business owners, at the car dealership, talking to people who are really making our economy run, what i call the frontlines of our economy. ground zero for economic development. but the challenges that they face are no different in colorado than they are in wisconsin or new york or arkansas. because we have people who expect this congress this administration to work together, to create jobs, to create opportunities. to get people back to work. this morning when i left the house i drove by some farmers who were picking corn out in the field, the pile of sugar beats is getting bigger right outside of town, as people are digging sugar beats, you head up to northern colorado, early in the morning you see the drilling rigs leave town, going out to find a new place to start their drilling operation. closer to fort collins, colorado, you see the truckings hauling the blades of new wind turbines, people are work each and every day to put food on the table for their family but they're wondering what's

happening in washington, d.c., they're wondering what's going on, why can't you guys do what we do and that is when the times get tough, we find a solution, we find an answer, we do the right thing. well, the forgotten 15 is our way to do just that. we have passed a number of bills to get this country back to work to make sure our country's job creators have the policies they need to expand their businesses to grow their opportunity to put people back to work. i had a chance the other day to meet with a number of business owners, a number of employees at a coffee shop in my district. there were probably 15 people around the table and we were talking about what's happening to this country from a debt perspective, from an economic perspective, the fact that we are now in the 32nd month where unemployment has exceeded 8%. and what we could do as a country to move forward again. and the waitress was coming in an out, helping people at the table, taking orders, putting

food on the table. after we ate, i starred to walk out she came up and said, i heard what you said in there. and who are you. i said thanks for stopping me. who are you? i represent the eastern plains of colorado in congress. and she said, how can i help get the message that you were talking about, how can i help get that message around town, around the district, what can we do to get your message of job creation of freeing up small businesses to do the right thing? i said, it's going to take everybody to send those letters to the editor, to make sure that we are talking about to all our elected official the city councils, other members of congress, about the fact that regulations can hurt job creation, that taxes when they increase can hurt small businesses' ability to grow and expand. make sure you're expressing that, telling them that.

make sure you're talking about america's job creators, our idea, the republican plan for job creation. what we're doing to -- going to do to get the job creation moving again. one of the forgotten 15 is a bill i introduced, passed, it's the jobs and energy permitting act, h.r. 2021. it passed on june 22, 2011, it passed with 255 votes in support. there aren't 255 plups in the house of representatives. it took both democrats and republicans to get to 255 votes that bill if it were to become law would create 54,000 jobs around this country. 54,000 good-paying jobs around this country. it's been introduced in the senate with a bipartisan group of sponsor bus it hasn't been acted on yet. the recusing -- reducing regulatory burdens act, something that farmers in my district are very concerned about, passed with 292 votes on

march 31, 2011. a bill that will make sure our farmers, ranchers and communities cant continue to grow and flourish. but it hasn't seen the light of day in the senate. yet those farmers picking corn, people putting together wind turbine the men and women out on the drilling rigs they don't wonder why the forgotten 15 hasn't passed they wonder why congress can't get its act together. why this president can't work with us to find the solutions this country needs. and that's why we are here tonight talking about our commitment to this country, our commitment to our country's job creators, to the men and women who have struggled far too long to look for work so we can find opportunities for them and their family and they can get back to work. with that, i'll yield back to the gentleman from oregon. mr. griffin: i thank the gentleman. i want to make a few points then i'll yield to my good

friend from wisconsin. fist i want to make clear that the bill numb of the bill i've just introduced, the job creation and regulatory freeze act, is h.r. 3194. earlier we were talking about common sense regulations. and i want to mention one that i -- a regulation that i had a constituent fly to d.c. to discuss with me. i have a -- she lives outside my district, this businesswoman, but she has numerous stores in my district. she has 300 stores in four states. they're convenience stores. and she came to me and met with me in my office here in longworth, had some other folks with her, and they told me the problem that they have with horses coming into their convenience stores. and i said, excuse me?

she said, yes, we're being told by the department of justice through the americans with disabilities act that we have to let horses, ponies, come into our stores. if someone wants to bring a horse or pony into the store. i said, well, why would anyone ever need to bring a horse or pony into your convenience store? they said, well, apparently it's not common, i didn't think it was common because i'm 43 and i've never heard of anyone taking a horse into a convenience store. but she told me that the way some folks rely on seeing eye dogs, that some other folks in the country rely on horses for

balancing or whatever other service that horse provides, maybe guiding them, i'm not sure on all the details. the validity of that aside, i took her at her word that people were in the practice of taking horses into stores. she said, look, i've got liability problems here potentially. people are going to bring horses in, they might kick somebody, they may be dirty. they may, you know, dirty up the store. they may knock things over. and i said, ok, well if someone relies on a horse that's fine. but why do we have a federal regulation on this? i've never even heard of it. we have people being paid to draft rules that deal with horses going into stores?

i almost couldn't believe it. so i did a little research with my staff and sure enough, she wasn't kidding. she wasn't making this up. a. deform a. title 3, regulation 28, c.f.r., part 36. section dot 36.302. modifications of policies, practices and procedures. there's a provision entitled miniature horse. a public accommodation shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a miniature horse by an individual with a disability if the miniature horse has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of the individual with a disability. now, if individuals have to rely on horses for balance or

guidance or whatever, then that's absolutely fine. i just find it incredible that the federal government is telling a business owner, who has never in her life even heard of a horse coming in a store, federal government is telling her she has to comply with this and make sure last room for a horse to get in or a pony or a miniature horse. i just think that this is where common sense comes in. we obviously can't regulate for every contingency. and apparently we're trying. so i'm taking a closer look at this to try to get some more information. but i think it's one that at

first impression tells me, we need to apply a little more common sense with regard to regulations. i want to yield to the gentleman from wisconsin for the remaining time. >> thank you. as we look at what's happened recently, the president has come out with his jobs bill proposal and frankly many who analyze it would say this is stimulus number two, another government spending program helping the government borrow and spending will lead to economic growth and wealth and jobs. mr. duffy: if you look at it, i think the president is saying, i want to do something. and i say, i don't want to do necessarily something, i want to do the right thing. so we can create economic growth and prosperity and wealth and jobs. and this is my concern of what's happening right now. i think the president came in to office talking about hope and change and job growth and job creation and he implemented

stimulus number one. and from that, it didn't work. because it's never worked. government borrowing, government massive spending, doesn't create jobs. but that was his sell to the american people. and so now as we roll in to the second phase, i think this is the campaign phase, the political phase, and so instead of focusing on policies that bring the bottom up, that help give hard working folks a good-paying job or good-paying opportunity, he's now focusing on class warfare. that's the wrong way to go. our poll sthace we passed and sent to the senate are policies that will create jobs. i yield back. mr. griffin: i thank the gentleman, i thank my friends for being here tonight and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank the gentleman. under the speaker' announced policy, the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. fudge is recognized

for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. ms. fudge: mr. speaker, today i rise to talk about voter suppression bills that are pending or signed into law in a number of states across this land. they have only one true purpose to disenfranchise eligible voters. many of my colleagues will be joining me this evening and i would like to begin by yielding to my good friend, mr. rush holt from the state of new jersey. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: i thank my friend and colleague from ohio and i'm pleased to come to the floor tonight to talk about a serious issue. whether the voice of the people will be heard. as citizens of this nation, the voting franchise is not just our constitutional right. it is the right through which all other rights are secured. you know, our primary voice in

how this country is run. and right now, around this nation, there are people who are working actively to disenfranchise specific sectors of our citizenry. how is this happening? this year in 38 states, there's legislation being considered or in some cases already approved to make it more difficult for citizens to register to vote, making it impossible to vote early, and to require identification that serves to eliminate or restrict voting for large numbers of people. restrictions on voter registration have placed such burdens on groups organizing community-based voting drives such as the league of women voters, that several organizations have suspended voter registration drives in some states. due to the onerous nature of

the legislation. now, there were a threat of voter fraud, as the proponents of these laws assert, it might make sense. but there is no threat of voter fraud. are there rampant cases of impersonation, voting as someone else no. voter fraud is not rampant. there are not numerous cases of impersonation, there may be isolated instances, sure, of alleged voter fraud. but to disenfran his millions of people because there are a few cases is really contrary to the american system of government. in 23 states and the d.c. degree -- and the district of columbia, that allow societiers to show both photo and nonphoto i.d.'s, such as utility bills or bank statements, there's no

evidence of fraud. it's a phantom me nass of fraud that makes it difficult for eligible voters to cast their votes are photo i.d. laws prohibitive? yes, they are. a recent report by the center or justice of the new york law school said the newly enacted state laws affecting more than five million eligible voters would disenfranchise young, low-income, elderly, and minority voters. . it completed a survey and found that african-american voters are three times as likely to lack a photo i.d. restrictions on registration, photo i.d. requirements serve to

prevent them from participating in their right to vote. should they reach the polls and cast their ballots, we have to ask if their vote will be counted accurately. in the past, literacy test and poll taxes were used to selectively to allow certain citizens to vote and exclude others. those laws were and are illegal. we should make sure they remain illegal in the 21st century. 21st century poll taxes which in effect these restrictionsr seek to suppress the voices of people who have a right to vote and whose voice should be recorded because we need their wisdom at the polls. now, the motto should be, everyone counts.

and there is much to be said and we'll say this at another time making sure that every vote that is cast is counted. election auditing can be used to ensure that voting errors are minimized, performing a check on votes recorded against a paper record of the vote. but tonight, we want to talk about the disenfranchising of people who are citizens who should be voting and who we should want to vote. and i'm pleased my friend has taken this time tonight and i'm certainly pletion pleased to join her. ms. fudge: i would yield to someone i know coming from the state of wisconsin has a great deal of experience. ms. moore. ms. moore: thank you so much for

putting together this special order to talk about voter suppression laws. i was first elected in 1988 and two years after that in 1990, i began a career from that point on up till this very day, fighting against these voter suppression laws. and the rovene i began my career that early, our now governor of the state of wisconsin, led the effort to require voter i.d., very strict forms of voter i.d. in order to suppress the votes of certain members, certain populations in the wisconsin community. and so i am ashamed to announce today, representative fudge,

that wisconsin has joined the massive shame, one of seven states in red here on the map of shame that require very stringent voter i.d. laws in order to be able to vote. i know that having debated this issue for many yires what the basic arts for this are and they are all discredited. we have heard arguments from our governor, who was then a state representative if you need a voter i.d. to buy liquor or to buy medicine or blockbuster video, you should need a voter i.d. for something as important as voting.

i think that is a problem with that line of thinking. there is no more fundamental right than the right to vote. you don't have the right to drink liquor, representative fudge. you don't have the right to get a video from blockbuster. and shamefully, you don't have a right to health care. you don't have a right to get a prescription drug, but you have the right to vote. so the bar ought to be extremely high to disenfranchise voters. we can't question the motivation of people who offer legislation. and in that same light, i question the motivation of those people who say we must have this kind of legislation. the wisconsin attorney general's office found that in a two-year

election cycle of fraud investigation, that there were 20 instances of possible voter fraud out of three million votes cast in 2008, the year that president obama ran, which is 7/10,000 of 1%. and not one of these would have been prevented. your driver's license doesn't say felon on it. and there was not a single case where a photo i.d. would have prevented these discrepancies. i have to wonder about the motive of those who said we must have this law. who are they trying to disenfranchise? ms. fudge, congresswoman fudge,

i need to ask you, in the state of wisconsin, 17% of white men and women don't have this kind of i.d. 49% of african-american men and women don't have this i.d. 46% of hispanic men don't have this ip i.d. 59% of hispanic women, 56% of african-american women. and 78% of african-american males ages 18-24 do not have this kind of i.d. in addition to this, there is a cost to getting the paperwork to get a photo i.d. $ 20 for a replacement birth severity and in some cases you

have to have a photo i.d. to get a birth certificate. in wisconsin, a large population who don't have this photo i.d., there is no department of motor vehicle station, congresswoman fudge, that is open, has evening hours, or weekend hours. so the burden of getting this kind of i.d. is great. i do realize that i need to yield back my time. but i want to mention this will have a terrible impact on our young college-aged student population. we have college students that this bill would require that they use college i.d. that doesn't exist in the state of wisconsin. there have been no monies provided for the universities, none of which have this kind of i.d. to do it. and it would be a terrible

burden on our elderly population who may want to vote absentee and have to provide a copy of a photo i.d. for all those who have xerox machines in your homes, you will be able to vote. i thank you for this special order. ms. fudge: both my friend, congresswoman moore and my friend congressman holt have basically put into context that any time you have to jump over a hurdle or pay to get something to vote, it is a poll tax. i would like to yield to someone from my home state who is an advocate for voting rights and she knows the issues because we are facing them in ohio, the gentlelady from ohio, congresswoman betty sutton. ms. sutton: i thank you for your leadership. you have been tremendous in this fight and it's a fight that

unfortunately we didn't ask for but we must fight on behalf of the american people. there is nothing more important, there is nothing more american than the right to vote. you know, at a time when governmental officials from all levels of government should be focused on getting america back to work, unfortunately, we are seeing this scurge of voter disenfranchisement springing up across this country state to state. over the past century, our nation as we expanded the franchise and knocked down all of the barriers that were hard fought to increase electoral participation in 2011, that momentum abruptly shifted. we have heard about how state governments across the country enacted new laws making it hard to register to vote in some

states. some states requiring to show government-issued voter identification. and one in 10 voters do not have this. other states like our state have passed laws to cut back. two states reverse earlier reforms and disenfranchise millions who have criminal conviction. but these new restrictions fall most heavily on a specific population. these would be insidious, any attempt to prevent someone from exercising their right to vote, of having their voice at the ballot box would be insidious. when you look at these laws, you see a pattern emerging. there is an effort to target

voters who appear, who people think, some people think may have a tendency to vote for one party over the other party. so voters who are being perceived as democratic voters are being targeted by these laws. and why do i say that? what is the basis for me saying that? because we have seen where these voter i.d. laws fall most harshly. we heard from the gentlelady from wisconsin making the case, but it's really important and let me tell you a couple of examples. in tennessee, a 96-year-old, dorothy cooper attempted to secure the new i.d. to vote in the next election. when she arrived, she was turned away, because of having her birth certificate, she did not

have a marriage license, she was 96, a marriage license to verify the change of name. in texas, thanks to a new voter i.d. law, students may not use their student-issued voter i.d.'s and we seen it in ohio to use student i.d.'s as a valid form to vote. in texas, those who have concealed weapons permits, those with student i.d.'s are not. this justification seems a little bit arbitrary. and according to one state representative is that, quote, texas, you know, is a big handgun state so almost has a handgun concealed license. that was the argument given for that distinction. but the bottom line is this, we are here on the floor tonight because, you know, we have

people -- we have seen the protests out there, we know there are those and they are holding signs and they say, we are the 99%. we see the plight that our middle-class families are facing throughout this country. but it's worth while to bring up that idea about the 99% and i'll tell you why, because, representative fudge, the reality is that there are those in this country who have a lot of power and that's what the 99% and the upper 1% is about. they have a lot of voice and you know why? they have a lot of money that they use to make their voice heard, but the truth is, the upper 1% that controls so much of the power and the money in this country still only control 1% of the vote unless the deck

is stacked. and so that 99% needs to have access to the voter box, because that is the place that we are all equal. so i am proud to stand with you to fight back against these efforts to suppress the vote and to stand up for democracy. democracy that was fought for and still being fought for by our men and women in uniform. and i yield back to the the gentlewoman from in ohio. ms. fudge: we are going to defeat everything they bring to us that restricts our right to vote. i thank you. i would yield to one of my newer colleagues, one who is from a state where the voting rights act was probably designed to protect the people of her state, my colleague from the great state of alabama, the gentlelady , terry sewell.

ms. sewell: i thank the gentlelady for hosting this hour and i rise to express concerns about the voter i.d. legislation being passed in the country. the state of alabama and other states have passed a law to require voters to use a photo inch d. to be valid. i believe these laws are really implemented to discourage and delay full voter participation in communities and across this nation. it has been alleged by some that voter i.d. laws are needed to prevent fraud and protect voters who are being victimized. some political pundits have been taking shots at my own district in alabama in particular, alleging blatant voter fraud. i have received numerous feedback from my constituents to the contrary. in fact, my constituents attest

that they are offended at the very thought that these voter i.d. laws are alleging voter protection. they allegedly offer voter protection. the fact is that these voter inch d. laws are about voter suppression, not voter protection. these laws are in search of a problem that does not exist. did you know that between 2002 and 2005, just 24 people were convicted of or pled guilty at the federal level to illegal voting? the reality is that 11% of u.s. citizens or more than 21 million americans do not have government issued photo identification. also, as many as 25% of all african-american citizens of voting age do not have government-issued photo i.d.'s. voter i.d. laws have a disproportionate and unfair impact on low income

individuals. racial and ethnic minorities, senior citizens, voters with disabilities, and others. many of these individuals do not have government issued i.d.'s or the money to acquire one. it is our obligation as legislators to work to ensure that all american citizens are given the opportunity to express their opinions by using the ballot box. the right to vote is especially sacred in my district where people marched across the edmund pettus bridge in selma for the right to vote. as the daughter of a stroke victim who is now wheelchair dependent, it is frightening to think that had this law in alabama been in effect in my election, my own father would not have possessed a valid photo i.d. since his driver's license has expired. his struggle is the struggle of so many disabled americans who will be disproportionately affected by this law. we cannot stand idly by while

citizens across the country are being disenfranchised and discourage them from exercising their right to vote. let me be clear. voter fraud should not be tolerated and if discovered should be prostituted -- prosecuted. voter fraud is a serious crime. a person who commits voter fraud in a federal election risks spending five years in jail and having to pay a $10,000 fine and rightfully so. we can all agree our current election system is in use -- is in need of some repair. however, the current debate about voter i.d. and voter fraud distracts us from the real problems with our election system. we need a progressive system that encourages voting through same-day ledge stration -- registration and early voting laws. laws that would make it easier for citizens to exercise their right to vote. the government should be in the business of encouraging, not discouraging people from voting. as americans, we can do better.

and as legislators, we owe it to the people we represent to make sure that we do. we cannot compromise the integrity of our democratic system and reverse the enormous progresses that our country has made by implementing laws that will seek to discrimination. in protecting my constituents in the seventh congressional district of alabama and in this nation, i will continue to work with my colleagues and my congresswoman like congresswoman fudge to make sure we ensure that state voter inch d. laws protect and not suppress. -- and not suppress all voters. i yield back the balance of my time. ms. fudge: i thank the gentlelady. i yield to someone who certainly we all know has been so involved in voting rights and a person on whose shoulders i stand, the gentleman from georgia, mr. john lewis.

mr. lewis: i want to thank the gentlelady from ohio for holding this special order. congresswoman fudge. thank you very, very much. you're making a lasting contribution to this discussion, to this debate. voting rights are under attack in america. quietly, gradually, state by state, the right to vote, that many people died for is being taken away. some time ago, some of us came to this floor the past summer to warn the american people about this dangerous trend. no one but no one seemed to be listening. but today we can no longer ignore this trend. congressman holtz said the

brennan center released a report that showed that voting law changes in states across the country were making it harder for voters across the country to exercise their constitutional right to vote. in 2011, we should be ashamed. today, we should be making it easy, simple, and convenient to vote. instead, we are creating barriers and making it more difficult for citizens to vote. there's not just one law but many types of laws. they're disenfranchising millions of voters. voter i.d. laws, proof of citizenship laws, barriers to registration, elimination or early and -- elimination of early and absentee voting, making it harder to restore voting rights for people who have paid their debt to society. these laws are barriers to inclusive democracy.

they're a disgrace, they are a shame to our democracy. we continue to step backward toward another dark time in our history. we cannot separate the dangerous trend across this nation from our history and the struggle for the right to vote. before the passage of the voting rights act in 1965, not so long ago, were almost impossible for some citizens to register and vote. many were harassed, yaled, beaten and some were even killed for trying to participate in the democratic process. in the 1960's, people stood in what i like to call immovable lines, trying to register to vote. people waited day and day only to be turned away and told that voters were not being registered on that day. the same thing is happening today. states are passing laws to restrict voter registration and are doing away with the

same-day voter registration. there's no reason that we cannot make it easy and convenient for people to register to vote. 10 years ago, the carter-ford national task force on election reform called the united states registration laws among the world's most demanding and blamed those registration laws for low voter turnout. because registration problems, three million american citizens tried to society in 2008. -- in the presidential election but could not vote. with these new laws restricting voter registration, the problem would get even worse. one of the most dangerous voting chames is the new voter i.d. requirement which are disenfranchising millions of american voters, prbsly 11% of voting age citizens in the country or more than 20 million individuals do not have a

government-issued photo i.d.. today, too many states require photo i.d. in order to vote. each and every voter i.d. law is a real threat to voting rights in america. make no mistake, these voter i.d. laws are a poll tax. i know what i saw during the 1960's. i saw a poll tax. you cannot deny that these -- these laws are another form of poll tax. in an economy with people struggling to pay for the most basic necessities, there are too many citizens who won't be able to afford the fees and transportation costs involved in getting government-issued photo i.d.'s. despite the new voter i.d. laws across the country, there's no convincing evidence, no evidence at all, that voter fraud is a problem in our election process. the right to vote is precious.

almost sacred. and one of the most important blessings of our democracy. today, we must stand up and fight. the history of the right to vote in america is a history of conflict, of struggle for that right. many people died trying to protect the right. i was beaten. and jail -- i was beaten and jailed because i stood up for it. for millions hike many, the struggle for the right to vote is not mere history, it is experience. we should not take a step backward with in poll tax and voter i.d. laws and barriers to voter registration and voter participation. we must ensure every vote and every vote counts. the vote is the most powerful nonviolent tool or instrument we have in a democratic society. if we allow our power to vote to be taken away, we'll be

facing a need for another movement a new, nonviolent revolution in america to retake the same ground we won almost 50 years ago. we must fight back. thank you. thank you again for helping, for giving us a voice, giving us a way to fight back. ms. fudge: thank you. thank you so much for the historylessson we just received. as you know, there are many things going on in the state of ohio, that's why i'm joined tonight by another one of my colleagues from the great state of ohio, my friend and someone who has fought diligently to make sure that everyone has their right to vote, congressman tim ryan. mr. ryan: i thank the gentlelady. a few weeks ago, we had the opportunity of having congressman lewis in youngstown and up up in cleveland. to sit here and listen to him talk about it, it's not words on a piece of paper, as he

said, it's not history, it's his experience. for us in any way, shape, or form to listen to him and remember the struggles that a lot of people went through in order for americans to have the right to vote, all americans of the right to vote, this seems so petty and so ridiculous that there would be a movement among a conservative group of people across the country to literally try to disenfranchise american citizens. now, we all get caught up in the political games but my goodness gracious, how far are you going to go? you've got citizens united that says you can spend money left and right, corporations unlimited funding, we're seeing it in ohio now. then they take this money and start pushing initiatives like this one where you're going to literally carve out a part of the electorate that doesn't vote for your interest because you'll win the game that way.

and so these provisions in ohio now, we're coming up on an election on tuesday, you can't vote in person stopping friday nigh, the weekend before the election. that doesn't make any sense. come on, guys. this is not a game. this is an essential right that we have in the united states of america and you're going to say, well, one in four african-americans don't have a government i.d. let's carve them out. oh you make under $35,000 a year, you're twice as likely to not have a government i.d. let's put you over there. if you're a citizen sit tissue senior citizen, if you're elderly and don't drive, you fit in that category too. let's put in this 38 different states and figure out how to lock them out of the political process or put barriers up. this is not right. come on. these people have served the country, worked in the country, served in the military and all these other things, contributed

and now you say, we're going to put up a few more barriers for you not to be able to vote. it's not right. i think, and i'm getting the sense in ohio and back in my district that people are starting to understand that there is a movement to stack the deck against the working class people. to reduce their ability to participate in the political system. and i'm not making this sup. -- this up. in ohio, we have an initiative, issue two, about taking collective bargaining rights away from police, fire, teachers, nurses and public employees. . you have this initiative in ohio. primarily people who would vote democratic, national money coming in. cuts being made to make college more expensive and mental health

. i'm happy to join the gentlelady from cleveland, i'm thankful for you doing this and the work is not yet done and the american people have no other choice and now they are taking to the streets and that may be the only way to get it done because you can't compete with the hundreds of millions of dollars that are pushing these initiatives in states without us, the average folks, trying to push back a little bit. this is what this is about. when you look at the poll results at issue 2, people are seeing they are stacking the deck and we aren't going to allow that to happen. and i yield back. ms. fudge: we are going to stand together and we are going to win. i would now yield to the the gentleman from illinois, danny

davis. mr. davis: i thank the the gentlewoman from ohio, not only for yielding, but for convening this discussion this evening. i was speaking to a group of young people a couple of days ago, and they wanted to know why did we think this whole question of voter suppression was such a big deal. this is the don't everybody have the right to vote? and it was necessary to convey to them some of the experiences that people like representative lewis and others have had. all of us recognize from a historical perspective, the evolution of development of our country. of course, when we started, there were only a few people who actually had the right to vote. and they were the individuals who made most of the decisions.

ultimately, we fought a war. and after the war, we saw the expansion of opportunity. and yet, there were mill yobs of i don't know, sir of -- millions of individuals who were denied the same opportunity that others had. people often ask about southern states. and you don't pick upon any state, but i remember reading the history of mississippi, wherein 1890, the state of mississippi devised a system that effectively disenfranchised most african americans or blacks that were there and adopted a system that other states picked up. you have to remember that at that time, african americans made up 58% of the population in

the state of mississippi. and they elected delegates. and the delegates who were elected, 134, consisted of 133 white men and one black or one african american. i am afraid and i wish it wasn't so, that there are cynical efforts to manipulate and control and prevent individuals from having the opportunity to exercise the most important franchise in a free and democratic society, and that is the right to help make decisions. and sometimes it's done in so many ways. there's an old saying, if you fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me.

there are places where the polling places just got changed. people had been accustomed to voting at the johnson school. and all of a sudden, they wake up and it's time to vote, and they are now voting at the american legion hall. they don't know the american legion hall and they go to the johnson school. and once they get there, they find out they can't vote and then they will miss voting that day. poll taxes sound way out and far fetched. but i grew up in rural america. i grew up in chicago, the most magnificent in the united states. but i grew up in rural arkansas.

and there was a $2 poll tax my parents paid a $2 poll tax. now the average person who worked in that environment at that time, the wages were $4 a day. $4 a day. that's what people earned driving tractors or chopping cotton or bailing hey, and to take $-- bailing hay and to take $2 out of $4 that you earned a day to go and get registered to vote, that meant for all practical purposes that many of the people, not just african americans, mind you, but millions of people who were low income, were not going to

participate because they couldn't afford to pay $2 to register to vote. and so, i join with all of my colleagues who say that this issue is most important that we must watch it, keep our eyes and hands on it, and we have to make sure that even in places like where i live, i can recall voter suppression during one presidential election, where the whole idea was simply not to vote. people were not going to vote for a different political party at the time, but if they didn't vote, that was the same as voting for the other guy. so don't fool us.

we kind of know what's happening. i thank you for calling this special order. and i yield back the balance of my time. ms. fudge: thank you so much, my friend. i now yield to the the gentleman from texas, mr. al green. mr. green: thank you, representative fudge. and thank you, mr. speaker. friends, although the faces change, the fight remains the same when it comes to the black vote. the emancipation proclamation didn't do it. the 13th amendment didn't do it. although the faces changed, the fight remains the same. in 1870, the face was that of president grant and the fight was the 15th amendment and the right to vote. it passed. although it passed, the faces changed but the fight remains the same, because in 1944 it was

the naacp and thurgood marshal that took smith versus alright and won that case that eliminated the white primaries in the county of harris. in 1953 the naacp had to go back to eliminate the white pre-primaries that eliminated the jay birds. even though we eliminated the white primaries, the white pre-primaries, in 1965, the faces were those of the marchers at the bridge on what we now know as bloody sunday. they were beaten back to the church where they started the actual march. the faces of those marchers

happens to include the honorable john lewis, member of congress. 1965, the face was that of l.b.j., president of the united states of america. he had the opportunity and did sign the voting rights act of 1965. the faces changed, but the fight was still the same. we had to have a voting rights act, notwithstanding all of the amendments to the constitution and notwithstanding the two supreme court cases. 2006, the faces changed, george bush, president of the united states of america, re-authorizes the voting rights act because we still find that there are cases of discrimination when it comes to voting in the united states of america. the faces change, but in 2011, the fight remains the same. the faces are those of the 25%

of african americans who don't have voter i.d.'s. the faces of the 18% of elderly persons of 65 or older who don't have voter i.d.'s. the faces have changed consistently, but the fight is still the same. we still have to fight for this precious right to vote and this is why we are here tonight to make sure we understand and the message goes out and the call is there to those who would help us and make sure that on election day, we protect the right to vote. notwithstanding the fact that the faces have changed, the fight remains the same. i yield back to representative fudge. ms. fudge: he is right. i yield out to my classmate and friend from the great state of new york, mr. tonko. mr. tonko: thank you for bringing us together this

evening on a very important discussion, one that focuses on the fundamental underpinnings of the right to vote and encouraging voters to come to polls. this sort of effort that is being taken seriously by fash too many as a form of reform is discouraging. this is an attempt, i believe, to discourage folks have voting across this country. from an effort that is somewhat presented in this description of going after voter impersonation fraud, which is something that everyone is concerned about, but the element here is not to do that. no one can point to this overwhelming evidence that there is voter impersonation fraud that gets addressed by this approach. this is a denial that may impact five million americans when we should encourage participation.

this focuses on many who would be disenfranchised, those on the lower socio-economic strata, the minority community, the elderly community, those are the targeted forces here and an outright attempt to dissuade those who are eligible from voting. if we can encourage people to vote and spend the resources to go and develop this i.d. system, we could spend those dollars in a better way to go after fraud in a more targeted fashion. this is an underhanded approach to taking the voter population that exists out there, reducing it and placing a hamp on people, many of whom who do not have i.d.'s. 20 million americans don't have government-issued i.d.'s that would be required with the reform effort that is under way.

we need to encourage policy that will enhance the numbers of those voting and go after fraud in a very trargetted way. this is not the answer. there is no fundamental proof. and no proof-positive that it will attack and discourage the voter impersonation fraud out there. it isn't happening. thank you for leading us in an important discussion on far too many situations that are being taken forward in a way this that will be counterproductive. ms. fudge: now the dean of the ohio delegation, my friend from ohio, congresswoman marcy capture. ms. kaptur: i thank you for bringing us together this evening on the important question of voter suppression. and i would like to say for the record, that the stability of each of our communities and our nation rests on the fragile read

of trust, trust of the people. that trust enshines in our right to vote. and our obligation to do so. today, in fact, we passed a resolution that is stated over the speaker's rostrum, in god we trust. and john kennedy reminded us that god's work must truly be our own. trying to prevent voter suppression is our work. in ohio, we see new forms of voter suppression in the works as we watch the redistricting process unfold, the districts in which we will run. as members of the house and senate, whether for congress or legislature, ohio, a home rule state that values community, that values where people live, we call it a home rule state,

where we live matters. and yet we see in the redistricting what is happening in ohio, the population hasn't grown as fast as other states. of 88 counties in ohio, 62 county lines completely violated. what does that do? moves people around in a district that has no bearing to their community. hundreds and hundreds of precincts cracked. you think you are in one precinct, well, gosh, you might be in the wrong school. who is going to let you know, especially if you have lost your job and aren't living where you worked before. we see entire towns in ohio's restricting hacked apart for no reason, for no reason.

canton, ohio, toledo, ohio, the list goes on. let me say that voter suppression discourages voters, especially during this time of economic recession where foreclosures have made it difficult for people to have a home base. i would say to the congresswoman thank you so much for giving us time to prepare for the elections of 2012, so we can, in fact, prepare to avoid voter suppression in every form that existed before and in every new form that is being created today. thank you, congresswoman fudge, on this important issue of giving every american their full rights so we can restore trust in the government of the united states . . . . ms. fudge: thank you. now representative sheila jackson lee.

ms. jackson lee: let me thank the gentlelady from ohio for her leadership, after spending some time with her on the floor, listening to the voter suppression occurring in ohio. i'm grateful for this opportunity, i want to thank the whip for his leadership on voting rights, election rights, for any number of sessions starting as early as the election in 2000, when we were brought to confront the issue of voter improprieties. let me first of all say that we are seeing the ugly head of the suppression of votes rising across america. 40 states have implemented voting i.d. laws. let me explain to the voters, voter i.d. can only respond to voter impersonation.

statistics will tell you that most voters do not show up ats trying to be somebody else -- show up at the polls try be to be somebody else. now you will suppress those who are elderly, disabled, young, who do not have a state-issued voter i.d.. in my district alone this past weekend i met a woman who was 97 years old in a wheelchair, who had attempted to get her voter i.d. with a photograph pursuant to texas law that she thought was in place now. it was a difficult challenge, her relatives went with her and she could not get her voter i.d. i made a commitment that my office would go with her because of the extensive requirements and the intimidation and fear. but it is also in the state of texas that we are hearing that many polling people who are in charge of elections for this november, 2011, have confused the precinct judges so much that

they have even told them that the voter i.d. law will be in place as of november, 2011, and it doesn't go into effect, if it does, until january, 2012. again, to suppress voters. the elderly and minority voters. i would encourage and ask the justice department to be diligent on reviewing all of these voter i.d. laws, texas is now being reviewed and it has not been precleared. we asked the justice department to declare that it is in violation of the voting rights act. let me say that voting is a precious right. i want everyone to be able to vote. and it is documented that fraud is very limited in voting, to eliminate same-day registration, there is no ground to suggest that there's fraud that occurs in same-day registration. from the oppression of those who could not vote because of poll tax, because of counting jelly beans in a jar, all of that leads to the oppression that keeps people from voting. so i stand today on the floor of the house to say, we will never give up the fight, we're going

to fight these voter i.d. laws, we're going to fight these laws that are going to intimidate our voters, intimidation, fear and oppression will not survive this election of 2011 or 2012. we are going to stand with you and the department of justice will be reviewing on behalf of the voting rights act of 1965. and i thank you and i yield back. ms. fudge: thank you very much. i would at this time like to bring the whip -- ok. the whip has kindly decided to yield to the gentleman from georgia, the congressman hank johnson. mr. johnson: i thank my colleague, congresswoman fudge, for organizing this special order and also for -- also my whip, steny hoyer, for being intimately involved in this. the right to vote is a fundamental right and this right

is under attack. it's the tea party republicans that have raised the false specter of voter fraud at the polls. after study -- study after study documents that most if not all voter fraud occurs during the be a sendee voter process and the -- absentee voter process and the voter republicans have done nothing to alleviate that voter fraud. instead they've declared open season on in-person voting. now, why would they do that? they have the nerve to claim that their voter i.d. laws will protect elections that are allegedly riddled by fraud. but they're really trying to fix a problem that does not exist. all across america, voter suppression i.d. laws are propping up. my home state of georgia is one of the states of shame.

it has strict voter i.d. laws and earlier this year more than 30 other states introduced legislation to require government-issued i.d.'s for voting. the requirement that all voters present a government-issued photo i.d., or if you live in texas a concealed carry permit, before being able to cast a regular ballot will disproportion atly disenfranchise minorities as well as seniors, the disabled, students and poor people who are less likely to have or carry a photo i.d. these voter i.d. laws are a blatant attempt by tea party republicans to influence the outcome of the upcoming elections and we cannot let them get away with it. we'll fight and fight hard to make sure that all voters eligible to vote can vote. and with that i'll yield back. ms. fudge: thank you so much. now we would have the whip, the gentleman from maryland, mr.

hoyer, congressman hoyer is taking the lead on this as well. so we thank you for being here tonight. mr. hoyer: i thank congresswoman fudge. i'm honored to be on the floor with john lewis. who came close to losing his life to make sure that americans could vote, could register and could vote. mr. speaker, we're a year away from an election. one that will shape the course of our nation for years ahead. the choice we make will be pivotal and in order to make certain that it reflects the direction our people want to take, we ought to do everything we can to ensure that all who have the right to cast a ballot can do so. equal access to the ballot is the most fundamental right we have as americans. it is what preserves our democracy and instills confidence in our system of

government. some of our greatest national struggles have been over suffrage, from votes for african-americans and women to votes for the young people who risked their lives for us in uniform. the right to vote, however, is today, as we have heard by so many, under threat. a number of states seeking to place obstacles in front of minorities, low income families, young people, seniors, seeking to exercise that basic right to vote. they claim we need to crack down on the epidemic of voter fraud that does not exist. there's simply no evidence of any widespread voter fraud. as many as a quarter of african-americans do not have the necessary forms of identification now being required by some states. data from the nonpartisan center for justice so he that

african-americans and latinos make use of early voting as a far higher rate than other group, especially opportunities to vote on the sunday before election day. at the same time, there's been assault on voter registration. the right to vote does not exist for political expediency. it is a constitutional right, a moral right, for all of our citizens. it is the pride of america, this american franchise. for that reason we are vigorously pursuing ways to protect americans' right to vote, by drawing attention to efforts which attempt to restrict that right. we will be working closely with the congressional black caucus, the congressional hispanic caucus, the congressional asian-pacific american caucus and voting rights groups across the country. throughout our history, mr. speaker, americans have given their lives to protect the right to vote. it is worth fighting for.

it is our fight. and i thank congresswoman fudge for her leadership and all those who have spoken tonight and will be speaking out every day, every week, every month to ensure that every american not only has the right to vote but does in fact have america's willingness to facilitate the casting of that vote and i yield back the balance of my time to ms. fudge. ms. fudge: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. fudge: i would ask the chair for unanimous consent for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. fudge: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, let me just close by saying this, to all of the governors and all of the states that have passed this legislation, please understand it is time for you to do the right thing. to all of the secretaries of state and all of the state legislators that have by design brought out and tried to keep predetermined people from

voting, do the right thing. anybody that cares about democracy in this country or cares about the reputation of this country and the way that we handle our business, please know that it is time to do the right thing. if you care about the generations that follow us, then do the right thing. for the veterans who are coming back, who are homeless, who don't have addresses, for people who don't drive, for the sick, for the disabled, for the elderly, for the children, do the right thing. mr. speaker, i would say to all of the people who are on this floor tonight, we all understand the gravity of the problem. we're just saying to all of these states on the map of shame, it is time for them to do the right thing and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the lady yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for 30 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, it's always my

privilege and an honor to be recognized to address you here on the floor and as often is the case, i come here and hear the end of the debate that's gone on before me and feel exetexeled to address it from a bit of -- compelled to address it from a bit of a different perspective and as i listened to the gentleman and the gentleladies talk about the right to vote, i think it would be important for us to remind the body that there has to be a qualified voter, it isn't that everybody has a right to vote, you have to be old enough for one thing, you need to be an american citizen for another. and as i've watched things change over my adult lifetime, the integrity of the vote has been damaged but the gentleman from maryland made the statement that there's no evidence of any widespread voter fraud. no evidence of any widespread voter fraud. well, i know that it's difficult to put this into the congressional record, mr. speaker, but i would hold this up for -- let me just call this,

you know, evidence number one. this is an acorn. it's an acorn that i carry in my pocket every day. i carry it there every day to remind me of what that organization, acorn, has done to the integrity of the vote in the united states of america. how much more widespread would you have to be than operations going on in nearly all, if not all, of the 50 states, the major cities, and millions of dollars spent to pay people to go out and fraudulently register voters? and there's over 400,000 fraudulent voter registrations that this acorn symbolizes, that they have admitted to going out and purchases on a commission basis. we're going to pay you to get these fraudulent voter registrations so they can be legitimate, but they can also be fraudulent and acorn didn't differentiate between the two. they just paid out in commission, they violated the laws of the state of nevada, they violated the laws of the state of new york and this congress shut them -- shut down the funding to acorn and the

national organization of acorn collapsed. so for the gentleman to say, and i quote, there is no evidence of any widespread voter fraud, i think there's massive evidence of widespread voter registration fraud and from that flowed fraudulent votes as well. . we have watched the integrit of the election system be undermined. issue after issue has eroded the integrity of the qualified voter in these ways. in the clinton years, if you showed up for a driver's license, 15 of the 19, september 11 hijackers had driver's licenses, you show up for a driver's license and they say to you in their native language, do you want to register to vote? and if you answer in the

affirmative, they put you down and register to vote. people don't understand they are bound by per jerry laws. it's not to be considered an offense by the department of justice. they have their prosecutorial discretion. they have testified that they select which laws they want to enforce and which ones they don't want to enforce. with regard to the voting rights and civil rights department of justice, we know how that works, they have a policy that is testified to under oath under several different scenarios that they will not move a voting rights -- they will not move a voting rights case if it damages a minority. that is a policy of the department of justice and policy of loretta king who founded in north carolina, that voted that

70% of the communities in america nonpartisan elections for city council, they voted to get rid of nonpartisanship. 70% of the cities have done that, but in north carolina, they were forbidden by the department of justice because if you read the department of justice's agent's letter on that and that was loretta king -- no, she said black, wouldn't know who to vote for if they didn't have a d behind their name. she asked to abolish elections in north carolina. the new black panthers of philadelphia standing out there cailing people crackers and taking offense ive posture, that

is on video tape. and we saw what this justice department right off the case, the convictions were there, this justice department canceled those convictions and released everyone, except for the one individual, the most egregious violate who got the tiniest little message, he got an injunchings, don't do this in this city. and tom perez testified under oath, assistant u.s. attorney testified under oath, that was the most severe penalty they could have under law, not true. and we should bring him back before the committee and call him to account for this. mr. speaker, i want every american citizen who is qualified to vote. i don't want them intimidated because of any reason. but to imply people are denied their right to vote in this

country as if this were 1960 all over again is a false premise to establish this on. we are all about legitimate vieters and i'm against illegitimate voters that dial out the vote. absentee voters have been stretched out and can pass through numerous hands and whenever a ballot goes from one hand to another hand to another hand, it opens up the opportunity for fraud. i remember a case in iowa, near the end of the election, they found 444 absentee ballots that weren't turned in yet. where did they found them? democratic headquarters. and so, mr. speaker, there is an example of the election fraud. i would call it widespread voter fraud that is taking place.

there are convictions in troy, new york, for example. and i listened to testimony before the judiciary committee by the secretary of state by the state of new mexico that admitted that if i were an election member and somebody walked in and they said that they are steve king, me, and they lived at my address, whatever it might be in new mexico, even if they alleged they were me and they were working the board, i couldn't challenge them by law in new mexico. that's a law that encourages voter fraud. so what happens when they call up an hour before the polls close and they say, sali, we know that you voted, but your husband is registered to vote, can you send him down? joe is in a truck in maine and isn't going to be voting and 15

minutes later someone shows up and says i'm joe and votes as joe. how do you catch that and police that? i suggest you do so with a government-issued picture i.d. we need to have a number of things going on. dead people are voting. people are voting in new york and voting in florida. we know about those cases. when you have fraud within the states and that fraud flows overstate lines and when people get in buses and take a ride across the state line and vote same-day registration in voting, it opens up the door for fraud. and people are winning those close elections. this acorn that i carry in my pocket every day, it isn't because i have such an abiding dislike for acorn as an entity,

but it's because i understand and i want the people to understand what happens to the united states of america if the people that are perpetrating widespread voter fraud get their way. and it's this, mr. speaker, the constitution of the unchese is the foundation of this -- the united states is the foundation of this country. coupled with federal law that is written within the guidelines of the constitution. if we hold onto the constitution, because if we fail, our republic will fail and collapse as well. and i embrace the constitution and i have one in my pocket and i refer to it on a regular basis, but there is something underneath that constitution. when you think of the edifice of a building and go down to the foundation of sand or a foundation of something unstable, no matter how good your foundation is, the

constitution, if it is on unstable soil, it will collapse. no foundation can be sustained simply by the foundation itself. and the underpinnings, the bedrock upon which this foundation of our republic called the constitution sets is is free elections, honest elections, legitimate elections, elections where qualified voters, american citizens go forth and redirect the destiny of the americans. they have to be legitimate and have to be fair and we cannot have non-citizens voting. we can't have fraudulent votes. can't have dead people voting, transients voting. if it is happening and if america loses confidence in the election system that we have,

this bedrock that upholds our constitution collapses, and if it does, the constitution itself falls with it, mr. speaker. that's why it's important that we have voter registration laws that are free of duplicates and where the states have laws prohibiting felons from voting, free of felons, free of deceased, require a picture i.d. and we need to require that the secretary of state certify that the registered voters are citizens and we need to enforce it and police it and need to say to the department of justice and attorneys general within the states that have jurisdiction to bring these cases, you must have high priority, when there is an assault on the bedrock when there is an underpinning, it

must be enforced and this will society and this society and this culture and this congress should rise up and demand we have legitimate elections in this country. when you think that a single state and a handful of votes, 537 votes in the state of florida in the year of 2000, determined that the president of the united states may well have been for the next eight years rather than the next four years and each recount came back to the same or similar total. there is nt a legitimate recount. and george bush winning marginally that the secretary of state certified by 537 votes, but how many votes in florida were fraudulent votes altogether? how much closer was that election because of election fraud?

how many people voted in florida that also voted in the state of new york? how many deceased vote snd how many felons voted? we have records of those. and even the felonses are not in great numbers, this could have come down to one vote. if a state doesn't have legitimate election process and that state's electoral votes determine the president of the united states and we would stand here and argue that we -- anybody that came into the poll should be allowed to vote even though they took no responsibility to register themselves to vote, to go to the right polling place to vote that they should be motor votered and walk into any precinct and that can be sorted out after the fact, that happened in my state. my former secretary of state who later became governor gave the order that anybody could vote in

any present sink any time and they would sort that out afterwards. the election he presided over, where iowa is the first in the nation caucus, we were the last in the nation to certify the vote and he supported an executive order to grant the felon the right to vote even though the statutes prohibited such a thing. i came here to talk about a different subject matter. but legitimate elections with integrity in our voter registration roles requiring citizens being devoid of duplicates and a picture i.d. where people can't figure out how to vote, such as a picture i.d., will pop out their picture i.d., rent a movie, for example

or get on an airplane. they can have their picture i.d. but can't be bothered to show up, where we are choosing the next leader in the free world within the jurisdiction of the states that if one single state has corrupt election process, even one that isn't as clean as it can be, even one that is sloppy, i will legitimate can sell out the votes and thereby a marginal vote, change the result in that state and shift the electoral votes for one side to the other and america gets a president that we didn't vote for because we didn't have integrity in the voting process and we can watch, not so much just the fraud, but if america loses confidence in the electoral system, if we don't

have faith in the decisions that the decisions of the american people emerge through the election process, then we lose confidence in our republic all together and that's when the united states, our constitution could collapse, mr. speaker. this is a high and important goal that we have. and acorn was cut off from federal funding by a massive outpouring of votes in the house and senate. when they saw what was going on inside of acorn and some of the stronching left-wing democrats voted to cut off the funding to acorn and i introduced the first amendment to cut off acorn about four years later and i'm going to carry this. they are reforming in cities and states, coming back, some of the same faces with a little bit of different names and they are organizing in the occupy wall

street. should have known. could have called that from the beginning. . i didn't set myself up with a segue and i'll just jump right into it. and that is that i have the privilege to represent a good part of iowa here in the united states congress. and i've had the privilege to be involved in and engaged in the first in the nation caucus process for quite a long time now. and it came about somewhat in this way and that would be -- an iowa legislature from years gone by decided to establish the first of the nation caucus -- first in the nation caucus and a lot of the rest of the country didn't pay much attention to it and it didn't attract the presidential candidates in the fashion that they would have envisioned early on. but in 1976 a little-known candidate and low pro-file candidate for governor or candidate for president who was a governor of georgia, vimmy carter, came to iowa. he saw that opportunity, that

the first in the nation caucus provided, and jimmy carter spent a lot of time in iowa. he traveled the state, he met people, he got to know people, he built a network, an organization, and friendships within the state, and by the time the that you cuss rolled around in -- caucus rolled around in 1976, jimmy carter had won the caucus in iowa, which was a surprise win, the people didn't see it coming, the polling didn't show it, and that surprise win was a springboard that launched jimmy carter on to the nomination of the presidency out of this little-known first in the nation caucus we have in iowa. and the state law that was introduced says that we shall be the first competition in the nation and it automatically moves the state of iowa forward if any other state moves their date. and this year it will be on january 3. so it's earlier than usual, earlier than i would like, but it will be a significant competition that evening that will give the country the first

look at what iowa activists think about who should be the next president of the united states. i would take us back a little bit on history also, something to reflect on, mr. speaker. it would be this, that jimmy carter in 1976 won the nomination because of the springboard of the iowa caucus. if he had lost the iowa caucus, i don't think we would have heard of jimmy carter after that. his campaign very likely would have died. that was 1976. that was the year by the way that ronald reagan challenged unsuccessfully gerald ford for the nomination of the presidency. well, four years later, in 1980, ronald reagan was -- he was a player in the iowa caucus, but he didn't work iowa very hard. george h.w. bush did work iowa very hard. and bush won the caucus in iowa. reagan expected to, expected to, but he took iowa for granted and george herbert walker bush won that -- won the caucus in iowa

in 1980 and then ronald reagan had the pressure on him when they went to new hampshire. and there in new hampshire ronald range had the famous line, -- reagan had the famous line, i'm paying for this microphone and he pulled the microphone forward, that was the shot that went -- that was the vignette that went around the country and around the world and it exemplified the authority with which ronald reagan came to the debate and the authority with which he had governed as governor of california and the authority with which he would later on become the best president of the 20th century. but that moment in new hampshire was a moment for ronald reagan that launched him out of new hampshire and onto the nomination and onto the presidency. but if you'll remember, mr. speaker, gerald ford was under serious consideration for the nomination of vice president of the united states and i'm actually glad that they didn't make that decision. a former president as a vice president would be too much friction, too much conflict and

not enough room for the new president to operate. but george herbert walker bush was nominated and became the vice president under ronald reagan. for two term, 1980 through 1988 or 1980 through 1999 -- or 1981 through 1989. so i would speculate, mr. speaker, that had it not been for the iowa caucus victory of george h.w. bush, he very likely would not have been named vice presidential candidate since he ran a competitive nomination -- competition against ronald reagan. gerald ford was not named vice president. george h.w. bush was. he became vice president for eight years and then president for four years and would we have had a president george b. bush if we'd never had bush 41? maybe never would have had bush

43. so the continue of history has shifted itself dramatically on the results of what was prior to that time, you know, a very low profile caucus in iowa. in the last caucus we saw what happened with barack obama emerging, his movement began in iowa. iowa gave him that launch to new hampshire. and wasn't my choice, obviously, mr. speaker, but there's a legacy there that will play itself out again january 3 of this year. i'm watching all the presidential candidates and i'm watching how they perform and how they resonate with the voters. and i have said since, well, january, concluded that it was a slow start on the presidential race and, you know, most people weren't yet clamoring for a presidential race. i thought that it should be starting and we should start seeing more activity. so we did some things to

initiate presidential activity in the state, including hosting a presidential event on march 26 at the marriott hotel in des moines, march 26 of this spring this past spring. and that seemed to galvanize and launch this caucus process. and then a number of the presidential candidates came there and made their presentations and we intermixed it with good thinkers on policy issues of the day. it was one of the things that took place. but even then as i listened to the presidential candidates and as i have the privilege to talk with them and get to know them and it is an extraordinary privilege to know these presidential candidates in this way, i like them all, i respect them all. mr. speaker, every one of them in my opinion would be whoa make a better president than the one we have. i'll have no hesitation about -- i have no hesitation about endorsing and campaigning for the eventual nominee. but there have been a couple of things missing. one of them is an economic policy plan. and as i listen to the candidates, they would talk

about what they would repeal, but i wasn't hearing anything much about what they would do in the proactive side. and so i even toid with this idea, mr. speaker, and the idea of advancing some of those own repeals in my own way. but as i watched the presidential candidates, they want to tweak the tax policy some and they all want to repeal obamacare. i think that looks like plank number one in the platform of the nominee or any of the candidates as they compete for the nomination going forward. plank number one, repeal obamacare. then they have their tax cut plans and how they would structure the taxes. but i have not seen all year long a significant economic proposal and one of those that has emerged now that people can identify with is herman cain's 9-9-9 plan. the 9-9 had been 9 is a bump -- 9-9-9 is a bumper sticker that

does get people's attention. they can remember it. it's got a unique ring to it and it causes them to pay attention and look into it and understand each of the three components. well, there's a marketing brilliance in the 9-9-9 plan. i'm going to try to avoid discussing the economic components of it but there's a marketing brilliance. and then mitt romney had, prior to that he rolled out his plan, a 59-point plan. mr. speaker, i'm sorry, i can't get through 59 points. what i can't memorize, i can't defend and explain. but subsequent to herman cain's the 9-9-9 came and then rick perry's 20-20 plan, lease seats -- let's see, cut and balance and grow are pretty close to that anyway. i call it the 20-20 plan. that also caught people's attention. to go to a flat tax, steve forbe's is one of the advisors on this. it looks like art laffer is one of the advisors on herman in's's 9-9-9 plan, both very respected

economists. i'm the one who goes for a fair tax so it's hard to move me on these other policies. but we're starting to see now the presidential candidates dimpt themselves on their economic policies. -- differentiate themselves on their economic policies. what i bring this up for is that i'm looking at for a candidate for the presidency who can articulate a vision for america on what their view is, what their vision is, on how to take america to the next level of our destiny. what does america look like in a generation? if they're able to bring their policies into play and lead with the bully pulpit of the presidency of the united states, what does america look like? what are our fundamental principles that can be inspired by a president with that kind of vision? and how does that mesh in, how does that couple in with the policies that they would advocate? i take you back, mr. speaker, to ronald reagan again who for his entire political career talked about america as the shining

city on the hill. he didn't talk about the shining city on the hill that he promised we were necessarily going to have, he said, america is the shining city on a hill. and standing strong and true on a granite ridge, that's pretty close to a reagan quote, it may not be exactly right, mr. speaker. but that giffords gets you the concept. all of his political life he had the vision for america as the shining city on the hill. he articulated it. when we heard it from him, maybe we didn't see it with the clarity that reagan did, but we knew he saw it with clarity. that was the vision thing. that was what inspired america to come behind ronald reagan and that's what inspired america to become, again, this resurgent nation where the malaise speech was put behind us and the imagination and the hope and the robust future for america unfolded from the reagan administration. that's the biggest reasons why we see him as the greatest president of the 20th century.

but the next president of the united states needs to articulate a vision, needs to tell us what america looks like, what are our foundational principles, how they will refurbish those pillars of american exceptionalism, how they can strengthen the measures of life and marriage, how they can strengthen the family, that basic building block of our civilization. how they can restrengthen the constitutional understanding. i want to hear from a presidential candidate how this would make appointments to the supreme court -- how they would make appointments to the supreme court of justices that would interpret the text of the constitution to mean what it was understood to mean at the time of ratification. we have a president who is intentionally nominating activists to the federal courts. it's a tragedy that those kind of judges would remove the understanding of the constitution from the american people and so far we've kind of moved forward excepting the idea that the people -- accepting the

idea that the people in the black robes understand more about what's written and what is meant in this constitution than the other people that all of us in here took an oath to this constitution, our federal workers take an oath to this constitution and executive branch, our troops all do the same thing, many of our state officers do the same thing. you can't take an oath to a constitution as living and breathing, you can only take an oath to a constitution that means what it says. and some of them take the oath and set about seeking to amend it, de facto amending the constitution by redefining it. i want a president who understands the pillars of american exceptionalism, who can articulate them, who can transfer them into the future as a timeless value that have gotten us to the present. one who can articulate the great, great difficulty of moving to a balanced budget, how we get a balanced budget amendment that will guide this congress so we can be bound by

our obligation to our constituencies. one who has an understanding of foreign policy, one who has a full and complete tax plan that transforms america, all of those things are things that fit within the vision and the vision right now is what i've tuned my ear for and i'm hopeful, mr. speaker, that we'll be able to hear this vision come from the presidential candidates and before we get into january, that will understand or hear what with that clarity, the next president, their shining city on the hill speech for us. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. king: mr. speaker, i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning for morning hour debate.

>> later, mitch mcconnell hold a news briefing. >> would you continue your

statement, please? "i am prepared to wait for my answer until freezes over. but he was the ambassador for president kennedy. a former governor of illinois and at twice ran as the democratic nominee for president and lost. adlai stevenson this week on "the contenders." live at friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> now, a panel discussion with the republican presidential campaigns. the hourlong discussion is hosted by the national journal.

hickok's we have a very interesting and dynamic group coming out. national journal follows the issues and trends impacting in america and congress. in 2012, perhaps no issues are dominant than those related to housing, the economy, and the unemployed. we appreciate the partnership to help highlight the important issues. joining us today is jerry howard, a lifelong advocate for home building. please welcome jerry howard. [applause] i want to thank the victoria and the national journal for allowing nahb to co-sponsor this event. while the economy is clearly the

fundamental issue in the forthcoming election, never before have we seen -- housing has always been a significant element of our economy carried 18% of gdp but we are running on all cylinders. if you travel outside of the beltway right now and talk to voters, talk particularly to a highly motivated large block of the voters like a baby and rumors, most of which still have their jobs, they are concerned about the fundamental asset that they have built their nest egg around. there are concerned about the value of their house. even in markets where foreclosure is not a problem, understand 70% of foreclosures have taken place in 11 states.

in their candidates have announced a plan that would tackle the overall cause a problem. we believe there cannot be fundamental economic recovery until every american has reason to believe that the asset that they have been encouraged to build their retirement it around is going to stabilize. until they stop seeing declines in housing in markets where they're actually should be a demand for housing. until policy makers stopped making it more difficult for young people to buy homes. so i want to thank you all for

being here. i want to thank the national journal for applying the to be here. with that, i would like to introduce the moderator abc news political director and national journal correspondent beth reinhard. thank you very much. >> we are right to have a great redouble look at the gop primary. mark bloc, chief of staff for herman cain.

robert walker for newt gingrich. webber for mitt romney. thank you for turning us this morning. -- for joining us this morning.

>> i want to welcome our panelists. we really appreciate being here. we appreciate you sharing your secrets with us today. >> this is all of the record today. nobody will see this. any news you want to break. i would not tell anybody. >> we are quite to start off with mark bloc. we just feel you have not had

enough national attention today. obviously, your candidate was the big newsmaker of the past 24 hours. when you were it interviewed about it, he said that herman cain had it never sexually harassed anyone, case closed. herman cain, who was in washington yesterday, said the same thing. he said he knew of no settlement. his story seems to change as the day went on. later on, he did recover some details about one of the settlements. my question is, how do we know this is the end. can you guarantee there is not any more information forthcoming about his past? have we heard it all? >> i think a statement would be that mr. herman cain has never sexually harassed anybody, and

of story. as the hours go by, it is interesting that we even hear from a radio talk-show host in iowa that the receptionist at thought mr. herman cain's comments were inappropriate. if we have to spend every hour, every day responding to these ridiculous accusations, it will take us off of our message and our campaign. my statement will stand, mr. herman cain has never sexually harassed anybody. and of story. >> do you think -- this is the end of the story then? it is done? >> is down. >> there is one thing american people want to hear about, and that is jobs, jobs, jobs. >> could you guarantee we are

not court to hear from anybody else? >> what did you not understand about what i just said? "i don't know. we will go back to the second one. let me move to rob johnson for a second. there is a video that has made the viral rounds. he was very animated. there were a lot of people asking if, what was rick perry doing? why was this side of his -- a side of him we have not seen before. can you explain what that was? was he having fun with this or is there something else we should know about rick perry? >> i think it was a great event. the governor was very comfortable and passionate. he was very engaged with the crowd of talking about his message of getting america

working again. it was a great event. we have a passionate speaker comfortable in his own skin. >> we are hoping his video goes more formal than mine. >> you have to have a cigarette to do that. i guess that is a follow up. the >> governor. will not have a cigarette at his next speech -- will not have a --governor perry will not have a cigarette at his next deal. >> is there not really a consistent record. right now? he is getting locked for it more than embraced for that appearance. >> the mainstream media wants to make issues were there are not issues. there is no issue. the governor is a passionate

speaker. he is a strong leader. he is it an authentic conservative. he has a consistent message of getting a america working again. i think a lot of times the press and washington establishment try to make issue where there is no issue. this is one of those cases. >> we are going to direct the next question toward vin weber. >> i told mark i was very offended by that at because republicans are supposed to smoke cigars. >> give us one reason why we should not expect governor romney to win the iowa caucus. >> i am from a caucus state that is close to iowa.

there are two factors that really dominate the caucasus. what is the ideological factors and the other is associations. i have to say there are a couple of candidates that have strong appeal logical supporters agree that might try everything. gov. mitt romney has basically a 50 piece -- 50 states chance of the nomination. we are prepared to go the distance if we have to. here were to be competitive and not at all the eggs in the basket. i think he will be competitive. >> as a follow-up to iowa, i wanted to go with the record santorum campaign. --rick santorum campaign. i want to start with you because your candidate has spent more time in iowa than anyone else. he has been 270 counties. >> 99. he has said every counties

already. >> he has been to all 99 counties. the the two leaders of the iowa poll are the two people who have spent the least amount of time. >> first of all, i want to congratulate the mitt romney people. there were first in the poll in october of 2007 which did not account for much. mike how to be was approximately 20 points behind in the october 2007 i will poll. what you see is it is very early. i think it is between now and the iowa straw poll at least 10 debates. i think you find a large amount of people are undecided. when you have a service, it was two people at the top and everyone else after that. if you look at the ames straw poll.

rick santorum came in third. people do care that you have something that you stand for. i think also being on the ground it went to kick tie, they want to get to know you. he was sharing that this is who i of supporting. i hope you would support them as well. and they turn to him and said, i cannot yet. i have only met them once. this is how seriously they do take this. >> to follow up on that, and your candidates may have won the straw poll. i think i heard that once or twice. somebody like -- out here saying, the old fashioned way of doing iowa, or doing the campaigns as we have known them are not as relevant in this day

and age, then -- that is evolving in the way that voters are processing and the about candidates. should we be thinking about iowa differently, or is this going to be michele bachmann, shoe leather door knocking campaign? >> >> i think iowans take their responsibilities very seriously. i do think technology has changed things. you do not have to be in a town to talk to the allstate. i think -- to the whole state. i think the internet has changed things quite a bit. it is not a media market on the event. but i do think it comes down to meeting people, talking to people. the process has really only started. i would say it is starting right now. there are some holidays between now and the caucus time. i do not think people have their

heads around focusing on it at all. i think there is fluctuation in the polls. no one has focused and i think we will have 60 something days here on the people engaging in profits. you have to go need folks when they start focusing and i think they are just trying to focus now. >> you are 100% committed to winning iowa? >> i think we have to do well in iowa. she is from iowa and we are campaigning hard in iowa. the campaign only started in june and we are trying to win the caucus to the best of our ability and that is what we are doing every day. >> would you continue past iowa if you do not win the caucuses? >> we are positioned well in south carolina and new hampshire and florida. it is a question that i think we get more than others.

we are positioned in all of those states and we are planning on winning them all. [unintelligible] >> i think newt is positioned well and the campaign is moving forward. i think he is also in a position of strength in new hampshire and south carolina. obviously, the campaign would like to win those states, but finishing strongly in those states would put him in a very good position. what is happening is a lot of people in the country are taking a look at this whole field and trying to decide who the people are that can make it all the way through. i think about the movie the secretariat that someone read the book about or saw the movie.

stumbled a bit, but true grit and determination was able to win all three. this campaign will move to the early primaries and then finally, the general election. i think a lot of people are looking at the general election and sang, who is it we want on the stage with president obama defending our values? more and more, gingrich is looking like the person people would like to have their. if he does strongly in these early primaries, i think he does a very good -- stands a very good chance of being one of the two candidates who gets into the later going. iowa, i would also agree that is a different type of campaign this year. social networking, twitter, a lot of these kinds of things are beginning to have an impact on voters because they feel a personal relationship with the candidates even though they may not have shaken the hand yet.

i think that will impact the campaign in iowa and throughout this campaign season in a way it has never before. >> and the debates have played a key role. >> yes, he has done well in the debates and that is why the question is coming up, who do you want setting on the stage with president obama when we get to that stage? newt has proven himself to be a person who is capable of winning those debates. i want to look at you for one second out that i am on the issue of debates. we know that earlier -- i guess it was a last week, the perry campaign was musing that there were too many debates, maybe would have to skip some of the debates. just a few days later you came out and said you were doing all

of the november debates. many of them are very close to each other and not particularly convenient. did you get spooked? is that what happened? the reason he decided to do all of those debates was because of the push back that people got saying that he could not do that and he is a chicken? >> no, i think we are the only one on the stage to have committed to all five. >> is anybody else doing all five debates? >> [unintelligible] >> we are going to all of them. >> i have not said no. >> you are going to be in michigan. >> don't you play the role of herman cain in the debates? [laughter] >> i do not think there are five debates this month. i think there are four. >> we have lost track now. the point is, you are doing all

of those debates. >> we are going to make decisions that are the best for our campaign and we decided to do all the debates in november and that is the end of the story. there is much ado about nothing here. >> what has changed? >> there is no change. there are too many debates. everybody here would admit that 18 more debates between now and florida, which is january or february, i think everybody would agree it is out of control. but they are an important part of this process and will participate. >> we love debates. we love debates. and i think we are happy that rick perry will be there. [laughter] >> i do not understand. >> right, what does that mean? can you talk about the fact that

you are doing well in iowa, too. you are consistently run around 10%, 12% in the national polls. why can't we see more movement, even as the other candidates have gone up and down, you guys have not been able to take advantage of the volatility here? >> i think is pretty astute. we have been building steady growth. we are building the best organization in iowa and new hampshire. we're also building organizations that i do not think any other campaign, except perhaps mitt romney can match in the early caucus states. this is really a race about delegates. we are positioning ourselves to do well in iowa and new hampshire, and to win substantial, delegates from early caucus states. >> and last time you guys stayed in this thing almost the whole

way. >> we will wake up on march 7 and have a pretty good picture. is there a republican nominee or a about going forward? >> you think this thing is over by super tuesday? >> it could be. it could not be. >> [laughter] >> we think there are several situations where there could be a nominee. there could also be a knock down dried out through june. -- knock down drag out through june. >> the juceam likely to be a pretty quick job -- and do you see it likely to be a pretty quick job? do you expect it to be drawn out? and do you think florida is -- can someone get past florida without winning the state? >> it looks like it is leaning towards -- that flag is not over

yet. florida is very important. >> i listened to your last panel and they seem to think it would be open -- over soon and early. as for our campaign, we probably would like that. i think they thought it was a chance that it could go on a lot longer. republicans have not shown an interest in coalescing early behind the candidates up to this point. it seems to me there is a chance that we could have something. the formula would add to that. >> i would agree with that. the candidates to do not at all too well in the early primaries could find themselves without the resources that even if they want to go on, they would not have the ability to the kind of travel and outrage that they would have to do.

the but it is entirely likely that you could end up with two or three candidates in competition that could go on to -- for some time, particularly narrowing it down to two. i think that could be a campaign echoes even into the convention. >> i want to throw one more question your way. the milwaukee sentinel is reporting about $40,000 worth of ipods and chartered planes. did the campaign really -- for that? >> i can tell you that we have retained independent counsel to

report back to west. >> this is your hearing. >> we have retained outside counsel to look at the milwaukee journal sentinel and the get back to us. >> were you responsible for doing the bookkeeping for the charity? amy.aine >> i heard you. >> why don't we talk about the campaign going forward? >> you have been very on message on this panel. >> what a concept. >> which is no fun for us, of course. your boss is about to go through a slew of media appearances today. is he going to be giving these same exchanges? is he closing the door? no more? he could certainly give more detail than you have today about these charges on three different shows.

at what more will we hear from him today? >> i will have to apologize because it is very difficult. i think all of the catalyst will agree that it is difficult to -- the panelists will agree that it is difficult to hear your question is. >> the question is, your boss is on tv allot today. he has been much more open and explicit in discussing some of these issues than have you. is he going to continue to do that today, or will we see the mark bloc answers coming from the candidate? >> i think you will have to watch it throughout the day, as you saw yesterday. he answered any question that was put forward to him. one of the things that we have done with him is obviously, tell the truth, get the story out there. that is what he is doing.

>> mark mentioned -- mark mcintosh, i know you are hoping for -- we see you there. you all put out a video yesterday comparing mitt romney to a weathervane. this is a far cry from where you started off a few months ago. what happened? >> plessy come on the -- i am the policy director -- first, i am the policy director for the campaign, not the strategy director. i think the governor -- it needed to be pointed out that there have been some shifting of relations as it applies to governor romney. it is important for each of the candidates to maintain a level of consistency, and a position to give the public an opportunity to have a good assessment on who they want to

vote for, instead of getting in a position of not being quite sure what each candidate's position on the specific issues are. >> you all have presented yourselves at the mainstream candidates who can get the attendants. you have all said, yes, i believe in evolution. does this seem to be the right time to deliver that message? >> i am fascinated by that narrative. obviously, the campaign has their strategy, but the narrative out of the media has been particularly fascinating for me on that. as i was getting to know governor huntsman, i obviously did a lot of work reviewing his home record. and surprisingly, he has as conservative a record or as anyone on this stage as it

relates to governing in utah. people tend to grudged -- gravitates toward the science issue and i think that is a personal issue for him because i think the family's interest in cancer research is something that they take very seriously. they listen to scientists. while we are focusing on new hampshire, and that is a prairie in which a lot of people will vote -- a primary in which a lot of people will vote, we are much more focused on -- we are has focused on the conservative voter as we are the independent voter. i kind of push back on the whole modern narrative based on his track record. >> what is the governor's

message? >> he's got a number of them. >> pick the big one can spell it out for us, if you had to borrow it down. >> his message for the country -- the country is an economic hardship right now and their need to be solid policies put in place to ensure the vitality of the country for the 21st century. that core principle transcends almost everything on the policy front, whether it is economic policy, foreign policy, and so, his message is, until we take care of things at home, it makes everything else we do as a

global power difficult. that is his message. >> this is for the entire panel, although i will start with you, congressman weber. the super package is the first to go up in iowa. and when do you expect these had been inpacks iowa -- happen in iowa? >> two weeks ago. we are not looking forward to vicious,-assault -- nrgative

assault. >> are you expecting in? >> some of us are expecting it more than others. but that is what you would do if you are anticipating going on in negative attack, because he got down into the single digits in the states in the deep south. that is not a place from which you can attack. he will build himself up. that is why i would anticipate that. that is what we are expecting. >> can you be a serious candidate without a super pac? >> probably not. changes in campaign financing has a whole bunch of negative

consequences. i do not think you can do it seriously without a super pac. >> by election time next year aqcs.tore will be super p [ac >> and what about the influences of the parties? if the republican party dead? does it have influence? it certainly has influence in states to make decisions about when to will primaries. -- to hold primaries. what does the republican party hold for you guys? >> we were happy to work birth german priebus to encourage nevada -- work with chairman priebus to encourage nevada to

push their primary back. it will force all candidates to compete hard without pockets dollars. -- caucus dollars. he does not have a big shtick all the time. i think he uses carrots. >> and i will not praise chairman priebus because he is from wisconsin -- >> [laughter] >> but i will praise him for the fact that when i worked with him in wisconsin, he really understood what the citizens movement was all about and he worked side-by-side with citizens for prosperity in harnessing the anger and fear of the people. he is taking what he saw in

wisconsin to a national level and i give him a lot of credit for working with all groups. we all need to play well in the sandbox to win in november of 2012. he understands that. >> i want to address this to any of you that are not from the romney campaign. who feels that there are a real challenger to gov. romney? i would argue that none of you have demonstrated that you can take on governor romney, a leader in a debate or fund raising more as an organization. are you saying there's more to come? >> shouldn't the question really be who will rise to challenge hermine kaine?

[unintelligible] >> you are making yourself the presumptive front runner. this is where the problem for me comes in. you guys go back on abortion were one day you are pro-life, but then you say it is up to the family to choose. and herman cain comes out and says, i am pro-life, and a story. -- end of story. he also said, i am a tax cutter, and of story. now we have the sexual harassment case and he has come out and said, i never sexually harass anybody, and of story. -- end of story. what i would encourage the people to do is if you are a and

damany, be forthcoming so you are vetted and we do not get into a situation where you are a nominee and we do not know the facts about you. you said that herman cain answered every question that was asked yesterday. the problem is, they answers change throughout the day. -- the answers change throughout the day. the problem is, we need a candidate who is forthcoming. >> if we are running such a horrible campaign, why do we continue to rise in the polls? we have one of our best online fund-raising days yesterday. we are obviously doing something right. >> how much did you raise yesterday? >> it was $250,000 on line. >> and how does that compare to what you have seen over the last

little while? >> it was one of the best fundraising days ever. >> what does that say to you? >> the american people are sick and tired of politics as usual. mr. kaine is the only non- politician running and his message of 9-9-9 is resonating across this country. just look at the polls. you have probably done pretty intense of polls. -- intensive polls. >> for people to sit up here and pontificate that this race is here or there is absurd. it is ridiculous. a campaign is a series of events and a series of decisions. and the first vote is not cast for two months. i think everybody ought to take

a deep breath and we will see you in iowa and new hampshire and south carolina. >> i think it is clear that mitt romney has managed to maintain a position of having 25% to 35% of the vote in polls steadily. and you have to believe that in the and it is going to come down to mitt romney and someone else that is going to be the real question. what is the message that gets framed out of that? do you want somebody that is going to be a real change agent in terms of changing washington, or do you want someone to come in and show great confidence in managing washington, or managing government and, therefore, be a good manager in washington? there will be some key issues that will rise as those two candidates come together. what we are in right now was a sorting out time as to who will

be that candidates and who will go through a series of primaries, not just the early primaries, but a series of primaries against mitt romney. >> i think the story line -- with all due respect to my friends, we have seen repairing collapsed down to single digits, michelle bachmann as well. herman cain may have some troubles or not. rick santorum cannot get out of low single digits. and mitt romney cannot get past 25% to 34%. everyone in this race has understated governor romney's strength for a long time. >> what are we seeing? is this a long campaign and people are sort of looking around? or are they looking because they are not happy with what they

have? >> the wall street journal a few weeks ago had a story about that, which i'm sure you saw. the polling has not borne that out. i do think that the country in a foul mood for a lot of good reasons, and that creates a real desperation on the part of people wanted them to find a way out of the desperate mess that we are in. >> i do think the media has done a bad job of describing the field. i think it has been a very strong field, and for some reason because everybody has to line up behind one candidate and because no one has walked with it 69 days ahead of time, which has never happened in the history of primaries, that it is somehow making the field look weak -- i think we have a very

strong field of candidates. whether it is governor background, private sector background, or others. to paint this as a wheat field just because someone in does not have 60% of the vote -- a weak field just because someone does not have 60% of the vote this early as absurd. >> i agree. i need to ask how volatile the polling has been. how do you go from being on top of the polls one week to be on the bottom a week later? >> i do not think a lot of this -- i think how you answer two questions on a debate will move the polls. i do not look at the polls at all. first of all, pulling a caucus state this surely is a kind of

risk -- ridiculous. -- pauline a caucus state this early is kind of ridiculous. the debate schedule and the campaign schedule have not quite connected. i think you will see that in december. >> i was with the juliani campaign last night. the early polls, trust me, they are not that important. >> to some extent, the story line on this campaign has not yet gotten to where the american people really are in this campaign. if you go back to 2008, they are saying he essentially the same thing now as they were in 2008. we are not competitive in the world and things have changed. obama was able to use hope and change. it turns out what they wanted to do is use washington to change

america. i think the country has come to the conclusion that they want to use america to change washington. i think the candidates to articulate that have a chance to emerge from this primary campaign in a winning position. >> we will turn it over to chris and rhey to with yahoo! so we can hear -- chris and rachel with yahoo! as we can hear from some of the people on line. >> we have had several questions from the audience. first to mr. brock, on your answer to the question about the investigation you set with your general counsel, if they ask that your independent counsel reveals accepted funds from the charity, or if it is later revealed that mr. kaine paid off his accusers, how will you remedy the situation? >> we will respond accordingly.

>> can you elaborate? >> no. >> and what mr. kaine ever consider a third part -- third- party candidacy in 2012? >> no. >> we have a very diverse field this cycle and here in the room, multiple audience members have commented that the stage is comprised of white men. i was wondering some of your thoughts on that. >> we did get several cards on that, actually. [laughter] >> if you look at most of the campaigns there is actually more diversity than is represented up here today, unfortunately. in fairness to the campaigns, if you look at a lot of the people in upper level positions at a lot of the campaigns, this is not necessarily representative or reflective of the entire

campaigns, or the candidates, as we have michelle bachmann and herman cain and others. this party in general, if you look at -- down the line, it doesn't encourage diversity -- it does encourage diversity. >> can you elaborate on your nails? what did you say? >> [unintelligible] >> you highlighted this briefly, but i would like you to expand on it. the senator santorum has been very hard on herman cain for his comments on abortion. on one hand he said he is 100% pro-life and on the other hand he has said the government is not to clarify when life begins. it will senator santorum have more to say about this either in future ads, or will he take

him out on this in the next day? >> i'm assuming that other people will take this up. even on cnn last night they put up on their website all of the same as herman cain has made on abortion and they seem to be in great conflict with one another. as part of this process, it is a fair thing for people to ask campaigns to specify what they say when they say one thing here and a complete other thing here. why the difference? i think the abortion issue is a very important one and i think it is one that we will not back away from. i think we are still waiting for clarification from the herman cain people. we are still confused as to his position. >> senator santorum has sent out several e-mails this past week. and we will hear more from him? he is saying that herman cain has not done a good enough job

clarify his position? >> i think anyone who has watched the debates knows that, senator santorum did a very good job clarifying his position. he did it with mitt romney and with others. i think he will do the same with herman cain and the pro-life issue. it is important to american primary voters because they want to make sure they have a candidate who is not afraid to take on barack obama in the debates in the fall campaign. >> what does hermine kaine need to say to convince -- what does herman cain need to say to convince you that he is pro- life? >> some consistency would be wonderful. you cannot repetitively status of to the family to decide. it is their choice. and then over here say i am pro- life. i would say on this particular issue, i'm not sure there will ever be credibility.

>> mr. bloch, we have been talking about your boss. would you like to respond? >> mr. herman cain has said he is 100% per life from conception. >> end of story. [laughter] >> thank you. >> would you comment on the early staff exodus from the gingrich campaign and the decision of some of those staffers to join the perry campaign and how you feel those staffers are doing now? [laughter] >> i did not catch that. >> about the sapper's leaving. >> i think that rob and some of the other people that had been with knut early on did have a loyalty to rick perry when he decided to become involved in the campaign. i think they felt that is where

they could better serve. we are staffing the campaign as we speak in all the early primary states. we will go from there. >> how do you feel the staffers are doing in their new roles? >> i think we are doing very, very well. i think the campaign has been moving forward. do have a lot momentum forward. there is a lot of strong momentum for this campaign. we think, if anything, we have more momentum at the present time than rick perry does. >> the bachmann campaign, there has been a lot reports about turmoil in the campaign. you have had staffers quit and one adviser has been very critical. can you help us understand why

there is a disconnect between the national campaign and the new hampshire team? >> we have a very focused campaign. we have a great team assembled and are adding people every day. some of the staff stuff has been taken out of context quite a bit. i heard one voter, ask about the staff. it is kind of a blogger or a phenomenon. we do not really care. some of our strategy has been altered based on some of the early primary states moving around. we are competing in new hampshire, south carolina, and in iowa. >> the national campaign is that no fault based upon the grievances that the new hampshire team put forward publicly last week? >> not at all. the person who put that out was not a member of the campaign. we do not even know who she is. >> she is a spokesman of the team.

>> no, she is not a part of our campaign. >> this goes to the rick perry campaign. an audience member noted that there have been many reports that the jobs created under the governor in texas were either created by federal government dollars or work part-time, low- wage jobs. is that a correct assessment? >> nokomis this is not true. -- no, this is not true. >> was responsible for their information? >> it is just not true. the government has -- the governor has made clear that the fact is, 40% of all jobs in the country have been created in texas since 2009. the environment the governor perry has helped create in north texas has created 1 million jobs. everybody on this panel has to be barack obama and you have to have someone who can energize

this economy and help get america working again and that person is repairing. >> we have not forgotten about the ron paul campaign. i get your e-mail's all the time saying that we have. we are working on it. i wonder if you could help us compare this election for ron paul compared to the last election cycle. were there any mistakes that you made in 2008 that you have remedy this year, or you feel you are doing better? if he does not make the nomination, who do you think he will put his support behind? or will he consider a third- party candidacy as well? >> there is not going to be any kind of third-party. he is a republican and seeking the republican nomination. as far as who he might support if he is not the nominee, we will have to see. he is very serious about cutting spending. he is planning to cut one

trillion dollars in spending in one year. unfortunately, all we are hearing from all the other campaigns is nibbling around the edges. we need to cut this deficit now before we destroy our dollar and we see prosperity in this country take a major hit for a long time. second, i think we are doing a lot better in this campaign. are we doing things completely differently? no, but we are organized and raising more money, working harder, more media team. the way of professionals involved and at the same -- we have more professionals involved in at the same time we're working to maintain our grassroots authenticity. if you look at the four candidates that i think have some sort of path to the nomination, ron is the only candidate that has fought against heart and opposed top --

fought against tarp and opposed tarp. bailey of banks and taking care of wall street -- bailing out banks and taking care of wall street and doing it on the backs of the taxpayer, he is against that. if you want to end the bill out and restore why america is so .reat, ron is your candidate >> i want to make clear that governor perry is 100% opposed to erp -- tarp and has been since day one. ricks what about the letter he wrote to -- >> what about the letter he wrote to congress asking for help? >> it did not say that. i just want to make clear he is against tarp.

from day one. >> the -- the facts just do not speak to that. >> never supported it. >> how does the proportional nominating system play into your strategy? does that change anything in terms of this year or this cycle? does that affect anything? >> are is that directed for me? >> sure, anyone. >> like i said earlier, this is a race about delegate. who is going to get the necessary delegates to be the nominee. i think proportional delegate appropriation is very good for us. we plan to keep -- compete very hard in caucus states. we are going to wake up on november 7 -- i'm sorry, march 7 and see if one candidate has

consolidated the delegates or if there is going to be a split and will have several candidates still battling it out through the primaries. >> it looks like we are out of time. thanks for joining us. we will send it back to you over there. >> thank you, everybody. thank you guys for joining us. next time we will have a podium. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> wrote to the white house coverage this weekend. -- road to the white house coverage this weekend. that is at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. on saturday, republican candidates herman cain and newt gingrich square off in a lincoln douglas style debate on social issues. that is live getting under way,

8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span and c-span radio. with just over three weeks until the deadline to give a plan to congress, the joint deficit reduction committee met today. that hearing is next on c-span. senate majority leader harry reid and senate minority leader mitch mcconnell talk about the work of the so-called super committee. later, house debate on the u.s. model "in god we trust." >> every weekend on american history tv, the people and events that document the american story. this weekend, white house curator on the items are rarely on display at the white house. and a civil war author, who has written a prequel and a sequel to his father's novel, the

killer angels. look for the complete weekend schedules at c-span.org/history. or go to your in box -- or for alerts in your in box, go to the website. next, former senator alan simpson, who led the president's fiscal commit -- commission, is among those testifying. nicolasa lawyer from congressional budget office director and former senator pete davinci. this is about three hours. >> the committee will come to order. before i recognize myself for opening statement i would like to make some preliminary remarks. number one, i would like to make

clear to all our guests that approval or disapproval, including the use of signs will not be used in this room. we will thank our guests for maintaining order and decorum in the hearing room. this is the fourth joint select committee on deficit-reduction. i want to thank our witnesses. first, i wish to thank them for their service to the country. all long time, storied public officials. senator alan simpson -- simpson who served as chairman of the veterans committee, and obviously, the co-chair of president obama's national commission on fiscal responsibility and reform. additionally, erskine bowles,

who served as chief of staff to president bill clinton and was appointed by president obama to also co-chair the national commission on fiscal responsibility and reform. senator pete comaneci, the longest seated senator in mexico's history, although new mexico is still a fairly young state, a storied career as chairman of the budget committee. he served as a senior fellow at the bipartisan policy center. and finally, dr. alice rivlin, vice chairman of the federal reserve, director of the omb in the first clinton administration, and the founding director of the congressional budget office and served with senator domenici on the bipartisan task force for debt

reduction i want -- debt reduction. i want to thank each of you for your belly of a work in this process. this particular committee chose to hear from these four individuals in this body. with that, i would yield for an opening statement. what i do believe we will hear from each of our witnesses is that america does, indeed, face a legitimate debt crisis. not only are we operating on borrowed money, but we are operating on borrowed time as well. in that game, i never tire of reminding not only myself, but the public and my colleagues that although we have a statutory goal to reduce the growth of the deficit over 10 years by $1.5 trillion backed up by a $1.2 trillion sequester

should we fail, more importantly, we have a legislative duty to improve the nation's long-term fiscal imbalance. what could not be clearer is that unless we offer fundamental structural reforms to our nation's entitlement programs, especially health care, we will not only end up failing in our duty, we may fail our nation as well. health care costs measured by gdp have roughly doubled since the time of my birth and entered the work force, and have risen about two-thirds since then. and they are going at what all have a knowledge to be an unsustainable rate. every agency that i'm aware of in every academic study shows that medicare will go broke in nine to 13 years. the president himself has said "the major driver of our long term liabilities is medicare and

medicaid and our health care spending." nothing comes close. i continue to agree with the president. unfortunately, security -- social security faces problems as well. my children will likely put more into securities -- social security than they take out. at best, unfair, at worst, generational theft. this economy will roughly produce 18.5% of gdp. we know there are tax increases already built into current law. but spending already driven by retirement -- entitlement programs and has roughly doubled to 40% of gdp from where it was just a few short years ago. we cannot tax our way out of this crisis. we cannot solve it by simply to

increase around the edges of our entitlement programs. -- simply tinkering are on the edges of our entitlement programs. many people say it is time to "pago big." i agree, but going big is not merely measured by slowing the rate of growth of deficit over the next 10 years. it must be measured in solving the problem. in other words, fundamental and structural reforms of our entitlement programs, giving every american the opportunity for quality health care and quality retirement security at a cost that does not harm our jobs and diminish our children's future. with that, i will yield for an opening statement to my co- chair, senator mary washington. thank you, tarin.

-- chairman. i want to thank you for being here, as well as the members of the public. we have been working hard, but with 23 days left until a deadline we are now entering the critical, final phase of this process. and as we all know, the consequences of failure are unacceptable. the triggers that have been put in place would be devastating for our national defense and for middle-class families and the most vulnerable americans that depend on this country for things like education and housing and even if nutrition assistance for women and infants. markets, rating agency, and businesses across the country are working -- watching closely to see if we can solve this problem and the american people are looking to us to solve the gridlock and partisan rancor that has dominated d.c. and to deliver the kind of results that they expect and deserve. we need to find a way to come

together around a bipartisan deal. i believe it is very appropriate that we are having this hearing with these witnesses as we move into these finally feet -- final few weeks. before us we have democrats and republicans who are able to come together round pick and balance proposals -- big and balance proposals. the two groups dealt with in slightly different ways and i do not agree with pieces in the plan, but they have balanced by partisans dorschel siong -- bipartisan proposals. in the end, they came together on a because they were balanced, they included concessions from all sides, and they require all americans to share in the sacrifices that this endeavor shows -- calls for. neither of them included only spending cuts and they did not simply address entitlements or only raise revenues.

they put everything on the table. they made tough decisions and because of that they were able to put together balas packages that address by -- with bipartisan support. as our witnesses today can address, a bipartisan deal is not possible if members can't -- refused to come out of their ideological corners. it is not enough to say you want to reduce the deficit. now was the time when everyone needs to be putting real skin in the game and offering serious compromises. democrats have made clear that we are prepared to do that. we have said we are open to painful concessions and compromises if republicans are as well, and we put forward serious ideas to reflect that. these concessions will only be considered in the context of a balanced deal that does not just fall on the middle class and a vulnerable americans. it requires corporations and the

wealthiest among us to share in the sacrifice. the american people recognize that and overwhelmingly support a balanced approach. it is the kind of solution i am looking forward to hearing more about from our witnesses today and it is the kind of deal that i hope every member of this committee is prepared to make. i thank you again for being here with us to help us make this critical decision. we look forward to hearing your testimony and having a chance to ask our questions. thank you for being here today. >> thank you, senator murray. now we will hear from our panel. i have no idea why you are seated in this order, but we will start with you, mr. bowles. each person will be recognized for five minutes, at the end of which time there will be 10

minutes for questions. >> i am delighted to be here in the company of these three great americans. and i want to thank you for inviting me to come. i thought long and hard about what we wanted to say. we submitted something in writing to you. but instead, i would like to speak to you from a few notes i made. i know most of you. i have worked closely with almost all of you on both sides of the aisle. i have great respect for each of you individually, but collectively, i am worried you are going to fail, fail the country. when alan and i first got into this we thought we were doing it

for our 15 grandkids. i have nine and he has six. but the closer we got to the numbers the more we realized we were not doing it for our grandkids. we were not even doing it for kids. we were doing it for us. that is how dire the situation is today. i think we face the most predictable economic crisis in history. i know that the fiscal path we are on in washington is not sustainable. and i know that each of you know it. and you see it because it is as clear as day. when alan and i travel a run the country and we talk to people and we ask them why they think we have these deficits. -- these deficits, they tell us, oh, it has got to be waste,

fraud, and abuse, foreign aid, company subsidies. and yes, all of those are a small part of the problem. but the big problem really comes from four sources, and you know it. the first is health care. we spend twice as much as any developed country in the world on health care. and unfortunately, if you look at the outcomes, our outcomes do not match the outlays. we rank somewhere between 25th and 50th in things like infant mortality, life expectancy, preventable deaths. the rapid growth of health care

and the unsustainable growth of health care is our number one problem. the second biggest problem today, i believe, is that we spend in this country more than the next 14 largest countries combined on defense. admiral mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, has just stepped down. he recently said that our biggest national security problem is these deficits and this debt. because it will consume every dollar resource we have. we believe we have to make reasonable cuts in defense. third, i believe that we have the most ineffective, inefficient, anti-competitive tax system that man could dream up. what we believe you need to do

is broaden the base, simplify the code, eliminate, or at least greatly reduce this backdoor spending that is in the tax code. it and use that money to bring down rates and reduce the deficit. and the fourth cause of the deficit is simply interest on the debt. thing i am familiar with is the power of compound interest. when interest rates go back to normal, this country will experience the power of compound interest. this is a problem we cannot grow our way and out of. we can have double-digit growth for decades and not solved this problem. as the chairman said, it is not a problem we can solely tax our way out of. taxes not doing a darn thing to

change the demographics of a country or change the fact that health care is growing at a faster rate than gdp. and it is also not a problem if we can solely -- that we can solely cut our way out of. i think you'll have proven that. that is why our commission came up with a balanced plan of $4 trillion of deficit this up -- deficit reduction over the next decade. we did not make up the $4 trillion. that is not the maximum amount that we need to reduce the deficit. it is not the ideal amount. it is the minimum amount we need to reduce the deficit in order to stabilize the debt and get it on a downward path. we base this proposal on six basic principles. these principles are that we

should not do anything to disrupt a very fragile economic recovery so we made very light cuts in 2011 -- so we made very light cuts in 2011-2012. secondly, we did not want to do anything that would hurt the truly disadvantaged. so we did not make any big cuts or any cuts in things like food stamps or ssi or worker's comp. we did some things to improve social security while making it sustainably solid. third, we want to make sure that this country is safe and secure new. but we have to realize that our biggest national security problem is the deficit. fourth, we thought the president was right or half right in the state of the union when he said

america must invest in education, infrastructure, and high value-added research if we are going to be competitive in a knowledge- based economy. but we have to do it in a fiscally responsible manner. we live in a world of limited resources and it -- limited resources. fifth, we believe we have to revise the tax code, simplify the tax code to broaden the base, to reduce the tax expenditures and use the proceeds and reduce the deficit. lastly, we have to be serious about spending cuts. we have to cut spending where it is, whether it is in the tax code, the defense budget, the non-defense budget, discretionary budget, or the internment budget. i believe that all of you go

big, if your ball then did you do it in a smart man, the american people will support your. -- will support you. i hope for the country's sake, you will. >> thank you. senator simpson, you are now recognized. >> it is a pleasure to be here. i look at this panel and i know many of you. but at this age of live, i have been around the track while in this game. i never worked with finer people. we do not need charts when we go out. we do not use powerpoint. we say that if you spend more than you earn, you will lose

your butt. people to hear that. and then use it today that your country is borrowing $4,600 million and we will barrault that tomorrow and the next day and the next day. if that has any common sense for the american people, it has definitely escaped us. my father was a governor and u.s. senator. and of the game of inside baseball and i know many of you. as we wandered through this place, many people came up and said save us from ourselves. that is not a very smart thing to say in the duties you have to perform. so this is the toughest thing you have ever been in or ever will be and without question. you have my deepest admiration and respect, all of you. you all know what you have to do. in your gut, you know what you

have to do. some will say that you lenders can have nothing to lose. you are not in the game. that is true. but dick durbin and tom coburn had a lot to lose. they had something to lose and they stepped up to the plate and did it appeared they voted for our report. i used to take these people on when i was in the congress. i am the only living person that had a hearing on the aarp. i have dealt with professional veterans. i have dealt with the extremists of the senior citizens. i have built with the motion, guilt, fear, racism. i did immigration, social

security -- i have done it all. and have never lost an election. i took on the professional veterans. and never heard anything of lloyd bentsen or bob dole when we did veteran stuff. immigration, was called a bigot and a racist yet that bill brought 3 million people out of the dark know. i was very proud of that. but it never got very far because the right and the left said that this was a national id card. that came from the right and the left. people admire guts and courage. they fight you know. they may vilify you know. but they will admire you. i have been the toast of the town one day and toast the next. it is a funny place.

"time"on the cover of one day and six months later you are doing it. [laughter] he has people enthralled. that is a terrible phrase. linking use it. .- lincoln used it he said my hero is ronald reagan and he raised taxes 11 times know. why do you suppose? he said, do not know. probably to make the country run. another set idea. let's look at a r p. this morning, i saw the ad. it is the most disgusting at i have ever seen. i do not know what the people that paid, especially the actors know. but i will tell you this note. they got well-paid.

they said "we're 50 million and we're watching you and we vote. -- and we vote let's remember what they will be when they do nothing. we asked them what they will do to help and they said we have two things and they never did know. the worst is to do nothing to repair the solvency of social security. you will walk up to the window to get 23% less. i hopefully -- i hope they will remember the aarp. i will. it is a tough job and you will have to do it. people out there will now say that i have helped you forever. i have never ask you for one thing and now here we are. interest rates will go up. inflation will go up.

and guess who gets hurt? the little guy, the vulnerable guy that everybody babbles about day and night. he will be the one who gets hit with a hammer on the snoz. politics are no right answers. just a continued slow of small compromises and unambiguous series of decisions. >> thank you, senator. >> senator de medici, you are recognized. >> the reasons she asked for that privilege is because we had

discussion planned in that order. we thank you very much. let me just say thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you both economic and the fiscal challenges our nation faces and our comprehensive plan to stabilize the national debt. more than 18 months ago, we decided that we should continue our decades-long work for a rational federal fiscal policy. our only stipulation was that everything is on the table. we agreed. we then invited 17 other members to join us in what became the bipartisan policy centers debt reduction task force. i tell you all of this because i think the history of the men and women who work on this is very important to show you what kind of americans we have out there who are worried about the future

and will step up to the table and do what is necessary. the condition of their membership was that they, too, would agree that everything was on the table. imagine the differences. they agreed that we had to solve the problem. we have liberals, conservatives, think tank policymakers, former members of presidential cabinet, people with business and labor experience, our task force was as a devore citigroup as you could get to address what we all believed was a magic as a diverse -- as a diverse a task group as you could get to address what we all believed was a very serious problem.

individually, each of us may have preferred a different mix of solutions. but each compromise to find a set of policies we could all fort. since then, we have seen unemployment continued to exceed 9%. we have been diverted damaging fight over the debt ceiling increase know. -- ceiling increase. we have seen another year deficits exceeding $1 trillion, a debt that ballooned to over $10 trillion, the debt held by the public's. with spending expected to grow faster, we will be forced to borrow more and more every year for do not change their policies. this fiscal projection is clearly unsustainable. everybody has to learn that word because that is probably the best word to explain where we are. we are america with an unsustainable economic policy

and it will ruin us sooner or later. this unsustainable major has been -- this unsustainable nature has been -- all the experts have used that word -- "unsustainable." riding in our fiscal house will take two things -- righting our fiscal house will take two things. the medicare proposal that alice and i present to you today is the only reasonable bipartisan plan to fundamentally reform that program, make it more efficient and preserve it for

future generations. we also present to you a comprehensive pro-growth tax reform that clears up all of the special -- clears out all of the special interests that are in the code. it was recommended a simpler tax system. we have won similar to it. if you look carefully at it, it better solves the problem that we have today. let me be blunt. a plan that does not fundamentally restructure medicare and other health entitlements will fail to adequately address the debt crisis that we face. both sides, those who are against any fundamental health entitlement reform and those who oppose any revenue increases, will be fully complicity in bringing the nation closer to fiscal brink. i hope you heard that.

i said it and it is not let me know. i do not usually say that about things. but i did say, if we do not do this, those who are for fixing health care and those who are for tax increases and those who say we will not do one without the other -- we will do only one, their complicity in letting american destroy itself, letting this great democracy destroy itself because we do not want to make tough decisions. additionally, while not currently the largest driver of our deficit, social security finances are unstable and we must soon take action to implement small fixes that will kick in -- that will keep the system. what will happen if we continue to try to wriggle around these facts, when the debt ceiling increase, short-term the

services in the markets, when that happens, i had hopes that this will really would push the president and the congress into real fundamental action. then because of the turmoil in northern africa and the european the problem is of the highest order -- investors rushed into quality, seen as the american sovereign debt. instead of seeing higher interest rates for american debt, we have seen much lower interest rates. instead of the stock market collapse, the dow jones has been rising and going down steadily and has been on the upside in the last month. that is not normal for the situation we are in. those of us who predict serious, perhaps a calamitous consequences, for fiscal policies, are we wrong? i think not. i think, to borrow a phrase, american debt is the best house in a truly terrible

neighborhood. yes, we have rats, holes in the roof, and grass growing window- high. but other houses are even worse. that account for us having lower interest rates. however, it will not always be so. the neighbors might fix their houses or the whole neighborhood might burn. either way, we will pay for our neglect. that is the death knell for those in middle america who have been part of america's prosperity. future growth and less prosperous country, unable to play a leading role in the world is what we will present to the world if you do -- if we do not fix this problem. the select committee does not have the time to do comprehensive reform. i believe we can create time, do a fast-track mechanism using

section 404 of your enabling legislation and which we expand appendix documents. we can give you answers to almost every problem that you have before you know. i am told that the was exchange of short-term political pain for long-term fiscal gain will let happen. i hope that is not true. without substantial new revenues and structural entitlement reform, our fiscal e.ip is destined to capsizine i am told that we can put off these changes until 2013, a non- election year. 2011 is a non-election year. we might not get to the next one unscathed. we may have the calamity before that event.

i know that the joint -- that thejse has enormous repair -- that the jse has the enormous power. what i do not know is if they will use that power. i left out something that is very important. i want to find it so we can be sure that you understand. those who say they will not support tax revenues of less we have entitlements, that is a good position if you are saying i will do it if we do both. but both are composite if they fail to act because each blames the other. they will both become closet -- be complicit.

we will have caused america to suffer what we have described here today. i think you very much. >> thank you. now we will turn to dr. riv lin. >> the united states faces two huges challenges that once. there is no choice between jobs and fiscal responsibility. both are essential and they reinforce each other. this committee, with its extraordinary powers, has the opportunity and the obligation to address both challenges. to achieve success, the

committee will have to go well beyond the minimum charge of $1.20 trillion in savings over the next 10 years. even savings of this magnitude would leave the debt rising faster than the economy can grow. we believe you should craft a grand bargain involving structural entitlement and tax reform that would save at least $4 trillion over 10 years. to do so, the committee should take full advantage of the authority given to you in section 400 for the act and write instructions to -- in section 404 of the act. this could avoided double digit of losses that could last a decade.

i was privileged to serve on both groups. they worked hard to work on a combination of policy changes that would enhance growth and put the budget on a sustainable path. the arithmetic of the problem, far more than political consideration, drove them to similar proposals. both concluded that two major course changes were essential -- structural reform in health programs, especially medicare, and comprehensive reform of the individual and corporate income taxes and. it would raise more revenue from a more pro-birth tax system. bofa also a advocated freezes in defense discretionary -- both also advocated freezes in defense discretionary spending

appeared the budget control act capped discretionary spending. we believe that further reductions would risk harming essential government functions know. for the same reason, we ask you to avoid it. instead, this committee should focus on reducing the growth of health care spending and reforming the tax code. our proposal for medicare reform, which we call to find support, would preserve traditional medicare for all seniors who prefer a safer service system appeared it would offer an array of comprehensive health plans compete with traditional health care to deliver the same benefits. plans cannot refuse any medicare beneficiaries and would be commentary on a risk-adjusted basis. the federal contribution would be determined by competitive bidding on a regional exchange. we believe that the competition

on a well-regulated exchange would lead providers and plans to reduce spending growth. as a fail-safe, the federal contribution would be taxed a gdp growth of 1%. excess costs would result in an increased premium but lower income beneficiaries would be safe. this would preserve medicare for our rapidly rising population of seniors. on tax reform, while growth and spending must be controlled, we do not believe that the projected tsunami of retirees can be absorbed by federal programs without increasing revenue. stabilizing the debt by spending cuts alone would cripple essential government functions and responses to human needs. moreover, as our colleagues have stressed, our current tax code

is riddled with exclusions, exemptions, deductions, and other special provisions that distort economic activity, narrow the tax base so much that rates are unnecessarily high our proposed tax code -- unnecessarily high. our proposed tax code would have to rates. capital gains, dividends, and so called carried interest would be taxed at ordinary rates. credits would be allowed four earned income, children, chargeable deductions, charitable contributions, up to a limit, and retirement contributions. the exclusion of employer-paid health care would be phased out, which we would consider both a tax and a health care reform. we believe that the simpler tax code would be both fairer and more conducive to economic

growth know. it would raise more revenue than current policy, but less than current law. it will do it in a progressive fashion. we fully appreciate the difficulty of the choices facing this committee and hope you have the courage to restore fiscal responsibility and avoid the truly dire consequences of partisan gridlock. thank you very much. >> thank you. the chair will now yield to himself for 10 minutes. i believe one of the things i have heard from all the panelists -- and i have certainly heard the revenue message and we will go back to that -- but i think i heard say that the number one challenge we have with respect to our debt is held care. that is correct? i heard you say something

similar. is there a consensus among the panel that the number one challenge we face is health care? no one is diverting from that? dr. rivlin, i have a question for you. >> i just wanted to ask if they would put up the chart. it is very explicit on this. you cannot miss it. >> if you have the number for me, i can have the staff put it up. >> some of the enterprising will be able to find this. >> they showed me just before we met. >> wake up, folks, it is health care. i think that is the way you titled your slide. [laughter] >> if you could ask them to put it back. >> that is it. >> that is one of them. >> that is it. >> these various government functions vs gdp. look at that blue line of their.

that is health care. look at the lines underneath. those are big-ticket items. look at what is happening to health care. if we do not produce a plan that would permit cbo to say that the line has been bent, if that is not in the plan, then you have not caused a reform of health care in a major way. because if that line keeps going that way, you have solved nothing. so it has to bend in someplace. >> you're not simply talking about slowing the rate of growth. you're talking about a plan that bans the cost curve. >> that is right. >> dr. rivlin, i have had the honor and pleasure of serving with you.

i was somewhat familiar with your plan with house budget committee chairman paul ryan. you now have what i believe you have called a defined support system. as i was listening to your testimony, it includes an aspect of maintaining some facet of the currency for service aspect for medicare. could you tell me why this form of the find support is critical to saving us from the national debt crisis? how does it differ from your earlier premium support program with chairman ryan? >> it is different in several respects. it preserves traditional medicare for anyone who wants it. i think that is important. it is important to seniors.

and it is important to have -- you should forgive the expression -- "a public auction." -- "a publick option." seniors would choose from an array of plans that provided at least the same benefits as medicare and competed with each other and with traditional medicare to produce them in the most cost-effective way. we believe that that would control the cost. the cost would go up much less rapidly and that would be part of bending the curve, as the senator said. we have, however, a fail-safe mechanism in there. if the competition does not

result in been in the curve enough, we would say to find support, the federal contribution, would not go up faster than the gdp growth plus 1%. if it did, there would be additional premiums for those choosing the more expensive plans. but those premiums would not apply to low-income people. that is the plan in a nutshell. >> thank you. a question for senator simpson and, you, mr. bowles. i have to say that you have contributed mightily to the nation's consciousness. i hope that whatever success this joint committee achieves will partly be on your shoulders and your previous good work. let me ask this question, having

served alongside you all. there's much great work that was done on the commission. one of my personal reservations was that the commission did not adopt the rivlin-ryan support plan. i want to go back to how you do with a 75-year solvency. on medicare, which is really a larger, long-term challenge, we seemed on the commission to apply smaller, short-term reforms. you did put the 1% + gdp cap, if i recall right, on total health care spending. with a trigger of expedited procedures, if i recall right, to fix the problem. but it was not a hard trigger. so i have to questions. do you believe in the defined

support system policy that was just articulated? if you do, why did we not adopt something like that in since and-bolts -- in simpson-bowles. ? >> we tried to look at it on a realistic basis. if you look at the cost of medicare and medicaid alone, today, it is about 6% of gdp and it is growing like a weed. that excludes what it takes to do the $267 billion to repeal the class act. so it really is a big force of our cost. it is also our biggest challenge

from a fiscal viewpoint. as we looked at the affordable health care act, which was recently passed, it was the contention of the democrats on our commission that the cuts that were made to medicare in the affordable health care act, along with the pilot programs that were set up, would reduce the rate of growth of health care to gdp plus one. >> if i could interrupt -- most of those cuts are on the provider side. >> that is correct. we did not think that would happen. we did not think those cuts were enough. so we did about $500 billion of additional cuts over and above that with the hope that those cuts would slow the rate of growth of health care to gdp plus one. but assuming the debt did not

happen, to was, there was no choice but to get to rate of growth of health care to that level. there were certain options that would be have to be -- that would have to be considered. it included a robust public auction. it included -- robust public option. >> i see my time is about to run out. with respect to both of your plans on raising revenue, i do note that, as part of that, marginal rates are brought down in both plans. is that correct? the witnesses are saying yes. i have less than a minute remaining in my time. also, i was looking for certain common elements of your plans. one of which is global change cpi throughout the entirety of government programs.

in the very short time we have left, maybe i could get a 30- second answer out of each of you on why you thought that was a credible -- a critical part of the solution. >> it is a technical change that economists have decided was a better way, a more accurate way of measuring the cost of living for this purpose. it would affect all government programs, including the tax code. >> so it would still be there. it would just rise at a different rate. >> absolutely. it is a change on how you calculate the cola and the index that is used for other programs, including the tax code, which indexes the brackets. >> i am technically at a time.

can i get a quick answer? >> everything we looked at, people who looked at it, it is better, although there are suggestions for something else, cpi i, but that is experimental. this looks like one that everybody could adopt. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you to all of you for your wise counsel on a very serious challenge. it seems both of your proposals would achieve deficit reduction of debt is $4 trillion over the next 10 years through the use of a balanced approach framework that includes reductions in spending and increases in revenue. let me ask all of you, maybe by a show of hands, do you all believe that, to get a balanced program that addresses the fiscal crisis -- do we need both spending cuts, including

entitlement reform and revenue increases? a show of hands. let me begin with senator simpson. tell us why a balanced approach includes both reductions in spending and increases in revenue. >> we know you cannot cut spending your way out of this. you can tax your way out of this. if you look at some of the rich if you're doing taxes, it cannot be. we tire of the phrase "tax increase" when we are digging around in a $1 trillion stack of stuff called tax expenditures they affect about 5% of the american people. the little guy has never heard about half of them. we said let's take those. when you take one of those out, to call that a tax increase is

a terminal logical -- a termin ological inexactitude. that is to say that it is a lie. so we said we will might get into that business of tax increase so that grover will not have a stroke in his shop. so we will go around grover and let grover rant. i will tell you one thing. if he and the aarp -- if we are enthralled to those two groups, we have not got a prayer and neither have you. >> i agree. we were attacking expenditures in the tax code. they are almost identical with expenditures that are called spending. there is another reason, however, why we need a balanced approach.

that is the demographics. this government will have to absorb a doubling of the number people over 65 in the next couple of decades. that is an awful lot of people. that is not changing the role of government. that is affirming a lot more people which cannot do unless we have some more revenue. we must bend the curve on health care. we must fix social security. but we cannot do it in such a drastic way that we can absorb all of those people without more revenue. >> ok. >> may i just say that i think you all know me for a long time. i did not come on this committee trying to get anything. and did not have any

preconceived percentages that we used to work on. i said let's start over. the truth of the matter is, even when you fix medicare in any feasible way and bend the occur so that, in 20 years, we will get some savings, the deficit is still too big unless you decide to fill that gap with something. in other words, you do not have a bible budget versus the economy's situation. -- you don't have a viable situation versus the economy's situation. >> in the guiding principles and values established by a commission to guide in the development of your recommendations, you state that growth is essential to restoring fiscal strength and balance and debt reduction must not disrupt the fragile economic recovery. cbo and many economists agree that the rate of economic growth and the recovery projected for the remainder of

this year and through 2012 was considerably stronger than when your commission put out its recommendation then it is today. i want to ask you if you believe that the commission was successful and whether, given the weaker projections for today, we should be doing more now for economic growth and reducing unemployment? >> first of all, in our commission, it was the no. 1 founding principle that we did not want to do anything that was overtly stupid. we felt it would be overtly stupid to do anything to disrupt what is clearly a very fragile economy, in fact a very fragile economic recovery. therefore, if you look at the cuts that we made in 2011 and 2012, you see that they are quite small.

however, we thought it was very important for us to get spending down. so we did make significant cuts in spending in 2013. those spending cuts do get us back to 2008 levels or pre- crisis levels of spending. when we came forward with that provision, a lot of people thought that we were being too conservative. they said the recovery is real. if you look at things like, back in december, when you asked about the increase in factory production, existing home sales going up, retail sales going up, it was like banks were starting to lend to small buses and unemployment was starting to come down and investor sentiment was strong. therefore, people said that the recovery is real.

on the other hand, we felt that, while the recovery may be real, it was very fragile. the reason we thought that was that we were very concerned about demand. demand comes from three basic sources -- consumers fell two- thirds of gdp. in our cases, we looked at consumer debt or household debt. it was about 120% of household income. it was about $13 trillion outstanding. over half of it was at floating rates. and if you think that a rise in food prices and gas prices took a bite out of consumer demand, wait until interest rates go up. so we did not see consumer that had suffered a cloud in their home value and who had a loss of income driving the demand.

it is small businesses that cannot grow and can create jobs without capital and banks were simply not lending to small businesses. we did not see that the small business community could lead us out of the recovery. and for big business, their capital was basically on strike because they did not have confidence in the direction the country was going or did not know what direction the country was going. the third level of economic growth would come from government. we did not foresee an additional big stimulus package coming out of washington to add growth to the economy. if you look at what state and local governments were doing, they were actually cutting spending and laying people off, trying to balance their budgets.

so we didn't know where growth would come to drive economic recovery. i believe we are in a structural contraction, which will lead to a prolonged time of relative slow growth and relatively high unemployment. >> your plan also addressed the concern of accelerating debt, the recovery, and phasing in some sort of deficit reduction. you were also worried about demand. can you talk with us about what you had in your proposal. >> we were also very concerned about inadequate demand. we called for a one-year both sides, employer and employee, payroll tax holiday. that was on the grounds that that was needed to stimulate demand up front before we could safely phase into the deficit reduction that we were calling

for. that was at a time when the economy was somewhat stronger. it seems to us even more incident -- more necessary now. >> do have something besides peril to stimulate the? >> no. we took that as a symbol of how concerned we were, a full year a payroll tax holiday for employer and employee which i think is $650 billion. that is a lot. you can do it a different way. but we put it into symbolize that we were really worried about inadequate demand. >> i might comment on that. frankly, i was very surprised in looking at the group of people that were on this debt reduction group. when it came to this issue, they were as worried as any issue had

seen because they were really fearful that the economy was not going to recover. quite frankly, we do not know what will make it recover, but we have a properly told you how we came about what we did and it is a lot of money. i guess some of us said that it might have been a much better thing to have been two years ago. this may be a better way than anything we did so let's suggested. >> i appreciate it. my time has expired. >> the chair now recognizes the senator from arizona. >> it is great to see you both again. thank you for the thousands of hours you put in on these subjects. it has been helpful to everyone. senator simpson, you never disappoint. this is a serious subject, but a little levity can help. i appreciate that.

you talk about eliminating so- called tax expenditures. i have one question for you. comment on taxes and then i have a question on entitlement reform. if we eliminated the so-called tax expenditures, the biggest four, which on the personal side are deductions for medical expenses, charitable contributions, work interest payments, and payments of state and local taxes, and you do not reduce marginal tax rates commensurately, the americans who itemize would have a higher tax burden. they would pay more in income taxes. >> in getting rid of $1 trillion suggested that $100 billion would go toward production of the debt and the rest of it would come out and we would give the people of america what they have been asking for. drop the bays, lower the rates, expand the code, and we will give people free rates.

$70,000 to $200,000, you pay 14% could anything over that, you pay 18%. if you want to put something back, go ahead. the issue is that, if you want it, pay for it. then you can do to rates of 12% and 18% or whatever you want to do. on home interest deduction, give them a 12% non refundable tax credit. that will help the little guy. municipal bonds -- at some point, you just say, look, you were told to bring home the bacon. the lobbyists got what you wanted and now it is over. the fun and games is over pierre >> so the $1.10 trillion, $1 trillion of that would go to rate reduction. >> that is correct. >> and only $100 billion for debt reduction. >> that is correct.

let me just say that, if you want to put something back -- and there are wonderful things, the income tax credit -- you can get the violin out -- [laughter] >> let me just make one observation. both the fiscal commission and the bipartisan policy center have suggested that one of the options is to tax capital gains and dividends as ordinary income tax rates. you would not want to do anything that would disrupt a fragile economic recovery. it is along the line of first do no harm. i observation is you could do great harm by effectively doubling the capital gains and dividends taxes because those represent areas of capital formation and investment in our economy. let me make a quick observation. the government receives capital

gains revenues when taxpayers sell appreciated assets. they're called realizations. congress tried taxing capital gains at the same rate as regular income back in 1986. the resulting capital gains revenues were dismal. in fact, they shrunk and remained depressed until congress lower the capital gains rate in 1997. it means a higher cost of capital, less activity in the capital markets, and less economic growth. the health care bill that was passed last year already increases capital gains by 8.3%. that means that the very lowest capital gains rate and your suggestion would be 26.8% and the highest would be 22.8%. even the committee on joint taxation said that a rate that

high would lose rather than raise revenue. other economists, one that testified before our finance committee said that letting it drift up to 20% will erase the theoretical revenue gain from increasing the tax rate and will lower both economic growth and wages. if the rate is pushed even higher, more revenue and gdp will be lost and wages will be even lower. i would just ask you, as we continue to visit about these things, to think about this. your views are important to the committee, but i think it could be counterproductive by lower economic growth, not really raising revenues, and it would make our deficit problem worse. let me turn to entitlements. i think you said something very important in response to these questions. i want to make sure i have these things right.

first of all, i think it would be useful for you to explain the benefits of a defined support or premium support such as you recommend it. but also, correct me if i am wrong, but i've understood you to describe the plan laid out in your submitted testimony which is a little different from the original in that there are at least two. first of all, do you actually set the federal contribution level first by the second lowest bid, which would include fee- for-service, but it would not go up more than gdp + 1% with premium support in the event that it did so? if that is not accurate, please tell me. >> senator, you have it exactly right. we have improved this plan over our original one. it is now more like the

bipartisan plan in the wrote thomas proposal in the late- 1990's. when complete of the way we did it originally was that it did not reflect the actual cost of health care. when you do it by a bidding process, it does not reflect the actual cost. >> talk about how you select the second lowest bid. i think that is a very clever way to do this. >> that is arguable. there are different ways of doing it. but selecting the second lowest bid -- it was not the lowest of that might well be foolishly low for some for some reason. but people who wanted to go to

the even lower bid, the one that was not selected, could do so and get their money back. >> they would pocket the difference between the second bid -- >> reichert >> and it would be no dollars out of pocket. so they would take -- >> right. >> and it would be no dollars out of pocket. so woulthey would take the secod plan. but the federal premium support only be at the second lowest bid. >> that is right. >> so it gives you a way of making the competition real. we believe that would bring the costs down. >> i agree with that. let me go back to my first question. discuss the benefits of that premium support concept generally. i do not think it is necessarily well understood. and the final question is that that is not all you would recommend. this is really a question for all of you. but you would recommend additional changes to the

existing system that we have in order to potentially reduce expenditures, things like combining the part a and part b portions in certain circumstances. i do not know if you get into the copiague issue or not. but what are those that are useful to do even if we do the premium support, but in any event, certainly if we do not to do it? >> also, the things that was mentioned, that the pilot programs and attempts to find better ways of delivering care and government support and private support for innovations and testing those things and putting them out in the public domain, that is all a very good thing to do. we think it will pay off in the end. it is not incompatible with our

defined support plan. once you have those innovations out there in the public domain, the private sector is going to pick them up, medicare will use them. >> hopefully reduce costs. >> my follow up with one observation. on this one you are speaking of, medicare, the first thing we did was to know the object -- objection to a new system. it was right up front that you are abolishing medicare. this new plan starts with the premise that we would have both programs and you can choose. that put us on a different path with our members than before. it is very different than anything you all in the house have considered it before when you took the subject up.

>> an important observation. what is in our plan, we did try to address this issue -- >> in our plan, we did try to address this issue. we thought it encouraged over use. there is a hodgepodge of different copays and deductibles and premiums. we wanted more cost sharing. we wanted people to have some skin in the game. we wanted to get rid of first dollar coverage for that reason. we went to one deductible on parquet and part b -- part a and part b. a 5% kotte up to 75 dozen dollars. -- copay up to $75,000. no medigap would be available. >> all of those are useful

suggestions. >> thank you all for your service to the country. i enjoy hearing from the four of you because you have shown you can be big, you can be bold, you can be balanced and still move the country forward. i thank you for that. as i said to alan, i thank you so much for attacking those sacred cows that too often get in the way of congress being able to deal with the things that are most important. i think, i served on that commission with you, as i said before, i thought you put all the elements in place. i would have put the mixture of those elements the friendly. i compliment you today as i did

back then. i applaud you. i think i heard you all say this, i want to make sure, while we are suffering through these difficult economic times, that when we were going through this with the commission -- back when we were going through this with the commission, you were going through this as well, times are tough. they are still tough. all of us, when we were going to the work, thought that the country was doing far better. is it still your premise that we should concentrate on getting the economy back on track before we go too heavily on trying to find the savings? i will open up to anyone to answer. >> it is a timing question. we believe that brest it cuts in

spending right now would be damaging drastic cuts in spending right now would be damaging to the commie -- we believe that drastic cuts in spending right now would be damaging to the economy. we need to stimulate its with proposals we have been talking about. that does not mean putting off the deficit reduction. one of the best things we could do for the growth of the economy right now is for this committee to legislate long-run reduction in the deficit on the entitlement and tax side right now. we cannot wait until after 2013 or some other time to do that. the market and the public have got to see that it is going to happen, that we are serious, and that it is in the law. it does not have to take affect right away. it is in the law.

>> get it done, let it play itself out. give it time to take affect as the economy recovers. >> do not wish to legislate. >> and ask a question regarding revenues? -- may i ask a question regarding revenues? you all tackled the issue in different ways. you did something i thought was important. he tried to show the public that while we would increase real revenues, we would try to reduce the rates and give people a fairer taxation system. while we were able to generate revenues, which we need, you are able to tell the public that they are going to have a system that works better for them so they could understand the simplicity and fairness of it. in both plans i believe you

equalized the taxation for capital gains and dividends to ordinary income. and investments in stocks or bonds would be capped at the same rate that the income earned by a hard-working income would be kept at. they would be treated equally. you found reyes -- ways to reduce rates overall. you went after tax year marks, those expenditures which totaled over $1 trillion. you came up with a mix. he tackled some sacred cows. you came up with a mix. is it your sense that that type of a mix can work for this committee? open it up to anyone. >> i will say absolutely. i would say to my friend, when he talks about capital gains, if

you look at my record, i voted in favor of capital gains for my 36 years in the senate. i did not have a chance to lower the rates like we are lowering them at the same time you are looking at capital gains. that is what is happening. we lowered the rate. i heard from the best experts that the best way to affect growth is to lower the rates on all people. that was the best instrument of growth. they did not say except for capital gains. they said it is the best instrument for growth. we lowered it all substantially. we put that in the internment of growth -- back in the instruments of growth which is the lowering of rates. theirs is a little stronger in terms -- they have come down lower so you can put back some things. we also included in this the

medical expenses which is the largest tax expenditure. it is bigger than homeowner interest rates. we faced that out over a long term. that is a difficult one. we did it in hours. that is part of the reason we got the break we got. >> you called the expenditures backdoor spending to the tax code. >> it is. it is spending by another name. i was flabbergasted, i was appalled to see that having listened to all the talk about earmarks all these years, there are about $16 billion worth of annual earmarks a year. there are $1.10 trillion of annual earmarks in the tax code. it is spending by another name. it is somebody's social policy.

if he were to eliminate them, and use 92% of proceeds to reduce rates, only 8% of the proceeds to reduce the deficit, he could reduce the deficit by about $100 billion a year. over a 10 year window, $1 coleen. you could take rates to 8%. 14% up to $210,000. have a maximum rate of 23%. you could take the corporate rate to 26%. you could pay for a territorial system so $1 trillion overseas could be brought back to grade jobs over here. i believe that would create a dynamic growth in this country and reduce revenues beyond what we have forecasted. i am excited about some of the code. >> i would like to focus on

spending. when we talked about spending, you were willing to tackle the issue of the discretionary side of the budget, the spending we typically talk about. most people do not recognize 65% of all the spending increases that occurred over the last 10 years came out of one department, the department of defense. because of the war and the growth in our military convicts and contracts and so forth. i know you tried to tackle that some. i would like to talk about health care. i appreciate what the commission tried to do on health care. let me pose one question. we could do any number of things to reduce the cost of medicare and medicaid for the american public. at the end of the day, if we do nothing to lower the cost of health care overall, not just within the public sector, we

will have shifted the expense of health care in medicare and medicaid to those who use health care through medicare and medicaid, the seniors. the reality is the cost of health care under medicare is growing slower than the cost of health care in the private insurance market. we went through that in the commission, how it is strange. we are talking about the crisis in health care. if he were to get rid of medicare -- if you where to get rid of medicare, seniors would pay more. the cost of private insurance is growing faster. the issue is, how do we grow up the issue of the cost of health care -- how do we carrel -- corral the cost of health care? if you can give that some

thought, that would be very instructive. i know the health reform of last year meant to do this. med to chorale -- corral the cost in the private sector. if we do not do something about this, it does not help with our health care costs. thank you for your service and our time. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i certainly want to agree with each of you that these deficits are unsustainable. i appreciate your can doctor, your service, your hard work -- your candor, your service, your hard work. we have spent hundreds of hours as well over the last number of weeks. you _ my respect for each of you as a truly great american.

as you may know, my home state of michigan, we have had 34 consecutive months of double- digit unemployment. as i talk to people back home, as i was this last weekend, people know we are in a rut. they know what you are talking about. they are relying on us to try and get our car out of the ditch. but with a chart of here. i think you have a chart in front of the. -- you. it shows the president of so health care plan -- president's health care plan. it shows that spending -- the affects of the federal deficit will be two dollars trillion in additional spending over the next 10 years. each of you noted in your

proposals that the federal budget is on this unsustainable path. you identified health care as one of the most important items that this committee and the nation should be focused on as you see, the subsidies are the primary driver of this expansion of medicaid. cmf's certified that 25 million more americans will be under medicaid after 2014 because of that expansion. it means more than one in four americans will be a medicaid -- do you believe we should revisit the expansion of the medicaid program? erskine? sorry that you start on that

end. >> i am happy to answer any question you asked. you will not smell any fear on us. we had great questions about the affordable health care plan. because we had those questions, we did believe it could solve a problem providing more people health care, we did not think it's of a -- assault the problem of how to control the cost. we made the $500 billion worth of additional cuts to federal health-care programs in hoping that would slow the rate of growth. if it did not, what we did -- there has to be an overall cap on all these areas of spending. you are going to have to look at some options like a premium support plan, like the robust public option, like the single payer plan.

>> we knew that whatever you call it, if you want to use the negatives or call it obamacare or any care you want, it will not work. all you have to do is use common sense. you have this imploding of people. you have diabetes, one person in america is more than the other two. you have guys who choose to do tobacco, alcohol, a designer drug, all of them will be taken care of. you have pre-existing conditions in the three-year old. what happens to their 60 years of life? -- happens through there 60 years of life? if you torture statistics long enough they will confess. know that this country cannot exist on any situation where a guy who could buy this building its $150,000 for a heart

operation and does not get a bill. that is not. that is where we are. you have to re copays. you have to raise copays. -- you have to raise copays. >> what did you do about medicaid? of originally, you all had -- you were going to convert it into a block grant the it is my understanding you dropped that proposal. >> -- grant. it is my understanding you dropped that proposal. >> we would never going to do that. what we did at the cake was testing it in 10 states. it is on the theory that once -- one size does not fit all. we said let's test it in 10 states. if it does lower the cost of health care and provide coverage to people who need it, we could

support it. you ought to test it first. that is what he would do in the business world. it is being tested in rhode island. it is working well. washington state is asking if they can test it. >> beyond those tests, did you ask for any of the reforms -- any other reforms? >> yes we did. having run a public hospital in north carolina, you can see the gaming that goes on in the medicaid program since it's a shared cost program, it is 50/50. the docs would up the amount they would charge. they would both come out even. the tax payers would end up with a $50 million bill.

>> one of the proposals you recognize on the medicaid side was this per-capita cap. it would -- each state would receive an allotment determined by the number of folks in the specific categories for medicaid based on the state's population number for those numbers. that would be increased each year by gdp plus one beginning in 2014. are you a part of that proposal? are you still supporting that idea? >> we look at a number of ways to reduce the rate of growth of cost to medicaid. one was putting the

responsibility between the federal government and the states. medicaid is the two programs. it is acute care, which is for children, and it is long-term care. one of the things we looked at was flipped the responsibility for those two between the federal government and the state. we thought that would help. make it clearer who is a responsible for what and not have the matching program that results in a gaming. we also wanted to get rid of the gaming that goes on in medicaid. one thing we were clear about was the view will eligible, those who are eligible for medicaid and medicare, those are impediments for them getting into managed-care.

we wanted to fix that. >> what did you do in terms of added state flexibility to allow the states to be able to have greater control over what services were a little? >> that is a possibility. we did not come down clearly. we offered a menu of options on what to do about medicaid. it is the hardest problem. much harder than medicare. we thought we had a good plan for medicare. we offered a menu for medicaid. >> on medicare, both have jurisdiction over this issue. i know that as many of us have looked at this, we felt it is the toughest entitlement to try to curb the cost downward. we heard about a and b, putting together the deductible and

kotte. both of your group's increased the age. is that right? that's no, we did not. -- >> no, we did not. >> we have it as one of the options in a 10 year when the. it is not in the first window. >> what was the option -- what was the priority order you came up with in terms of what we ought to do to reform medicare? what we did not iowa ties outside of a 10-year window. -- >> we did not prioritize outside of a 10-year window. we said those doc there are drastic steps. you have to look at a robust -- there are drastic steps. you have to look at a robust option. you have to look at things like a single payer plan. you have to look at things like raising the eligibility age of medicare. those of the options we saw that

would have to be considered if you cannot slow the rate of growth to gdp plus one. >> before yielding to the next member, i have been informed you have to depart in 20 minutes. >> i can wait a few minutes after that. i have to get at a ton before they find out i have been here. -- it out of town before they find out i have been here. >> we appreciate your participation. you will be excused when ever you need. >> we have a remarkable thing to present to you. if i do have to leave early, but given my time, it is important you hear what i think is a solution that only he can propose. you can do anything you want. i think it will get you

somewhere we think you want to get. if i leave, whatever time you would have a lot to me, -- allowed to me, i want to hear from my colleague. >> thank you. we know that bowles has your proxy. i will yield from -- to the gentleman from montana. >> thank you, congressman. everyone wants to reform the tax code. i do not know anyone who does not. what is reform to one might not be reformed to the other. he mentioned that $1 clean in tax expenditures -- $1 trillion

in tax expenditures, many are other tax expenditures, retirement income provisions, there is a host of others into -- in addition to itemize deductions. the proposal is to repeal them all. return to lower rates. people have to realize what that means. a lot of people have an idea of those provisions. -- on those provisions. there is income that is not taxed. retirement provisions so people can say for the future. how quickly do you recommend we tackle all that? we have a november 23 deadline. i think one of you suggested that this be delegated to the

tax-writing committees so we do tax reform with a penalty at the end if the committees do not act. i would like you to comment on that. i hope this addresses but i am talking about. address revenue. when you gave your presentation, we are all big fans of all of your work. you have worked so hard. the four of us begin -- of you speaking, is that so much time. people know that. what are your four principles? one was tax reform. you did not say much about revenue. my understanding is that the

commission adjusted it in the neighborhood, maybe $1 trillion in new revenue to be offset with spending cuts. is that true? it is my understanding that to make permanent middle income tax cut but not the upper, you proposed raising revenues on a policy basis of about one pellicle in. does that sound about right? -- about $1 trillion. does that sound about right? >> you attended a few of our meetings. i think you know what we did. what we did was we did in the baseline extended the bush tax cuts for everyone except the top

two%. we reformed the tax code by simplifying the code and by eliminating the tax expenditures in our zero option plan. in that plan, all of the expenditures it disappear, 92% of the money went to reduce rates. 8% went to reduce the deficit. none of it went to additional spending. >> the answer to the question, $100 billion in deficit reduction. how can that be enough revenue when there are spending cuts recommended? you have a 2-1 ratio of revenue raised to spending cut. >> i think it was even more than that. we had about $1 trillion of additional revenue coming in and

about $3 billion of spending cuts. >> trillion. >> excuse me. we were working with that number. we were trying to get it to 1/4 and 3/4. what do you recommend we try to cut all those tax expenditures -- >> do you recommend we try to cut all those tax expenditures? >> we recommend it delegate it to the tax-writing committees and set up a framework. i do not think you can rewrite tax law now. nor do i think you can rewrite the entitlement legislation and iget it scored by november 23. you can provide instructions to the appropriate committees. to raise about $1 trillion worth

of revenue. >> which is included in this reform. >> yes. >> i wonder if he would yield to me for one minute. could i offer a suggestion carrie? we felt ourselves confronted by the problem of shorten time -- shorten the time, reforming the tax code. some of us here when that ever took place. it took much longer. it took three years. what we did in our testimony and what we have sent to you is we took section 404 of the law that greeted you, which we think is a section -- that created you, which we think is a section

that give you authority and flexibility. we think that permits you to set up a direction with a specific things you at -- as the tax- writing commission to do and they have to do it by a date certain. it would go to the committees. it is not reconciliation. >> we want tax reform. we are trying to figure out the best way to do it. i would like to ask about spending. the commission recommended $800 billion in defense cuts. when you compare that -- the budget control act cut about $350 billion. would you suggest another for the $50 billion of defense cuts -- $450 billion of defense cutbacks >s?

>> it was $2 trillion in budget authority from the proposed discretionary budget. he proposed $11.7 trillion in discretionary spending. we propose to cut it to $9 trillion. it worked out to about $1.70 trillion. we said that should be split between security and non- security spending. we also recommended that there be a fire wall between security and non-security spending over a period of time so future congresses would not come back and blow it up. -- load it up. >> i think the commission recommended a cap on overseas operations. >> yes, we did. >> there is not a cap.

the appropriations committee transferred $9 billion to overseas operations to escape the limitations that's what i do not know about that. >> that is going on. >> i think your cat is $50 billion. louis tried to keep it from being a slush fund. >> -- we were trying to keep it from being a slush fund. >> whatever you do, that will be a profit, just do a plan. you do not have to worry about the timetable. let me tell you why the bridge and agencies -- rating angencies do not mess with germany or france or great britain. they have a plan. these people are waiting for a plan. just do a plan. you will see dramatic affects

about the world with the ratings agencies. >> i agree with you. i do not have much time. a concern some have is this, with the election -- to put it in rough terms, people currently -- insurance companies will package sales to the most healthy. the most healthy people will get these new policies, leaving the less healthy in medicare. if more of that happens, the more sick people in medicare. medicare cost will go up, up, up. this is something you give thought to. >> some have raised it, but we do not think it is true. we think we have avoided that possibility by the rules we put

in. any plan on the exchange would have to accept anybody. they would be compensated on a risk-adjusted basis. they have no incentive to not serve those people. >> i want to thank you all very much. you have all offered a tremendous contribution to this country. thank you. >> the time has expired. the gentleman from ohio. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to the four patriots sitting before us. kline to avoid the most predictable economic crisis of our country has ever faced. i appreciate the discussion. we talked about a lot of the same issues this group has been grappling with, revenues, also

spending. i would like to focus on some of the issues we have talked about that with a different angle. if you would not mind putting up that policy chart again. that is the one asked to put up earlier. this shows that health care spending as a percentage of our gdp is set to double in the next 25 years. just take my word for it. if you can put that part of, i would appreciate it. it is the backdrop to this question. bowles says current benefits encourage over utilization. he talked about the things that could be done. higher copays, premiums, talked about part a and part b being

combined. he also said that in the proposal that you all recommended that reducing -- there is -- reducing health-care spending over a 10-year period by $500 billion. i assume that that refers to the gdp plus one, that is what that would mean, given this enormous growth, unsustainable growth in health-care expenses. let me ask you about a couple of ways to get there. one is means testing. it seems to me this is one where republicans and democrats ought to be able to come together. let me give you some statistics. couples will pay one and $19,000 in lifetime medicare taxes and receive three and $50,000 --

%357,000 in ebenfits. it goes to the advertisement you talked about. that is about three bucks and benefits for every dollar in taxes. if you multiply this by 77 million, it is not hard to see why we have an unsustainable program. we can talk about this in terms of -- those at the lower end are taken care of. it is difficult to justify giving up benefits. can you comment on that? how do you feel about needs testing? >> you have to follow the nomenclature. you never want to use the word mean. you call it an affluence

testing. that is what you should do. there is no possibility of people, literally, who use these systems and pay nothing. >> how about copays? >> they have to go up. you have to effluence -- affluence test in that. day as republicans for nine bucks worth of spending and one box with of revenue. -- 1 baht worth of revenue. >> i favor that. we always talked about that. we were all involved in that. you have to start. we called it un-american, cruel, evil, breaking the contract. i can hear the music and the violence in the back. it will not work.

>> -- violins in the back. it will not work. >> we already do have it in the part b premiums. we are in favor of increasing that. >> you talk about -- talked about some other ideas. i am going to put you on the spot. one was raising the age. how do you feel about raising the eligibility age given the statistics on longevity? medicare, i am talking about. >> we did not have that in our plan. i have thought about it since that time. under the affordable health care act, we provide subsidies for people who have chronic illnesses and for people who have limited incomes to get --

so they can afford insurance in the private sector. that did not exist before the affordable health care act. that means that people '65, '66, '67, would still be able to get health care insurance. as i think about it, i could support raising the eligibility age for medicare since we have other coverage available through the affordable health care act. >> let's go to tax reform for a second. all of you are talking about broadening the base. i am sure you can address this. simplifying the code, being able to do so by reducing marginal rates and getting rid of some of the underbrush. one thing we have not talked about is corporate reform. we have the second highest corporate tax rate among our trading partners. japan slightly higher. they are intending to take

theirs down. the average of all the countries is 26%. we are at 35%. you have to add a state taxes on to that. the average is 6%. you are talking about 41%. we do not have a territorial system. it puts us at a disadvantage. can i see a show of hands? the support it in the corporate rate down to a competitive level -- do you support it in the corporate rate down to a corporate-competitive level? >> if you are any of us down to a break. we did take the rate down to 28%. actually, we did not do territoriality. the reason was interesting. we have strong representation from big multinational corporations.

they spoke eloquently. our representation was more small business. they were not and is the ethic about it. we left it at the request we took the cote -- we left it out. >> we did. >> i support hours. we did not come down as far as the bearded 28%, hours. -- as far as them. 28%, ours. they say we are lowering taxes on corporations. when it is part of an overall plan. >> i am talking about not lowering the tax so there would be no reduction in the taxation. you would get growth from that based on the economic analysis we have seen. it would add more revenue from growth. >> i do not disagree.

i was giving you an explanation i have heard. >> with regards to balance, that has come up, we talk about balance. the top but ratios and balances. -- you talked about ratios and balances. what is the right balance? you talked about this earlier. could you give us a sense of what you believe is the right balance between revenue that is generated through tax reform and on the other hand reductions in spending. what is the right balance? >> we thought it was no less than 2/3. we work towards 3/4 coming from spending. if you look at the projections for 2020, it has spending at

20%. we did not want to see revenue go above 21%. we wanted to see if we could drive spending down. >> that is interesting. we are at 18.4% on revenue. we are lower now. the tax cuts, we would get back up to 18%. my time has expired. i want to thank you all for your help today. the help you have given us up to this point. all of you have made contributions to our efforts. we are going to need your help going forward. >> had has expired. -- time has expired. >> thank you very much.

let me add my voice of thanks and thank them so much for their service. i want to start with a statement it has been put up. it is looking at a bar graph that a lot of us have seen in the last week or so and it talked about when the doctor was before this committee. it shows the widening wealth gap that is in our country today. it covers the last 30 years. we have 3143 counties in the

united states. of those counties, 474 of them, 15% of those counties have been more than 20% of their citizens have been living beneath the poverty level for the last 30 years. it is interesting because i did not think about this -- several months ago i joined with the congresswoman emerson on trying to focus on these counties and trying to direct resources to these countries. when we did the american

recovery and reinvestment act, in the rules developing section, we were successful in getting that bill to focus on these counties by directing the expenditure of 10% of those funds into those counties. when this report came out from cbo a couple weeks ago, its focus my attention once again to those communities. when i first came on this panel, i said i wanted to focus on the human side of this deficit. what i would like to ask today it is whether or not it is

feasible to do $1.50 trillion reduction in deficit by cuts only. what will that do to that bottom 20% that has seen a 18% growth in their income? what will it do to those communities where 20% have been below the poverty level? what will it do to those communities and the people if we reduce this deficit only by cutbacks? >> i am delighted to go first. as you know, if you go east of

i-90 and you are in north carolina, we have more countries that fall into that country than any other place in the union. if that part where a state, it would be the poorest state in the union. as you know, i have had many of our universities that operate in serve the people in those communities. i think if you think about what you have done, if you look at the continuing resolution you took about four hundred billion dollars of cuts through the continuing resolution. if you think about -- i think about what you are working on now with the budget control act. the first part was $900 billion in cuts. you had another $900 billion in cuts.

you have done about $1.3 billion worth of cuts already. i have always thought it has got to be some combination of revenue and cuts to get to the $4 trillion number we focused on. i think it is important to focus on the fact that these deficits are eking the budget alive. they do not leave any money left over to do the work you want to see done if these deficits continue to grow. what we tried to do was to make forward the plan we put that we did not make any cuts in the income support programs like ssi and food stamps. we tried to make sure that on things like social security, we actually uped the minimum

payment to help those people who really needed it. we give people a 1% of per year -- bump up per year. that is when people made it the most. we tried to be sensitive to those people that are most disadvantaged well we made the cuts we had to make. >> we have enjoyed our time with the. you have been very cordial. i appreciate that the plea. -- that deeply. where is the tipping point? i do not know where it was. i know it will come swiftly. it will come by the ratings in the market. it will not come by anything any

chart has of a disclosed. at that point, interest rates will go up, inflation will go up, the very people who will be hurt the worst in that procedure are the people you speak of with such passion. this is a tremendous irony. by doing little or nothing, the tipping point comes, the little guy is going to get hammered. that is the irony. >> would you not say that if we work to do it, let's do it, let's do it on the backs of those same people? what happens to that chart in the next 30 years where we have a tooth and 75% increase in income -- a 275% increase in income for those people in 1%.

let's say let's do it. let's cut the deficit by $1.50 trillion. let's do it by cutting medicare, medicaid, cutting education, health care, and we will have saved the market. what will we have done to these communities? that is my question. >> that is not a question that we should answer. you should not do that. there are two points. we are all making the same two. . one is we need to cut the deficit but not by hurting vulnerable people. you should avoid doing that. secondly, the importance of avoiding a double dip recession and a lost decade of growth is

extreme and will hurt those people most if you do not avoid it. >> i am the last year. you heard anything humankind can think of. i will suggest the answers that were given are relevant and important. one of the reasons our group did not get as big reductions in appropriated accounts as other plants was because we came upon the idea that we were going to have to come up with revenue, we ought to have a budget that was understanding in this area or it would be attacked to destroy it as we were trying to create a country that was strong again. we did take care of the problem. i will tell you from my own experience, one time i asked a

wise man, what do we do to help poverty? the person said i can tell you in one word. i thought, he must have ties with the holy spirit. he said, a ticket. -- educate. people must get educated. any plan should look at whether the poor people are getting educated. secondly, the country has to grow or there is nothing to split. there is nothing to give to our people. whatever problems you are talking about have to have growth. that is why our tax plans are growth tax plan. we call it that and we asked expert, they say your tax plan will cost better growth than the plan we are under now. that is what we cut corporate taxes. people should not say, why you cut that for? they are not making as much to give to our people in wages.

they are going elsewhere because our taxes are too high. it is not what people say. the reality is competition. you cannot force them to stay in america. education and a fair tax for corporations belongs on this. >> the time is expired. we recognize the gentleman from michigan. before i do, i wish to thank him for arranging for the committee to use this room. your chair is very comfortable. >> i want to thank our witnesses for being here. i do have a question. in the plan, he recommended that the united states moved to a territorial tax system. i agree with that recommendation. i think of current system is one

that means our companies and workers are not competitive. do you share that view? is that what you recommend the move into that system? >> i have read what this committee put out. i was in favor of what you put out. >> do you believe in our proposal there are ways to move to a territorial system that is not great incentives for companies and a ploy is to move jobs -- that does not create incentives for companies anto me jobs to other parts of the world? in the commission's meeting, you were focused on moving to its territorial plan that did not make of companies less competitive. do you think that can be done in

a revenue neutral revenue plan? >> i do. i think if you stay on a worldwide system and you force companies to leave those dollars overseas, naturally, if they are going to have to pay a big tax to bring them back, the likelihood is more probable they are going to create a job somewhere else. that is a reason i support a territorial system. everybody else in the world has gone to it. >> you also recommended a complete overhaul of our tax code. i appreciate the model you set up where you tried to lower rates in exchange for doing away with various provisions. i think that has shifted the debate on what tax reform might mean. mean.