minimum tax and there'll be so many more people paying income tax, people will not blev the kind of money that will flow into the federal government. not that that's a good thing. but we can at least pay down our debt if we're responsible, and i'm so excited about the tea party's getting fired up and i see people from all races, all walks of life in the tea party, the one thing they seem to have in common is, they're paying income tax and tired of carrying half of the country on their backs. so this is a start, i believe, it is a jobs bill, and you will see jobs flood this cupry and we'll get on track. mr. speaker, how much time do i have? the speaker pro tempore: you have about three minutes, sir. mr. gohmert: well, thank you. in the few minutes i have left, let me tell you a man that's had the most influence on my life behind my father. his name is sam parker.

there have been wonderful men in my life, women in my life, teachers in my life that affected me. sam parker was hired by the mount pleasant school board to be coach and to teach history. he was head coach at my tigers school. he led them to being undefeated after the first nine games. he turned the program around. he was part of the methodist church. taught sunday school. his wife, noreen, was the librarian at the junior high. we played silver springs and people were saying this looked like the best team in 3-a in texas. they went to sulphur springs. some teams told me it was their fault. they didn't take it serious enough and they lost by one touchdown and that was friday night. monday morning the school board

fired sam parker and then he and his wife had a tough decision. they believed that god had called them to mount pleasant to plant their roots, invest their lives and change america from that small place. well, he did the unthinkable. he stayed and taught american history after being fired as head football coach and seven years later i met him in the park recreation program he put on for young kids in the public park down there each summer. i worked with him one summer as a teenager. he taught more kids to play baseball in mount pleasant. he was my scoutmaster. he had a troop there. he was my scoutmaster through my becoming an eagle scout there in mount pleasant. and he taught me american history. he continued to teach sunday school. the man that coached two years at mount pleasant high school

changed mount pleasant in an incredible way. he was still alive in 1991. before he died they renamed the football field sam parker football field. he taught me american history. he served in world war ii. he loved this country. his son was my best friend. still dear friend. those are the kind of people that have changed america. those are the kind of people who are the reason we have been blessed like we've been blessed. and if we don't have more people willing to put pettiness aside, goofy ideas that enrich their cronies, goofy ideas that increase power for some people but get back to what made

america great, we're going to lose this great. and we, as ben franklin said in 1787, we will become a by word down through future generations because we had the greatest country ever given to mankind and we became irresponsible and lost it. it's time for major changes, and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule

and we can create something of lasting value. we create items of values for customers around the world and create good jobs for our employees and help build our community. as americans, we know how to compete and win on a global basis. but our country needs a little bit of help to get out of this recession.

we all know that there have been a lot -- there has been a lot of talk about creating jobs. but today, the president of the united states came to west star to see firsthand what we do and what we need to compete in a global economy. it's important for all of us to stand with our president as he works to focus congress on doing something real about helping to get america back to work. the time for talking has passed. now we need -- now we need to send a message to congress, it is time to act. [applause] employers like west star want

to invest in new equipment to expand capacity and to grow. employees need that investment to compete and win. the president's plan will help us to do just that. [applause] it's time to get serious about jobs and helping companies all across north carolina and america hire and grow. now i've got to tell you, if anyone tole me a week ago that i would be up here doing this, i'd have said they were crazy. only in america. -- only in america can a guy who owns a small manufacturing business say this next paragraph. [applause]

mr. president, thank you for your leadership, and thank you for caring enough about north carolina and manufacturing to be with us here today. it is my honor to present to you the president of the united states, barack obama! [applause] hello, north carolina. thank you.

>> thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you so much. how is it going, raleigh? it is good to be back at n.c. state. [applause] good to have all these wolves in my wolf pack. i just hope none of the students here are skipping class on account of me.

your professors can see you on tv, you know. i want to thank so many people who helped to set this up, but a couple of folks in particular i want to acknowledge. first of all, the outstanding governor of the great state of north carolina is in the house. she's been working tirelessly on behalf of the state and obviously helped to guide so much of the emergency efforts taking place after the hurricane. we're grateful to her. we also have one of the finest public servants i know, the former governor of the great state of north carolina is in the house.

i want to thank chancellor william woodson, chancellor of north carolina state university. as well as thomas ross, president of north carolina state university. and i want to thank the power sound of the south. thank you. everybody can sit down if you want. y'all have a seat. that's fine.

this is the hard core right here. i want to thank herb for the introduction. i just have ited his small business, which is called west star precision, it's down the road in apex. and like he said, what they do is what a lot of company here's in the research triangle do so well. they hire smart people, they give them the best technology, they create something of lasting value. and that's how this country built a strong and growing economy and a strong, expanding middle class. that's our history. that's what we've got to get back to. that's why i came to raleigh here today. i came to talk about how

america can get back to a place where we're creating good middle class jobs again. jobs that pay well. jobs that offer some security. jobs that are available for all the young people who are going to be graduating from n.c. state. [applause] i know that's what the students are thinking about. and we can do that if we can finally get washington to act. if we can get folks to stop worrying so much their jobs and start worrying a little more about your jobs. now on monday, i sent congress this piece of legislation, it's called the american jobs act. it's a plan that does two things. it puts more people back to

work and it puts more money back into the pockets of working americans. everything in this proposal, everything in this legislation, everything in the american jobs act is the kind of proposal that in the past, at least, has been supported by democrats and republicans. everything in it will be paid for. anybody who wants to know more about it, you can read about it on whitehouse.gov. i know you guys don't have enough to read. and every single one of you can help make this bill a reality by telling congress to pass this bill. pass this jobs bill. [applause]

let me tell you why you need to pass this bill. tell them to pass this bill so we can help the people who create most of the new jobs in this country an that's small business owners like herb. because while corporate profits have come roaring back, smaller companies haven't. so what this jobs bill does is it cuts taxes for small businesses that hire new employees. it cuts taxes for small businesses that raise the salaries of their current employees. it cuts small businesses' payroll taxes in half and that would help 170,000 small business owners in north carolina alone. and if they choose to make new

investments next year, it lets them write off those investments. for small business owners who have contracts with the federal government, we're going to do more than that. today i'm ordering all federal agencies to make sure those small business owners get paid faster than they do now. in some cases twice as fast. that puts more money in their pockets quicker, which means they can hire folks quicker. now, we've got to tell congress to do their part. you've got some republicans in congress, they like to talk about how, we're in favor of america's job creators. you know what? if you're in favor of america's jobs creators, this is your bill. this will help america's job creators. we need to pass this jobs bill right away. pass this jobs bill an companies will get new tax

credits for hiring america's veterans. we ask these men and women to leave their career, leave their families, risk their lives to fight for us. to fight for our freedoms. the last thing they should have to do is fight for a job when they come home. that's why congress should pass this bill. pass this bill because it will help hundreds of thousands of young people, it's got $4,000 tax credit for those who hire anybody who spent more than six months looking for a job. it extends -- expands

unemployment insurance. which means it's providing help and support for those who are out there who want to work but haven't found a job yet. that puts more money into the economy. they spend that money on large businesses and small businesses, that means they have more customers and hire more people. we're also saying if you are collecting unemployment insurance, wure i think -- you're going to get connected to temporary work to keep your skills sharp as you work look for permanent work. [applause] pass this bill, and right here in north carolina, about 19,000 construction workers will have a job again. this is a common sense idea. governor purdue can tell you, there are a lot of roads and bridges that need fixing. there's a lot of work that needs to be done in schools and

airports. all these things are in need of repair. in north carolina alone, there are 153 structurally deficient bridges that need to be repaired. four of them are near here. on or around the beltline. why would we wait to act until another bridge falls? [applause] all across north carolina and across the country, there are schools with leaking ceilings and lousy heating. ventilation so poor it can make students sick. how can we expect our kids to do their best in places like that? and the answer is, we can't. this is america.

i don't know about you -- i don't know about you, but i don't want any of our young people studying in broken down schools. i want our kids to study in the best schools. i don't want the newest airports or the fastest railroads being built in china. i want them being built right here in the united states of america. there are construction projects like these all across the country, just waiting to get started. there are millions of unemployed construction workers looking for work. my question is, what is congress waiting for? there's work to be done. let's pass this jobs bill right away, let's get it doneful

let's go. [applause] pass this jobs bill, there will be funding to save the jobs of up to 13,000 north carolina teachers, cops, and firefighters. i hope some of the young people here plan to go into teaching, plan to go into education. but here's the challenge. we've got an incredible -- we've got incredibly talented young people who want to teach, but while places like south korea are adding teachers to prepare their kids for the global economy, we're laying off teachers left and right. you've seen it here in north carolina. budget cuts are forcing superintendents all over the state to make layoffs they don't want to make. it's unfair to our kids, it undermine theirs future, it undermines our future, it has to stop.

if we want our kids ready for college, ready for careers in the 21st century, tell congress to pass the american jobs act and put teachers back into the classroom where they belong. yes, we can. we can pass this thing. but we need congress to help us do this. , to help us do it. now if we pass this bill, the typical working family in north carolina will get a $1,300 tax cut next year. [applause] $1,300 that would have been taken from your paycheck will now go into your pocket. that will help local businesses know that they've got customers. but if congress doesn't act, if congress refuses to pass this

bill, middle class families will get hit with a tax increase at the worst possible time. we can't let that happen. as i pointed out last thursday, there are folks in congress who have been fighting pretty hard to keep tax breaks for the wealthiest americans. you need to tell them they need to fight just as hard to help middle class families. tell them to pass this jobs bill. that's the american jobs act. it will lead to new jobs for young people, for construction workers, for teachers, for veterans, for the unemployed. it will provide tax relief for every worker and every small business in america. it will not add to the deficit. it will be paid for. we will pay for this plan. we will pay down our debt. we'll do it following the same principles that every family

follows. we'll make sure the government lives within its means, we'll cut what we can't afford to pay for what we really need. that means we're going to have to make, we're going to have to cut some things we wouldn't make if we hadn't wracked up so much debt over the last decade. but it does mean wie going to keep on doing the things that matter like making sure that you guys who are here at n.c. state aren't coming up with all that debt. that's why we made sure to increase pell grants, that's why we made sure to increase student loans, affordability, to make sure you can get the education you deserve. [applause] but in order to do that, we've got to make sure that everybody pays their fair share. including the wealthiest americans and the biggest corporations. ultimately, north carolina, this comes down to what our priorities are.

do you want to come tax loopholes for oil companies? or do you want to renovate more schools and rebuild more roads and bridges so construction workers have jobs again? do you want to keep tax breaks for multimillionaires and billionaires? or do you want to cut taxes for small business owners and middle class families? it would be nice if we could do it all, put we can't. we have to make choices. and we know what's right. we know what we have to do to create jobs right now and to create jobs in the future. if we want businesses to start jobs in the future, eff to outbuild and outinnovate every country on earth. we have to give workers skills for new jobs and give our young

people a chance to earn a college education. and we've got to start manufacturing and selling more goods around the world stamped with three proud words. made in america. made in north carolina. made in raleigh. we need to build an economy that lasts. andra league, that starts now. >> i love you barack! >> i love you back. [applause] but if you love me, if you love me, you've got to help me pass this bill. if you love me, you've got to help me pass this bill.

it starts with your help. democrats and republicans. have supported every kind of proposal that's in the american jobs act in the past. we've got to tell them, support it now. that's where you come in. already you've got some republicans in washington that said that some of this stuff may have to wait until the next election. they said, maybe we can just kick our problems down the road and stretch this thing out rather than work together right now. some of them, some of them were even quoted as saying, even if they agreed with some of the things in this bill, that they don't want to pass it because it would give me a win. give me a win? give me a break.

that's exactly why folks are fed up with washington. this isn't about me. this isn't about giving me a win. this isn't about giving democrats or republicans a win. it's not about positioning for the election. it's about giving the american people a win. that's what it's about. it's about giving small business owners and entrepreneurs a win. it's about giving students a win. it's about giving working families a win. it's about giving all of us a win. i get fed up with that kind of game plan and we've been seeing

it for too long. too long. we're in a national emergency. we've had -- we've been grappling with a crisis for three years and instead of getting folks to rise up above partisanship in a spirit that says, we're all in this together, we've got folks who are purposely divided. purposely. thinking just in terms of how does this play out in terms of this election. now that's not all republicans. there are some republicans who get it. i was in ohio yesterday and there were republican govern -- their republican governor who doesn't agree with me on a lot of stuff, he agrees it's a good idea to cut taxes for the middle class he said this is not a time for partisanship.

this is a way to figure out a way to get things moving in this country. he's absolutely right. a faction in washington may be content to wait until the next election to do anything but i've got news for them. the next election is 14 months away. and the american people don't have the luxury to wait that long. there are a whole bunch of students here who will graduate by then and will be looking for a job. they can't wait that long. there are a lot of folks living paycheck to paycheck, day-to-day and they can't wait that long. they need action and need action now. raleigh, you need to -- you need leaders who will put country before party. and your jobs and your lives an your well being and your futures above everything else. so for those of you who did

skip class today -- [applause] i've got a homework assignment for you. that's right. i am asking all of you, not just here at n.c. state, not just you who are in raleigh but anyone watching, anyone listening, anyone following online, lift your voice. make it heard. you can call, email, tweet, fax , facebook, you can have it, write a letter -- when was the last time you did that? tell your congressperson that the time for partisanship in politics is over. it's not -- now is not the time for it. the time for gridlock and games is over. the time for action is now. i just want to say, i want to

make sure everybody understands their homework assignment. tell them, tell them that if you want to create jobs pass this bill. if you want construction workers back on the work site, pass this bill. if you want teachers back in the classroom, pass this jobs bill. if you want tax cuts for middle class families and small business owners, pass the jobs bill. if you want to help our veterans share in the opportunity that they have defended, pass this bill. now is the time to act. we are not people who just watch things happening. we make things happen. we're americans. we are tougher than the hand that we've been dealt. we're bigger than the politics we've been putting up with. we're patriots and pioneers an innovators and entrepreneurs, through individual effort and also through working together we have built an economy that's

the engine and envy of the world. we are not going to stop now. the time for hand wringing is over. the time for moping around, we've got to kick off our bedroom slippers and put on our marching shoes, we've got to get to work. there are people who -- there may be people whose refrain is, no we can't. but i believe, yes we can. we are a people who write our owns deny and we'll write our destiny once more so let's leave this moment, let's get to work, let's show the world once again why the united states of america is the greatest country on earth. thank you, north carolina. thank you raleigh. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

♪

♪

♪

♪

♪

♪

♪

>> president obama earlier today in north carolina. he's back in washington this evening, scheduled to speak at the hispanic caucus awards dinner. friday he'll sign the patent reform bill passed last week. he stays in the area with an event at thomas jefferson high school. we'll keep you posted on our coverage plans. see what political reporters are saying and track the latest exains contributions with c-span's website for campaign 2012. easy to use, it helps you navigate the political landscape with twitter feeds and facebook updates from the campaigns, plus links to c-span media partners in the early

primary and caucus states all at c-span.org/campaign2012. in an election marleaued by moral scandal and political corruption, jamente g. blaine lost in 1884 but changed political history. he's one of the 14 men featured in c-span's new weekly series "the contenders," live from the blaine house in augusta, maine, friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. learn more about the series and upcoming programs at c-span.org/thecontenders. >> former secretary of state condoleezza rice highlighted the u.s.'s commitment to demrobal health during her keynote address at a global health summit hosted by the george wmplet bush institute. this is just under 20 minutes. >> former u.s. secretary of

state, dr. condoleezza rice. >> good morning, thank you. thanks for coming and good morning. i have the distinct honor of introducing a dear friend, a musician, a golfer, an elegant woman who ably served america as our secretary of state. the finest, i better be careful in this company. one of the greatest secretary of -- secretaries of state ever. condi understands, i think we all understand, that in order to heal human suffering, america must lead. that means congress must lead. that means that corporate america must lead. that means n.g.o.'s must lead. that means individuals must lead.

that's what this conference is saying, we understand the obligations and the call. somebody that understands that as well as anybody is our dear friend, condoleezza rice. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. it is a pleasure to join you here for this very important affirmation of the importance of the global health crisis that we face and america's role in it. i'd like to thank first and foremost president bush and mrs. laura bush, especially the first lady was an amazing partner in our diplomacy from everything from advocating for

people's free tom to the health crisis. thank you for your guidance and your role. the usaid administrator and am bass dor erik goosby, thank you for your continued leadership on these issues. i would like to welcome to the united states, madam janettemo fwmbings andi from rwanda. that is a country still standing and progressing. thank you very much. and to my friend jim glassman who -- glassman, who is heading the bush institute at s.m.u. in dallas where i have the pleasure of serving as chairman of the advisory board, thank you for your leadership. this mobile health summit is very important and it's important we meet here in

washington. it's important because the united states of america has always been at its best in international affairs, always been at its best in the world. in fact, always been most successful in the world when its values lead. in fact, the view that no man, woman, or child should have to live in tyranny in poverty, in poverty or disease is a moral case. it is a case that we are fortunate enough to live on the right side of history's divide must make for those still trapped in tyranny, in poverty, in disease, and in despair. it is indeed a moral case but it is also a practical case. it is a practical case because places where governments and leaders will not or cannot provide for their people are

ultimately dangerous places. we've just come through the searing 10th anniversary of september 11 and we learned the hard way on bright september day that the danger to us, the gravest danger to us, came not from the marching armies of large states, but from a stateless group of terrorists, a network, that plotted and planned in the world's fifth poorest country, afghanistan, and then launched a devastating attack, probably costing about $300,000. we learned the hard way that where there is hopelessness and despair, there is danger. where there are unstable states, there is danger. where people cannot exercise their right to their voice and

to their well being, there is danger. we learned on that terrible day that our interest and our values are linked inextricably and we cannot allow poverty and disease and tyranny to continue to exist in this world or we here in america will pay a price for it. that is the natural security -- the national security case for our compassion. indeed, in the national security strategy of 2002, we talked about the three d's. defense, democracy, and development. that they had to go together, step by step, to build a more secure and more prosperous world. because where despair lingers, we are not safe.

now, that practical case, of course, is undergirded by the moral case, the proposition that every life is precious, that every individual had po -- has potential and that any person left without the access to education, to health care, and to freedom is a world that we as americans cannot tolerate. now as secretary of state, i dealt every day with the world as it is. and i knew that i had to work in the world as it is. but the great thing about america is we've always been able to imagine and to work for the world as it ought to be. not just the world as it is. that shows in our history, a history in which germans of a certain age remember food packets, hoovers, they called

them, the american relief effort that was literally the difference between life and death for so many german citizens. where american soldiers are still remembered for handing out candy to children. that picture emerges where victims of earthquakes and victims of tsunamis remember american relief boxes that stood between despair and hope, emblazoned with an american flag. now, thanks to the leadership of president and mrs. bush, and eight years of the bush administration, and now the commitment of the obama administration to those same goals, aids orphans in africa sing "america the beautiful." mr. president, lawyer remark you may remember that we went

to uganda, and i will never forget that moment when literally, these aids orphans sang our -- one of our great national hims. it was a -- national hymns. it was a moment that affirmed what it means to intervene in the lives of people who otherwise would only know hopelessness. in saudi arabia and throughout the middle east, thanks to the work of the first lady, now continued in the current circumstances, women are no longer ashamed to talk about a breast cancer diagnosis. i know firsthand the scourge of breast cancer. when i was 15 years old, i will never forget the day at st. mary's academy when my father was just a little late picking me up from school and in the day before cell phones, i got very worried. i didn't know what to think. when he finally got to me, he said he'd taken my mother to the doctor and she'd been

diagnosed as probably having breast cancer. fortunately, my mother lived for 15 years beyond that diagnosis. but i cannot imagine what it would have been like to be unable to express our concern, our despair, to pray our prayers for that terrible disease. to -- for that terrible disease to leave my mother and spare my mother. and yet in places in the middle east, that has been the fate of women. now, thanks to programs by the united states of america, we're encouraging them to speak about the disease, to get treatment, to be whole again. and throughout africa and other parts of the developing world, bed nets now protect children from the totally preventable disease of malaria caused just by a mosquito bite.

yes, the united states of america is doing good things. in the same tradition of those german sole -- of those soldiers in germany who gave a candy to a child and of those boxes between life and death that bear the american flag. during my time in government, i've had many extraordinary experiences. but perhaps the ones i will remember most are those where you see the faces of those children and those people who have been helped. but in my memory, too, the processes and the decisions that led us to try to make that difference, sitting in the oval office, with president bush on that last day that we were trying to determine to launch pepfar, the president hearing all the arguments about budgets and would the american people commit to $15 billion, the

largest single health program by any country. listening to questions about whether or not in those days, whether or not it was good enough to be able to extend life if you couldn't yet deliver a cure. and again, my mother came to mind. because since she lived that 15 years longer, thanks to good treatment here in the united states, she got to see her 15-year-old daughter become a 30-year-old woman a professor at stanford a person who would serve in government, she got to see me grow up. and that meant a world of difference to her and to me. [applause] and so, i said to the president on that day, you may not be able to cure people but extending their lives matters. and we have extended, through pepfar, many, many lives.

mothers and fathers who will be there for their children. [applause] i remember, too, the decisions about basra children's hospital. a hospital that opened in iraq, despite its troubles. a hospital that is dedicated to the treatment of children with cancer. an advanced hospital a public-private partnership with project hope that indeed brings hope to the children of that region. and the many clinics throughout afghanistan, particularly women's clinics, that finally give health care to those people who were so despised by the taliban that they were executed for challenging the regime. those women, executed in a stadium that had been built by the u.n. to play soccer. it's a very, very tough world

out there for anyone. but it's a really tough world if you are poor. if you are living in tyranny. if you don't have access to health care. if you don't have access to education. this is work that must continue. it must continue in the private sector. through corporations. through nongovernmental institutions. through the angels of mercy of those relief organizations that do extraordinary work in the hardest places. i'm so grateful that i've had a chance to get to know barbara bush, your daughter's, work through global health corps. i got to meet with some of the kids from around the world who are going to be involved in helping to bring health care around the world and it's great because it means a younger generation is now devoted to and committed to this great

cause. so the private sector has a lot to do. but the united states government also has a lot to do. this work has got to continue. i know that we face a lot of challenges. we face challenges of joblessness, of an education system that's not quite working, of immigration policies that are not quite working. we face deficits and debt, and uncertainty about our economic future. but let us never forget the premise that our own security is linked to the well being of others. and let us never forget, too, that out of chaos comes danger. the united states of america must lead. we must lead because it is important that the most compassionate and the most

compassionate and freest country on the face of the earth would also be the most powerful. we don't have an option to retire to take a sabbatical from leadership in the international community and the world. if we do, one of two things will happen. there will be chaos, because without leadership, there will be chaos. -- chaos in the international community and that is dangerous. . it is possible if we don't lead, somebody else will, and perhaps it will be someone who does not share our values of compassion, the rights of the individual, of liberty and freedom. and if someone leads, does not share our values, the balance of power that favors freedom so carefully constructed over the last years, a balance of power that has favored freedom and brought millions out of the

tyranny of communism, millions out of the tyranny, that balance of power will be in danger and i can assure you. if the balance of power that favors freedom is replaced by a balance of power that favors something else, not only our values, but our interests will be at risk. the oons of america has no choice but to lead. thank you for this gathering that recognizes not only the moral case, but the practical case for involvement in making the lives better of those less fortunate than ourselves. [applause]

>> there is no way we can succeed because these industries are different in kind than perhaps the software industry. you need platform companies in order to be able to succeed. as i pointed out, five of the largest solar panel companies

are in china, seven in asian eighth in europe and only two here. >> more from this hearing at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> robert zoleic told students that america must adapt to the ways of the global changing economy and spoke for 55 minutes. >> all those involved with george washington university, i'm very pleased to have the opportunity to be with you. in a village in the mountains of a province in china, people assemble to discuss the future and don't want handouts and don't want policy prescriptions and don't want lectures from visiting dignitaries, but they want a chance and ready to leave their paths behind. are we? two eminent harvard professors

of history, combined their experience in a book that was titled "thinking in time." so-called lessons of history they argued. history was better, they said, for helping people to think in time streams by considering present issues with future possibilities. what questions should we be considering in the certain autumn of 2011 and how do today's challenges relate to what has gone before? the world bank group's upoming meetings are a descendant of a meeting in 1944 in new hampshire. that historic conference laid the groundwork for three projects for what we refer to today as the brettow woods

system, find short-term imbalances and manage adjustments and exchange rates and avoid capital outflows that could break economies and societies. a project for the international bank for reconstruction and development. today's world bank to make long-term capital available to states so countries can grow and buy from one another and project to reduce barriers to international trade, foster open markets and resist downward spirals. the architects of the bretton woods system create d a model for their world. let's recall. in that world, developed economies share of g.d.p. was about 8 % with the united states alone accounting for 40%. in that world, developed

economies accounted for 2/3 of global trade. in that world, most of today's developing countries were still colonies. for almost 70 years now, the multi lateral architecture of 1944 has persisted and has grown with currency and oil shocks in the 1970's, debt did he back wills in the 1980's and expansions and crashes in the 1990's, bru the system has remained intact. for all its weaknesses, the system provided the enabling environment for the greatest era of growth and the largest, most successful economic transformation over the shortest period of time in world history. but the bretton woods system is not cast in stone. the key insight that the founders of bretto woods left us

was the need for wisdom to recognize when something new is going on and for the witt and will to face and accommodate what is new, act boldly, decisively and cooperatively. history's warning lights are flashing again, red, yellow and yes some green. will we face the challenges of 2011 with denial, with our heads stuck in the sand or face them with blame and obscuring the potential. or will we face them squarely, constructively, creatively? will we reason free experience, think afresh of our own times. we need to ask questions about what's going on. plates are shifting. in the 1990's, developing countries accounted for about 1/5 of global growth. today, developing countries are

driving the engine for global economy. in the 1990's, developing countries accounted for little more than 20% of global investment. today, they account for about 45%. some forecasters estimate that by 2025, six major merging market economies, brazil, china, indonesia, republic of korea and russian federation would collectively account for more than a half of all global growth . >> as china shifts from

foundation of growth, some of the demand for minerals will ease but india will be next. this is not the 1944 world. but beware of a straight line trend, as china's leaders know, the country's successful growth model is unsustainable. chain's recognizing it needs to deal with the challenges of environmental degradation, inquality, demographics, overproductivity growth and reliance on markets. if it reaches $16,000 of income per person by 2030, the effect on the world economy would be equivalent to adding 15 south crans and that would be hard to sustain in a model of investment-led growth. i'm skeptical of economy's

inevitable decline. with credible and possible action, not just short-term fixes on debt and deficits to restore confidence and focus on structural and tax reforms to spur private sector growth, to boost activity and create jobs, advanced economies can power ahead. predictions of inevitable stagnation and decline have been proven to be wrong. nor is it time to say that developed countries can no longer afford to face up to challenges beyond their borders. in 1947 in the united states of president truman, an average american earned less than 1/3 of what each american produces today. if the generation of 1947 with less than 1/3 of the wealth per person could face the world boldly, shouldn't we be able to do the same? americans, europeans, japanese and other developed world

countries play vital roles in innovation, investment, technology, security and yes, development. their contributions still provide the underpinnings for the current international system. it's in the self-interest in the major developed states and in the global interests to be with others, the architects of the future. something fundamental is going on, but the lesson is that we must modernize, not abandon multi lateralism. something fundamental is going on, but the lesson is that we must did he mock crati advertise development and not close ourselves off. the lesson is we must change our old concepts and constricting labels, not our multi lateral commitment. listen to the labels for a moment. fired world and third world, north and south, developed and

underdeveloped. rich and poor. them and us. the language of development has been the language of old, old world, old order and not without a whiff of hypocrisy. when countries that produce almost 50% of their electricity from coal tell poorer countries with nol energy alternatives they cannot use coal, what are they saying? do what i say, not what i do. when countries with large fiscal deficits preach fiscal discipline to poor countries, what are they really saying? do what i say, not what i do. when they pay countries to free trade who hold back against countries with barriers. what are they really saying? do what i say, not what i do? a do what i say, not what i do world will fracture to the detriment of all. the old ways can and must

change. and already we are seeing the signs of change. around the world, it's no longer european, japanese or american models that developing countries are seeking to emulate. the mexican and brazilian cash systems are being looked to for their innovation in keeping children in school, and overcoming poverty without breaking budgets. singapore's combination of an open economy, services cluster, anti-corruption and relentless adapttation to change in conditions. india's model for technology services is being copied across africa. relationships among developing countries are changing the development world as we knew it. in the 1990's, developing countries imported 15% of their merchandise from other developing countries. today, it's three times that

amount. in 2008, foreign investment accounted for 1/3 of total f.d.i. and that share is growing. todayes like 40%. and developing countries are no longer the recipients of aid, but also providers. in 2008, new emerging donors contributed between $12 billion and $15 billion. that is equivalent to 10% to 15% provided by developed country donors and that is likely a conservative estimate. developing countries are beset with problems, too. they are sensitive about new responsibilities thrust upon them. what does this mean for the future? the new normal will be no normal. the new normal will be dynamic, not fixed, with more countries

rising and shaping the multi lateral system. some states may falter, too. the rising economies will change patterns. these new networks are going to be displacing old hierarchies. the new normal will be about countries earning their place in world economic affairs, not presuming it because of past standing or official prerogative. it will be fluid i had and maybe volatile but also for countries to benefit. the new normal will be about lifting growth, not just shifting growth. creating new jobs as old ones slip in value, capturing the sustainable green growth and stimulating the private sector and meet changing needs. the new normal will be about smart economic power. the successor will be alert to

learn from other ideas and suggestions from all countries regardless of old labels. the new normal will be about voice, of women in their communities, of citizens in their countries, of states in the international system. as we have seen in the middle east and north africa, it will be about social accountability, government transparency, civil society. it will be about citizens who are changing our world even as we race to catch up. we must support them. adapting to this new world is not about modest shifts in voting power at the i.m.f. or world bank. it's not about developing countries being instructed by developed countries. and it's not about north, south, zero-sum politics of complaining and blaming. adapting to this new world is about recognizing that we must all be responsible stake holders now. in an interdependent global

economy, yes, we need china to be a responsible stake holder and need china to be a trading partner to move towards a responsible exchange rate system, to offer intellectual property protection and pursue environmental policies. but this is not just about china. europe, japan and the united states must be responsible stake holders, too. they have pro contrast tin ated too long, narrowing what choices are left to a painful few. the global economy has entered a new danger zone with little running room as european countries face difficult truths about the common responsibilities of a common surnsy. japan has resisted structural reforms that could retool its sputtering economic system. the united states is facing

record deficits with no approach in sight for cutting the drivers of debt. it's not responsible for the european zone to fledge loyalty to a union without facing up to a fiscal union that would make monetary union workable or accepting the consequences for uncompetitive debt burden members. it's not responsible for the united states to falter in facing fundamental issues such as unsustained growth in entitlement spending, the need for pro-growth tax system and a stalled trade policy. unless europe, japan and the united states also face up to their responsibilities, they'll drag down not only themselves but the global economy. emerging markets will not sit on the side lines or go back to the voiceless world of 1944, of leaders and followers and sfeers of influence. the insight from 1944 is the

need for leadership, for our way to a changed multi lateral system. the time for muddling through is over. if we do not get ahead of events and don't adapt to change or rise above short-term political tactics and recognize with power comes responsibility, then we will drift in dangerous current. that's the lesson of history for all of us, developed and emerging countries alike. but if we get it right, the potential is enormous. over the last 25 years, the share of poor people living in developing countries has been cut in half. in just four years, child mortality rates have fallen by 25% in 18 african countries. over the 10 years before the financial crisis, economies in subsaharan africa were growing by 5% to 6% on average and most

have moved beyond pre-crisis levels. we have seen the power of the private sector in the $77 billion that has been invested in telecom networks in subsaharan africa in the last decade. boosting subscribers to 400 million. we have seen it in investors looking to put private capital to work in developing countries. my point is a basic one. today we are seeing economic trade and financial inter dependence that was incomprehensible in 1944. we are seeing innovation, scientific break-throughs in communications, incomprehensible in 1944. we are seeing supply chains and although goss particular puerto rico systems that go across continents and oceans and new economic powers.

none of these developments were envisioned in 1944. can we now combine these changes with these to herald a new world economy beyond dependence, beyond the division between donors and recipients, a world beyond aid? prior to the bretton woods system, foreign aid existed in famines, floods, earthquakes or people fleeing conflicts. with the devastation of world war ii and then decolonization, it seemed useful toll jump-start private investment with aid that might be otherwise limited because of insufficient domestic savings, capital controls. an aid gained support in a bipolar cold war competition. that 1944 world has changed

dramatically. it's time to think about aid anew. these changes don't mean that there is no longer a place for aid nor should developed countries not honor their commitments nor should we disregard aid when achieved. for millions of people, that aid is a life or death matter and remains a valuable boost in enabling countries to climb the ladder of growth and much remains to be done to achieve the millennium development goals. many needs to be done to reach the bottom billion, almost 1.5 billion people who live in countries who are affected by conflict and violence. none of these countries has achieved a single millennium development goal. but aid is not for life. nor should aid be what developed countries give with one hand while with the other, they exclude developing countries

from agriculture or other trade markets or restrict their access to sustainable energy. in a world beyond aid, assistance would be integrated with and connected to global growth strat gist, driven by private investment and entrepreneurship. the goal would not be charity but mute tall interests. in a world beyond aid sound g-7 economic policies would be as important as aid is a percentage of g.d.p. in a world beyond aid, d-20 agreements on structural reforms, on fossil food fuel subsidies would be as important. in a world beyond aid, the advanced emerging markets would assist those behind with experience their own open markets, investments and new types of assistance. in a world beyond aid, new

financial instruments would ensure small hold irfarmers against drought or countries against hurricanes and leverage new equity investment and in a world beyond aid, support for innovation and scientific break-throughs would develop more knew trishous and better yielding crops, create noncarbon energy sources and find new lifesaving vaccines. developed countries need to recognize their self-interests in helping developing countries to get on the pathway to sustainable growth and need to honor their commitments, but we also need to recognize that the climate for aid will grow colder as donor countries struggle with debts. taxpayers have a right to know that the world bank and other development institutions are responsible stake holders, too.

we need to do a better job at demonstrating the effectiveness of aid and pointing to results. we need to leverage aid more effectively and we need to expand the contributors by involving more stake holders. so what might a world beyond aid mean in practical terms? at the country level, moving beyond aid is lveraging domestic savings and revenues transparently and good governance and openness and transparency and maintaining strong citizen involvement and voice. it means investing in one's people and efficient safety nets, basic services and quality education linked to training and jobs. requiring public institutions and officials to deliver, not just represent interests. it means encouraging entrepreneurs, small businesses,

private investment and innovation and means investing in infrastructure to build the basis for future productivity, including through innovative public-private partnerships. it means in sharing information. in the new world economy, good data and information will be at least as important as financial assistance. at the international level, it means multi lateral innovation to forge progress on open trade and investment, access to energy, food security, competition and services and climate change. not always waiting for all to join but moving ahead where coalitions of progress are possible. means using the multi lateral system including the g-20 to look at financing possibilities with roles for all. for the world bank group, moving beyond aid means continuing to transform ourselves to become an

open income partner, drawing from, researching, customizing and sharing solutions from around the world. the world bank group would be an investor and would build markets and institutions and in capacity, whether in governments, businesses or civil society. it would be a catalyst for action in a development model. it would be an agent that advances multi lateral solutions. and it would be a champion of inclusive and sustainable growth. three years ago, i proposed one such innovation. i called it a 1% solution whereby sovereign wealth funds would invest 1% of their assets in africa's growth.

in africa, the women represent the majority of farmers and produce 80% of the continent's food, women own only 1% of the world's wealth. women and girls in developing countries are less likely than men to survive early childhood or to survive their reproductive years. women are less likely to be paid for their labor, to farm profitable crops or to own assets such as land

>> a child's chance of survival is much greater if the income goes to the hands of the mother. simply by giving women more control over agricultural inputs, agricultural productivity could be increased by as much as 20%. this is not just about economic potential. i believe gender equality is a right, not just a resource. nor is gender equality about developing countries. one in 10 women will be physically or sexually abused by a partner or someone she knows over the course of her lifetime. we can talk about consigning old labels like north and south, first world and third world to

history. but it's still a them and us world. some may ask, how does this relate to a world beyond aid? simply put, it's about changing policies and empowering every person, man or woman, not just providing aid packages. we can give aid to better support women and girls, and we should, but aid alone is not enough. we will not release the full potential of half the world's population until globally we address the issue of equality, until countries, communities and households around the world recognize women's rights and change the rules of inquality. giving women the right to own land, giving women the right to own, run and operate a business, giving the women right to inherit, greater earning power and greater control over resources within their households, these could increase

children's health and education and entrepreneurship and economic productivity and take us closer to a world without aid. this would truly be development. since i became president of the world bank group some four years ago, i talked about the importance to better recognize and reflect the shifts that are taking place in the world today. i talked about the need to development for all, north, south, east and west, rich and poor, men and women and play a part in designing, executing and continually improving development solutions. talked about the need to make openness and transparency and accountability key features, not only of the world bank group but of government policy across the world. and i talked about the need to forge a new social contract, to

recognize that investments insight sense' voice and civil society and social accountability are as important to development as investments in firms and farms and factories. today, i have tried to outline how a multi-lateral system better reflecting the economic realities of today more rooted in a notion of sfake holder responsibility, more connected to private sector and civil society networks, more committed to practical problem solving and innovation could unleash a world beyond aid arbitration world that highlights prosperity, potential, not patronage, dignity, not dependency. there are some who may argue that this approach is too radical and will let developed countries off the hook. it need not. there are some who argue that this approach may be too risky,

that it will griff the world a new financial instruments and markets that could get developing countries into trouble. it need not. there are some who argue that this approach is too premature that developing countries are not ready to be responsible stake holders. are they any less ready than developed economies appear to be. private sector financial flows dwarf official development assistance. some philantrhopic contributions dwarf bilateral government aid and new players are transforming the aid world as we know it. we need to be thinking in time, drawing insights from those intrep i had multi-lateralists at bretton woods and acting with the aim of times to come. it's time to catch up.

it's time to assume our responsibilities. it's time to create for the future, not pine for the past. thank you. [applause] >> you have sbind strategic vision and your remarks on the importance of gender equality resonate here powerfully here. in the last few years we launched a global women's forum and in the process of launching a women's institute and here we say, do what we say and follow what we do. we are very much with you on that. we have some time for questions

and so we can open things up for short questions from the audience. we will take questions and keep your questions in the form of a question rather than a speech. i think we are ready to begin. >> not think about power status, but to really push forward into the future, how are you going to give incentives and follow through in the architecture in those ways?

>> i think good policy can be good politics. and let me give you an analogy. the dean mentioned a little over 20 years ago, i represented the united states in the negotiations for germany's unification. and i thought about that as you considered the events of the euro zone today because chancellor cole was the chancellor and founder of the monetary union and had a phrase which is that -- it's a quote from bismarck. so it's the notion that part of a good politician rising to a states person is somebody who is astute to recognize moment of the times and run with it. and if you go back to 1989, a lot of voices in germany that thought germany unification was

-- he moved with it. the euro zone is now at a similar stage and the time for muddling through is past. for the success of the euro zone and success of the countries and success of political leaders' legacy, they have to face some of the fundamental decisions that i talked about. and in the case of that particular -- you can address some of the issues with liquidity. but the fundamental choice to be made is, are you going to have a fiscal union that matches the monetary union ffment so, there are a lot of different ways that can be constructed. who will start to set out the design and in a case like europe, you have to bring along other parties. kole used the european commission and you have the european union to bring along and if you don't go that, then

are you ready for the consequences for those that are flailing. i could take the case of the united states. and i also took part in national elections and i understand the tactical and the short-term calculations. my own sense is that the lack of confidence that i started to refer to when i was in australia in august about economic leadership was the fact that people are looking for leaders to give them the straight story and some sense of direction. as i discussed in the case of the united states, having a lot of debates about cutting what technicians call the discretionary spending, the year-by-year annual budgets as opposed to dealing with the annual rate increase in entitlement programs, social security and health care programs. that isn't going to address the fundamental issue. if someone wants to send a

signal of direction about the future of the country, someone has to lead. part of the challenge of a good politician is knowing when to set out the leadership course and bring people along, but i would pose the alternative, if you muddle through and your economy continues to decline or euro zone moves to a crisis, that isn't good for politics or one's legacy. our question is important, because particularly here at a policy school, it's not pie in the sky design. i have spent my life in trade and security and other areas trying to come up with things that have a sense of strategy and how you build political support. i believe at this point in the international system, that's why i drew the analogy to 1944, this is the moment people have to do that. the rise of the emerging markets and there is potential there. there is huge potential in that

arrangement. by sticking your head in the sand, you aren't going to deal with the problem whether it's a company or a country. >> i'm a professor in the eliot school. and i would like to school -- >> what's your discipline? >> international development studies. could you talk about how you see the world bank restructuring itself and the policies that it's promoting in order to enable the achievement of your vision? >> well, i think the starting point is to recognize that while we are called bank, that our prime mare purpose is not -- primary purpose is not financial. as i alluded to, when the world bank group as an institution and we have private sector and public sector arms, it is able

to combine three activities. able to take knowledge, learning and experience. and be able to customize and help people come up with solutions. second, what zwishes us from the -- distinguishes us from the university and we can come up with a variety of different innovative forms of doing that. and our asset management preparation, private investment as well as public sector insurance and guarantees and other contingent arrangements, but third, we have done, say, almost $200 billion of commitments since the start of the financial crisis. big number within the larger scheme of things and not all that significant compared to trillions. what we have to try to do is use those projects and funds to have a lerged effect, to have an effect on building markets,

maybe domestic bond markets, micro finance markets, equity markets or institutions or capacity. and therefore, be able to leverage it further. now there is one other key aspect -- and to do that as an institution, we have to see ourselves as a problem-solving clan-oriented institution and the world bank has wonderful staff and has got incredibly trained people but one of the qualities i have been trying to encourage is that when a client has an issue, the job is not to annualize the problem but solve the problem. and this brings us to political economy. how do you transform and work with the leaders given the challenges and context they face. but another piece and this is

critically important for being old institutions created at the mid-20th century. >> what i was talking about this open date, open information issue. we have opened data sets, free of charge, opened up competition and this is connected the bank to people in ways we never would have foreseen before and it's also -- picks up on the notion of development. it is not a system with experts from fine universities just coming up with the right

solutions, but instead engaging people in the countries. and let me give you an example. we worked with google on a mapping system. so you can get on our seb site and we have this for our countries, 79 poorest and will have it for all the countries by the end of the year, you pull up a country and point your finger and learn the data about a certain project and before too long i want the interactivity so people with say, well this is what you think is happening. and this is the pest bay to get at government and corruption issues. >> got a student?

maybe here in the front. >> i'm a senior at the eliot school undergraduate program. in your speech you talked a lot about reform ating the world of multilaterals . what is your vision for the world bank? >> going back to my opening comments where i referred to the fact that in 1944, you created these three institutions, one for trade, one for reconstruction development and one for the monetary system. keep in mind when the bank was first created. the first loan was to france. and so it actually didn't start to work with developing countries for a few years so the whole model, the whole world economy and tried to talk about

is so different than today. in its most basic form, that was a system whereby the capital flows were limited and restricted and that people thought you needed to be able to have this external source of capital because you wouldn't get it locally. increasingly, the bank needs to see itself as part of a network system. so we may work with with the horn of africa. reconstruction today means the bottom billion, the broken sates, the afghanistans, the unique changes of integrating security development and governance and one reason i gave the speech was that i have been

in those different -- and i was surprised they didn't commune kite. the soldiers say we need to create jobs and they say it's not worthwhile, how do we connect these different pieces. that means working with as part of this network, not only the regional development banks but private sectors. it means working with n.g.o.'s. so in the last significant speech i gave before our spring meeting, i talked about how the bank needs to play a role in developing the civil society groups in some of these countries, which is a little different for the bank because we focused by our charter on support for the governments or through the private sector and looking at ways that we can be able to try and support some of the civil society groups though support the transparency and make the network differently. so we need to see ourselves as a

catalyst in a much different universe. to take this, when i came to the bank, the standard model for those who speak in financial services terms, we make loans or equity investments. i took the advice of the famous bank robber when asked why he robs banks and said that's where the money is. and we created an asset management corporation and have an equity fund of dwhrrs 1 billion and starting to do investments in africa and latin america and created other funds. so it recognizes the whole change of the financial world. if you think back and i recommend economic history to people, that would have been inconceivable in 1944, 1945,

1960, 1970. oil shock, where people were trying to take the oil money from the gulf states and put it back through major banks and lend it to latin america and that created a mess. these are the types of things where part of my message today is some of the principles that people talked about remain very important, but the world is changed. so how do you maintain the principles within a very different environment. there is always tendencies in any country tore stay well, we don't need these.

>> we have time for one more question. >> i'm on chinese student. my question is, if you talk about china being the responsible stake holder and i'm wondering from a chinese perspective what are the incentives to encourage china and what might be the factors that might not encourage china to be a responsible stake holder? >> good question. i was building off a speech that i gave in 2005 when i was at the u.s. government and i was talking about u.s. policy towards china and the theme of that speech was encouraging china to be a responsible stake holder. the core logic of that speech remains true today. china has had this incredibly successful growth about 10% a year over 30 years. and i had the good fortune of

visiting china in 1980 when i was living in hong kong and i have seen what an unbelievable difference it makes. when i visit china i try to get beyond meetings in beijing. last week i was in a northeast province and trying to get a feeling for different provinces. huge changes. but part of the message was that china benefited from this system that was created after world war ii. the whole logic of ping' opening was to leverage off this economic system and do it in a pragmatic way. so the first and perhaps core point is that china benefited from the security stability, trade and investment, foreign direct investment that created

jobs. so it had an interest, a self-interest? perpetrating but also adapting and modernizing that system. and as china grows larger and bigger part of the world economy, it's only more so. so what happens in the euro zone is going to affect what happens in china or the united states. now, this is true for china. but what is difficult and this is where the developed countries need to figure out with the developing countries the right balance or structure of this is that you still have 75% of the people earning under $2 and living in middle-income countries. when i go to china and talk about sharing responsibility, they say, yeah, but we have a lot of poor people to deal with and development challenges. that is a reasonable point, but at the same time, my sournt

point is that china has grown so successfully and so large that it can't ignore the role in the international system. beyond that, you have to take each issue, climate change, security policy, monetary affairs, but let me give you a very small and perhaps technical one, but shows how this can work in practice. we have a fund for the 79 poorest countries. and it gives grants or long-term loans without interest to the 79 poorest countries. because of that financing model, we have to replenish it every three years. you get money and get commitments for over three years. part of the money comes back from our own profits, part of it is reflows and contributions from developed countries. when i first became of the world bank in 2007, china, which no longer received these funds but

had been a recipient, made its first contribution, $35 million and this time, $130 million. for china, that's significant. britain and united states is at the $4 billion level. i went to the chinese authorities and said, it's a tough time to be raising donor assistance. it would help if china prepaid some of its funds from the past. so economically, it's not a big cost, but china is prepaying early. here is a way that we raised $49.3 billion for the fund and when you can make a couple billions or contributions to reflows, that's very helpful. this is a way in which an emerging market country can contribute in a slightly different fashion. part of the challenge -- we could go through other examples and climate change as well that

it's in the self-interest of china not to have heating that melts the glashe years and puts -- glaciers and it's in their interest tore been fit. china's self-interest to have open capital investment markets. and over time they will move an open capital account and one of the reasons i was in china is china believes it needs to make structural changes as i alluded to in this speech because it can no longer rely on thics port-led model and the structural model will make the currency changes. part of this -- the reason i got into a little detail here is i have talked in broad terms but hard detail work. and requires creativity. but, you know, look at world security history, economic

history, that is not totally new. and that's the challenge that faces developed countries but emerging markets as well. thank you. [applause] >> that was the tour du force. and one of the most important lessons you conveyed, a lot of the changes that are needed are not just the right thing to do but the smart thing to do. one can only hope that leaders around the world will lessen to this carefully. and i realize as president of the world bank, you have to give addresses at many locations around the world but in the future, the most environmentally friendly way for you to give a major address is to walk down the street and join us here at

the george washington university. [applause] >> on my behalf of my colleagues and our students and present you with this small token of great appreciation and admiration. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> many of you students have just started the year, one of the reasons i wanted to come here are the type of things i'm talking about are things i hope to work on and i'm sure the faculty will work on but whatever country you are from, china or others, you have this opportunity to be at world class university to focus on these questions. and the issues that i'm talking about are not just going to be decided by the chancellors and the presidents and prime ministers that are in office

today and these are going to be your issues in your questions. i think you have been blessed to have the opportunity to get the education you have had so far and be here but i like universities, because there is a great potential and power that comes from the next generation and one of the reasons i wanted to say these things is because they will be many of your challenges to address. so thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> new unbloiment figures show the jobless rate change unchanged at 7.9%. the prime minister addressed the new numbers during today's question time. this is just over 25 minutes. >> mr. speaker, today's figures shows that unemployment is up by 80,000. does the prime minister still think the british economy is out

of the danger zone? >> well, first of all, let me say these unemployment figures are disappointing. every lost job is a tragedy for that family and i want to do everything i can and this government will do everything it can to help those people back into work and that is why we have 365,000 apprenticeships starting this year, 10,000 extra university places and in the work program, we have the biggest back to work this country has seen since the 1930's. but at the same time, let me say to the right honorable gentleman, it is right we get on top of our debts and deficits. and today of all days shows the danger of getting into a position other european countries are in, where their whole correct is being questioned. . hole credibility is being questioned. >> ed >> youth unemployment is up by

78,000 on today's figures. even half that program. youth unemployment is up by 78,000 on today's figures. even after his work program has started. what young people and their families are asking is where are the jobs? >> the work program is the best way to help young people and indeed all people back into work. now, of course, as i've said these figures are disappointing but we shouldn't ignore the fact that since the election there are actually 500,000 more jobs in the private sector and employment over -- there are more people, 300,000 more people in work than there are a year ago. that is absolutely -- let me ju say to th honorable gentleman, there is not one ounce of complacency in this government about the need to do more to help people back to work. we have a growth plan, that includes cuts in corporation tax, freezing the council tax, cuts in petroduty, making sure

we have enterprise zones in every part of our country but in every week and in every month we'll be adding to that growth program so we help people get back to work. >> mr. speaker, he and his government are the buy word for complacency on unemployment and youth unemployment has lowered before his election and has risen. and women's unemployment is at its highest level since 1988. and, mr. speaker, he's making the situation worse by cutting the child care tax credit. how does it make sense when unemployment is rising for women to cut the support that helps them back into work? >> let me just remind the right honorable gentleman youth unemployment went up by 40% under the last government. 278,000 more young people unemployed when he was sitting

in the treasury and breaking our banking system and bankrupting our economy. that is what the people remember. now, when it comes to child care, what this government is doing and this first government to do it is making sure there's 15 hours of free child care for every 4-year-old and every 3-year-old and we've extended that to every 2-year-old and we've focused the tax credit system in the poorest people in the country so the child tax credits are going up by 290 pounds this year and next for those who need the most but let me just say to the honorable gentleman on a day when france and germany are meeting to stop greece go bankrupt, he must be the only person in the world who thinks you spend more to get out of a debt crisis. >> mr. speaker, it's no wonder he doesn't want to talk about the british economy and what's happening here because what's actually happening and not for the first time. and not for the first time he's wrong in what he says at the dispatch box.

youth unemployment was falling at the general election and now -- and now it is rising. now, why -- why is it not working, mr. speaker? the reason is because his claim and the chancellor's central claim that you could cut the public sector and the private sector would make up the difference isn't happening. for every -- for every two jobs, for every two jobs being cut in the public sector, less than one is being created in the private sector. isn't that the cleares sign yet that his policy just isn't working? >> so now we have it, mr. speaker, he wants to tell us about the golden inheritance left by the last government. the fact that theyompletely bust our banking system. the fact they doubled the national debt and the fact they gave us the biggest deficit we're recovering and he can't be consistent in one day. this is what he said yesterday

to the tuc. he said you cannot spend your way to a new economy. just 24 hours later and he's changed his tonight again. no wonder the labs exchequer said they have no credibility at all. >> mr. speaker, what an insult up and down the country who have lost their jobs. he doesn't -- he doesn't even try and answer the question about his central economic strategy to cut the public sector and make the private sector make up the difference. it's not -- it's not happening. and the truth is, mr. speaker, look at what's happened over the last year. britain has grown slower than any other eu country apart from portugal and romania. now, can the prime minister tell the country and tell the people who have lost their jobs what is he going to do differently over the last year -- over the nex year compared to what he did overhe last year? >> first of all, lee me correct his facts.

britain is growing faster than amera. that is something he doesn't choose to tell us. let me answer -- let me answer -- let me answer directly, let me answer directly -- >> order! the prime minister's answers must be heard. the prime minister? >> let me answer directly this point about unemployment in the public sector. it is -- all governments right now are having to take difficult decisions about cutting public spending. anyone sitting here will have t make those decisions. this government is reducing the welfare bill. if we weren't taking those steps, you'd have to make deeper cuts in terms of the rest of the public sector. he would be having even more unemployment in the public seor. that is the truth. when is he going to learn what i thought he said yesterday, you cannot spend your way to a new economy. is that still his view 24 hours later? >> mr. speaker, so the message to all those people who have

lost their jobs is the prime minister is not going to change course. the chancellor of the exchequer has lashed himself to the ma. [applause] >> not for the first time perhaps. mr. speaker, mr. speaker, youth unemployment is at its highest level for 19 years. women's unemployment is at its highest level for 23 years. the highest level since the last time there was a tory government. it turns out h's just like all the others. for him unemployment is a price worth paying. >> it is this government that's cutting corporation tax, that's frozen the council tax, that cut the petroduty that started the regional growth fund, that ended labour's jobs attacks that has the biggest apprentice job and it's cut spending when labour left. the truth is, mr. speaker, it was the last government that

robbed young people of their future by climbing up the debt. it is this government that's going to deal with our debts and give them back o future. >> chris hopkins. >> thank you, mr. speaker, the prime minister will be aware that the consultation on the draft national policy framework will come to end next month. committee confirm that the government's proposals will ensure that local residents will be able to fall far from the decision-making and important green spaces will retain their existing protection and that this will not become a developer's charter? >> i can certainly give him that assurance. the fact is we do need reform. the current system is too slow, too brewer crattic and it doesn't give local people enough of a say and we're replacing a vast bureaucratic guide with something that's much shorter. local development plans will mean that local communities and local people have a far greater

say in what is developed and where. and we are not changing the rules on national rks, on green belts objects areas outstanding natural beauty. but let me just say this to everyone in the house because, i believe, there should be cross-party support on this issue. today -- today the first time buyer -- today, the first time buyer with no support from their family is aged 37. i think that is wrong. we do need to build more houses to help more people get on the housing ladder. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last week, the prime minister told this house there are 25,000 police officers in back-office jobs but the her majesty's services say there's less than 8,000 police officers and back-office roles. mr. speaker, week after week this house hears a litany of evasion, inaccurate answers and arrogant putdowns on the prime minister. we want a proper answer. but let's give the prime

nister a chance today. is it the inspectiat or is it the prime minister. we won't get an honest. >> i think the honorable is confusing two things. andhat is -- that is the number of police officers who en't on front line duties and the number of police officers who are actually in back-office roles like i.t. or h.r. those are the figures that i gave. those are the figures that i write. and what is so complacent about the party opposite is they're not prepared to consider any reforms to try to get more police onto the front line onto our streets. >> dr. sarah wallaceston. >> i know the prime minister is serious about tackling violent crime, aisocial behavior and over million alcohol-related conditions. will he meet with me that we need to go further of minimum pricing, availability and particularly the marketing of alcohol to young people?

>> i'm very happy to meet with the honorable lady who has made a lot of speeches and written a lot of articles about this issue, about which she feels passionate and i think she is right in many ways that actually there's a problem of binge drinking in our country. a lot of it is related to very low cost alcohol continuing in supermarkets. may it please to see is an end of that deep discounting rather than perhaps the way forward that she suggests but i'm very happy to mee and discuss this issue. >> a poll last week showed that 68% of scots want oil revenues devolved to scotland. does the prime minister agree with 68% of scots or he doesn't? [laughter] >> well, if you ask a stupid question you get a stupid answer. [laughter] >> the fact is, the whole of the

united kingdom rightly has invested in the north sea, the whole of the united kingdom should benefit from the north sea. and i think we should do everything possible to keep the united kingdom together because we are stronger. england, scotland, northern ireland, wales than we ever would be separately. >> does the prime minister agree with me that we need more women on corporate boards? >> i completely agree with the honorable lady. the current figures are simply not good enough. only 14% of 100 company directors are women. we should do far better. we have some experience from the problems - the problems we had in our own party and the need to take much me proactive action to make sure we have a better balance at the top of politics. we need a muchetr balance at the top of our board rooms as well. >> aren't the most vulnerable people in the care of the health service -- those silent voices

who live in residential homes -- will he express his regret that under his watch, we hear today the reduction in the number of inspections which three-quarters a 70% reduction because money was moved from inspection to bureaucracy? doesn't this again prove that the national health service is not safe in the hands of the party? >> i think the health select committee report that is released today makes a very important point about the future and the work of the care quality commission. i think it is important that it focuses on inspections and making sure that standards are high rather than simply on a process of registration and bureaucracy. i look forward to seeing the government's response to it but i think it's a very good report. >> sir peter tapsel. >> was my right honorable friend taught at whatever school he

happened to attend that one of the key functions of parliament over the centuries has been to diminish what the historians have called the overmighty subject? in the 18th century -- [laughter] >> i want to hear the honorable gentleman's views about the 18th century. [lghter] >> in the 18th ceury, it was the indianabobs announced by edmond burke. in the 19th century, it was the ruthless industrialists humanized, in the 20th century it was the trade union leaders tamed by lady thatcher.

toda the almighty subject is the bankers. >> here, here. >> in the united states, the federal authorities are precuting a wide swath of the top banks. when is that going to happen here? >> well, first of all, the right honorable gentleman obviously had a much better education that is apparent -- it's very good to hear him say something positive about margaret thatcher. i think the serious point the right honorable gentleman is making we do need to cede responsibility from our nkers. i support of what vickers said in terms of reforms that we need. if people break the law, no matter where they come from or who they are, they should face

the consequences and be punished. >> thank u, mr. spear. what does the prime minister think of local authorities encouraging developers to put applications not on greenbelt but on greenfield sides in order to use the new homes bonus to balance their budgets? >> well, i have the completely original and shockin views that they should be for local people and local authorities. i think in the past we had far too much top-down central direction. i think people should make up their own mind through their local council about what planning should take place and where. that's the agenda this government is going to follow. thank youery much, mr. speaker. i'm sure my right honorable friend would have noted the very sound advice recently that the government should operate effectively there should be unity at the top. with this in mind could you assure the house and the country that he suld not rewrite a buet 14 hours before it's due?

>> i can confirm that these discussions these days take place in a proper way. and they take place between the two partners in the coalition and it's not a battle between numbers 10 and 11 and i have also to say that when i have a meeting with the chancellor of exchequer it's nothing like going to the dentist and there's no reason to have anesthetic. >> i'm sure all parties in the house have convicted fraudster michael brown has been living under the pseudonym in the republic of dominica. unfortunately, mr. speaker, we have no treaty with that country. can the prime minister tell the house what steps thisovernment is taking to bring mr. bound back to face justice? >> well, we like to extend the countries that we have these treaties with and i will certainly look in the case of the dominican case and get back to the honorable gentleman. and while we're at it, perhaps we could have a search for the individual donor to the labour

party. i agree there was only one and his name was alistar campbell. >> thank you, mr. speaker. will the prime minister join me in congratulating the football club who in partnership with the university have delivered the first university of football business in the u.k. which has generated immense interest among the young people of the u.k. and across europe? >> i will happily join my honorable friend in praising the work of the football club. i've been very struck in this job of the privilege you get of seeing different football clubs working not just on their own football skills but inspiring young people not only here but as i saw in south africa in other countries as ll. i think there's a huge role for football t help change people's lives and i fully support what our clubs do. >> mark hendricks.

>> can the prime minister confirm that the winter fuel allowance this ye will be 50 pounds less for the over 60s and 100 pounds less for the over-80s. >> what i can confirm that that payment will be exactly as set out by labour in their march budget, a budget that he supported. but at the same time the increase in the cold weather payments is actually going to be maintained throughout this apartment. -- apartment. >> sadly, the cost of new regulations put on businesses under the previous government amount to a staggering 90 billion pounds a year. can my right honorable friend tell what this government is doing on tackling that unacceptable burden in terms of regulation. >> so what this government does specifically on the reta sectors we've already removed 257 regulations.

we have the new in one out one so any a staggering0 billion pounds a enough money p to small businesses. that is why we put in the merlin agreement in place and banking is not going down as the shadow chancellor is wrong about everything even when he is sending down. bank lending is actually going up. >> of the headquarters in my constituency, perfectly situated to take the green investment bank with the move from derby to the post office sorting center and the evaluation offices and with the closure of 70 jobs and the potential closure of bombardier would the prime minister encourage thinks secretaries of state to look at sending more civil service jobs to derbyshire so that we can have more employment in the area? >> well, the honorable lady

makes an important point and i know there are real concerns because of what's happened at bombardier. and l me say this on the issue of the agreement investment bank i know there will be many bids from many parts of the country to house this excellent institution. on the issue of bombardier let me just say this. i think it's encouraging to hear that they are looking at the possibilit of upgrading an existing set of diesel trains runng them to use electric power. the fact is about the previous contract we've discussed this in the house before. it was established by the last government. we had to follow those instructions. that's why that contract had to be awarded elsewhere but we are looking to the future of bombardier and the future of derby and we want to make sure it's a bright future. >> chris williamson. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last week the prime minister told the honorable member for south derbyshire that he would do everything to help bombardier but the industry is hanging in a balance as a result of a plan to

build planes in germany rather than in derby. so can i ask the pme minister if he will meet me and a across party group from derby so he can discuss to review the contract and it's possible to review it in order to secure the future of the british train building industry and keep bombardier in great britain. >> we want to keep bombardier in great britain and working. and that's why i said to my honorable friend that there should be a new activity but we are putting a lot of investment in our our real industry. 14 billion pounds into network grant for network rail, 3.8 billion for cross-rail, 750 million for high-speed too. this i a government that wants to do more for our railway industry and wants to do more for bombardier after they were so badly let down by the last government. >> thank you, mr. eaker. the campaign is on the right to get rid of the 50 pence tax rate. those on the left want to juggle

with the a.t. will the fair and most aggressive way to maintain confidence in the economy to accelerate the process of raising the tax threshold to 10,000 pounds? >> what we have made -- i'm grateful to my honorable friend to his question. that we have raised the personal allowance significantly in our budgets. we've taken over a million people out of tax all together. we're committed to going further. on the 50p tax let me just say i think we should look at the evidence of this. we're going to find out soon just how much money this tax is raising. let's look and see whether it is a good way of raising money or not. >> prime minister, when the current riots hit our borough on that terrible monay night, there were at most 100 police officers on the streets including some very young community support officers facing mobs hundreds and hundreds strong, the result being that my borough was undefended. it was burnt. it was looted. now, can i put it to the prime minister -- not as a partisan

point, but as a sensible point, that when the facts -- when the criminal facts change in england following the riots, a sensible government would pause for thought and change its mind and the last thing it would do is reduce police numbers? >> well, first of all, let me say i came to visit there and met with him and met with a number of people who had seen some shocking things happen in that borough that must not be allowed to happen again but let me say to him even after the changes we're making in police funding, the police will be able to surge in a way that they did in several areas. the problem -- the problem on the night of the riots was that surge didn't take place soon enough. and i think he's confusing the response to the riots in the immediate circumstances and what's happening to police funding. the police havessured me they will be able to deliver as many police onto the streets of london as they did when they got control of the riots. >> zach goldsmith.

>> mr. speaker, following a question from the honorable member, would the prime minister agree to meet organizations like the cpra, the national trust and so on to reaure them and their millions of members that the proposed changes to the planning system don't represent a blank check for the development? >> well, i'm very happy to meet anyone to discuss this. and i know that the national trust -- i know that the national trust -- the national trust have specifically met already with the planning minister the right honorable member and havehad a lot of reassurances about what these planning changes mean. and let me just say it again, because we're going to have stronger local plans, that gives local people a greater ability to decide what's in the local plan and what's out of the local plan. at the same time, having a presumption in favor of sustainable development will cut another bureaucracy in our system but we're not changing the rules for greenbelt, for anob's, for special scientific inrests and all the rest of it

and i do think people need to focus on that because what we need to happen is sensible sustainable development too ahead without the bureaucracy and the top-down systemoday but with all the reassurances people need. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last week the prime minister told this house that a number of young people not in education employment or training was coming down. in actual fact the public figures show the last three-quarters it has risen. will the prime minister like the opportunity to correct the record? >> i think what he'll find the number of 16 to 18 years old who are not in employment education or training has come down. and indeed they have come down. and that is a step forward but if you look at the overall number of youth unemployment [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> a solar panel manufacturing company filed for bankruptcy last week. the head of the energy department loan program said

that if the u.s. government withdraws support for domestic clean energy ventures, it would be impossible to keep up with foreign competitors. >> we are competing with countries around the world who see this as one of the largest industrial sectors and industrial opportunities of the next generation and if we seed the field, if we walk off the field, there is no way that we can succeed because these industries are different in kind than perhaps the software industry. you need platform companies here in order to be able to succeed. as i pointed out earlier in my testimony, five of the largest solar panel companies are in china. seven are in asia. the eighth is in europe. and there are only two here. >> more from this hearing tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> a group of self-described moderate and fiscally conservative democrats known as the house blue dog coalition today urged the joint deficit

reduction committee to take a bipartisan approach toward reducing the nation's debt that that would include tax and retirement reform. their briefing is 30 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. i would like to thank you for giving us this opportunity to express the blue dog's opinion on the fiscal supercommission. the ways in which he can can better the lives of the american people, do what's right for the american people, put the political party as i side. it's about the sensible middle , it's about stability and confidence in the market. how to create jobs, when you have a type of commitment that this group has shown over the years, this is not something

that has just been a commitment and been fashionable in the last six months or the last year because it's the fashionable statement to make. this has been a commitment that the blue dogs have had for over a decade. and we know that it's time for the american people to have leaders like this stand up for them, not the political parties, but stand up for what is right. so it gives me great privilege to introduce john barrow from georgia, our policy co-chair, will talk to you about the policies that we have looked at, constructive, but also talk about a letter that we'll be sending to the supercommittee. >> thank you. >> john. >> morning, y'all. my name is john barrow. i'm a congressman from georgia's 12th district and a co-chair for the policy of blue dog coalition. since the blue dogs were founded back in 1995 the

principles that have united us have been a commitment to getting our nation's fiscal house back in order. by balancing the budget and bringing down the national debt. those are the principle wes started with and they have united and guy guided us ever since. that's what we started with and that's where we are right now. now, there are a lot of uncertainties out there facing the business community right now. tax uncertainty, regulatory uncertainty, economic uncertainty. we blue dogs believe we're not going to be able to address any of these uncertainties unless we address the fiscal uncertainty posed by unsustainable deficit spending and an exploding national debt. unless we get that under control we can't effectively address any of the other uncertainties facing the business community today. that's why we've apointed a task force of fiscal responsibility to address policies and develop policies that will help deal with the fiscal uncertainty posed by our nation's finances, our government's finances. under the leadership of chairman kurt schrader of oregon and vice chairman jim of tennessee, we're developing

policies that will address the fiscal uncertainty facing our country. they're going to be addressing this issue presently but right now i want to tush the floor over to our co-chair for communications, mr. mike ross of arkansas. mike. >> thanks, john. you know, the blue dogs have districts all across the country. we continue to hear one consistent message from our constituents. quit putting party before country and get to work to do what's in the best interest of the people of this country. in all my years in public service i have never seen the public discourse so hostile. and i blame congress for that. members of the house have become so backed into their respective corners, so blindly intolerant of one another it has made having even a simple conversation across the aisle nearly impossible. this extreme bipartisan or i

should say this extreme partisanship is not what the american people expect out of their elected officials and it has got to come to an end. the national debt is the single biggest threat to our economic and national security. those of who you know the blue dogs know that we have been talking about this for over 15 years. it is time for members on both sides of the aisle to stop playing lip service to bipartisanship and get to work, to come up with a compromise that puts us on a path to a better future. a compromise that puts country before party. as blue dogs our goal is to encourage the members of the supercommittee to call a time-out on the 2012 elections. at least long enough to do what is in the best interest of this country and we urge all members of congress to do the same. i'd now like to turn over to my colleague, kurt schrader, who

chairs the blue dog task force on fiscal responsibility. >> thanks, mike. as he said, you know, we've been talking about this for a long time as blue dogs and i think our basic message besides working together, which is the message i think each and every one of us is hearing back home more than thing else, the anger isn't toward any particular policy but it's toward we can't get it when america's suffering, we're not working together, is what are you going to work on? our message to the supercommittee is, if you just do what you've been legislated to do, it's not going to cut the mustard. it's not going to be nearly enough. you have to go big. you have to do what the blue dog blueprint talks about which is getting close to that $4 trillion figure in savings and revenues to balance the budget at the end of the day. s&p 500, moodies he is -- mood yes, sir -- moody's, they're all going to downgrade us at the end of the day. the entitlement systems are in grave danger right now. week of got to really talk about more than just our

discretionary programs which are, you know, 1/3 of the budget right now. they've got to go bigger than anything that's expected of them and this will be a real, i think a real statement about whether this congress has america's back at the end of the day, are we going to make it worse or better for businesses in this country to invest in america? given the mess in europe right now, if we step up in novak and do the right thing and go big, solve our problems, put everything on the table including process reforms, i think that's a huge confidence message, you just heard mike talking about a moment ago, that gets businesses off the sideline, making the investments and really creating the jobs that this president's talking about. with that, the most experienced member of the blue dogs, is jim cooper. >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to be here. i'm jim cooper from tennessee's fifth congressional district. this is a very rare moment in american history. this is a moment when the supercommittee can either come up with a solution or force us

into across the board sequestration. it's very important, as they just said, that the supercommittee go big, do more than the law requires, put us on the path toward a $4 trillion solution, much as the boles simpson commission recommended that we do. sequestration, the default position, would not be nearly so large a solution and it would be an arbitrary solution. so the supercommittee has a heavy responsibility to come up with what will have to be, since it's 6-6, a bipartisan answer to our problems and come up with that by thanksgiving and then have house passage by christmas. but that is so much more preferable to sequestration, that we must encourage them. that's what our letter does, say that blue dogs will be willing to step up and do the

right thing for the country. so thank you for being here and we're trying, even in this hyperpartisan environment, to put the country first, not political party, to try to make sure that we get a fiscal solution to our problems now when we have the opportunity to do so. so, i appreciate your being here, look forward to your questions. thanks. >> any questions? >> [inaudible] sent up to the congress earlier this evening? what do you think of the idea of spending more to stimulate job creation in the near term and then maybe set more fiscal austerities -- >> we think any jobs package should be paid for. but we're not, you know, we're not here to talk about a specific piece of legislation. that is a small part of what

we're talking about. you're talking about a $450 billion jobs program and, yes, it should be paid for but we're here to talk about cutting government spending, $4 trillion. we're here to urge the supercommittee to go big. and to call a time-out on the 2012 elections and let's put country before party. rarely do you have the american people as focused as they are now on the deficits and the debt. and it's a real opportunity with the supercommittee and with the focus of the american people on the deficits and the debt to really not just kick the can down the road but solve this problem not only for our generation but for future generations. we can do this. and so that's what we're really here to talk about. in terms of jobs, i think i can speak for all of us, we're for creating more jobs. >> elections yesterday in nevada and new york in which

your party suffered some pretty big losses. republicans are casting vote as the referendum on the president's leadership on the economy and national democrats, you know, -- [inaudible] >> special elections last time and look what happened. maybe we're going to do great this coming season. >> what message do you all take from that? >> i don't think it's any shock that we lost the race in nevada and i don't think it's too big a shock that we lost the race in new york. i'll leave that to the political pundits to analyze but i think we all know that there were a lot of local issues, if you will, involved in the outcome of the election yesterday in new york. i'm sure the republicans are going to want to spin it, that this is, you know, another example of it's going to be bad year for the president, bad year for democrats. i would disagree, again, if you look at nevada, i think most people would tell you it was going to go republican and have a republican congressman in it. new york, there were a lot of local issues involved in that, in my opinion.

>> one issue that came up in new york is that the republican candidate said he would defend social security and medicare and said that because the president had been talking about reform, that we had to change the system, there really wasn't a difference between the parties. are we talking about putting politics on hold, how do democrats differentiate themselves on entitlements if the promise is, we also are going to start scaling back entitlements? >> i think everything is on the table. we cannot not have an increase of revenues the way the fiscal commission had proposed. it was a lower the rate and broaden the base. and you can't do it without some type of reform and entitlements. we're going to be kidding ourselves. you'll be lying to the american people if you think you can do it any other way. you can't do it without putting everything on the table. and that's far too often the problem that we have in this country. even as news media, it's a much easier to put an extreme right person and extreme left person on tv, split the screen and let them fight about it.

that's great entertainment. but the american people needed to hear the truth. the truth about what we need to do as a country and as members of congress, you know, at the end of the day jim cooper said this four years ago. there's no truer statement that could have been made. he says, we'll all do what is right for the american people first, even if it costs us our jobs. 10 years from now they'll say that was the greatest congress to have ever served. think about that. that's what we have to get to as a nation. and as members of congress. we are leaders. we're trying to lead here, when everyone else is running into their political corners. everything has to be on the table. >> you spoke about cutting spending $4 trillion. are you guys at odds with each other on revenues?

>> no. >> you said everything should be on the table. >> well, let me clarify. when i say we need to cut $4 trillion in spending, we need -- that would include tax reform. there's something wrong with a system where some corporations are paying zero percent in corporate taxes and others are paying 30%, 40% in corporate taxes. we need tax reform, obviously that would be included in the $4 trillion. in terms of social security and medicare, look, no one wants to -- no one is going to vote to cut benefits for seniors and for folks who are near medicare, social security eligibility age. democrat or republican. no one's going to do that. politically it would be suicide. and the fact is that we've got to reform the system to ensure they're there for my children and grandchildren while protecting the basic benefits that are provided to seniors today and seniors that will be coming online in the next few

years. i don't think either party, i'm sure in the fall of 2012 you're going to see a lot of elections where one party's accusing the other one of trying to cut grandma's social security check but i'm here to tell that you neither political party is going to do that. the fact is social security keeps half the seniors in america out of poverty. so what happens if they don't have a social security check? they fall below poverty, therefore they qualify for food stamps, housing assistance, utility assistance, the list goes on and on. it could very well end up costing the government more which means it wouldn't have a net effect in terms of a reduction. i'm sure in the heat of next years' election there's going to be a lot of games played on social security and medicare. let me be real clear, blue dogs, democrats and republicans in my opinion, no one is talking about cutting benefits for seniors today and those near retirement. we're talking about reforming the program for our children and our grandchildren to ensure the solvency of it a long time and ensure it's there for them

as well. and i think it's very important that we make that point and i would call on the leaders of both parties to not make this an issue in the next election. >> could you talk a little bit about the specific proposal about medicare and medicaid that you support and specifically would you -- would one of them be raising the eligibility age to 67? that's something that's come up over and over again. >> most budget experts will tell you that 2/3 of our long-term budget problems are health program related. remember where we are in this debate. many americans don't really realize that medicare is a government program. and all kidding aside, you know, many of us here regularly back home keep government out of my medicare. so we have to start first with diagnosing the problem, helping

all americans understand the true nature of the program. so we have a lot of work to do in that regard, many people think that social security and medicare are bank account programs and the money that they've paid in is stored up in their name just for them. that is a widespread misconception. there's a lot we can do to help people understand that the payroll taxes they pay in this month are paid out next month to somebody they've never met. a complete stranger. getting an idea of pay in and then your return on your investment in these programs is another important feature. so we have a lot of work to do as a congress and as a media to help folks understand these programs. there's another huge set of issues having to do with government accounting. and we put most of these precious vital programs on the government credit card. as opposed to treating them in the regular budget process. a further issue has to do with

the legal treatment of these programs. are these vested benefits, are these contractual benefits? well it urns out they're not. legally they're not even promises. they're scheduled benefits. and most americans are not aware of that. so we have a lot of work to do here as a congress to start getting people's heads in the game, to understand the true nature of the dilemma. i think once americans see how large the problem is, we'll be much closer to a solution. once you have accurate diagnosis, the treatment options are then almost obvious. but right now we're not even close to an accurate diagnosis. >> [inaudible] >> the letter's already been drafted, i think it's been sent. we have countless private conversations with members of the supercommittee and members of congress in general to help them focus on these because unless you're on the committee of jurisdiction and unless you've take an couple months off to study this, these are very difficult issues. that's why they haven't been solved in the past. that's why this generation of

elected officials needs to step up and do the right thing. >> out of the 12 members, i mean, who are more likely to have a difficult race? these members of congress or those 12? that's pretty easy to realize that we've got a lot -- that we're willing to step forward and leap and we're asking them to follow us. >> do you think that was a problem then in the special election? you're talking about these upcoming elections but we're definitely still dealing with the fallout from last night. >> i think it's just -- in general, i mean, the american people, not the fringes, i'm not talking about that far right 10% and the far left 10%. 80% of america has really had a belly full of this partisanship and they've had a belly full of what's happening in washington and they need to hear from the sensible middle. they need to hear from the

members of the blue dog cause. they need to hear from the tuesday group. that's where 80% of the american people is. it's just unfortunate that 80% of the american people's view point is in a small room in a small caucus. because we only are electing the fringe groups. >> [inaudible] >> every single race individually, we all went through difficult races last time. and all of us came out substantially ahead at the end of the last year's election i'm so cycle so it gets down to each candidate and every single district and when you represent your district right and you make sure that the the folks in your district know that you're working for them and not the political parties, you get re-elected. >> following up on that, are you confident that the exotigs of the -- composition of the supercommittee is going to allow them to reach this kind of agreement? there's not blue dogs on the committee, a lot of these people represent the bases of their parties. >> if the blue dogs were the 12

, he would have a solution, the economy would be strong, it would be vibrant, the stability would be there, the economy would be rebounding, the trillions of dollars that's sitting in the business world today, the uncertainty would be back in the game. and we wish that we were on that committee. at least one of us. >> if you'd had members of the blue dogs and members of the tuesday group on the supercommittee, i'm confident that they could have gone big and really solved this problem few future generations. our concern and the reason for our letter is because of the political makeup of the folks on the committee, we're concerned that they're going to take their orders from their national party leaders and release it down and call a tuth of the 2012 elections like we're asking them to do. >> yesterday and yesterday's hearing we saw democrats on the committee saying the same old thing, that the bush tax cuts, the wars in iraq and afghanistan.

we heard republicans saying -- [inaudible] runaway spending. there was no sense that i saw yesterday of willingness to tackle the way forward -- >> you can help us by getting our message out. that's exactly why we're here. >> [inaudible]. pay fors that the president proposes, pieces of tax increases. >> we haven't taken an official position. obviously we're still seeing the details as they're rolled out. i would not call corporate tax reform a tax increase. i would call it bringing fairness and equity to the system. >> [inaudible]. >> we're waiting to see it all and have a chance to review it. i think he's rolling out more

of the pay fors in the next few days as i understand it. >> is the joint committee the proper place to find those pay fors, the way the white house suggested or should it be focused just on -- [inaudible] >> well, i'm not so sure that that's the bottom line. the bottom line is everything's going to be going into the supercommittee's bill at the end of the day. you know that and i know that. whether it's the proper place to have individual piecemeal approaches, i don't think that's what the president's talked about. the president's jobs package is about instilling confidence. there's a mixed media message i think going to folks back home. they're not sure, are we paying attention to their plights and at the end of the day what's in, what gets passed a at the end of the day in the president's job package isn't as important as the fact that we're talking about it and boehner and cantor at least on the surface seem to be wanting to do something with the president. that's the type of confidence we're trying to instill in this

supercommittee. to make sure that we're working together apt the end of the day. they're going to posture and come out with their rhetorical statements to start with. that's just politics 101 here in washington, d.c. but as everyone's talking about, at the end of the day our job is to put pressure on them. our job is to talk to our responsibility colleagues on the other side of the aisle that want to solve these problems. ain't going big is a win -- i think going big is a win for both sides at the end of the day. we can take our respective messages home, america is greater for it. that's the second level of confidence that we instill in the economy, get those trillions of dollars off the sideline. you need the package deal of total tax reform. i think the republicans, joe sixpack republican buys in, the companies, big and small, buy into reducing the tax rates, get rid of these tax breaks that don't make america more competitive, look at them more critically and give it to the committees of jurisdiction to figure it out. they're the smart people that have been around, don't want to offend people who have expertise, and let them work through that. i don't think it's our job as

blue dogs to dictate our particular prescription. we'd leave that to the left and right fringe groups. we're here trying to get the ball down the field. >> later today the house is going to vote on the resolution of disapproval for the raising of the debt ceiling, i'm wondering, how do you feel on that today? >> i think that's left up to each individual member. i don't think the caucus, we have not taken a position on that. each member will be able to vote the way he or she sees, what's best for their district. >> [inaudible]. and yesterday house republicans rolled out this effort, making the case that a b.b.a. would help spur job creation. do yao all agree with that? >> we released our balanced budget amendment that we have had. it's actually saw pretty good reviews from both the republicans and democrats. so if there's anything out there, let's take the moderate approach that the blue dogs have put forth. when it was not the fashionable thing to do, now that

everyone's running to get their proposal, we've had this out for how many years now? 15 years now. so it was very -- it's very fashionable to have these proposals, where were you 15 years ago? >> the blue dogs were pedaling balanced budget amendments when they weren't cool. >> you mentioned that you all are in competitive races, many are already pointing to the president's low approval rating as a drag on the democratic candidates in new york. how concerned are you about obama being at the -- [inaudible] >> i think i've done a pretty good job of representing my district. constituent services within my district. and he lost my district last time. >> the president will have any effect on democrats on the ticket? >> i think in districts that those members have not worked to represent their constituents the way they should and wanted to be represented, it may be

difficult for some of them. but i don't think our blue dogs i think our blue dogs have showed our independence and that's how we can -- that's the way we will be successful again in this next election cycle. we've shown our independence. we are given what the american people is asking for, not what the political parties are asking for. >> one thing that never shows up on stories on that, i'd like to make a point on, there's always stories about if the president doesn't do well in a conservative, moderate-leaning district, then that member can be in trouble. look, the people are going to vote against these guys because they're on the same ballot as the president, the folks that are going to vote against them for that reason were going to vote against them anyway. the part that never gets written about, take my district, i'm not running again, but being on a ballot with the president had nothing to do with my decision. just take my district, for example. i was fortunate, won by 18%

last year. and yet if you looked at 2008 which was a presidential year, with obama on the ticket, versus 2010, a nonpresidential year, there were 58,000 fewer votes cast in 2010 than 2008. that's going to be 58,000 more people voting in arkansas' fourth congressional district next year and i can promise you it wasn't republicans and tea party folks staying home last year and you know that. jefferson county, heavily african-american, heavily democratic. 10,000 less votes in 2010 versus 2008. and i think that gets missed and so i also think some advantages come to those of us in swing districts running in a presidential election year. >> balanced budget amendment. the republican argument is this is a good discussion to have right now as we talk about job creation. is the balanced budget amendment discussion -- is that related to job creation at all? or is that a distraction of the moment? >> just speaking for myself, i think the balanced budget amendment is a very powerful

symbol, a lot of americans don't trust congress and the balanced budget amendment is a way of taking it beyond congress' control. many people have not examined the details of it. i think in general it would bolster confidence that congress will over time start doing the right thing again. until we restore that confidence in congress america's in jeopardy. because right now there's a terrific loss of faith, i don't need to tell you that. our congressional poll ratings are at all-time lows. people see us on tv and they don't think we're putting the country first. well at least blue dogs this small group of individuals, is trying to put the country first. and i think the tuesday group is trying to do the same thing. there are other good-hearted men and women, general j back benchers, who are trying to do the right thing. they need to come to the fore so the country's interests are put first. >> you all watched the committee's work yesterday, the committee's hearing yesterday.

what did you take away from it as far as their ability to reach any sort of deal or big deal and where do you see signs of hope and where do you see signs of desertion? >> they're just starting their activities. there's always going to be posturing in the first hearing or two. i think we all need to pray for a miracle that one or more of them is willing to consider the argument on the other side and do the right thing. there's a solution to be had, the bowls simpson commission was not perfect at all but they got a 60% consensus, they got everything from senator dick durbin to senator tomko burn to sign onto the same general plan. was that possible six or eight months ago, it should be possible now. that's the large solution, that's the $4 trillion solution that paul has said, among others, really should be the minimum we consider. that's what we're going to try to encourage them to do, to get together, privately at first, and then have a big public announcement before thanksgiving, to put the

country first. >> what kind of enforcement mechanisms do they need to make sure that it stays in place over the coming years? i think there were some concerns expressed yesterday that in the past when deals have been struck it's been sort of whittled away. >> i don't want to talk too much. part what have they should do is be up front about enforcement. if the committee deadlocks and is unable to decide and automatic across the board d sequestration kicks in, those sequestration cuts don't happen until january, 2013. after the next election when there will be a new congress and possibly a new president. so that looks kind of fake. is that a real cut if you're not willing to cut while you're on duty in -- duty? so this is something the supercommittee can bring up and start giving america faith today that we're sincere in the cuts that we're asking for. and the other budgetary changes

that are a long overdue. so that's why i said it's a very important moment in american history. 12 people can step up. they need our help behind them and that's what we're trying to offer today. they probably need some of your help. if someone were to break ranks with the other party, would they be vilified or would they be honored? a lot of folks in their own minds are trying to make that decision right now. and they're worried they'd be vilified. >> last question. >> that's why this guy should be the director of o.m.b. >> given the current fiscal situation in the united states, would you advise more stimulus spending as the president is proposing in his jobs plan? >> that was the last question, the one before. [laughter] >> it's not a -- my personal opinion is, in order to create jobs it has to be about confidence and really the way