1990, president bush and speaker -- in 1997 the republicans agree to maintain it. they do not have the position that you cannot have a penny of revenue. one of the bipartisan plan, none of them take that position. they all came out and said he need a mix of revenues. i think this is really holding back their chance to do

something major. he cannot get this if revenues are completely off the table. he had -- it is hard to ask people to do this on entitlements if there is no willingness to compromise on the revenue side. there is a disconnect from what he says about the sincere intentions and what the impact his plan would have for millions of not so fortunate americans. he is put himself in a box by not having a partner revenue. everyone goes through here and who share. if they cut tax expenditures in

new some of those savings, some of the lower the deficit. this is what most of them are. if we had that commitment, we would have a balance commitment that revenue would be part of the equation. i think that would go a long way. we still have this absolutist position. every analysis certainly includes the long expected aging of the population. we support some of these. we just need to be honest. there has been a revenue problem. >> when we allow people to keep

more of their income they will spend it. >> there is no question that when you are trying to put more spending into the economy in the short term, when you are trying to have a keynesian impact that you want to put money where it will be spent the quickest and had the highest multiplier impact. it gives money to those that have the highest propensity to spend. when you are making 38,000 a year and begin extra 500, -- and to get extra $500, it will get on that.

this argues that when you are trying to do tax relief he wants to center more on people who are living paycheck on paycheck. that is what we are doing by having the payroll tax cut for this year. >> us talk about spending cuts. >> the affordable care oua act mpas spending. why do think a small group of people serving can make wise decisions about cost reimbursement in light of the health-care market? why is command and control the right approach? >> it couple of things.

we are talking about this i had -- ipad issue because in the president's plan been we put out levels of detail that we would tighten our focus on medicare growth. where it was advised, gdp -- the ipad would look for savings. we are having t his discussions because we have details. a lot of people for years said to figures a hareder out what combination of different revenue adjustment you

need. we do not act as much. it has been in the political system. the idea is to creat a way of dealing with that. there has been accusations and demagoguery. if someone does not like that, let's have a suggestion. the idea of bringing more expertise into our system to help adjust medicare as they learn more about quality and delivery system efficiencies in a way that doesn't have to go through two houses of congress all the time does not have to be subject to the politics. i think it is a small idea. this is one of the more unfortunate things going on. it has been the politicization of the affordable care act.

president obama is the same we will defend every little thing that we have done. he would welcome constructive criticism or comments about how we could do things better. we have a health care spending problem can our country. we put together a very thoughtful effort to try to take all of the type of reforms. they have become political fodder. ryan onnwood chairman one thing. we should be able to have more serious discussions about the specifics of our plan. it will make it easier for us to figure out where we agree and disagree. >> what the spirit it. what does the look-alike over the next 10 or 15 years? >> let me just say something.

im just going to describe why as a policy person have concerns with his plans based on the congressional budget office analysis. this amount grows with time. the risk of this plan, we will spend $6,700 more per medicare.

would in some of all the spending about $14,000 per medicare recipient it to be about 20,000. we would be spending $5,700 more. how much is the government saving? the government saves about $616 per recipient. it does not show that we are spending less. it shows that by having the private sector involved in this that the and paying extra for the costs.

chairman ryan says maybe it'll be more efficient. it is 10% more efficient. it makes very little sense. is that the type of reform we ? it accounts to something very new. when the cbo at the chairman's request analyze their plan been found that it does clinton mean that we as a society brooklyn to spend $5,700 more per medicare recipient in 2022. >> what is your plan? >> we do a few things.

we are involved in serious discussions leisure going on. we are willing to book a line by line through many traditional savings that have been put forward. we would use more leverage in terms of the purchase of drugs. we think there are so savings we can get. we have a man of publicly that we are willing to do 470 billion a medicare and medicaid savings over the next world years. the means we may not have it all right. we are glad to set up an independent body of the authorities. the six would be chosen by republicans, six by democrats and the congress. they will look on a year by year basis.

if medicare spending was growing too much, it would never be on automatic pilot again. a group would be forced to present options to the congress. maybe that could be done better. it is not deserve the kind of disparagement. it is a serious proposal. we are all ears. >> if the current law is affected, why so many waivers? are there so many? >> medicaid or medicare? >> the healthcare law. >> when you are doing these things, we've always had a federal system more retry to create a system for our country. this is part of the

laboratory of democracy. in medicate people can apply for waivers that can give them the ability to experiment. we make sure that is not going to mean less coverage for a very poor people or things that are destructive. the fact that we have waivers and that kind of flexibility is a positive and not a negative. we are not trying to do one- size-fits-all. we said if they stay could come forward with a different system that they think is better they can do so. that shows that this is about whether someone has a better idea of whether they are deciding it is ok not to cover americans going forward. they can have this class shifted to hospitals.

our status quo on health care is not acceptable. that is why the affordable care act is the right thing to do. our goal is not to have every single thing exactly as we designed it the moment it passed. we would like to have a constructive conversation more people recognize this and we have put it into this virtually every idea people have had a more coordinated and efficient care. we are not letting hospitals get away with emissions. these are all good policies. let's have a discussion about it.

let's be very clear about one thing. the main reason the classes are going up and our country is that we have had the long-awaited aging of our competition. the growth for each enrollee is about 2.90%. that is lower than the growth of health care in the private sector. if you are not doing the type of things that is bringing down cost you are likely to be back to the game and shifting costs from one party to another. >> it is worth noting that the

costs have been some significant for companies and other institutions that they have actually refused waivers. that we move on. they are trying to cut social security services. >> it is clear the obama administration is the person on the metal. there is no question that we have some people who would like us to take social security completely off the table. we unfortunately have most republicans saying they will only do reform if you do the entire one by cutting benefits. that is not how they did it. that is not how it will ever get

don.e he made it clear in his reduction plan. while it should no tbe used as a device, we think we would be better off dealing with protecting the core purposes earlier as opposed to later. we are looking for folks from the other side willing to come ot the table with out this ideological revenue and how to do this in a balanced way that does not hurt current benefits.

we need to have a balance conversation. >> chairman ryan also did not attack social security as i referred to earlier. defense spending cuts. >> it is true that prior to the president's recent plan as a defense budget actually increase the deficit by about $180 billion over the past 10-year window. we also put out a budget target that actually reduces the deficit by 290 billion. that is over $450 billion. we made a. s -- we made a pretty serious move on defense spending. we cannot have a comprehensive production effort. production effort.