those who said it was a mistake to have crossed the 30th parallel. host: what is the significance of the pentagon papers? guest: the significance is that it touched off an awful lot of feeling -- and doubts about the government. this is the sad part. when governments are seen as operating without regard for the well-being of the public, or operating in secret ways that should be out there for debate -- for dispute. if you're going to get into a war, some credit extended conflict that is going to cost the country -- some kind of extended, but that is going to cost the country blood and treasure, there should be some kind of debate.

why do you call it the war? in iraq, 34,400 -- 4,400-plus american troops have died. tens of thousands of iraqi troops have died. that is war, that is suffering. i think it deserves the title, "war," and i think it deserves to be debated by people -- responsible people in this country. that is the nature of the system. host: robert dallek, thank you for your time. that is it for this edition of "washington journal." we will see you tomorrow morning at 7:00. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

. >> eric holder secretary tom vilsack will give a speech today on global food security. he is expected to touch on the scientific innovation of global growing population energy needs and climate change. live coverage of the 1:00 eastern. both chambers of congress are in session this week. no votes are expected. tomorrow, senators will consider two judicial nominations for federal court in new jersey.

follow the senate on c-span2. the house also returns today at 2:00 eastern. they will finish work on military construction. roll call votes on amendments and final passage at 6:30 eastern. president obama receives a progress report today from his jobs and competitiveness council. they are warning that the economy is far from recovering. after, the president will speak about jobs and the economy from durham, north carolina. house speaker and john boehner also talked about job creation it and the national debt saturday at ashland university.

during q&a, he also touched on gop efforts to repeal the health care law, tea party movement, the gop medicare plan, and what he wants to see in a 2012 presidential candidate. i am honored to speak with all of you tonight at this great event, held in honor of a great man and great ohioan, john ashburn. as most of you know, tonight was originally supposed to happen a couple of months ago but we had

to reschedule because i had to be in washington for the final negotiations to keep the government running and finished last year's budget. i was supposed to be with you that friday night, but instead, spent the day on the phone with president obama trying to squeeze another billion dollars out of the most powerful man in the world and a reluctant one, i might add. but i'm confident that this evening will be more pleasant. in fact, it already has been. thank you for your patience with my schedule and for sticking with me as your speaker tonight. as important as that process was, it was important because we need to cut spending. we needed to move onto the next debate, the vital debate. that is the debate we're in right now, the debate over this year's budget and the president's request to raise the national debt limit.

ultimately, this debate is not about numbers. it is a debate about jobs. and it is a debate about the future of our country, and that is what i want to talk about tonight. as everyone here knows all too well, our nation is confronting a series debt crisis. our national debt has exploded to the point where it is no longer threatening our children's future down the road, it is threatening our economy right now in a tangible way with real consequences. we will not emerge from this crisis until we adopt policies that allow our economy to create jobs and grow. all of the meddling in short- term gimmicks from washington have to stop. we have to seize this moment, use it to stop the madness going on inside the beltway, to open the door again to american economic growth.

i bring this message to you as a fellow buckeye and fellow son of ohio. my generation grew up in a land of opportunity, courtesy of the generation that grew up before us. my family did not have a lot, and 11 brothers and sisters, my father ran a bar, but each of us had the opportunity to choose our own path, to set our own goals, and set our own destiny. that was the gift bestowed on us by our parents and grandparents. those opportunities have allowed me to get a college degree to run a small business, to raise a family in a great community, and ultimately to serve my state and country in the u.s. congress and now as speaker of the house in the nine states congress. those opportunities also drove

our nation's economy for decades. you might even say they power in the american dreams. today, because of the massive debt burden our nation is accumulating, those opportunities are vanishing before our eyes. not just for our children and grandchildren, but 4 per durations as well. the evidence is around us. the report released by the department of labour was a sober reality check. the unemployment is down 9.1% and creeping up again. the stimulus spending bill enacted in 2009 was supposed to keep unemployment from rising above 8% and was to create millions of private sector jobs immediately. it did not happen. i would submit to you the reason

we are continuing to struggle economically is because we have been placing too much trust in government programs and not enough trust in our people -- [applause] the american people have always been the driving force behind our economy. the bigger government gets, the smaller the american people get. more government means less freedom. less freedom means less growth. the first keynote speaker of the annual memorial dinner was a man who understood this well, ronald reagan. nobody better understood it or communicated it more effectively. the american people understand it well. it is part of the american dna, and what has been missing from

our national policies, they reflect what the american people know. across the nation, a renewed in -- interest in sound constitutional policy. here at the ash burke center, weekly letters from an ohio farmer are going back to farmers, reminding us of ways to remain true to the principles of a government of, for, and by the people. still, a majority in washington refused to listen and most of the government is out of sync with the american people, pursuing policies that take us in the opposite direction and the result has been a jobless recovery, and recovery is probably too strong a word. balancing the budget requires us to cut spending but also requires us to commit ourselves, as a nation, to policy that allows our economy to create jobs. there are much more challenging

proposition is than you might think. let me give you an example. imagine you could solve poverty by simply having the government print more money. more for everyone means everyone wins, right? of course, that is ridiculous, it does not work that way. sometimes, i believe that is the way people in washington approach our jobs issue. if we need more jobs, government can just create more jobs. that means we need a spending program of some sort. it does not work that way. jobs are a product of our economy, a product of the hard work and ingenuity of the american people. the government does not create jobs, the private sector creates jobs. [applause] the responsibility of the government is to ensure there is an environment that is healthy

for job creation in their country, and it starts with staying out of the way. excessive spending by the government does not create jobs and instill certainty, it creates uncertainty. hbrook understood this. "union allies want a national program that would push the deficit over wing. this would hurt all americans but it hurts workers most of all." he also said, "liberal economic theorists' argue a budget deficit will stimulate the economy and produce jobs. in reality, large deficits destroy jobs." these are arguments are ticketed by conservatives today, but they were uttered more elite -- nearly 40 years ago. he was aiming those comments not

just at his ideological adversaries, but those in his own party that had begun to drift away from their own principles. he never ascended to the presidency, but his party unquestionably hurt his call. the result was the presidency of ronald reagan and a new approach to governing and the largest economic expansion in our peacetime history. and i believe the american people provided a similar rallying cry out the polls last november. you could hear the echoes of wisdom.hbrook's despair is not an option. there are steps to take to get our economy back to create jobs. my colleagues and i have put forth fought -- some of the steps in our pledge to america last fall. we recently reinforced them with an expanded jobs agenda released last month.

you can check it out at jobs.gop.gov. we want to reduce the regulatory burden on small businesses. simplify the tax code. past free-trade agreements to open up new markets for american products. expanding the protection of american-made energy. these are the things we need to do to encourage growth. they are united by a common theme. removing government uncertainty and slowing our economy down. there is one other thing we have to do if we are serious about job creation. that is to ensure there is no increase in the national debt limit, unless it is accompanied by major reductions in spending, and real reform. [applause] and these reductions in spending need to be larger than the increase the debt limit himself. let me underline the larger.

they should also be actual cuts in programs of four forms, not deficit targets that the tough questions into the future. if we do not do these things, we simply raise the debt limit without changing the status quo. it will do exactly what president obama is going -- says is going to happen. it is going to hurt our economy and destroy jobs. some of these so-called elites do not get it. they do not see the connection to jobs. but it is clear to me. we are saying to the world, our government still does not get it. we are saying washington is still not serious about spending -- ending the spending addiction in our economy. you do not have to take my word for it. take it from any one of the more than 150 economists who signed a

statement echoing this position last week. the opportunity to do something big for our country and economy is looking at us right in the eye. this is the moment. this is the time. but we need to provide a jolt to job creation in this country. we need to do something that defies expectations. right now, the expectation is politicians in washington will kick the can down the road one more time. the same thing is true on medicare. the program is spiraling into bankruptcy. the expectation is washington, despite all brian's courageous budget, this will do nothing. i believe we can define those expectations. courageousn's budget, this will do nothing. i called for any market and that would cut down on wasteful washington projects.

a lot of people laughed and said that it would not happen. well, now the house and senate are operating under a total earmark ban. [applause] we just did not perform the earmark process, we brought it to a halt. this will be the first congress in modern history that passes appropriation bills without earmarks. and it will be the first in modern history to approve spending bills that cut spending dramatically, instead of increasing. all started a couple of weeks ago. we can make the same dramatic changes when it comes to the rest of the budget. i believe that. but doing it will require leadership. leadership of the sort, the presidential type. i reached out to the president and made clear, come on, you and i will lock arms and jumped out of the vote together.

we know what the problems are. -- the boat together. for the sake of the economy, let's get things done. i may be speaker of the house, but i came here byways of the private sector. i ran a small business. as i said, opportunity is what got me here tonight. i want our children to have the same opportunities that i had. we have a responsibility to ensure that. this is the moment, not later. now. are there political risks? sure, there is. that is why we are in the mess we are in. i have always operated under a simple standard, one that i got from my mom and dad. if you do the right thing for the right reasons, good things will usually happen. things will usually take care of themselves.

and the burke is credited with the same. the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. our nation's elected leaders have been pretty good at doing nothing. john ashbrook was not the kind to finally stand by and do nothing. i believe we are entering an era where the american people will no longer tolerate those who believe doing nothing is the right thing. our nation is dealing with a crisis. our futures country is on the line and people want leaders who understand that challenge. they want leaders who are not afraid to speak the truth. we honor their legacy of john ashbrook by serving our country and taking a stand. this is the moment, this is the time. let us not pass this by. thank you for allowing me to be here. god bless all of you and god

bless our great country. [applause] thank you all. [applause] >> thank you, speaker boehner. i think we are were to ask a few questions. thank you very much for coming and especially for speaking with the ashbrook scholars. i have a few questions, if i may. >> if someone ask you a

question, you answered. he is a big guy. he will not let me get off the stage. >> the 2020 election was a clear rejection of big government policies. what is the latest on the newhouse's majority to repeal obamacare? >> if you believe, as i do, but obamacare will deliver -- ruin the best health care delivery system in the world and then crept our nation, you would agree -- [applause] and the first week and we had our new majority, we passed a bill to repeal obamacare and send it to the senate, where they have never quite been able to get it on the floor and have a debate. since then, we have also eliminated a number of mandatory spending programs contained within obamacare, and have had dozens of hearings outlining and

trying to understand is complete government takeover of our health-care system. our team will not rest until obamacare is repealed, all of it, top to bottom. [applause] >> thank you. how are the debt limit negotiations going? will republicans in congress be successful in forcing significant budget cuts, in your opinion, without defaulting on the u.s. debt? >> well, they could be going quicker. i told the president, this is the moment. this is the time. we know what the problems are. i am not going to kick the can down the road another year. i have watched the leaders that come before may look at this problem, as if they were looking at a mountain. they see how tall and steep it was and decide, well, we will kick the can down the road another year.

well we are out of room to kick the can down. it is not going to happen anymore. [applause] now, there has been an arbitrary date set, august 2, by the treasury department. they have endless numbers of tricks. i have told the president this. when i said, this is the moment, this is the time, i meant it. we have to deal with this. we know what the problems are. why don't we solve them? do not want them off until next year. no more whistling past the graveyard. it will be the fight of my political career. i am ready for it, i am confident about it, i impatient, and i will be very patient. >> democrats are running ads

attacking republicans for voting with the ryan budget to turn medicare into a voucher system. one ad goes so far to show an dovilla woman in a wheelchair being shoved off a cliff. does the ryan plan turn medicare into a voucher system, and will this be the defining issue in the 2012 election? >> in washington, we do public policy in a political setting. on every issue we deal with, we have to deal with the policy side and you always have to deal with the political side. when it comes to the medical -- medicare debate, it has been made clear, unless their changes to the program, the program will go bankrupt and benefits will necessarily have to be cut. so republicans come forward with a plan. paul ryan's plan is practical, makes sense, gives people a choice, does not affect seniors

55 and older, and gives them the checkout -- the choice of health care that members of congress have. for those who are middle income or lower, your program is entirely paid for by the government. if you have substantial means, you may have to pay the full cost of your premium. while, we are broke. of course, we are being attacked because democrats bit -- think it is good politics. just what? they do not have a plan. they do not say how they would fix medicare but they have the audacity to attack us. i tell you, my colleagues are prepared for this fight. talking to their constituents about this, they are ready. i want this debate to go on. i would love for this to be the defining issue. if it is, we will win this fight. i think the defining issue in the next election will be the

economy and jobs. >> thank you very much. [applause] the median often portrays the tea party as extreme and says it will be a liability for republicans in the 2012 election. what impact, in your opinion, will the tea party have? >> the tea party has brought new energy to the political process. i have been to dozens of tea party events across the country. the makeup of the crab is always pretty much the same. if you disaffected democrats, a fear disaffected republicans. however, the rest of them are regular americans who have never been involved in political process. they have been driven out of their homes to protest against government. we need to welcome their energy into the political process. what do they want? they want three things. they want the debt to be gone.

they want jobs, and want to get rid of obamacare. why would i have a problem with them? [laughter] [applause] >> last question, we have a large pool of republicans seeking the republican nomination for 2012. what are you looking for an hour next republican presidential candidate? >> one that can win. [laughter. ] what i told the scholars downstairs a few minutes ago, i want someone in the white house to have a background in our country. someone who has accomplished something. someone who has been involved in the community. someone who has been a governor. someone that comes with a real background of experience that can help guide our nation

through the difficult days ahead. i believe we will be able to do such a candidate, and i cannot wait to know who it is. thank you all very much. [applause] >> now looking at the 2012 elections. up next, an interview with republican candidate gary johnson, governor of new mexico from 1995 through 2003. this is just over half an hour.

right now, i am really concerned we are on the verge of a financial collapse. that would be a bond market collapse because there is no repave $14 trillion in debt, given the fact that our ongoing deficit is $1.65 trillion this year, last year, years going forward. it will be a bond market collapse, and that could happen any day. the only way we alleviate that is to balance the federal budget and to that right away. that is what i'm advocating, a balanced federal budget, tomorrow. i am an optimistic guy, and i'm optimistic we can do this. this would be very difficult but it will never be easier to accomplish than run away. the longer we put this off, again, this financial collapse

is written in the numbers. this is going to happen. there will be a complete breakdown of our currency, given the fact that we are printing the amount we are printing can we do not have enough bar words, lenders out there that want to loan us money. >> as you look at this as a former politician, governor, citizen, who is responsible? >> ultimately, we are all responsible. we have elected one congressperson, senator at a time. i have lived my entire life watching government spend more money than what it takes in. starting at age of nine, i am wondering, how is this sustainable? for me in politics, the issue has always been government spending more than it takes in. how is that sustainable? quite simply, how can we spend

beyond what it is we collect? and to do that year after year. now, i would say, it has never been to this extent. sot is what itakes it imminent, financial collapse. >> based on that, why do you want to be president? >> i would not be running for president if i did not think i could do this job and a good job at it. of course, that would be based on my resume. i have been and ought to prefer my entire life. i started a one-man handyman business in 1974. in 1994, i had 1000 employees. i ran for governor of new mexico and i won. i will make the claim that i made a difference in the state of new mexico by standing up and saying, really, do we need to be

spending this amount of money? will government really make a difference in any of our lives, and here is the amount of money we need to spend to make this different? no, we do not have to. with some notoriety, i vetoed 750 bills as governor of new mexico. thousands of line-item vetoes as governor. putting that into perspective, it might be a bit of an embellishment, but i may have the code more bills than the other 49 governors in the country combined. it made a difference. only two were overridden. and it got played out. what has johnson vetoed and why? that was played out in the newspaper, in print on the radio every day. in a state that is two-one democrat, it is significant, have been rendered that many vetoes, having stood up and

talked about government's role and the notion that the best government is the government that rules least, i got reelected by a bigger margin the second time than the first time. >> described the gary johnson brand of politics. are you republican, libertarian, a conservative? what the labels would you attach to yourself? >> i hate labels, but i think the majority of the people in this country describe themselves as fiscally conservative. 60% of americans describe themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. i would change the socially liberal to classically liberal. in that sense, i might be someone who believe that the government rules the best is the government that rules the least. the best thing that government can do for me as an individual

is to allow me to be the individual that i choose to be. give me an equal shot at the american dream. give me a shot at the fact that you can go from having nothing in this country to having everything in this country, if you are willing to work hard and innovate to do that. what people are so upset about is the notion that this country is on there. i saw that as governor of new mexico. legislation that favored individuals, groups, business, as opposed to legislation that would have leveled the playing field. giving everyone an equal shot. i saw that all the time. i thing that is what people are upset about in this country. >> what is the role of the federal government, and are there things that the government is doing today that it should get out of? >> it is not so much today as a culmination of what it has

become. the interview an example. what should the federal government's do, beyond any other single thing to improve education in this country? i would offer that we abolish the federal department of education. let me say, the federal government gives states about 11 cents out of every dollar that states spend. but that is money that the states are sent by the government in the first place, and now it comes back less. but it also comes with 16 cents of strings attached, so it is really a negative when it comes to taking money for education. just give education back to the states. 50 laboratories of innovation, laboratories of best practices. there would be best practices. best practices would be emulated. there would be failure.

but if we have 50 laboratories working on best educational systems, we will improve. we are all competitive. we are going to the excess and avoid failure. but the notion that washington knows best, intuitively, we know it does not work. we see it played out in the federal government everyday. whether it is health care, education, you can name it. states will do better addressing these issues as municipalities do better than states. >> paul ryan has put on the table a plan that would give states more control over medicare, create a better-like system, reduce involvement in federal medicare. -- dvoucher-like system,

reduce involvement federal medicare. where do you get the 43%? >> that is the amount we are borrowing and printing to cover the amount we are spending. our deficit is $1.65 trillion. eliminate the government would cut expenditures by 43%. >> so where do you cut? >> medicare is absolutely going to engulf the entire federal budget in a short amount of time, if not brought under control. this is where political you get into ground where everyone is fearful. this is where fear comes into play. how about the notion that the federal government gives the delivery of health care to those over 65 to the states? and do that with less money, but take away the strings, mandates, and give states a free rein on

how they want to deliver health care to those over 65. i would offer, backed up with 50 laboratories of innovation and best practice, we would absolutely have some best practices that would be emulated. there would be failure, it would get avoided. but the notion of top down does not work. we have a fee-for-service medicare model that is going to, and arguably, has led the charge, in our rush to the bankruptcy doors. >> let me turn to foreign policy. do you have a set of guidelines that would basically guide you, as you look at the middle east, europe, china? >> guidelines include should we provide ourselves with a strong national defense? yes, we should provide ourselves with a strong national defense. i think it has gone way beyond

that notion. we should be looking at military threats to the united states. that is what we should remain vigilant toward. i was opposed to us going into iraq from the very beginning. i did not see a military threat from iraq. i know a lot was being said about weapons of mass destruction, but what i thought and said was, we have military surveillance capability to see iraq rolled out weapons of mass destruction. if they do that, we can go in and address the situation. i thought if we went into iraq, we would find ourselves in a civil war to which there would be no end. afghanistan, initially, i thought that was totally warranted. we were attacked, we attacked back. we are at war with terrorism, with al qaeda. but having been in afghanistan for six months, we had effectively wiped out al qaeda.

that was 10 years ago. we are building roads, schools, bridges, hospitals, highways in iraq and afghanistan, borrowing 43 cents out of every dollar to do that. don't we have the same needs and our own country? worst of all, servicemen and women are losing their lives. libya. when we went into libya, i issued a paper. i am opposed to what we're doing here. where was the military threat? it did not exist. where in the constitution does it say because we do not like a foreign dictator, we should go and and topple the dictator? where is the congressional authorization to go into libya? that is something, as president of the united states, is a terrific check. congress.

i would be checking in with congress if there were any military interventions that i wanted to partake in. back to libya. are there not five other countries that qualify for the same military intervention that we have implemented with libya? they're just does not seem to be an end to our foreign military involvement. i do not know if we have made ourselves any safer. >> george w. bush did support this. what lessons when you take away from that? >> i think both parties share in where we have gone to today. regressing to president obama's health care, i would want to repeal his health care plan because we cannot afford it. but i think republicans would gain a lot of credibility in that argument if they were to

offer up a repeal as a prescription health-care benefits that they passed when they controlled both houses and the presidency and rap record deficits under bush. so both parties share in where we have gone too. politicians are responsible for this. ultimately, you and i are responsible for this because we have elected this foreign- policy 1 congressperson, senator, president at a time. >> gay rights, gay marriage. what is your view? >> the government to get out of the marriage business, be in the civil union business, and leave marriages to the churches. i would like to think i am in support of gay rights. included in those would be the right for gays to be civilly united. >> abortion. >> i support a woman's right to choose up to violation of a fetus. as governor of new mexico, i

signed a bill banning late term abortions. i have always favored parental notification, counseling. i have always favor the notion of no public funds being used for abortions. >> prayer in public schools. >> as a governor in new mexico, that was a question that i got asked often. the notion of a quiet time, reflective period, i did not know if that is a negative, but there needs to be a separation of church and state. the notion of a prayer that may exclude those, that is something that we should be on guard against. >> on these issues, you may find differences with some of your other republican candidates, certainly a certain sector. how does that play out in a primary for gary johnson? >> analogous to running for

governor of new mexico, these issues were the biggest issues to republicans. i did not get their vote in the primary. in mexico was a stain that was two-one democrat, but it appeared that if i were to have won the primary in new mexico, i would have gone on and would have potentially won the general election and by the way, i did not get any of their boats in the new mexico primary. i think i caught all of them in the general election. now you have two like candidates when it comes to those issues and then the focus moves out to other issues, in this case, fiscal issues. i think those are the big issues. it is analogous to me doing this today running for president. >> at what age and why did the move to the state of new mexico? >> at the age of 13, i was moved

there with my mother. she was an accountant at the bureau of indian affairs. we lived in aberdeen. my father, as a youth, in north dakota, had gone to boy scout camp and had fallen in love with new mexico and was always angling away from moving to new mexico. >> you started big j enterprise. when you sold it, how many employees? >> about 600 employees. i started it in 1974 as a one- person handyman, me. in 1994, 1000 employees, and electrical, mechanical, pipe fitting. one of the reasons i sold the business, perhaps the number one

reason, we were not getting the word that we should have gotten. naively, i did not think it would be affected by me being governor. no public jobs of any kind. that was not an issue, but we were not getting the jobs which should have gotten. looking back, i can understand that. but 600 people? a lot of people needed work and there was the responsibility i felt, as governor, to those who have given the opportunity, to be governor. i sold the business in 1999. nobody lost their job. they are doing better than ever today. >> you decided to run for governor. some tried to talk about a bit. why governor of new mexico? >> i always believed politics was a high calling. i wanted to be able to do that.

i knew that this would be special, from a life standpoint, the notion of being able to do good by others. i realized that notion of good is an arguable concept. and many would argue that i did not do any good at all for the mexico. i would argue that i made a positive difference for the state and it was always about issues first and politics last comment to the point -- last, to the point, where politics never entered into our issues. >> what is your decision process, when you do not have a clear-cut decision? >> first of all, i relish the process. the job was blood-boiling. i would not be running for this office if i did not think this was going to be blood-boiling.

but the question for the mexico, as governor, is this going to positively impact new mexico citizens? as president of the united states, the first consideration would be, how is this going to positively impact citizens of the united states? and in fact, it may not benefit them at all. that was an assessment i made all the time as governor of new mexico. government spending in new mexico went way down. billions of dollars in spending would have taken place but for my saying no to that spending. >> was there an issue or again the that you wanted to deal with that you were unable to? >> no, the agenda that i had, the promise that i made new mexicans was, i was going to tackle issues a through z.

no sacred cows. no political fallout from what i was doing because i have not been called in politics before. the best politics would be to address the issues, a through z. people ask me, what are a soap -- most out of having been governor? i addressed the issues a through z. it did not matter what the issue was. >> mount mckinley, mount everest, mount kilimanjaro. you have climbed them all. >> i have a goal to climb the highest mountain on each continent. the highest are in the himalayas, and i will not come remotely close -- probably the only mountain that i will climb in the himalayas is mount everest. but i do have a goal of climbing the highest mountain on every continent. i have had the good fortune of climbing four. i am still in good shape.

i have no doubt i will be able to get to the top of the other three. >> how do you do that? the chap life is an adventure. in terms of -- >> life is an adventure. in terms of adventure, i thought, what a great way to see the world? >> in terms of preparing for the climb, physically, what do you have to do for it? >> well, nothing. i have been lifelong physically fit. that is something that i set for myself as a criteria day to day. as a 58-year-old sitting before you now, you would be hard pressed. there are certainly those that are as fit, but you would be hard pressed to find someone more fit. there are those that are, but i have dedicated my life --

fitness, good health, and of course, that equates to all other aspects of life. >> so when you are doing a triathlon, whether running, biking, swimming, how much is physical, how much is mental? >> as a 58-year-old, it is amazing how much strength you have and how much muscle memory there is to be able to go out and do some, i think, pretty hard insurance-related activities and not be all that affected. >> what you enjoy most in terms of physical activity? >> my main passion is skiing. i live there because the skiing is as good as anywhere on the planet. that is my passion. outside skiing in the winter, cycling. when the road biking or mountain

biking. i still do mountain biking competitions. something that i really enjoy. going out on an and ash -- eight-hour mountain bike ride is not uncommon. >> you have two children. >> if my son, who is 28 years old, quit his well paying job in denver a year and half ago to come and do this full time, on paid. -- unpaid. this was an experience, he said, that he could just not miss. very loving. my daughter is terrific. valedictorian at the university of colorado boulder out of 9000 students. the story i like to tell, my daughter, when in college, was driving outside of new mexico. her car broke down. she had her tools with her.

she knew it was her alternator. she hitchhiked into town, bought a new alternator, and installed it herself. >> pretty impressive. let me ask you about your first wife who passed away in 2005. what was that like for you, as a husband and a father? >> one of the worst things about having been governor is that dee and i grew apart. i think being in public office had a lot, if not everything, to do with that. we grew apart and divorced after i left office. soon after we divorced, she died from heart failure. that is the worst thing that has happened to me in my life. >> what impact has she had on your life? >> she was extremely loving.

she cared about me, she cared about our kids. we are living that legacy. what she has left with me is -- well, she has left me with everything. she has left me with everything. >> let's talk about the race. you are down single digits. you are not in the debate, why? >> i am surprised, shocked. i did not think that i would be excluded from any debate. i did not crawl out from under a rock to run for president of the united states, as we discussed. two-term governor of new mexico. i would argue very successful in that role. i think i have a resume, talking about being an entrepreneur, my family, my life, and i think i'm

qualified to do this job. i think i could do a good job. being excluded from the debate, to me, i am a believer in the system. to me, at minimum, a crack in the door. if there is a crack in the door, then by my hard work and innovation, i can make the most out of that crack in the door, but this is a locked door. i am not going to be in these debates on monday, and it is upsetting. it is not fair. >> so what is your strategy moving on this debate in new hampshire? how do you get the nomination and who is your biggest competitor? >> the strategy is to do well in new hampshire. the strategy is to do well in the early primary states, particularly new hampshire, where it is a retail politics state.

people in new hampshire -- it is a political -- terrific political environment. the joke is, what do you think about mitt romney? you know, i have met him a couple of times, having him over for dinner on a thursday night, but i am going to stay undecided until i meet all the candidates. that is the environment, and it is a terrific environment. it is about getting out and talking to as many individuals as you can. so i have been to new hampshire 10 times and my second home will be new hampshire, believing you can go from obscurity to prominence overnight with a good showing there. >> so campaigning for any job is essentially an interview to the american people. what is your pitch? >> i am not an eye opener.

i have been successful as governor of new mexico. entrepreneur.era based on my resume, you can take that to the bank. i would do exactly what i say i am going to do. >> for you personally, as you go through the process -- admittedly, it is early. have you learned anything new about yourself or the american people? >> we are an optimistic country. i think we can tackle these issues. what have i learned about myself? the continuation of this notion of a -- i believe life is a journey, not a destination.

if you make life a destination, you are bound to be disappointed. in this run for president, i enjoy every minute of every day. it is blood-boiling, if you will. if it was about winning the office -- that is something i cannot control. what i can control is how much work i do to getting out the message i am delivering and let people make that decision. but that is now the journey. and it is not the destination. when i went to mount everest, it was not getting to the top. there are so many factors that come into play. if it was about getting to the top, was found to be disappointed. it was about the journey, the fact that i put myself in a position to be there with my physical conditioning, with what i had done in my life to get me the resources to be there in the first place to do that.

so this is a continuation of life's journey, what is life. should we all try to make the most of the lives that we have been given? >> along that journey, you almost died six, seven years ago. >> i had a serious paragliding accident. i was told that my life would not be the same after that accident. i really hurt myself. i believe i have fully recovered, but it took about three years to fully recover from that. >> as you look back in american history, are their role models or presidents that gary johnson looks to in terms of public policy? >> recently speaking -- i think you could call him a political figure. milton friedman. he had some terrific ideas, and

i think, politically, more politicians that would emulate his thoughts. i speak now about school choice, drug reform, policy, taxes, spending>> kevin r. gary johnsok you for your time. >> thank you for your time. >> our pleasure. >> better today, tom vilsack will give a speech on global food security ahead of the g-20 agricultural summit in paris rid expected to touch on scientific innovation, global population, energy needs and climate change. live coverage starts at 1:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span. both chambers of congress in

session. tomorrow, the senate will consider to the judicial nominations for federal courts in new jersey and will begin work on an economic development administration bill with a procedural vote scheduled at 2:15 eastern and ethanol tax revisions. you can follow the senate live on c-span2 the house returns today. spending for military construction and the veterans affairs department. you can sue the house live here on c-span. -- you can see the house live here on c-span. sten hoyer to discuss how the vote would in the medicare for seniors and future generations. this is about one hour.

>> good morning. nice to see all of you. they key for being here. i appreciate it very much. i do not have a podium, so i'm going to sit down. i want to go through this because it is important information for you and for all of us, of course, in terms of medicare and medicaid and how we provide health care for our people. we have had a lot of debate in washington, as you know. so i am going to sit down. if you want to come forward, you can do that. if you cannot hear me, let me know. i am going to use the microphone. the c-span is here, taking pictures. we will see what happens.

i did not bring any ice cream. we had wonderful ice-cream yesterday at simple pleasures. you were there and a number of us were there. it was great. i appreciate all of you being here giving can everybody hear me? all right. does everybody want to hear me? [laughter] the senator used to tell a story i loved and he was given a speech for about 250 people in the room. someone in the back of the room raised their hand and said, senator, i cannot hear you. immediately, summit in the front row jumped up and said, i can and i will trade places with you. [laughter] that makes you feel badly, doesn't it? i am pleased to be here at evergreen. i have been here before.

i had an opportunity to visit with some of you before. thank you for coming this morning. i know it is a little early, but let's get started. last year, as we know, and you know, we adopted the affordable care act. the effort is to try to extend health-care coverage to another 30 plus million americans to make sure they have access to affordable, quality, health care and affordable, is key, access is key. we have the best health care in the world here in america. the issue is whether or not we can afford it or get it. so we have worked very hard to try to make that the case. this legislation was important for seniors. all americans, particularly seniors, it is an improvement in

the medicare program. some of you will probably be aware of those improvements, but i want to go over them. seniors in the medicare down that hole now get discounts and brand and generic drugs as a result of this act. the donut hole as you know is between 2800 and about 6400 in which there is no compensation from the federal government under the existing prescription program. however, we changed that so that we reduced that cost by 50% this year and will phase it out by the next decade. so you have the opportunity to have prescription drugs availability that you'll be able to afford. by the way, i want to say liz murray is here. she is my expert on health care, one of the most knowledgeable people in the house of representatives on health care.

so when we get to questions, if i cannot answer them, perhaps she can. these discounts will grow over time until the donut hole is closed entirely so the gap between 2860400 will no longer exist. seniors to lumber pit deductibles or copays for preventative care. -- seniors no longer pay deductibles for copays for preventative care. we want to encourage people to get preventative care. clearly, it is cheaper than critical care. preventative care, preventing people from getting sick is a lot better investment than try to get people well after they get sick. so it is like having that inoculation for small pox or something and you do not get that, a lot cheaper to get the shot. seniors get a free annual wellness exam.

seniors now get a free will miss exam. you will not have to pay a copiague for your annual checkup -- co-pay for your annual checkup. to the extent we can keep the well or if you have some problem, that would detect it early. because that will save us as a government, as a people, money, and also mckee more healthy and save you money as well. that was exam is to prevent medical problems before they get more serious. it also made important payment and delivery reforms that will save medicare money. it will improve quality and coordination of the care you receive. all of which is designed to try to bring costs down. the costs we are incurring for health care, not just to

medicare or medicaid, but in our own private insurance, and businesses, families, is not sustainable. the costs are rising at a rate that will not be affordable for any of us -- government, families, or individuals and businesses -- if we do not bring those costs down. the congressional budget office, a nonpartisan analyst determining what consequences we have a passing the medicare -- excuse me, affordable care act, said we will save about one- quarter of a trillion dollars and the stick it on our health care costs and $1 trillion plus in the next decade as a result of the reforms that have been adopted in the affordable care act. it also made important payment and delivery system reforms that will save medicare money and

improve the quality incoordination, as i said. the delivery of health care in america now is essentially done on a procedure basis, as you know. if a procedure is done, the provider is reimbursed. as opposed to an outcome basis. quantity, not quality. the value, not volume. that is what we're talking about. doing ishat we're trying to get a payment reimbursement system that is focused on the opportunity to keep people well and to intervene in their health care and the most efficient, effective, cost-effective way. the results of these changes, as i said, is by the end of the decade, seniors will be paying $200 less in annual premiums and

if the affordable care act were not enacted. so savings, not just a slowing the growth, but an actual savings. the medicare problem will be solvent for many more years. solvent in the sense that the formula we have for paying for medicare will sustain it for longer period of time as a result of the reforms we have adopted. by the time we pass a law, republicans who all voted against the law, attacked us for cutting medicare benefits. i do not know whether you heard that. there has been some discussion about demagoguery by the sponsor of the republican plan. let me make this clear and to the affordable care act, there were no benefit cuts to medicare. let me repeat that.

under the affordable care act, there were no benefit cuts to medicare. not one single provision in the affordable care at cut senior benefits. that stance, however, in sharp contrast to the medicare policies that almost every single republican voted for earlier this year. there were a few that did not vote, but just a very few. both in the house and senate voted. their budget ends the medicare guarantee. it turns the program over to private insurance companies. the reason we adopt a medicare and 1965 was that private insurance companies would not give seniors, except at very high costs, the availability of

insurance. why do you think that is the case? >> [inaudible] >> not so much greed, but because it was not profitable to do so. most insurance companies are in the business of making money. people invest in insurance companies, so they expect a return on their money. you know i'm going to be 72 in just a few days. so like you, i am a senior. [laughter] what? >> i am older. >> you are older. there is a song about older women. [laughter] the fact of the matter is, we who are older, require more healthcare. we're taking more prescription drugs, we visit the doctor more, we have more elements and aids and things like that so insurance, is just not believe

it was cost-effective to ensure seniors. they did not give entrance. in 1965, we adopted a program that major seniors could have affordable health care guaranteed, to give them that security. i want to tell you something, folks, my republican friends perhaps to not understand that social security, and with medicare have kept millions and millions and millions of people out of poverty. if it were not for social security and are not for medicare, millions and millions of seniors who are now self- sufficient would be living in poverty. that is why it is so important to make sure that we maintain the guarantee of medicare giving the republican proposal, which passed the house of

representatives and almost every republican voted for in the u.s. senate did not pass, turns the program over to private insurance companies. it pays those companies a fixed amount for each senior the bank over time, that payment, which is kind of like a voucher, although they do not call it a voucher, will become less and less valuable. the color print support. the matter what you call it, what it means is there will be a set figure. some people might the analogy, like the federal employee health benefit plan. that is not true. if you hear anyone say that, you know they are telling a story. they fib -- a fib. they are not telling the truth. why? because under the federal employee health benefit plan, we reimburse federal employees and

retirees 72% of the average premium so that as health care costs go up, the amount that you receive those a -- goes up. here they have capped it. as health care costs go up, go up, go up, who pays the difference? under their program, you and i do. so that increasingly, seniors will pay more and more and more dollars out of their pocket to maintain their health care insurance. their plan will impact current and future beneficiaries. today's seniors, those of us over 65 or 66, will pay more for prescription drugs because they eliminate the prescription drug improvements under the affordable care act, which reduce its 50% and 100% by the

end of the decade. you'll pay more for preventative care. under the affordable care act, you get preventative care and a free wellness visit. they eliminate that. tomorrow's seniors will see their costs increase dramatically as well. a senior who signs up for medicare in 2020 to, meaning everyone who is 54 younger because they say they're not affecting anyone 55 or younger or 54 or younger, that is not true as i have told you. that is not true and wellness and prescription drugs. having said that, some new signs up for medicare and 2022 will pay over $6,000 per year more for health care. $6,000 more. you would pay $6,000 more for your health care in 2022.

that is more than twice as much as seniors pay today. despite individual seniors pay significantly more for their care, our nation's total health care spending still will not decrease. now, let me make a comment on that. our country is confronted with a very serious fiscal challenge. none of us should can ourselves. i have three children, three grandchildren, and two great- grandchildren. if we do not get a handle -- before i do that, how many of you have grandchildren? how many of you have great grandchildren? fewer of us have a great grandchild, right? we care about them, we loved them, we want them to have a good life.

am i correct? therefore, we have a responsibility to get a handle on this deficit and the debt that confronts our country. we would be irresponsible not to do that. as a result, i have said all of our expenditures need to be on the table. we need to look at all of our expenses as you would in a family, not just 12% of your expenses on one item, which is what we're doing in washington today, looking at a small sliver in the budget process. you want to look at all expenditures. that means we have to look at entitlement programs, of which medicare and medicaid, social security and health grants and others -- not pell grants, but other entitlements. you have to look at that. what we do not want to do is undermine the security that they give to us. we must not take away the

guarantee that gives people the security that in their senior years they will be self- sufficient and not put into poverty. i think we would all agree on that, correct? we want to make sure our grandchildren and great- grandchildren are not poverty- stricken. we do not want to bring their -- but their brain, -- break their bank, correct? we need to make sure they have resources available to them to pay their bills as we paid our bills. total spending on each medicare beneficiary would increase by 40% under the republican plan. so the cost would go up for all of us. the budget cuts over $700 billion from the medicaid program. so not only is the medicare problem substantially affected, but so is the medicaid program.

i do not know whether any of you here access medicaid, and you do not need to tell me, but i want you to know almost two-thirds of every medicaid dollar is spent on seniors and disabled. furthermore, in our district alone, medicaid pays for the care of 64% of all nursing home residents. so that almost two out of every three nursing home residents is on medicaid. now why is that? because having nursing home care is very, very expensive. what happens? most of us do not have enough resources to pay for more than one, two, three or four years of nursing home care, maximum. then you run out of money. now, we're not when a tree on the streets, so what happens?

medicaid comes in. in effect, you pay yourself down to the medicaid eligible. this would turn republican -- the republican proposal would turn medicaid not a to a guarantee program, the so- called grant program where states would get a designated level of funding. not based upon what the rising cost is, but based upon with the designated sum is. the republican plan for medicaid places both the availability and the quality of care at risk. finally, levees and altman, perhaps most egregiously, a budget cuts this trillions of dollars in new tax cuts to the very wealthiest americans. i am for working hard and i went to work with my republican

colleagues to come up with a bipartisan plan that will bring our debt and deficit down. we must do that. my father's generation was called the greatest generation. we do not want to be called the most fiscally irresponsible generation. we want to make sure our kids inherit a solvent nation. that is our responsibility. i am committed to that. frankly, cutting from seniors to give to the wealthiest in america is not, i think, sound public policy. let me show you this chart over here. i will speak up so you can hear me. in this chart, remember, i told the seniors will have to pay $6,000 more? you think, well, that means we will bring down the deficit, right?

well, it would mean that if that is all that happens because we would be paying more, the government would pay less, but let me show you what they do. they take 33 seniors passing $6,000 more and give the average millionaire a $200,000 tax cut. >> [unintelligible] >> that i call greed. [laughter] >> you think we could bring costs down by $6,000 and save -- either pay off the debt or pay some other costs that would not incur borrowing, right? but if he then cut the taxes on the wealthiest in america making over $1 million on average by $200,000, all you have done is taken from the seniors pocket

and given it to the wealthiest americans pocket. let me say this, i am for people working hard and making a lot of money. god bless them. we all want to do that. we all want to make as much as we can. some people make a lot. i do not begrudge them that. but we all need to pay our fair share. we do not need to take $6,000 out of the pockets of seniors -- if they are millionaires, fine. >> [unintelligible] >> are you a millionaire? >> no, i am not. >> who are the millionaires in the room? [laughter] apparently, you're in this crowd. you are paying the $6,000 more but not getting the tax break. one person. you can demagogue on that. i do not want to demagogue on that. i do not begrudge people doing

well. i want them to do well. i want them to creep businesses, create jobs, free will and do well. -- i want them to three business, create jobs, do well. i've talked to a lot of people have done well and they do not begrudge paying their taxes at all. they are not greedy. they understand it they get a lot. they get roads, national defense, police, education. if they're hiring workers, they need good education. it does not make sense for us to just simply shift and put a burden on these 33 people of an extra $6,000 a weekend of one person a $200,000 tax cut. -- so we can give one person a $200,000 tax cut. finally, let me say, as i have said before, that we believe we

have to get this debt under control, but the solution to our debt and deficit problem must be balanced in its approach. it must be sensitive to the folks who have done so much to make our country great. it must be sensitive to the people who have a need for health care to make sure that they get health care. how many of you think that not having health care is an option? raise your hand. all of us understand that health care is not an option. if you do not get health care, the probability is you die a lot earlier than you ought to die, or your disabled and cannot work and become a burden, not the benefit, to our society and

yourselves and your family. health care is absolutely essential. let's reform the tax code to make it simpler and more fair. we need to do that, i'm for that. but stood in a way that reduces the deficit and lores tax rates. -- let's do it in a way that reduces tax rates and the deficit. let's look at ways we can save on every part of our budget. by the way, that means defense as well. i am for a strong national defense. i am for making sure america can respond to every challenge that confronts it, but i'm also for making sure that we spend that money as effectively and efficiently as we expect to spend money in any other way or objective. but we should not and medicare's guarantee. why? because it will undermine the

health and well-being of our seniors. i am a senior. but frankly, let me tell you -- i am lucky. i am pretty healthy and i have a good health insurance program. thank you very much. by the way, i want to make it clear, at the same health care program every other federal employee has. the federal employee health benefit plan. how many are federal employes here? you and i have the same plan. it is a good plan. i am pleased i have it. it is no special plan for me. it is the federal employee health benefit plan. but there are some people who do not have that insurance and some people who need to supplement whatever they have with their medicare benefits. what that does for my kids -- i have three daughters. they all have their own

families. they are paying their mortgage payments, trying to get their kids to school, paying on their car, groceries, making a loan every week at the banks of the can pay for their gasoline. [laughter] i tell you, it is getting to be terrible. let me tell you what is driving these oil prices. opec nation to said there is plenty of oil. there's not a shortage. demand is down. the price keeps going up. you know why? speculators. speculators are driving up the price of oil. they are bidding on oil they never expected a drop of oil delivered to them. they're just trading pit. they are driving up. that is greed. we're getting to your point. speculators are driving up that

cost. ladies and gentlemen, i am here to tell you that i want to make sure that we address the deficit, bring the debt down, but at the same time, strengthen social security and medicare to make sure it is there and is sustainable from a cost standpoint over the years, over the decades, during this coming century, but without undermining your children's reliance on its availability. let me stop there and thank you for what you have done to make our country what it is. how many of you grew up in prince george county? 60 years or more? i have been here 60 years --

no, let's see i've been here 57 years. not quite 60 years. >> 80 years. >> so you been here on your life. >> 75 years. >> 75 years? how much? 71. i have been here since i was 15 and i will be 72 on the 14th of june. 57 years for me. questions? >> [unintelligible] >> does eight years count? absolutely. you bet. >> can i just said, i understand what you're saying and i appreciate your coming here to talk to us but i'm still a little nervous because i am at a point where i'm not medicare eligible at this time. that is next year. so i and payingcobra, which is

enormous monthly fee. i'm hearing a lot of political talk -- i am hearing a lot of political debate about medicare, social security, but i do believe-and you said there is demagoguery going on. and some of it is. i am asking to have my mind put at ease because how to look to next year and october when all the medicare eligible and feel comfortable-and just feel comfortable. >> very, very, very good question. i am glad i'm here to give the assurance he need. first of all, there was an election just a few weeks ago

and the 26th district of new york when the republican plan to cut medicare guarantee was discussed the bank would s saylash, coming eliminated. it would not eliminate it for you. it would eliminate some of the things i talked about. you'll be eligible and a short time. i want to guarantee everyone the president of unisys, and more broadly the united states senate -- we cannot control the house. i will vote against it, but we cannot control it. i can guarantee you that you become eligible and it will be there for you because president obama will not sign a bill that will eliminate it. i do not think the united states senate will pass anything that will eliminate. the house, so far, has not done that. although, they have reduced your benefits as a senior on prescription drugs, wellness

care that i spoke of earlier. medicare will be there for you. what we want to make sure is medicare is there for everybody forever, so that our country can have the kind of security and stability that medicare and social security give us. again, i want to make it clear, i do not want to going away from here being in any way misled, we need to do with our debt and deficit. medicare and social security are an issue. social security is really not part of the deficit problem at all, but it does need to be made sustainable so our kids will have it there. that is our responsibility, in my view. what we do not need as has been suggested, to eliminate the guarantee of availability of those two critically important security for our country and for my kids.

we think this is a senior issue. [unintelligible] mp. [unintelligible] this is an issue for our country. my kids know dad is going to be sufficient from health care and from social security. they think i'm going to be ok anyway, but the fact of the matter is, they do not have to worry about being a mother pay for me as well as their kids -- being able to pay for me as well as their kids. this is not just a senior issue, but a family issue. to be 71 and july. >> i am glad to be 72. i am an old man, you are a young woman. i got you. >> talking about social security for seniors, i do not understand has been seen years as many have retired and some have not. i feel that with as much rent

and stuff as they have to pay, i do not understand how seniors can live off a little bit of money they can. you're talking about it increases, it will not increase in of the mix to much difference because the last increase is too much, will make much difference, because we have more entrances to pay. -- insurances to pay. different to me, seniors would not pay more than $500 a month. >> the main for everything? >> no, just rent. just rent. i feel that the in all that they have even some come through slavery time, just to get where they are today. but it seems like the rich man has got it all and we have nothing.

it is just like the board up there. 33% of $6,000. that is not for us, the $6,000. at $200,000 for the rich man. i know it is a robbery. it is a game. it is not fair for the seniors to have to live the way they are living. >> i think -- i do not know if i agree with your $500 cap. that would be nice. [laughter] >> [unintelligible] >> you may have a $500 cap and no housing available. >> those of the people that got it. >> i hear you. let me say, times are tough right now. we have too many people out of work. we have too many people are not

making enough money working one, two, three jobs. things are tough. we need to get this economy working. i have an agenda colorado "make it in america." many of you have made it in america. it is about succeeding. you high-5 when you make it, when the game, is the test, get the job, make it. it also means this, we need to make 'it' in america. we need to create manufacturing jobs in america still have a lot of people paying into social security, that we have people on role so that we have a cash flow -- so security is a pay-as- you-go program, adopted in 1935, started shortly thereafter. we had 15 people, 16 people supporting one person. now we have about three people

supporting one person. that is why we have a financial challenge in social security, which we have got to solve. but we need to make sure it is available, even if it is not as much as we would like, but we have got to do with this fiscally responsible for our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. at the same time, make sure that we have a guarantee for our seniors so they can live in dignity. yes manfred >> -- yes, ma'am. >> it to me three cards to get my madison the other day. i came home and called the lady they gave me this insurance. i said, she says, your in your donut hole. i said, i'm going to eat mine donut hole and then my sugar is gonna go up. [laughter] >> you're going the yard donut hole? >> you know, the hole that comes

out of the donut? >> yes, i know. under the affordable care act, currently, we've reduced your cost 50%. there is still a cost. we are phasing in town. you heard me say, what the republican budget would have done is eliminate that reduction. you paid the full load, in other words, and you're having trouble doing that. when i originally started about -- talking about this, i was taking lippitor. i tell people, there is no way they can fix cholesterol that i do not like it. [laughter] by cholesterol only went down one. he said he will not stem the tide, will you? i said, no, sir, i am not.

>> my cholesterol is down. >> there you go. >> i think we may be telling c- span more than you want them to know. [laughter] the fact of the matter is, what our health care costs up? in some respects, for some good reasons but three very good reasons health care costs are up. a, we're all living longer. not all this, the average is living longer. and we are healthier. why? because we have two things that 1965 net up to medicare we did not have. a, wide use of prescription drugs. what do we use them for? keep your sugar ok. keep my cholesterol ok. because sugar and cholesterol

are ok, taking the pill every day, your help here longer. that saves money, but costs money because those medicines are expensive. thirdly, extraordinary diagnostic tools available to us to find out what is wrong with us. you go in and have an ache or pain in it and take an x-ray and find out about 10% or 15% of what the doctor wants to know. you do a mri or ct scan, there will find that 95%. if you go to the doctor and they say, yes something wrong and i don't know if it is and maybe i'll find out 50% of what it is by doing next right, or do they ct scan can we will find that 95%, which are you going to choose? you will choose what gives the doctor the most information. guess what? it is 10 times more expensive, so costs are going up. good diagnosis, prescription

drugs, and living longer. we have got to make sure that we bring health care costs under control. it will not be easy. i want to -- i have to go and i know you probably do, too, we have to bring the step down and bring the deficit down because we owe it to our children and grandchildren to do that. yes, sir? >> on behalf of the mayor and city council, thank you. >> and a wonderful member. >> thank you for being in my district. although i am not a senior, as you can tell, probably, hopefully, i will be. i am only selling-- celebrating 10 years in prince george's county. i do want to personally thank you for your efforts. i knew you can to this senior center earlier and i want to congratulate you and your

democratic colleagues in both the house and senate and president obama for getting it done. i know as it was said last night, it is taken over 40 years for us to try to do something last night -- over four years to over 40 years. it has been difficult to make those choices. not everybody can get all of what they want good i know you'll do what is in the best interest. i appreciate that read on to say publicly, thank you. >> todd turner, does a wonderful job on the buoy city council. all of us grew up and away get things done is, you were together. i want to work together with the city government, county government, state government and

federal government. none of us do it alone. frankly, i want to work with my republican colleagues. dealing with this deficit and this debt is not going to be easy. we're all going have to be in this together. an organization that represents seniors, will have to figure out how to singe the belt. we all care about education and how we're going to cinch the belt. as we do that, we need to make sure we continue to invest in growing our economy and competing globally. investing in education of our kids -- because if we do not, we will not be competitive in the global market. we need to invest in our infrastructure. if we do not, we're not going to be the kind of competitive economy we need to be. we need to invest in innovation.

we are the innovation, invention, the development capital of the world. i mention the make it an american agenda about making it, manufacturing in this country. what is happening is we are still the inventive, innovative and development capital of the world, but guess what is happening? we're inventing it, innovating and developing it, then taking it to scale, manufacturing it overseas. if we continue to do that, we will have inventors, innovators and developers go where? overseas. america will not be the kind of country that all of you helped maintain, defend and create. you have a question? >> [unintelligible]

that has bothered me. gas prices going up. we have to meet those prices with limited funds. how long [unintelligible] do] >> i think it will come back. here's the problem -- not the problem, but the law is, judged by so security, there is not an increase in the cost of living, then there is not a cost-of- living adjustment made. prior to 1983, i think is when we did it, there was not an automatic cost-of-living adjustment. congress would pass it every year. sometimes it passed and

sometimes it did not. what they did was, we put in a statutory provision that if there were a cost-of-living increase, then so security recipients would get that adjustment. the last two years, there has not read the economy has been in the mud. you are correct. notwithstanding that, prescription drug costs have gone up and so have gasoline prices. that is of concern. i think the answer is, it will come back. did your basic in question? then i have to go. >> i would like to thank [unintelligible] >> terrific, thank you. >> there is an order blank in there. >> all right, good. thank you.

>> one question. >> then we will and it. i'm not leaving without you. >> i've been working with rent- controlled, time to get rent control and the state of maryland. every time i go to someone, they send it to someone else. talking about how difficult it is. why? why is it so difficult to get rent control and our state of maryland? >> remember when the study said $500 for housing? remember when she said that question -- when she said that? people would not provide housing. rent control sounds good and is good for people who have their rent-controlled. the problem that causes is, if of a jurisdiction with friend control, people tend to not want to build additional housing whether it is rental housing, in particular, because you do not have control of the rent.

therefore, you deflate the housing market supply. what happens when supply goes down and demand remains constant? prices go up. it then becomes a differential. there is no doubt that housing prices are at a premium. another problem with grant, as people have lost their homes -- with rent, as people have lost their homes, sales have gone down. people still need a place to live. i am not one that believes necessarily that rent control will solve that problem because i think will have the perverse effect of decreasing housing stock in the jurisdiction that adopts rent controls. and they will build rental units someplace else, and you'll find housing less available. >> it looks like there would be

somewhat of [unintelligible] that.hink you're right on we need more affordable housing. absolutely. >> and well built homes. some of them are going down. >> something happening, i think there is a lot of quality housing built, but you are right, some of it is not of the quality is should be. one of the things we need to do in terms of cost of housing, because cost is not just went -- rent or owning a house, but maintaining the house. and to the extent we could make homes more energy efficient, say by heating, electricity costs, we will be ahead of the game. and making requirements for that because part of the problem is

not just having the house, if you're paying electricity or heating bill or the oil bill, that is a big part of your cost as well. you get the last question. >> what about controls on some light gasoline -- like gasoline? [unintelligible] >> the generic is probably because her doctor says it is the same thing. >> [unintelligible] >> did you ask your doctor about it? >> he said, yes, they have got up on it. it had to be renewed this month. when i spoke to my insurance company, secondary entrance, they said the price has gone up again. they recommended to the others -- two others.

what about the controls? >> he asked about price controls, specifically, energy and drug prices. drug prices, we tried to deal with in terms, particularly of seniors, bringing the cost down so there is the ability to make sure the donut hole, which you've fallen into, is substantially reduced. i do not know if you're in the doughnut hole. >> [unintelligible] >> about $200 a month. on oil prices, gasoline prices, one of the ways we can bring prices down, and my view, first

of all, to expand our energy availability in the united states of america. understand, oil, even if we have more supply of oil, oil is a world price market. just having more oil in the united states and not necessarily bring the price down but it will make is more energy independent, which is important, help our national security. drilling more oil in the united states would not necessarily bring the price down. let me go over this. first of all, if you heard opec's say last week there is a sufficient supply of oil. the price is going up not because of oil prices or the supply or demand. the man is clearly on the upswing -- demand is clearly on the upswing. in the united states, least 25%

of the world's energy. demand is going up critically and china and india. this is a worldwide commodity. what we really need to have his alternative energy sources available to us. natural gas is one of those. solar energy is another. wind is another geothermal is another. i know it is controversial, but i am a very big supporter of nuclear power. nuclear power is clean energy. it is not damaging to the environment. i believe we rely on about 20% to 25% of all electricity today is the result of nuclear- powered, accretes our energy. i think the way we can get away from oil prices, not justbuy more oil -- again, the say you

are a cane maker and it is a worldwide price and you can sell that for $10 in france or london or germany, but you can only sell for $5 a share, where are you going to sell it? you are going to sell everything it $10. i point is, even if the producer oil here, if they kinsellas someplace more, they will do it. speculators are driving the price of. we have to do with that. but if we have the ability to rely on alternative sources of energy, then we do not have to use as much oil. so jacking the price up on us will not get them the dollars they want. we can bring the man down. i am a strong believer that

global warming is a substantial threat to this generation, but certain to my children, grandchildren, and great- grandchildren. global warming. we're creating too much co2 gas, which is creating a blanket which keeps the heat in. as a magnifying the heat, which is it was 100 to yesterday, the hottest day and i forget how long. the lash it was 102 degrees yesterday, the hottest day and i forget how long did we have cycles but almost every scientists believe that is a problem. we need to look at alternative energy sources. we need to be more efficient and our use. we need to conserve energy. ladies and gentleman, i have been so pleased to have this opportunity to visit with you. this is what america is about. i want you to be focused on and

talk to your friends and neighbors about what is happening with health care, medicare, medicaid. note the facts. make your own decisions and judgments and talk to your friends and neighbors. together, we can solve this problem. together, we can bring down the debt, get the deficit under control, and also make sure our people have the kind of guarantee for health care insecurity they need and want and have worked hard for. thank you all very, very much. [applause]