raise top marginal rates, and accentuate the disparity between what different people on different ends of the spectrum pay in terms of the interest rate, the answer is unconditionally know. [applause] evan mentioned a few minutes ago, it has everything to do with protecting middle and low income wage earners. those are the people i believe are most affected by raising income tax raises -- tax ras. they are concealed taxes. they end up getting passed downstream economically. all of us and up paying for those income tax hik in terms of increased prices for goods and services, and in terms of fewer and fewer job opportunities. on social security, i share your concern the we have to do something about social

security, in part because congress has rated the social security trust fund over a prolonged time what was supposed to be a lock box, a trust fund, has been used irresponsibly over the last three decades as a slush fund. it was supposed to be set aside for the time we knew was approaching, which has now reached us. the social security program would be drawn out more than it was taking in, because the demographics have changed. in the 30's, we have roughly 60 wage earners for every retiree. now it is more like 3 too 1. 60 to one vs three to one. americans lived on average back then to about 60. now live more like to 80. that is wonderful. and that poses additional challenges. in light of those challenges, i have done my best to find ways that make it solvent that do not

involve tax increases that would further chill job creation at a time when we can least afford it. i have introduced legislation that would make social security solvent perpetually. it has proven its solvency over a 25 year time frame. we have made modest adjustments made on the testing said the ealthy would that rea -- not receive the same benefits if they were a low income level and making adjustments to the retirement age. it would not affect anyone who was retired. anyone who is now retired would be on touch. if you want to find out more, i have staff members here who can help me. they can help me make reference. i had my state director dan.

is here to answe any questions. coy is here. to about 2/3 of the state because of the bill. it as about t dream act. i do not support it. i caot support it. [applause] let's see. we need to go to the back of the room. we will come back in the front later. yes, sir. then i have to get representative painter after that. we have a couple of members. >> i apologize for back stepping. back on this border -- >> did i already colony a?

-- call on you? >> no. >> good. >> would it be possible to have the national guard work on the border? everyone puts in a two tour and they go down and work on the border. they're going to be paid anyway. all the federal government would have to do would be to buy the materials. >> its certainly could work. i'm not opposed to using it. i want to talk more to my friend who is here with me tonight. he is a very good friend of mine. he is the former sergeant major of the national guard. he retired.

in as everything there is to know. -- he knows everything there is to know. i want to touch base with you after. my initial reaction to if is that it would be fine. i do not know if we need to do that on a long-term basis. the national guard has jobs to do. whenever you have an unusually high volume of illegal immigrants, e national guard certainly could be deployed. we have to lead the border control -- let them do their job here i. >> thank you.

>> thank you. we are pleased to have you here in the senate. t's f this is all the foolish things he did. it is getting close to a trillion dollars. i know bush was on board with all of this. we have so many energy assets. wewe'd just go get them would have all kinds of folks with a lot less trade deficit. i want to say everyone that can

get their parents. is there anything you can think of to get things going? we have the answer to a whole lot of our state problems. about picasso's $100 million a year. anything you have their frigid we can get close to $100 million a -- anything close to $100 million a year. anything you can we get close to appear quite thank you. >> there is the single issue that is mor important for our prosperity than the one you have just raised. we have a problem. we are spending between a trillionn and $1 trillion every year just to buy oil. every single year. that money does not come back in the form we would like it to

come back. a lot of those people who are getting very wealthy do not like this very much. some of them are using some of that money to fund act of terrorism against us. those who do not want this to produce in this country, many cite environmental reasons as reasonwe havshould not be exporting our own reasons. many is here in utah. we have the legal structure that allows us to produce energy more efficitly and in a manner that is more environmentally responsible and what you can find anywhere in the world. does produce it here. produce it here. most of the energy resources are found on federal land. i consider it an absolute shame

and gross negligence that we allow those resources to go undeveloped. that is why i am holding secretary salazar and everything i can so we can reclaim that which is rightfully ours. >> [inaudible] >> what happened to the mandate that was just put out this week? >> from what i can tell, tre is an effort on the part of many in washington to try to shut down the backbe of our nation's energy production grid. the bulk of our energy

nationall and here in utah comes from coal. i can walk into a room, turof a switch, and the light comes on. i do not know that we fully appreciate how wonderful that is. my father did not always ve that going up. he was on sawmill camps. he did not have that growing up. it is affordable. we derive the lot of it from coal. we figured out how to make it generate electricity cheaply and in a manr that is really enronmentally friendly. we have to keep that going. if we do not, we're all going to be poorer as a result. this will impact middle and lower income earners more than anyone else. they're doing it through

regulatory measures. we have to get the ball is back in the hands of congress. the legislative power is generally applicable and it longs to congress. we have to take it back. [applause] what the american flag shirt. >> i agree with all of this. i had four questions. when they talk about the debt, to do we borrow money from? why can we stop all foreign aid humanitarian and

drastic -- natural disasters? i have received several females about in moscow being repaired with our money. i do not know if that is true. i have not verified it. maybe someone else has documentation. how in the world did that ever get to congress? that blows my mind completely away. i am in a small minority. i especially agree with what you say about environmentalists and how much karmharm they have caud the west. ivories quarter horses for 50 years.

since then taken the meat market away, i am devastated. i no longer have a horse business. many people cannot give horses away. i am sure you are aware of the courses to have been turned loose all over the nation because people cannot afford them. they have died from starvation. they have mingled with the beloved the mustangs. that is another whole issue. our president, i'm sure you are aware of the amount of courses they have down there. there are given thousands of tons per year. what can we do to were those animal activists to give back this and give jobs to people

openly enough? thank you very much. >> thank you. >> i'm going to try to answer these questions quickly. i want to make sure we get to as many people as possible. we borrow from lot and lot of people. some of them are individuals and some are operations. what they are called depend on their maturity rate. some mature in 30 years. there are a lot in between. it is a little over $1 trillion that belongs to the gernment of china.

who owns our debt that any moment is a questn that refers back to many thousands of corporate investors to buy these based on the expectation that they will get more money back. there are a lot of people that own it. most of them are americans. some are not. they're making a lot of money. there are a lot of people that feel strongly about this. the it iso the eent it is doing something to the humanitarian aid are helping people who need it. that is where most foreign aid goes. that is why some people oppose it.

there are humanitarian needs here in the united states. i agree that we ought to focus our own government money on american people. there are some exceptions to that. there are some parts of the world that we have to invest money. in some senses, it is a replacement. as far as federal money go into i will be on the lookout. there may be some federal grant money.

i will. there will be held to pay. this is an important part of our state industry. my father-in-law used to own a ranch where he raised shorthorns. it is a great plays. no, year sang about horses. i do not know whether -- had never been completely familiar with how it met its demise. he would give them the information appeari.

>> my sincere thank you today. it is one of the most important priorities of our county. i hope you saw and realize that it could slow down into small projects. 50's are of our county is this. there are a two pending authorizations. there is the real opposition a

secure schools. >> you should be especially proud of the commissioner. they do not waste time getting to the heart of the issue. she was able to answer every question quickly. this has been difficult. you are lucky to have her appear . you're able to collect less tax revenue.

we have a problem in the state's where a lot of federal land can be told. we will not. they fell far short of what action the the real access to buy a pair. it is the lowest value. i'm a strong supporter. i will not let them make the nding go away.

did that to be unjust. help itself is on sufficient. i tend to push until the allow states and counties to tax federal land are they fully funded. she is from alaska. she feels a lo of these same issues. they have a lot of federal land as well. you should be getting money for that land. basically in the same position. do you remember what it was?

>> i am on the flip side. most of my questions have been answered. there are a few that i would likeor you to answer. i understand you are a member of the patrick henry caucus. >> that is an institution that the state legislature. i have been a legal advisor to them in the past. i wish i could call myself a member, but i am not a state legislator. they are much more powerful than i am. >> i understand the vouchers for

medicare and medicaid. i understand those programs need to be straightened out and the corruption needs to be taken out. i would like to understand how seniors are to get by on a voucher when it is near impossible to get by on what we have now. the second question is tax subsidies to the oil companies. you mentioned in the oil companies making billions of dollars. how can we justify giving them a subsidy? the third question is part of that as well. that is tax breaks for the wealthy. i understand they are considered as job creators. that has not happened in the last eight years. i would like to note your

stances on some of that. >> on medicare, that is the program barely managed. medicaid is managed by the state. we're really talking about medicare. i support a transition that would make its sustainable and not on a collision course with insolvency. its own trustees of acknowledge it is headed for bankruptcy. -- its own trustees have acknowledged it is headed for bankruptcy. some say it may be only five or six years away. it is headed for insolvency. the best way to make it solvent is to tell current beneficiaries that they will be left intact, but moving forward we will move towards a premium support model where we help

people to get insurance. that is how we make it sustainable and affordable. right now, is on a collision course with bankruptcy. we cannot handle that. >> what about trying to lower the cost of health care? >> it would have to. we cannot do that effectively as long as congress remains with this chokehold on an antiquated system heading towards insolvency. moving towards its premier support model would help us keep costs under control. as far as the tax subsidies, i am against subsidies of any kind. some people disagree about whether a particular provision of the law is a tax break or subsidy. there is a difference of some level. when we see a subsidy, we go after it and attack it. i have a staff that helps me. we will continue to go after those. >> [inaudible]

you are voting record. chris burrous answering this man's question. you have chosen to interject. i am not sure what you are talking about. -- i was answering this man's question. you have chosen to interject. i am not sure what you are talking about. if you can bring up a particular vote, i can discuss that with you. i am against subsidies in general. the third part of your question relates to what you referred to as tax breaks. that is tax breaks for the wealthy. in this country, we have the top 10% of the income earners in this country pay more of our federal budget than the top 10% of income earners in almost any country in the developed world. we already are putting that tax burden on them. that is passed downstream.

g.e. is a different question. we're not talking about individuals. some individuals are able to capitalize on the loopholes. we have to differentiate between two different things. we have tax rates. i am not willing to raise those. we also have tax loopholes and make things more confusing and less stable. i think i am in agreement with you in general on the fact that we need to simplify our system by getting rid of a lot of the complicating factors that allow the company like ge today with zero tax liability. that is wrong. go with him and then you. >> i am the other county

commissioner. i just got back from chicago. the amount of regulation placed on businesses and agriculture affects utah. we're almost to the point where we cannot compete on a world scale because of the tremendous amount of regulations imposed on us. all of those entities have gone well beyond what congress intended. how do we bring them in and get back to rules and regulations that make sense? >> that is a great question. ago, i alluded to the fact that things happen when we allow loss to be made by people other than congress. it does not work for anyone who is elected.

once it affects enough of the economy, it is requiring a hundred dollars or more in compliance costs. unless congress adopted it, our laws need to be made by our laws need to be made by those who are accountable. it is time to elect out of office the administrative bureaucrats and bring them within our control.

[applause] my staff is telling me i have time for two more questions. after that, i will try to answer some of the way out. i promised i would answer this one here. go ahead. >> i want to ask a question on entitlement programs. there are a lot of elderly people here. take care ofing to my social security and medicare money? maybe i am not in the right room, but maybe you could explain to me philosophically your viewpoints on entitlement programs. should the government taking money from me to give to my grandmother, father, or neighbor to pay for their medicare with

the redistribution of wealth? should we have entitlement programs? should they be done away with? my personal opinion is the government has no business tax in may and giving my money away to somebody else -- has no business tax in my money and giving money away to somebody else or holding it and giving it back. you see a debate or a politician on tv, the question i always want to ask them is for them to define what they think the proper role of government is. besides to say it is in the constitution and it is good, how do you decide a piece of legislation is good or not? >> what the answer the second part of your question first. that will help me answer the

first. it is a fantastic question. she has a book that will help you answer a lot of those questions. it is a really good book. [laughter] i would give you a copy if i had any with me. the purpose of government is to protect life, liberty, and property. government cannot and should not try to do for me that which would be immoral for me to do by myself. the government -- just because i know it is wrong for me to rob from my neighbor and take money for myself, i should not enlist the government as an agent to do that for me. when we pay taxes, we pay at the point of a gun -- at the point of a pencil or pen. we know if we do not pay them,

eventually dies with guns will come to our house so we pay them. we need to be careful about what we use the government for. we should use it for what we cannot do for ourselves. that involves the protection of life, liberty, and property. the second layer of the question is the purpose of each government. states and local governments have a different role. the states have a much broader role than the federal government. the federal government, we look at what it can and cannot do and what it should and should not do. the powers of the government not given to the federal government are to be reserved for the states. you will not find in here any power that says congress has the power to make anything fair. you will not find anything in here that says congress has the power to relieve suffering wherever it may exist or make

things more equitable in society generally. you will not find anything in this congress can tell you where to go to the doctor and how to pay for it. you will not find anything in here that says you have to buy health insurance that congress deems necessary for you to buy. you will find the power for congress to take care of a few things like national defense, regulating trade between states and foreign nations, regulating trademarks and patents, a uniform set of weights and measures, a federal bankruptcy system, declaring war, taking care of federally owned property, and the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal. that is a hall pass that allows you to be a pirate in the name of the united states. i am going to hit one sunday. [laughter] that is the power of the federal government as i understand in the constitution. there are a few others, but that is in in that show.

-- but that is it in a nutshell. the federal government has had the mindset that entitlements are an appropriate exercise of federal power. i believe in retrospect that decision has proven to be one that is dangerous in that congress has taken that money. it has said it is saving the money for you when you retire. meanwhile, it has been the money elsewhere. that is one reason why we need to limit the power of congress. that is one reason why they did limit the powers of congress. congress is not limit things that well. separate and apart from what you see the proper role of government to be, it is difficult to dispute the fact that congress has done a bad job of managing these things. it does not change the fact of

the constitution has been ignored for too long and replaced by a mind set facilitated by the supreme court that says congress can do anything that it once and the courts will not interfere. that does not change the fact that these programs are there. it does not change the fact that millions of americans were now retired have relied on these promises for many years. it would be inhumane, cruel, and immoral to pretend these programs did not exist. we have to figure out how to deal with them in a way that is compassionate and takes care of people responsible. we have to have an honest discussion about the proper role of government and the proper role of the federal government. that is not going to happen until we adopt a balanced budget amendment for the constitution and restrict borrowing power of congress. that will facilitate the discussion and get us back on

the right path. i understand your frustration. this state has begun this median age of any state of the union who share many of these concerns. we will not solve the problem overnight. we have to solve them with compassion, but we do have to solve them. >> you cannot cut it off. but would you support phasing it out eventually? >> if you are talking about veterans benefits, absolutely not. that is part of our military mission. i would never support that. if you are talking about other programs like medicaid, that is already administered by the states. it is partially funded by the states. there is no reason we cannot continue the trend of shifting responsibility for funding and managing to the states. each state can determine its own standard to govern that and

other programs. >> i want to ask to have questions. -- want to ask two questions. going back to the legislation you are in support of, does that include organizations that regulate the mining industry? >> yes. >> 62% -- i am reminding engineer. the second part is there right 's coal isof utah schoo locked up in federal regulations. what are you doing to release those for our benefit?

>> anytime i am made aware of the parcel being locked a regulation -- locked up by regulation, i would like to address it. the largest chunk of it is what is found underneath the national monument. some have estimated it to be trillions of dollars worth of high grade, high value coal. it has been locked up because president clinton decided it should be. i think that is wrong. we've got to get rid of that. that is going to take -- require us to get another president. i would like to see another president in office in 2012. [applause] a new president will have the power to change the boundaries

by simple presidential proclamation. let's get one in their willing to do that. let's get the economy off the ground. that would do more for our economy than any one single issue of can think of. come and talk to me and by state director on the way out. i would like to get your contact information. i would like to find out what you know about coal so that we can help to unlock it. that is all the time i have got for questions. i will have to come back here again. you have bounced very good questions. you have asked a very good question. and would like to answer each and every one of them. i am honored to represent you. i am honored that the voters have chosen to trust me for six years with the task of representing neyou in the senat. i will support the constitution

in representation of you. i want to do good job. i want to know what is of concern to you so that i can represent you well. this is utah's heartland. this is where utahs hard-working people live. this is a place where utah pioneers 160 years ago came not knowing whether they would survive more than two winters. they survived and thrived. it is time for it to thrive again. we can do that if we allow our energy potential in the united states and right here. may god bless the sovereign state of utah and may god bless the united states of america. [applause] >> we appreciate the questions. we appreciate your coming down and taking time to answer the questions. it is an outstanding opportunity we have had this evening to have

a united states senator with us. i appreciate his efforts for being here and the efforts of going to the narrows project site in getting a hands-on view of what is taking place up there. thank you for coming. [applause] >> tomorrow, rudy giuliani will look back at the september 11 terror attacks and talk about security changes since 9/11.

live coverage will get underway at about 1:00 p.m. eastern. mitt romney will lay out his jobs plan. he will be at the international trust company in las vegas. coverage begins at 3:30. in 1844, henry clay ran for president and lost -- but he changed political history. he is one of 14 men featured in the new weekly series "the contenders." >> a couple of more town hall meetings are coming up later on c-span. the freshman senator will talk with constituents about the economy and the deficit. tonight at 8:00, president obama addresses a labor day rally in

detroit. up next, florida congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz needs with senior citizens in her congressional district. she sits on the house budget committee. she is also the chair of the democratic national committee. from plantation, fla., this is about one hour and 10 minutes. >> i have to step up because i am still kind of a small package. it is an absolute privilege to represent you in washington, to be here in the city of plantation, which i have represented for all of the 18 years i have been in public office in the state house, senate, and now in the united states house of representatives. i can honestly say and you all can honestly say that i have literally grown up and you

watched almost every major thing that has happened in an adult life and live through that with me. it has been such a wonderful experience to represent this community. you have made the best choice you could have made to select the only strong mayor left in the county who does a fantastic job. the tradition of strong female leadership in plantation continues. i think the legacy of the family is through the leadership of the mayor. it is so meaningful. at a time in our country when public service is often denigrated and considered a bad thing by far too many people,

having a family who has devoted their lives to public service and devoted their lives to the well-being of the residents of this the plantation is really remarkable. i was proud that you won and proud to call you. i might serve in our nation's capitol and have a broader stage with other things that i am doing, but i will still always be the hometown girl and always be your grass-roots legislator. i walked door-to-door in my first race and still walk door to door to the state. i cannot thank you all enough for the privilege to serve you. i want to spend a few minutes talking about what is going on in washington. i am here as your u.s. representative in washington. if a more politically oriented

question comes up, i will let you know in advance that is not why i am here. someone asked me a question the other day about what i thought about the president's chances for reelection. i said that we could talk about that another time. i want to make sure we can cover the issues on everyone's minds in washington right now. i am proud to tell you this town hall meeting is being taped by c-span. you may see yourselves on c-span this evening. we have a lot at stake in the country right now. it cannot be overstated. i would like to think -- for having me here. thank you for having us here.

i'm pleased to tell you that i have three wonderful advocates here. -- from social security is here. [applause] we have -- it is here from the senior medicare facility. [applause] cathy and i started in young democrats together. it is wonderful to see here. she is here to answer any questions you have about your specific information -- situation. i tried to make sure that i pull together some of the advocates. you have a question on your

particular -- and social security, we'll have some of helping. they handle health care and medicare and social security and it of problems that you might have. i want to give each of the seniordvocates time to tell you what they do and how they can helpou if get a problem. >> i am also a small package so i have to get out on this. thank you for inviting me. i have a couple of pamphlets down here on retirement and disability, read and touch medicare eligibility and i invite everyone to visit our web site and visit me at the table to answer any questions you may have. thank you.

>> i am proud to be a volunteer counselor serving the health insurance needs of elders. we are a free unbiased service of medicare. there is no fee from the services. the first thing that i want to do is remind you that in the open enrollment has been moved out to october 15th and it will run from october 15th until december 7th. you don't have those last three weeks in dember as you did last year. keep that in mind.

we would like you to think about your medicare insurance. does the plan that you have give you easy access and convenient access to services? is there a hospital near your home that you are allowed to use? are your copay is reasonable? are you treated with dignity and respect to for -- and respect? are you thinking about getting your medicare costs? do your plants still fit? maybe you bought this plan five years ago. maybe your medical needs have changed. you need to look at this. you have questions or concerns about the content and coverage or the way in which your needs have been handled.

-- can help with that. most of you have picked up a brochure with of our county phone number on it. we are a free, unbiased source of information. you call the number and a trained counselor will get back to you. remember, things have moved up this year. october 15th to december 7th. [no aio] >> i am a longtime resident here. i am here representing this senior medicare patrol.

what wcall ourselves quickly walked hand-in-hand with shine and social security. programs. we could put a big dent in helping to reduce medicare fraud. this particular book is very helpful to help you plan. i worked in elder care as a volunteer. you go to a doctor's office and he may spend about seven or eight minutes with you. when you leave, and hopefully

you can ask for a fee ticket to see your diagnosis and level of service. you may find out he put down an extended visit surface. he may be charging above and beyond what you are getting. i see people shaking your head. this is one opportunity. please do not -- when you go home, please take out your social security card, medicare card out. you know what your numbers are generally speaking. we are trying to help with medical identity fraud that is hurting all of us. do not give your credit card. when you call the billing office, do not give your credit card over the phone to somebody. these are good tips to deal with the problem.

lastly, we need volunteers. we need help. we get our funding from the federal government. we rely on grants and money. i am proud to say that south florida is doing a heck of a job. we're working to address those fraud issues. when they say cutbacks are not a lot of money, if we make a little bit each of us in reporting, it can make a difference. be on guard. we will all work together on it. [applause] >> thank you so much to all three of you. i try to provide resources like these three organizations to you. they can be incredibly helpful. this morning, i am here to give a legislative update on what is

going on in washington. it has been a challenging first seven months of the 112th congress. that might be the understatement of the year. the republicans took control of the house of representatives and left democrats in the minority. i have been in the minority and majority. i like the majority better. the important thing is to work together. we have to sit down and find common ground. it will not always be my way. i know that. i am trying to explain that to my children. unfortunately, we do not always have colleagues on the other side of the aisle that understand it cannot always be their way and we will have to put our differences aside to work towards a common goal. in the last congress, democrats worked tirelessly to improve and

grow our economy while protecting our seniors, children, and the middle class. we've passed historic health care reform is already strengthening medicare and ending insurance company abuses. for the first time in history, all americans will have access to affordable, quality health care. finally, health care is a right and not a privilege. the legislation provides many important improvements to medicare specifically. a lot of human not realize that. house democrats have been focused on creating jobs and bringing down the deficit in a responsible way. we have not had that kind of focus and cooperation on the other side of the aisle. instead we have seen a series of bills from republicans that have pursued a reckless and extreme social agenda or one that sought to break the promises made to americans on social security and medicare. their proposal would end

medicare as we know it. it would shift the medicaid us on to states and weaken social security. we do need reform of entitlement programs to ensure sustainability. virtually everyone in this room is on social security and medicare. i bet if you ask your children and grandchildren, they are worried those programs will not be there for them. grwe need to take steps to shore up those programs to ensure the safety net is there for generations to come. we need to take a "mend it, do not end it" approach. i want to turn to what health care reform has done for medicare beneficiaries specifically. this is one of the most important laws in a generation. it is one of the most important laws passed since medicare in 1965. there has been a lot of

misinformation about what it means for seniors. if you are on medicare, it will improve the quality of care and save your money. it's probably already has. how many of you are on direct medicare? quite a few of you. that means you get your prescription drugs from the part b plan. i came here to help you figure out how to sign up and which plans were the best. they have the dreaded coverage gap called the doughnut hole in fee for service medicare that should not have been part of the original law. the affordable care act is now closing that. in the next nine years, the medicare coverage domical will completely -- donut hole will completely closed. how many of you fell into that?

if you fell into that, you received a $250 payment. this year starting on january 1, brand-name prescription drugs in the donut hole have a 50% discount. we will increase that over the next nine years. we will close the hole and save the average senior $3,000 a year in drug costs. one of my frustrations in all the time i have been in congress and really be on that because i have represent seniors for so many years is that the medicare system has always been a system -- when i talk to constituents like you so often, you are going to the doctor when you are ill, when something is wrong. of course, when something is wrong, your care is going to

cost more. i have always thought, and the affordable care family does this, that we should shift the focus to a prevention and wellness system. that is why the affordable care act gives you, without copiague, free access to a well care visit. to your dtor to make sure that you can catch ings early. as a breast cancer svivor, now going on three years and with a clean bill of health. thank you, thank you. i can tell youhe reason that i can share that with you is because when i found a lump in my breast, i was able to catch that very early. it only makesense that being able to get an annual checkup which he could not get before the affordable care act passed, let us catch things earlier and will help you live longer.

it also provides for preventative screening like mammograms and colonoscopy is and other copay is so that if there is a problem, it will be caught early. the plan that we put into law was designed to improve the quality of care under medicare while limiting the amount that seniors pay out of pocket every year. it has been the star contract with the proposals that the republicans have offered. house republicans took what i like to call the appeal and abandoned approach by to completely propose to on to the affordable care act. if this were to become law, it would reopen the doughnut hole coverage gap and it would cost seniors thousands of dollars. it would force them to pay for preventive care. it would strip the benefits from

preventive plans. the challenges are not the only way the republicans are putting seniors security at risk. four months ago, it might have heard, that republicans under budget share paul ryan rolled out a budget which would include nothing short of a termination of medicare. if it ever bame law, medicare would be turned into a privatized voucher program requiring seniors to go buy private insurance and then cover any additional expenses on their own, completely yanking the safety net from seniors and the promise that when you reach t age of 65, after paying into medicare, we will make sure that you don't have to worry about how you are going to pay for your health care. according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office, over the next 10 years, the republican plan would more than double the out-of-pocket expense. that it be about a $6,000 a year

increase to what you would pay and in 20 years of a triple your cost this is dangerous and wrong to assume that someone on a fixed income could afford the premiums and out-of-pocket expenses. that is w medicare was created in the first place. this guarantees your access to health care fits your budget. democrats make sure that the affordable care act would pay for those out of pocket expenses. seniors should have a certainty in the health-care expenses. i cannot tell you how times i have had senior stand up and say that i have such a hard time making ends meet between living on social security for most of my income and trying to pay those premiums and make sure that i can pay for my prescription drugs. there are seniors that shared with me that they had to have a

doctor draw a line through the bill. the pharmacists bring five prescriptions to them and they can only afford four of them. should a senior deciding which prescription they will not take so they can grow to the grocery store? that is an unacceptable choice that would be worse if we went with a plan to privatize and make a voucher of medicare. this made deep cuts to the children's educationfunds, even deep cuts to pour security all the while creating a trillion dollars in new tax breaks. to republican budget turned this into a block grant program. some time people's eyes glaze

over. keep in mind that 60% of seniors in a nursing home, the way they're able to be in a nursing home is through medicaid. we turn this into a block grant program and the federal government is not provide enough funding, that will leave a lot of seniors in a position where they will not be able to get access to a nursing home or they will not be able to afford it or the seniors might get people to remain. when the federal government capped the amount available for patient care, the population increases, natural disasters, all of those unaffected events will have to be borne by the state. additionally, the budget projects that the block grant would not increase at the same level as health costs and there would be less and less individuals covered. this is not simply a funding issue.

medicaid provides federal standards of care and enforcement of those to ensure that they can protect the health and safety of their patients. i want to make sure we have the highest quality staffing in those homes as we have all heard the nightmare stories when a quality staffer is taking care of someone's loved one. we made a commitment that each and every one of the americans that when they got older, they would not have to live in poverty, would not have to force our children into poverty in ordeto care for them. the americans pay in with the expectation that the federal government would honor their commitments. now you see a clear attempt to allow the government backed out of their commitment. that is wrong and that will n happen on my watch. i will fight every single day to make sure that social security and medicare are preserve much as for those collecting it now for generations to come into

that is a commitment that we made. it will separate them from other countries and their commitments through the quality of life of seniors. and the last congress, democrats made great strides in turning around the economy, protecting consumers, and protecting medicare and social security. we prevented former president bush from privatizing security. when i go back to washington, i will make sure this progress doesn't disappear and make sure that the fund is not that -- is not cut. [alause] thank you for joining me and i will be happy to take any questions.

i also want to make sure i don't fall offhe podium. have a microphone. if you have a question, feel free to come over to the microphone with the microphone on the other side of the audience. i would be glad to take your questions. >> yesterday, on "hardball," they had the president of the teamsters, james hoffa on. what are they looking for. i think that he gave a pretty good answer. it is not what we're looking for. maybe we are disappointed in what the president or t democratic party hasn't done in coress to enter any bill that you put forth in the committee

and any bill that does get through the committee will probably be shot down. represent if kantor is a kid -- rep cantor is a good example of that. the president should at least make a presentation and would be taught to our membership, this is what the democrats and the president did. it was the republicans who >> i appreciate the comments, but let me just add to your comment. we are living -- we have a republican house and a democratic senate and a democratic president in one house. that signals that we should absolutely be finding a y to work together.

in manila on the political side, i obviously have a goal of political respect, but as a member of congress, my first responsibility is to the well- being of my constituents. that is why i am here. i go back and forth every week from washington, making sure writer remaining can touch with my constituents. -- making sure that i remain in touch with my constituents. during the debate over the budget when the republicans brought us to the brink of government shut down earlier this year, -- let me take you back for a second to when obama was just inaugurated and the economy under president bush was on the press a bus of disaster. we were literally about to go over the economic cliff. the economy's was bleeding 700 tickets thousand jobs a month.

i mean, really, we were in free fall. now, 2.5 years later, although we have a long way to go and there are still far too many people out of work, we have made a lot of progress and begun to turn things around. now we have aid's -- added some private-sector jobs for 17 straight months. we have added 2.4 million jobs in the private sector. we are going in the right direction instead of in free fall. can only do it in a significant weight if we work together. i think it is extremely important that we focus on js across america, which is what president obama will talk about next thursday in his joint session address. i just hope theepublicans are focused on everyone's job, because right now they seem focused on only one person shop, the man who is in the one else.

think we need to make a decision to work together, instead of what happened during the debt ceiling crisis was never clearly were focused on the welfare of the most fortunate in america, instead of a significant compromise like the presidentanted to put forward with speaker boehner. the tea party seems to be -- it has not allowed for compromise and working together. i am going back to washington next week to continue to push for common ground because i think that is what america expects. >> i am very happy to be here and to see. i work for zerossay -- osa, by the way. in the past two years, gas has gone from $1.60 a gallon to $4 a gallon.

my food bills have gone sky high. i don't have to tell you what has happened to the economy, for which i do not blame president obama, by the way. my question is, during those two years, we have not seen an increase in social security. my question to you is, what can we expect this coming year, and are we ever going to get another increase in our social security? >> thank you for the question. you are right, it is economically a very difficult situation. i want to answer your question in a more expanded way. specifically on social security and a cost-of-living adjustment. a lot of people perceive that congress actually controls and votes on cost-of-living adjustments for social security. we don't. the social security administration, through the social security trustees, they make that decision, based on a

cci index that is tied to inflation and tied to a market basket that is, i think, very out of date. so the last couple of years, the social security trustees have said that because the inflation rate, because the cost of living has not gone up at the same rate -- it has gone through a calculation -- is done through calculion that looks at a correction in a market basket. they take the cost of living of 02 different items, and those items that look at or more like the items that a family like mine spends money on, as opposed to what senior spend money on. so i support legislation that would actually create a senior , so you would look more --

they will look more at a market basket that is typical of what seniors spend money on, and the new could see a more true reflection of the impact of inflation on senior citizens household income. then the cost-of-living adjustment would be more likely to come to you. unfortunate, the republicans refuse to pick up that legislation. we tried to get it taken up at the end of last year and they still refuse to take it up. so we are stuck with the cpi that does not reflect the true spending of seniors. they years ago, we did provide congress, knowing this was a difficult situation, we appropriated a $250 payment a couple of years ago to make up for the pact that seniors did not get an increase we did not do that last year

because unfortunately, th republicans refuse to support it. i know it seems like i am being partisan here. i am not being partisan, those are just the facts. we had support for the appropriation from democrats and we didot have it from republicans. to the rest of your comment on gas prices and food prices, the frustration that i have over gas prices is that because we have such a divergence of opinion in washington right now between the two parties, the republican approach is to drill for more oil. i mean, really? there is an expression that says the to keep doing the same thing over and over an expected different result, that is the definition of work i will not call.

but we have to make sure that we can make investments in renewable energy and wean ourselves off of our dependence on oil. number one, that is not smart foreign policy. most of the oil producing countries are not our friends. that is problematic to begin with. to say nothing of the fact that a lot of those countries have serious internal problems politically now, anyway. so we need to make investments. we need to have a universal agreement and understanding that global warming is a problem, that it is important for us to reduce our energy costs, and we can do that by investing in renewable fuel here. that is important. that will have an impact on food prices, because if we are able to make sure that we don't have to move food around, or if the

transportation cost of food -- and transportation costs to move food or less, that will trickle- down to the overall cost of groceries. it is in all our economic interests to do that. think the social security trustees have said for this next year yet whether there will be a cola it has been o years. do me a favor, it is not my fault. ease tell your friends, it is a formula that i am trying to help change. >> you said the magic word before about working together. it really hurts my heart to see how this country has fallen apart. i have seen so many changes in

the last big years that i have never seen before. look at allhe hurricanes we are having, look at all the flooding. never before. is god punishing us? it is said. i am 83 years old, and i have never in my life seen stuff like this. we better wake up and smell the coffee and start believing in go or somebody that looks like god. thank you. [applause] for don't want to blame god natural disasters, but i do agree with you. as i said at the outset, i have been in public service for more than 20 years and elected office for 18, and i have been in the minority and the majority. i have worked with republicans in leadership and i have worked with republicans when democrats were in leadership. one thing i have always really work hard on is to treat my

opponts, people i don't agree with or who don't agree with me, with respect, and recognize that they may have a valuable point of view, even though i am most things i might not agree with them. right now, what makes me so sad is that i have never treated my republican colleagues -- i have always treated them like they are my opponents, but never like my enemy. and that is what i think we have reached in america right now, in terms of the polarization that exists in politics. this tea party and the people who are running the republican party right now treat people they don't agree with like that are the enemy. when they disagree with us, we are not wrong, we are right. that is just not how we do things in america. that is how we -- i go on the

other side of the chamber of the time, and hopefully through the force of my personality, through ing a nice person, through building relationships with individuals and trying to find issues we can work together on, a co-sponsor legislation with republicans all the time and i push them through into law and works against people who opposed that legislation on both sides of the aisle. that is what democracy is all about. i also agree to disagree with opponents on the other side, and quite frankly, opponent on my side, and recognize, like i tell my children when they are insisted that they want their way but i know it is not the right thing to do, they have to realize an important life lessons is that it cannot always be your way. oftentimes, the best outcome results from everybody giving a

little. that might seem odd coming from someone with a political role i have on the other side of my professional life, but i think first and foremost, we have to commit to work together and move forward together. that is what president obama has been working so hard to do. i think that has been evident to most of the people in the country. there is a very stark contrast that exist right now between the direction we have been going, which we need to pick up the pace, and he acknowledges that, improve job creation, make sure we can get people back to work, and the other direction that is proposed by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, which would continue to focus on the most fortunate americans and not focus on the middle-class and working families and stockpiling pain -- we are all having to endure some pain right now and i have had to vote for some cuts there were very

painful that i normally would never have wanted to vote for, but i recognize that i have to come before you and tell you that we all have to sacrifice. they are asking nothing of the most fortunate americans in term of sacrifice. why do major corporations in this country pay more to their ceo's than they do in taxes? war in bonuses than they do in taxes. unacceptable. that is what i am up in washington fighting for on your behalf. thank you. [applause] >> good morning, and thank you so much for taking the time out. the one thing i need to ask you, and it is sort of the segue into the gentleman's statement. there have been so many horrific and catastrophic weather happenings all over our nation, whether it is tornadoes and rricanes. the one thing i would like to say to you is, with the threat

recently with hurricane irene, south florida was another target. to be an elected official or anyone looking for your budget issues, thone problem which seem to have is expediting refunds when it comes to ma. another nasa to work load, and i am not trying to criticize, but most of us have an emergency preparedness reserve. at the same time, we use it, but we need to refund itsnd deposit back in. we still are having difficulty getting our money from wilma, and is in the tune of $400,000. is there some way that if we don't know the secret to

expediting this, is there some secret we are missing here? our paper work, everything is in, but with so mh coming, it is not just for me, it would be for everyone who has to deal with fema. i am not being critical, i am just asking. >> if criticism is warranted, you can be critical. >> i know they have a workload, and i appreciate it, but i also have to look at my home town, and i would really appreciate them expediting our funds from wilma and from francis. >> i am glad you raised that because i have been able to be successful in helping the cities in my district cut through the red tape that fema has and get those refunds. i am surprised you are still

struggling and have not called me yet to help you with that refund from wilma. talk with jody and vivian after an we can definitely start to put in some calls to shake that money loser. is not ok that it has been this long. we do have some good news with the mud. the director of fema now, unlike some of the incompetence we have had in the past, is craig fugate, our former director of emergency operations in florida. we have a hurricaneesponse system that is second to none, and other states since katrina have come down and got an advice and been tutored by greg fugate. let me have my staff and me follow up and make surwe can shake loose what is supposed to be coming back to you for sure. let me also point out that there

is a little bit of a frightening debate going on right now related to fee must pacific fleet and to disaster funding. you might have seen in the news. the majority leader inhe house of representatives, eric cantor, who is a colleague and friend, i would single him out as someone i have been able to work wit on some issues, but he has actually been suggesting that we should not appropriate disaster funding to help communities that get hit by hurricanes like i read or like the floods that have happened in the midwest, unless we have a budget cut somewhere else. this is not something i am king up for misinterpreting. he said it point blank out loud. we live in her cane alley here. can you imagine having to wait until congress acts on a different budget cut to ensure

that we get the disaster relief that we need? that is just unacceptable. it is madness. i agree we have to reduce the deficit, but let's make sure that we make smart cut. let's make sure that we don't cut so deeply and so much that we put people in harm's way or leave pple in harm's way. absolutely, let us know how we can continue to help you sort that out. [applause] >> i would like to get back to social security and medicare. next year i will be eligible for medicare. i not only have to get medicare but i will have to get a supplement as well. i am confused because what you are talking about earlier, it seemed like eventually we would not need those supplements.

medicare does not cover everything, as you know. >> as the affordable care act regis pulp implementation by 2014, you may not. each individual has to look at their situation. my staff person is very familiar with the affordable care act. you shld evaluate whether or not initially, because it is not fully implemented, you should take a look at what medicare will cover for you and what you are other needs are, what a supplemental policy would provide for you, and down the road, and a couple of years as the full implementation takes effect, you can decide whether or not the preventive screens that are available now, if that is what primarily you paid for a supplemental policy to cover, then you may want to let it go. that is one of the things that

is really important, learning the details of how the affordable care act will directly help you, and we can help you with that. there are other organizations that can help you, too, but shine can specifically help you coma 3 that detail. are you going on direct medicare? >> i have no idea. -- that can help you comb through that detail. when you sit down with shine, have them help you with the comparison of constriction -- prescription drug plans. that can be confusing, and they have a good way of helpi people sort it out. >> the other thing is social security. last year, you had come to us and proposed two bills for

increasing social security because of the cola increase for social security. but they did not pass, and yet the democrats were in the vast majority in both houses at that time. that is why i don't understand why that did not pass. >> the reality is, in the senate, my colleague from oregon is the prime sponsor a that a legislation and i know he introduced it sometime in the last congress initially. while we have had a solid majority in the last congress and the house, effectively we did not have a working majority in the senate because of the way they required 60 votes for anything to pass. we did not have the 60 vote majority in the senate, and as a result, every sgle thing gets filibustered. the house bill move the little

bit, but then it did not go anywhere, and subsequently, there was republican opposition in this congress and we still have the same problem in the united states senate. >> my biggest concern i outsourcing. the economy is bad. there are no jo here, but we continue to have companies outsourcing. and our utilities -- utility companies are doing it, and i think it is a disgrace. we know trickle-down economy never works. how about a trickle up? >> i am with you on the trickle up. you are 100% right. our tax policy under the bush administration incentivized corporate operations to actually offshore jobs. there was a tax incentive for them to create jobs somewhere

else other than the united states. what president obama and congressional democrats have been pushing for is to give a tax incentive to onshore jobs, to bring jobs back to the united states of america and incentivize companies to do that. i hope we get the cooration of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to do that, because we should be fusing on making things in america. making its in america should be the focus. the good news is that over the last year, we ha actually had a surge in american manufacturin for the first timen decades. we have had manufacturing jobs created for 16 or 17 months straight. we have had a resurgence of the manufacturin sector in america, which is fantastic. look at the rescue of the american automobile industry. in the early part of last year,

or the early part of 2009, the tarp program, although it was unpopular, if we asked people what they thought of the park plan, people would say they cannot believe we did that, but the president's courage to overcome unpopularity and invest those funds come along them to the american automotive industry, which wa about to go down the tubes, and which many republicans said let them, it would have met over a million jobs in the pipeline. you have so many suppliers to the automobile industry that would have folded if that happened. now we have all three american automobile makers operating at a profit for the first time since 2004, and they have paid back the tarp funds to the federal government with interest. so president obama's judgme

was right. it was ao right to use those funds to prevent banks from being too big to fail and to prevent the entire financial system from collapsing, following up on what president bush was forced to do in october of 2008, and then we had to invest another infusion to make sure you could never again have a bank so big that failing would wreck the economy. so the focus on manufacturing is absolute ariority and needs remain one. >> [inaudible] >> come to the microphone over here. >> no one has ever accused you of not being able to be heard. >> we have only to allow time.

-- we have known each other a long time. everything has grown in stature. there are twthings. number one, the cola increase you talked about for social security. it has been on the books up to june of this year. it is true for veterans, it will be true for social security unless something changes. if there is going to be a cut somewhere along the line. i don't think that is going to change. >> right now ware ok, what what happens later on, i don't know. they have already paid back 76% of the total amount of money that has been brought in, with interest. $113 billion is what they took

an $313 billion is what they paid back. but how many new that the financial-services industry and the automobile industry paid back the tar funds with interest to the federal government. that is because my seniors are so knowledgeable and well informed -- fantastic. >> i don't see anyone else at the microphone. i am sorry, forgive me. right ahead. bill is not only the president of brouwer county veterans council but he shares my military academy council the reviews all the met -- all e applications of the young men and women who applied for

admission to any of our military academies and helps screen all of those applicant and health send the best candidates to the naval academy's, to the merchant marine academy and the air force academy. he has been the chair of that committee for all the time i have been in congress and i cannot thank you enough for your service. thank you very much. >> we have always been a consumer driven economy and it seems to me the investments we have made have not been directed at the consumer so much as that big business and so forth. talking about a jobs bill, if it were possible to take that investment and make available to every taxpaying citizen in the united states x amount of dollars, whatever it might be, not in their pockets, is a

bandit art lose that amount of money, so that every time they went in and wanted to buy new car, if it is a $17,000 car and they have $20,000, $17,000 comes off the top and if it is spent in america, in business, and whatever money is taken goes directly into the economy, towards american businesses, whether retail stores -- you want a new kitchen, you have the money to do it but you are spending it. you don't put it away, you don't save it, it is not money in your pocket. it is use it or lose it. if you put in a billion dollars, it goes directly into the economy so that american businesses grow and need more employees and the consumerism starts uagain that way.

>> that is a good suggestion. t share review the ways in which we have already done that under president obama's policies and leadership in a variety of ways. actually, the reason that president ama has championed tax-cutting policy that is targeted to the middle-class and working families and small business owners, rather than republican colleagues to focus the trickle-down policies that never worked and focusing on the wealthiest and most fortunate americans -- is more likely it deep give a tax break to small business owner or someone in the middle class who has been putting off buying a new refrigerator for their kitchen, when they get that tax break, they are more likely to take that mon that was not in their pocket before and go by their refrigerator. what happens with wealthier people is the windfall does not mean much to them, so they

invested or sit on it, and the money does not get put back into the economy. that is why president obama passed 17 different tax breaks last year for small businesses, including capital gains tax breaks and tax breaks on equipment and things they could actually u to invest in their businesses. it is also why even though it was frustrating to have to extend both the tax breaks for the wealthy and the middle class at the end of last year, i voted for that compromise because i recognize again that it cannot always be my way. i voted for that tax cut, but included in it was a payroll tax cut that made sure that we put some money -- we put it back into their pockets. we want to extend that payroll tax cut when we come back. republicans right now or refusing to extend it. that would do exactly what you are saying, keep extra money in

the pockets of individuals who would go out and invest it in the economy. not the direct spending you would propose, but there are ways to do its and ways not to do it, and we think our focus on tax breaks for the middle class and small business owners and working folks are a lot more likely to end use resources into the economy and do exactly what you are saying. i think president obama's jobs rollout next thursday will include some of those good ideas, thank you very much. anyone else? ok. >> good afternoon. name is mark and i am one of the contractors here at lauderdale west. i have a great question for you concerning the edley committee of lauderdale west. they passed an energy efficiency act for rebates like

they did with "cash-for- clunkers" last year. a lot of people have been receiving high efficiency air conditioning equipment. so we don't consume as much energy. i would like to know why the people of south florida that are spending the money on these high efficiency equipment are not receiving the rebates that they used to be entitled to. the obama administration actually lowered the federal tax credit rebate for these efficiency unit and they have almost cut them out completely, d i would ke to know why and how we can get theback to the community. >> i will have to check this to make sure i am right, but the obama administration did not into them. th were part of the recovery act. a portion of the recovery act, when president obama took office in 2009, we passed the recovery act to make sure that we could make significant iestments in

infrastructure and job creation. energy was a big portion of that investment and that included those energy rebates. as the money has run out, it was $787 billion. as the money has been spent and invested in the economy, we have tried to get the republicans to re-up on those investments. created tons of jobs for people of -- contractors like you they can go out and installed a new air coitioners and purchase the equipment to do that. there are so many different facets to investment spending economy that rebate like that generates, but they will not make the additional investment. they are only focused on cutting and not on balancing the way we deal with deficit reduction and job creation at the same time. it was not a policy decision, it

was just a result of e recovery act beginning to run its course, and we cannot get them to re-up to continue the flow that ensures that we reduce our energy costs and put people to work at the same time. you don't have to write your congressman because i am standing in front of you. i assure you will continue to push hard to make sure we have investments like that and we need to make sure at the end of the day that after president obama makes that special address on thursday, i hope you talk to your friends and neighbors that have different representatives in south florida and ask them to have their representatives support tse proposals. thank you very much. >> i just want to say thank you. thank you for coming. we appreciate everything you do

for us. >> thank you very much. the two of you will close us out and then i would jusset couplef things and we can chat. >> what is the solution? i am behind you 100%. i know how you are stymied, but if you say yes, the republicans say no. i have never heard the republicans say yes, so we can get rid of that. what is the bottom line? where are we going? america is suffering. we are suffering. your children will suffer. >> this will be the most political thing that i will have said, the only way i know how to respond. elections have consequences. the solution is the decisions that we make in 15 months from now. we have to make sure that we

have different people serving in washington that are going to be able to sit down and work together and move our country apart and work with president obama and make sure that we don't have the people who are there now that are committed to furthering the polarization. thank you. [applause] >> i live overseas. my question is, does the democratic party, or do the democrats have a pr person, and if they don't, they should. sometimes i don't feel like the message is getting out there. most of us listen to our programs, and i think the majority of americans, whatever news they are watching, local news, it is not on there, and no one is tooting the horn of all

the policies that have been passed. with everyone calling this obamacare, it gets put down, and i don't think anyone really notices how much has been implemented already and how much good that has done, except for the people who have already felt it. so you shoulget a pr person because there is a lotf good. also to do comparisons, because i am sure that by this time now, when nancy pelosi was running the house, she passed an awful lot more bills than have been passed right now. i am sure you had less vacation time, so please, get a pr person. >> i said at the outset that i was here with my congressional hat on and not my political one. i will not get into a detailed answer of your question, but i will tell you that we do have them, and i will take your

message to heart. thank you. e more question and then i will have to wrap it up. thank you for your sentiment, i appreciate it. >> what if we all made a concerted effort and just one day, as a suggestion, we buy nothing from china. >> by american -- that is a great way to close this out. we should all make a commitment to check those labels on the clothing and the things that you buy that are manufactured elsewhere. look little harder to buy american, because that is how we can all personally contribute to making it in america. thank you so much.

>> in 1944, henry clay ran for president of the united states and lost -- in 1844. but he changed the future of american elections. friday at 8:00 eastern. and tonight on c-span, at 8:00 eastern, president obama addresses a labor rally in detroit. after that, we bring you a campaign speech by a republican presidential hopeful mitt romney. right now, freshman pennsylvania senator toomey holds a town hall meeting. he is one of 12 members of congress appointed to a joint committee on the deficit. from pennsylvania, this is about an hour and 10 minutes. [applause]

>> i >> i would ask that you all join us for the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. with liberty and justice for all. >> thank you, kim. i would like to thank our host for providing a terrific forum. this is a gat spot and a great place to do this. i thank everybody for taking the time to be here today. these series of round table discussions and town hall meetings i have been having have been helpful to me, helpful in bringing me up to speed about some of the challenges we face in getting this economy moving. i am grateful for them.

just yesterday, we had a town hall meeting. i see a couple low folks who are back with us again. -- of folks who are back with us again. a wide range of opinions were presented. that is what we should be having, a free anopen debate about the cllenges we face as a country. it is great for me to be back in this county. my family was here last weekend. my daughter is a girl scout. her troupe had a white water rafting expedition. we decided to make its eighth family outing. we left our 16 month old with -- make it a family outing. we left our 16 month old with a babysitter. it was a great afternoon. such a great resource to have in this parof pennsylvania.

i am will give a quick overview of the two big agenda items tt i have been focusing on since i have been in the senate for a months. -- 8 months. i will use a few charts so that i will not wander off of my train of thought. i would like to have your comments and observations and thoughts. the two big items for me have been trying to move washington policy in a direction that will encourage economic growth rather than discourage it. i believe a lot of the policies being pursued in the last few years are costing us jobs, not helping us to create jobs. i am tried to move us in a direction where we will be able to -- i am trying to move us in a direction where we can have job growth and have a strong and viable economy and create job

opportunities for people who need them. that is focused number one. the second is to try to restore fiscal sanity in a place that has lost its. i am not overstating the case when you consider the budget disaster we have going on. i will speak more about that at the end of my comments. we have a chart. these are some of the town told -- town hall meetings i have been having all over the commonwealth. let's look at the next one. what have been hearing from constituents is remarkably milar at these meetings. i think everybody gets that we need to get our fiscal house in order in washington. it should be a high priority. it is created -- it is related to creating jobs. as long as washington is running excessive deficits, that has an effect on our ability to

grow in the private-sector. i have heard about how existing regulations, newly proposed regulations and the threat of new regulations are blocking job growth, business creation, business expansion. i will tell you the one that appears to be the worst offender from the pennsylvania and i have spoken to. the epa. what they are doing and what they are threatening to do -- i will give you some examples of how it is absolutely costing us jobs. i have been working hard to push back on the regulatory excesse'' of the epa. the obamacare, the big health care bill, a huge problem for employers, a huge problem for job growth. i want to talk about its impact for pennsylvania, which disturbs me a great deal. lastly, even local governments arbeing adversely affected by some of these new regulations. we have some good news on that

front. it is also a problem. if we could go to the next chart. if we ask the question, where have the jobs gone, part of the answer is, the jobsave gone here. the excessive regulation and this wave of new rule-making and controls exceeds that of the bush administration d the clinton administration's. it istarting to add up. -- bush administration and the clinton administrations. you have heard of this act fo them, mact. it is a way the epa uses to impose more stringent regulations on industria america. power companies and manufacturers of all kinds. i am in favor of moving in the directionf cleaner air.

we have cleaner air today than we did 20 or 40 years ago. that progress is good. i hope we can continue to make progress. we have to be careful how we do it. the new proposals that the epa has put out that would require all industrial companies -- all companies -- to replace the boilers they use is devastating to huge segments of industrial pennsylvania. when example, in particular. a paper manufacturer. they are the biggest in player in the county. the millions of dollars it would cost them to replace their boilers could jeopardize their ability to keep everybody that they have working working. it is an example of the kind of problem that is caused by these regulations. the chesapeake bay regulations. runoff rules that put a huge portion of the burden of further

improving the water quality of the chesapeake on agriculture when it is not entirely clear that agriculture is the source of the problem. i am concerned about the impact that is having on pennsylvania firms. new ozone standards. we have made progress on reducing the level of ozone. the epa wants another generation of rules to come out. if they have their way and their rule becomes effective, most of pennsylvania will be not in compliance. most of pennsylvania will be out of compliance. what that means is, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to open up a new facility that they perceive might contribute to the level of ozone. that is baffling to our ability to create new jobs. -- that is stifling to our ability to create new jobs. i talked to a company where they

employ hundreds of people at good paying jobs. they decided they are going to grow and build a new plant. they will hire part of the reason is the new ozone rules would put in a burdensome set of costs them if they were to expand in pennsylvania. so they're going to grow. they're going to hire new workers. it's just not goingo be here. that's the kind of regulation that really disturbs me. yesterday, i was -- i started the y in mckeon county and went to a fascinating company. the nor america's oldest continuously operating oil refinery. it's a small oil refinery. they are -- occupy a little niche. and they take pennsylvania oil, exclusively, and then they refine it to a series of niche products. they don't make their money competing with the big guys and making gasoline and diesel. their business is making lubricants. and waxes and other things that

you can make from oil. well, the e.p.a. has a new set of regulations they want to apply to refineries in general. there are huge fixed costs in complying with these regulations. if you're exxonmobil, or you're conoco, you can probably absorb those costs because you can spread them out over the millions of barrels of oil that they refine. but if you're an american refining group, one of the biggest employers in mckeon county, you only do 10,000 barrels a day. they will not be able to afford these costs. this is what i nene when i talk abt these consecutive regulations. i think we all want to have a clean environment and continue to make progress on clean air and clean water. but we've got to do it in a sensible way. and i think some of these regulatory agencies are not. theext one is specific to -- you went backward. go to the next chart. i just -- i'm moving along

quickly here. the health care bill, i think, is profoundly problematic at many levels. but just a couple that are specific to pennsylvania, we've got a big successful relatively young life sciences industry. these are medical devices, some of them are in the pharmaceutical field. the discoveries and inventions are breathtaking. thjob growthas been impressive. but it's threatened by this new tax, not on their prots, but on their total sales. a lot of these comnies are small and they're startups and they don't have profits yet. they will nevertheless be forced to pay taxes on their sales and we have some quotes here from some of the folks who have been hiring regularly including fujirobo in suburban philadelphia and bo surgical. and they're saying this tax could be enough -- actually it's already stopped them from further hiring. it could have even worse consequences. this is a problem. we've got a tax on orphan drug makers that's a huge problem.

let me touch quickly on some of the things that i'm trying to do to push back on these regulations. i've introduced a bill that will affect the e.p.a. was shocked to discover that they are not required to consider the impact, adverse impact on jobs that their regulations could have. don't think that's very reasonable. i think they have to make that consideration. because that's part of the costs they need to weigh against any perceived benefit. my bill would require that for any future regulations, the e.p.a. would have to weigh the costs of jobs lost and publicize that so that the public and congress and the various states affected would be able to weigh in and hopefully push back. i mentioned the orphan drug act. i'm looking to repeal the medical device act. anwe have some broad support for that. i don't know if we've got enough but we're going to keep working on it. some of the unfunded mandates. this came to my attention earlier this year. that we had a transportation department rule that was going to require every municipality

in america to replace all their street signs. anybody hear about this? replace all your stree signs. talk about a solution in search of a problem. this costs millions of dollars for your average municipality. how ny municipalities in pennsylvania are sitting on millions of dollars of excess cash? i don't know of any. right? and so that means property taxes would necessarily go up to pay for this, totally unnecessary mandate. now, to the credit of the administration, ray lahood is the secretary of transportation. is former member of congress. i served with him in the house and got to know ray. and reached tout him early on. and requested a waiver for one particular municipality at had a good argument they wanted to preserve the historic and unusual character of their street signs. and he immediately granted the waiver. much to his credit. and we continued the discussion. we've joined a group of other legislators and municipal leaders from across the country. and they have decided to

suspend that regulation altogether. it's not going to go into effect. so every once in a while you have a win here and that's important. and that's part of why i'm here today. if you have a specific example of a regulation, a mandate, a cost that is not reasonable, that is consecutive, that is preventing you -- that is competitive, that is preventing you from getting a job, creating a job, that's what i would like to hear the most. let me wrap up. one other success in terms of job creation for pennsylvania that i was delighted to have a modest role in but the shipyard tkoup in philadelphia -- down in philadelphia, and very little work for a long time. but they just won a big contract. to build two tankers for exxonmobil. it's hundreds of millions of dollars and will allow them to bring several hundred, maybe more, skilled workers back to work in building these tankers. i was delighted to be involved in that. let's go to the last one. and i'll just sum up here. these are the things that i think we ought to be doing to

maximize job growth and economic growth. one, we need fiscal balance. i personally would like to see a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. i introduced a budget that balances over 10 years. i don't think it's realistic to balance the budget overnight but overime. it's a very reasonable goal. and i think we ought to get there. i think we need to ve stable tax rates. i will tell you right now i'm not in the camp that believes it's a good idea to raise taxes. i think that will do more harm to our economy than good. and we're n undertaxed although i will say we have an absurd tax code tt has so much -- so many ridiculous features that are there because special interests carved them out. i'm all in favor of reforming it. so that we can get rid of those kind of features. as i mentioned we certainly need to reduce regulations. we need sound money. we could talk about this if anyone would like to. but i've been a critic. fed's licy. and we need open markets. i was just at a farm in lehig county where the farmer exports

hay. and i didn't realize this but a substantial portion of the hay that's gwn in pennsylvania is exported. he believes that our exports to south korea will double if we pass the free trade agreement with korea. because it lowers the tariff on american sales into south korea ve, very constructive. last thing i want to mention is the joint select committee that i've been put on to address this fiscal challenge. i said earlier, i don't think you can overstate how bad a mess we're in. we're running 1 1/2, almost $1.5 trillion deficits each year. we are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar that we spend as a government. does anybody think that that's -- that's sustainable? it's totally not sustainable. we've racked up a level of debt that's unprecedented. and in my view, the threat of higher inflation, higher interest res, higher taxes, that that poses, is already having a chilling effect on our economy. i think it's desperately

important that we get this under control. i'm looking forward to working with the other 11 members of this committee. it's bipartisan. it's bicameral. six republicans and six democrats. house members and senate equally balanced. and we have an extraordinary opportunity because if we can agree on a package to reduce this deficit, then both the house and the senate are required to have up or down votes in a very short time frame. it is not subject to obstruction. it cannot be amended. it cannot be filibustered. if we can pass this in congress, i feel quite confident the president will feel compelled to sign it. and if we can -- if we can use this opportunity to put ourselves on a sustainable fiscal path to just moving in that direction, i know we're not going to solve all of these problems by any means, but if we can move the direction it can be very constructive for the ke of job growth for o economy and for our future. so thanks very much for being here. and i welcome your questions, comment, observations. -- comments, observations.

>> good morning, senator. >> good to see you again. >> good to see you again. my name is dan from philadelphia. unemployed worker. >> yeah. >> laid off from express script with 650 other people due to corporate greed and outsourcing of jobs. so yesterday, up in countersport, self and a gentleman from tayoga county asked a direct question we feel was not answered. so we want to know why you will not support taxing corporations and millionaires to bring more revenue instead of asking the working folks and the working poor to bear all the burden of taxes. the tax breaks they have now fr the bush era, all of that done -- all they've done is create a big deficit. the job losses that we have now started during the bush era. so we need to get those folks that are not paying their taxes

to start paying their taxes, you know, they get tax breaks. and also get a federal refund every year. and i'm paying my taxes still on unemployment. i know yesterday you said you didn't -- you didn't know that unemployment you have to pay taxes on. but yeah, i am paying taxes on my unemployment. and i still have to pay federal taxes. i may get a refund at the end of the year but still got to pay it now and i'm hurting now. and so are 14 million other people in this crinlt. and especially pennsylvania. -- in this country. and especially pennsylvania. bringing jobs to pennsylvania, it hasn't happened. all we hear is you going to lobbyists and business people. to meet with them. but nothing has happened. when are we going to have jobs? when are you going to support us? >> i thought i answered it yesterday. but i'm happy to answer the question again for you tod. and i will say i'm really not going to apologize for meeting regularly with groups of small business owners, chambers of

commerce, when they invite me there. and let's face it. those are the people that are going to hire unemployed workers and sthare going to crailt the -- and they're going to create the jobs that we need. [applause] mih, if could you bring up chart number 24, let me make a few observations. and this gentleman brings up a point of view that is -- is fairly widely held. he's not in a tiny minority here. i don't share his point of view but it's understandable. the question is whether we should raise taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals. my own view is the problem is not that we're undertaxed. the problem is that we overspend. and the federal government has grown its spending as a percentage of our economy by 25% in two years. that is a aggering expansion in the size of government. and that itself has a huge cost on our ability to create jobs to grow an economy because the more the government consumes of

our -- the results of our hard work, the less growth we're going to have. this is well documented. this is historical. it's around the world. it's an american history. politicians don't allocate resources as wisely as markets do. as wisely appearance individuals do sitting around -- as individuals do sitting around the kitchen table. that's what it comes down to. who will allocate the results of hard work of productive people, politicians or the people who produced it? i'm in favor of the hands that produced it rather than in the hands of government. there's also an important point about competitiveness. because it's not the case that corporations and millionaires don'pay taxes. you can believe that they n't pay enough, but you can't argue that we don't have corporate taxes. i would argue that the american corporate tax rate is too high. and here's why. this is a char it's not my data, by the way, this is the peterson foundation that produces this. they're a nonpartisan, actually most people think they lean slightly center-left. but be that as it may tir data is certainly credible. it shows something that's

widely known. the ited states is here. we have the second highest not only marginal corporate t rate in the entire industrial world, but the secd highest effective tax rate. in other wds, after you take into account the deductions and the fact that some corporations pay little or nothing in taxes, on average, our businesses, and therefore our workers, are at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of the world. i don't think that makes sense. and that's the case. but that's why i don't want to raise this burden and make us even less competitive and encourage multinationals to leave the united states and go somewhere where the tax burden will be less. having said that, the gentleman makes a very valid point when he refers to corporations that pay no taxings. when one of the biggest most successful and famous corporations in the world pays no income taxes, that's outrageous. and it's wrong. [applause] totally indefensible.

but let's also consider some of the reasons why. they're complying with the tax code. they're not breaking any laws. this is congress' fault. and part of it is because there is such huge tax giveaways for so-called green energy projects that you have the tail wagging the dog. they're making decisions based on the tax code. they're choosing to produce things that are not economically competitive. but they get a huge tax break and so they do it. and at the end of the day, they pay nothing in taxes. that's an outrage. and i am in favor of dramatically reforming the tax code, simplifying it and making it much more fair and eliminating these ridiculous giveaways and loopholes that special interest groups have carved out, and at the same time, using that opportunity to then lower rates so that we're in the competitive end of this graph and we start winning against our competitors in europe and asia. [applause]

>> thank you for holding this town hall. my name is gene barr, vice president of government public affairs for the pennsylvania chamber of business and industry. we're the largest broad based business advocacy group in pennsylvania. and i represent the people who would love to hire people like dan and others in this room and elsewhere in pennsylvania. i want us to pass on to you a survey that we just completed of hundredof businesses across pennsylvania. just within the last wee or two. d we ask them an open ended question to go to some of your previous points about what is the problem in job creation now? what are they seeing? what are they concerned about? number one wax the economy, not a surprise -- was the economy, not a surprise. number two, hindering job creation, the competitive regulations, the -- the consecutive regulations, these business people are all across pennsylvania and all sizes and all kinds of businesses. one of those things was one that you hinted at which is the federal health care. and i'll talk about one point specifically wigs the provisions of the federal health care kick in when you have 50 or more employees.

if you'r a small business with 45 employees, particularly in this time, you're going to think long and hard about adding five employees to your rolls to pick up costs that are undrmed at this point. the question would be, do we have any chance -- the goals of health care are laddable. do we have any chance of going ba in and crafting a health care proposal that really does what it should do which is lower health care costs f everyone and not hinder job creation? thank you. >> it's a great point. [applause] i often will ask small business groups at a chamber of commerce gathering or some other roundtable how many people believe that the result of obamacare is going to be to lower the cost of providing health insurance for their workers. and i've never seen a hand go up. it's a huge problem. and you're absolutely right. when you create this threshold that says all of these new burdens are going to kick in if you hire more than 50 workers, well, guess what? we're going to make sure they don't hi the 50th worker.

terrible policy. we don't have a consensus in congress to real it. we had a vote in the house to repeal it. we had a vote in the senate. and unfortunately, it went on party lines. i spo full repeal of this bill -- i support full repeal of this bill and replacing it with an alternative series of reforms that would lower the costs and improve access without all of these mandates and huge expense and the government's consecutive -- excessive intrusion into the delivery of health care. we don't have a consensus receipt now. what we're trying to do is work around the edges where we can. you might recall -- i know you recall the 1099 provision in this bill. this was a provision that would require every business to file a form with the i.r.s. every time they spend more than $600 on anything. now, stop and think about that. a small contractor is going to spend more than $600 filling up his pickup with gas. you have to keep track of every gas station that you go to and en you reach $600 that's a

1099 for that one. can you imagine the ministrative hassle of trying keep track of this sort of thing? that was in the bill. we were able to get that repealed. it took three votes on the senate floor before we could get a majority. but we finally did. i mentioned that because it illustrates that occasionally there are little risme shot improvements we can -- little risme shot imprfments we can make but not solve the problem until we repeal it and replace it with an alternative set of reforms. [applause] >> my name is rick elbert and i work for the postal service and they claim they're going through some hard times. i would like to know why we can process a bar coded piece of mail, meaning a letter or magazine, for 2 1/2 cents, why are we paying places like pitney bowes 10 1/2 cents to do the same mail? what this mail does then is it comes back to our facility and

it's presorted. but you have 100 trays of other mail that also has to get sorted. so this presorted mail just gets dumped into the mail stream. i don't know. it just doesn't seem right. and we only process about 17% of the available mail out there. and my other comment about it is the postal service was mandated by congress, thenly government agency to prefund future retirees' benefits. i believe there was $39 billion in this account to begin with. what happened last year was the postal service overpaid this fund by $60 billion. they're trying to recoup this money. who makes that kind ofistake and keeps their job?

>> yeah. in government it happens all the time. >> you know, let's say -- we can deliver a letter from allentown to allentown. talking about praoistizing for less than 44 -- privatizing for less than 44 cents. that includes training m to go to oklahoma anywhere from two days to six weeks. there's a thousand mechanics, technicians there coming and going all the time. they house us. they pay us. we get trained. and that's in with your 44 cents. i don't think fedex would do that. another thing when the post office does a study, like where to put a new processing center, they pay big bucks to have this survey done so they can place it in the right area. well, within six months, guess who's right around the corner? the fedex, u.p.s., they don't pay a dime. and it's -- it's just a shame. there's so much mail out there.

and sure, email has cut back a bit. but why are we only processing 17% of the mail? that means private companies are doing that. work that we can do in house for like i said 2 1/2 cents as opposed to us paying 10 1/2 cents. thank you. >> well, thank you. that was certainly informative. and i hope it will be the first to confess that i know nothing about the postal service's sorting system. [inaudible] to fund the postal service. we don't pay city tax or whatever -- >> property taxes, right. thanks for your input. let me -- i am not familiar with the status of the pension system. but we'll take a look at that. and i appreciate your bringing it up. >> hi.

my name is pat senafane and thank you for coming to inform us of your progress in congress. i have awo-part question. the first part is this. most people today feel that congress has relinquished its authority and has given it over to czars. we have never had a situation where we have people who have never been cross-examined by congress as to their background. we even had a communist -- registered communist working in the white house earlier in this administration. and i would like to know what you feel should be done so that this country never gets into this situation ain. and secondly, the other part is the national labor relations board in boeing, and how it's

tilted to the left and unions and how they stopped a thousand jobs in south carolina, how now they're making rules and regulations. and here i believe it to be an advisory capacity of this board, not a government agency. why are they allowed to do this? thank you. [applause] >> i think it's -- it's hard to dispute the idea that congress has voluntarily relinquished authority that i think the constitution intended congress to have to the executive. and to the bureaucracy of the executive bran is stunning in its scale. and i think is just way too big. one of the ways that we have to provide a check on that is through the power of the purse

strings. this is also by the really brilliant forsythe and design of the -- foresight and design of the constitution by the forefathers. in the annual funding bills that fund the government including the execive branch, congress can go through and decide how much money they're going to get and what they get to spend it on. so ts is actually a very useful process by which we could decide, for instance, that money used to fund the national labor relation board, would not be permitted to spent to have them telling companies where they can locate their future plants. i think it should go without say, but obviously it doesn't. so we could force that issue. here's the problem. congress has become so dysfunctional that we don have a federal budget and we're not doing appropriation bills. senator reid made it very clea very open about it now. for more than two years in a row, the federal government, by his decision, refuses to produce a budget. now, i went on the budget committee because i wanted to

play somrole and whatever i could do to change the fiscal path we're on. belie me, i was shocked and i'm still furious that we didn't even have a budget. it's required by law. the 1974 budget act requires congress to do it. so this is a flagrant violation of the law. more fundamentally, it's an abdication of a basic responsibility. the government's the biggest enterprise in the world. we spend $3.7 trillion and to think we have no budget. and so i introduced my own. and we -- and forced a vote on the senate floor for my own. but i wasn't able to get cooperation from the other side. so we couldn't pass that. but i think it's appalling that we don't have a budget. now, why do i mention this? in part because one of the consequences is that this is the first step in the process that then leads to a series of individual funding bills that are supposed to be consistent with the overall budget. we have done none of those. and that means guys like me and the other 99 senators have had

no opportunity to go down to the senate floor and influence policy by offering an amendment to change the funding for a czar tore an nlrb or an e.p.a. or any of the others. it's ridiculous. and we're going to go back into session in september and the first point of discussion is going to be some giant humongous funding bill forhe whole government because we haven't gone through this process. and i assure you we will not have the kind of opportunies we should have to aect policy the way you're describing. and i know it sounds like procedural minaya and tedious and i apologize -- minutee and tedious and i apologize. but this is the way the congress can reflect the will of the people we represent and if we don't have a process for doing that you end up with government by the executive branch without being able to hold it in check. [applause]

>> senators, thank you so much for coming to carbon county. my name is robert dages and i'm a businessman and own three businesses. and so does my wife and children here. i do it entrepreneurial style. it's my opinion, my conviction, sir, that the biggest problem to business is government. government being in competition with private business. sir, there's three parts to this issued question. it has to do with the bill of rights. it has to do with government moving outside their charter. and it has to do with transparency in government. first, moving outside their charter, we have the situation here in carbon county, also

known as packard and ginyards, a big cost, my understand, the excise tax on gambling went to fund that project when it was supposed to come backor a tax relief. sir, when i pressed issues, they said they had constitutional authority to move outside provisional authority to do what they're doing. they would never give it. when i pressed it in court, horrendous decision came, which now allows any official, there's actually case support to move outside of category in kind, and move away from government charter into corporate law, corporate charter, and use -- and use corporate law, litigation issues, to argue for client attorney privilege with an affidavit to being the

appropriate roadblock to deface us from making redress of grievances which is our bill of rights. i've taken this to a new level and i would like you to call the chief clerk of commonwealth courts and follow case 1415. and see that it gets the attention that it needs. so would you tell me, please, senator, what you are doing for transparency in government? >> well, first, let me say that i think it would be helpful if you could spend some time with one of my staff afterward. i really didn't fully follow some of the aspects of what you are referring to. i think some of it is specific to state government and probably -- i probably don't have much of a role in some aspects. but maybe i do and i would be happy to try to determine that. as a general matter, i'm a believer that transparency is a good thing.

and sunshine is a good disinfectant. and the government ought to operate with as much transparency as possible. and then citizens can hold their government accountable. so i would like to work with you if we can on the specifics of the issue that you raised. thanks. >> senator, i am a businessman. i have built and sold three businesses in pennsylvani including a manufacturing company. i have dealt with gernment regulation all my life. i have to respectfully request that you take it easy on the environmental protection agency. i am also the father of four children. i have a stake in the next generation.

while i recognize that the per mill you will meet with tomorrow in pennsylvania need to create jobs and to maintain production, i also recognize that what they are asking you to do is make it so they do not have to invest in state of the art clean oilers. they are asking you --to you- clean bo -- clean boilers. i believe in capitalism, free markets, and liberty. i believe that your liberty and swear in french of -- enfringe -- infringes on my right to exist. the paper mail is asking you to let them pollute. the coal power -- mill is asking you to let them pollutes.

the coal power plant is asking you to let them pollute our air. i disagree with that. i think it is time that w stop thinking of our atmosphere as a sewer for toxic waste can we stop letting companies dumped mercury, carbon monoxide into the air we breathe. that is not liberty. i do not care if my electricity went up 5%. i would pay that to have clean water and clean air. i just had to respectfully suggest that to you that maybe take it easy on the epa. what i wanted to ask you about is our precarious depdence on oil. our entire economy is dependent on oil. as i think you probably know, the united states has 2% of the

world's oil. 2%. if we had to rely on our own oil, it would last four years. to me, as a business person, it seems reckless and irresponsible that we let our business model for the country cling to that precarious dependence. 81% of t oil is in saudi arabia, venezuela, russia, libya. they controlled 81% of the world's oil. my question is this. america has done so many great things. why are we not rising to the occasion and creating clean energy technologies that we can deploy throughout our country and get off of the foreign oil and stop importing foreign oil and exports this technology? i think that is what will create jobs for america and the clean energy for the next generation.

why is the senate not embracing the concept? -- that concept? >> thank you for that. you are the first person to suggest that i go easy on the epa. it is a good alternative point of view. i would just remind everybody that we all pollute. most of us probably got here by a car. there is some pollution that comes out of the back end of a car. there is a certain amount that is part of our lives. we have made enormous progress on the missions we put in our atmosphere. i am in favor of -- the emissi on we put in our atmosphere. i am in favor of the process. we have to be careful about doing this because there is a cost. when that costs us jobs, that is

a price a family is paying. it has to be weighed against the pe that there will be a benefit in the form of cleaner air. i want to move on to your point about oil. it is an important additional point. i doubt there is anyone in the room who does't believe we should continue to strive for cleaner air and cleaner water. it is a question of the pace at which we do it and how we do it. we have to do it in a rational and careful way that does that damage the economy. no question we have a huge dependence on foreign oil. it is a huge national security vulnerability for us. we have not done anything about it in a long time. we did not leave the stone age because we ran out of stones. we figure out a better way to make tools. in time, we will figure out alternatives to fossil fuels.

right now, fossil fuels are more affordable as a means of producing energy and transportation. one of the things that is encouraging to me about our dependence on foreign oil is the natural gas we have discovered here in the united states, specifically pennsylvania. in the first time in our history, it is plausible to see an alternative to oil has been a transportation fuel of choice. natural gas is already cost competitive to gasoline. we do not have a nural gas refueling infrastructure the way we have a gasoline refueling infrastructure. it takes less infrastructure to take it from the ground. we have a staggering supply. we have a huge supply just in the marcellus shale.

it is equivalent to half of all the oil in saudi arabia. there are other comparable fields throughout the country. we also have our own oil, which i think we should develop more of. that would diminish our dependence on foreign oil. we have in alaska and offshore. i think we should be developing every source that is economically competitive, of which there are many. over time, the technology will emerge that will introduce new sources. as that happens, we should embrace them. i am in favor of most of the above when it comes to an energy policy. [applause] >> hi, i live in harting,

pennsylvia. my question will not change because of what you were talking about about oil and gas. the gas industry -- the natural s industry is not exactly sure of the outcome that they are projecting with the chemicals that they use and the contamination from the dissolved solids and a lot of things that are involved. there has been no study by our government to protect us. my original question was about the epa. one of the reasons we have, as you stated, the best ever, is because of the rules and regulations from the epa. the epa relies on science. science tells the epa that this chemical is bad. that chemical is bad. we should not have in our bodies

more than 0.8%. my question is, how can you say, i am going to give you a job, but you have to hold your breath for 8 hours? how can i tell my child that he can only eat one fish per month? how can we let companies pollute? it may create a job, but five years from now i will have leukemia. 10 years from now you are going to have something wrong. how does that -- how is that actually cost effective in the long run? how can we allow lobbying in congress? our d.e.p. is one of the lowest rate in the state.

we are used as an example of bad d.e.p. regulations. trouble because of the gas companies lobbying our representatives that we elected to protect us. how is lowering chemical protection, epa protection actually going to benefit me or my family? >> maybe i was not clear. i am not suggesting that we reverse the progress we have made over these recent decades. what i am is suggesting is that the new way of regulations that the epa is trying to impose -- some of them go too far and happeno suddenly without examining the implication. if the benefit of a new regulation is actually going to

save lives and it is measurable and we can clely establish a significant benefit, we need to do it. some of these cases, the benefits are tenuous and the costs are real. i have to disagree of your characterization of the d.e.p. it is my understanding that the d.e.p. is qualified to regulate marcellus shale. th should be some comfort. the fluid that is being injected into the stone is being injected two miles below the surface of the earth. it is kept and contained in steel tubes. this is extensively regulated. i am in favor of regulating to the best practices out there. i am convinced that the best

practices make for a safer approach. i have been too well sites. i have the -- to well sites. we should put whatever resources we have to make sure that that is what happens. i think the epa is capable of doing it. [applause] >> three more questions. if you d not get your question inraise your hand. >> my name is paul. i am a retired steelworker. you mentioned a big corporation that did not pay any taxes. think you were referring to

generally that trick. am i right? >> yes. >> i think they got some of the stimulus money. their ceo is jeffrey immelt. he was a big supporter of president obama. general electric is one of the biggest manufacturers of light lbs. they are manufactured in china. there was a vote in congress a little while ago to ban incandescent bulbs. is the band going to be voted on again? when they close all of these plants -- there were 40 plants that manufacture incandescent

bulbs. they were sending jobs to china. am i right? tried to get rid of these fluorescent bulbs. you have a problem with the mercury in there. will that be another vote on ban that ban >> i do not know the answer to the question. i am personally in favor of libelled freedom. -- light bulb freedom. [applause] they emit different shades of light. let consumers decide. consumers can sort this out. i do not think we need a ban. >> my name is bob. i am a local resident.

two quick items. back to the jobs. in order to create jobs, how do you come down on these three items. to me, you need consumption. you need to have people buying things so that compans will be forced to produce more. now you have roughly 12-14 million people who are out of work. you have these companies that have high productivity that they are making 1000 gizmos and they need to make more, they can increase their productivity and they do not need to hire more workers. my second point is on this super committee that you are a member of. do you really think six republicans and six democrats sitting in a room are going to really come up with any ideas

that 500 members in congress should be able to do? >> the first point you made those to the hearts of the debate that is raging across america about economics. should we be focusing on the demand side or the supply side? this administration is all about the demand side. i would argue that it has not worked. a massive stimulus bill -- the giant one was nothe first. the huge surge spending is unprecedented. if the idea that the government can create demand and created by borrow-- create it by borrowing and spending, we would have a recovery going on right now because of the huge amount of spending. my view is that that is looking at economics in a backwards fashion. if the government can have policies that allow people to produce things that a lower cost, there is unlimited

demands. who does not want a newer car, a nicer home, better things for their kids. the demand is there. the problem is we cannot provide the product at an affordable price. when the government at to the cost of th products, we separate the natural consumer demand from their ability to have that demands met. the focus should be how we enable people to provide supply at an affordable price. as to your question about the select committee, i do not blame you for being skeptical about this. i have my concerns about whether we can get this done. it is not as though we do not have enough committees down there. my hope is that there is a greater sense of urgency now than we have had in the past. the deficits are massive. the debt is unprecedented. we see this volatility in the

equity marts. we see on rest in europe. -- unrest in europe. i am hoping that ts combination of the bids will help us come up with a reason -- of events will help us come up with a reasonable way to succeed. [applause] i have a couple of comments. we need oversight on the epa. the burden of regulation on businesses and people is too much. people do not understand that the cost of the product to make is passed down to the customer. you mentioned tax loopholes. one of the things i have been hearing is that some of the mortgage interest deductions u were able to take on your income

taxes will be eliminated. 52% of the american people do not pay federal income tax. everyone needs to have a stake in the game even if it is all the 5%. [applae] i am happy that you are on the super committee. we need a conservative boys. -- voice. the problem i have with the super committee is, is it constitutional? >> good question. as far as the tax policy goes, nothing has been decided by the select committee or anybody else. the mortgage interest deduction is one of the most popular features of the tax code. the least likely thing to be addressed. because it is so popular and so widespread -- it has not been

addressed yet. there is nothing in the legislation that creates and authorizes the select committee that forbids considering tax reform. i hope we will. the tax code is a disaster. we could encourage economic growth much better if we made some reforms there. at this point, i cannot be sure we will take it up, much less what t changes will be. as far as the constitutionality, here is my view. the constitution specifically states that the congress is authorized to develop its own rules. the house is required to choose a speaker and it does so. beyond that, both bodies have, from the beginning of this republic, developed their own rules or proceeding. they have developed their own committee structures. every congress has some kind of

change, even if it is only the rao of members. it seems to me that the creation of this particular committee falls entirely within the purview of congress to decide how it will conduct its own business. at the end of the day, all we can do is produce a piece of legislation that congress passed to vote on. they can all take it down. if congress votes in favor of it, the president haso sign it. it follows the constitutional process in that respect fully. as far as us coming up with something that the 535 members have been unable to, i do not know. we have to get this done. i am in favor of giving this a try. thank you, senator toomey. i have a concern.

there is talk, and you probably heard this, that sometime next year before the election president obama intends to circumvent congress and give amnesty tthe illegal aliens in this country. this will virtually asse his reelection. i am wondering if that is possible and, if so, are you and the fellow conservatives planning to stop or have some method of stopping this action from happening? >> i do not think it is likely that that would happen, to be honest with you. the president probably views

immigration issues differently than i do. he has acknowledged that it needs to go through a legislative process. if he attempted a dramatic and large-scale change that was profound -- to attempt to do that unilaterally would be disastrous for him. i doubt that. you hear these rumors from time to time. i think it is quite unlikely. thanks for raising that. i want to recognize a couple of people who have been kind enough to join us. where is dave? [applause] ippreciate you coming. and representatives, thanks for being here. i think we have run out of time here. i want to thank you for taking the time to be here and providing the input. people have a wide range of

opinions here. they are all valuable. i appreciate the fact that we were able to have a reasonable and civil discourse, including on those matters that we disagree. if you have a question and we did not get to it, please reach out to our staff. send it to us. if youave a suggestion or an idea about something that we can and should do, please. we would love to hear from you. thanks again for being here this morning. [applause]

[random conversations]