read them every morning. it is a powerful way to connect with the local communities. from the standpoint of how we program the brands, i think we are just at the beginning of how all of these grants are going to be in the future and how we're going to use these platforms to meet consumer needs. >> exciting to see how we have at our disposal journalist on the ground. one came to us from the "york times calls" and has this integration from our size. how do you surface weather is a story about christie or about the unemployed? when the latest unemployment numbers came out, you had amazing stories that put flesh and blood on the data from the patch reporters.

then we bring them together and connect the dots and right national stories. it is really an incredible opportunity for journalists. now you bring in the block ggers. we have all of them at local level down to the high school kids. we're about to have 100 million comments. that for me is that engagement, that sense of people increasingly wanting to be part of the conversation, part of the story of their times and not to view and use passively. >> to you feel like you want to draw engagement in at a higher rate than what you're getting now? or is that pretty good with that number that you have? >> we are really incredibly happy with the engagement we're getting. we always want more.

in fact, there is going to be more and more engagement. those of you who bolg and comment know how exciting it is to be part of the conversation. we are finding that and we are finding new ways to interview and new tools to make our content more engaging. it's more addictive than a good sense. >> one other comment that walter brought up. ol, onewas coming to a a of the big interests in alo and huffington post, walter manchin the field, one of the first things that people said to me was, aol lost his way not because of the business model but because of the community and the ability for people to actually comment on what was happening. as i travel around, whether

people commenting on articles they saw or things that they did, one of the most disappointing things that happened at the aol's community- based was not being able to comment. all the common in technology was stripped off of the company. we went from the most engage community to the least engaged in the world. i think that area and i brought that back. when aol went down, they took that away. a lot of the features in facebook were things that he grew up using on a a well. it's an important part of our business in the future. >> for those of us old enough, we remember when you dial up aol and you hear that iconic modem sound and the "you've got mail" peace. to go back to that, you have a startup incubating in a large

corporation. is it important for the user to know that endgadget is part of aol.com? >> we did a brand that study last year and aol -- most major brands have three attributes. aol only has two at this point. trust, brand awareness. they said they have never seen anything like this before. you have over 95% trust with consumers and you have 95% awareness with consumers, and you have no other attributes. the secret sauce for us is if we could connected third attribute to that experience and we would go back to being one of the most powerful brands on the planet. all we're hoping the third

attribute of the aol will be is content. maybe like disney, were you do not necessarily the disney owns espn or abc, but overall, i am hoping aol will stand for information and communications space and entertainment space. one thing that we did with carry-on i is that i like the obsessive, focus nature of huffington post. that is going to come from the boys and the content brand. it is a key experience for all of our users. >> that is how this was seen before we had the acquisition starting. i remember listening to tim in new york making this point bank about knowledge awareness.

he and i met and talked for hours and begin a conversation that went on for a couple of months. not a conversation about buying the huffington post, if but what mattered in the space that we are occupying, what would be the future of media, etc., etc. it was amazing how our visions were a line. -- aligned. then he wanted to come out to l.a. and be with me to discuss something. i invited him to lunch. he made the offer. >> i see you go to lunch a lot. >> there were no mushrooms. before we even started eating, he said to me, i want to buy the huffington post and bring the huffington post and aol content

together. it all happen unbelievably fast. for those of you who may be read the story of our deal, we close the deal at the super bowl. >> in halftime, literally. we had our first super bowl together and we had corporate videoconference. we did her first corporate videoconference. we did her first analyst called. and today is her first day of we're having a birthday together. >> your hear the national press club and we're extremely grateful. a lot of members came to me before the event and wanted me to ask the question about the value of the professional journalist versus the ones who essentially participate for no financial benefit to them. how you balance that? how do you decide the where --

where the value comes from adding a professional? for those like me, professional journalist to worry that people will work for free, and might push them aside, are you ok with that? or how do you preserve the added value that only -- we would like to think -- of professional can bring to the table? >> we have over 1300 professional journalist on the payroll, a measure of our commitment. since the merger, we have added over 1060 professional journalists to the team. the fact that we of very robust journalistic enterprise does not in any case negate that we are different platform. this is the distribution mechanism for people who have something to say to be able to use. some of them are journalist

crossed posting what they have put on their personal blogs. others are politicians and people who've just written a book or trying to publicize their high school kids. we have agreements with colleges and academics, we have many students, we have actors. we have every possible profession you can imagine represented. i like to invite all of you to blog. we love having people's voices. whenever they want for as long as they want. if you decide to blog for us know what is going to bug you and ask you why you did not. don't- --no one is going to bug you and ask you why you did not.

we have an incredible team of professional journalists. that is in tandem with our platform. we are on a path budget -- we unapologetically love blogs. >> i just realized that i read the president's blog for free for the national press club so i am speaking out of both sides of my mouth. what you concerned about right now? >> the biggest threat is internal. i do not mean that from issues internally. i mean that i do not think anyone's putting out a big enough investment and it is our opportunity to lose. when we take a step back and look at the competitive landscape, you have a silicon valley and absolute war with each other. that any more, a size. the future of that war is going

to be about content very there going to be content platforms -- we were talking about aol meeting content in the early stages to track users. the secondary underlying thing under that war which has not been appreciated enough is the release focusing on real time and quality. i think you're going to start to sit at google focus on quality in real time that will force all the other platforms to do that. we believe about premium brands and quality contents will grow there. at the second piece of competition is, instead of focused on each other and other media properties, how do we fulfill real needs for real people with real contents every day? i'll give you one thing that keeps me awake and i right now. if the phone and my pocket, i used to be connected to a journalist and content once or

twice a day, and with the internet multiple times. my relationships with journalist that i follow, i am with them all day and there with me all day. the competitive landscape is being the person connected with someone all day and next to them all day. that is the real significant opportunity. >> which you just reaffirm that for my wife when i'm on a laptop at 11:00 p.m.? >> everyone has a relationship with somebody. it is an informational relationship. >> i agree with everything except him being kept awake and i appeared we have an historic commitment to sleep. we write about it constantly. one of the first things when i moved into the newsroom, is installed to npp -- install two

nap rooms. it is editorially, the way that we covered the questions of life/work balance, getting enough sleep, being able to take care of yourself. it is very important now. this summer walter had a fantastic track on the pursuit of happiness. it goes back to the founding brothers -- potters. doctors, scientists were debating that issue. we are also debating that in discussing in and covering an everyday. help the living, and we believe that increasing lead this is going to be a very important

conversation that people want to engage in as they are trying to redefine success and happiness. >> a quick question for you, tim, and then we will have an announcement a an askrianna the last question. it tends to be on a lighter side although one not be a guarantee. aol reported earnings and it has a market capitalization of $190 billion. it was once a leader in its space and its market cap, and we understand it changes over time, less than what google learned in that quarter. my question is, is google getting too big? >> i did not know whether google is too big or too small. i think we could make our market cap bigger. [laughter] the reality is, google's market cap and other companies reflects consumer interest to me use, and the revenue behind them.

the secret to to our success is that the west are three things that really matter. the number consumers you have though -- on your property. the revenue generated per consumer. and what does your brand stand for? i think google has done a nice job of staying focused on those three things. i think those earnings were spectacular. we are still in the middle of doing our turnaround and hopefully things will now be bumpy forever. we have a clear vision of where we're going. to a large degree, we have a very googlesque vision. we have a very clear vision of what we're doing and our vision matches closely to consumer birth, advertising growth, revenue growth, and great brand. i am hoping we will close that gap that -- at some 0.9. >> now we present our guests

with a token appreciation of your presence here today. i have one for both of you, the npc coffee mug. do not have any coffee before you take a nap. you can blog that, certainly during my last question is for arianna. you're here for your birthday and our audience sang happy birthday to you before. my question is, did you have a wish and if you cannot share the wish, can you share with us another wish? >> first of all, as anyone with children knows, your first wish is always about your children. they say that you're only as happy as your least happy child. i have two daughters and college -- in college, and they

had their ups and downs and other lessons. i am very happy to say that my first wish for my birthday was about them and about their lives, and as you know, never -- no matter how old they are, they never stop being your babies. i have pictures of them on my phone when they were babies. and that is problematic. [laughter] and they are my main joy bring yours. i do not make a separation between my work in my life. but the first wish is always on them. >> how about a round of applause for our guests here today? [applause] tem, walter, arianna, thank you very much.

i like to thank the staff for helping to organize today's event. thank you to all of you. we are adjourned. >> next we will hear from president obama and house republicans and democrats concerning the debt and deficit reduction talks. >> this weekend on book tv, " hesitation kills," reliving the front line. the impact of the intercontinental railroad. and david nichols looks at the suez canal crisis. eisenhower faces a change in the cold war balance of power. but that the complete schedule at our website and sign up for alerts the weekend schedules. >> every weekend american history tv on c-span3 highlights the one ordered 50th

anniversary of the civil war. this week historians on the events that led to the april 18, 61 attack on fort sumter in two weeks, mark the first major battle of the civil war, the battle of bull run, with 48 hours of civil war programming. every weekend on american history tv on c-span3. >> next, president obama's about the ongoing negotiations between his administration and congressional leaders over ways to reduce the federal deficit. he said an agreement must be reached to keep the u.s. from defaulting on its loan obligations and that the solution should include revenue increases as well as spending cuts. treasury secretary 10 geithner has said that the federal government has until august 2nd to raise its debt ceiling to avoid a government default. this is 40 minutes. this is 40 minutes.

>> hello, everybody. as you know, yesterday we had another meeting with congressional leaders. we are not having one today, so i thought it would be useful to give you an update on where we are. although congressional leaders -- all the congressional leaders have reiterated the desire to make sure that the united states does not default on our obligations and that the full faith and credit of the united states is preserved. that is a good thing. we should not even be this close to a deadline on this issue. this should have been taken care of earlier, but it is encouraging that everybody believes this is something that has to be addressed. for the general public, i have said this before but i just want to reiterate, this is not some abstract issue. these are obligations that the united states has taken on in the past. congress has run up the credit card and we now have an obligation to pay our bills. if we do not, it could have a whole set of adverse consequences. we could end up in a situation where interest rates rise for

everybody all throughout the country. effectively, a tax increase on everybody, because suddenly, whether you are using your credit cards or trying to get a loan for a car or student loan, businesses that are trying to make payroll, all of them could end up being impacted as a consequence of default. what is important is that even as we raise the debt ceiling, we also solve the problem underlying debt and deficits. i am glad that congressional leaders do not want to default, but the american people expect more than that. they expect that we actually try to solve this problem and get our fiscal house in order. during the course of these discussions with congressional leaders, what i have tried to emphasize is, we have a unique opportunity to do something big. we have a chance to stabilize america's finances for a

decade, or 15 or 20 years, if we are willing to seize the moment. what that would require would be some shared sacrifice and a balanced approach that says we are going to make significant cuts in domestic spending, and i have already said i am willing to take down domestic spending to the lowest percentage of our overall economy since dwight eisenhower. it also requires cuts in defense spending. i have said that in addition to the $400 billion we have already cut from defense spending, we will look for hundreds of billions more. it would require us taking on health care spending, and that includes looking at medicare and finding ways that we can stabilize the system so that it is available not just for this generation but for future generations, and it would require revenues. it would require even as we are

asking the person who needs a student loan or the senior citizen or people -- veterans who are trying to get by on a disability check, even as we are trying to make sure that all those programs are affordable, we are also saying to folks like myself that can afford it that we are able and willing to do a little bit more. millionaires and billionaires can afford to do a little bit more. we can close corporate we can close corporate loopholes so that oil companies are not getting unnecessary tax credits or the corporate jet owners are not getting unnecessary tax breaks. if we take that approach, then i am confident that we can not only impress the financial markets but more importantly, we can actually impress the

american people that this town can actually get something done once in awhile. let me acknowledge what everybody understands. it is hard to do a big package. our republican friends have said they are not willing to do revenues and they have repeated that on several occasions. i hope that they are listening not just to lobbyists for special interests here in washington, but they are also listening to the american people, because it turns out, many polls done by your organization show that it is not just democrats who show we need to take a balanced approach, many republicans do as well. many republican voters think that any deficit reduction package should have a balanced approach and should include some revenues. it is not just democrats. it is a majority of republicans.

you have a whole slew of republican officials from previous administrations. you have a bipartisan commission that has said that we need revenues. this is not just a democratic understanding, this is an understanding that the american people believe we should not be asking sacrifices from middle- class folks who are working hard every day, from the most vulnerable in our society, we should not ask them to make sacrifices we are not asking the most fortunate to make as well. well. i am still pushing for us to achieve a big deal, but what i also said to the group was, if we cannot do the biggest deal possible, then let's still be ambitious. let's try to at least get a down payment on deficit

reduction. that we can actually accomplish without huge changes in revenue or significant changes in entitlements, but we could still send a signal that we are serious about this problem. the fallback position, the third option, and i think the least attractive option, is one in which we raise the debt ceiling, but we do not make any progress in deficit and debt. if we take that approach, this issue is going to continue to plague us for months and years to come. i think it is important for the american people that everybody in this town set politics aside, that everybody in this town sets our individual interests aside, and we try to do some tough stuff. i have already taken some heat from my party for being willing to compromise. my expectation and hope is that everybody in the coming days is going to be willing to compromise. last point i will make, and that i will take questions -- we are

obviously running out of time. what i have said to the members of congress is that you need, over the next 24-36 hours, to give me some sense of what your plan is to get the debt ceiling raised through whatever mechanisms that can think about, and show me a plan in terms of what your doing for deficit and debt reduction. if they show me a serious plan, i am ready to move, even if the requires tough decisions on my part. i am hopeful that over the next couple of days, we will see this log jam broken, because of the american people, they understandably want to see washington do its job. with that, let me see who is on the list. we're going to start with jake tapper. >> you have said that reducing the deficit will require shared sacrifice. we know -- we have an idea of the taxes you would like to see raised on corporations and on americans in the top tax

bracket, but we do not know specifically what you are willing to do when it comes to entitlements spending. in the interest of transparency, leadership, and showing the american people that you have been negotiating in good faith, can you tell us one structural reform that you were willing to make to one of these entitlement programs that would have a major impact on the deficit? would you be willing to raise the retirement age? would you be willing to means test so security or medicare? >> we have said that we are willing to look at all those approaches. i laid out some criteria in terms of what would be acceptable. for example, i have said very clearly that we should make sure that current beneficiaries, as much as possible, are not affected, but we should look at what can we do in the out years so that over time, some of these programs are more sustainable. i have said that means testing

on medicare, meaning people like myself, i am going to be turning 50 in a week, so i am starting to think a little bit more about medicare eligibility. [laughter] i am going to get my aarp card soon, and my discount. you can envision a situation where somebody in my position, me having to pay a little bit more on premiums or copays or things like that, would be appropriate. again, that could make a difference. difference. we have been very clear about where we are willing to go. what we are not willing to do is restructure the program in the ways that we have seen coming out of the house over the last

several months, where we would voucherize the program and you potentially have senior citizens paying $6000 more. i view the social security and medicare as some of the most important programs we have. it's important to let them remain as social safety nets. it turns out that making some modest modifications in those entitlements can save trillions of dollars, and it is not necessary to completely revamp the program. what is necessary is to say how do we make some modifications, including on the provider side. i think it is important for us to keep in mind drug companies, for example, who are still doing very well through the medicare program, and although we have made drugs more available at a cheaper price to seniors who earn medicare through the affordable care act,

there is more work to potentially be done there. if you look at a balanced package even within the entitlement programs, it turns out you can save trillions of dollars while maintaining the core integrity of the program. >> retirement age? >> i'm not going to get into specifics. everything is something that we have discussed. what i am not going to do is to ask -- let me put it this way. if you are a senior citizen and a modification potentially cost you $100 or $200 a year more, or even if it is not affecting current beneficiaries, someone who is 40 today, 20 years from now is going to end up having to pay a little bit more. the least i can do is to say that people who are making a million dollars or more have to

do something as well. that is the kind of trade-off, the kind of balanced approach and shared sacrifice that i think most americans agree needs to happen. >> thank you, mr. president. i thought i heard you open up the door to this middle-of-the- road possibility. he said there should be a serious plan and then you are prepared to move. a few minutes before you came here, house republicans are going to be voting on a balanced budget amendment. is it dead on arrival, or does it short circuit what you expect in the next 24-36 hours? >> i have not looked at it. i guess that's -- i think the house will vote on a couple of things just to make political statements, but if you are trying to get to $2.4 trillion without any revenue, then you are effectively gutting a whole

bunch of domestic spending that is going to be too burdensome and not something that i would support. just to be very specific, we have identified over a trillion dollars in discretionary cuts, both in defense and domestic spending. that is hard to do. that requires essentially that you freeze spending, and when i say freeze, that means you are not getting inflation, so that these are programmatic cuts that over the course of 10 years, you would be looking at potentially a 10% cut in domestic spending. if you then double that number, at that point you are taking a really big bite out of programs that are really important to ordinary folks.

you are talking about students accumulating thousands of dollars more in student loan debt every year. you are talking about federal workers and veterans and others potentially having to pay more in terms of their health care. i have not seen it a credible plan, having gone through the numbers, that would allow you to get to $2.40 trillion without really hurting ordinary folks, and the notion that we would be doing that and not asking anything from the wealthiest among us or from closing corporate loopholes, that does not seem like a serious plan to meet. the notion of oil company tax breaks. the notion that -- a serious

plan to me saying that oil companies do not need them to have an incentive to go out and make hundreds of millions of dollars, if we had not seen the other side even budge on that, i think most democrats would say that is not a serious plan. one last point on the balanced budget amendment. i do not know what version they are going to be presenting, but some of the balanced budget amendments that have been floating up their, this cut, cap, and balance, for example. when you look at the numbers, what you are looking at is cuts of a half trillion dollars below the ryan budget in any given year. it would require cutting social security or medicare substantially. i think it is important for everybody to understand that all of us believe that we need to get to a point where eventually we can balance the budget. we don't need a constitutional

amendment to do that. what we need to do is do our jobs, and we have to do it the same way a family would do it. if a family gets overextended and their credit card is too high, they do not just stop paying their bills. what they do is, they say, how we start cutting our monthly cost? we keep making our payments but we start cutting out the things that are not necessary, and we do it in a way that maintains our credit rating, a way that is responsible. we do not stop sending our kids to college. we do not stop fixing the boiler or the roof that is leaking. we do things in a sensible, responsible way. we can do the same thing when it comes to the federal budget. >> if you end up going to this middle-of-the-road package you referred to as the second option, would that have to have some sort of the stimulus -- >> i think both would be good

for the economy. a payroll tax cut is something that has put $1,000 in the pocket of the typical american family over the of last six or seven months, and it has helped offset some of the rising costs in gasoline and food. in gasoline and food. i think that american consumers and american businesses would benefit from a continuation of that tax cut next year. unemployment insurance, obviously unemployment is still too high. there are a lot of folks out there who are doing everything they can to find a job, but the market is still tight out there. for us to make sure they are able to stay in their homes potentially or able to still support their families i think is very important and contributes to the overall economy. there are ways that you can essentially take a little over

one trillion dollars in serious discretionary funds, meaningful discretionary cuts, and then start building on top of that some cuts in non health care mandatory payments, ethanol programs, how we calculate various subsidies to various industries. that could potentially be layered on, and we could still do something like a tax cut for ordinary families that would end up benefiting the economy as a whole. that is not my preferable option. i think about this like a layer cake. you can do the bare minimum, and then you can make some progressively harder decisions to solve the problem more and more. we are in a position now where if we are serious about this, everybody is willing to compromise, as i said before, we can fix this thing probably for a decade or more, and that is something i think would be good for overall business

climate and would encourage the american people that washington is willing to take care of its business. >> you are saying there are measures that would be good for the economy that need to be included for you to sign? >> i have to look at the overall package. i do not know what the speaker or mr. mcconnell are willing to do at this point. >> this has gotten kind of ugly in the last week, and it appears that things even gotten futile at these meetings. any regrets in your role in this? this? any regrets that you did not spend more time selling the $4 trillion plan? >> this notion that things got

ugly is just not true. we have been meeting every single day, and we have had very constructive conversations. the american people are not interested in the reality tv aspects of who said what, and did somebody's feelings get hurt. [laughter] they are interested in solving the budget problem and the deficit and debt. that may be good for chatter in this town, but it is not something that folks out in the country are obsessing about. with respect to bowles-simpson, it would not have happened had i not set up the structure for it. as you recall, this was originally bipartisan legislation that some of the republican supporters of decided to vote against it when i said i supported it. that seems to be a pattern i am still puzzled by. so we set it up, and they issued a report. this provides an important

framework to begin discussions, but there were aspects of it that i said early on were not the approach would take. i will give you an example. on defense spending, a huge amount of savings on the discretionary side came from defense spending. i think we need to cut defense. as commander-in-chief, i have to make sure we are cutting it in a way that recognizes we are still in the middle of a war. we are winding down another war, and we have a lot of veterans we have to care for as they come home. they come home. what we have said is, a lot of the components of bowles- simpson, a lot of the recommendations we have taken. others, like on defense, we have taken some but not all of the recommendations.

the bottom line is, this is not an issue of salesmanship to the american people. the american people are sold. i just want a repeat this. [unintelligible] >> you have 80% of the american people who support a balanced approach. 80% of the american people support an approach that includes revenues and cuts. the notion that somehow the american people are not sold is not the problem. the problem is, members of congress are divided -- doug van -- dug in ideologically into various positions because they boxed themselves then with previous statements. this is not a matter of the american people knowing what the right thing to do is.

this is a matter congress doing the right thing and reflecting the will of the american people. if we do that, we will have solved this problem. lori montgomery. >> i wanted to ask about the two trains that seem to be rolling down the track down the hill. leader mcconnell has laid out an elaborate plan to raise the debt limit. he says it will be paired with the new committee that would be tasked with coming up with the big solution you talked about by the end of the year. your comment on that proposal. meanwhile in the house, you are -- they are saying we can be flexible in our demands of we could get a balanced amendment. is there any way that could be part of a solution? >> first of all, bba means a balanced budget amendment. i think i already addressed this question earlier. we don't need a constitutional

amendment to do our jobs. the constitution already tells us to do our jobs and make sure that the government is living within its means and making responsible choices. this notion that we are going to go over a multi-year process instead of seizing the moment now and taking care problems is a typical washington response. we don't need more studies. budgett need a balanced amendment. we simply need to make these tough choices and be willing to take on our bases. everybody knows it. we could have a discussion right now about what the numbers look like, and we know what is necessary. here is the good news. it turns out we don't have to do anything radical to solve this problem. contrary to what some folks say, we are not greece or portugal.

turns out that our problem is we have cut taxes without paying for them over the last decade. decade. we ended up instituting new programs like a prescription drug program for seniors that was not paid for. we fought two wars and did not pay for them. we had a bad recession that required a recovery act and stimulus spending and helping states and all that accumulated, and there is interest on top of that. to unwind that, what is required is that we have to clean up our tax code so we are not giving out a bunch of tax breaks to companies that do not need them and are not creating jobs. we cut programs that we don't need and we invest in those

things that are going to help us grow. every commission that has been out there has said the same thing. basically taken the same approach within the margin of error. my general view is that if the american people looked at this, they would say some of these decisions are tough, but they do not require us to gut medicare or social security. they do not require us to stop helping young people go to college. they do not require us to stop helping families who have a disabled child. they did not require us to violate obligations to our veterans, and they don't require job killing tax cuts. they require us to make some modest adjustments to get our house in order, and we should do it now. with respect to senator

mcconnell's plan, it is constructive to say that if washington operates as usual and cannot get anything done, let's at least avert armageddon. i am glad that people are serious about the consequences of defaults, but we have two problems here. one is raising the debt ceiling. this is a problem that was manufactured here in washington, because every single one of the leaders over there voted for raising the debt ceiling in the past and it has typically been a difficult but routine process. we do have a genuine underlying problem that our debt and deficits are too big. senator mcconnell's approach

solves the first problem. it does not solve the second problem. i would like to solve that second problem. >> are you looking at this option as one likely outcome at this point for can you share with us why there is some hope that the talks that have been going on might actually produce them? >> i always have hope. don't you remember my campaign? [laughter] even after being here 2.5 years, i continue to have hope, because of the american people. because of the american people. as frustrated as they are about this town, there is still good, common sense. all we have to do is align with that common-sense on this problem and it can get solved. i am assuming that at some point, members of congress are going to listen. a number of republican former

elected officials would say a balanced approach that includes some revenue is the right thing to do. the majority of republican voters say that approach is the right thing to do. the proposal that i was discussing with speaker boehner fell squarely in line with what most republican voters think we should do. so the question is, at what point do folks over there start listening to the people who put them in office? now is a good time. sam young. >> good morning, mr. president. i would like to go back to the first question about the tone of this campaign. while it has not been ugly, it is not what you had in mind when you say you wanted to change the tone in washington.

when you have senator mcconnell saying he views these discussions that the prism of 2012, how was that helpful? going forward, if you get a deal on this, can you get anything done it with congress over the next year and a half? >> let me say this. i am not trying to poke at you guys. i generally do not watch what is said about me on cable. a generally did not read what is said about me even on the hill. part of this job is having a thick skin and understanding a lot of this stuff is not personal. that is not going to be an impediment to whatever at center mcconnell says about me on the floor of the senate, it will not be an impediment to us getting a deal done. the question is going to be whether at any given moment we are willing to set politics aside, at least briefly, in

order to get something done. i don't expect politicians not to think about politics, but every so often, there are issues that our urgent that have to be attended to and require us to do things we don't like to do. do. it runs contrary to our base. it gets some constituents that helped us get elected agitated, because they are looking at it from a narrow prism. we are supposed to step back and look at what is good for the country. if we are able to remind ourselves of that, then there is no reason why we should not be able to get things done. what we have been obsessing about raising the debt ceiling and reducing the debt and deficit. the american people are obsessed that unemployment is still way too high, and too many

folks' homes are still under water, and prices of things that they need, not just that they want, are going up a lot faster than their paychecks are, if they have a job. even after resolve this problem, we still have a lot of work to do. hans was mentioning we should renew the payroll tax for another year, make sure employment insurance is there for another year. you are making the point about whether or not that issue could be wrapped into this deal. my point is that those are another set of issues that we need to be talking about and working on. i have an infrastructure bank bill that would supplement construction workers back to work building roads and bridges. we should be cooperating on that.

most of the things i have proposed to spur on additional job growth are traditionally bipartisan. i have 3 trade deals ready to go, all deals that the republicans tell me were their top priorities. they said this would be one of the best job creators that we could have. yet it is still being held up because some folks don't want to provide trade adjustment assistance to people who may be displaced as a consequence of trade. surely we can come up with a compromise to solve those problems. there will be huge differences between now and november 2012 between the parties. whoever the republican nominee is, we are going to have a big, serious debate about what we believe is the right way to guide america forward and win the future. i am confident i will win that debate because we have a better approach.

but in the meantime, surely we can sit down and actually do something to help the american people right here and right now. >> as you just said, raising the debt ceiling, fairly routine. but now we reach financial armageddon. at can you get any agreement with congress on those issues that you talked about? >> i am going to keep on working and trying. but i am going to do is hope that in part this debate has focused the american people's attention a little more and will subject congress to screening. increasingly the american people a coin to say to themselves, if a party or a politician is constantly taking the position

of an " my way or the highway," constantly being locked into ideologically rigid positions, that we are going to remember at the polls. the american people are not paying attention to the details of every aspect of this negotiation, but what i think they are paying attention to is who seems to be trying to get something done and who seems to be posturing and trying to score political points. i think you'll read in the interest of everyone who wants to continue to serve in this town to make sure that they are on the right side of that impression. and that is, by the way, what i said in the meeting two days ago. i was very blunt. i said the american people do not want to see a bunch of posturing. they do not want to hear a bunch of sound bites. what they want is for us to

solve the problems. we all have to remember that. that is why we were sent here. last question. scott. scott. >> republicans know they are we in the same place that we were day -- on monday? >> is probably better for you to ask them. i do think that, and i've said this before, speaker boehner in good faith was trying to see if it was possible to get a big deal done. he had some problems in his caucus. i hope is that after some reflection, after we walked through all the numbers this week and we look at all the options, that there may be some movement, some possibility, some interest to still get something

more than the bare minimum time. but we are running out of time. that is the main concern that i have this point. we have enough time to do a big deal. and got reams of paper print out and spreadsheets on my desk. so we know how we can create a package that solves the deficits and debt for a significant period of time. that is why am expecting answers from all the congressional leaders at sometime in the next couple days. i have to say, this is tough on the democratic side, too. some of the things i've talked about and said i would be willing to see happen, some democrats who think, that is absolutely unacceptable. that is where i would have the selling job, trying to sell to

some of our party that if you are a progressive, you should be concerned about debt and deficit just as much as if you are a conservative. and the reason is because the only thing we're talking about over the next year or two years or five years and didn't deficit, then it is very hard to start talking about making investments and community colleges so that our kids are trained, how do we actually rebuild $2 trillion worth of crumbling infrastructure? if you care about making investments in our kids and on infrastructure and making investments in basic research, then you should want our fiscal house in order. every time we propose a new initiative, someone doesn't just throw up their hands and say, more big spending, more government. it would be very helpful for us to be able to say to the

american people, our fiscal house is in order. now the question is, what should we be doing to win the future and make ourselves more competitive and create more jobs, and what aspects of what government is doing are a waste? and what we should eliminate? that is the debate alike have. all right? thank you, guys. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> next, house republican leaders tell reporters that the budget that passed earlier this year with the federal spending on track to avoid a government defaulting on obligations. if they also said the obama administration has not yet put forward its own plan. this is just under 15 minutes. >> in case anyone missed it, last night, moody's issued a new statement about the debt limit. the debt limit will be raised again and a default would be concerned -- confirmed. however, the outlook that that sign to the government bond rating would very likely be changed to negative. that's a conclusion of review on last substantial and credible agreement is achieved on a

budget that includes long-term deficit reduction to sustain a stable outlook. it should include a deficit trajectory that leads to stabilization and then decline in the ratios of federal debt to gdp and that revenue beginning within the next few years. a rough translation -- there is no more road left to kick the can down. we have a debt crisis not because the debt ceiling is too low but because the debt is too high. it is spending-driven. our president and the previous congress has been on a spending binge. if they want an increase in the debt ceiling both as the speaker has said, they have got to cut up the credit cards. they have got to have the president's -- the president needs to put a plan on the table. not a speech, as the director of

the cbo has said, we cannot estimate a speech. we can only estimate the plan. it is time for the president to put his plan on the table. >> all year long we have led on the big issues that are facing our country. the house passed budget written by paul ryan and the budget committee set the standard for serious debate, i think. we have passed are pushed for bill after bill that would create jobs by easing the burdens of regulations, expanding exports, and increasing the supply of american energy. in the debt limit debate our goals are simple. noaa wants the city and that is the fall on our obligations, but we will not see real economic growth without a serious plan to deal with our deficit and our debt. yesterday at the white house, secretary geithner echoed both of these points.

our stand on the debt limit has been clear. there can be no tax hikes because tax hikes destroy jobs. we need real spending cuts and real spending cuts that will exceed the amount of increase in the debt limit. and we need real reforms to restrain the growth of spending in future years and a real balanced budget amendment. listen, we are in the fourth quarter here. time and again republicans have offered serious proposals to cut spending and address these issues. i think it is time for the democrats it's serious. we ask the president to lead, we ask him to put forth a plan. not a speech. >> good morning. let's just take a step back for

a second and look at where we are as he indicated, the house put forward its budget and house passed his budget that is our vision. we were in control of washington, we would be trying to push our agenda for both houses and see if they could be implemented. we call for $6.2 trillion in cuts over 10 years. in the current discussions at the white house, the president and the democrats are offering perhaps $1.5 trillion, the number keeps moving, but perhaps. that is a big difference. so the talk or some of the reports have indicated that republicans somehow have not given. i just tell you, that is not true. we'll work at $6.2 trillion, they are at $1.5 trillion at

best. that is just the way it is. so what we want we said is that the speaker continues to set out there to change the system here. we want to go home to the people that elected us and show them that we're not going to allow this kind of spending to continue. we do not have the money, they do not have the money. we need to get the economy growing again and control spending here in washington. we're going to bring a bill next week's known as the cup, cap, and balanced bill to provide a balanced approach so that we can demonstrate that we are getting things under control and that the people who put us here in gain some confidence that we're going to begin to live like they do or around their kitchen tables and in their businesses, stops spending money we do not have, and begin to manage this deficit and debt down the balance. and we--

>> when you look there is no greater contrast between the sides. the president did not get one vote. not even one democrat vote. the house produced a budget, took it out of the house, and move it forward and talk about real serious issues. more than six trillion in cuts, and job creation, an energy policy for america. we will continue to lead. the speaker and the leader have sat in room after room, meeting after meeting, trying to put america onto a path to pay off their debts and imagine a future of growth. we just walked out of a very strong conference that next week republicans again will show they can lead. we welcome every democrat to join with us. we will take the bill at of the

house. if you can question is republicans can do it on the wrong, they will. this is an opportunity to join together. we will provide a path that is different than what we have seen. a path that can build jobs, build a stronger america, and not leave the debt to the next generation tyria. >> the president has been asking to raise the debt ceiling to get this through the next election. to put that into perspective, we're talking $20,000 per american family in additional debt. every american family in america is being asked to shoulder another $20,000. we believe it is important that any increase in the debt ceiling be accompanied with spending cuts and changes in the way the federal government spends money. our conference, house republicans are united around a

balanced budget. 49 out of 50 states have to balance the budget. the question is whether the president recognizes there must be a game changer. i am pleased we are moving forward on capt. balance. it is our serious plan to get its back on track. >> the american people know that big changes are needed in washington. i am proud to stand with the leadership who represents the united conference that understands and have been listening to american people that there are long-term solutions that have to be put on the table. next week will propose short- term solutions with decreasing spending. midterm solutions that will cap spending coming out of washington and long-term solutions that will embrace a balanced budget that the american people support and thereby get the job creation in get the economy back on track.

it is a great opportunity for this summit -- for america. >> i do not want to preclude a chance of coming to an agreement. but no one has been willing to put a plan on the table. without serious spending cuts, without real reform, this problem is not going to be solved. >> reports are emerging that a plan combining the senator's plan and it possible commission, is that what you're prepared to embrace? and to put forward as a possible solution? >> i am not prepared to pick winners or losers at this point. senator mcconnell pointed out that his plan was being put on the table as a last-ditch

effort. we are far from the time for a last-ditch effort. >> my understanding is that it is dependent on the transition of the amendment. you know that the amendment does not have to pass a vote to the senate. >> i do not know that. >> i would be helpful it would pass. i am extremely helpful. >> democrats indicated raising the debt ceiling, the supermajority. they're not going to vote for it. it seems like it is dead on arrival and the house. is there any wiggle room? >> listen, the cut chapham balance plan that will vote on next week is a solid plan for moving forward. let's get through that vote and we will make decisions about what will come after. >> in your meeting today, they

laid out a very detailed description of what exactly would happen on august 3 if the debt ceiling was not raised. many have said they do not think the debt ceiling will need to be raised. does this presentation change your mind? >> i thought we had a very good conference this morning. there was a lot of solid information provided to the members. the analysis provided by the center closely followed a lot of information that as been developed by the joint committee -- a joint economic committee. i think the information was very helpful. >> speaker, you get the sense they are members are more open to a plan that includes [unintelligible]

>> i am not going to after speculative questions. i do not like to repeat my mantra but maybe i should. if if them but for candy and nuts every day would be christmas. >> the debt and deficit negotiations were the main target -- topic at a briefing today. nancy pelosi's briefing is about 20 minutes.

>> we will proceed in this order. i will speak and we'll go right down the line of our leadership. thank you for being with us this morning. i'm sure you're all well aware democrats carried the day yesterday against republicans. we think this foreshadows things that are going to come in the future. when we had a caucus in which we heard from the leadership participating with the president, our caucus focused on the continued support for our president and the fact that he has been the leader continuing to want to work out a solution. the caucus stands behind a because we know is out there protecting the core values of

not only in this caucus but of the american people, especially as relates to medicare, social security, and medicaid which are important to our caucus. we continue to encourage seeking the best popular deal in the fairest american way. failing that, our caucus believes that a there is should be a clean vote on the debt ceiling and continue to stay and work on what this caucus believes is the most fundamental thing facing america, job creation. we have not seen a single piece of legislation from our opponents on the other side as a relates to jobs. we are focused on innovation and making it in america. that is what we will continue to support. semin turnover two are vice chair.

>> thank you. let me get a shot out to a different -- in a few short days, the women's soccer team for our country will once again make is very proud. win or lose, they have proven that we are moving forward and we're doing this together. here in washington we could take a few lessons from the women's soccer team because we do this together as a team. democrats continued to stay at the negotiating table. we are convinced the president is trying to do the right thing by getting a long-term solution. we should do this as a team. this is about doing it together. if we're going to do it together, and ask to be a balanced approach. the president has made that clear. we are ready to do that with our teammates to get this done for the american people in terms of not defaulting but also making sure we get our fiscal house in order.

>> thank you. teamwork pays off. it did last night for the democrats in the baseball game. and the women's soccer team. we are proud of them. i am proud of our caucus. i wish all of you could have heard the knowledge, the perspectives, the values that they bring over and over to this discussion. we stand with the president of the united states in the hope that we could have a grand bargain that takes us well into the future with deficit reduction. it was only a week ago that we were hopeful this could happen in a bipartisan way. thursday we left the meeting with some spirit of " on a grand

bargaining. so that we could move on to job creation. friday we were working on that, saturday the republicans walked away. since we have been trying to find out if that is still possible. if not, what is possible? with the various possible, it is not possible for us to reduce the deficit and create jobs on the back of the working families. we continue to say did the president, congratulation. we are proud of the work you're doing. we're glad it does not reduce benefits for social security beneficiaries. it does not mean we're not open to initiatives that will strengthen the medicare and sosa security, cut costs, and keep them solve of for a longer period of time. but we're not reducing the deficit and giving tax cuts to the wealthy on the backs of our medicare recipients.

i brought with me two days ago the prior is expressed to me by a number of students who came to my office the other day. we know the deficit is not good for our future. we all stand ready to help reduce debt. everybody should participate. we hope you will not diminish the prospects we have for college education. we want you to know how important medicare and medicaid are to our families. it enables them to allow us to the college bible taking some -- by taking out of the fear of some of the costs. do not do anything that impedes the economic growth. their wisdom is so clear. but we saw the table was an attempt by the republicans to

increase the cost to students by over $30 billion without taking one red cent of sacrifice from the wealthiest people and corporations in finland jobs overseas. our caucus focused on our priorities which are based on our values. we support our president for the grand bargain. the hope that can still happen and we know that it will happen -- whatever happens we will not reduce benefits to medicare and social security recipients. >> thank you, madam leader. time is short.

the stakes are very high. the american people expect us to do what has been referred to by -- before. i do not have the faintest idea who won the soccer -- who on the soccer team is a republican or democrat. they are of diverse races and nationalities. but they are united in an effort to win for america. that is what this congress and this president need to do. the united in gaining a win for america. what does that mean? it means not walking out of the room. not washing their hands and sang, we are going to proceed in a unilateral fashion. we're going to present a bill we know cannot pass the united states senate and the president

would not sign. it is too late to continue to play partisan games. we need to come together. that is why the leadership of this party has supported our president in sang, we need a comprehensive response to the debt, deficit, that confronts us. we need to ensure that america does not default on its obligations. americans do not expect our great country for the first time in history to default on instead. that our mr. banner party stands ready to insure we do not default on our debt. i believe that almost every member of our party would vote on a clean extension to make

that happen. we are also committed to making sure our economy grows and that we adopt a comprehensive plan that will ensure the creation of those jobs. that we will grow our economy so we can give the jobs to those who are looking, need jobs for the job -- for themselves and their families. this is a serious challenge that confronts us. the president of the united states has been meeting regularly for four days to work with our republican colleagues to make that happen. america expects that of us. as we see our soccer team united, let's hope the congress can come together in a bipartisan fashion to confront

the growth of our economy so that america does not the fall. pratt said. i will yield to the assistant leader. >> thank you. i want to add my voice to those here not only on behalf of the country and making sure we do not the fault. there is a thought that i am not aware of where it originated. i first heard enunciated by hubert humphrey when he said that our nation is judged by how well we protect those who are

living in the twilight of their years, our seniors. and how we treat those who are in the dawning of their lives, our children. what democrats have done in these negotiations was to make sure that as we solidify this country, as a nation, that we also protect those men and women who have given so much to bring this to where we are and make sure they have some dignity as they live out their lives with the assistance of medicare, medicaid, as well as their children and grandchildren who

must have opportunities to have a good life in this great country of ours. that has been the hallmark of our negotiations. i am proud of the fact that we are still doing and seeking resolution on a very important matter but doing it in such a way that our children and grandchildren would be proud and we do justice to the legacy of those who brought us to this point. i yield to the ranking member. >> thank you. thank you for your leadership. in the last several days we have seen in good news and bad news. the good news is that a wake-up call has been sent to those people who were diluted to think that if we defaulted it would not have very serious

consequences for our economy and jobs. for a while there were people who said, to guide their is cooking the books. he is making the stuff up. making itd and poor's out? is moody's making it up? is the chamber of commerce making it up? defaulting on our debt, not paying america's bills would have devastating consequences for the economy. it is irresponsible for people to continue to take the position that it is ok for the united states not to pay its bills. the bad news was what we just heard from the republican caucus. i heard the speaker say things that were in conflict. he wants to get bay a big agreement to try and address the

deficit. that is what we want. that is what the president of the united states wants. but what the speaker said in the same breath was you cannot close loopholes in the tax code. you cannot get rid of the loopholes that reward companies for shipping jobs overseas. you cannot ask the oil company to no longer take taxpayer subsidies. that is what he said. every bi-partisan group that has looked at this issue has said you need a balanced approach if you want to get something done. that is what the president wants to deal. so this say you want a comprehensive plan through and your objective is to protect special interest the post, it is

irresponsible. what is their answer? their plan to end of the medicare guaranteed. seniors cannot honor participate. they will have higher costs and eat more and more. that is their proposal. i will end with this point. ronald reagan was a strong conservative. the ronald reagan said there were important time for compromise for the good of the country. the debt ceiling was raised 17 times when reagan was president. as alan simpson said, when push came to shove, reagan agreed 11 times to packages that included revenue. for the good of the country and the good of compromise. unfortunately, that is what we are not seeing now.

let's get a big bargain -- a bargain and setting petitioned the make it impossible because the number one priority has been protecting the special interests in washington. let's change that. >> we have two minutes before we have to go vote. i apologize but reactive -- >> if you guys cannot come to a rigid and agreement, -- you do not know the details? >> now. >> it is outrageous. we will talk about that later. i want to see what it does. we just heard about it. as bad as their so-called balanced budget amendment was, it was a trojan horse to bring in the ryan plan.

this is worse. from what we know of it, this is even worse. >> the topic of the debt negotiations came upon the house floor as members were wrapping up for the weekend during a colloquy between eric cantor. this is about 25 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will yield back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his information. i would say that it's my understanding now that we are, as the gentleman has pointed out, we are going to be meeting on monday and will be voting on monday at 6:30 rather than commencing on tuesday at 6:30.

the gentleman has pointed out that that's to accommodate the challenge that confronts us in the crisis that we have been put in with reference to assuring, a, that the -- america does not default on its bills and that we continue to pursue efforts to bring the deficit down and the debt under control. i say to my friend that it is late, he's right, we shouldn't confront this situation. we have on numerous occasions, of course, both the gentleman and i have voted in the past to extend the debt limit so that america can pay the bills that it has incurred. the gentleman also notes that a piece of legislation was brought to the floor to ensure we pay our bills. it was brought to the floor with expressed intentions by

the chairman of the ways and means committee that it be defeated and, of course, it was all defeated and all your members voted against it. though half of my members voted to make sure we pay our bills so we do not get to this position. the gentleman and i have been involved in efforts to reach agreement with the president, with the senate and with ourselves, with both sides of the aisle so we can not only provide with america's paying its bills, which if it doesn't will have very serious consequences to every household in america, 401-k, pension program in america, and the gentleman and i agree and everybody at the table with the president agreed allowing america to default on its bills was not something that any of us believe was a policy that was appropriate.

i say to my friend the cut, cap and balance act, we've been confronted with this challenge for a long period of time. it was my understanding that you were to -- going to bring to the floor next week a balanced budget amendment which was announced and which i thought was coming and which we had told our members was coming. you have now constituted for that, as i understand it, am i correct, the cut, cap and balance act? my understanding is there is no text of that act available at this time, is that accurate? is there no text available for that bill? i yield. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i'd say back to the gentleman that the bill is currently being drafted and will be posted online later this evening. consistent with our three-deleover requirement.

i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comment. given the fact that this is, as the gentleman pointed out, this crisis has been known for us for over five, six months now that we were going to confront this. i understand that in the cut, cap and balance pledge that has been future forward -- i don't know whether it's going to be put forward in the legislation -- but the pledge says that your side or the people -- excuse me -- people who signed the pledge, whatever side they're on, are going to oppose any debt limit increase unless all three of the following conditions had been met. one, cut substantial cuts in spending that would reduce the deficit next year and thereafter. seems to me that we passed a budget through this house that does that. it doesn't reach balance, of

course, until some 30 years from now. but secondly it says as a condition for voting for debt extension that unforcible spending cuts will put it on a path toward a balanced budget. we had discussions in the white house on cuts and what they apply to, a percentage of g.d.p. or the absolute caps in spending which obviously escalate denegation of the ability to deliver services over the years, depending upon the flexibility that's incorporated. i have not seen the legislation, of course. and then thirdly, a balance, and then pa rent -- parenthesis, not near support. i guess they will not vote to make sure america pays its bills on august 3. congressional package of a balanced amendment to the u.s. constitution but only if it includes both spending

limitations and a supermajority for raising taxes in addition to balancing revenues and expenses. now, i presume that that requirement will have to come, according to this pledge, to get votes for which -- included this cut, cap and balance requirement. does the gentleman believe that the second to at least -- one could argue we've already done the first in terms of made substantial cuts and we discussed agreeing on making substantial cuts but that the second two conditions cannot possibly be met between now and august 2? i yield. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i'd say to the gentleman, as he has heard me say before in those meetings and on this floor, i

don't want to pass august 2 without increasing the debt ceiling. mr. hoyer: i understand that. i thank the gentleman. mr. cantor: i understand there's a lot of uncertainty if that were to happen, a lot of risk associated with that, risks i am not willing to take. but to the gentleman's discussion that it is imperative that we do that, above all else, i'd also add to that it is imperative that we demonstrate that we can arrive at meaningful solutions to the current fiscal crisis the country is facing. that is what the cut, cap and balance act tries to achieve. it offers a way for us to cut spending in a meaningful way this year and throughout the budget window. it also suggests ways to

enforce discretionary levels so that congress can actually begin to do what all of us would like to see us do which is to stop spending the money we don't have. the cut, cap and balance act also provides for caps on total spending levels recommended in our budget resolution. these levels are spending as a share of g.d.p. it provides, lastly, for ensuring that even beyond the 10 years that we actually can get back to balance. that's what the people of the country wants. i know the gentleman shares the desire to have this back down to balance. so i'm hopeful that the gentleman and his colleagues on

the other side of the aisle take a look at this legislation, as i said to the gentleman, it will be posted online to comply with our three-day layover requirement and have it posted to members and the public. mr. hoyer: i'm not sure you answered my question to conditions two and three of the cut, cap and balance pledge or, again, i haven't read the legislation. i see the pledge. i'm not sure what's in the legislation. i thank the gentleman for his observation that we need a meaningful and i would say robust addressing of the problem that confronts us. as a fact, as you know, because we discussed it, at the white house for four days now, from sunday night through last night, i guess five days, the president of the united states has been indicating that we need a -- he calls a big, a

grand design, if you will, along the lines that have been suggested by two of the commissions which on a bipartisan basis recommended a grand design. that grand design would have reached at least $4 trillion of deficit reduction, debt reduction, and in fact that is a figure somewhere closer to the budget that was passed through this house. i'd say to the gentleman parenthetically that the cut, cap and balance budget may be closer to the number you referred to. i am talking about the amendment that was defeated on this floor by one vote. but i'd say to the gentleman, the president wants to do a grand design to reduce that deficit, not by $1 trillion or $ trillion or -- $2 trillion or

$3 trillion but by $4 trillion. there was a commission on which -- a group -- the biden group we call it in which the gentleman participated. there were other discussions between your speaker and the president all looking at achieving a large deficit reduction. the gentleman at some point in time decided that was not something he wanted to continue working on and suggested that it be, i suppose, pushed up the line and it was. so the president was for a grand design. the leader of the senate, mr. reid, was for that. mr. durbin was for it. ms. pelosi was for it. i was for it. the vice president was for it. but unfortunately we couldn't proceed on that discussion in a

successful way, at least, because the gentleman observed and his colleagues observed that as long as there were any revenues attached to that it would not be acceptable to your side of the aisle. notwithstanding that, every bipartisan commission that has dealt with this issue has indicated that it needs to be a balanced package, that it needed to include substantial cuts, it needed to deal with discretionary spending, defense spending, entitlement spending and it needed to deal with tax expenditures. the gentleman says correctly that we want to balance our revenues with our expenditures. the problem is if you keep cutting revenues you are just going to be chasing yourself down. obviously you want to bring revenue rates down. i hope we can do that, but if we bring them down to a place where we don't have the money to pay for our -- what we buy

which is of course what happened in this past decade, then we will be confronted with a situation the gentleman wants to avoid and that is raising the debt limit. what we have done over the last 10 years is buy more than we can afford and therefore we have a debt. that's why the gentleman, as i say, voted for extending debt limits. that's why i voted for it. i tell the gentleman that i have a gallup poll that says 6 -- 74% say it should include both tax increases and spending cuts and 77% of independents believe the plan should include a mix of revenue and spending cuts. i say that so that i i can elicit from the gentleman, i know there's sentiment from this side of the aisle, there is sentiment from your side of the aisle, and the president believes this as well, we have

an opportunity, a critical time in our history when we have the makings of a bipartisan agreement, a bipartisan consensus that will move us in the direction that you and i know we have to more. and what is holding us up, as i understand it, is that your side believes that these 77% of independents, 74% of republicans are not correct, that revenues ought not to be part of this package. clearly we agree and have agreed that spending cuts need to be part of it. so i ask the gentleman, is there any possibility that these 74% of republicans are correct that in fact if we're going to have a successful package it will be because it is balanced? because my view is, i tell my friend, that if we do this it's

going to really help create jobs. we have not done any jobs bills, we believe, in this congress. we believe any jobs bill you did so far was a patent bill. i know you are going to talk about all these bills you did, but we don't think that because you put jobs in the title it makes them a jobs bill. . the fact of the matter is if we can create confidence in the markets, if we could create confident deps that we can deal with our fiscal situation in a responsibility, bipartisan, collegial way, it will have an extraordinarily positive effect on every household in america. the confidence of america that we can work together in a bipartisan way and will stabilize the market and provide for our paying our bills and bringing our deficit and debt down. so i ask my friend, again, does he believe there is any possibility at this point in

time that we can reach a balanced agreement on what is called a grand design along the lines of the bipartisan commission's recommendations? mr. cantor: does the gentleman yield? mr. hoyer: i certainly yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, first of all i would say regarding the gentleman's discussion about what happened at the white house this week and my insistence that the president's at least statements in that meeting, because we don't know what the details were of his proposal and the so-called big deal, my insistence was consistent with our speaker's, that we not raise taxes. and that's why that construct doesn't work. we don't have the votes on this side of the aisle. i'm not supportive of raising taxes on people who are trying to make it right now and can't.

so i would say to the gentleman when he refers to the other groups that have been out there, all of whom he say suggest that somehow we need to raise taxes, what the gentleman's talking about is how are we going to produce more revenues? we believe, mr. speaker, that you produce more revenues by having growth in our economy. we don't believe that you promote growth in the economy by cranking up the government spending machine by taking money from people who eastern it, washing it through washington's bureaucracy, and sending it back out. we don't believe that. we believe that growth is created through investment, through hard work in the private sector. by entrepreneurs, small business men and women, people who want to succeed but want to earn their success and are not waiting for government to grant it to them. so i say to the gentleman, if the aim is for us to create more

revenues, one word in response, it's growth. i would say to the gentleman as far as his reference to the gallup poll and when he says that overwhelmingly people in this country want to have taxes raised as part of the so-called solution to our problem -- mr. hoyer: would the gentleman yield on that? mr. cantor: i would yield to the gentleman when i'm finished. yield back when i'm finished. to the gentleman's suggestion that that's where the american public is, i just disagree. i haven't talked to anybody right now when we got unemployment over 9% officially. when people are out of work and month after month can't find a job. when small businesspeople are having -- business people are having trouble keeping the lights on, i don't talk to anybody that says please raise my taxes. so that's what we should be focused on are the hardworking people, the people of this country, who want a job.

who want to see this economy return to growth. they are the ones who understand that it's cutting taxes, it's cutting the overly burdensome regulatory system in this town that will bring back middle class jobs. and so to the gentleman's suggestion that somehow we have not been talking about jobs in this institution, i know it's not surprising to him that i disagree with that. mr. hoyer: it's not. mr. cantor: i say to the gentleman, week after week we brought bills to the floor, yes, that deal with our fiscal situation, that cut spending. because we've got to address that. just like people address it in their homes, their families, their businesses. but we brought numerous bills week after week to the floor that go to the root of the cause of uncertainty in the business community in this country and that is washington's overly aggressive and burdensome

regulatory reach. we have got to get back to a growth posture, mr. speaker. and that means cut spending, lower taxes, and implement a balanced and sensible pro-growth regulatory system. as well as finally hopefully returning to a monetary policy that promotes a strong dollar. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding back. first of all of course i didn't say, i don't think anybody wants their taxes raised, including me. i'd like to have all the prices for things i buy cut in half. 50% off sale. we all like that. i like going and using my credit card. so much easier. that's why credit cards encourage the economy. but you and i both know what happens when you use your credit card. at some point in time you get a bill. and the people who sold you the good or loaned you the money

expect you to pay them. and i will tell my friend that i understand what he's saying. we have just come through arguably the worst recession that we have experienced since the great depression. and it was consistent with economic policies, which by the way started as you know in december, 2007, in which we lost eight million jobs. but the gentleman continues to say he wants policies which in 1991 and 1994 were argued were policies, we are going to grow our economy, expand jobs, and have those folks that you talk about do well. i ask the gentleman, he misrepresents our position. i want to make it very clear. we are not for asking people who are trying to make it in america

, we are not for asking those who are struggling in america, we are not asking for those who rely on social security, we are not asking for those who rely on their medicare benefits to pay the burden of the spending that we have been involved in over the last decade which took us from $5.6 trillion of debt to over $10 trillion of debt. we are not asking for those struggling americans which the gentleman raises as the specter of those we think ought to pay their fair share. oh, no. we are asking for those who have done extraordinarily well over the last decade who have made millions per year over the last decade. some billions of dollars over the last decade. oil companies who are now making the biggest profits they ever made. and others to pay a little more

so that we can stabilize the finances of america. so don't represent that it's democrats who are asking those struggling small business people we are not doing that. or those struggling working people in america who, by the way, have been stuck in the mud under the economic policies that were pursued consistent with the 2001 and 2003 economic programs. which has seen a growing disparate between working people and the wealthiest people in america. now, we can continue on that path and put on the backs of those struggling people you talk about, my friend, the responsibility to pay for things , or we can have a fair and balanced program. that's what the 74% in the gallup poll want. they don't want their taxes raised. what they want is a fair and balanced obligation. a fair and balanced participation in contribution.

to paying the debts of this country. that we have incurred, we have incurred them together. you are not all responsible. we are not all responsible. our side of the aisle as you well know, this deficit was increased almost 90% under the bush economic policies. far less than that under the clinton economic policies. about half. but that's not the issue. both the debt went up, we are confronted with it, we got to pay it. you and i believe not paying it is not an option. the chamber of commerce says clearly that they urge all of us first it is critical the u.s. government not default in any way on its fiscal obligations. the president of the united states and our side has said, you bet. we don't want to do that. so let's ask all of us to come to the table and those who can't afford it ought not to be asked. but those who can, those who can

should be asked to do so. not to penalize them but to say we are all in this together. and those who are best off in america, those corporations like the oil companies who are getting subsidies at this point in time, who said they didn't need subsidies if oil was over $55 per barrel, they testified in congress some years ago to that fact. it's been twice that and we are still giving them subsidies. all we are saying is that doesn't make sense. and we ought to have a balanced program. that's what those 74% and 77% of independents are saying. they are not saying they want their taxes raised. they are not saying we ought to raise taxes and incur more debt. they are saying we ought to pay our bills. they are saying we ought to have a fair participation by all americans in meeting this crisis that confronts us. i would hope that over the next three weeks that we could get to

a place where we come together in a bipartisan way and ask all of us to participate. and those who can can help us confront this, bring this deficit down, balance our budget, and those who can't but who are working hard to make themselves and their families live a quality of life, we'll help them out. and i think as i said i'm going to stabilize the economy, grow jobs, and we'll have a better country. i would hope we could do that, mr. cantor. i'm looking forward to it. again i don't know that this cut cap and balance will get us there, and as i said we are not going to get there clearly under those provisions between now and august 2, and i think the gentleman knows that and i hope he has some other thoughts in mind, some other plan in mind obviously there have been a

number of plans talked about at present in a speech about his plan. that was rejected. the gentleman says it wasn't specifically line by line. that's right because it was rejected before we got there. mr. boehner, your speaker, discussed trying to get a construct. so perhaps you have a plan that is above and beyond the cut, cap, and balance act that we might see that would be a balanced plan and that would help us. if the gentleman wants me to yield, i'll yield. no. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the governors at the national governors' association meeting in solid city. then the sessions on education and u.s.-china relations. tomorrow on "washington journal," pedro da costa talks

about the economy. dan friedman talks about a gun tracing program. and its impact on border states. and from the national governor'' association meeting, we will talk with peter shaman -- shumlin. "washington journal" on c-span. >> i am interested in at the disappearing america. the america that may not be here 25 years from now. >> carol has traveled the united states a document in the country through her camera lens, every photo donated and available at the library of congress. follow her sunday sunday night -- story sunday night on q&a.

>> governors from u.s. states, commonwealths, and territories are in salt lake city for a meeting of the governors' association. the focus is on the state's role in supporting education, innovation, an increasing competitiveness. the governor of nebraska met with the media shortly before the proceedings began. >> next to him, dave heinemann who is the of vice chair of the governors' association and from the great state of nebraska, we have on my left lincoln, the governor from rhode island. and dennis from the great state of south dakota. we are here representing the 32

plus governors that will be attending this conference in some form or fashion over this weekend as we get together with the national governors' association. my name is gary herbert, i am the governor of utah who has the opportunity to host this event. we have a great setting here as we look >>

>> alaska and hawaii were not states will be lost toasted. i am pleased to welcome them to the union. an opportunity to host them. it will be your participating as well. i will may be mention a, it. it is a great opportunity to post. i am a big believer in governors getting together to discuss issues of importance not only to their states but collectively for the nation. it has been a proud tradition of governors to get together and a very bipartisan way and talk about issues of the day and learn from each other. find out what is going well and other parts of the country. what are some of the challenges, see if we cannot help each other

overcome some of the challenges that face states. the national governors' association is a very good forum for that. we not only have governors here, but provincial governors from china. we all face what is a global marketplace. we have a necessity to keep in the global marketplace. we have some special -- we will talk about economic development of shops with their friends from china as we have two great nations come together and salt lake city for this weekend. i would just conclude my part and say what has not been changed over time as the ability to promote leadership, share

best practices, and speak with a collective voice on national policy. again, we believe states to be laboratories of democracy. we have opportunities as we experiment and work together to do good things. let me turn some time if i could to our great chairman, -- from washington. [applause] good morning. welcome to the annual meeting. at first, i want to give a big thank-you to the nation's governors. gov. herbert and the first lady of this great state for such a

warm welcome here in salt lake city. a big thank you to the both of you for doing everything you can. role of the hospitality of everything that you have here. it is an effort, i know. you have done everything you can to ensure that our governors and guests have an opportunity to experience the wonders of the great state of utah not what the same time get the business done. i also want to acknowledge our vice chair. i have had a wonderful relationship with the governor. i admire his dedication to the great state of nebraska and to the association.

this year for the nation posted governors has been filled with many challenges. we have been asked to do more with less. people are struggling to make ends meet at home. state finances are just now starting to recover. but we have not yet recovered in full. we still have to make some very tough choices while investing in our future so that we have an economic future that is second to none. many of us and our citizens have entered national disasters. times have been truly hard. but ever challenge i may have in the state of washington, i feel

very comfortable calling up my vice chair and sang, have you experienced this? the sharing best practices through the national governors' association which is a wealth of information to all governors about how we can share and how we can use best practices going on in other states. with the challenges these governors are facing comes great opportunities. we had the opportunity now up close and personal to share our experiences. we have 29 new governors. that is historic in the national governors' association. all of the backgrounds, different perspectives. when these forces are joined, there is no limit to what we can accomplish. so the thing for the next three days is that education is our path to good jobs and economic success from our future. economic growth and the job creation continue to be the top

priorities for every governor across the nation. we must find ways to create jobs for those who need them. we must strengthen our economic means. we must make sure that more of our residents have the skills for the 21st century. some of them are losing jobs they will never be able to return to. we have to make sure they get new training. higher education is an economic engine. we must find ways to support education. it is the underpinning of our future. by fostering innovation and increasing our nation's competitiveness in these hard times, we will lay a path for the future of our great nation. this includes all of us understanding that it is essential that our universities partner with the private sector. when we do, there is nothing that those two business community and hire education committees cannot accomplish. we must be clear that what our

states need from our colleges and universities and we must hold them accountable to deliver. deliver to our taxpayers, delivered to the students, and deliver to businesses who need the work force. i have been privileged to work on behalf of the nation's governors on these issues. as we have proven time and time again, we are much more affected when we work together through a bipartisan way. each governor has its own initiative. mind is what we call a complete to compete. it is focused on the urgent need it to increase college completion and productivity in the united states. is today yesterday would be satisfied with graduation from high school is not enough. they have to get a certification, apprenticeships, or 88. if yesterday they would be satisfied with an aa, hopefully tomorrow they will get a be a. it so many are shy of getting

their degrees. we want to focus on them getting their degrees. we know that two third of a job will require an advanced degree beyond high school. whether it is a two year community college degree, a technical program, or a university degree. our country is not prepared to meet the work force demands of tomorrow. the united states has fallen from first in the world to 12th and the students that are completing degrees. and if on a dress, in just a span of the next seven years, states will fall 3 million degrees behind what is our workforce needs. by 2013, 7 million degrees behind. you may think that we have unemployment at over 9% -- so many unemployed. we also have jobs that are until today because we do not have the skilled work force to fill those jobs. to ensure our citizens are prepared to compete in what is now a global economy, we must

develop sound policies that enable more individuals to complete degrees and increase efficiencies of higher education institutions. i believe we can and we must improve higher education performance. we must identify promising state policies as a first set to retaining excellence and regaining access to higher education. together, we can work to increase the number of college graduates and increase our nation's ability to compete internationally. i want to thank my colleagues for their participation. much of what we will discuss over the next session today i am looking forward to the next three days. the unique bipartisan structure of our national governors' association enables us to put politics aside, to cross party lines, and to have good solid conversations with our colleagues from across the country to develop innovative

and an improved approach to governing. governors do not have a choice. they are having to balance budgets. they are having to make tough decisions. they are having to lead to the future. only if we were together, set up partisanship aside, and only then can we set a path forward for the united states. that is the purpose of the next three days. i am very encouraged by our attendance in the willingness of our governors to do just that and what is the most trying times in our nation's history. it is my pleasure to introduce our eyes tear, the governor of the great state of nebraska, who will walk through a little bit of the schedule of what we will go through the next few days. [applause] >> a good morning. thank you very much let me start by commenting on the relationship between governor and myself. i have learned a lot from her.

for sally and i, and has been a privilege to become greater acquainted with her. in true bipartisan spirit, we did not of this was what to happen, the university of nebraska played the university of washington during football season. we won that game. then we had to turn around and play the university of washington again in a bowl game. we decided to let the university of washington win that game. as a result, i sent her a number of omaha steaks. i just wanted you to know. we have thoroughly enjoyed our relationship. i think that is what governors to every day in the state house. regardless of our party identification, we try to work together to solve the issues. i know the next three days will be productive. it is an opportunity to have discussions about real solutions

to the challenges we face. the national governors' association is a bipartisan association that brings governors together to discuss and develop policies on a range of critical issues and to share information on the emerging trends and innovations in state government. we focus on issues common to all states during this meeting. education, innovation, and competitive note to just name a few. three governors only sessions will provide a candid forum for in-depth discussions. deigning committees will meet to discuss policy proposals that will be considered by the full association at sunday posted session. our work begins shortly. today's opening session, higher education catalyst for economic growth, will focus on the vital role universities played in nurturing economic growth through collaboration and engagement with the private sector.

we will be joined by susan hawkfield, and john brown, a visiting adviser at the university of southern california. a former chief scientist. later this afternoon, a unique peer to peer exchange will take place during the united states china governors forum. saturday's business agenda begins with a special stand alone session of the economic development and commerce committee which includes a discussion about international trade and investment role in domestic job growth and creation. following the sessions, the governors will meet with members of their respective standing committees. the health and human services committee will meet at the health insurance exchange implementation issue. the natural resources committee will engage in a discussion on job creation in the energy sector. a education, early child work

force committee will leverage higher education to increase u.s. competitiveness. a special committee on homeland's security will focus on remembering september 11 with a discussion on protection of our borders and communities. the annual meeting will conclude sunday morning with a session on the global challenges facing america today and the role education plays in the united states competitiveness. new york times columnist tom freedman will join us for that session. we have a full session, and my colleagues and i are eager to get to work. we want to thank you for joining us in salt lake city. we want to thank governor herbert and his wife for hosting us. we are now prepared to answer your questions. [applause] >> can we take questions, please?

>> >> what is your feeling about cuts, cap, balance. >> let me tell you how i feel about what is going on in washington, d.c.. i think that is more to the point. out across the nation, we can ill afford the debate that is going on in washington, d.c.. we are at a fragile state of recovery. the fact that we are not moving forward to solve the debt issue is resulting -- i can tell you in my own home state. i am not an income tax state. i am a sales tax state. consumers are not buying goods. businesses that have the money to hire are not hiring because people are concerned about this. it is time we put this issue behind us and got on with the issue that is confronting every american witches do i have a job and will i have a job tomorrow. at the end of the day, i am one who believes -- i think there is

a difference of opinion here, we have to have a balanced solution. we have to make sure we have trimmed everywhere we can. that is what every governor has done. we have looked at tax loopholes and stepped up to that. we have looked at any opportunity where there is revenue that is this proportionally pay by a clash of the people of this country that should not be. i do not want to see this recovery built on the backs of the poor and the middle class. the point i am making most importantly, get on with it. i walked into my legislative session in january. i have a democratic house and a democratic senate. i am a democratic governor. i said to them, for the year partisanship. no bickering. roll up your sleeves. get the job done. it was historic. they got the job done. that is what is necessary in washington, d.c.. >> you plans for cut balance, is

he wrong? >> every individual governor makes their own decisions. i respect the opinion of every individual governor. if that is the decision, a respected. it is not a pledge that i will take credit is not applicable tinkered >> given the fact you have already spoken about how this is a bipartisanship organization, you take a very different approach than gov. herbert and i assume governor h eineman. if this is bipartisanship at work and you have such a wide disagreement here, how can new bridge the divide? >> just this last saturday in a very bipartisan way, we, the governors, sent a clear message to the leadership of the house and senate. that is if you are talking about cutting medicaid it to the tune of what we have heard $100 billion, let us share with you what the consequences are to the states.

will you take as to the brink of another recession? would you do it on the backs of the board? always said lee to everybody is work with us. we what to help you in congress to be able to address the nation's debt problem. we do not want to do with if you do not understand what the consequences are in the state. we made it clear that a blending of our wheat is the code for cuts, let us talk about how best to do it. for a decade we have been talking a about a dual as it -- eligible population. just this last week we were able to reach an agreement with the administration. we will deliver higher quality care to that segment of our population. we will reduce costs. we will share the savings. that is what you get when you work with the governors. the administration did exactly that. that is what we are asking congress and the administration to continue to do. do what we did on dual eligible.

work with us. we will help you. if you make decisions without consulting us an understanding the consequences back,, then that leads to disaster. consequences you may not be aware of. which stood united. dave and i signed a letter to the other saying, be where what you are doing. we want to work with you. that is what we do when we work together. >> >> let me just take it this way. i think to assume, for example, we do not have differences of opinion would be naive. clearly, each governor comes from a different perspective. not only different parties but demographics and unique challenges in their states. that is why we believe in the fact that states voices need to be heard. we ought to be partners with washington, d.c. and not subservient. we ought to be coequal.

i believe in federalism. with that being said, i think the party labels in the way of resolving issues. principals will unite us. principles of fiscal restraint and responsibility is something that democrats and republicans all believe on. where we disagree sometimes is the process of how to get from here to there. those are things we will discuss and debate and have discussion on amongst ourselves as well as with our congressional delegation. governors do have to go back and balance their budgets. they do have to execute. a little different than sitting on the sidelines where we see a lot of quantification and not enough action. again, i think the principles of fiscal restraint and responsibility are things we understand as governors and which the understood better in washington so we did not get into the problem we see today. when little factoid. the combined budgets of all the states in the united states of america is about $1.6 trillion.

the deficit in washington is 1.4 trillion dollars. we are spending more money in washington, d.c. than the combined efforts of the states. we have this thing upside down. we need to get back to fiscal prudence and fiscal responsibility. we may have different opinions on how to get there, but we are more than happy to help lead in fiscal restraint and responsibility and partner with washington d.c. so they can get their fiscal house in order. >> >> is the cut debt and balance trade now impediment to solving this? >> first of all, you asked about pledges. i am one of those governors that does not sign pledges. to me, it is about performance, not pledges. secondly, you ask the question about what is going on in washington, d.c.. let me give you a perspective

from middle america in nebraska. most have very strong opinions about this issue and a variety of other issues. at the end of the day, we sit down, our family budgets and state governments and we resolve those issues. that is what governors to every single day. we make do with a little bit differently, but i agree with the governor. drop some of the partisanship and let us do what is right for america. we need the present pattern -- we need the president to lead. we need them to solve this. american not default on its obligations. >> i do not believe it is an impediment. it is a catalyst that will get people to talk about things. >> why did you sign the pledge, governor? >> i signed it because i believe that is a good approach to solve the fiscal irresponsibility in washington d.c.. >> is it the only way? >> it is not the only way, but it is a way.

we need to make some tough decisions now. >> let me share with you a perspective from the states. for every dollar of non discretionary spending-cut in washington d.c., one-third of it will come at the doorstep of the states. everything they are talking about is real to us. what we did in our letter was say, let us be a part of the discussion so you know the consequences. if not done right, and i am not exaggerating here, because of how fragile the recovery is in some of our states, it can trigger them to slide back again. that is the last thing i think congress would want to see happen. that is why we want to engage in be a part of the spirit we are very concerned about the cuts. having said that, there is not a

governor that does not understand that cuts have to be made. we have to get our fiscal house in order. almost every governor with the exclusion of two have been to the tough decisions of making the cuts. we understand what it takes. we do it every time. we have to balance our budgets. we do not have a choice. we have to get it done on time. we are willing to work and willing to help, but we cannot be labor this issue. it is hurting the economic recovery of the states. people need to get to work. they need businesses to spend the money and hire people back. people need to spend money so we get sales tax revenue into the states and pay for services. because of what is going on in this discussion, is holding us. with the governors are saying, get on with it. get it done. we did. you can. >> each governor does it a

little bit differently in how they do their budget. in nebraska, i've balanced without raising taxes. i made difficult choices. i eliminated state aid to local governments so i could put it in education because that is a higher priority. for me, the highest priorities are education and jobs. people in nebraska, we are prepared to take our cuts if they are fair and balanced. i have farmers and ranchers that are willing to stand up and say you can cut agriculture subsidies if you do it fairly. everybody is involved in this. we are willing to make tough decisions. we balance our budgets on time. i would be happy if the federal government passed a budget by october 1 if we knew what to expect. i do not think that is an unreasonable expectation for the president and congress to get done. >> using part of this might impair your ability to get

projects and education and jobs? >> just as we sign this letter of medicaid, if it is a 10% cut, that would dramatically impact the states. this on the other hand, if it is the 1% or 2%, i will live with it and make the tough decisions. we are just asking -- make a decision back there. you know, the people of your state in this country would respect to if you would do it. >> over the last decade, and the federal government has given states with economic aid what you guys that had to balance your budget. are you prepared -- is it wise to accept a balanced budget amendment in washington that would basically from the ballot -- fundamentally and that?

>> i will try to share a couple of things. i have been straightforward that administrations of both parties have spent too much money on the federal government. that is the first thing. secondly, i support a balanced budget amendment. i think it helps us at the state level. at the federal level, you have to be concerned. indeed some contingencies for what we are at war. to take care of those circumstances. if the federal government had to balance their budget, they might find decisions are easier because we have to tell our citizens all the time -- we have a requirement to balance the budget. therefore we cannot give you all of the money you would like. we make tough decisions. i have made it very clear, education and jobs if you want to move the state forward. >> are there any practices or things to have seen states doing it overhauls or reforms that you look for to guidance?

>> i think washington state probably has if not the soundest one of the spot -- most sound education budgets in the country. we saw what was ultimately going to happen. we stopped our early pension fund. we started a new one that is much more shared responsibility. that has allowed us to move forward. however, this legislation, i proposed that we cut to that pension that was in the '70s. that was not a popular idea. you can appreciate and understand that. i got it done. i got it done bipartisan. it was the right thing to do. i have reduced our unfunded liability by 60%. we now are on a trajectory that will show us a very stable -- well out into the future.

there are other governors that have stepped up to pension reform as well. we are stepping up to it. there are some legal impediments, not every governor can go and and fundamentally make changes. there are legal impediments on the way to pension reform. in my state we have done it. we are the most sound were one of the most sound pension funds in america today. >> is the same thing being done everywhere or is more attention being paid to those states? >> says i am not running for office again, i can tell you my opinion on this subject. the media covers of those things that do not work. those things were tens of thousands of people show up to protest. as the media -- have the media covered the states that have

stepped up and gotten things done and a bipartisan way? not in my opinion. i do not ever read about the state of washington. the state of washington that reform unemployment insurance. reform workers' compensation for the first time in 100 years. 25% increase in what they have to pay for health care. increased contribution to their pension funds. i do not read about that. why do why not read about that? because it is not controversial. we sat at the table and got the job done. that in my opinion is a reflection of what is going on in most of the states across america. the media has a tendency to put their attention only on those were there is protest or controversy or something to cover. i would invite you to cover the success of the governors of this nation. they have stood up and got the job done. they'd have done that bipartisan in many instances.

they aren't leading the nation out of the recession. if you were not running, would you agree with me, guys? >> one more question. what is the first thing you would contribute to the conference? >> this is a very historic event pretty began in february where we signed an agreement to work at a sub national level governor to governor, american governor to chinese governor. collectively, -- mr. it was an example of what we could accomplish. we had a signing ceremony of 20 different companies. a sign up and a partnership to do more trade. today, we will have a form of american and chinese governor's in which we will talk about success. it is based on a foundation of

mutual respect and benefit. we are the most trade dependency in the nation in my state. for the first time in the history of my state, our number one trading partner is china. we know there are immense opportunities if we can enhance trade. we also know that trade is not come about without french ship, exchange of culture, exchange of education, knowing people, getting to know people. we are trying to start the foundation of mutual respect. from there we will grow to mutual benefit and trade. today will be a historic event. i think for china and the united states, the state department is here. we will have a greeting from president obama. we will have a president for -- a greeting from hu jintao. it is a great opportunity. then the baton will be passed to individual governors in china

and america to carry on the tradition we have started in february and america. to every much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> the opening session look at fostering education and economic growth. this is about 90 minutes. >> good morning.

good morning, everyone. we will try it one last time. good morning everyone. good morning to the governors. good morning to our distinguished guests. the reason that i am good morning as loud as i can is because if you recall in february, i had laryngitis and i could not say a word. i am back. it is my honor to call to order the 103rd meeting of the national governors' association. we have a packed agenda for the next two and half days. let me run through it. we will have a governor's only lunch and business session. later this afternoon, we will convene the first-ever united states-china governors formed to explore opportunities for

cooperation and friendship between our two countries. saturday's business agenda begins with a stand-alone session of our economic development and commerce committee. it will include a discussion about international trade and investments role in our domestic growth and job creation. we will have a governor's only lunch and business session followed by the meetings of our other committees. sunday morning, we will begin with a governor only business session. our annual meeting will conclude on sunday morning on a global challenges, facing america today, and the world education plays in united states competitiveness. "new york times" columnist, tom friedman will join us. he has a new book out, and we may be given a little bit of insights. i look forward to seeing all of you at these sessions. if i can, let me begin by asking

for a motion for the adoption of rules of procedure for the meeting. it has been moved and seconded. part of the rules require that any governor who wants to submit a new policy or adoption will need a three-fourths vote to suspend the rules. any discussion? all signify by saying "aye." i now would like to announce the appointment of the following governors to the nominating committee for the 2011-2012 national governors' association committee. governor herbert, nixon, and mcdonald will serve as chair of the group. we are also honored today to be joined by several distinguished guests.

first, we have members from the canadian parliament with us today. would you please raise your hand so we can acknowledge you and thank you for attending our meeting. we appreciated. thank you. [applause] >> i do not see them. they were here last night. welcome. we have our delegation from china. we will proceed to our historic form a little bit later. this past january, the united states and china signed a memorandum of understanding supporting the establishment of a you added states-china for. as i mentioned earlier, we will have our first koh convening

forum with four provincial governors. with those members from the china delegation please raise your hands and let us welcome them to the great state of utah. thank you for joining us. [applause] i would like to take a minute if i could to thank our host fourth this year's meeting. governor herbert who is hosting our meeting and beautiful solid city. thank you, gary. thank you genet. the movie went well. mr. day was great. the weather is perfect. -- yesterday was great.

in the view is perfect. your hospitality is the second to none. would you like to say a few words? >> yes, i would like to just personally welcome everybody. we are honored and delighted and enthusiastic to welcome the national governors association to utah. it has been a long time since we had this opportunity, back in 1947 was the last time we hosted. i made a little joke this morning when we met with the press that back then alaska and hawaii were not members of the union. there has been a change in the last 64 years, we are happy to acknowledge the membership of alaska and hawaii to the union. we welcome everybody. let me just mention that we want to make sure that your time here is not only productive but enjoyable. we have some activities outlined

for you. this evening, we will have a picnic in the park over by the university. there will be a lot of food opportunities to socialize and at work and talk about important issues. good food, music, and company. tomorrow we will have an opportunity to go up to olympic park where we had a lot of training that was done. or some of the venues to place them park city. you have an opportunity to see the venue. the opportunity were to write down and a bobsled to suck the olympians did. if you have not signed up, that is an opportunity to sign up. it will be a thrill of your life. it is set, but it will take your breath away. you'll have drivers, and it will

be a fun time. acrobatics will take place there, i think it will be a wonderful evening. we look forward to hosting it tomorrow night. sunday morning we have a special concert that is going to be performed by the mormon tabernacle choir in their conference center. just seeing the building itself will be delightful. it holds 20,000 + people. if you have not had a chance to hear the tabernacle choir in person, this will be a tree that you remember. 7:30 in the morning. i look forward to seeing you there. last but not least, i want to mention that in your rooms, there is a gift basket. in a gift basket you will see one of these little sculptures here. not everyone knows about them, but here we treasure our pioneer

heritage and history. particularly, the hancart people in my family, about six grades back grandmother ended up coming from england. she had joined the mormon church. her husband had died. she came here as a single mother with one child, william, and another child, jesse. they came across the ship and met out in far west misery. they gathered with the mormons as they trekked here to salt lake valley in 1856. a lot have been here already in 1847, but they got a little bit of its late start. it wasn't in the expensive way to come across the lane bridges the country.

they had an early winter. they were stock in the area of wyoming. the snow was about 3 feet deep. they were stranded in a place. she ended up having to -- a rescue team cannot for a couple of weeks. the frostbite was horrific. half of them perished on the journey from far west misery to salt lake valley. she came to sell like jelly -- valid. she said in her notes that she hoped that her austerity would remember the sacrifices she went through in order to make a better life for them. i mention that because it is not just a utah pioneer story, it is a story of america. all of us have the same types of stories we could tell. pioneers, people who have gone before and settle your states, try to find a way for them to have a better life.

as i reflected upon that, the reason i am giving this token of appreciation to remind you about utah. it reminds you about america. we have had the opportunities in some way to be pioneers ourselves as we smooth out the path, right the way, and without some of the bombs for those who come behind us. madam chairman, i think that is what the national governors' association is about. we're trying to make things better. we have good examples of our history and those who have done for us. we have a responsibility to do it for our posterity and their posterity. to get as a token of our appreciation for you. welcome to utah. we are excited to host you. >> on behalf of all of the governors and all of our guests who are with us today, thank you to you and your first lady for the amazing hospitality.

making fun for what is that we can to get the people's worked at and enjoy each other's company at the same time. ladies and gentlemen, please give a warm thank you 2 governor herbert. [applause] had our opening session, along with hearing amazing speakers on what we can do if we really do partner between higher education, business. we also want to take opportunity to recognize our 15 and 20 your corporate felons. let me turn to the business of today's session. -- corporate fellows. education is the absolute key to put americans back to work. the economic success of our country and our competitiveness and around the globe. today's session is about higher education and its role as a

catalyst for economic growth. strengthening our economy means of making more of our residents and making sure that they have the necessary skills so that they will be able to compete for jobs today, and more important for jobs tomorrow. many of us know, folks of lost jobs that will not be there. they needed new training and new skills. >> we must be clear that it is obvious and clear to them. we must hold them accountable.

how well are our higher education systems doing at graduating students with certificates and agrees that employers actually need so that they have a job. how efficient are our colleges and universities and how much of a return do they provide? how do we make sure that our students are learning what they need it to be career ready, even as we encourage them to graduate and graduate faster. are they career ready? so my initiative as cheer was to complete to compete. the document that you have at your table, it is an effort on our part to development tricks to help us answer those very questions, to help us make

decisions as governors in the direction we want to take education in our perspective states. restarted work in july, and today i can report that we have 30 states, including my own state, that has committed to reporting on those metrics. this could not have happened without the work of our partners at complete college america. i want to thank you for their work in advancing this. there keep for advancing competitiveness around the globe. it is one part of a bigger picture -- to help answer the questions that i just mentioned to you. national governors' association has brought together a group of advisers to help identify key metric on the efficiency and effectiveness in higher education. that report is before you. it is the result of their work. it recommends metrics that all states can collect and report.

it offers ideas and best practices. using these and other performance metrics to create a high performing post secondary system in every state around the nation. we have plenty of data about education. what we needed to know now more than ever is the ability to use that data to improve and to reward performance in higher education. a combination of completion and the efficiency and effectiveness cents a very clear message that we as governors are prepared to ask questions about outcomes. that is why i am pleased to announce that nga will be sponsoring a policy academy. it will begin in october, the academy will provide technical assistance and grants for up to eight states interested in increasing efficiency and

effectiveness in higher education systems in their state. using those measures to make key policy decisions as governors. your chief of staff and education policy folks up been informed about this earlier this week. i went to encourage you if your interested to follow up. helping our community colleges and are for your institutions achieve greater success in graduating our students, ready for the global economy, is a paramount responsibility each of us must bear. it is critical to the success of our economic future. with that in mind, today we are very fortunate today to have two leaders who bring a wealth of ideas and experience to this conversation. they are going to share with us their perspectives about the role of higher education in the world that is unfolding. what that means to states and colleges and universities. susan leads one of the world's

leading research institutions. in that role, she has been a tireless advocate for innovation. she has encouraged collaboration as a means of the sparking the creativity for tomorrow. she believed strongly in translating research into practice. harnessing the university pose the collective knowledge to tackle some of our most pressing challenges. in recent years, mit has worked to provide students and faculty with the tools and advice and succeed and contribute to things that are so important to local, state, and national economic growth. she also believes that our institutions of higher education must uplight their fast and knowledge to the task of creating new models of teaching and research that fit the demand of our global aids. before assuming the presidency

at a meissen t, -- recently she was asked by our white house to join with andy levaris in leading a university task force to strengthen united states capabilities and advanced manufacturing from revamping work-force training to accelerating cutting edge manufacturing methods. we look forward to your remarks. we thank you for being here. we also have with us john brown. he is one of america's for most experts when it comes to technology and innovation. a chief scientist for xerox for nearly two decades, dr. brown helped to change the face of corporate research. he is also an acclaimed writer, which challenges some of the

conventional wisdom and mythology surrounding the role of information technology in today's society and describes the changing nature of education. in its second printing and has been translated into nine languages. today, dr. brown has 1 foot in the corporate world and 1 foot in the academic world. he cochairs a center which conducts research on the corporate world. he is a visiting scholar to the university of southern california. dr. brown can share with us how firms, large and small, plus benefits from university partnerships and to discuss the implications of state policy and campus practice. we will first hear from dr. hawkfield. ladies and gentlemen, the head of massachusetts institute of technology. [applause]

thank you very much. thank you for inviting me to speak with you and your fellow governors this morning. it is a great privilege to join you here and governor herbert's beautiful home state. i was here a couple of months ago and had the privilege of hearing him speak about astonishing advancements. congratulations, and thank you for hosting this meeting. in seeking a solution to america's economic quandary, i think it is almost impossible to think of any group closer to the action then you, the nation's governors. you carry an extraordinary burden of leadership, addressing human suffering and budget impacts of the global downturn. also to show charter a course to a greater economic teacher to your state. i join you with a profound

sense of responsibility, as i want to share with you some thoughts how to revive america's innovation based economy. i took a look at some of your presentations, and i found across the country a sobering unity of concern. i always like coherence, but this is really sobering. our budget is a jobs bill. from governor kasich, the enemy in ohio right now is joblessness. gov. snyder said that michigan's job one is jobs. the key is to get enough of a working again. from governor bentley, my highest priority for alabama is creating jobs. gov. scott called the florida legislature into the emergency session because as he put it, for the 1.1 million floridians out of work, it is an emergency. i also want -- i also learned from a staffer that governors

like to do things. there is really just one question, what are we going to do together to restart america's job creation machine? i believe the answer lies in retooling the engine that has driven away after wave of economic growth after world war ii. that is america's innovation system. i want to provide what i think will be a clear picture of how the innovation system works and what we can do to make it work even better. of course, our innovation system comes to light from the sport of scientific discovery and invention. the kind of innovation that drives real economic growth goes beyond any idea or an advance on practice or product. we are going for the kind of innovations that produce big ideas based on science or technology that can be transformed into a market ready products. innovations that create new

markets, sometimes even new industries. they create a future that is different and hopefully better than the present. what kind of innovations do i mean? let me give you a short list. real-time computing, these are radical advances that transformed computers from what was a grisly over bronchi killed leaders into the affirmation infrastructure of our society. pet scans that allow doctors to pinpoint malignant tumors without invasive procedures. or lasers. lasers not too long ago were archaic scientific instruments that nobody really knew what they would be good for. now we use them every day at checkout counters. day your vision corrected. burning cd's. or a drug alluding coronary stance. one of the several medical miracles.

or the air traffic control technology that most of us depending on to get to this meeting. or gps. remember, that was a technology that was invented to position nuclear missiles. we now use a universally to find a way to the hospital. i also use it quite frequently to find the nearest our bucks. or the books. we also carry more but that we will ever have time to read. or big-time innovation like google. today, all of these routine tools are in our hands. each one represents a science based innovation that made a big impact on the marketplace and in our daily lives. all of these lots changing innovations have something in common. the grew out of advanced research conducted with federal dollars at american universities. they were translated into market ready ideas by