host: patrick. caller: do not leap a single word from that gentleman -- do not believe a single word from the gentleman. pardon me. look for the researchers are. -- he just mentioned that a lot of these children overseas are teaching our children in colleges. how are children supposed to aspire to those positions when it they are being given away to foreign students that aren't even american? host: deincentivizing our students. guest: our students have a tremendous space to study at all fields. we can and do it, and i think the gift of america is that we do it for the world.

we are a world power, we should be doing it for the world. it benefits our country and it will benefit our kids. host: can you explain what it is the institute of international education? guest: we started after world war i to help americans engaged with the world. ever since we have been promoting international education exchange for americans and for people all over the world, because we think it promotes a mutual understanding and, ultimately, peace. host: can the report you just put out -- i know it was released early this morning -- can be found on your website? guest: absolutely. host: houston, texas. caller: what percentage of the students that come to the united states returned here to live? and obviously, benefit from the education they received here?

host: 10 you speak to that? guest: it is a great question. 10 years ago we were very concerned about the brain drain with students coming here and is staying here. thanks to globalization, so many students and scholars do returned to india, china, asia. no one has comprehensive data on that, but what we're seeing is more brain gain for many other countries after the students have been here. host: can you speak to that? guest: there was a small increase in those coming here, and compared to the increase in china, indians note that, their press does. what has increase the number of

indians getting optional practical training, which the government allows them to do the year after their studies here. those students i fully expect will return. i think at that in the numbers next year will increase. host: to you know what the decline is a committed to? guest: it could be the impact of the recession it could be the sense of better to stay in india said that i can be sure i have a job next year -- guest: also, their economy is booming, and a lot of the students are choosing to study at their institutions and there and get a job immediately. a lot of students may not be coming here in the numbers they were. though we are working with india in a number of ways. secretary clinton boasted the minister of resources -- posted with the minister or resources a huge education summit.

there were high of education and government leaders are working on innovative ways for the united states and our people to work with india and their people on a new innovations we might do. one of that is to work on the american community college model as a model for vocational training in india, which is another way for just trying to partner in innovative ways that we have not done before. our community college model is the model for the world. and one that is unique to the united states. we know a lot about two-year colleges and what they do and what they do for students. that is one idea that came out of the community college, among a number of other ways that we are working together. host: what are your responsibilities? guest: responsibilities are large, large, and all over the place. they are all of the exchange's we do between the united states

and the rest of the world. all of our cultural programs, academic programs, professional programs, our youth and sports programs, with about 60% of the world's youth under age 30, we are looking at more ways for our young people to work with young people of the world, including using all types of social media and a virtual exchange to engage people of the world. it is a wide variety of things. it is running all of our exchanges worldwide. host: she served as vice president of institutional affairs at the kennedy center for the performing arts, was a deputy assistant to president clinton and a social secretary at the white house from 1993 to 1997. claudia is next, from kansas city, missouri. all on one second, claudia. you know what? i think i messed up the phone

lines here. we can get that straightened out -- my fault -- by pushing the button. you have done these reports for many years. what you do with them? what is the goal of doing this report? guest: i think it is important for higher education of america to know how international aid is or is not. it is important to now global our citizens are engaged or not. -- it is important to know how globally our citizens are engaged or not. international education is taking place in all states, public as well as private institutions, community colleges, research universities. understanding that is really important to our future. it is about reducing the acknowledge economy. host: all right, let me try one cloudy a one more time. caller: can you hear me now? host: we can, go ahead.

caller: imf of the generation american, and i'm also a neurobiologist -- i am at fifth generation american, and i am also a neurobiologist, and i at yale and at duke and unc on my resume, and i can i get a job. we have native-born scientists who cannot find jobs. the last job i had in the $15 an hour.earned 15 tha as long as that goes on, we are this incentivizing u.s. citizens. we don't have to tell them don't go into the sciences or math, because they see what our lives are like. we are disincentivizing, as patrick said, and patrick, meet me at the coffee house at 4:00. host: we already addressed that.

michael in philadelphia, go ahead. michael, you are on the air. philadelphia. caller: are you there? host: we are listening, michael. caller: i am not exactly firm on the issue on either side, but it is good to have money to come into the country for education. the other side of it is, as the previous caller bank mentioned, i am an engineer with a master's and i have not been able to find work for three years. the reality is, is really rich and poor issue. a lot of these children are well the children from other countries -- wealthy children from other countries. they are being sent here to find work. i don't know what their standards of living generally are, compared to american standards of living, but at they are driving down the take for skilled individuals in

this country. i hate to say that, but i believe that is true. host: the pay curve in the united states and the impact on that. guest: i think all of us want americans to have jobs and if they are looking for work, to find it. our focus on higher education is how do we focus on our kids and employees of the future. what do they need to get jobs, whether it is in engineering or any other field? they are going to need to know something about the world, working with people from other countries. international education is aimed at providing that. host: when you look at funding for international students in the united states, personal and family picks up 63.4%. the caller said it is mostly

wealthy students. can you speak to that? guest: most students who come from india and china, at they have families who value education, culture is that value education. they have saved tremendous amounts of money to educate one or two children. that is the phenomenon we have seen. the value placed on education, the savings put into it, as opposed to a car or house or any other things. the pattern of expenditure and other countries is really different and education is right up there. guest: education tends to be at the top the list for people who are coming here. they save and send their children here. independent in atlanta. caller: banks for this program today. my son is in total immersion school.

callable an international education. what is being done in our public schools -- i cannot send my son to the public schools in our area and expected to be able to compete with other students globally. i would like to know what types of programs you guys are coming up with said that our younger kids are prepared in both the sciences and arts and languages to be able to make certain that our kids here are able to be able to compete globally. guest: what is your son is studying? caller: he is studying spanish and he has mentoring coming to his school -- has mandarin coming to his school. the school is called tabula rasa. there is another school in atlanta called the atlanta international school, with

several language courses as well. guest: i think you are seeing a number of leaders, mayors and governors, realizing the importance of treating our kids and education, in a language is especially, and so they are ready to compete. take chicago. mayor richard daley has put in place a mandarin program number of years ago into public schools to train young people to learn and speak mandarin. they also look at russian and several other languages. you are seeing a number of leaders, especially locally, in theing what they need - coming years, and looking at how they are training young people and going back and reevaluating and reassessing what we're doing. there are a number of spanish and chinese immersion courses

you are seeing in public schools all over the united states. my guess is that those are only going to grow as we continue to work in an interconnected world and global society. guest: i am really proud of this mother that has called in and has put her child in a school that will get one or two languages. most americans are not studying languages and the market language learning at colleges and universities is at the lowest -- most americans are now studying languages anymore. language learning at colleges and near cities is at the lowest in years. school systems will change when they realized that parents really think this is important for the next generation. host: michael, at democratic caller in pikesville, minnesota. caller: good morning. glad to be able to reach you all this morning. my question is that everything isfind an -- is fine and dandy

with that bringing everybody into the country and having a new breed of education brought in and new ways of how the world is doing things. but my concern is what happens to us that this year in this country? -- that lives here in this country? we have not enough students able to get quality educations in our own institutions. we cannot have people coming into the country when the previous caller had said that she has got to gree -- got degrees from various universities and she cannot find jobs. host: we talked about that a number of times, several callers have brought that up. what you make of the repeated natures of the phone calls when it comes to kids in american colleges? guest: again, i would go back to

that the capacity for eight is there. there is plenty of capacity. the possibility may be that the cost and how we make sure our kids get educated, because the united states has the capacity to indicate international students and our own citizens. we have numerous, numerous colleges. but there are a number of other issues that need to be addressed. host: republican in iowa. good morning, kenneth. you are on the air. caller: i have a different comment about the situation for education in the u.s. the question that occurs is this -- throughout the years, best of the students in the world have always come here for education, and plan on staying in the u.s. and getting positions here.

universities and research labs actively recruited these students, advertised for them, and after being on committees, typically atthese people at the top list for hiring. then something happened -- particularly gingrich put in with clinton that everything would close down for awhile, and suddenly our students were having applications dropped immensely from foreign countries -- host: alan goodman, you are shaking your head. guest: after 9/11, our country and many others began to reassess its visa policies and procedures. there was a small decrease for a number of years in international students coming here. now america and leads the way, really, in the number of foreign

students coming here and the openness and transparency of our visa process. i think colleges and universities will be able to take a bus students they are seeing in applications, and the state department and homeland security have worked together to make the process much more open and transparent. guest: and the websites are much easier to navigate, and working in a variety of ways to speed up the process to make sure it is open and transparent. host: 1 of last phone call here. newmarket, virginia. caller: i just have one comment. with the unemployment rate being what it is, you have an lot of come in the health-care industry, particularly nursing, investments for nurses to come in from overseas. you have a lot of people who have been out of work and are going back to school.

the slots for the same careers in the community colleges and the four-year universities are very limited. what you are saying about capacity is really at odds with what i am receiving -- what i am seeing. i don't see that there is that many slots for american students. basically, allowing foreign students to come in it seems to put u.s. interests at odds with how many can get in -- host: we are running out of time. we showed earlier what international students are majoring in, what are the top fields, and vice versa. can you speak in a little bit to this? do they already have to have declared their major before coming to the united states and vice versa, and does that play a role in whether they get to be an international student? guest: the great thing about american higher education

that distinguishes it from any other country is that you are not linked to the track where you are born, you can enter a community college in one field and major in another. the flexibility of american higher education, and a flexibility to reinvent yourself gue but w. but we also have to take the jobs calls very seriously. i education has to be connected to the jobs market. we have to have career planning and placement services at public and private institutions to give them the best shot possible at getting the jobs of the future. host: allan goodman, ann stock, thank you for being here to talk about international students with our viewers. >> the u.s. chamber of commerce is hosting a discussion on the future of health care. we expect to hear remarks from the president and ceo of blue cross blue shield, talking

about his industry pasta roll and the changes impacting health care. -- his industry's role in the chain is enacting health care. we also expect to hear from the supreme court announcement about the case challenging the constitutionality of the health- care law. the court is expected to take the case next march. we will return live to the chamber of commerce when this program gets underway. it should be in another 25 minutes or so. until then, the 12-member joint deficit reduction committee has been negotiating over budget cuts and have until november 23 to propose $1.50 trillion of cuts or cuts will be made automatically to defense and welfare spending. this morning, "washington journal" discussed how negotiations are going. host: what is the endgame?

guest: [laughter] $1.20 trillion question. as we have seen in the last couple of weeks, progressive offers are getting farther and farther apart. we're seeing people did in ideologically. we have seen democrats and republicans have brakes on their own insights from each other, congressman from south carolina who is on this panel, said yesterday on fox news that democrats have not coolest around their own plan -- have not coalesced around this on a plane. if you have hope for this deficit panel, you are probably on the dead as the panel. >> on h -- on the deficit panel. host: they have to the score on

whatever they come up with. when do they have to have that on? guest: for the congressional beantown is to come back and say this is how much money it costs or saves it, raises in revenue -- really, the cbo is familiar with all the policies they are looking at and have scored them in other venues. i don't think it takes that long. it comes down to a situation where they are going to be a day off, you can probably expect congress to make some sort of provision for that. -- if it looks like there's an actual deal coming together. host: jeb hensarling, co- chairman, was on "state of the union" sunday. >> if we don't find a structural change, we will fail in our duty. we have a goal of $1.50 trillion of deficit reduction over 10 years. if that goal -- for some reason

we fail, under law there is still $1.20 trillion of deficit reduction will take place -- >> there is lots of people trying to get around back, particularly on the defense side, the across the board cuts. >> it is not directly across the board. it disproportional j.f.x. national defence. it would call out national defence -- hollow out national defence. congress would have 13 months to do it in smarter fashion. again, what we have to focus on is that we have entitlement spending programs that are simultaneously disservi itng their beneficiaries with rationing and driving the country bankrupt. host: jonathan allen, what is he talking about here?

guest: what he is talking about is the failure of the super committee. there is a trigger that goes into place if they don't get the $1.20 trillion. automatic cuts evenly between domestic programs and defense programs. what the congressman said that is that we have to leave this to the congress to figure out before automatic cuts go into effect -- what are smarter ways to do that? he is clearly planning for the failure of the super committee. that does not mean necessarily thinks it will fail, it doesn't mean it will fail. but he is certainly planning for that. host: there are these automatic cuts, $1.20 trillion, but there are also talks of the deficit reduction committee in the legislation that, ok, the committees in the house and the senate, and you come up with something to deal with, as he says, medicare and medicaid spending, the big programs. how does that work?

guest: the super committee would come up with a target for revenue, whenever the number is, and essentially, they would give instructions to the ways and means committee in the house -- energy and commerce committee in the house, and the finance committee in the senate, and come back with the actual policy that would add up to that. people familiar with the budget process would recognize this almost as a reconciliation process -- that is a term that is used in budgeting -- where there is an expedited way to get legislation done that reduces the deficit. it is not clear whether they would have the ability to or bear to put forth new expedited procedures. the super committee had carte blanche to really move things without interference from the senate filibuster, and at this point, the super committee looks like it is handling kryptonite right now. host: if these committees were

to do something to deal with the big entitlement programs, would congress have to pass that? is it something in law that says, ok, you have to take this up? guest: no, the only thing i law what are the automatic cuts split evenly between defense and entitlements. host: is there any way to get around that in the super committee? guest: the end of the day starts and 8 denmore 2013, so they have -- starts in january 2013, so they have wiggle room. whatever this congress does does not bind the next congress. it is difficult to look at this process and say that we know for sure what cuts are going to happen or in fact that cuts will happen. host: you mentioned james clyburn on the sunday shows. we want to show what he had to say about the prospects for that committee.

>> what do you think other realistic chances you'll get compromise in the next 10 days? >> i hope that we will and i am comfortable that we will. i am not as certain as i was 10 days ago, but i think that we can. we have 10 days to do this and i really believe that all of the ingredients for a good resolution are there. we just need to develop the will. host: have they been working over the weekend? are they going to continue to meet every day in private or public? guest: certainly not in public. the one thing about this process is that none of it has been done in public, a public that has been frustrated enough about private negotiations that president obama said he was going to do -- the c-span president, as i recall -- and congress has said repeatedly it wants to be more transparent.

speaker boehner has spoken of that as a hallmark of his speakership. and yet, they don't feel they can get anything done unless it is out of the view of the public. there is a poll out today suggesting that most of america has no idea what the super committee is doing at all. that has been an issue. in terms of whether they are going to continue to meet and have been meeting, they have been meeting with inside groups, various members of the super committee and also in small groups. you heard congressman clyburn say that they need to develop a will. that is astounding that a member of the committee does not feel like the will is there to get it done, not the ability to sit down and crunched numbers, but the will. host: why is that? does it have to do with the makeup of the committee? guest: the two sides don't trust

each other. weather is the members of the sui -- whether it is the members of the super committee themselves or the parties with large -- writ large -- they are controlled by the leadership, and that means senate majority leader harry reid and house speaker john boehner. they will not be far from the process, and anything that gets signed on to by the super committee will have their blessing. this is not an independent, functioning 12-member body. host: this is "the new york times" this morning with the detail on the deficit reduction committee. "president obama, who has kept his distance -- can you explain that, and the impact of that? guest: he wouldn't sign off on

something that would undo the triggered automatic cuts. that is something that can be said now. or about to go into place, you have the 2012 election coming up. would the president want to state his ground on whether or not you cut the pentagon, particularly when his own defense secretary is saying that saying -- is saying that it would weaken the country? 2/3 of the congress but and for something, a variety of details -- there is a little bit of wiggle room there, too. host: lydia, independent in illinois. caller: i watched grover yesterday on your sunday program and he admitted he was talking

with the members. i have put together a letter to the editor and it should be published in the paper called "campaign against groverization ." even the president's press secretary is pleading with congress, listen to your constituents. grover norquist's pledge was actually signed by candidates. they have no obligation to follow it. please, investigate this process. host: lydia referring to grover norquist, who was our guest on "newsmakers" this past sunday. in that interview, he said, "i am not losing sleep over proposals by republicans to raise some revenues as part of the deal." guest: part of the things we have seen so far it would raise revenue in one place and cut it elsewhere. what you are seeing is a

limitation, potentially, on item decision of deductions, offsetting decrease in tax rates. there are disagreements as to whether that would raise revenue or perhaps cut revenue overall. it depends on where you cut the rates to. it depends on issues including economic growth. it is not surprising that he is not losing sleep, because he has always said, at least in recent times -- he has always said that if there was tax reform on the table and it means lowering rates and not raising you or creating new taxes. he is interested in that. host: if you want to see the full interview with grover go to our website, c- span.org. in that ""usa today de" --torial-page

jim jordan, leader of the opposition and the house, says there is "no time to raise taxes." guest: i think there are some members of congress who might be willing to have taxes as part of health, and not just in terms of raising taxes in one place and putting them in another, but a legitimate need raising revenues through increased tax rates or a new forms of taxation. as long as the republican study committee is out there talking about how that is an apostasy, they will be less willing to go for it, because they feel primaries from republicans will take the republican study committee line. grover norquist says this, that

is powerful, it is the idea that you do not raise taxes that is powerful. it is essentially it members crossing them publicly and then said to be less than adhering to the party line, the not-tax orthodoxy of the republican party. host: gary, indiana. steve, you are next. caller: good morning. i cannot understand how grover norquist is a topic of conversation. he has never been elected to anything. he evidently failed third grade. and all these top dogs in the republican party -- guest: in defense of a grover's educational qualifications, i believe he is a harvard

graduate. i believe he got through third grade. this is a little bit just for a c-span viewers -- "why is it that grover norquist continues to be so influential, why does the same get brought up in republican conference meetings?" if this person answered, "mailing lists." he is able to contact a lot of people, a lot of donors, in a short amount of time because for the past 20 years he has been building a list of people who pay taxes. that is a way of influencing members of congress, saying, i am going into your district and i'm talking to people about what you are doing, not doing, should be doing. generally speaking, mr. norquist's group, americans for tax reform, to the extent that

it has spent money on campaigns, has spent money to defeat democrats, not to primary republicans. host: on the other side, the influence of aarp and groups opposed to medicare cuts -- what is their influence? guest: also very strong. the basic thing for republicans is we're not going to raise taxes. that is the basic orthodoxy did the basic orthodoxy for democrats is we are going to protect entitlements. in some cases, they and people down, corner them -- they pin people down, one of them, and the outside groups have that members of congress cannot get outside of -- and outside groups are powerful enough that members of congress cannot get out of their own orthodoxy. aarp is influential, not only as an organization for all

americans -- not even really elderly, but 50 and over -- but in health insurance. they have a lot of influence. host: here is a tweet. guest: as i understand it, we are talking about a cross-the- board cuts. we're not talking about specifying those cuts. what congressman pencilings suggested is that congress will go back over the next year and it take to% -- instead of taking 2% from year, 2% from year, we will% from here, no% from year had an oops have moment here. he went through at 16

-- i'm sorry, trillion dollars. dick cheney said that it didn't matter. and passing the jobs bill because of the debt -- is it a little too late for y'all to harp on the debt when you are the ones to screw it up? host: referring to congress and there, but take her point. guest: when the country was in surplus, 10 or 11 years, and now it is $15 trillion in debt -- i think there are a lot of factors in that. even republicans would say that president bush turned out to be someone who wanted not only to lower taxes but to increase spending. it was one of the great frustration with republicans in the mid-2000's and one of the

reasons there was a lack of enthusiasm in the days whin 2006 when democrats took back the house. look, the democratic congress came in with nancy pelosi and harry reid, and president obama came in, and they also spent a tremendous amount of money without raising taxes. you have seen that combined with the democrats -- republicans say, look, we have things we cannot have accounted for, 9/11, two wars. democrats say we were on the brink of another great depression and we had to spend our way out of it. taxes and the country and spending and the country are so out of line that we have a $15 to in dead years after we were in surplus. -- $15 trillion debt years after we were in surplus. host: what you think of the

prospect of this passing the house? if there was a deal by the super committee? guest: i think there are strong indications that it could pass the house. what we have seen already is 100 members of the house the came out in favor of a big deal, $4 to the deal, and basically said that everything needed to -- be on the tape -- $4 trillion a deal, and basically said that everything needed to be on the table. 60 democrats, 40 republicans, basically enough people to ensure that one party supported the deal, the other one didn't, it would be enough support to pass the house. i also think that an up or down vote on whether or not to cut deficits is a difficult thing for the house to say no. it is another thing for those folks who voted no on what would be probably the only big chance at deficit reduction. remember, this is a small

amount. it sounds like a lot of money, but in washington terms, it is really a small fraction of the annual budget. >> you can see "washington journal" every morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. we are going live to the u.s. chamber of commerce for a look at how the future of health- care is for the insurance industry paid president and ceo of blue cross/blue shield will talk about his industry's role in the changes impacting health care. >> he led the integration of the medical center health plans and prudential. earlier in his career, scott created and let physicians health inc., a missouri-based hospital organization. this is a person who brings real-world experience to his position in the association.

scott earned a bachelor's degree from purdue university and holds a master's degree in health administration and planning from the washington university school madiof medicine. in addition to providing trusted health care coverage to one in three americans, the blues are leading efforts with physicians, hospitals, and others to integrate and create more accessible health care systems for all americans. with the congress, politicians, and the court's continuing to discuss the implications of the health reform, and with the administration of continuing to detail and implement many of its provisions, a is a perfect time to hear from a health-care leader. please join me in welcoming scott serota to the stage. [applause]

>> thanks, bruce, and that you all for coming today. special thanks to the chamber and the national chamber foundation for the opportunity to speak with you. i want to recognize the chamber for its long history of supporting employer-based health-care, and continuing collaboration with us in the blue cross-blue shield association on a number of key issues -- >> we are the 99%. >> we are here. >> scott serota -- >> scott serota -- >> ceo of blue cross -- >> makes more -- >> is an example -- >> is an example -- >> of the 1% -- >> of the 1% -- >> influence in congress --

>> influencing congress -- >> to create more profit -- >> to create more profit -- >> at the expense of suffering -- >> at the expense of suffering -- >> they charge increasing premiums -- >> increasing premiums -- >> to make more profits -- >> to make more profits -- >> instead of health care -- >> instead of health care -- >> $400 billion -- >> $400 billion -- >> would be saved --

>> would be saved -- >> if we had medicare for all -- >> medicare for all -- health-e bpayer care system -- for all the uninsured and the underinsured g. people are dying every day in america because of the lack of health care. 2 million people with cancer -- >> 2 million people with cancer -- >> don't get treatment -- >> don't get treatment -- >> because they cannot afford -- it >> people have to choose to

pay for health care -- >> people have to choose to pay for health care -- >> or sending their child to college gu. we think this is unacceptable. and corporations -- [unintelligible] >> against the interests of the 99%. medicare for all. we are the 99%!

we are the 99%! we are the 99%. >> we are the 99%. >> put your hands up.

[applause] >> well, thank you. any questions? [laughter] well, i would like to tell you that we value our relationship with the chamber, all the company's large and small who are proud to count as a customer is. together with the chamber and other coalition partners, we at the blues are committed to keeping health care coverage affordable for small businesses, for all businesses, and for all americans. to achieve that, we need to fix a system that is fundamentally broken. in my remarks, i will share a vision for a new health-care system that serves our citizen'' medical needs and also protect

our country past economic health. i will illustrate ways we must all be involved to realize that vision. for or what, the well-being of our children, a business in -- for our own good, the well-being of our children, families, businesses, and our nation. our system is fragmented and inefficient. consumers are forced to make important and sometimes life- influencing decisions with limited information. providers rely far too much on personal experience and individual judgment. the system is fundamentally based on misaligned incentives that yield inconsistent and sometimes very costly results. there is no doubt that fixing the health care system is an economic imperative for the u.s. medical costs grew 48% over the last decade, nearly twice the consumer inflation rate.

health care spending now exceeds $2.50 trillion annually. an average of $8,000 for every man, woman, and child in america. more than 17% of our nation's gdp is spent on health care. far greater than any other nation on earth. that share continues to grow. i am here to tell you that i am not that we're spending -- that the amount that we're spending is really not the problem real problem is we're not getting in the value for the dollars that we are spending. what could be more important that our health? why would we be concerned about spending 17% of the gdp if we were getting that level of value? but we are not. life expectancy in the u.s. is just 26% -- or, is no. 26 in the world from birth. we are behind such countries as japan, greece, the united kingdom, and chile.

each year, 98,000 people die from preventable medical errors, 4000 premeditation evers, a cost of $3.5 billion, and 1/3 of all people admitted to hospital suffer an adverse event. an incredible 30% of health-care spending goes towards an effective redundant, and sometimes harmful care. -- towards ineffective, redundant, and sometimes harmful care. with all our resources, ingenuity, and resolve, we can do better. recognizing a vision of a health care system that, simply put, it keeps people healthy ands ensure safe, effective, and efficient care when people are ill. we have tried to classify our solutions into four elements based on our more than 80 years experience and leadership in providing coverage to nearly 100 million people in all 50, states

puerto rico, and here in the district. those four categories, the four pillars, if you will, are reporting safety, doing what works, reinforcing frontline care, and inspiring healthier living. these elements reflect our -- a system of view of where care delivery is rewarded for safe and effective treatments, where care is based on proven treatments and procedures and is well coordinated across the system's many touch points, where we haven't and this is on primary care to support people's -- have an emphasis on primary care, where people are actively engaged in managing their own care and have the information they need to make smart decisions that improve and help sustain their lives. i am proud to say that blues and

other health insurance are leading the effort to transform care to realize this vision. we are rolling out in nearly every state a new care model that lines payment with the safety, aligning payment with quality, aligning payment with improved outcomes. i will give you a few examples. in pennsylvania and west virginia, the local blue plan, hospitals are participating in a paper performance program, promoting the use of evidence- based practices, tying payment to quality and safety requirements that sounds good in theory, but 52 participating hospitals save as many as 250 lives in one year by providing centralized bloodstream and other infections. we are also leveraging our data and analytics to speedy adoption of care that works in a shed light on what doesn't work. i will give you an example here as well.

we had analysts and do some work and use data to show that a commonly prescribed drug therapy was ineffective at treating pancreatic cancer, give hundreds of patients a false hope, and added more than $40,000 in cost per case. and it didn't work. we had to find that out so that we could save the money and reinvest it in features and protocols that do work. data sharing is also critical. another example here -- michigan hospitals -- the success of the michigan hospitals are reducing the number of dangerous and expensive hospital-acquired infections at intensive care units -- blue cross-blue shield and a michigan participated with associated hospitals and to a very few practical steps, such patientstely traddraping through surgery, strickling ensuring that procedures are followed. those are simple things, but the

results were incredibly impressive. over five years, more than 1830 lives were saved, more than 140,000 hospital days were avoided, and treatments costing $300 million were averted. our commitment to primary care is also evident in the medical all models rolling out across the country, including here in washington, maryland, and northern virginia, where their first the cross-blue shield created a first-of-its-kind program. rewarding special care plans for the sickest patients and achieving results that r improve quality and reduced costs. to keep people healthy and in control of chronic conditions, we are educating and engaging it easier making for them to understand the conditions they have and the

alternatives before them, so that they can have productive conversations with doctors are with facts and to be better consumers. we are working with a physician partners, the american diabetes association, and others to provide children and their families easy-to-understand information about preventing and managing childhood obesity and diabetes. this vision cannot be realized without collaboration. we need to cover with hospitals, physicians, and other care givers. but the business community as well as a role in helping us. this new system. how many of you have changed or expect to change your health benefits to incorporate provider-type performance objectives? how many of you have an amended worksite -- have implemented or wellness or engagement

programs? how many you or your colleagues have served as trustees at local hospitals? businesses are increasingly demanding health benefits that give greater consideration for quality networks and performance-based provider compensation, aiming to ensure safe and effective and efficient care. one national retailer recently spelled out in an rfp its firm expectation that administrators will develop customized high- performing networks and innovate towards a new reimbursement models. another large manufacturing plant on the west coast partnered with a local blue to build a home that targets those suffering from chronic conditions, which represent a disproportionate share of that particular company bostick medical expenses. in that model, participants work with the nurse case managers who are available on 24/07 basis.

the cost of breast is best in the program or -- the cost of participants in the program or 20% lower than a control group. participants also reported a 14 -- presents an 14.8% increase in their physical function and a 16% increase in the medical function, along with patient- reported work days missed over a six-month period less than half of what they were previous. good medical care is a good investment. it reduces your direct costs, you're in direct costs, and it also gives you a better prepared work force. as employers, you also play a role in providing resources and incentives to engage your employees in exhibiting hel

althy behaviors and to assume greater responsibility for their own health. you are no doubt more familiar than i am with brookside initiatives, but let me give you a couple examples that stood out to me. a fast-growing chicago company no relation to blue cross-blue shield that participates in eight wellness program started with the chicago chamber earlier this year, offering free screenings and education sessions. more than 1000 hours of exercise, lost weight, improved health factors. another employer partnered with our minnesota plan to create cultural health program based on evidence-based best practices, modifying their workplace to encourage healthy lifestyles, putting an incentive-based program in it to allow based on their achievement of health measures

and biometric screening and a health-risk assessment. the employer achieve a 90% participation rate and savings of almost $2 million as a result of improved health status of have an important role to play as corporate citizens and influenced the way care is delivered in a safe and effective fashion in your communities. as directors or trustees of hospital boards, you need to take leadership roles in understanding and improving the safety processes and performance which happen in those institutions. it needs to be an important part of every board meeting and every agenda. beyond that fiduciary and moral responsibilities, engaged board members make a difference. industry best practices for hospital boards is to spend at least 25% of the meeting agenda time on quality and safety issues and to regularly hear

from patients or family members who are harmed or oil in the hospital's care. you need to know what is going on in those institutions. surgical safety checklist and infection reduction programs in idaho found the greatest success and hospital trustees presented the programs to staff and personalized their commitment to safety. blue plans across the country have developed programs to encourage hospital boards to become more engaged. we provide educational programs and financial into incentives for them to learn more about quality and safety initiatives. the measures prescribed by her michigan plant are the second most commonly reviewed statistics by the boards for quality and safety trailing only those provided by cms. finally, i firmly believe that the private market in ovation is central to transforming the health-care system. as evidenced by the health care plan and provider examples i just share, the government has a

role to play as well. that is why we have just released our pathways -- are building tomorrow's health care system -- i called pathways because the first document was are pathways' document and this is the supplement. i believe you have this at your seat. this is a call to action is to build upon the successes we have had to prove health-care quality for americans, leverage these experiences, and best practices to develop a true transformation in health-care costs. this report highlights nearly 50 examples of bluecross/blue shield companies as what they are doing across the country and what we as a nation need to do more of. our successes in improving the lives of people in every community in every state has led us to craft this plan of action with our recommendations to the government as we see larger scale apartments across all

sectors an economic assessment of this plan concluded that the potential impact if the government acts on these recommendations could exceed $300 billion over the next 10 years. first, we need national and local leadership to reward safety. to eliminate preventable errors, infections, and complications that are hundreds of thousands of people each year and cost billions of dollars. we recommend that hhs beef up the drug's safety reviews and aggressively incorporate safety measures in to pay for performance or pay for quality incentives in medicare or medicaid. we we believe it is critical to increase the use of technology such as e-prescribing. second, with close to 1/3 of all health-care spending going toward ineffective or duplicative care, we need to change the incentives in our

system and do what works. the blues are enlisting models and coast to coast to increase accountability so providers are paid for quality outcomes rather than simply the volume of services they provide. in the same vein, we are recommending several proposals to the government expanding value-based pigment in medicare and medicaid and acting malpractice reform providing safe harbors to providers who practice evidence-based care. we know these things work in the private sector. we have been doing them for years. we need to rapidly incorporate them into the public program so we can make -- we can take maximum advantage of those things already tried and true and tested to have successful outcomes. third, we need to reinforce front-line care by placing a higher value on primary care and ensuring there is an adequate work force to deliver it. we recommended the government protect primary-care from any system payment reductions and

redirect training dollars into primary care. we also recommend the government expand their efforts to manage dual eligible people, eligible for medicare and medicaid, to get them into a managed care situation. fourth, with 3/4 of every health care dollar spent on chronic conditions, we need to inspire healthy living. we believe the government should do more to inspire americans to lead healthier lives by supporting physical activity and help the nutrition in schools and federal programs. in short, the government needs to take a proven market in innovations and implement them across the entire population. we know what works and we need to do more of it. in closing, the challenge before us is to transform under- performing, unsustainable system so that everyone has access to safe, effective, and affordable care.

it is a challenge for me. it is a challenge for my fellow insurers because our mission and business model are contingent upon us keeping people well. it is a challenge for businesses whose productivity depends on health workers and whose benefit dollars deserve a high- quality product and a fair return on investment prepared to is a challenge for all americans whose prosperity fundamentally rests on a healthy u.s. economy. as a representative of bluecross/blueshield and a broader health insurance industry, i want to assure you that we are committed to rising to this challenge. we will continue to pursue the types of initiatives i have mentioned. we will continue to innovate and look for solutions to complex problems. we will continue to partner, to look for support, of providers, businesses, and the community, public officials and any other stakeholder interested to realize this opportunity to transform a broken system for

ourselves and future generations. thank you very much. [applause] i am happy to take any questions you might have. >> let me start off with the first one -- >> from you. >> the supreme court announced they will hear the mandate case. while there is a lot of legal issues there, if we go back and come forth, the whole objective of patient protection and portable care act is to have a fully insured marketplace. many of the changes of that law are predicated on a fully insured marketplace. give us a sense from your perspective of what happens if they pull that one break out and knocked down the individual mandate but leave the rest of the wall in place. >> leave it to bruce to ask the tough questions.

your first supposition is that they will roll back the man they believe the insurance reforms in place. i preface this by saying both sides of this legal dispute think that is a bad idea. the government believes if the mandate goes, the insurance reforms need to go also and so did the people challenging that bill. be that as it may, there is still a possibility they might drop the mandate and leave the reforms in place. i think you have a system that will face ever increasing costs because people only buy insurance when they needed. it is the same argument that we made before. it will no longer be insurance. it will be health care reimbursement because you'll be buying it in the ambulance on the way to the hospital and canceling it in the discharge room. it is not sustainable in that fashion. we would have to come up with

other alternatives in order to create an incentive for people to purchase insurance and maintain that insurance. it might be like the medicare system where there is enrollment periods or a host of other incentives to get people in the. the challenge will be to keep those young and healthy people in the marketplace so we can have a real marketplace. absent a mandate with guaranteed issue and community rating, you still have a struggle to have a marketplace. yes, there is a question over here. >> thank you very much for your stage comments. you provided a number of examples from within the united states where best practices or exported to other areas. what is the extent to which we

are looking at other countries which have had much lower costs and better outcomes like germany where understand the costs are $4,000 per patient per person rather than ours which is $8,000 for it to what extent have you embraced or have the various bluecross systems embraced medical tourism to send somebody from d.c. to the cleveland clinic or overseas to get high quality outcome at a lower cost? >> i will take the latter question first. medical tourism, as you define it, the ability to seek out the best provider bowl from a cost and quality standpoint is something the blues have embraced wholeheartedly. we have a program called blue distinction. it is a program where we try to identify those people who are

meeting or exceeding the marketplace and we develop marketing materials and programs to incentivize people regardless of the geography. this is a domestic program. we don't look internationally at the moment for those providers. there are some organizations that look internationally. we are not at that level yet, to find the best providers. there are organizations, companies that create incentives for people to travel outside the u.s. for services. we believe the best quality care still is here in the u.s. withfirst question regard to examples we can learn outside the u.s. is yes. there are examples we can learn everywhere whether it is no. in canada or great britain where they do more evidence-based practice and more prescriptive kinds of medical care, we look to germany and other places but

fundamentally, you have a different culture. it is very difficult -- difficult to extract cultural differences outside the u.s. it is hard enough to do with state by state in the u.s. than to simply import. you have to look at those things, identify what works which is the pillar of what we believe, and figure out how you can incorporate that culturally into the u.s. system. i believe health care is very much a local phenomenon. it is delivered in local communities and it reflects the culture of those communities. we have to create an underpinning of the efficiency and value and that is what we are trying to do as we do our analytics on a nationwide basis, to find those troops and can't -- and to negate those i nation -- to define our truths and deliver them nationwide. >> thank you very much i have two questions.

how will accountability help ferret care. -- health care? [unintelligible] >> and not sure i got all the details there. the health-care industry, because of the aging of our population, is very much a growth market. we very much need more employment in this market. we need more primary care providers. we need more people who are able to help our seniors and others. as the population continues to expand, i think you'll see more growth in the health-care delivery side of things. it makes our imperative to get

more efficient and add more value even higher because as people age and there is greater demand for the systems, we have to have a way to provide that care and a more cost-efficient fashion. i'm not sure i remember the first part of the question. accountability -- each american has to assume more accountability for their own care and we need to -- we, as an industry, providers and insurers and the government, needs to provide every american and every provider access to data, information that allows them to be accountable. today, we are asking people and historically we have asked you to assume accountability. we have as your providers to assume responsibility for care. with insufficient data, how could you take that responsibility? we have the data today.

we have in the blue system on a nationwide basis. we have to get it in the hands of the providers and make it transparent so you can see it and you can act on it and then you can manage it appropriately. when the align those incentives, we see successful outcomes. we see reduced costs and we see better quality. we need to do more of it. >> could i ask you to project five years into the future under two scenarios? scenario number 1 -- if the individual mandate is sustained in the golan with reform, what will health care look like five years from today? what about if it is overturned, what would health care look like five years out? >> you know, i am not sure that my answer would be different in either scenario.

the things we need to do as a society, we need to do whether the affordable care act stands or whether it is repealed. we needed to do it before the affordable care act was introduced. we need to inject accountability into the health-care system. we need to align incentives between providers and payers and consumers so that we are all working toward the same end. we need to provide better information so that people can make better decisions about care. we need to hold people accountable. i think five years may be too short. we did not get into this problem in five years. if i project health care down the road, i think the delivery, the underlying delivery is going to change perspective of -- irrespective of the bill.

payment -- the payment method will change it. if the bill is repealed, there'll be greater continuity of employer-based care. if it stays in place, there's the potential for greater government involvement. both markets will continue to exist in either scenario if we are effective in transforming the way care is delivered. i think you'll see a greater emphasis one way or another depended on which outcome you project. >> i am a health economist with the national maris association. recent research shows that half of the private insurance plans in the united states refused to credential nurse practitioners and other registered nurses. this is despite a finding last year from the institute of medicine that they provide --

that nurses provide high-quality medical care. what are you doing to work with member companies to encourage them to accept advanced practice registered nurses into their private networks and what, if anything, you may be doing with state legislators to convince them to eliminate various practice nurses? >> i cannot speak to the specifics of what each of our member companies are doing but i can speak to the philosophy that we have is a system which is to enhance front-line care. if we're going to be able to treat the numbers of people we need to treat, we cannot train in of efficient fast enough to do that. we will have to look toward nurse practitioners and other advanced trained professionals to extend the care and extend the reach of primary-care into communities. if we are successfu in

bringing in the uninsured into the marketplace, we will have to be more reliant on nurse practitioners and others. my daughter is a nurse, too, so i have a vested interest. i believe it is inevitable that we do that. as far as the specifics of what each member company is doing, i don't have that at my fingertips. if you give a car to one of our people -- we are working that issue in a number of markets. we could partner with you to move it along. >> one more audience question. >> thank you very much for your remarks. i am interested in your thoughts on a national health strategy. i don't mean the legislation that we just sort of passed. that may be changed but something that looks at the

demographics going forward in our country with the aging population and changes the way in which health insurance is structured to reflect the burden of disease affecting each segment of our population. within that, could you answer the question of whether there might be room for disincentives within health insurance premium structure. for example, if i may say driver, mike freeman goes down. if i'm a non-smoker and maintain a healthy weight, and i exercise their four times a week, would it not be beneficial to give me benefits? it seems the only difference and benefits is age. can you address the national health strategy looking at our democrat -- demographics going forward? >> i would say that one of the

reasons, not the only reason, but what the reasons we are where we are with regard to the health care system in america being fundamentally broken, is that we did not have a vision. i'm talking about a collective vision on what we want health care to be in america. had we had that in the 1960's, we might have created a different outcome today. we didn't and we are where we are and i think is important we get some collective vision of where we want to go and what we want health care to be for all americans. i think that is important. it is not easy but important. payment is just a piece of that. we tend to confuse and got confused about health care payments vs. health care. those are two separate issues and we tended to blend them.

i believe in exactly what you said -- help the reader should be rewarded and people should get differential reinforcement based on a world status. we cannot do that in a number of instances because of all law but i think we should. a number of our companies do do that and to reward and incentivize health risk assessments, they encourage weight-loss, smoking cessation, healthy lifestyles, and the reward their participants for that kind of behavior. those that you would have a better outcome than those who don't. we know it works. we would encourage that that be part of any vision that you're going to ask people to be accountable, we should create incentives for us assuming that accountability. there's a gentleman in the middle. he might ask me a really tough question. this might be a mistake. this gentleman right here.

can be given a chance? this might be a mistake, i don't know. be nice, now. [inaudible] >> in terms of how the medical care is supported, you can see it continuing to be basically employer desk or reimbursed for some other way? >> i continue to believe there is an important role for employer-based coverage. i think it creates a sense of community an employer group. i think employers believe it is partly the responsibility. i continue to think there will be a place for employer-based coverage as i look forward. i think you will see a rise in the individual market. more and more people will be purchasing their own care or be engaged in that. that is why i think we need to be successful in means and

information for people to do that. >> i don't think it is going away. we hope it is not going away. >> thank you very much for your attention [applause] >> thank you, scott. thank you for your participation today and let me and by attacking our sponsors once again, the blue cross/blue killed association, the diplomatic courier, and the week in making this event possible. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [no audio]

[no audio] [no audio] >> if you missed any of this event, you can go to our website, c-span.org, look for the cspan video library. congress returns to session today at 2:00, in over half an hour. the house will consider a number of bills with post offices and other federal buildings. later this week, coast guard programs and help for jobless benefits live on c-span. the senate will be spending the week on federal spending for

this budget year. several ended seas are still up three under temporary spending authority. -- several agencies are still operating under temporary spending authority. cspan 3 will be live at 5:00 eastern where they look at legislation to see concealed handguns be carried in another. the bill is scheduled to go to the full house later this week. >> most people probably think of the voa of a broadcaster listening for the secret police to come. that is now out of date and it. >> voice of america director -- >> we are on facebook, a twister, a satellite tv, we are on fm radio. we have affiliate's around the world. lot of new ways

to communicate with people but the mission has stayed the same theme"the communicators. " >> the c-span.org is easier to use. the new design features 11 video choices making it easier for you to watch today's events live and recorded. there's a section to find our popular programs. we have added a handy channel finder see you can quickly find where to watch our 3 cspan network on cable or satellite systems across the country at the all new c-span.org >> maryland governor and democratic governors' association martin o'malley says one of the lessons learned from the george w. bush administration is that trickle- down economics does not work or create jobs. he spoke about jobs, the economy, and role of the states at the national press club today

in washington and took questions from the audience for about one hour. . >> this might be a good time for ever want to put their mobile device on vibrate if you could. this morning, we're fortunate to have the governor of maryland who is chairman of the democratic governors' association, martin o'malley. with the 2012 election around a corner, we hope you will share a few notes from his election playbook on the role democratic governors would play next year. first elected governor in 2006, he was reelected last year with

56% of the vote. it was a 13% margin over his opponents. under his administration, maryland has cut nearly $7 billion in spending. at the same time, the state has made huge investments in education. maryland is one of only eight states where -- with a aaa credit rating. maryland ranks 10th in new job creation with an unemployment rate below the national average. maryland public schools have been ranked best in the nation for three years in a row. as chair of the dga, he is widely credited with stemming the tide ever number of gains by republicans. in recent years. compared to his predecessors, he has -- he is seen as being more aggressive toward republicans and as a staunch supporter of the present obama agenda

including the american jobs act. in june, the dga announced they had raised $11 million in the first six months of 2011. $8.6 million of that was cash on hand. it was a record haul for the dga. most insiders believe governor o'malley will be a shoo in to win reelection as dga chair this september and i discovered that as a former mayor of baltimore, he appeared as himself in the movie "ladder 49." >> that was a hard roll. >> employees to welcome and introduce maryland governor martin o'malley. >> thank you and thank you to everyone here at the national press club. thank you all for being here this morning. it is great to be with all of you. i wanted to talk with you a

little bit today from a democratic governor's perspective about the pace of our nation's jobs recovery, about the government choices and economic policies that democratic governors are making to accelerate the jobs recovery. each of us has a role to play as governors of the 50 states. also, there's a different set of choices that i see being made by many republican governors. let's jump in, shall we? over the last five years, in our state, the state of maryland, we have been focused on creating jobs and improving the conditions for job creation. with performance measurement. we made our government work more effectively, with openly setting public goals and transparency, we measure our progress towards achieving those goals. building on our strengths, the better decisions of our state,

we have been able to make progress and have done so in some very challenging economic times. we have done that by choosing a balanced approach, a balanced approach that includes a mix of cuts, revenues, and strategic investment in that better future that we prefer. strategic and bows -- investments are the foundation of our economic strength. like public education. we are making progress in maryland public schools making the number 1 schools in the country three years in a row. never happened before but it happened in the middle of this great recession. we're making progress and driving a violent crime down to their lowest level since the 1970's. we're making progress in protecting our triple a bond rating, one of only eight states that has been able to do so. across our country, democratic

governors and the toughest of times are balancing budgets, making tough choices, creating jobs, and moving forward and doing it all at the same time. as governor basheer recently said and concluding a near perfect campaign in kentucky, he said in the closing days of that campaign that true leadership is in having the courage to make the right cuts and the good sense to make the right investments. last week in ohio and last week also in kentucky, about a month ago in west virginia, we saw the voters sent a very powerful message. it was to knock off the narrow ideology and put job creation first. in kentucky, steve basheer ran a near perfect campaign by

focusing on the choices that we must make together in order to create and save jobs and expand opportunities. that is also with governor tomblin did in west virginia. his upon talked-about peripheral issues like health care lawsuits or greyhounds. in kentucky, steve basheer's upon when into parole -- peripheral issues and challenging the sincerity of the governor's religious beliefs. they stayed on jobs. they stayed on job creation. they stayed focused on the things that good leaders do regardless to bring people together to make the tough or right decisions. in ohio, voter will mars overtue ideology by rejecting the senate bill 5.

this bill would have taken away collective bargaining rights from public employees. that would include moms and dads who serve all of us as firefighters or police or teachers. more people turned out to vote against sen bill5 then turned out to vote for governor kasich to begin with. the voters were safe enough already with the anti-union ideology. what is banning unions have to do with creating jobs and expanded opportunity. ? voters told us they want their leaders to bring people together to create jobs to solve problems and do the things that work. that is what democratic governors are doing in every part of our country, making the top right choices now to create jobs and to expand opportunities. recently, governor malloy of

connecticut called a special session around the job creation. he brought together democrats and republicans alike in a package that included a balance of investment and infrastructure, tax credits, job training, and regulatory reform, and support for small business. in delaware, jack markell who has a business approach to making government work has put together the most serious job creation initiative called building delors future now which calls for additional investments in the job creation supporting infrastructure. in north carolina, governor perdue six to make every student eligible for college so the tar heel state's work force has the skills they need to fill the new

jobs that are created in the new economy in north carolina. there are two economic models at play here. if there is anything we should have learned from the administration of george w. bush, it is the trickle-down economics does not work. trickle-down economics does not create jobs. trickle-down economics does not grow our middle-class. trickle-down economics does not expand opportunity. and yet the struggle goes on between two competing economic models, one that has been proven to work in every generation vs one that brought us record debt and record unemployment. one that built the largest and strongest middle class in the history of the planet vs one that brought us the declining middle-class incomes for the first time since world war two and very nearly drove our national economy into a second great depression.

these two fundamentally different sets of choice are playing out in congress and also in statehouses across our country. let's go back to ohio as one extreme example where republican governor kasich is making deep cuts. like public education, even as he cuts taxes for the estates of dead millionaire's and dead millionaire's, hoping that they will reach back from the grave and create jobs and expand opportunity for those of us who are still living. by their own trickle-down theory, the mass of constant -- concentration of wealth should have brought about better times and not economic disaster. if their theory worked, millions of jobs should have been created by this concentration, an extreme concentration of wealth.

there should be jobs falling from the sky and washing up on american beaches. we created only 1 million jobs as a nation during the bush administration. during the clinton administration, we created 23 million jobs. i reports, you decide, which one is the more effective model? they succeeded in accomplishing their means well and we all have to give them my hat's off for that. that means the extreme concentration of wealth. it brought about near disaster for the other 99% of us. it has been a failure for america and for america's economic growth. we're still recovering from losses of the bush decade and there failed trickle-down economic model. president obama and democratic governors rejected their model. it is not this bill is responsible. it is not good for our country. we believe in a different model,

a more effective mall, a more traditional american model. this model was job creation first and recognizes that to create jobs, a modern economy requires moderate investment. that is not a democratic republican idea. that is an economic truth. that is an historic truth. that is an american idea. we have a long, long way to go before we recover all we have lost in the last decade. we can make our economy stronger and we can make our country better. last month, our nation achieved the 13th month in row of positive job growth under president obama's leadership. that is 13 months in a row which is the longest stretch the consecutive positive job creation that our country has

achieved since 2005-2006. meanwhile, the private sector has gone for 20 consecutive month in a row of the net positive job growth. last month, we drove home foreclosures down to their second lowest month that we had seen since november 2007 and in july, it was only 44-month low. because we were starting to make better choices with people, our economy is starting to get better. better is not good enough. we have not regained all we have lost in the bush recession and to many sectors are still searching for work and there is a lot to do. the truth of our situation is that we will not move beyond our current job creation and employment difficulties simply by cutting. it is not possible. if it feels to you that every

mother our economy is taking two or three steps forward and then taking one step back, that is because every month for every two or three jobs created in the private-sector, our public sector is eliminating a job. the absence of a more balanced approach of moderation is forcing counties, cities, forcing states to actually slow down our jobs recovery would never ending job elimination. if our public payrolls were bloated, perhaps we could all chalk this up to some sort of right sizing but in most places, republican jobs are not enough. how much less education do we need is a nation? for the last decade, we have

been severely undercapitalized ing america. others may rightly want to talk about the morality of an economic system and all all and -- and all economic systems may be political and others may want to talk about the reality of an economic system that is right to construct a much of our nation's wealth in the hands of so few. i am just as concerned about how these four choices keep prayer -- keep us from investing in our country and a better future and a better job opportunities that we all want for our children. under president eisenhower and the 1950's, our country invested nearly 12% of federal non- defense spending in our infrastructure. today, we are at just 3%. when it comes to basic research and development, we are investing today 60% less than we

were investing when richard nixon was elected president. in just a last 10 years or so, we have seen our ranking of the people who have college degrees shrink among the nation of the world from first place to around 11 or 12. it is not what other countries are doing to us. it is what we are not doing for ourselves. no one else is going to do these things for us. no one else is going to make these national economic investment in education, innovation, and infrastructure for us. the american society of civil engineers recommend that we invest $846 billion over the next decade to upgrade our roads, bridges, and dark tunnels. ending the bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, returning to clinton-year tax rates for those highest brackets

would allow us to make $400 billion of that $800 billion we need for the investment. to govern is to choose. to govern is to choose. democratic governors believe there are some challenges that are so large that we can only hope to accomplish them by working together. we want to create jobs and spur innovation and how we provide fuel and hill are people and expanding opportunities in this economy and improving public education and safety and making college more affordable for more people, rebuilding a 21st century transportation infrastructure, eradicating childhood poverty -- these things won't happen by themselves. we must do them as we always have before. we must do than together and must do them ourselves. i appreciate your time in coming here today and thank you for your interest and the important

and courageous decisions who are -- of democratic governors of the states. it is my honor to have served them this year. i'm proud of each one of them and they are all making our country better place. i would be glad now to open it up to questions. thanks. >> perfect. >> stay here or go there? >> we will open up for questions. please give us your name and your affiliation. >> we are the news service and i am curious how you think the super committee works and what appears to be no compromise at this point factors into your call for more investing. s, the question is about

the super committee and the port work they are doing. i hope there is hope that they will make progress in bringing us together in this time of tremendous division and polarization. what we need is a spirit of compromise, a spirit of moderation. and an ability to draw adopt a balanced approach pri win 55% of our debt is driven by bush-zero tax cuts that primarily benefited the very wealthy, that balanced approach must reasonably include an on doing, a reversal, if you will, an end to that ongoing self-inflicted revenue wound. there was a little bit of talk from our friends in the proud party of lincoln. under further examination, that

first overture came as late as it did end appeared to be more of a shell game than a real step toward reversing the damage of those bush windfalls for the wealthiest of our citizens. i spoke earlier this morning with chris van hollen. maryland is proud to have him on the committee and he continues to work. there is that sequestered limit and hopefully they will make progress here. we all need to stay at this. we don't have any other congress right now. as frustrated as we get at how often this new republican congress breaks down, this is a hoopdie that we have and we have

to pull together and make progress for the national interest. we are steering between -- let me stop there. you can ask more questions. >> you know that in wisconsin they are pursuing a recall for scott walker. are you supportive of that movement? have you spoken about pledging any resources toward accomplishing that? >> there are many people that would like to recall governor walker in wisconsin. as an organization, we have not had a conversation about it. we have an opportunity to replace a narrow minded, is the logical and affected governor

was summoned to get something done. we have just come through dispersed cycle and this recall, on our horizon. i don't want to get too far ahead of my colleagues. i think what i can safely say on their behalf is it the recall goes forward, and it is successful, the dga will be there as we were in ohio. >> thank you, governor. india laterling to this month and can i ask why? >> i am traveling to india. i am traveling with a number of business people from maryland. i am traveling with judge katie o'malley and she will be doing work on rule blog thanks -- rule

all block kind of things. --rule of law kind of things. i will promote maryland as a destination for foreign investment. we have an outstanding work force and our state. we have more ph.d.'s per capita than any other state in the union and we have strengths that are well-suited to india in health care, like science, by a care, and i t given the concentration of assets we have at our state. we have nih, john hunt -- johns hopkins, the center for medicaid and medicare services -- all of these things along with the food and drug administration make our state a real powerhouse for innovation and life science and i t and also the national institute of standards makes us

the undisputed center aof cyber security. we hope to build on those strengths and advertise them and recruit investors from india to invest in maryland. am traveling there the friday after thanksgiving and i will be there for roughly one week. thank you. >> [inaudible] >> the question is -- with the race is coming up next year,

there are 11 races that are up next year. next year is also a presidential year. we have our work cut out for us. these are not easy times. everyone would like to see the jobs recovery happening more quickly than its. is. no one desires that more than the president and democratic governors. this is a very, very challenging time. many people are hurting and there are no easy solutions or answers. the races that are coming up next year are not only important in the traditional way of looking at the horse race, there are also important battles being played out in states. every presidential campaign is different but in the past, places like ohio, places like florida, places like wisconsin

have played important roles in the electoral college. in all three of those states, we have a tremendous amount of buyer's remorse with those who elected a new governor of the new party thinking they were sending a strong message for job creation and instead, they got back a lot of impractical and extreme right wing ideology whether it is anti-union or cutting health care for seniors and college for middle-class families in order to fuel tax cuts for the wealthy. those dynamics will play out in those states andthe dga and the contrast they provide, leadership by example, will also play an important role in this press -- presidential race. we are very excited about the potential in indiana.

speakgtregg, i have met with him and he is a dynamic person with a fearless commitment to public service, and ability to speak honestly about these complex issues. we also have our vice chair, p earlyerdue who is up for reelection in early december. we will have a governor's race in washington state. jay ensley wrote a book on creating jobs in this economy, that is an exciting race. in new hampshire, john lynch retires, one of the more popular governors with one of the highest approval ratings of any democratic governor and that is after eight years. there will be a race to fill his seat and in vermont, like new hampshire, they like to elect to

their governor in two-year cycles to keep them hopping. that one will be up as well. montana, brian schwietzer will be completing his two-term limit and our democratic candidate we are excited about. there'll be lots of things going on in the dynamic of the presidential race. it is not the largest to year, is not the year when we have 30 governors' offices of but it is important as some of the most important work that will be going on in the presidential race will be the contrast of democratic governors, bring people together, to make the tops decisions and right investments to create jobs and opportunity now and republican governors that are giving us warned over trickle-down economics and there are now remanded -- and now met -- and that will be the choice.

it might be a choice that find an echo in the national campaign. >> i am from governing magazine. >> one of my favorite magazines. >> you believe the government can actually work, don't you? that is what i like your magazine. >> are you going to have a gas tax increase in maryland's? ? will that work at the federal level? >> yeah, the question is about the gas tax and the possibility of raising it in maryland. for those of you who might have

missed this -- we had a blue ribbon commission empaneled by the legislature to look at what we are investing in our infrastructure and to make recommendations for what we need to do with order to invest so that not only are our bridges not falling in our rivers but also that we are building up that common platform that creates jobs. one of our hardest hit sectors in our economy is our construction industry. the blue ribbon commission came back with a proposed 15% increase. we are considering that looking at that. whether we are ultimately successful in being able to bring people together to make more investments in our infrastructure and a healthier level for economic growth and economic expansion and job creation is going to depend on the dynamic that takes place. i am one person -- one servant

leader in this government -- we have to figure this out. there's nothing tougher to ask people in the middle of a recession to pay a little bit more for anything. i think among the various taxes out there, you would be hard- pressed to find one more unpopular than a tax on gasoline. having said that, in our state, and each state is a little bit different, we have a flat tax on 1 gallon. of 23 cents. when gasoline was $1.80 per thatn, back in the 1970's, is when the 23 cents went on. since the 1970's. , our infrastructure and transportation and land we can send them the amount of network that has to be expanded to

serve those in a growing commuter routes has greatly increased. the gas tax on a gallon has not. even as the price of gasoline went up recently to over $4, the gas tax -- the gas tax remains the 5%. in terms of financing for these things, there is no way however clever you want to be to build a $90 million bridge for $10 million. >> you can see this program in its entirety on our website. the u.s. house is about to gavel in. legislative work will get under way at 4: 30 eastern and. it will top of bills naming post of buses and federal buildings and later this week, coast guard programs, help for veterans and concealed handguns.

and how to live coverage of the house. washington, d.c., november 14, 2011. i hereby appoint the honorable virginia foxx to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. dear god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we ask your special blessing upon the members of this people's house. they face difficult decisions in difficult times with many forces and interests demanding their attention. give them generosity to enter into their work. play they serve you in the work they do as you deserve.

give of themselves and not count the cost. fight for what is best for our nation and not count the political wounds. tylenol until their work is -- toil until their work is done. and labor without seeking any reward other than knowing that they are doing your will and serving the people of this great nation. bless them, o god, and be with them and with us all this day and every day to come. may all that is done be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess.

mr. burgess: please join me in the pledge to our flag and our country. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. burgess: madam speaker, i rise -- request permission to rise and address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burgess: the supreme court will take up the president's health care law, the so-called patient protection and affordable care act. this was signed into law march of 2010. now, the justices will consider, if the federal government, indeed the united states congress, exceeded its authority by requiring that every american purchase health insurance by 2014. the american people have made

it very clear throughout this process. give us the reforms that will address the problems, but don't tinker with what is already working well. what people wanted was not a 2,900-page bill that shearts the system that was work -- shatters the system that was working well for the vast majority of americans. what congress should have done was to tackle the problems that americans who need help were requesting. we could have accomplished reform in stand-alone bills. we know that the new health care law is not what the american people wanted and i am encourage this law will be heard before the highest court in the land and i am hopeful for their expeditious and judicial removal of the affordable care act. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair lays before the house a communication.

the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on november 10, 2011, at 5:52 p.m., that the senate passed with an amendment, h.r. 674. with best wishes i am. signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on november 14, 2011, at 10:19 a.m., that the senate passed without amendment h.r. 398, that the senate passed senate 363. with best wished i am. signed sincerely, karen l.

haas. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives that i have been served with a subpoena for the production of documents issued by the district court of spray county, nebraska. after consulting with the office of general counsel i have been determined that the subpoena is consistent with the privileges and rights of the house. signed sincerely, lee terry, member of congress. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 4:30 p.m. today. >> houses in recess to give members time to return to their

districts. it will name and number post offices and other federal buildings today. thank you this week, the u.s. constitution requiring a balanced budget and allowing concealed handguns to be carried from one state to another. live house coverage here on c- span. jon huntsman is here in washington today. he will be speaking shortly at the brookings institution on his jobs plan and about the state of the economy. we will have live coverage starting at about 2:15 p.m. eastern. until about, a look at this morning's "washington journal" and buehrer spot on federal regulations. the mustang and river coal-fired plant in ohio is nearing the end of its life.

how do you think federal regulations impact on jobs, or does it at all? raymond, and you. are on you. caller: they protect people. i would rather have clean air and clean water. >> do you think that is the question, that people should be debating, whether regulation serves the public good, not whether or not we should have them? >> of course. regulations are in place for a reason. the last republican bill came came up and there was a bill

that will allow a little bit more cement dust in the air, kind of ridiculous. host: this is a piece of wood together by the heritage foundation in july. they say the regulatory burden has continued to increase during the first half of 2011 -- do you think we can afford the amount of regulations? caller: may be overlapping regulations keeping. anything from the heritage foundation and i take with a grain of salt because they are biased.

host: that was raymond, a democrat from arizona. next is joyce, an independent in memphis, tennessee. talking about federal regulations and how it impacts jobs. we also want to live from business owners this morning. we have set aside a special line. 202-628-0214. >> all i know it's president obama is doing everything he can to try to get the jobs situation solved. the republicans keep fighting him. mark my words, if the republicans get in, we will have

poisoned food and water because they will deregulate everything and nothing will get inspected and people are going to die. >> is there compromise on the issue of regulations between democrats and republicans? >> i think there can be. but as we see with the current paradigm, there is no compromise with this batch of republicans. host: here's the washington post on the white house.

vance, a republican in oklahoma city. caller: i really don't like all of this language about regulation. it depends on what you mean by regulation. if you mean top-down regulation where you have administrative agencies saying that this business can do this and this business cannot do this, then that kind of the regulation does destroys thed disorde market order and common law market that has enabled us to make use of rules that were no part of anyone's intentional invention. if you are talking about regulations by prices, regulation by price competition, by common law, by the consuming public and their elasticity of demand, then i am in favor of

that kind of regulation. if republicans would start talking about that kind of regulation, i think they could win over the public and do much better job of destroying the top-down corporates, fascist administrator state that has arisen since the early progressive era. >> some studies have been cited in this article. economists who have strutted say there's little evidence that regulation causes massive job loss in the economy --

caller: what i make a bad is it would take probably those top industries who are very-well situated and have captured the regulatory apparatus for their own benefit to snuff out market competition to pay those researchers to come up with something that would convince the public can handle politicians with the idea that

raising costs on the small businessman somehow creates jobs in this economy. host: federal regulations have more of an impact on smaller companies or companies trying to start out? caller: i think federal regulations help the big businesses like comcast and general electric and those at the very top. i think perhaps they want big regulations. the big corporations are against laissez-faire capitalism. that is what i think. host: let's hear from a business owner in kentucky. do federal regulations impact jobs, bruce? caller: i don't believe so. in 1982 i already had a business in consulting. why did 13 coal permits. -- i did.

all 13 of those coal mines have been completed and mined and reclaim dance you can hardly see the impact on the land today roughly 30 years later. i used the income from that to bootstrap the starting of a software company, which i maintain to this day all. 13 of those coal mines have probably employed economy hundred people on average in their time. in this timeframe under obama to my knowledge not one single new coal permit has been approved in kentucky or west virginia. therefore, you don't have the jobs from people like myself who were permitting w the mineswereho then used the money -- permitting the mines who used the money for other businesses.

then you don't have good jobs for the coal mines themselves. regulations does not help jobs. that is absurd. host: it sounded like you were talking more about the permitting process. does that deal with regulations? caller: the permitting process deals with regulations. i personally wrote 13 coal permits, of which 100 jobs on average were created at these 13 coal mines. we have a situation -- i am not making the argument that regulation creates jobs. it created one job for me at the time. now it is now there's not the one job doing

jon huntsman will discuss his jobs plan this afternoon at the brookings institution here in washington. he first announced his jobs plan in late august in new hampshire. it calls for major changes to the tax code and the passage of free trade policies to improve job growth here in the u.s. >> good afternoon, everyone and welcome to brookings. thank you for coming. those who do not know me, i'm john thornton, the chairman of the board of trustees.

this session will be the first of all we hope is a series in which each of the republican candidates for the white house, and has a session like this. we did something like this in 2008 with both democrats and republicans won the contest were open. this afternoon, as you can see, it is john hund -- jon huntsman. it will focus on the economy, jobs, tax reform and the budget. gov. huntsman will outline his plan to create jobs and revitalize the economy. it is also a great pleasure to welcome his daughter and her husband.

as the 16th governor of utah, john s. economic policies -- a signature policies were tax reduction, reducing government and growing utah's economy. he also has extensive foreign- policy experience. having served under four different u.s. presidents. he has argued foreign policy is critical not only for national security but economic growth. he has been a businessman, a political leader, and a statement. we're very pleased he is able to join us today. the session will take the form of a discussion between ted care, sitting to john's right, the professor of our economic program.

he has also served in the bush 43 administration under hank paulson in the treasury department. welcome, governor huntsman. [applause] we are at best, treading water, putting much around 9% unemployment. if we were to get 200,000 jobs

per month, month after month after month, it would still take 12 years to get back to where we were pre-recession. what role does the federal government have to help us dig out of this enormous problem? what would you advocate as president? >> where i learned as governor i will reply as president, and that is, the leader through policy-making can influence a state or a country's level of competitiveness. we did that in the state of utah. and we made it no. 1 in job creation. we made it the most attractive destination for business. we worked on innovative education policies, job training programs. we looked at what we needed to do in our state to compete in a

region, the western region of the united states in ways that would set us apart from others. when you stop to think that, you know, the brain power leaving your state, which we saw going somewhere else -- you know, if your college graduates are leaving, that is a bad sign. that is your intellectual property development. if your entrepreneurs are not active, if investment is not landing in your marketplace, then it is landing somewhere else. capital is a coward and it will flee were there are risks in the marketplace. if it is not letting in a marketplace, it is going somewhere else. you have got to create an environment that speaks to the attraction of brainpower. uka to create a marketplace

that -- you have got to create a marketplace that speaks directly to capital. utah is not california or new york, but you've got resources and geography and well-educated work force. you have a commitment to the firm, which is what i heard from a lot of people. very loyal people. and we had a real entrepreneurial streak in the population. i got together a group in the run-up to the election in 2004. dozens and dozens of business leaders, stakeholders, academics to say, if you had to change 10 things to revitalize the economy, what would it be? it cannot be 100 things. the band with this is not such that you can get that done as a leader, but it can be tending sick or five things or three things, so let's prioritize them -- it can be 10 things or five

things or three things, so to prioritize them. that is what we did. we measured what would need to the marketplace in terms of revitalizing. we have a system that i liked to describe as a dilapidated system from the 1950's. if you are born to try to compete with the likes of colorado or idaho or tx, you have got to do better. we came up with a tax reform program. we failed before the legislature the first time. we succeeded the second year and is essentially flat tax. we were able to close loopholes. we did not get all of them gone. that was my goal, i wanted all of them gone. even about as politically treacherous.

-- even though that is politically treacherous. what we did produce was better than we had before. what it did as much as anything else is in fused a sense of confidence in the marketplace. people talked about us. people's writing about the utah market. forbes, fortune, people cannot to do articles about the marketplace on the move -- people came out to do articles about the marketplace on the move. and brainpower is attracted to your local university, which we found becomes a more attractive place to be. revenues increased. we were able to make investments in our state that up to that point we could not think about

what could not afford it, like a painter for they are worse. putting innovative programs into the classroom, like early childhood development expanding choice. and then at the higher up lockable, coming up with some centers of excellence that would attract brain power. i learned to sing -- sitting on the economic development board in the 1990's, there lesson of economic development, which was to open the floodgates for brainpower. level the playing field and tried to stay a step or two ahead of the competition. we just have to make sure our competitive environment is conducive to attracting the elements that an economy needs for success. this is truly applicable nationally. we need to infuse a sense of confidence into this economy.

there is capital. we have great ideas. we have the most innovative, entrepreneurial, created across the world has ever seen. they are still here. they want to be set free. but there is not a level of confidence today that is compelling companies to unleash a expenditures into the marketplace. we must, in this country, create an environment that speaks to 20% to competitiveness.

which always carries a -- an element of political instability and that investment always will be looking for alternatives. we would be stupid if we do not address the alternative. we will address these deficiencies and we will win that investment here. it also assumes you have a president who can sit down with the manufacturing alliance, the

chamber of commerce and the business roundtable and say, folks, i know you have capital expenditures planned for all four corners of the world, but what you to do it here. a way to go back to your board of directors and think again about deploying these and in exchange for that, i'm going to fix taxes, creating a regulatory environment that is conducive to prove stability and growth. >> i want to dig a little bit deeper. you mentioned the tax reform. in your plan is essentially endorsing one of the simpson- bowles fiscal commission. they have an array of tax rates that you can choose from. but in order to fund it, you've got to eliminate some of these

tax expenditures. the problem is that i can count up least three of these commissions all come out with the edges nibbled upon. you get a lot local political figures saying this is a great idea, but not the mortgage interest deduction. in order to get those low rates even with some symbols -- simpson -- polls, you have to have a full child tax credit. are you dedicated to getting rid of all tax expenditures are we

back to picking and choosing? unfortunately, that is where we get back to. >> the samson-bowles plan, they did a fantastic job. it was thrown in the garbage can over a tactical error. why? maybe some of the numbers were a little bit different than where i would have put them. but on tax reform you have to have colleagues on the campaign front. 9-9-9 is not going to go anywhere because it will not deliver what is needed nibbles around the edges. if you are gaining a system based on the polls, then you will continue to gain the system.

we either think big and be bold when our nation needs of the most, or do not do it all. -- at all. you have to face a stress test in terms of what can be done in congress are you're not locked out on day one. if you have some good bipartisan mines that have analyzed except and seen something there that is there to like, and second, if the "wall street journal" comes out and says jon huntsman's economic proposal is the best of the bunch, i say, there is an opportunity we have to bring together a bipartisan coalition. in the end, that is how you have to get it done to move this thing through congress. i would want all loopholes and

deductions gone. as sensitive as some of them might be, and as politically treacherous as some of them might be. you have got to get the work of the people done. you have to start someplace. that is why i cry about today's world. --to do the work of the people u have to put something on the table that at least stands a chance. loopholes and deductions, gone. that will be a negotiation at some point and it will be a fierce negotiations, no doubt. but you have to have a position of where you think you want to be. you have to invest in the code, such that you can get the rate down. i would have a plan that has 8%,

14%, and 23%, which does not have the ring that 9-9-9 does. but it will get rid of the loopholes and the cobwebs. >> where these negotiations have started is where they have finished. one of the challenges is republicans will say they do not want a tax increase, but it is unclear what that means. some people said they do not want a tax rate increase. other people in the party would suggest they do not want any tax revenue increase. in the negotiation, how far are you willing to go if you're willing to do this trade-off with the some of the nontaxable rates with tax expenditures

added back in and you may have to increase your rates? are we looking for net neutrality? are you looking at increasing the tax reform? >> you go in with certain principles. you can do it on a revenue neutral basis. that would be one of the rules i would abide by. second, you could phase out corporate welfare. we cannot afford it anymore and it comes up the system such that we need to be smart about a 20% 3. phase out subsidies. and for some, going that far is too far. but that would be one of the principles by which i would guide tax reform, reinvested back into the cove, and allow that to lower the rate -- we invest it back into the code,

and allow a lower rate. but also want a bipartisan coalition to be put together to drive it home, such as we saw around the simpson-bowles commission. i would use the community, to make arguments about what this means for job creation. if you can make a valid argument about what this means to reach fire around job creation, that will be the argument of the day. we need to pay the bills and provide more in the way of opportunity. that is the thing that must prevail throughout. we are doing this because we have not touched taxes since 1986. we're doing it because many of the competing leading companies -- countries, they have dealt with taxes, market measures. i have not. if we have to act -- we have to

act. >> tax revenue neutral on the a tax reform panel and we still have an expenditure side problem. because revenue neutral, as you know, on an expenditure side we are increasing at a rapid rate. the problem in the future is going to be mounting cost of medicare. we have longevity and the baby boomers and the continuing cost of health care. my oversimplification is, the left looks at this and says we can get this under control if you give them political independence and they've picked the most cost-effective medical procedures that medicare should cover. everything else is out of

pocket. that is how we get rid of constraint on medicare. the other side of that will be to grow that voucher and that will keep it under -- again, you do not have to buy my oversimplification, but broadly, we have to do something on the underside, and undoubtedly that is on medicare. what is your vision of reducing expenditures primarily through medicare? >> first, we have to start with the assumption that all options are on the table. if you are going to do this and do it right, which is to say to target four trillion dollars -- trillion,n to $6 troand then we will hit the wall.

if you do not deride it will be by 2020, just based on current forecasts. you have medicare and social security interest payments and then that is it, you are out of gas. we cannot act -- we cannot not act. we have got to do something. i say what paul ryan has put on the table for medicare i think is valid. it is a realistic approach, the premium support system, not the doctor that he talks about. -- not a voucher that he talks about. we have a defined carta version marketplace, which is i think where we have -- defined contribution marketplace, which is where we need to go. when you figure that this is a $3 trillion industry, and any

expert will tell you that half of that number, is superfluous, needless spending, that is where you have to start. how do we begin and powering the patience of that when they walk into the doctor's office they know what is available and they know what the options are and they're not walking into an office where they are confused. in today's environment, nobody knows what the health care costs are, not the patient, not the doctors. we have to get around the cost drivers. over the longer term i think it will all mean something. we also have to recognize that the world in 1965 is -- was different than it is today. in terms of eligibility age, i think we can move that out. perhaps even a means testing component, as i would say with social security, which in 1935 the average age was 61 points

seven years, or -- was at 61.7 years, or thereabouts. the rate of return is a a 8% as opposed to 3%. you have more palkot paying in and taking our -- i say we have got to fix the underlying assumptions on social security for inflation and tie it to real wage growth as opposed to the consumer price index and have a means testing component where it faces in. you can deal with a big part of the problem by doing that. it is a shared sacrifice and the president is going to have to step up and recognize that it will be a shared a sacrifice.

i think we can save social security and we can deliver on the original intent promised in 1935. this is all about leadership. it is about political will. but i believe it is the will of the people in this country now to get our debt and spending in line with that which is that sustainable, something in line with gdp as opposed to 24%. it also has to be made into an argument about national security. and for me, that is an argument. when you're dead become 70% of gdp, to be 80%, you just cannot grow anymore. -- when your debt becomes the 70% of gdp, soon to be 80%, you cannot grow anymore.

then you look around a bend at where greece is at 170% debt to gdp, or italy, 120%, and remember -- i remember where japan was a few years ago. nonperforming loans and other conditions that made it impossible to start growth there. today, they are in their third decade. look around the bend. if you do not want to address debt and spending, you can see where it takes you over time. >> you obviously have extensive experience in china, so a little change of pace by asking about china. but governor romney said he would thus china as a currency manipulator if he were president. this is something where a bill

passed the senate essentially saying that same thing, proposing tariffs on china over exchange-rate issues. i'm wondering what you think of change raid policies -- exchange-rate policies and future growth for china and the u.s.. >> first, let's talk about what -- let's call it what it is, pandering. when we say we are going to go to war with china, the reality is far different. if you start to slap on a tariff, the chinese will turn around and say, remember the quantitatively easing programs, part one and part 2? you did the same thing. and they will slap a tariff on us. i lived through the chinese dumping case iabout three years

ago, not a good thing. what happened after the penalty was assessed? the chinese came up with a similar analogous lee valued countermeasure toward our chicken parts. completely disrupting our poultry producers. and that is just the way the game is played these days. recognize the reality and we are back to the united states and china sitting down in a negotiation and grinding it out. it is not a unique-dimensional -- a one-dimensional relationship. it is three-dimensional chess. new have weaponization in iran, pakistan element, china and the south china sea, global economic rebound in ahman new technologies, and a lot of things you are trying to carve

into a route -- a reality. like it or not, you have to sit down and write it out at the negotiating table. the same thing that president reagan discovered. i went with president reagan in the early 1980's in china. he campaigned for recognizing taiwan only to find that once you become president, even in those early days you have to factor in the chinese. that is a relationship that will require going forward. -- going forward, a dialogue at the presidential level that is consistent, uniform, down a couple of times a year, not something that is on the margins

of apec or the g-20, but a consistent dialogue that lays out our strategic interest in the region and allows us to pull out their strategic interest, and the like -- allows us in a dialogue we have not heretofore been able to achieve. we trade, we invest, we do all of the economic stuff, all of a of regional security work. but we need a lot more in the way of shared values and to give it staying power that will need for the first and second-largest economies in the world to be the relationship it can be. despite all of the challenges that we will inevitably have. and now that the fifth generation is coming to the forefront of the congress this next year, with a lot more

viewpoints that will carry some challenges for us. we need to expanded around human rights, the internet, religious liberties. these are all things we need to expand our debates around. why? because you have 500 million internet users who are having these discussions anyway. you have the raw material in china increasingly to have these discussions and have them picked up like never before. the party as reading the blogs. they do not like what they are reading, clearly, and they know they will have to make some accommodations to open up and liberalize. if not, there is a train wreck in the making. there is no reason we should not be providing a little bit of intellectual context to all of that >> let's open it up to questions from the crowd.

>> i am derek mitchell and i write the mitchell report. -- garecht mitchell and i read the mitchell report. i would like to talk about the one thing we have not talked about today, which is -- among others, i should say. you make a persuasive case about what should be done in the realm of economics and fiscal policy and with your experience as governor and ambassador suggest you bring a lot to the table on that equation. if you were to become president, changes is to come to a town and you need something called the congress. -- meet something called the congress. rule 22 in the senate, the stranglehold that the rules committee house and house, the

extent to which regular order has become an oxymoron up on the hill suggests that no matter how well prepared and how thoughtful the next president of the united states is, he or she will have to deal with an institution that holds the purse strings and is really in a state that makes it difficult for good governance to take place. i would be interested in hearing you talk about two things. the one, the extent to which you have thought about the problems that congress deals with. and the second one, what role could a president in leadership play in bringing about change so that the country could have good governance again? >> we have to figure out ways to

enhance trust in the system. i do not have an easy answer for you. when i was reelected in 2008, we got just shy of 80% of the vote. the turnout among the young people was such that i was a little discouraged about the future of our system. what do you do to enhance believability in our democracy? to get younger generation folks more invested in our future? and what is driving the apathy? campaign financing, the role of lobbyists in society, a lack of term limits? whatever the case might be -- and we put some people to the test to get a report that outline may be some steps that could be taken. shortly after, i was taken to china.

i do not know if there was a connection to the report or not, but i think the same thing needs to happen to the next president. we first and foremost need to build a level of trust the system between the people and to the elector. the fact that we are running on empty today between the people and the institutions of power concerns me greatly. congress and the executive branch, wall street, we are running on empty in terms of trust, which is a precarious place to be. how do you build trust in the system? that has to be a conversation that we have as a people in this country. if it is fundamental changes that would bring about in congress, you have to look at it to enhance overall trust. i do believe that when you are elected, and i understand these structural problems that you are talking about. it gives me a headache every time i talk about it. is there a way around it? the reality is that a president

has about two years to get things done. it is kind of like a governor. there are certain rhythms to governments and after two years -- to govern and saw, and after two years, the door is closed. recognizing that reality, you are elected president, you go right up to capitol hill and you say to my -- you say, it is a very simple congressional agenda i have for you, folks. i have three years by one -- three things i want to get done and i know i have two years to do it. i do believe what motivates congress more than anything else is the will of the people. when they speak out in an election cycle, there is movement. the question is, how long is that movement sustained before it drops into a state of complete paralysis, which is where we find ourselves today. and what you find in that state

of paralysis? mr. making on capitol hill, nothing getting done. there is no -- mischief making on capitol hill, nothing getting done. there was no one leading. we need to reduce confidence in the system. it is not complicated and it is doable. here are the regulatory reform measures of like to see done, and they will do with health care, with obamacare, certain aspects of financial services reform. we have a too big to fail problem in this country with the banking system. i do not know where to begin their except to recognize that it is a lingering out there and we have to address it. and third, simple steps toward energy independence. step 1 for may would be looking at somehow -- for me would be looking at somehow dismantling the distribution system that gives preference to one product,

oil. they own the system. when i drove a natural gas car as a governor, i never thought you could drive a natural gas car until somebody introduce the concept. the limiting factor is that you're not on the grid. there is no distribution, no film of station. you have to start with the structural problems. you have to deal with regulatory issues and i want to deal with the energy dependence problem in this country. what i am worried about is this 30 years in from -- the 30-year interim between now and when we can have an abundance of options

that are affordable. let's deliver for the american people. >> one more question. >> thank you, first of, for bringing pragmatic views to the campaign here. earlier, you mentioned three- dimensional chess in the foreign-policy arena. my expertise is with the fence. i'm very concerned about the budget control act cuts coming down the tubes. i was wondering if you could give us your perspective on finding a future and finding a balance on international foreign policy with defense spending. >> i have two boys in the navy, so i think about this from time to time, about what their world

is going to look like. what concerns me today and leads me to believe that we have to shake things up a little bit is we have a bit of an overhang from the cold war. in the second decade of the 21st century. 700 facilities in 60 different countries. we a 50,000 troops in germany in 20 different installations. i say, falls, the russians aren't coming anymore. [laughter] we have 100,000 in afghanistan nation-building when our nation needs to be built, when we have to pick from a counterinsurgency to counter-terrorism effort there. you need technical intelligence gathering, special forces on the ground, some training aspect with the local afghan army. let's be real about that. but to say, longer-term as we think about our security

structure, afghanistan is not our nation's future. iraq is not our nation's furniture. our nation's future is how well we are prepared to compete, and that is economics and education. and that is the pacific region where three-quarters of our trade will flow. were the most sick of it militaries will rise. for us not to recognize that does us damage for how we position ourselves in the future. if we have foreign policy drivers that will inform our defense priorities, what should those be? this is going to sound corny from a foreign policy person. a first foreign policy priority will be fixing our debt. when we are not strong, we are

not able to protect the values of democracy, liberty, human rights, and open markets. i lived overseas when those markets were projected. it is an awesome thing to behold. it transforms billion history. we're not projecting today. john number one is fixing the jobs they. it is transcended. i want a foreign policy aided by a defense structure that puts economics first. i was in beijing for the last couple of years. we have 100,000 troops in afghanistan. we protect the land. the chinese go in and take the mining concessions. there is something wrong with this picture. we need to be driving foreign policy first and foremost led by economics. that is what plays back to

strengthening our core and creating jobs at home. trade alliances come investor relationships, we need to be far more aggressive than we are today. third, we cannot forget about this asymmetric threat called terror that is out there and will be as far as the eye can see in the 21st century. i do not know that we need more sophisticated weapons systems or more bomber fleets. what i think we need is a better ability in real time to collect and analyze, and share intelligence, and rapid forces deployed ability -- deploy ability. there is the whole paycom aor from the coast of california to the indian ocean.

that will be a theater that we need to pay serious attention to. i believe that will be driven by new network of friends and allies. i said this tongue-in-cheek but i kind of mean it. i will consider the job done when we pull the uss ronald reagan into cameron bay and have a relationship there. we have new opportunities in the asia-pacific region to bolster new alliances. my defense priorities would be built around those realities. the army can probably be taken down from 485,000 to maybe 450,000, supplemented by the national guard troops. as a former commander in chief of the national guard, i can see how that would fit in. but also by purchasing and procurement practices in the

pentagon. at some point, you have to lift up the hood and ask why the machinery is not running as efficiently as it should be. after world war ii, we had 117 carriers. we were producing 100 ships a year. today it is larger but we are producing less than 10 ships a year. there is something that does not look right. for the red tape, the systems in place that fog us down. that needs to be looked at and reformed. the strategic concept around defense planning, following economics, following counter- terrorism, and asia-pacific being important long-term. submarines would be included in the mix. we need more in that regard. there would be an aspect of pentagon reform that would say

we have to do it more efficiently. we have to stretch the taxpayer dollar better in terms of what we're getting by way of return. i think you can get some really minds together that would be able to do very good things for the american people. >> thank you for coming. it has been a real tree. we appreciate it. [applause] -- it has been a real treat. we appreciate it. [applause] >> thank you. >> please remain seated while the governor departs. we will then open up the doors so everyone can go. i appreciate it. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> our road to the white house coverage continues on saturday with live coverage as the chicago mayor and former chief of staff speaks at the iowa democratic party dinner in des moines. live coverage will get under way on saturday night.

it will also be available online at c-span.org. the house meets for legislative work at 4:30 eastern. they will consider a number of bills remaining post offices and other federal buildings. later in the week, coast guard programs and help for jobless veterans. that is live on c-span. the senate will spend a week on federal spending for this budget year. you can see the senate live right now on c-span2. the house rules committee will look at legislation for carrying handguns. the bill is scheduled to go to the full house later this week. >> most people think of voa broadcasting on shortwave. that is kind of an out of date image now.

we are now on facebook, twitter, satellite tv. we are on fm radio. we have a lot of affiliate's now around the world. radio and tv stations use us as a washington news bureau for them. we're finding new ways to communicate with people. the mission has stayed the same. >> c-span.org is now easier to use. the new design features 11 video choices. it makes it easier to watch events live and recorded. you can access our most popular series and programs. we have added a channel finder to find where to watch the three networks on cable and satellite systems across the country.

that is that the all new c- span.org. >> supreme court justices heard oral arguments in the case questioning whether advances in technology can alter the reasonable expectations of privacy. united states versus jones asks whether the police need a warrant before attaching a gps device to a vehicle. the court is expected to deliver a decision before the end of the term in june. this is about one hour. >> the court has recognized the vibasic dichotomy under the fourth amendment. what a person seeks to keep private in his home, in a private letter, or the inside of his vehicle when he is

traveling is the seventh to fourth amendment protection. what he reveals to the world, such as his movements in a car on the public roadway is not. in knox, the court held that beeper surveillance of the vehicle traveling on the public roadway in friend -- infringed no fourth amendment expectation of privacy. >> it seems you are just following the car. the beeper helps you follow it from a greater distance. that was 30 years ago. the technology is different. you get a lot more information from the gps surveillance than you do from following a beeper. >> the technology is different. but this was not simply amplify visual surveillance. the officers steered with the

driver. the police broke off visual surveillance. they lost track of the car for an hour. there were only able to discover it by having receiver in a helicopter that detected the beeps from the beeper. >> that is a lot of work to follow the car. when they lose it, they have to call the helicopter. they can sit in the station and pushing a button. they can look at data and see everywhere it has been in the past month. that seems to be dramatically different. >> but it does not expose anything that is not already exposed to public view for anyone wanted to watch. that was the crucial principle that the court applied. >> does that apply if you put a beeper on a man's sport coat? >> probably not.

this court specifically distinguished the possibility of following a car on a public roadway from determining the location of an object in a place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. >> the special device measures only streets, public elevators, and public buildings. >> in that event, there is a serious question about whether the installation of such a device would indicate a search or seizure. if it did not, the public movement of someone does not implicate -- >> you may be where i have serious reservations about the way this beeper was installed. you can get to that at your convenience. >> i would like to get to it now. [laughter] >> i have to give the prologue to my question. when wiretapping first came before the court, we held it was not a violation of the fourth amendment because the fourth

amendment says the people shall be secured in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. wiretaping pick up conversations. that is not persons houses, papers, and effect. later, we reversed ourselves. katz established the new criteria of whether there is an invasion of privacy. are you obtaining something that a person at a reasonable expectation of keeping private? i do not think that was the original meaning of the fourth amendment. it has been around so long we will not overrule that. it is one thing to add the privacy concept to the fourth amendment as it originally existed. it is something else to use that concept to narrow the fourth amendment from what it originally meant. it seems to me that when the

device is installed against the will of the owner of the car, that is unquestionably a trespass. it thereby renders the owner of the car not secure in his affects. the car is one of his effects, against unreasonable search and seizure. is attached to the car against his will. it contains the location of the car from there on forward. why is that not correct customer do you deny it is a trespass? -- why is that not correct? do you deny it is a trespass?

>> but there was no consent by the owner to have installed by the government. >> that does not make a trespass. >> this course thought it may be a sneaky thing to do. every sneaky thing is not a trespass. >> it is corporation thought it was a trespass -- this court thought it was a trespass. this is to protect against meaningful response in the interests. >> we have near the fourth amendment -- narrowed the fourth amendment. .> it changes it the case that clearly illustrates the distinction between trespass and fourth amendment protections is the case that reaffirmed the open field doctrine. there was no doubt the police committed a trespass under local

law. they entered a cross fences, they ignored no trespassing signs. this court held the interests protected by trespass law are distinct from the interests protected by the fourth amendment. >> but the rationale of the case was that it was not unreasonable. >> the rationale was open fields the thingsong protected by the fourth amendment. the court focused on trespass law and fourth amendment law. >> do you think there would not be a search if you put a gps device on all of our cars, monitored our movements for a month? you think they are entitled to do that under your theory? >> the justices of the scourge? [laughter] -- the justices of this court? [laughter] under our theory, the judges when driving on public roadways have no greater expectations 3

>> you could decide tomorrow to put a gps device on every one of our cars and follow us for a be no- month and would problem under the constitution? >> you can put surveillance agents around the clock on any individual and follow them on the public streets. >> that seems to get to what is really involved, the issue of whether there's a technical trespass is potentially the grounds for deciding this particular case. the heart of the problem is presented by this case and others involving new technology. in the pre-computer age, most of the province of the privacy people enjoyed was not the result of constitutional protections. it was the result of the difficulty of the difficulty of traveling around and gathering information. with computers, it is simple to amass an enormous amount of information about people that

consists of things that could have been observed on the streets with information made available to the public. if this case is decided on the ground that there was a technical trespass, i do not have much doubt that in the near future if it will be possible for law enforcement to monitor movement on public streets. how do we do with this -- deal with this? dooley said that all information people exposed to the public is their game? -- do we say that all information people expose to the public is fair game chris burrous is there a real change in this regard? >> i do not think there is a dramatic change in this case. it is possible to envision

advances in technology that would allow more public information to be announced and put into computer systems. the remedy for that is through read i. through legislation. the remedy for that is through legislation. the court was confronted in another case with -- >> there was a third party involved in the telephone case. here, is the police. i think you answered the question. the government position would mean any of us could be monitored whenever we leave our home. the only thing secure is the home.

that is the end point of your argument. an electronic device as long as it is not used inside the house is ok. >> we're talking about monitoring movements in public. we're not talking about monitoring conversations, letters, or packages. there are enclaves of fourth amendment protection this court has recognized. >> i share the concerns that if you win this case, there is nothing to prevent the police or government from monitoring public movement 24 hours a day of every citizen. the difference between the monitoring and what happened in the past is that memories are fallible and computers are not. rarely do we send human beings

to follow people 24 hours a day. occasionally happens. but with machines, you can. if u.n., you suddenly produce what sounds like 1984 -- if u.n. -- if you were to win, he suddenly produce what sounds like 1984. what protection is there if we accept your view of the case? >> this is the argument presented to the court in 1983. the beeper technology seemed extraordinarily advanced. there was the potential for it to be used -- >> that is true. they do have a limit. in this case, they say it involved a single journey or

several journeys. this involves every journey for a month. they say whatever the line is that will protect us, it is short of every journey in a month. i accept your point. what do you say is the limit? >> i want to address the suggestion that you could draw a line between a month and a trip and have a workable standards for police officers to use. officers used a variety of investigative techniques that in the aggregate produce an enormous amount of information. a look at financial records and conducting visual surveillance. under a principle of law that says one trip is o.k. but 30 trips are not, there is no guidance for law enforcement. >> it is the same kind of guidance you have in any case that uses the technique where

you draw an outer limit and say you cannot go beyond that. we know that standard. we will leave it to the lower courts to work out and we will review its overtime. that is not desirable, but it is in a this court has used. even if it is wrong, i want to know if you are saying there is no limit or whether you are suggesting one. >> this case does not involve a 24 hour surveillance of every citizen. it involves somfollowing one suspected drug dealer for less than a month because the beeper technology failed. >> you are moving away from your argument. your argument is that it does not depend on how much suspicion you have or how urgent it is. your argument is that you can do it. .

it does not have to be limited in any way. >> that is correct. >> is it normal in these situations that we draw limits on how intrusive and how long the search is can be? we have the magistrate spell that out in the warrant. >> when you are talking about the movements of a car on the public roadway that could be monitored for a day or more, there is no fourth amendment search. >> i am talking about the difference between seeing a tile and a mistake. >> all the things this court has held are not searches for the same thing. >> the case started out with a warrant. the warrant said 10 days. it took 11.

there were supposed to do it in d.c. but instead did it in maryland. the police could have gotten them permission to do it. the practice has been in the electronic surveillance manual on getting a warrant was to get a warrant when they were encountering difficulties. parks in this case, there would not have been difficulty getting a warrant. it authorized things beyond monitoring the car. it authorized entering the car to install it. that was not necessary here. it also authorized monitoring the car in a location where there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. this case is only about monitoring a car on a public street. it is important to keep in mind that the principal use of this

surveillance is when the police have not acquired probable cause but have a situation that does call for monitoring. i would like to give an example. if the police get an anonymous phone call that a bomb threat is going to be carried out at a mosque by people who work in a small company, it will not provide reasonable suspicion under this court's decision. you can hardly expect the fbi to ignore a credible piece of a information like that. >> an anonymous tip that there is the same bomb in someone's house, do you get a warrant or just go in? >> you do neither. without probable cause, you cannot enter the house. >> why are you asking for a different rule in this situation? >> the police have the traditional means available to investigate these tips. they could put teams of agents on all of the individuals within

the pool of suspicion and follow them 24/7. >> you are now suggesting in answer to justice kennedy's question that would be ok to follow every citizen indefinitely. under your theory and the one espoused in your brief, you could monitor and track every person through their cell phone because today the smartphone emits signals that police could pick up in use to follow someone everywhere they go. your theory is that as long as what is being monitored is the movement of a person, they have no reasonable expectation that their possessions will not be used by you.

that is really the bottom line. you can invade their sense of integrity about their choices of who they want to see and use their things. >> that goes considerably farther than our position in this case. opposition is not that the court should overrule carroll and permit monitoring in a private residence. that is off-limits without a warrant. monitoring an individual through their clothing poses an extremely high likelihood that they will enter a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. a car parked in a garage does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. once the effect is in the house

in caro, there is an expectation of privacy that cannot be reached without a warrant. >> tell me the difference between this and the general warrant. historically, it was the disapproval and outrage that our founding fathers experienced with general warrants that permitted the police to indiscriminately investigate just on the basis of suspicion and not probable cause and to invade every possession the individual had in search of a crime. how is this different? there is no probable cause. there may not even be reasonable suspicion. >> a warrant authorizes a search. this authorizes the ability to

track movements in a car on the public roadway. this court said that no individual has and regional -- has a reasonable expectation of privacy when traveling on public roads. the police have no obligation to avert their eyes from anything in public. >> i give you that is public. does the reasonable expectation of privacy trump that? if we ask people if it violates their right to privacy to have this information acquired and everybody says yes, it's simply the reasonable expectation of privacy regardless of the fact that it takes place in public? >> something that takes place in public is not inherently off- limits to a reasonable expectation of privacy. that is the whole thing of katz.

making telephone calls in a phone booth is subject to reasonable expectation of privacy. this court recognized surveillance of a vehicle traveling on the public roadways -- >> 30 years ago if you ask people if it violated their privacy to be followed with a beeper, he might get one answer. today if you ask people if it violated privacy to know the police can have a record of every movement you have made in the past month, they might see that differently. >> it probably would also feel differently about being followed 24/7 by a team of fbi agents who gained far more information than a gps device produces. the gps device only gives the proximate location as the car drives. >> and the speed. >> the apartments become a location traveled. that is what -- the approximate speed and the location travel.

>> you could pick someone up for speeding when you suspect something far worse without probable cause. >> this court held that when the police have probable cause to stop someone for a traffic violation, they can do that. >> that is when the police came upon the violator. the police could say we want to find out more about x. they can sold the database -- consult the database and see if they have been speeding in the last 28 days. >> it is not hard for police to follow someone and file under a traffic violation if they want to do that. this court recognized that although the fourth amendment is not a restriction on discriminatory or oppressive

stops, the equal protection clause is. the first amendment also stands as a protection if this court believes there is chill created by law or practice of monitoring people through gps. there are other constitutional principles. >> it protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. if i explain to someone the fourth amendment, it has been interpreted to mean that if i am on a public place and the police want to see my luggage, that is a violation. yet this kind of monitoring with gps is monitoring a person's movements whenever they are outside the house is not?

something about it does not parse. >> i am sure if you ask citizens if the police could pick up their trash for a month and paw through it or keep a record of every telephone call they make, or conduct intense visual surveillance of them, citizens would probably also find that to be -- >> but they will not and probably could not physically. start at the other end. what would a democratic society look like if a large number of people did the government was tracking their every movement over long periods of time? when you reject that, you have to have a reason under the fourth amendment, and a principal. i am looking for the reason and principle that would reject

that. would it also for 24 hours a day for 28 days? that is what i am listening hard to find. >> i think the line-drawing problem the court would create for itself would be intolerable. it is better that the court should address the 1984 scenario if they come to pass rather than using this case as a vehicle for doing so. >> this case is not that vehicle. >> gps technology today is limited only by the cost of the instruments. right now, it is so small that it would not take that much of a global budget to please a gps on every car in the nation. that is now. >> i think it would be virtually impossible to use the kinds of tracking devices used in this case on everyone. >> do we have any legislature

out there that can stop this? >> the legislature is a safeguard. if the court believes there needs to be a fourth amendment safeguard as well, we have urged a fallback position that the court adopted regional suspicion standard that would allow the police to conduct surveillance of individuals and their movements on public roadways, which they can do visually in any event. it would allow the police to investigate tips that arise under circumstances where there is not probable cause. in most reasonable suspicion cases, it is the police at the front end. it is the course of the back and if there are motions to suppress evidence. in the examples, if this court concludes this is not a search, yet all americans find it to be

an omen of 1984, congress would stand ready to provide appropriate protection. i will save the rest of my time for rebuttal. >> our questions have eaten your rebuttal time. we will give you the full time. >> i want to talk about the one issue the united states did not talk about. that is the business of seizure. this case can be resolved on a very narrow basis. what are the consequences when the police without a warrant install a gps secretly on the car of any citizen of the united states and want to use the evidence in a criminal trial? our position is that is a seizure. >> what is the size of this device? >> the record does not show in this quake -- case. we learned last week there is now a gps on the market at ways two announces and is the size of a credit card.

-- that way is two else's -- ounces and is the size of a credit card. >> if it was put on a license plate, would that be a technical trespass? is that the property of the driver? >> the license plate is the property of the state. driving is a privilege. it is not a trespass in this particular case. >> i do not on my license plate? i did not know that. how do you know that? [laughter] >> we do not need to get into that, but live free [unintelligible] [laughter] >> what i am saying is this. the issue as far as seizure is concern is whether it is meaningful. everyone agrees that jones had the right to control the use of his vehicle. the question is whether the interference was reasonable interference. >> i did not hear a question to

justice alito's position. what about putting it on the license plate? >> they cannot do it. it is a seizure. >>-standing is it is the states license plate they require you to have. york trespass theory would fall apart with that scenario. >> you would probably see the gps. >> it is the size of a credit card. you could slip behind a license plate. >> in that case, the installation of the gps is a seizure. what makes a meaningful is the use of that. >> you give the state permission to put the -- have the car. a state license. you do not give anybody permission to have your car carried a tracking device. whether it is put directly on

the car or something but the car is carrying does not seem to make a difference i thought it may different under your theory that focused on the question of trespass because it was attached to to an effect owned by somebody else. this is an effect not owned by the individual. the trespass theory does not seem ridiculous to me. >> the fourth amendment protect people. if you put it on a briefcase or in someone's car, you happens -- have affected their possessory interest. >> you could put a non-working device in somebody's car and it was still be a trespass. surely the same constitutional problem is not raised. how do you get from the cost pass -- trespass to the constitutional problem?

what makes it a meaningful deprivation of the possessory interest is when the gps is activated. >> it does not make a seizure. it makes it a search. you could say there is a trespass for the purpose of obtaining information. that makes it a search. i do not see how it is a caesar. -- caesar -- seizure. have to stop the person or the ago. what has been seized? >> data is seized that is created by the dps. antoine jones has the right to control the use of his vehicle. the government deprived him of that. i could comeplace when the silberman region would be silberman into the closest

case i could come to would be silverman. >> it is whether it is unreasonable in search and seizure. what do you care? whether it is a private interest cost does not matter of. whether it is a trespass does not matter. whether it is reasonable is the question we have been debating. they are saying the parade of horribles we can worry about when it comes up. the police have many people that they suspect of all kinds of things like kidnapping and terrorism. they are willing to go as far as reasonable suspicion in a pinch. they say with that, you will avoid the 1984 scenario. you will allow the police to do

their work with doing no more than subject any person to really good knowledge of where he is going on the open highway. they probably put it better than i did. i would appreciate your views on that. >> regional suspicion is something the court has adopted for limited intrusions. i refer you to the case. every 10 seconds of the day is by no means a limited intrusion. if society is not viewed as reasonable the concept that the united states government has the right to place a device that the gauges -- that allows them to engage in costly surveillance that completely replaces the human -- >> suppose the police department could put 30 deputies on the route to which a person or they could have a

device with a warrant. what difference does it make? >> the police have the capacity with gps to engage in great abuse of individual and group liberties. >> suppose what they got is nothing more than what they would have had if they have 30 deputies stake out along the route. is that a constitutional violation? and the placement of the gps on anybody's car -- >> any placement of the gps on anybody's car -- >> you are saying it is the quantity of information seized and the time over which it is seized. that is the proposition we are testing. it seems you are saying the police have to use the most inefficient methods.

i am fully aware of the 1984 ministry of love, ministry of peace problem. your argument seems to me to have no principled distinction. >> we're not asking to make the police less efficient than they were before gps can into effect. we are saying the use of gps has great potential and great threats and abuse to privacy. people have an expectation that a neighbor will not use their car to track them. i would refer the court to another case. jones had control of the car. control of the vehicle is meant he had a reasonable expectation --

>> he would not be protected against a surveillance camera that could give information. it is this different in kind from the surveillance camera? >> 1st you have the physical invasion. you have an invasion of his possessory interest with the placement on the car. that is more significant. it has always been viewed by this court as more invasive than visual surveillance. it depends on the type of video camera. we're not saying the police are prohibited from having individual cameras to surveil people. we are saying that this the bunks limitless -- debunks limitless -- >> i am told if somebody goes to london. almost every place that person goes, there is the camera taking pictures.

the police can put together snapshots of where everybody is all the time. why is this different from that? >> that is pretty scary. i would not want to live in london under those circumstances. [laughter] >> the scary provision of what article? >> the cameras in london enable them to track the bomber was going to blow up the airport and was go and stop him before he did. others will say it is worth it. others will say it is a bad thing. that is not the issue exactly in front of us. >> correct. >> justice kagan wanted to know why not. >> because you have the physical invasion. >> the existence of the physical trespass is only marginally

relevant to whether the fourth amendment has been violated. an actual trespass is neither necessary nor efficient to establish a constitutional violation. you can talk you would like. it is your hour. i would be interested in hearing you on the assumption of whether this is reasonable. >> it is not. in caro, the installation was essentially consented to. the package came in by virtue of someone working for the government. installation was not -- was on like this case -- was not like this case where it was surreptitious by a government agent. >> you are mixing two things. i thought your position was the initial trespass was not important. now you say it was a trespass. that is not a responsive answer.

>> the technology is dramatically different with gps. >> it is going to be dramatically different in the next step. there are now of satellites that can hone in on your home. in the future, those cameras will be able to show you the entire world and let you trust someone on the camera from place to place. is that ok for the police to access those cameras and look at you moving from place to place? if that is ok, why is this not ok? >> this presents a grave question that need not be resolved with this case. when the police target somebody,

they engage in individualized targeting three pervasive network of cameras. gps is like a million cameras. the u.s. court of appeals pointed that out. it is the equivalent of a camera tracking you on every street corner everywhere. when you have individualized suspicion like that, i believe you would have to have a warrant. >> it seems to me i leaps over the difficult part of your case. the issue is not whether the police conduct is unreasonable. the unreasonableness requirement or prohibition does not take effect unless there has been a search. our cases have said there is no search when you are in public

and where everything you do is open to people. that is the hard question in the case. it is not whether this is unreasonable. that is not what the fourth amendment says the police can do a lot of things that are unreasonable without violating the fourth amendment. the protection against that is the legislature. you have to establish that there has been an invasion of privacy. all that this is showing is where the car is going on the public streets where the police could have had round-the-clock surveillance on this individual for a month or 43 months. that would not have violated anything because there is no invasion of privacy. why is this an invasion of privacy? >> because it is a complete robotic substitute. it is not a tail. the government only cited one

brief of 24 hour surveillance 40 days. what you have -- >> 100 times zero is zero. it may be unreasonable police conduct. we can handle that with laws. no matter how many days you do it, there is no invasion of privacy. >> gps in your car without a warrant makes you unable to get rid of an uninvited strangers. that is what it is. >> so is a tail that surveils you for a month. >> if they want to use those resources, that is fine. gps allows the government to engage in an limited

surveillance through a machine robotic we. nobody is even monitoring it. the record showed many times the police officers just let the machine go on. >> where would you draw the line? what if it were used to only track movement for one day or three hours? would that be all right? >> under no circumstances should a gps be allowed to be put on somebody's car. >> set aside the trust has question. >> our view is the use of gps as a source should be viewed as unreasonable. we suggested some possibilities in our brief. one day, one trip, one person per day or trip or to use it as a beeper when you physically follow them. >> that sounds like a legislative line. what is the difference between

following someone for 12 hours and monitoring movements with gps for 12 hours? >> it is an unreasonable invasion of privacy. >> what is the difference in terms of privacy whether you are followed by a police officer for 12 hours and do not see them or whether you are monitored by gps for 12 hours? >> society does not expect the human element will be taken out of the surveillance. >> i do not know what society expects. it is changing. technology is changing expectations of privacy. look forward 10 years. maybe 10 years from now, 90% of the population will use social networking sites. they will have 500 friends on average. they will have allowed their friends to monitor their location 24 hours, 3 and 65 days

a year through the use of their cell phone. what with the expectation of privacy be then? >> there are two ways of looking at it. cell phones are becoming so ubiquitous there may be privacy interests. our view is that the use of the cell phone is a voluntary act. people understand there are ways to monitor with a cell phone. this case does not require us to decide those issues of emerging technology. it is a simple case at the core. should the police be allowed to put these machines on people's cars? quality seizure, search, search and seizure -- call it a seizure, search, search and seizure. >> what mr. jones or anybody else be upset if they found police had sneaked up to their car and put an inner device the

size of the credit card -- inert device the size of a credit card on the underside of the car? >> if it were nothing more than a note or a bumper sticker, probably nothing. >> it is just a little way for under the car. it does nothing. >> this has enormous capacity. >> but this one does nothing. you would bring a trespass action? >> heavens, no. >> you are not concerned about this invasion of your property interest. it is the monitoring that takes place. >> the monitoring makes it meaningful. putting it on jo-- >> suppose the police could do this without a trespass. maybe in the future of cars will have gps tracking systems. the police could tap into such a system without committing a trespass. would the constitutional issue

be any different? >> it would be because manufacturers or congress has legislated. people would know their privacy rights had been taken away. people would know. in this case, antoine jones had no idea his possessory interest in the property was about to be deprived by the government any meaningful way to allow them to obtain information they could not otherwise have gotten. gps produces unique data. we do not emit gps data when we drive down the street. what makes it meaningful is the use and placement of the device. in this case, it was not consented to. the government knew that. that is why they did it surreptitiously. >> lots of communities have

cameras at intersections. suppose the police suspected of someone of criminal activity. they took pictures of all the intersections he drove. different times of the day. they checked his movement for five days. would that be lawful? >> i think it would be allowable. you do not have a physical intrusion, unlike this case. . you have a targeted invasion over a period of time over a wide space. it seems you would have to answer my question yes to be consistent with what you said earlier. >> you can have an occasional video camera out there. people understand there may be video cameras in public spaces. society does not expect and see

it as reasonable to have 1 million video cameras following you everywhere you go. some video cameras have been accepted. this is a course -- horse of an entirely different color. >> what an unworkable rule tethered to no principle. >> i think the simplest rule that should be adopted is this. i think the court should say to the law enforcement agency that if you want to use gps devices, and get a warrant absent exigent circumstances or another recognized exception to the fourth amendment.

you should get a warrant any time you are going to attach a gps to citizens effects. >> you have got to determine there has been a search first before you impose a war requirement. the work requirement applies only with respect to searches. >> and seizures >> and seizures. >> while in my -- while it might be a good thing to propose, you stop to this -- it is a search. >> these devices are not just used for a quick one-officer reliance. there used to -- one-off surveillance. they are used to long-term

surveillance. this device has amazingly in base of power. if you know you're going to do that and you are a law enforcement agent, then you do it. the courts we pushed your friend to the limits of his theory. -- >> we pushed your friend to the limits of his theory. your theory would be it would be for three minutes. where have to test the validity of your theory on the proposition that it violates the fourth amendment to do this for three minutes. >> i think it does, your honor. society does not expect -- >> you have said that several times. i do not know what society expects. i suppose if you ask people if they think it is a violation of privacy for police to do this for no reason for months money become out one way. if you ask them if you believe the police after of probable

cause before they monitor for 5 minutes the movements of someone who may set off a huge bomb, you may get a different answer. >> you look at a well established case law, statutes and jurisdictions. there were seven and eight that said this short of practice should be prohibited. >> excellent, yes. of course, the legislature can take care of is whether or not there is an invasion of privacy. and they can pick five days out of the year. you cannot do it any more than five days or you cannot do it for more than 50 people at a time. why is this the kind of problem that you should rely on the legislature to take care of? >> the same problem was before this court and zero was also before the congress. they held that it was a metric

case for concern and they give congress some suggestions. let me suggest something, justice scalia. what happened was the united states adopted a position and they came into court and said cannot a -- and said, either over world the d.c. circuit -- overrule the d.c. circuit or take it to congress. >> you could say that a general search of this kind is not constitutional under the fourth amendment, but should congress pick out a subset thereof, let's say, a terrorism or where there is reasonable cause, like the fisa court or other reasonable warrants, that could happen for a specified time frame.

i would rather that congress create situations where they can do it rather than in situations where they cannot. >> feddis exec would happen were the server in the sports were created. you hit it right on the nail. >> i do not see why it is any of congress's business if it is purely an operation. congress can control operations i do not violate the fourth amendment throughout the country? i mean, maybe interstate beepers and tracking devices, yes, but so long as you track within the state, isn't that ok? >> no, your honor. i want to address the chief justice's comments a long time ago. we have here is a live case for

controversy in which antoine jones, control of his vehicle was usurped and his car was converted into an electronic gps transceiver for the government. one does not need to address the technologies here before the court today. we could venture down that road. we could discuss drone surveillance and other types of surveillance. >> there was no warrant in this case. this is the puzzling aspect of this case to me. -- there was a warrant in this case. this is the puzzling aspect of this case to me. neither of these statutes. exclusionary penalty with them. it is not clear at all there was a violation of the fourth amendment. it is a little strange if we are deciding whether a warrantless search we would have been unconstitutional when there was a warrant.

>> they had a choice. they could have gone back to their district judge and said -- >> that is not my point. my point is the violation of the 10-day rule and the violation of the statutory prohibition on the judge in the district limiting the installation only in the district are not for the menaker requirements. >> know, that is correct, your honor. but what we had here was a warrantless intrusion. >> there was a warrant. the crux of the warrant was not in effect -- >> but the warrant was not in effect at the time. >> the warrant expires, the governor -- the government could have gone back and said, please, we need a little more time, give us 10 more days. >> they could have conceivably gone back and explain to a district judge why they could have installed it.

>> if you look at case law, you will find that a violation of the 10-day rule is not necessarily a buyer -- a violation of the fourth amendment. >> i understand that. there is a 1920 supreme court decision decided in the prohibition era that specifically said that when a warrant expires, there is no role. when the 10-day rule expires, we have a warrant was intrusion. -- warrantless intrusion. >> advancing technology cuts in two directions. technological advances can make police more efficient at what they do through some of the examples discussed today. at cameras, airplanes, beepers, gps. at the same time, technology and how it is used can change our

expectations of privacy in the way the justice alito was alluding to. today, perhaps gps can be portrayed as a 1984-type invasion, but as we use gps and our lives and for other purposes, our expectations of privacy may also change. >> that just seems too much to me. if you think about this and you think about a robotic device following you around 24 hours a day and the place you go that is not your home, reporting in all of your movements to the police, to investigative authorities, the notion that we do not have an expectation of privacy and the notion that we do not think our privacy interests would be violated by this robotic device come i'm not sure how one could say that. >> justice kagan, i think the court should decide that case

when it comes to it. this is my fundamental point. this case does not involve a universal surveillance of every member of this court for every member of society. it involves a limited surveillance of someone suspected of drug activities. >> a hypothetical, suppose exactly these facts, only a neighbor does it to another neighbor and a police are not involved. and then he tells his wife and other neighbors where the person is going to a and what they are doing. do you think in most states that would be a a -- an invasion of privacy? >> i'm willing to assume that it might be, but in this case, we do not have to go to the leaves and downs of the measure of expected privacy. >> we measure that by the expectation of privacy that may be controlling. >> yes, but in california it was a case where someone went

through another person's garbage and they said there was no expectation of privacy. >> i'm asking you about this case and the general matter under toward. >> know, and the fact that it may be a toward -- no, and the fact that it may be a tort , in one case, there was a claim that it may be a violation of trade secret laws. the court was very careful to reserve the possibility of 24 hour surveillance of every citizen in their residences a usain, we have not seen the kind of abuse. if that kind of abuse comes up, the legislature is the best equipped to deal with it if, in fact, our society regards that as an unreasonable --

>> do you understand how many gps devices are being and used by law-enforcement agencies? >> it is not a massive, universal investigative techniques. the fbi require some reasonable basis for using gps before it installs it. as a result, this is a technique that basically supplements visual surveillance rather than supplanting it altogether. the visual surveillance that was directed at the respondent, the gps allowed it to be more effective. the respondent is essentially conceding that a round-the-clock visual surveillance would not have invaded and the expectation of privacy. police efficiency has never been equated with police and constitutionality. the fact that the gps makes it

more efficient for the police to put a tail on somebody invades no additional to expectation of privacy that they otherwise wouldn't have had. the technology does not make something breivik that was previous the public. -- private that was previously public. >> you do not seriously argue that there is not a possessory interest in who put something on gricar -- your car, like a sign of some sort? >> i think there would be some possessory interest, but no seizure for the very reason that justice prior described under the cap case. -- justice breyer described under the cap case. >> thank you.

the case is submitted. >> the nation's highest court will hear arguments over president obama's health care law. the supreme court announced the decision to take the case this morning. that means arguments could come in march, with the decision over the summer before federal elections next fall. republicans said that patient protection and the affordable care act is unconstitutional because it requires all citizens to buy health insurance. federal appeals courts have been split on their assessment. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the house meets for legislative work at 4:03 p.m. eastern and will consider bills on the naming of federal buildings. the senate will spend a week on federal spending for this budget year. several agencies are still operating under a temporary spending authority. you can see the senate on c- span2.

and c-span3 will be live at 5:00 p.m. eastern as the house looks at legislation to allow concealed handguns licensed in one state to be carried into other states. it will be before the full house later this week. >> most people think of the oa as a short wave with huddled masses of listening. that is kind of an out of date image now. >> the changing face of voa. >> we are now on facebook, twitter, satellite tv, fm radio. we have a lot of affiliate's now or on the world. they use us, different news stations, as a kind of washington bureau. the mission has purdum much stayed the same, though. >> tonight on "the

communicator's" on c-span2. jonathan allen was on this one is "washington journal" to talk about prospects to be reached for the deficit committee on november 23. we will watch as much of this as we can until live coverage of the house in about 15 minutes from now for 30 p.m. eastern. -- at 4:30 p.m. eastern.

2. >> washington journal continues. >> senior congressional reporter with "politico," jonathan allen. the front page of your newspaper, deficit panel ponders the end game. guest: these guys have had a couple months now to come up with the $1.20 trillion deficit reduction plan and have shown no progress. as we have seen in the last couple weeks the progressive offers are getting farther and farther apart. we have seen people digging in ideologically. we have seen democrats and republicans breaking from their own side. jim cliburn from south carolina said yesterday on fox news that democrats have not coalesced around their own plan. republicans as well, the same is

true. if you have hopes for the depth as a panel, you are probably on this step as a panel -- if you have hoped for this deficit panel, you are probably on this panel. there's been a little overemphasis on how long it takes the congressional bean counters to come back and say this is how much money this policy costs or saves or raises in revenue. the cbo is familiar with all the policies they are looking at. think it takes that long. if it comes down to a situation where there will be a day off, you can probably expect congress to make some sort of provision for that. if not, i don't think you would expect to see an extension. , if: there's talk of plan b

not. >> if they don't find structural change, we will fail in our duty. we have a goal of reaching $1.50 trillion of deficit-reduction over 10 years. if an goal for some reason we fail in that goal, there is still a $1.20 trillion of deficit reduction that will take place under the law. >> lots of people are now saying it is too much, particularly on the defense side to do an across-the-board couple. >> it disproportionately impacts national defence and even the secretary of defense says it would haul out the national defence. what i'm going to do is be committed to ensuring backspin at least america gets a $1.20 trillion in deficit-reduction. congress would have 13 months.

-- would have 13 months to do it in a smarter fashion. we need to focus that we have entitlement funding programs that are some of tennessee entitlement funding programs that are doing a disservice to constituents. guest: he's talking about the failure of the super committee. over the next 13 months there is a trigger where there or be automatic cuts even domestic programs and defense programs if they don't come to agreement. the congressman said we may have to leave this to the congress to figure out over the next 13 months for windows automatic cuts go into effect what a smarter way to do the cuts is a cut across the board. then there are automatic

cuts of $1.20 trillion and there is also talk that the deficit- reduction committee writes in legislation that says now the tax committees in the house and senate should, with something to deal with medicare and medicaid, the big spending programs. guest: you would have a super committee would come up with a target for revenue and essentially they would give instructions to the ways and means committee in a house, commerce committee in the house, and the finance committee in the senate and they would come back with the actual policy that would add up to that. this is almost a reconciliation process where there is an expedited way not to get legislation done that reduces the deficit. it is not clear whether they

would have the ability to or would dare to try to put forth new expedited procedures. the super committee had card blanche.arte the super committee looks like it's handling kryptonite right now. host: would congress have to pass that? guest: the only thing in what is there would be $1.20 trillion of automatic cuts that would be split between defense and entitlements. host: will be $1.20 trillion at the end of the day in cuts? guest: as the law stands now, yes. but that starts january 2013. there is still some wiggle room to avert cuts. congress can always be right

along -- congress can always rewrite the law. it's difficult to say we know for sure what cuts will happen or if in fact the cuts will happen. host: we want to show what this person had to say about the prospects of the deficit- reduction committee. >> what are the realistic chances they will compromise within 10 days? >> i feel very confident that we will. i am not certain as i was 10 days ago. we have 10 days to do this and i really believe that all the ingredients for a good resolution are there. thejust need to develop a wil will. host: have they been working on the weekend and will they continue to meet every day? guest: certainly not meeting in

public. the one thing that's amazing about this process is none of it has been done in public, a public that has been frustrated enough about private negotiations that president obama said he would be the c- span president, i recall. and congress has said repeatedly that it wants to be more open and transparent. speaker john boehner has said that as well. they don't feel they can get anything done unless it is out of the view of the american public, unless they are meeting privately. some would argue they could get a sense of what the public thinks if they would publicize things. most of america has no idea what the super committee is doing at all. that has been an issue. in terms of whether they will continue to meet, they have been meeting having one-on-one meetings with various members of the super committee and also in small groups. i think that will continue.

you heard congressman cliburn say that they need to develop the will. a member of the committee does not feel good will is there to get it done, not just the ability to sit down and crunch numbers. host: why is that? guest: i think the two sides don't really trust each other. whether that is the members of the super committee themselves or the parties at large? at the end of the day this is something that is contrived by the leadership in large part and that means senate majority leader harry reid and house speaker john boehner. they have not been very far from this process and they will not be far from the process. anything that gets signed off on by the super committee will have their blessing. if this is a tool for the leadership and from the white house for cutting a deal, but this is not an independently functioning 12-member body. host: about the deficit-

reduction committee -- guest: his saying that he would not sign off on something that gives the automatic cuts with a trigger. if you come to a situation where the defense cuts are about to go into place, you have the 2012 election coming up, will the president wants to stake his ground on whether or not he cut the pentagon when his own defense secretary is saying that would weaken the country, we will back to see how that would play out. and there are other ways for things to become law than the president signing them,

including two thirds of congress voting for something without his signature. there's a little wiggle room. host: libya, independence in woodstock, new york. caller: caller: he is talking with these members. i've put together a letter to the editor and talking about campaign against globalization. he is -- the president's press secretary is pleading to congress to listen to your constituents. grover norquist -- they have no obligation to follow it. please investigate this process. host: referring to grover

norquist, a guest pass sunday. tosaid, i'm not losing sleep raise revenue. guest: the things we have seen or raised revenue in one place and cutting and elsewhere. this is the ionization of deductions and the offsetting decrease in tax rates. there is some disagreement as to whether that would raise revenue or cut revenue. it depends on a lot of issues. it is not surprising to me that he is not losing sleep. he has said if there is tax reform on the table and not raising new taxes, then he assisted in that.

host: you can watch the full interview with grover norquist on our website, c-span.org. there's an editorial in "usa today." hope for the super committee deal. there is an opposition view that there is no time to raise taxes. i'm wondering about the conservatives and about any deal that may come out from the committee. guest: i think some members might be willing to have taxes as part of the deficit reduction talks, not just in terms of raising taxes or cutting them, but increasing tax rates or creating new forms of taxation.

as long as they are talking about that, they will be less willing to go for it. they fear primaries and it is possible that by and large in the republican party that is the idea that you're not going to raise taxes that is powerful. i think the influence can be seen in other members and then being said to be less than pursuant to the party line of the republican party. host: democratic line in indiana, steve. caller: good morning. i cannot understand how grover norquist is a topic of conversation.

he has never been elected to anything. he evidently felt through a greate. all these hot dogs in the republican party. guest: i believe he is a harvard graduate. it is interesting that he has become a topic of conversation. this is all but just for c-span viewers. he continues to be influential and his name was brought in house republican conference meetings. one person answered, mailing lists. he is able to contact a lot of people in a short amount of time. he has been building a list of people who hate taxes.

that is inefficient way of influencing members of congress. "i will talk to people about what you're doing and what you should be doing." his group, they have spent money to defeat democrats, not the primary republicans. host: on the other side, the violence of aarp and groups to medicare cuts. guest: also very strong. "we are not going to raise taxes." that is the basic orthodox for republicans. these groups serve to back up those ideologies. in some cases, at the corner them.

the outside groups are powerful enough that members of congress cannot get out of their own orthodoxy. these are things date would want to be doing anyway. aarp is influential as an organization for elderly americans -- i guess 50 and over. also as a health insurer. they have lot of influence. host: we have a tweet. about we're talking across-the-board cuts. we're not talking about specifying those cuts. one suggested that instead of sticking to% for mayor and 2%

the house is coming in now to debate a number of bills naming post offices and other federal buildings. objected to under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken after 6:30 p.m. today. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 588. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: house calendar number 88, h r. 588 a bill to redesignate the noxubee national wildlife refuge as the sam d. hamilton noxubee national wildlife refuge. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentlewoman from guam, ms. bordallo, each

will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume and ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: under h.r. 588, the box nee -- noxubee national wildlife refuge will be renamed after sam hamilton who recently died at the young age of 54. it's my understanding, madam speaker, that his first outdoors job was at the noxubee national wildlife refuge where he learned to band wood ducks and manage a wildlife area. i want to commend my colleague, congressman gregg harper, for

introducing this, as a fitting tribute to sam hamilton and all he stood for. i urge adoption of the resolution an reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. ms. bordallo is recognized. ms. bordallo: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. bordallo: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. bordallo: madam speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 588 which would redesignate the noxubee national wildlife refuge as the sam d. hamilton noxubee national wildlife refuge. madam speaker it is abundantly clear that everyone who worked with director hamilton in his three-plus decades of public service had the utmost respect and admiration for him. his lifelong commitment to restoration and preservation of the nation's most unique areas

started at noxubee wildlife refuge. so it is fitting that this place is memorialized in his honor. i commend my colleague, congressman harper, from mississippi, for introducing this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield three minutes to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from mississippi, mr. harper. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. harper: i rise to support h.r. 588, a bill i introduced to redesignate the noxubee national wildlife refuge as the sam d. hamilton noxubee national wildlife refuge. this is a company -- companion bill to one passed by the

senate earlier this year. h.r. 588 honors mr. ham d. sam illton a lifetime conservationist and great man who spent 38 years at the fish and wildlife service, rising to director in 2009. established in 1940, the noxubee national wildlife refuge consists of 48,000 acres in east central mississippi. approximately 170,000 people visit the refuge annually and enjoy hunting, fishing, hiking an other outdoor and recreational activities. mr. hamilton had a long and personal hist i -- history with the refuge. a native of starkville, mississippi, he recalled in his confirmation testimony that he caught his first fish at the refuge at the aim of 5 and depan his conservation career there as an employee at age 15.

he called the refuge system the finest collection of public lands and waters dedicated to fish and wildlife conservation in the world. upon graduating from mississippi state university, sam started a career that spanned 30 years at the fish and wildlife service. on september 1, 2009, sam hamilton was sworn in as the 15th director of the u.s. fish an wildlife service. regrettably, sam passed away on february 20, 2010. honoring sam by renaming the refuge would be a tribute to his remarkable career and his commitment to conservation. the national fish and wildlife foundation recently provided a grant to the friends of noxubee refuge that will allow the name change to occur without the federal government incurring these costs. i would also like to thank chairman hastings and

subcommittee chairman fleming for their support and look forward to working with you until this legislation is signed into law to remember a man who devoted his life and career to ideals formed from an early age at the noxubee national wildlife refuge. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentlewoman from guam is recognized. ms. bordallo: madam speaker, again, i urge my colleagues to support bill 588 which is a bill that would rename the noxubee national wildlife refuge as the sam d. hamilton noxubee national wildlife refuge. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from guam yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, madam speaker. i urge my colleagues to support the bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 588? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2079. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2079, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 10 main street in east rockaway new york as the john j. cook post office. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. farne holt and the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. farnehold: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. farnltehold: i ask that all members have five legislative

days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the bill under considerationful the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. farenthold: this bill would redesignate the united states post office located at 10 main street in east rockaway, new york, as the john j. coobling post office. this bill was favorably reported out of the committee on november 3. john j. cook served the community of east rockaway, new york, for 60 years. he went above and beyond to serve his neighborhood and exemplified the professionalism and courtesy each and every day on the job. mr. cook delivered mail on the same route for nearly all his 60 years on the job and according to many in his community, he continually touched the lives of many people, spanning generations.

according to one resident, he was the best he knew all his customers very well and gave personalized service throughout his career. the resident went on to say that they just don't make people like him anymore. sadly, madam speaker, mr. cook passed away in 2005 at the age of 78. he left behind his wife, roberta, and many who will miss this true public servant and model postal employee. i urge all members to join me in naming the postal center in east rockaway, new york, after john j. cook. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: as ranking member of the committee on government oversight and reform, aisle pleased to join my colleagues in supporting h.r. 2079, to

designate the united states postal service located at 10 main street in east rockaway, new york, as the john j. cook post office. this bill was sponsored by representative carolyn mccartey. it was reported out of the oversight committee on november 3, 2011. h.r. 2079 honors john b. cook a man who worked for more than 60 years with our nation's postal service. he began working for what was then the united states postal department on january 8, 1944, after returning from service? world war ii. from 1948 until his retirement in 2004, he walked the same route, six days a week, with neither snow, nor rain, nor sleet preventing him from completing his duties. he was a fixture of the eastrock aa-- east rockaway community known and beloved by

all. even today, residents recall his kindness and empathy as a public servant. by all accounts he went above and beyond the call of duty to serve his neighbors. his professionalism and courtesy made him a model letter carrier. after 60 years and four months of faithful service, he passed away in 2005 at the age of 78. mr. cook's career is a stunning example of what our dedicated postal workers contribute to our communities even as the postal service faces severe financial and operational strains, we must never forget that the service's success depends on the dedication of employees like john cook. madam speaker, i ask that we pass h.r. 2079 in recognition of mr. john p. cook's dedication to the postal service. i also ask we keep the example of his career in mind as we

work together to craft what should be a bipartisan piece piece of legislation to ensure that the institution mr. cook loved so much can continue to serve our nation and with that, i urge me passage of h. reform 2079 and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> at this point i would like to withdraw my motion. the speaker pro tempore: the motion is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. farenthold: i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3004. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3004, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 260 california drive in yountville, california, as the private first class, alejandro r. ruiz -- first class

alejandro r. ruiz post office building. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. african american holt, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. farenthold: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. farenthold: madam speaker, h.r. 3004 introduced by the gentleman from california, mr. thompson, would designate the facility of the united states postal service at 260 california drive in yountville, california, as the private first class alejandro r. ruiz postal -- post office building. this bill is co-sponsored by the entire california state delegation and was reported by the committee on oversight and government reform on november 3. madam speaker, it is altogether fitting and proper that we name this post office for private

first class ruiz. born in april -- on april 26, 1924, in new mexico, p.f.c. ruiz enlisted in the army during world war ii and was deployed to the island of okinawa in 1945. on april 28, 1945, p.f.c. ruiz and his platoon were ambushed by japanese soldiers hiding in fortified bunkers. under a hail of machine gun fire with enemy grenades being lobbed from every direction, p.f.c. ruiz single-handedly killed 1 japanese soldiers and completely destroyed the enemy machine gun nest. in the face of wholing odds, p.f.c. ruiz acted with the utmost currently, risking his own life. while he was shot in the leg during the battle, p.f.c. ruiz and his squad leader were the only two men to escape death or serious injury that day. for his bravery and valor, private first class ruiz was presented with the medal of honor by president truman in june of 1964.

he went on to continue his service in the army, fighting in the korean war and retired a master sergeant in the mid 1960's. sadly, madam speaker, on november 23, 2009, private first class ruiz died of congestive heart failure at a hospital in napa, california, at 85 years of age. i'm truly grateful for the service of private first class ruiz and all the men and women who put their lives on the line to protect and defend our country each day. i urge all members to join me in strong support of this bill and that the i'll reserve the balance of my time. -- at that i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from maryland voiced. mr. cummings: thank you very much, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: madam speaker, i'm pleased to join my colleagues in supporting h.r. 3004, which designates the facility of the united states postal service located at 260 california drive in yountville, california, as the private first class alejandro r. ruiz post office

building. this measure was introduced on september 21, 2011, by our colleague, representative mike thompson, and has been co-sponsored by all members of the california delegation. h.r. 3004 was favorably reported out of the house oversight and government reform committee on november 3, 2011. alejandro r. ruiz served this country valiantly for nearly 20 years, reaching the rank of master sergeant by the time of his retirement. born in new mexico, he served our nation with exceptional courage and valor during service in world war ii. his unit, the 27th infanttry division, of the 165th infantry, was ambushed by japanese troops sheltered in a camouflage pill box in okinawa. private first class ruiz grabbed an automatic rifle and charged forward through a storm of bullets and grenades. as an enemy soldier rushed towards him, his weapon jammed.

after clubbing the enemy with the butt of the rifle, private first class ruiz grabbed a different rifle, charged the pill box and killed 20 enemy soldiers stationed inside. he was awarded the congressional medal of honor for his actions. mr. ruiz died on november 23, 2009, of heart failure in yountville, california. he was 85 years old. madam speaker, i ask that we pass h.r. 3004 to honor alejandro r. ruiz's heroic actions in defense of our nation as well as the long and productive life he lived thereafter. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. farenthold: madam speaker, i have no other speakers at this moment so i continue to reserve the balance of my time. mr. cummings: i yield the gentleman and sponsor of the bill three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for three minutes. mr. thompson: thank you, madam speaker.

mr. chairman, thank you very much for bringing this bill to the floor and, ranking member, thank you for your good work on this and for recognizing time for me to speak on this. this is very near and dear to me. the california veterans home in yountville, california, is in the heart of my district and my home county. i've known it my entire life. it's been home to many brave men and women who have served courageously in our military. these are heroes and heroines who put their life on the line for everything that we as americans believe in and everything that we enjoy today. there's a post office on that facility that provides mail service for 1,100 heroes and heroines at the california veterans home. these guys get their mail there. every day. it saves them from having to go to make an impossible trek to the closest town, if they were forced to do that it would put them, again, in harm's way because the very dangerous route

to travel. and in their advanced ages it makes no sense for them to have to do that. so this is a very, very important facility. and here just recently a very distinguished hero at the california veterans home, alejandro r. ruiz passed away. and the reason that we want to name the post office after alejandro ruiz is because he earned a congressional medal of honor. now, it's already been noted on the floor the heroic activities of the day in question, but here's a man who without any concern for his own safety charged an enemy pill box filled with enemy combatants, avoiding rifle fire, avoiding grenades, and took this responsibility on to save his comrades who were there fighting with him.

when his weapon became disabled he returned, got another weapon, more ammunition and again charged this pill box. on the second attempt he was able to reach the pill box, get on top of it and dispatch all of those who were trying to kill his comrades. had it not been for his activity, many americans would have lost their life that day. and the advancement of the american troops would have been stopped. this man is a true hero. that's probably redundant given that he's received the congressional medal of honor and i think it's the appropriate tribute to name this post alpha silt after alejandro ruiz and i thank the chairman and the ranking member and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. farenthold: madam speaker, i have no other speakers at this

time. i continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: we have no further speakers, madam speaker. therefore we will yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. farenthold: madam speaker, i urge all members to support the passage of this bill, h.r. 3004, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3004. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. mr. cummings: madam speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the

gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. farenthold: madam speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass s. 1412. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 1412, an act to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 462 washington street, woburn, massachusetts, as the officer john maguire post office. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas, mr. farnte holt, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. farenthold: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. i also ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. farenthold: madam speaker, s. 1412 introduced by senator john kerry of massachusetts would designate the facility of the united states postal service

located at 462 washington street, woburn, massachusetts, as the officer john maguire post office. the bill passed the senate by unanimous consent on october 20 and was reported favorably by the committee on oversight and government reform on november 3. madam speaker, john maguire was born and raised in woburn, massachusetts, growing up in a home where his father was chief of police in woburn for 15 years. after graduating from the university of massachusetts in lowell, officer maguire was sworn in as a woburn police officer by his own father in june of 1977. wearing badge number 23 which has been his father's badge number, officer maguire worked for over three decades as a tireless public servant protecting the people of woburn. on december 26 of last year, three armed men went into a department store in woburn and proceeded to steal money and jewelry. arriving on the scene to back up

his fellow officers, officer maguire used his cruiser to block the gunmen who were fleeing on foot from the store. exiting his vehicle, officer maguire and one of the suspects exchanged gunfire. officer maguire was able to kill the suspect but tragically he was mortally wounded himself. officer maguire had celebrated his 60th birthday just three days prior to his death. and was less than a year away from retirement. madam speaker, it is altogether fitting and proper that we name this post office in woburn for officer john maguire. and to officer maguire, and all those who wear a badge, and courageously protect and serve our towns, cities and counties each and every day, we are eternally grateful for all that you do and all that you sacrifice. i urge all members to join me in strong support of this bill and i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: yes, madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. i urge the -- the body to pass this legislation and i would yield to the sponsor, mr. markey of massachusetts, five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman very much. i thank mr. farenthold as well. and this is a very important bill. i rise today in support of h.r. 2640 which i introduced in the house of representatives and senate 1412, introduced by senator kerry and senator brown. and that is to name the woburn post office in honor of officer john, his friends called him john, his friends called him jack,