premiums should rise. >> my time has expired. >> senator franken. >> i can assure the ranking member that minnesota is hard at work in setting up the final rules. i know many states are as well. my of former -- is now deputy commissioner of health in minnesota. i keep in touch with her. she is hard at work in setting >> is the information out to the businesses? >> i think it is available. certainly available. i cannot speak to that. what you said was that you don't know if they are working on it. i want to assure you that they

are. mr. withrow, in your testimony -- first of all, you have a beautiful daughter. >> thank you. >> you don't have to stand up again. you said there was a laundry list, in your testimony, of new medical procedures or care that was required. >> right. the lifetime maximum of children 26 years old, the insurance companies having to cover for anyone that does not get insurance because of a pre- existing condition, those benefits are what i was referring to is adding costs to the system. if we add cost, premiums will rise. >> ok. anyone has a pre-existing condition, any adult? >> what i know --

>> i don't think that kicks in until 2014. >> right. i am not sure i understand the question. >> you enumerated what you said were the requirements that increased the costs. restated one that i don't think currently exists. >> that i stand corrected. >> you are presented chamber of commerce? >> yes. >> i think it's very important that we be absolute when we testify and that we be accurate or rather you. i think that is very important. are you aware of what the medical loss ratio is? >> i am not. i sell palletts. >> it's part of the law. in oregon the medical loss ratio is about 89%.

the medical loss ratio is the percentage of premiums that paid into health insurance company that must go into -- that must be actual health care. its 85% for large groups in this law. there was no law before. and 80% for individuals and small groups. small groups has typically been much smaller. when you are on the exchange, you will be in a much larger groups. medical loss ratio will be 85 and above, which means 85% of all premiums will have to be spent on actual health care and not on administrative costs and not on advertising or marketing or ceo salaries, etc..

that's why certain markets already we are seeing in connecticut, aetna has cut premiums by 10% on an average. do you think the medical loss ratios will bring down health care costs or cost of premiums? >> senator harkin, in oregon, since we have high medical loss ratios, i don't think the medical loss ratio will make a big difference. i am not as familiar with other states in terms of medical loss ratios. it certainly could have an impact in other states. >> in other states that -- minnesota has over 90% medical loss ratio. that is because oregon and minnesota are high-value states. parts of -- one thing i believe

is going to bring down the bench in the cost kerf is -- the bend in the cost is we will -- incentivize states that have high value cost. senator hatch, earlier said the purpose of the health care reform was not to reduce the rate of growth of premiums but to reduce premiums. i don't think that is the case. i don't think anybody ever said that the purpose of health care reform that we were saying to reduce premiums. and sometimes i hear that from opponents of health reform who say that premiums went up and we

were told that they would go down. no, we did not say that premiums would go down. we said that the rate of growth of premiums would go down. that was the goal at least. whether that has been achieved everywhere, we will have to see if that is the case. i just wanted to clarify the goal. i also wanted to clarify, with the senator from alaska, he was talking about children only plan, because children do have pre-existing conditions coverage. if you have pre-existing, you are allowed to get care. in minnesota, while we don't have a children's only plan, if that has been taken care of by state plans. that is the reason for an

individual mandate, that everyone will have to get care. that is the whole purpose of the individual mandate is so that we cover people with the existing conditions. so i just wanted to clarify a couple things. i apologize for growing over my time -- going over my time. >> senator murphy. >> thank you, mr. chair. it is a pleasure to have you all testified today. in 2007 the oregon legislature passed a bill that made the filing process public. in 2009 they expanded on that by creating more protocols for the interaction with the public. it was just this spring or couple months ago in june that ms. miller hosted public testimony on the rate increase. i believe that was the first public testimony rate increase in 20 years. were you required to do that by locking? or did you think it would be an

interesting experiment -- were you required to do that by law. >> we have had a public comment period prior. but this was the first year. >> was invaluable? it valuable? >> i did not know if consumers would find the experience helpful or valuable and i did not know how the company would react to it. i found it to be a very new data will experience. i heard from consumers that they so appreciated the opportunity to be heard and to testify and make their views known and have someone listen to them. we also had a lot of comments about -- the way we structure the hearing, we had the company

presents the rate filing. i asked the company about 10 questions and then we had a consumer advocacy group present their thoughts on the filing and then we took comments from the public. we got comments from people as they were leaving that said things like i have a lot more confidence in the work that the oregon insurance commission does, having witnessed this hearing. that meant a lot to me because i know behind closed doors if we are doing an excellent job of scrutinizing rate filings. but if people don't have a chance to see that, they don't know that and they don't have the confidence in our process that i do and have had for years. so it was a very valuable experience and the company found it to be valuable. >> i think it is terrific. part of this process was to create a plain language strategy so the public could understand the documents before them. can you share that? >> i will tell you that over the last three years that i've been

at the department, i think our single greatest challenge has been to try to find a way to take what otherwise is a very technical process that historically has been actuary's speaking to actuaries and to try to take that process and turn it into law something you and i can understand and the public can understand, has been one of our biggest challenges. that's why we did take some of our grant funding and created the animated story of the health insurance premium. we have tried to do everything we can to make this more easily understandable. we spend a lot of staff time developing are plain language decision summaries because we want people -- we are holding ourselves accountable by that and beyond -- we want people to and understand why their rates are going. >> can you bring expertise to bear on our legislative language? i will switch to the health insurance exchange.

they are hard at work designing the elements of that. how is that going? >> in terms of developing the exchange, rocky king is the administrator or interim executive director. they are just starting to do things like try to find office locations. some of the things they are doing right now are basic in terms of setting up a corporation. it is a little slow only because there are things we don't necessarily think of that they have had to focus on like finding buildings, figuring out where their offices will be located, getting workers, coverage for their employees. >> division of the exchange, which is that they have all the policies in one computer site where a consumer can compare them to see what features would best fit their family and so forth, is that resonating? is there a lot of interest in that? or do people see that as

unnecessary? >> senator, especially in a market like oregon, if you go care.gov, the last time i went there, there were 77 options. sometimes it's hard for consumers to figure out what is the best plan for them. in oregon particularly there's a lot of excitement because it makes it easy for people to compare plans. we have so many options, but they are not necessarily plans that are easy to compare. >> . one last > my colleague from minnesota likes to point out that oregon has a medical loss ratio of 89% while oregon is that 90%. >> we will work on that. >> thank you. >> its 91% in minnesota. [applause]

-- [laughter] [inaudible] >> i will submit those to you in writing. i would like to thank mr. whittle for coming here and bringing his family and having a small business. -- mr. withrow. letts. palate i have been on a uso tour where they have those in the back of the plane. >> a friend of mine and a former colleague who is in minnesota by the name of richard nolan, a former congressman, went into that business. >> you have to put stuff on those things. if you go to any factory. all food goes on them.

>> may i clarify something i said earlier? the area that i mentioned the additional cost is what is concerning me. but also the preventive cost and also gained addition that's added by the health and human secretary, kathleen sebelius, but added additional cost, breast feeding, and birth control. those additional costs is what i was referencing when i said there was additional cost that i think is going to hurt us from a small business perspective on the exchanges. i appreciate you correcting what i said before. >> i don't think the preventive care kicks in until 2014 either. so i think that when you

attribute -- and i don't know what's going on in kentucky, but when you attribute the cost going up because of provisions that are in "the affordable care act that have not kick in, i just think that, as you said, you are a small businessman who pays attention to its business and you obviously care about your employees and you are obviously doing what we need americans to be doing, which is working to build businesses, working to create economic opportunities for people. you pay your employees too much to qualify for the tax rate. i credit you on that. so you are not, i think, you are not expected to know every the law which was over 2000 pages long.

thank you. >> some of those provisions have already gone into effect. >> some of them have. just saying that some that were mentioned as having gone into effect have not. i just wanted to make that clear. >> thank you all very much. the record will stay open for 10 days for further submission of questions. senator? >> mavs ask another question? i wanted to follow-up on the lactation statement. i was very much involved in that in oregon. i champion companies that provided the space at work and flexibility for women to express milk. there was basically no cost. it turned out from the experiment in oregon that they had much less absenteeism because -- and a much higher as

better sense of morale from the women returning to work. you mention the cost associated with lactation and i am not sure what caused you referred to. >> talking about the breast pump rentals and coaches. i certainly know the cost that we have to pay in order to purchase or rent breast pumps and also birth control. me as a family man. those costs are concerning me because we seem to be adding more to the tickets of benefits. as we add benefits, the more you add, the more it will cost. so it concerns me from a small business perspective that we seem to keep adding more and more to the party. >> my understanding, i could be wrong, but my belief is that those features that you referred to and actually are not a mandate in the law.

those are not required. many companies are putting them in because they have a very strong appeal to the customer, but that is a market decision and not a mandate decision. i will check on that and clothes that with you. >> would that be to everyone? is it something that has to be part of the entire mandate that everyone has to have that available? >> no, my understanding is those services are not mandated, that it's an insurance company decision. but i will check on that. >> ok. >> actually, everyone has to pay for all of those four free. >> i guess the chairman will weigh on this as long as everybody is weighing in onyx. [laughter] >> being the basic author of the prevention section of the health care bill, i would say again that we keep paying and paying

and paying and paying to fix and patch. we spend precious little on prevention. one big failure of our health- care system in america, that we have not put enough into prevention. less than 4 cents of every dollar goes into prevention. your mother was right. an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. as we are making this shift, we are putting more out there for presentive services -- preventive services. in some cases they are costing more, they are added on. but every single study i have ever seen indicates that the amount that you have put into proven preventable services approved by the united states prevention health task force of the center for disease control and prevention pay off huge amounts in the future in terms

of cutting health care expenditures, to patch and fix and an end later on. so we want to do more in preventive care. a lot more. a lot of companies are stepping up to the bar. some have preceded this with prevention. we were just talking about safeway, that did a great job in this in the past. it was one of those companies that we looked at in how do you devise preventive health services and interventions. and also as this former chair one time of the national breast- feeding coalition, it has been a lifelong goal of mine to changed societal attitudes in this country on breast feeding. it should be available easily. we all know from pediatricians that the first months of a child's life is enhanced immeasurably by mother's milk.

there's no substitute for its anywhere. i understand some people cannot. there have to be replacements of infant formula and stuff. but we should make it as easy as possible for every mother to be able to nurse her child, as easily as possible, in the workplace, in traveling, no matter where. it ought to be the norm and not the exception that we do this. i don't know your business from anything, sir, or any other businesses here. but i have seen small businesses that go out of their way to provide time or whatever modicum of support they can give to women and young women who are in their childbearing years to be able to nurse their children. to those i say god bless you,

keep doing more. i hope all businesses will do that and i hope we do that on the government level, a federal, state, and local government. this is one of the best things we can do for the delta this country. >> thank you, mr. terra. it was interesting in oregon that we have an exemption for any company that has applied and said it is not feasible to provide privacy and flexibility and breaktime in are setting. and so, we assume that a number of companies would take advantage of that situation. what actually transpired was that not a single organ company has asked for that exemption. some have explored it and tried to understand what was required of them and how can they make it fit and gotten advice on how other companies have made it or. it's a testimony to the fact that when people pause, they realize what a profound value is

for women to be able to express milk. there is no substitute for it for the child. it's not only good for the child's health, but it's tremendous for the mother's health. we had testimony in this very committee from dr. coburn who when i first introduced the amendment, he spoke of all the advantages of it. >> i think we better clothes now before we are accused of practicing pediatric medicine without a license. thank you all. the meeting stands adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> in a few moments president obama on passage of the debt ceiling bill. followed by senate leaders from both parties looking ahead to what is next on the debate over federal spending.

this morning we will look at how the republican candidates for president are responding to the debt ceiling bill. our guests will be associated press reporter mike glover in des moines, iowa. and from manchester, new hampshire, if a political director, james pindell. foreign policy director gordon adams will take your questions about defense spending cuts in the debt ceiling bill. and we will examine the debate over reauthorization of the federal aviation administration with national journal correspondent fawn johnson. washington journal is live on c- span every day and 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> this weekend on "book tv" don c-span2, the life and times of clarence darrow. and then at the british citizens who fought for the union and the

confederates. and on sunday at noon eastern, three hours of your calls and questions, in depth with ann coulter on how she says the liberal mob is endangering america. look for the complete "book tv" schedule at the web site and sign up for alerts, weekend schedules in your in box. >> before president obama signed the bill raising the debt limit and cutting federal spending, he said that any future efforts to reduce the deficit should include changes to the tax code to raise revenue. he spoke after the senate passed the debt ceiling bill, calling on congress to now approve pending free-trade deals and extend unemployment benefits. this is 10 minutes.

ben.>> good afternoon, everybody. congress has approved a compromise to reduce the deficit and avert a default that would have devastated our economy. it was a long and contentious debate and i want to thank the american people for keeping up the pressure on their elected officials to put politics aside and work together for the good of the country. this compromise guarantees more than $2 trillion in deficit- reduction. it is important first step to ensure that as a nation we live within our means. yet it also allows us to keep making key investments into things like education and research that lead to new jobs and assures that we are not cutting the 00 abruptly while the economy is still fragile. -- too abruptly. this is just a first step. compromise requires that both parties work together on a larger plan to cut the deficit, which is important for the long- term health of our economy. since you cannot close the

deficit with just spending cuts, we will need a balanced approach where everything is on the table. yes, that means making some adjustments to protect health care programs like medicare so they are there for future generations. it also means reforming our tax code so that the wealthiest americans and biggest corporations pay their fair share. and it means getting rid of taxpayer subsidies to oil and gas companies and tax loopholes that help millionaires pay a lower tax rate than teachers and nurses. i have said this before and i will say again. we cannot balance the budget on the backs of the very people who have borne the biggest bunch of this recession. we cannot make it tougher for young people to go to college or ask seniors to pay more for health care, or ask the scientists to give up on promising medical research because we could not close a tax shelter for the most fortunate among must. everyone is going to have to

chip in. it's only fair. that is a principle i will be fighting for during the next phase of this process. and in the coming months i will continue also to fight for what the american people care most about. new jobs, higher wages, and faster economic growth. while washington has been a source in this debate about deficits, people across the country are asking what can we do to help the father looking for work? what are we going to do for the single mom whose hours have been cut back at the hospital? what are we going to do to make it easier for businesses to put out the now hiring sign? that is part of the reason that people are so frustrated with what has been going on in this town. over the last few months the economy has already had to agora an earthquake in japan, the economic headwinds coming from europe, the arab spring, and the oil prices, all of

which have been very challenging for the recovery. but these are things we could not control. our economy did not need washington to come along with a manufactured crisis to make things worse. that was in our hands. it's pretty likely that the uncertainty surrounding the raising of the debt ceiling for both businesses and consumers has been unsettling and just one more impediment to a full recovery that we need and it was something we could have been avoided entirely. so the voters may have chosen divided government, but they sure did not vote for a dysfunctional government. they want us to solve problems. they want us to get this economy growing and adding jobs. while deficit-reduction is part of that agenda, it is not the whole agenda. growing the economy is not just about cutting spending. it's not about rolling back

regulations that protect the air and water and keep people safe. that is not how we are going to get past this recession. we are going to have to do more than that. that is why when congress gets back from recess, i will urge them to immediately take some steps, bipartisan common sense steps that will make a difference. that will create a climate where businesses can hire, where folks have more money in their pockets to spend, where people who are out of court can find good jobs. we need to begin by extending tax cuts for middle-class families so you have more money in your paycheck next year. if you have more money in your paycheck, you are more likely to spend. that means small businesses and medium-size businesses and large businesses will all have more customers. that means they will be in a better position to hire. while we are at it, we need to make sure millions of workers still pounding the pavement looking for jobs to support

their families are not denied needed and employment benefits. the patent reform we can cut the red tape that stops many inventors and entrepreneurs from quickly turning ideas into a thriving business, told our economy back. i want congress to pass a set of trade deals, deals we have already negotiated that would help displaced workers looking for new jobs and would allow our businesses to sell more products in countries in asia and south america, products that are stamped with the words "made in america." we also need to give more opportunities to all the construction workers lost their jobs when the housing boom went bust. we could put them to work right now by giving loans to private companies that want to repair the roads and bridges and airports. rebuilding our infrastructure. we have workers who need jobs and a country that needs rebuilding. and infrastructure bank would help us put them together.

why we are on the topic of infrastructure, there's another stalemate in congress right now involving the aviation industry, which has stalled airport construction projects all around the country. and it's but the jobs of tens of thousands of construction workers and others at risk. that's because of politics. it is another washington- inflicted wound on america. congress needs to break that impasse now. hopefully before the senate adjourns promise of these folks can get back to work. so these are some of the things that we could be doing right now. there's no reason for congress not to send me those bills so i can sign them into law right away, as soon as they get back from recess. both parties share power in washington and both parties need to take responsibility for improving this economy. it's not a democratic responsibility or a republican responsibility. it is our collective responsibility as americans.

i will be discussing additional ideas in the weeks ahead to help companies hire a, invest, and expand. so, we have seen in the past few days that washington has the ability to focus when there is a timer ticking and when there is a looming disaster. it should not take the risk of default, the risk of economic catastrophe to get folks in this town to work together and do their jobs. because there is already a quiet crisis going on in the lives of a lot of families in a lot of communities all across the country. they are looking for work and they have been for awhile. or they are making do with fewer hours or fewer customers or they are just trying to make ends meet. that ought to compel washington to cooperate. that ought to compel washington to compromise and it ought to compel washington to act. it ought to be enough to get all

of us in this town to do the jobs we were sent here to do. we have to do everything in our power to grow this economy and put america back to work. that is what i intend to do and i'm looking forward to working with congress to make it happen. thanks very much, everybody. >> senate leaders also spoke with reporters about the debt limit and what happens now. democratic leader harry reid will be first, followed by republican leader mitch mcconnell. this is a little less than a

half-hour. >> the debate was long and it was not easy. for weeks the american people have watched and wondered whether congress can get its job done. well, we got it done and brought our economy back from the brink of disaster. in the end, the two sides came together. that's how our system works. neither side got what they wanted. each side laments some of the things we had to give up, but that's the way it is. it is that way because that is how our system works and what compromise is all about. it was a bipartisan compromise. it was not the right wing cap, cut, and whatever is. that was not bipartisan.

it's nothing that we could agree to that was short term that was a disaster for america. disagreement cuts the deficit -- this agreement cut the deficit by $1 trillion and lays the groundwork for much more in the near future. we look forward to the work on the committee to make sure that millionaires and billionaires and corporate jet owners and people that have yachts will get tax benefits -- who get tax benefits and oil companies that thisax help, that's what committee is about. we need to do more for families. the number of jobs have as a congress must be creating jobs for the american people. there are a number of things we are going to do. mr. schumer will address that into a moment as to the jobs agenda we have. today we made sure america will pay its bills and make sure all americans can pay there's. senator durban?

o 26, wethis vote, 74 ti have averted a crisis. america has averted defaulting for the first time in its history on our national debt. the fears and concerns of americans across the board were considered by this congress and as a result we have come together on a bipartisan basis. i did not vote for this with a great deal of enthusiasm, because the down payment on the deficit included in this bill comes primarily from working families and those struggling in america. if we are going to have to deficit reduction and address the debt, we have to put everything on the table and bring everyone to the table, for shared sacrifice. the joint committee has a particular responsibility and called on 1 trillion dollars up to 1.5 trillion dollars in savings. we want to make sure that's done in a fair and just manner for all the people in america. when we return, we shall address

the number one issue in america, creating good paying jobs right here at home for the people who are struggling in this economy. >> well, now washington, the nation, the world can breathe a sigh of relief. the horrible crisis that would have occurred if we defaulted, the likelihood of a recession if we defaulted has been averted. but we have a lot more work to do. a lot more work to do. -- hadl which had things a lot of things we did not like. it had some things we did like, particularly making sure that no benefits to medicare, social security, and medicaid were cut. but it is now time for congress to get back to our regularly scheduled programming. that means jobs. while washington has been consumed with averting a

default, our nation's unemployment problem has been worsening. it's time for job to be moved back to the front burner. with this debt reduction package completed, the debts are now clear for a single-minded focus on jobs in september, by removing the threat of default for the next 18 months and by improving both parties can come together to get our deficits under control, we have provided certainty to the credit markets. the debt limit agreement largely resolved the budgets for the next two years so the wrangling over spending should be greatly reduced in the coming months. we now have the chance to give it away from budget battles to jobs. we can reset the debate and that's what we intend to do. the jobs issue will not have to play second fiddle to the deficit issue anymore and that is what the american people want. the public is glad to see we have moved to rein in our

deficits, but now they will put political premium on efforts to create jobs as demo. as democrats, that is our strong suit, are high ground. we welcome the chance to shift the plainfield to jobs. -- playing field. >> this was an important vote. we needed to raise the debt ceiling to avoid economic calamity. to get the debt and deficit under control. we still have a long, critical road ahead of us and we are going to keep working hard to make sure that as we tackle the challenges in front of us, we do it in a fair and balanced way for americans across this country. it is time now to get back to our priority number one, getting our economy back on track and people back to work. this voter that we just cast begins to address budget

deficits. we also have an infrastructure deficit and education and skills training deficit and a jobs deficit. we want to get back on track and address that critical issue so american families can feel secure again that they will have a paycheck and their family will be able to put food on the table and send their kids to college. importantly, i think this vote just showed us that we can work in a bipartisan my. i hope that we can do that moving forward now to address the number-one issue for every family, jobs. >> why would the special committee be more successful in addressing either taxes or entitlement programs when the biden --group >> the answer is pretty obvious. hanging over the head of the joint committee is this trigger that is pretty drastic.

[no audio] >> is there anything to keep this from happening again? is there a chance that the house the party caucus could once again say we are not going to support a debt limit increase after 2013? >> i think the joint committee will set a tone for what happens in the near future. if not, the trigger kicks in and i think that makes it pretty easy for the concerns. there will have been an election that takes place between them. >> regarding the faa, do you guys expect the house version to reopen the faa? >> yes, we have at least 80,000 jobs online. in nevada we have a new airport tower where they started construction two weeks ago.

it's a huge project and those people have been laid off. nearly $100 million project. barbara boxer has told me they have a problem with the control tower in palm springs. as i understood what she said, they have shut down construction on that. so that's difficult. essential air services, but the program i believe in. i also believe that $3,500 per passenger is a little extreme. that is what i do my best to protect the state, but sometimes you have to be reasonable. so we learned with this big deal getting done, sometimes you have to step back and find what's the best for the country and not be bound by some of your own personal issues. i am willing to give that up and i hope the other senators will do the same. >> [inaudible]

>> we are going to work on this the next few weeks. but there are all kinds of things. for example, i will file cloture today on a motion to succeed a patent bill. that will be the first bill we have when we get back. too bad it's taken so long. but that's 270,000 jobs. i indicated to my friends here, i spoke with chairman baucus today, he has found a source of money to complete the highway bill. so there are many things we can do. we also are concerned about the new energy jobs that are out there, of course. we have a lot of other things. if things we have not finalized yet, but we will. >> [inaudible] >> i think that people are going

on the joint committee should be looking at solving the debt problem of that company and not let ideology stand in the way. this should be more about saving our country from the future long-term deficit problems we have banned political ideology. under the law you have to do that within 14 days after the president signs the bill. thanks, everyone.

>> i know you all are going miss this. you hate to see us go. we're going to miss you, too, of course. obviously, the biggest concern the american people has is jobs and the economy. things have actually gotten worse since the president came to office, but we need to move in a different direction. we don't believe and the american people don't believe that raising taxes, job-killing tax increases, in the middle of this serious recession is a direction we ought to take. and the bill just passed avoided doing that, even though the administration desperately wanted to raise taxes. every meeting that i am in talks about the regulatory burden that are experiencing throughout the american economy. massive increases in regulation.

i am often asked what would you do to get the economy going? my answer is always the same. we need to quit borrowing and spending and quit trying to raise taxes and quit over regulating and let the private sector flourish if so we have a chance again to have a growing economy which will produce more revenue for the government. so that ought to be our single focus, not only at home during a recess, but the when we come back era. one very big thing the administration could do in that direction is get the -- up here. they create jobs for americans. we hope they will be waiting for us when we get back from the august break. with that, senator kyl. >> i'm amazed always on how the white house seems to believe how express shock and the

president's eloquence overrides the substance of issues with rhetoric. it is very interesting that the moment we got this debt ceiling issue behind us, the president decided to pivot to job creation. as leader mitch mcconnell pointed out, republicans have never taken our eye off the job creation. just to illustrate with a specific example of one of the things we had to deal with during this debate about the deficit and the debt ceiling, one of the taxes that the president actually proposed that we increase was the subject of a report by his own small business administration office of advocacy. they reported that this particular tax could ultimately force many small businesses to close. that is a direct quotation. so while the president today would have all of us believe and now he has gotten the light and

want to give it to job creation, i would just ask, what about the whole debate we have had over the last month or so about the pernicious effects of your tax proposals on job creation? that is why republicans were fixated on stopping the job- killing tax increases. >> senator rubio said yesterday that washington is talking about the data but americans are talking about jobs. and the president has pivoted to jobs. usually begins by blaming his predecessor for the jobs that he has inherited. we don't blame the president for the problems he has inherited, but we hold him responsible for making the economy worse. he has made it worse in terms of unemployment and in terms of the federal debt, made it worse in terms of higher gas prices,

individual health insurance premiums are higher, home values are down, debt projections are up. he proposes high-cost energy plants. he has basically thrown away a blanket over private sector job creators. and we could have simply taxes with fewer loopholes and fewer regulations, less debt, more exports, fewer health-care mandates, job training, and finding more american energy and using less. our goal is to make it easier and cheaper to create private- sector jobs. >> well, i just want to welcome the white house and administration and democrats to the debate about jobs after 2.5 years of filing up the record that senator alexander just alluded to. you think about the legacy of this administration so far, chronic high unemployment massive debt. if they have added 35% to the debt. and we have unemployment that is over 9%.

we saw last week the anemic growth numbers for the second quarter, 1.3%. and a downward revision in the first quarter growth fro. this economy is sluggish because job creators out there, the small businesses in this country, are worried about what washington will do next. i think that was probably verified in a poll that was done by the u.s. chamber of commerce in which they polled small businesses about what they are going to do with regard to job creation in the next year. 64% said they would not add to their payrolls. 12% said they would cut jobs this next year. of the businesses or responded to the survey, half of them said the reason was economic uncertainty. economic uncertainty because of washington d.c. policies and this is administration oppose the economic record, which has had a job-crushing agenda since the day they came into office. i am delighted to welcome them to the debate about jobs after

two and a half years of being missing in action. >> when the president came to office, the unemployment rate was 7.8%. now it's 9.2% unemployment. millions and millions of americans looking for work and cannot find someone to employ them. a lot of that has to do with regulations coming out of washington. in the past month, the july, there have been approximately 300 new expensive regulations coming out of washington. 10 of those are major regulations in terms of an impact, which means they have an impact of over $100 million, the impact on the ability to create jobs and the impact on those businesses. the total impact has been almost $10 billion of expenses when you look at hundreds of regulations in the month of july alone. this administration seems to be fixated on finding ways to make it tougher and more expensive for the private sector to create jobs in america.

>> looking forward, one of the most important things to come out of this debt ceiling agreement is a commitment for a vote on a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution sometime by october. when you look at everything congress can do, it cannot bind future congresses. that's one of the biggest challenges we have had. which is why i believe a balanced budget amendment to the constitution is essential. all 47 republicans have co- sponsored a version of that balanced budget amendment. what we now have the opportunity to do is to have taken a small step in the right direction for fiscal responsibility and to finished that job by passing by ed two third smart and a balanced budget amendment in the house and senate and then send it to the states for ratification. we know there's a lot of work to do between now and the time that amendment is ratified. ultimately, the question is are we going to be living by the

same rules that apply to every family, every small business, and 49 states, which is that they cannot spend more money than they have? i think we have all seen that this is really the ultimate measure of fiscal responsibility. i congratulate our leadership forgetting that commitment. as you know, being in the minority, we cannot get a vote on anything less harry reid agreed to give us a vote. we have a right to that vote and that is what the national conversation will be about to going forward. this is perhaps the most important thing or one of the most important things to come out of this agreement. >> we will take a couple questions. >> regarding an appointment to this special committee -- [inaudible] >> i am going to be considering these appointments -- senator kyl and i both will consider them together. i will be acting very soon.

>> will the federal government spend more money or less money in 2011? >> did you have the top line on that? >> [no audio] >> slowed the rate of increase. >> i don't have it in my head, but we have said the number on the discretionary side for 2012 and 2013, that should be immediately available to you. what that allows us to do is to have a normal appropriations process. normally, the senate would pass a budget. it's been over 800 days since we have passed a budget in the senate. the house would pass one, which they have done. to reconcile the differences, and you again at the beginning of that, the top line, meaning how much you'll spend. not being optimistic we would have a budget process, we have

put into the measure that was just passed and the president will sign, the top line for fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year. year >> can you talk about the president and the white house saying we have to cut $350 billion from defense and even further cuts from the joint committee? >> the joint committee is not going to gridlock, in my opinion. the joint committee is designed to function and to tackle some of the very difficult problems that we have been unwilling or unable to deal with. the trustees appointed by the president, medicare and social security, both programs are in trouble. we have not yet been able to do anything on the tax reform side. we decided to concentrate power in this joint committee because we have an extraordinary problem.

if the normal way we do business was adequate, we would not have a $14 trillion debt, over a $50 trillion of unfunded liability. we needed to do something different. this is clearly not kicking the can down the road. they will report by november 23 and will be voted on by the end of the year. i would not focus much on what would happen if they did not function if, because i think they are. >> you think $350 billion will come out of defense for the next year's? >> [no audio] >> yes. [inaudible].nell, [no audio >> we are so late. fiscal year 2012 begins at the end of next month. it probably will be difficult to have a normal appropriations

process. they will have to be clumped together. in 2013, now knowing what the top line will be well in advance, it's my hope that we will be able to do the basic work of government, which is the appropriations committee reporting bills, moving those across the floor the senate, and getting them done. but this year we are so late, it will be very difficult to have a normal process for the fiscal year 2012. what happens is we don't have enough time, so we end up in either a cr, or putting together several different appropriations bills and that's not the best way to do it. hopefully, that will not be done in 2013. i don't see any way to avoid that in 2012, because 12 begins in two months. we will see how we sort things out, but it will be hard to move 2012 bills across the floor in the month of september.

thank you, everyone. >> in about 45 minutes we will look at how the republican candidates for president are responding to the debt ceiling bill. our guests will being an associated press reporter in des moines, iowa. and from manchester, new hampshire, a political director. foreign policy at professor gordon adams will take your questions about defense spending cuts and the debt ceiling bill at 8:30 eastern. and we will examine the debate over reauthorization [no audio] . .