beginning what does that work at 2:00 p.m. a number of landfills on the calendar today, but no votes schedule. now to live coverage of the u.s. house here on c-span. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: speakers rooms, washington, d.c. h d.c., december 5, 2011, i apoint michael k. simpson to act as speaker pro tempore signed john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will recognize members for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hore and and the minority whip limited to five minutes each but no debate continue beyond 1:50 p.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, for five minutes. mr. defazio: later today,

something stunning is going to happen that will catch many americans by surprise, the so-called post master general is going to ajouns details that will lead to the end of the united states postal service and universal postal delivery in this country. this is an incredible blow to our economy. they are talking about closing processing centers. let me just be specific, in my area, they are talking about closing the eugene-springfield processing center. if i mail a letter six, seven miles away, it will be carried by truck to portland, oregon and sorted there and trucked back down sometime that week. they are saying they will no longer guarantee one day or two-day delivery on first class mail. they are going to more move to a guarantee sometime, if you mail it on wednesday, it will be a

minimum of three days so let's wait, we don't have saturday delivery on this plan, if you mail a bill on wednesday, it won't get there until the next monday. they will drive more people to use the services that have cut into their revenue. they will drive -- but some people don't have that option and some things are essential to commerce in this country. there are many, many businesses that will be affected by these delays in addition to the delays of prescription drugs or netflix or people buying things on ebay and these things will flood over to u.p.s. and fed ex and undermine their revenues. this guy, so-called post master general should be fired because of a lack of imagination or initiative, is proposing the death nil for the postal

service. 100,000 people laid off. that's what we need. great idea. and then he is going to close local post offices, talk about a town in my district, 60 miles on a windy road subject to heavy rain, subject to black ice and snow in the winter time to the next town, generally elderly population and generally not affluent, and these sorts of closures that will save small amounts of money for the post office are going to be death nil blows to small rural communities across america. now, weekly period calls get today's news next week, sometime. up, that's right. seven to nine days, that's going to do a great thing for the

remaining period call industry. that's really, really special. and again, driving people to look for alternatives that will further undermine their revenues. i don't think there could be a more shortsided proposal. there is plenty of blame going around because this congress has failed to act. the post service overpaid $7 billion into a federal retirement account but the republicans are refusing to give the money back to the post office. they think somehow the private sector will take this over. tell me who in the private sector is going to deliver a letter for 45 cents to a small rural community 100 miles from the nearest sorting facility? that's not go to go happen. these people will be deprived of any meaningful service. there are other critical reforms that could be undertaken short of dismantling, killing the united states postal service. if these proposals go forward and this congress continues to

fail to act and this guy gets to continue to put in place his vision of a future for the postal service -- and the white house continues to be totally silent, absent from this debate, we will no longer have a postal service in this country. that would be an incredible blow to our economy, future and prestige of the united states of america. we will be the first developed nation on earth without a postal service just like we are without universal health care. we're the best. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a, rule 1, the chair declares the house

>> television can be a teacher edit we are going to have a debate of television in the courtroom and you drew the affirmative side of the debate, you could probably make a positive forum. >> a subcommittee meets to talk about televising the supreme court. you can hear more about the issue on line with our web page devoted to cameras in the court. see articles and editorials across the country.

you'll also find a link to the youtube playlist with videos of justices and members of congress talking about cameras in the court. remarks now from defense secretary leon panetta on u.s. relations with israel and the iranian nuclear threat. he criticized israel for the middle east conflict. he spoke for about 55 minutes. this event is hosted by the brookings institution. >> this is labeled strategic challenges in a new middle east. this is the seventh year we have convened members of the international policy-making community to discuss the most urgent challenge is facing the united states and israel in the

middle east. revolution is sweeping our autocrats one spot in mobile. -- immovable. assad going, going, and still in that send out. the old arab order is crumbling and the face of a courageous but demand of their citizens for freedom. can the sheikhs and kings avoid a similar fate? how long will iran remain immune? how long will the palestinians remain still? for how long can israel sustain the occupation? so many questions that don't have any answers yet. so we therefore look forward to two days of intense and candid

conversations about the state of affairs in the middle east. and what israel and the united states can and should do about it. i want to express my gratitude to brookings. for continued to make this form possible. please give them a round of applause. [applause] tonight we'll hear from two people who have a wealth of personal knowledge and experience, fluent in the history, dynamics, and the intricacies of the middle east. we have the privilege of hearing first from our key night speaker, secretary of defense leon panetta and after dinner, we'll have a conversation with president clinton.

mr. secretary, it is a real privilege to welcome you to this forum. leon panetta has devoted his whole life to public service. from representing my state of california in congress to running the white house for president clinton, he was sworn in as secretary of defense this past july after serving as director of the cia for the first two years of the obama administration. as director of the cia, he helped form the operation that led to the death of osama bin laden something for which everyone in this country owes him and president obama a deep debt of gratitude. secretary panetta, thank you very much for your service to our country. these and gentleman, secretary and that's it. [applause] -- ladies and gentleman, secretary leon panetta.

[applause] >> thank you very much for that kind introduction. thank my fellow californian. haim is someone who has served his country in the cause of brain the united states and israel together. he has served that cause with tremendous distinction. he has provided vision and support for this very import conference. more broadly, i would like to thank you, haim, for your commitment to strengthening the bond between the united states and israel.

, a cause that is a key priority for me as secretary of defense. for that reason, it is truly an honor to be here tonight and join all of you, so many distinguished guests, in helping to open this year's sabanne forum. my personal connection to israel dates back to my days as a member of congress. for more than 10 years, i shared a house with a group of fellow congressmen right here in the district of columbia. if you have seen the movie " animal house" will have some idea of what this is like. one of the members of that exclusive fraternity was chuck

schumer, someone that many of you know that many of you understand as interim -- who has a tremendous passion for israel that is deep and infectious. we slept on the bottom of this house, the living room area, and every night, before we went to sleep, he made me say they shimad. [laughter] i made him say they'll marry. [laughter] he learned from my passion as an italian and i learned from his passion on israel. particularly, i think it was the little over 20 years ago, if he and i and some of our dearest friends had a chance to travel to israel together. i believe that visit was in august of 1991 and that left a

very deep and lasting impression on me. it was at a time when hundreds of thousands of jews from the soviet union or making alia and fulfilling a dream to live a free and more prosperous life in their historic homeland. that dread gave me an even stronger appreciation -- that trip gave me an even stronger appreciation for the promise of israel as a jewish and a democratic state. coming just months after saddam hadein's's scud missiles attacked tel aviv and haifa, the visit underscored a complex an array of security threats facing israel by virtue of geography, by virtue of politics, and by virtue of history.

as chairman of the house budget committee, amd omb director, i had the opportunity to work on budget issues regarding military assistance to israel. as a member of president clinton + cabinet, as chief of staff, i had the opportunity to be present at that historic moment when the south lawn, when yasser arafat and yitzhak rabin shook hands in the effort to advance the peace process. death,lly, after rabin's i had the opportunity as president clinton's pete chief of staff to fly with them so he could pay tribute to the memory and to the dedication to peace of rabin.

in the years since, as director of the cia and now as secretary of defense, i have worked closely with a number of israeli leaders, the prime minister and many intelligence and military leaders. one of whom i understand is here this morning, mayor degant, who often work with that mossad and i understand is participating in this forum. yehud barak is a friend i have known for years and we have had the opportunity to meet in number of times in our capacities and discuss our shared efforts to strengthen israeli security. i was pleased to make my first trip to israel as secretary of defense a few weeks ago. to meet with israeli leaders including my friend prime minister netanyahu. over the course of my career, i

have witnessed periods of great progress in these efforts and periods of great challenge and uncertainty. for israel and are shared security interest in the region. yet nothing i have seen compares to the dramatic events of the past year, one of change, one of promise, one of uncertainty, one of turmoil. 8 year that is an era of awakening and a year of setback for al-qaeda and a year we believe of frustration for iran. entrenched leaders were overthrown by peaceful protest

in tunisia and egypt and by force in libya. in yemen, for the president has agreed to step down which we believe it's a very positive development. and yet the terrorist threats from yemen still persist and extremists are seeking to gain a foothold across the region. in egypt, the country has held its first elections on the road to democratic transition, another positive step. as we all know, a chip will require brave leadership -- egypt will require great leadership if it is to successfully transitioned to a fully civilian-controlled government. that respect democratic principles and maintains all of its international commitments including the treaty of peace

with israel. on terrorism, repeated operations have decimated the al-qaeda leadership. osama bin laden, anwar al-awlaki and monday others have been successfully targeted -- and many others have been successfully targeted by military operations. al qaeda remains dangerous,. make no, -- make no mistake but the world is safer as of these successes. these largely positive trends are also accompanied by some dark ones. a discredited regime is still violently clinging to power in syria. though the pressure against it is increasing dramatically each day.

i want to condemn in the strongest possible termsthe assad regime's murder and torture of children that the un reported this week in geneva. conduct has deservedly brought scorn and pressure and punishing sanctions, not just by the united states and europe, but now by the arab league and turkey as well. continuedn,iran's drive to develop nuclear capabilities including troubling enrichment activities and past work on what the position that has now been documented by the iaea and its continued support

to groups like hezbollah, hamas, and other terrorist organizations make clear that the regime in tehran remains a very grave threat for all of us. all this of people, all of this of people -- of people -- upheavel is causing new challenges for israel in the region very in this time of understandable anxiety, i would like to underscore one thing -- that has stayed constant over the past three years of this administration -- the determination of the united states to safeguard israel's security and that commitment will not change. i want to be clear -- that

israel can count on three enduring pillars in u.s. policy in the region all of which contribute directly to the safety and prosperity of the israeli people. first, our unshakeable commitment to israel's security. second, our broader commitment to regional stability. and third, our determination to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. [applause] these are not merely rhetorical assurances. these are firm principles, principles that are backed up by tangible action, the commitment of resources, and demonstrable results. -- resolved.

. let me explain -- first, this administration has pursued and achieved unprecedented levels of defense cooperation with israel to back up our unshakeable commitment to israel's security. next year, the u.s. armed forces and the idf will conduct the largest joint exercises in the history of that partnership. it will enhance the ability of our military is to operate together and

defense cooperation. we are especially proud that above and beyond the annual foreign military financing that we provide to israel, the obama administration has provided more than $200 million to the iron dome rocket system, support that recently enabled the field of a third battery. this system has already saved lives of israelis civilians. facing rocket barrages from gaza. our work together on these defense capabilities represents only one part of our core commitment to maintaining israel's qualitative military edge, an advantage that we are willing to expand even further as we continue to enhance our

defense cooperation. as just -- that is just one example. the united states will in sure that israel continues to enjoy on questioned air superiority by delivering to israel the advanced fifth generation fighter aircraft, the f-35 joint strike fighter. yet we recognize that israel's security cannot be achieved by its military arsenal alone. it also depends on the security and stability of the region which is the second key pillar of u.s. policy. the success of our efforts in iraq permits us to redouble long-term commitment of the united states to the security

and stability of the middle east. the middle east is of vital interest to the united states. we will not let our commitments to its security and stability waiver. that is why we maintain a significant military presence throughout the region, to defend our partners, to counter aggression, and to maintain the free flow of resources and commerce that are so vital to the fragile global economy. the united states will continue to have some 40,000 troops in the region to support these goals. oure also implementing long-term strategic partnership with iraq. this includes security ties between our two militaries, facilitated by robust office of

security cooperation that will start on january 1, 2012. we are building a wider regional security architecture in the gulf, forging bilateral and multilateral cooperation to confront the common challenges of terrorism, proliferation, ballistic missiles, maritime security, and threats to critical infrastructure. no greater threat exists to the security and prosperity of the middle east than a nuclear-arms iran. that is why the third pillar of our approach to this region, this critical region, is our determination to prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons and more broadly, to deter its

destabilizing activities particularly those who could threaten the free flow of commerce throughout this of vital region. that is a red line for the united states. our approach to countering the threat posed by iran is focused on diplomacy including organizing unprecedented sanctions and strengthening our security partnerships with key partners in the gulf and the broader middle east. last september, i met in new york with members of the gulf cooperation council. to underscore the importance of those partnerships. iran must ultimately realize that its quest for nuclear weapons will make less, not more secure. these efforts are increasing the

isolation of tehran. i continue to believe that pressure, economic pressure, diplomatic pressure, and strengthening collective defenses are the right approach. still, it is my department's responsibility to plan for all contingencies. and to provide the president with a wide range of military options should they become necessary. that is a responsibility i take very seriously. = because when it comes to the threats posed by iran, the president has made it very clear that we have not yet taken any options off the table. our delivered and focused approach to iran, our efforts to

enhance regional security and stability and error and are unshakeable commitment to israel's security make clear that even at this time of great change, our determination to safeguard israel's security is safe and sure. indeed, it is stronger than ever. in every strong relationship built on trust and build on friendship, built on mutual security, it demands that both sides work towards the same common goals. israel has a responsibility to pursue our shared goals, to build regional support for israel and the united states security objectives. i believe security is dependent

on a strong military but it is also dependent on strong diplomacy. unfortunately, over the past year, we have seen israel's isolation from its traditional security partners in the region grow and the pursuit of a comprehensive middle east peace that has effectively been put on hold. i want to be clear -- this isolation is due to a number of factors. indeed, there is an international campaign under way to isolate israel. president obama has stood steadfastly in the way of that effort especially within the united nations. i have never known an israeli government or an israeli, for that matter, to be passive about

anything let alone this troubling trend. so i have been working with the eaders there, minister barak and others to help israel find ways to take steps which are profoundly in its interests. for example -- israel can reach out and mend fences with those who shared interest in regional stability. these are countries like turkey and egypt as well as jordan. this is an important time to be able to develop and restore those key relationships in this crucial area. this is not impossible. if gestures are rebuked, the

world will see those rebukes for what they are. and that is exactly why israel should pursue them. like all of you, i have been deeply troubled by the direction of the turkish-israeli relationship. jury is a key nato ally. and has proven to be a real partner in our ever to support democratic change and to stand against the toward -- totalitarian regimes they use violence against their own people. ,t is in israel's interest turkey's interest, and u.s. interests for israel to reconcile with turkey and both turkey and israel need to do more to put their relationship back on our track.

as a message i have taken to jerusalem and is a message that will be taking to ankara live later this month. the current leaders of egypt along with jordan have made very clear to me privately and publicly that they are committed to their peace treaties with israel. we have been clear to all parties in egypt that sustaining the peace treaty with israel is in the critical interest of the united states. while we share israel's a legitimate concerns, about instability in the sinai peninsula and the attack on the israeli embassy in cairo, the best way to address these concerns is through increasing communication and cooperation.

an increasing communication and cooperation with the egyptian authorities, not by stepping away from them. diplomacy, the real essence of diplomacy is not that you have to love one another. the essence of diplomacy is that you respect each other so that you can talk to each other when you must. i also remain firm in the belief that it is profoundly in israel's long-term security interests to lean forward on efforts to achieve peace -- peace with palestinians. i was pleased to see the israeli government announced that it will release the tax revenues to the palestinian authority, averting a situation that would have undermined israel's

security and damaged the important institution-building work the prime -- of prime minister fayad and strengthen palestinian factions. rather than undermine the palestinian authority, it is in israel's interest to strengthen it by contributing and continuing to transfer a palestinian tax revenues and pursuing other avenues of cooperation. for example, the security cooperation between israel, palestinians, the u.s. security forces led by the united states security force coordinator, a general mike mullen, has paid real dividends. israel should look for ways to bolster this cooperation and president abbas must take the

difficult steps to do exactly the same thing. ultimately the dream of a secure and prosperous jewish and democratic israel can only be achieved through two states living side-by-side in peace and security with full confidence that the united states is willing and capable of ensuring that israel can safeguard its security as it takes the risk needed to pursue peace. now is the time for israel to take bold action and to move toward a negotiated a two-state solution. i recognize that there is a few that this is not the time to pursue peace and that the arab awakening further imperil the dream of a safe and secure

jewish and democratic israel. i disagree with that view. i believe israel will ultimately be safe when other middle eastern states adopted governments that respond to their people, promote equal rights, promote free and fair elections and double their international commitments and join the community. i believe it is the only real long-term path to security and prosperity. to realize the vision of the viet zagreb be in for a sustainable peace in middle east, peace requires some difficult steps. and yes, it will involve risk

but my italian father used to say that you cannot achieve anything worthwhile that without taking risks. all israelis should know that the united states will always stand behind their country. it will provide a secure safety net as it takes the necessary risks. i would close by noting that last year speaking at this baerak y friend ehud recall the famous statement by winston churchill. the pessimists see is the pessimism and every opportunity but the pessimists does not.

there are risks in the changes taking place across this critical region. we will work with israel to reduce and mitigate those risks in the effort to achieve something worthwhile. in that region. even as we have seen the challenges across the region grow in this past year, i would urge my israeli and american friends to remember these words - to see these changes as an opportunity and to take the steps needed to secure our shared interests for peace in the long term, to secure that piece israel will always have the unshakable backing of the

united states and the united states must always have the on charitable trust of israel. that bond is the fundamental key to stability and hope in the middle east. it is a bond that must never be broken. thank you. [applause] >> we have already collected a number of questions. you won't be totally surprised to your the great many of the questions i have are related to the same topic -- you probably will be supplies that most of those are about the sharp park

-- are about the personal life of chuck schumer. i will see a bike and find something else. iran is growing more and more aggressive, encouraging attacks and u.s. forces in iraq and afghanistan and threatening israel and farming their nose against sanctions from the un, backing syria, and trying to kill the saudi ambassador to the u.s. in the u.s. love level of iranian aggressiveness should make us pick up the military option off the table? >> as i said, we have to approach of this with all options on the table. at this point, we believe that a combination of economic and diplomatic sanctions that have been placed on iran have had a

serious impact. iran is isolating itself from the rest of the world. it is truly becoming, particularly as a result of the attack on the british embassy, a pariah in that region. their own government is off balance in terms of trying to establish any kind of stability even within iran. the combination of that and efforts to make sure they do not develop a nuclear capability -- all of those efforts are having an impact. we have a common goal here. let us understand that we have a common goal. the common goal is in iran that does not develop a nuclear weapon. working together, working with

israel, or in with our allies in the region, or in the international community to is a huge -- to continue to isolate and put pressure on him is an effort we must continue that is the one best way to the ultimately weaken this nation. ultimately, they have to make a decision about whether they continue to be a pariah or whether they decide to join the international community. as prime minister netanyahu said, force should be only be a last resort. if that is truly the case, then i believe it is incumbent on us to implement all of our diplomatic and economic pressures possible. to try to make as ever to make

clear to the world that we are dealing with an international pariah in iran. >> egypt is undergoing an historic change but there is no guarantee it will be a positive one. how can america use its strong relationship with the egyptian military to ensure a good outcome? >> i think it is important to continue to work closely with the israeli leadership at this time. in order to insure that they move forward with that democratic reforms that have promised their people, they have, in fact, implemented elections. those elections have taken place. we have rolling elections and they will go on for the next few months. at some point, they will establish a constitutional change and at some point this next year, they will have a

presidential election. we want to ensure that they stay on course and that they continue the efforts to move forward to implement these reforms. the egyptians have to decide their future and have to try to implement this in a way that fulfills the promise of the revolution that took place at the time you are brought down. our best course is to continue to put pressure on them, to make sure that they stand by the promises that they made to the egyptian people, that they will implement these changes. when they do form a government, we have an obligation to stay with them and make sure that they abide by the committee and that they abide by the other

redlines we have established. >> the u.s. intervened in libya to stop the regime from killing his people, why not in syria? >> i get asked this question and number of times as to others. you cannot simply take a cookie cutter approach to that reason and to decide that having applied for some one area, it makes sense in another area. right now, my sense is that by virtue of the economic and diplomatic sanctions of the international community and the fact of the arab league has a process sanctions and turkey is imposing sanctions, all this is isolating the government in syria. i cannot tell you when but clearly as a matter of time

e assad is taken from his position of leadership in syria. it is tragic that there are people who are dying but the key now is to continue to put pressure on them and continue the international unity that is continuing to make the average replaces assad. we think that is working so let's give it some time and we will always join the international community if it is felt that further steps are necessary. because of america's disastrous economic situation, a lot of people and presidential candidates are talking about cutting off all u.s. foreign aid. as secretary of defense, how do you think that would affect american and israeli security. ? >> you are coming into town

right now in which my greatest concern is with regards to the leadership on capitol hill and its ability to deal with the issues that confront this country. i have served in the congress and served in administrations and in my time in the congress, i always felt that while there was always political differences, the wagon and national issues, both parties would work together to try to compromise and find solutions particularly to the crises date -- that face this country. we're at a time now when for whatever reason, there seems to be an inability to be able to find those as a compromise is in order to govern this country. if i had men and women who are putting their lot of malign and

fighting and dying in this country, and they had the courage to do that and our elected leaders on capitol hill should be able to find a little bit of courage to find the solutions that would help solve the problems in this country. [applause] when it comes to -- i have indicated my concerns about this approach on sequestration because of the failure of the committee of 12 to be defined the necessary debt as a production they were required to do. they have now implemented this automatic trigger that will take effect on now in january of 2013. if it is put into affect, it would decimate our national defense and it would tear a scene in our ability to

effectively defend this country. at the same time, i am concerned about what it does on the domestic side of the budget. national security is not so dependent on military power. it is dependent on diplomatic power and dependent on the state department. it is also dependent on the quality of life in this country. to educate our kids and provide health care -- all of that as part of our national security. for that reason, i think it is essential that the leadership of the country find the solutions to dealing with the deficit without having america having to pay a price that it will regret in the future. [applause] >> for how long do you believe a

military attack on iran would postpone them getting the bomb? >> part of the problem here is the concern that at best, talking to my is really friends, the indication is that at best might postpone one or two years. it depends obviously on the ability to truly get at the targets they are after. frankly, some of those targets are very difficult to get that. that kind of shot would only ultimately not destroy their ability to produce atomic weapon but simply delay it. the greater concern is the unintended consequences which would be that ultimately it would have a backlash and a regime that is weak now, a

regime as isolated would suddenly be able to reestablish itself and suddenly get support in the region. instead of being isolated, it would give greater support. the united states would obviously be the target of retaliation from iran, striking our ships, strike near military bases. horribly, there are economic consequences to that. that could impact a very fragile economy in europe and a fragile economy here in the united states. lastly, the consequence could be an escalation that would take place that would not only involve many lives but i think

could consume the middle east and a confrontational conflict we would regret. we have to be careful about the unintended consequences of that plan of attack. >> given american policy toward an iranian nuclear weapon, the u.s. believes there would be consequences from iran in acquiring a nuclear weapon. what do you think the comte's once as would be a why do you believe that one is a lesser priority? in the first part of the question. what you believe a consequences of iran acquire nuclear weapon? >> this is a common goal. this is something that the united states, israel, the international community does not want iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.

it is because iran's entire effort using the irgc, supplying terrorists, undermining governments throughout the world -- clearly, they are supporting terrorists in parts of the world and nuclear weapons would be devastating if they have that capability. once iran gets a nuclear weapon, you will have an arms race in the middle east. was to stop setting her up the -- what's to stop saudi arabia for getting nuclear weapons. suddenly 11 escalation of these horrible weapons i think could create greater devastation in the middle east. the key for all of us is to work together, to gather, to make sure that does not happen.

we had made good progress in these efforts. we continue to make good progress in these efforts. that is where we should continue to put air pressure, our efforts, diplomatic, economic, working together to make sure that that does not happen. you always have as a last action.f military but it must be a last resort, not the first. >> is the chief priority of u.s. policy toward iran to moderate the nuclear ambitions of the iranian regime or change the regime. ? will this regime will change its behavior? >> i think the effort we are concerned about is to make sure that iran does not obtain nuclear weapon.

secondly, we would like to have an hour on that becomes part of the international community. and that it decides it is going to engage with the rest of the world. as opposed to isolating itself and supporting terrorists and as opposed to try to influence and support those that would attack our country and attack others in that region. that is our fundamental goal is to try to insure that we have and ron that becomes and part of the international community and understands obligations. most important, we have to do everything we can to make sure that they never obtain a nuclear weapon. >> back to egypt -- egypt has

concluded its first round of elections as you discussed. the islamists and in vesicular thesolofist party did well in that election. do believe this unexpected rise of extreme religious right in egypt is a threat to regional security? what would your policy be toward a very strong egypt? >> we could all jump to conclusions. we need to let this play out a little bit. this is the first part of a role in the election. clearly, we need to see what the results are in the first part of this election. we probably won't get a formal announcement tomorrow. we will have additional elections that will take place in the parliament that will occur and the rest of egypt and we will then have an election or the upper body that will take place.

as a consequence of that, we will come together and have a presidential election. all that has to take place. this is a democracy. in democracies, we have to allow the egyptian people to express themselves in that process. ultimately, the pressures within a democracy will have some impact as to its direction. for our purposes, the united states has to engage with whatever government is established in egypt and insure that they abide by their obligations. they have to ensure that they continue to be a partner and has put in -- in that part of the world. that is what democracy is all about. let's give it a chance because they are in the beginning of

this process, not at the end. >> i know this will have to be the last question, but mr. secretary, you made a strong statement about israel's responsibility to make peace. what steps should it take now? withdraw the army from the territories? that is a suggestion in the form of a question no, just get to the dam table. -- in the form of a question. >> know, just get to the dam table. the problem right now is that we cannot get them to the table to have leased said down and begin to discuss their differences. -- at least sit down and begin to discuss their differences. we understand their concerns, we understand the concerns of the israel and of the palestinians. if they sit at the table and work through those concerns, and the u.s. can be of assistance in the process, then i think you

have the beginning of what could be a process that would lead to a peace agreement. but if they are not at the table, this will never happen. first and foremost, it to the table. -- get to the table. [applause] >> thank you for joining us. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] what iss a look at ahead across the c-span network this afternoon. right here on c-span, the u.s. house will gavel back in four levels -- legislative business at 2:00 p.m. eastern. no recorded votes are planned. on c-span2 bisphenol -- the senate also dabbles in at 2:00 p.m. eastern. on c-span3, a look at combating

the spread of malaria. that gets under way live at 3:00 p.m. eastern. >> tonight on "book tv -- on "the communicators" a look at the federal spectrum policy. that is tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> a discussion on what states are doing to get their fiscal houses back in order. this is from this morning's "washington journal."

host: barry anderson, the national governors association has a new fiscal survey. what is the big take away? guest: it is a big squeeze. by that i mean, states are doing better with revenues and spending than they have in the year or two past, but they are not back to the 2008 level. there are a number of factors that make the outlook very concerned. by that i mean, first, the grants that the states get from federal government will be cut, for sure. the 2012 levels are already going down and sequesters that they faced in 2013 are likely to cut them even further. and the recovery act is going down, too, so the amount of money coming in from the feds is almost certainly going to be lower than it is today.

but it is worse than that. medicaid, the state's biggest expense, continues to go up. it goes a because the economy has been poor. it goes up because of new entitlements. it goes up because of the requirements of the affordable care act. but it is mostly the cosco up because the costs for medicaid still have, on a per-capita basis, increased. many of the controls that the government has put in will work, but not yet. but it is not over. that is the squeeze from the federal side. then from the local government side, local governments are asking for more and more of their being cut. and states, understandably in the past have taken the opportunity to rationalize the amounts of money they have been given -- giving to the local governments. but now they are being squeezed both from the federal government and the local government. it is a very worrisome time. on top of all of this, it is

really the economy that matters. if the economy improves, things might be a bit better, but as my good friend that was on before was saying, the direction of the economy is very uncertain right now, to. host: our guest is with the national governors association. this is medicaid spending by the state. in fiscal year 2011, $400 billion. that is a 10% increase over the prior fiscal year. they're caught -- accounts for 20% of fiscal spending and is the single largest element of state spending. guest: and there is nothing forecasts that it will get better. the cost of health care in this country are just continuing to grow. the affordable care act did take some actions, and maybe some of those actions might have some benefit, but that is pretty much in the future. it will not be in this year or

the next fiscal year. the concerns about medicaid dwarf those of all others. and there are concerns about education corrections and pensions and things like that, but medicaid is really the biggest element for the states. host: there are also some improvements. but where are they coming from and how are happening? guest: the economy is doing better than it was at the depths of the recession. if the economy continues to grow, the state revenues will also grow. even though there are some temporary taxes that states will put into place that will expire in the future. still, revenues will grow. in addition, state did a very good job of controlling their spending on average. they looked at the items they could control, even medicaid to some extent, and got a better handle on them. states, as you know, are primarily concerned with not only medicaid, but also with

correction expenses, transportation expenses, education expenses, their own civil servants. and states in general did get a better handle on their spending in the last two or three years. what you are seeing and what we have seen -- and it is a good trend -- are some improvements in revenues and a bit better control of spending. host: we are looking at general fund spending and revenue in billions of dollars. you can see this chart shows spending was outpacing revenue in 2008 ended 2009 quite significantly it is a bit unbalanced -- more balanced in 2010. guest: it is a little bit better, but you can also see that we are not back to the 2008 levels. and as the percentage of gdp spending has dropped and is still relatively low. it is a sign that the states have done a bit better job, a

much better job than the federal government in controlling spending. host: and spending in 2012, went in seeing a creeping in balance with spending outpacing revenue. guest: yes, the picture right now is better than the last year or two, but the concern is in that time forward, both the federal government, the state government, the economy, that things might not be improving that much. to wisconsin. good morning. caller: good morning. mr. anderson, a bit of a dilemma. with the american exchange council, with being a resident of wisconsin and what has happened here enter the other states -- there was a republican governor in the house. the actions in ohio, here in

wisconsin, michigan, i'm wondering if you could comment on what alec has done in relationship to how things are done. it seems there were severe actions and reactions here in wisconsin where they were going through a recall. it is causing a dilemma. in your looking at all the states, what comment might you make in that regard and what does it have to do with the fiscal responsibilities that have come out of the american legislative exchange council? host: let's get a response from our guest. the guest: i'm not aware specifically of what alec has recommended, but i can tell you that in what our report, one of the major expenses that all the

states have are for public employees. every state, not just the two or three that you mentioned, every state has been looking at the type of compensation and the number of employees and the other conditions of the employees work. it is a difficult situation for states to begin. it is not that governors from one side or the other route want to make those cuts. it is difficult from all sides. it is different than what we are seeing in the federal government. the cost of government employment is a very major fact, whether it be from the federal to the state or even the local aspect. what we are seeing is an effort over and over again to try to

look to see if they can get a better picture on this. one of the tables on the back of our document even talk about different ways they have looked at it on a state-by-state basis. host: what are the political implications of what has happened in wisconsin with gov. scott walker? is this going to make it harder for governors to try to change the way that the public sector employees are dealt with? where do you see that going? guest: i look at this as a negotiation, if you will. because it is 50 states, every state does not have the same level. gov. walker may have pushed too far the recall vote -- and the recall vote is sort of an indication of that. there are other states that may have gone a bit too far and may have to take back some. but if you look at the kind of changes that are made in states outside of wisconsin and others, you will see that almost every state is doing something along these lines. it is not going to be easy. it may have made things a little

bit harder, but the trend is pretty clear that there has to be a better reform, a better rationalization of compensation for state employees. host: there have been 455,000 cuts by state and local governments over the past year in the public sector. guest: a lot of moves in the last couple of days on the drop of the unemployment rate. there was an increase in employment, and if you look behind those numbers i think it was nearly 120,000. but underneath that, you will see there was a drop of government employment by 20,000. a lot of that was supposed office, but the states are still in a rationalization of looking at how to get more volume for their state dollar, and -- more value for their state dollar, and how to have a better stick -- compensation package for their state employees. it is difficult, but they're

making progress host: let's hear from me -- they are making progress on it. host: let's hear from me in eugene, oregon. caller: good morning. i would like to know the fiscal sanity of oregon. our governor tends to talk in platitudes and never give any reality. and then the newspaper comes in and says the opposite on our budget here in oregon. but more than that, i am on disability. i get medicaid assistance and everything else. but the reason i am on the system is because i was a guinea pig for the pharmaceutical companies in which they signed a contract with me, and the state said they would pay if anything happened to me. well, things happened to me and now i am what is termed

pharmaceutical dementia. why are these pharmaceutical companies not been directly build for all of these -- billed for all of these costs whenever they get to write it off because of the tax loopholes? guest: i like your phrase "fiscal sanity." i have not heard it that way before. i did not memorize all of the 50 states that are on the fiscal survey. it is on the website. my recollection is that organ is doing ok. i like to think of back in 1992 in the presidential election when at that time, governor clinton used the phrase "it is the economy, stupid." that applies today and what matters for organ and a lot of other states is how well the economy -- for oregon and a lot of other states is how well the economy is growing.

that will help the states control their expenses. in looking at the fiscal sanity, i hope you will get the report. with respect to your question on pharmaceutical company, that is much more of a federal question, but you have highlighted a very important factor. and that is, we here at the national governors association have to work, and do work very closely with the federal government to make sure that the state's perspective is considered when they look at programs such as medicare and medicaid. to often, the federal government has a tendency to try to address its own fiscal issues by lumping cost on to the states. we monitor very closely and interactive daily with those in washington to try to make sure there is fair treatment between the two. but the problems you highlight are more federal problems that we in the nba have to work with the federal government -- in the

nga that we have to work with the federer to make sure we resolve -- the federal government to make sure we resolve. host: port richey, florida. and he joins us. -- andy joins us. caller: i always watch c- span. you know what i think the problem is? the problem is, they let the big companies go overseas. when these companies are in this country hiring people they have to pay they pay half of the -- the people pay out of their medicare and half of their social security and the company pays the other half. these guys overseas, they are

paying china meant 50 cents an hour. -- they are paying heinemachina0 cents an hour. that is the problem. they have sent all of the jobs overseas. host: let's talk about that, these companies and the revenue they get to put in their pockets. guest: thank you for your questions. up until recently, i was in the international world, both at the imf and with the economic collaboration for development in paris. we got to take a look at it from not just the u.s. perspective, but also from the receding companies -- countries. and you also mentioned china. in the long term, when you can take it function, no matter what is -- building cars, making clothing, whatever -- and if one

country can do it more efficiently than another, that is the country that should be doing it. i tell you, though, after my years of looking at both the u.s. and overseas, i am more optimistic about the u.s.. we may not be able to do some of the more elementary things as cheaply as the chinese or others, but we have an awful lot of adaptability here. an awful lot of innovation and flexibility. the productivity figures in europe have dropped of late, but the u.s. has done pretty well. even coming out of the recession with better productivity. i am not quite the pessimists that was indicated in your question. a little bit to the contrary, i think that the more flexible and adaptable we are, we will not be doing the same things that we did in decades past, but we will be doing different things and different things can still keep our people employed, and

probably so. host: denver, colorado, bernie. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. thank god for c-span. i watched the first governors conference when the new governor's sit on the stage, and are popular governor, governor was the only one that did not swear that he would not touch education. and yet, he took $30 million out of the budget as soon as he could. i am the executive director of the education foundation of the colorado national guard. i reach out daily to foundations and trusts to get what we need to send our depending kids to college. we have been largely successful, but many of these foundations say we cannot donate the things that do not directly affect our

community. education is the passport to our future, and all of the of the things we talk about -- really, they are not meeting this, but unless we address -- meaning less, but unless we address the problems with our economy and education, any problems with medicaid and social security and the cost of health care, we need to educate our young people to do this work. host: let's get a response. guest: i think all 50 governors absolutely believe in education. but as i was saying about my international experience, one of the phrases that was most difficult to translate from one language to the other language is "bang for the bout." -- the buck." i think you have to look below

the spending levels and see where you can get out of it. local school districts need to look of what they get for their education dollar and say, can we get a better degree of education? can we provide a longer term and more reliable education for students with either the same, weren't even with a little less money? and an awful lot of governors are doing that. i do not think we should define how well we do in education just by the aggregate amount of money that we spend on it. i am not familiar exactly with what your governor is doing in colorado, or in the other states in education, but i know every one of them is taking a very careful look and trying to get a better bang for the box. -- the buck. host: good morning, next caller. caller: today, what is going

on, and what i've seen as an immigrant in this country 30 years ago, we have politicians who are corrected. and we have corporations to invest in those politicians. but the reality is, i am crying inside that this country, people are/democrat and republican and those corrupted politicians are taking advantage -- people are divided by democrat and republican and as corrupted politicians are taking advantage of this. we will all go down. just like the previous caller who said that our education is going to the bottom. and one more thing i want to say, as an immigrant, most people are saying that the government should stay out of it. the reality is, americans do not know what they have. go to somalia. it country for 22 years with no government. see how they operate.

forget about democrat and republican, and get rid of these politicians who become career politicians and do not care about america. he cares about who is paying him first. host: let's get a response. the national governors association does represent governors of both parties. tell us about his comment. guest: i personally am not a republican or a democrat. i am a sob. and by god, i take a very, -- and by that, i mean i take a very good look at what is going on in general. you take a look at what is happening in europe now and i know there is a lot of criticism and there is criticism that is justifiable about our system is here. but as problematic as our system

is here, i would not trade it for what they have in europe at all. we are facing significant problems both at the state level and at the federal level, but that does not mean that other systems are facing those problems better than we are. it is a difficult time and one looks at the political process, particularly here in washington, and generally all you hear is about the conflicts and differences of opinions. and our system can be proved, no doubt -- can be improved, no doubt. but i think we need to not disregard it. host: gary anderson, deputy director of the national governors association. prior to working at the nga he was with the international monetary fund. as you look at what is coming down the pike on the federal level, what congress has in

store, is there concern about the federal government trying to get more from states? trying to get more from you and increasing what you call the squeeze? guest: to absolutely. i mentioned health care, the fact that health care is a joint federal and state program. the cost of health care are going up. there is concern that we concernnga monetary it -- that we at nga monitor it as costs go up. there have been discussions and efforts in the past. we will continue to monitor that. second, i mentioned cuts to appropriations in fiscal year 2012, and a sequester that states and the federal government is facing in 2013. our view is that we try to monitor that to make sure that

the federal government does not put the federal grants to state and local government at the bottom of the barrel. when those cuts are made, the grants to state and local governments are the first to be cut. we think that if cuts are made, it ought to be a fair judgment in taking a look at it, and a very equitable manner to see what can be done best. states frequently are those that are best in terms of delivering services. finally, much of the discussion in the past, and i think in the future, is going to be about federal taxes. a lot of those provisions that concern federal taxes can have a direct and immediate impact on state taxes. some states tie their tax rates directly to the federal government. others, the provisions in the federal government, such as the interest on state and local bonds, can have a direct impact. in those three ways, we are

monitoring very closely and working with the federal government to see and make sure that the fiscal situation there does not have a disproportionate impact in the 50 states. host: michael joins us from atlanta, georgia. good morning. caller: i just had a quick question. i feel like that guy from whatever country, talking about both the house. i say that is the wrong angle. when george bush was getting ready to pass that $3 trillion tax cut, people were in the street saying it was going to destroy the economy. the media, c-span, no one even tune into the arguments. it made it seem like we were some fringe. then we fought two wars without paying for them. but once again, when people tried to make an issue about it, they got no coverage.

the kind of like people occupy wall street getting hit upside the head and people standing outside president obama speeches with guns and no police action. we need to call a spade a spade. we are in this problem for one reason. it makes no sense while rich people run around and act like they made all their money by this and nobody helped them. guest: my experience in 40 years of working in budgeting, both in the u.s. national level, at the state level, and also with the international level, the trend is clear. budgets become more and more complex. and that seems to be by design has a politician. they are spending your money, but a lot of times they do not

want to let you know. if people, like us here at nga and where i used to work at the congressional budget office and elsewhere, try to help explain what is happening. but it is a very confusing thing. and i would suggest that when you look at government budgets, whether you -- whether they be on the national or the state level, you look at them on a simplistic terms. but is generally take money out of the group that is working -- budgets generally take money out of the group that is working and give money to those who are told to work or too young to work. how efficiently does that is very much a measure of how successfully budget is. your question is drawing to the attention that in one sense, we have been spending too much, perhaps on the transfer and not getting enough to promote the economy. how much should we spend every generation? how much should we spend to

promote education? in the long term, our education is going to be the reason why the country continues to grow. this intergenerational transfer, as we call it in budgeting, is critically important. i suggest that when you look at spending, whether it be from the current administration or previous administrations, or even half the states, you look at it to see how much is coming out of those that are working and going to those retired or those too young to work. host: the national governors' association has a new report. let's hear from george in north carolina. caller: good morning. i have a question for your guest. i was wondering why the national governors association does not stand and take to task for federal government, who lost was on a daily basis? case in point, you turn on your

radio and on a daily basis we are being told that the unemployment rate is 8.5%, 9.5%. i challenge the american people, go to any unemployment office. if you will sit down and have a meeting with the director of that office, they will look at you and laugh. this is not true, they will tell you. they are not counting the people who have already exhausted their unemployment. and no one wants to hear of this. why doesn't the governors' association take the federal government to task on this? we are being lied to on aiding the bases. -- on a daily basis. guest: you mentioned the recent unemployment report, which we have nga the related and talked about with the governors. -- quickly relayed and talk

about what the governors. the more people are working, the better it is. but we were quick to point out that the increase in employment and the drop in the unemployment rate are in somewhat -- are somewhat misleading. the numbers of employers are primarily private sector, not governor -- governments sector, which arbiter's want to know about. but a lot of the decrees and the unemployment rate are from two factors i need to be taken into account. one is, the seasonal workers that are being hired for the christmas season. i hope those workers stay around, but maybe this increase in employment will not be a permanent one and will only last a month or two. but more importantly, and getting directly to what you factsaying, george, is diyalthe

that a lot of the reason the unemployment rate dropped is because a good number of people stopped looking for work. that is not what we want to see. it is not the thing that helps the states or the federal government grow. with respect to looking beyond the statistics and talking about it, there are systems we have here, the media we have here, i actually think they do a good job of it and called to attention the administration and the congress -- a call to the attention of the administration and the congress about what the statistics actually mean. let host: look at fiscal year 2010. there was $61 billion that went to states. it is shrinking dramatically now. fiscal year 2012, $3 billion. can states asked for more money?

we have guest: been talking about how successful programs are -- guest: we have been talking about how successful programs are. sure, states can ask for more money. but in today's economic and fiscal environment, and with the the success of the recovery act still very much in doubt, i do not think that is a likely story. in fact, quite the contrary. i think we're all looking at it decreasing size of the pie. and when you look at that, if the federal government is going to be spending less, than what you want to do is spend more on those programs that work best. part of the nga the center for best practices, and that is what we try to do there. take a look at the programs that work best. i do not think we're going to be saying, let's have a new recovery act, let's go with

another $800 billion or something like that. but within the appropriations that the congress makes, we are going to be saying, look, here are programs that work better than others. cut these places, not these. >> from flint, michigan, good morning. caller: good morning. guest: morning. caller: problem is the new governor of michigan tax the retirees' pension to $1.8 billion. and then he supposedly -- the thing that he was going to do was to give this money to help businesses employing more people. as of now, i do not think we have employed any more people and he is still sitting on this $1.8 billion. why is he going after the retirees?

my opinion is that i'm going to move out of here because if he's going to tax my pension, i cannot afford him. i think that is the reason they are attempting to recall him, too, because he went after the retirees. guest: again faces very difficult problems. we have worked with them -- guest: michigan faces very difficult problems. we have worked with them to get their fiscal picture in much better shape than it was. yes, i'm aware they imposed a tax on retirees. my only suggestion is, before you pack your bags, look at where you are going to move. because i think almost all states tax retirees now. not that they all do, but with respect to what he did with the revenues, as pointed out in our physical survey, mich. was in a very difficult situation two or three years ago. they have restored a much more

-- a better fiscal picture for their state right now. just to get back to that level took a lot of effort, and very difficult efforts, like the ones you were talking about before. it is unfortunate, but i know you and others are used to a certain way, and i know others around the country have done that, too. unfortunately, the fiscal situation that we face at the state level, the federal level, even at the local level, is going to demand changes. host: our guest just mentioned a study that the national governors association just put out. some states could raise money by " -- placing taxes on the ultra rich, something the federal government cannot or will not do. talk about the leeway that states have to make their own decisions about that. but guest: previous caller from flint, mich. was talking about

how there was a tax on his retirement benefits that was prompted him to consider moving. and it is understandable. americans do a very good job of voting with their feet. it is perhaps a nasty statement, but it helps the country because if one state gets out of balance, or one employment area gets out of balance, then people move to where there is better employment. with respect to a tax on the super rich, you have to take a look at what that would mean. that might mean not an increase in revenues, but rather, more and more of the rich who are very, very just taking their income and their residents and moving to a state where there are no taxes or fewer taxes. it is better to take a look at what the state's total tax package is.

what its tax structure is all across the income scale, including retirees and the super rich. what its tax structure is on corporate. i know there is a competition right now between illinois and indiana on corporate taxes, where indiana is trying to attract the corporation from illinois to move across the border because of lower tax rates. that competition is going to happen throughout the country. when a state, takes a look at its stock -- its tax structure, it has to do so recognizing it is in a very competitive situation vis-a-vis the other states. host: our next call from california, good morning. caller: morning to both of you. there is a case of medicare fraud. the office of budget management in 2008 said there was $23.7 billion in improper payments in

2007 -- zero way. and then another issue is that they paid -- in 2007-08. and that and other issues that they paid a total of $92 million from 2000 through 2007 that included payments of $16,548 to -- host: give us a sense of where you are going with all the numbers? caller: give me a second. those who were paid were deceased. here's a question. what is your guest organization doing to combat medicare fraud in each of the states? if that were the case, if it were down to zero, or a manageable figure, that would result in millions -- and sarah, billions of dollars more being available -- i'm sorry, billions of dollars more been available to be used in an effective

manner. guest: budget control act of 2011, the act that was passed in early august to get us out of the debt limit situation, recognized that there is fraud in medicare. medicare is a fault -- federal program. medicaid is the joint federal and state program. they passed something as part of the bill called a "program integrity funding." the idea of this is to provide a specific amount of money that will not be sequestered, were cut, to specifically get at -- or cut, to specifically get out a fraudulent payments and take action to reduce them. this is not primarily a state responsibility, but the state's early want to work with the federal government, particularly in the medicaid area, to make sure that the money is spent by the federal government, and the states, is done so in a non

fraudulent manner. economthis money that i'm talkig about for program integrity, we will continue to monitor the because it will not be cut in the appropriations, or by the sequester in the months ahead. berlin host: 10, iowa -- host: burlington, iowa, thomas. welcome. i was guest: -- caller: i want to ask who appointed you in your office, and the governor's -- there are 34 or 35 that are republican that have cut the budgets enormously in the schools. you get walker and why he is getting in peach, look at all of these guys that are going to get impeached. the people that are coming after ers., they are the 99 year will take back over the country

and that will be the way it goes. guest: national governors association is run by the 50 governors, no surprise. there is an executive committee that just appointed a new executive director and the executive director named to me as deputy. the executive committee is composed of nine governors -- i think is five republican and for democrats. -- four democrats. but what they have tried to do they have done very successfully in the past, operate in a very bipartisan way, taking into account both the views of the democrats and republicans. and as i say, that fits me to haiti because i am not either one. -- fits me to 8a tee because i am not either one. both sides have been facing very

difficult fiscal situations and they have been looking at the budget, as well as medicaid and medicare and elsewhere. i do not think it is fair to say is one party and not the other. but the thing you should look at is not just the amount of money that is spent, but the gain for the buck. what are we getting out of the money that we spent? can we get as good a, if not better, educational results from the same or even less money? where does the money and go to? -- even go to? can we make cuts, or spend more on science, mathematics, and other things that will be more important in the future? i suggest to you, thomas, that you look beyond the numbers and see what we get. host: gary anderson, the national governors association where he serves as deputy director. we have been talking about the national governors association

report, and you can find can findngza -- at nga.org. >> live pictures now from the white house briefing room. president obama shora they expected to make an appeal to republicans on limiting taxes on middle-class americans. the president wants congress to expand and extend payroll tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year. the white house says the average taxes for -- and taxes for the average family will increase by $1,000 if the tax cuts are not extended. the parties are split on how to pay for an extension. the president is said to be here of 1:30 p.m. running a little bit late, but we will bring you live coverage as soon as the president starts here on c-span.

again, we are waiting for president obama to come to the white house briefing room to make a statement on taxes on middle-class americans. the president is running a little bit late. as you know, the house is gaveling in 2:00 p.m. eastern. we are committed to live coverage of the house, so we will go to the house at 2:00 p.m. eastern. until then, we will show you this morning's "washington journal" and your phone calls.

host: our question for you this morning is, what you think of the president's reelection efforts? what is your level of enthusiasm compared to 2008? are you going to put money where your mouth is? you can contribute your money or your time to his campaign. let's get to the phones. this is ruby in riverside, calif., a democratic caller. caller: morning. i think president obama has a

good chance of winning because i think -- you know, i think most people want to keep their social security. i think that should be one of his strong points. but what i also here is that the voting machines, you know, considering the earlier elections, i am shocked. i am shocked that they have not delved into some of these surprise elections. and god help us all. made the best person win. host: looking at the hill story and opening it up going into the issue of joblessness, europe might get under the recovery.

host: next caller from portland, oregon. caller: i think obama has a good chance in the next election. even though i know what the polls have said about him, that he has lost so much riding, you know, i do not believe that the american people are so ignorant that they do not see that this man has been deliberately held back. when we look at obama, we have

to look up the good that he tries to do that he was not permitted to do for race and other issues that he had to deal with, that no other president had to deal with. and i also think, what other choice is there? other than the people that put us in this horrible mess? host: how enthusiastic are you? it sounds like you are confident he can we -- he can win a reelection, but how enthusiastic are you? well caller:, i will be giving him my money, that is how enthusiastic i am. and i will be supporting him, working for his reelection. host: she mentioned race as one issue. this is from politico.

you can see the cover of this year. it came out from the white house last month. if louisville, kentucky, thelma joins us. caller: i am very enthusiastic over obama's reelection. and the like your last caller, i do not see where we have any choice, you know, in voting for him and reelecting him again. host: as do something.

saying that you do not have any choice could sound like you do not have any of their options and you are supporting him by the fall. are you supporting him because you believe in him, or because you do not feel he has -- you have any other options? the caller: well, both. it's like the last caller said, i do not believe that the polls -- in the polls that say he is dropping, even with the black constituents. because he does not place his feelings on just blacks, but on the country as a whole, blacks and whites. i feel that he wants to help the poor. and i do not see any republicans that are running, or that have tried to run, that even gave it a second thought. he does not separate america between race, and i think that is a wonderful thing. and i think that has america

sees that, that it is not a racial thing with him -- you know, he just wants to help the poor and help establish some at least some middle-class america. host: in his recent visit to scranton, in abc news at it says that his choice to talk taxes is not an accident. paul host: joins us from utah. -- host: paul joins us from utah. caller: good morning. i would be very disappointed that there is someone credible

enough to run against. president obama, i did vote for him. i was very excited about his agenda. but his performance has disappointed me because i expected him to do a great deal more than he has. but as far as i'm concerned, it has been business as usual. there has not been a great deal of change. maybe in this next four years he might be able to fulfill what we expected him to do, but he has not really done anything that i am enthusiastic about. host: do you look forward to a third party candidates this year? you'd caller: no, gary johnson i would totally go after because he is amazing. but he does not get any foothold. there's nothing there that really allows him to provide the kind of element to me. . would love a third party --

but unfortunately, we cannot get any of that because we have so much money involved in politics. if we had a government funded voting element, that would be great. but with all of the big money that is involved in the elections, we might as well be running a two-party state like we do right now. i'm very disappointed in that. i will not vote for mitt romney. i see the way mormons' run utah, and i cannot get behind any aspect of many more men doing anything there. host: why is that? caller: the way they run the state of utah issam non-and governmental -- the state of utah is non-environmental

cannot it is very pro-utah, and they put church in front of state. i would be the same way with any baptist or any right wing conservative. host: concern is with the religious aspect, not with the mormon faith itself. caller: both, absolutely. i grew up in utah and i see the deal with that aspect, and it is a primary element. host: the question this morning is focusing on president obama's reelection efforts. we're wondering how enthusiastic democrats are. here are the numbers you can call in. a comment from bill on twitter says, president obama's reelection campaign is going along just fine. the republicans will self- destruct at each subsequent debates and press conference.

let's see what robert gibbs had to say this weekend. he was making a visit to "face the nation" on cbs. >> the president is off and running on campaigning. i think 62 fund-raisers so far. somewhere down the line he might raise a record $1 billion. but mr. gibbs, the question i keep hearing from both democrats and republicans is, why does the president continued to hold himself above the battle as far as what is going on with his day job? being president. how can he sit there and let this super committee just fall on its face as it did? >> the super committee was the creation of congress for congress to do its job. they are the appropriators. but understand what barack obama did for the super committee. he laid out a plan that would have easily restructured a long- term fiscal picture and gotten the debt under control. he got members of his own party to support that and he rallied the country around his plan and

they supported it. that is what a president has to do. but the president cannot fix any of the problems that people have in this country. we are having a debate in congress right now about whether we're going to extend the payroll tax cut. 160 million americans are looking at a tax increase at the end of this year. >> we're leaving washington -- "washington journal" at this point as the u.s. house is about to gavel in. we had hoped to bring president obama's remarkstax cuts being u. we would like to show to live but we may have to show it to you shortly. there is no voting in the house today. and here is live coverage on c- span.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. loving god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. at the beginning of a new day and another week, help us to discover the power of resting in you and receiving assurance

and encouragement in your grace. send your spirit down upon the members of the people's house who have been entrusted by their fellow americans with the awesome privilege and responsibility as sustaining the great experience of democratic self-governance. may they be reminded always of who they are. may they be open to your inspiration that they might overcome the temptation to work through the issues of this day on their own strength and cleverness. grant them wisdom, insight and vision that the work they do will be for the betterment of our nation during a time of struggle for so many millions of americans. may they earn the trust and respect of those they represent whether or not they had earned their vote, and make history that expands the great legacy of so many who have served in this chamber before now, a

legacy of noble service, sometimes political risk but always great leadership. may all that is done this day 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 his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson. mr. wilson: everyone, including our guests in the gallery, please join in. 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 south carolina rise? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, last friday the u.s. bureau of labor statistics released its november jobs report citing the gruesome unemployment rate of 8.6%. this revelation marks the 34th straight month where the nation's unemployment rate has remained or above 8%. this is a tragedy for american families who do not have jobs or have given up looking for jobs. house republicans continue to remain focused on job creation, making the issue our number one priority. since january, the house has submitted numerous bills, many with bipartisan support to the senate in hopes of passage which will help put american families back to work. just last week, the house passed three more job -- commonsense bills make bringing the total number of job-creating bills awaiting action to the liberal senate to 25. i urge the senate majority leader to bring any of the house jobs bills up for a vote

and begin focusing on ways to promote job growth. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until appr

taxes on average would increase by $1,000. the president was expected to make this statement at 1:30 and he is running a little bit late.

>> we are expecting the president to put forward a message that says that taxes should not be increased on the middle-class, with a tax cut

extensions and we have been waiting for some time, we were given this.

>> good afternoon, everybody. mineable one priority is to do everything that i can to create jobs and provide more security for middle-class families and those trying to get in the middle class. and to make certain that 160

hard-working americans don't see increase in taxes. as soon as this year and, so do the tax cuts. if congress fails to remove this before then, they will see a tax hike of $100,000 per year. there are many people in the middle class who can afford to give up $1,000 right now. -- there are not many people and afford to give up $1,000 right now. the unemployment rate went down but the recovery is still fragile. the situation in europe has added to that uncertainty. most economists believe it is important to extend the payroll tax cut. those same economists would lower their growth estimates if this does not happen. not only is this important as a

whole, it is important for the individual families. it will help the families pay their bills, and it will spur spending, it will spur hiring, and this is the right thing to do. in my jobs bill i recommend extending the tax cuts and expanding them this was paid for by asking a little bit more from millionaires and billionaires. this could have extended the existing payroll tax cut but expanded them. last week, virtually every single republican voted against this. republicans have sworn the oath to never raise taxes, but why is it that the only time that there

is a catch is when it comes to raising taxes on middle-class families. how can you have the middle- class tax breaks for the most wealthy americans, but you cannot prevent taxes from going up from the americans who need the help. this does not make sense. the good news, the voices of the american people are starting to get through. john boehner said that this tax cut helps the economy because it allows working americans to keep more of their money. the republican leaders said that we should not raise taxes on american people going into next year. i hope the rest of their republican colleagues will work to put money back in the pockets of working americans. they have said that we have to pay for these tax cuts.

i have said that they have not always felt that way. they did not feel the need to pay for massive tax cuts from the most wealthy americans, which is one reason we face such large deficits. when republicans took over the house, they changed the rules to say that tax cuts don't have to be paid for. forgive me a little bit of confusion when i hear about the tax cuts being paid for. we all recognize we have to make progress on the deficit and i am willing to work with republicans in a responsible way. i am not willing to do this in a way -- i signed into law nearly $1 trillion in spending cuts, and more cuts in the pipeline.

and making additional deep cuts in areas like education and innovation, that are critical to the economy in order to pay for the payroll tax cuts. we will not do that or the budget agreement that we signed a few months ago. with millions of americans still looking for work, it would be a terrible mistake for congress to go home for the holidays without extending employment insurance. they'll be leaving 1.3 million american jobs and for a lot of families, this emergency insurance is the last line of defense between hardship and catastrophe. to take money out of the economy now would do extraordinary harm to the problem. and if you believe that, that we should not take money out of people's pockets, i hope that

members of congress know that this is even worse to take money from the people who are unemployed, and that we are going to -- this is an extraordinary time in this country and this economy. i get letters every single day from people that say that this unemployment insurance is what allows them to keep their house -- before they were able to find another job. this is what allows them to put gas in the tank to take their kids to school. we cannot play games with unemployment insurance when we still have the unemployment rate that is too high. i put forth a range of ideas for the unemployment system and i am happy to work with republicans on this issue. and i will make sure that this is extended again. this is not just a political

fight. independent economists who have worked for republicans agree that if we don't extend the payroll tax cut, and we don't extend unemployment insurance, we will hurt the economy. the economy will not grow as fast and we won't see hiring improved as quickly. this will harm business just at the time when the economy is trying to get some traction, and it will be a self-inflected wounds. keep your word to the american people and don't raise their taxes right now. now is not the time to slam on the brakes, this is the time to slam on the gas and grow the economy. now was the time to make a real

difference in the lives of the people who sent us here. thank you very much. what? >> this is cool, but what i was feeling -- this is in just a bowl. -- injestible. >> is there a deal? like a deal? you want to get to writing yoru our stories.

i will talk about the issues the president just discussed, and i also may say that on a separate matter, tomorrow we will have zero votes on the serving on the u.s. court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit. it is disappointing that the vote has been necessary, for someone as well-qualified. without the support of lawyers and law enforcement. after a nine-months of delay, we support the up or down vote. >> the president did not mention the new proposal, with almost everything and the payroll tax cut, do you support the plan? >> this has not been formally announced. i know that this has been reported on -- we are working

with our colleagues in the senate, as we did with the proposal of the original center. and this turned the support of more than 50% of the u.s. senate last week. we will work as the president has suggested with congress to find a solution to this, an important challenge of extending the payroll tax cuts. we will look to senators reid and casey to do that. >> where do you think you are in this process? do you think that you are in a place where you have the support of many republicans, but extending the payroll tax cuts, or are you still trying to get them to buy in? >> this is a great question to address to members of the senate and house. the president noted that we had some indication from the house

and senate -- and extending the payroll tax cut is important for job creation. to experience the tax hike in january would have a negative

chance. to talk about bestiality. [laughter] >> i am wondering, can you explain the u.s. ambassador to belgium and his comments about israel's policy? >> the fact is, as you know, we condemn anti-semitism in all of its forms in believe that there is never any justification for prejudice against the jewish people or israel. embassador goodman has expressed his regret, noting that he

strongly condemns anti-semitism in all of its forms. i would point out that this administration has continually stood up against efforts to demonize israel and we will continue to do so. our record stands for itself. whether it was one-sided efforts, speaking out in the arab world, were speaking out at the united nations. i think that the ambassador himself has addressed this. i would address you to his statements. our position is quite clear. our record is even clearer. >> could you -- >> of course, i have. >> does it represent the administration's point of view? >> the administration rejects anti-semitism in all of its forms. i think that the ambassador has spoken on this, put out a statement, and our position is

very clear. i would point you not just to a record of singling out israel or speaking out in the arab world, or opposing efforts in palestine to shortcut negotiations in the united nations, but also look at this administration's incredible commitment to the israeli security, testified to by the prime minister in israel. >> a lot of jewish groups were very upset by what the ambassador said. >> again, we have to look at our clear position on this, as well as our record. >> talking about what he said, let your record. >> we are talking about -- you are only asking me because he is an ambassador and works out of the state department for this administration. talking about their positions and policies.

>> is the ambassador off of the resident -- reservation a bit? >> he addressed his statement. let me be clear on our position. i quoted him, as he is quite right, in saying that this administration condemns anti- semitism in all of its forms. >> in terms of paying for the middle-class tax cut, republicans outlined a plan in which wealthier minorities were asked to sacrifice through means like social programs. is that not -- does that not meet the requirement of the wealthy paying their fair share? >> two points about that. one, that was a very small portion of the proposed means of paying for the payroll tax extension in the republican measure that went down quite the side of lee, with not even a majority of republican votes.

dad was a window dressing aspect of unbalanced cut with a force reopening of the budget control act and members of both parties making them just a few -- a few short months ago. it is exactly what people get frustrated about with regards to washington and leaders in washington saying that this is my position, i have signed on the side of line, and you do not want to change the rules on a sequestered or change, by late, or transgress the agreement on spending cuts, which, as i pointed out last week, the discretionary non-defense of spending cuts have already been agreed to by this president -- defensive spending cuts have already been agreed to by this president and in congress

regarding non-discretionary spending as a percentage of gdp. so, these are quite dramatic cuts. quite serious cuts. and the measure that you were talking about was a small part of what was being paid for. >> finally, but not enough? >> it does not pay for it. it is not enough to pay for payroll taxes. i do not want to negotiate the particulars of an endgame or get ahead of the senators in terms of their proposed compromise. for a new measure to extend their attacks cuts. but, while that measure does ask, in some small ways, the americans to pay their fair share, or at least a little bit more, it does not by itself come anywhere close to paying for this tax cut. >> speaker boater is expected to

put up his proposal later this week -- speaker boehner is expected to put up his proposal later this week. [unintelligible] >> i think that we can expect -- >> woah . >> goodness. i hope that your camera is ok. this administration, this white house will be working with leaders from both houses to get this done. there is not a lot of time to waste here. it is essential for the economy and out of fairness to working and middle-class americans to get this done. >> why not negotiate? >> we are working with congress. as you know from the summer, we do not announce every conversation board meeting that

the president has with his senior team members. it does not mean that we are not working this issue. we worked hard and this was how we got the votes that we got last week. i would remind you that what the president supported in the senate, the senate republican measure was put forward by republican leaders and it got 20 votes overall. so, we are pushing this. if it was not for the president's leadership, we might not be debating this. they might not even be taking up the issue a payroll tax extensions. it is not without our participation that our friends in the senate were moving forward with a new measure to extend the payroll tax cuts. >> are you in substantive conversations with republicans? >> i will not read out every meeting. >> we do have conversations with republicans on this matter, and

others. >> a quick question on the faa administrator that was arrested this weekend for d y. the president's reaction? >> the president was informed of this in the last hour, as was everyone in the white house and department of transportation were made aware in the last hour or so. he did not have a particular reaction. it was just a passing on of administration. it is my understanding that the administrator has requested a leave of absence from the faa. the deputy administrator will serve as the acting administrator. >> there is no reaction? >> it was in the run-up to this. he reacted as you might expect. i would refer you to the department of transportation. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> will president obama be

asking for his resignation? >> what we have at this point, in terms of a matter that just came to life within the last hour or so, we have the administrator requesting his own leave of absence. and for further disposition of this matter, i would refer you for now to the department of transportation. >> we have that missing military aircraft that crashed in iran. how badly damaged was the aircraft? >> for questions like that, and pretty much all questions on this matter, i would refer you to the department of defense. >> you are not going to give anything on this? >> it depends on the question that you ask. but i will not get into details about the aircraft or other issues involving the incident itself. >> the iranians say that they shot it down. do you deny that?

>> i would refer you to department of defense. >> why is the president channelling teddy roosevelt? >> because theodore roosevelt gave a historic speech in [unintelligible] kansas. one of those words that you have read, but are not sure that you can pronounced. it was 111 years ago, if i am correct in my calculations. the point that the president was making by speaking out in the same location -- speaking in the same location was that the president was talking about moving forward with the need for americans of all kinds to get a fair shot and a fair shake, that that was at issue today. the president's speech will encapsulate the debate that we have been having this year over our economic policy and over our economic future.

he thinks it is an opportune time and location to put this in perspective. the kind of debates that we have been having and the issues that are important to the building of economic future in his mind, it gives middle-class americans the kind of fair shake and fair shot that they deserve. >> who has not received a fair shake or a fair shot? >> it was abundantly clear, and it was clear prior to this most recent economic crisis, that the middle-class in this country has been squeezed for a long time. especially in the last decade prior to this president coming to office. an issue that has animated as president, even before he was sworn into office. really, it was the reason that he ran, as he articulated many times in 2008. it is the focus of his work here, in office, to do everything that he can through

congress and executive authorities to help the middle class. to help the middle class expand and help those who aspire to the middle class gain access to it. if you step back, look, but the speech will encapsulate and provide is context to the debates we have been having this year, and that we will continue to have. really, it goes to the specific issues we are talking about now. the absolutely -- the absolute necessity and fairness of working with in the middle class. you need to have the senate confirm richard cork dry as the consumer watchdog. republicans have made it clear that they do not oppose him personally, but it will try to block his nomination in order to prevent the consumer protection bureau from having all of its authorities to take actions to

protect consumers. we fought for that legislation precisely because consumers deserve protections that they did not have, as became so abundantly clear in the financial crisis that led to the worst recession since the great depression. >> this is an issue that has animated the president. he talked a lot about it recently. can you identify specific areas where the president has been able to act in the last few years to help? where has he succeeded? up >> what we know is that when we took office, we were on the press the purpose of economic calamity the likes of which -- which could have been even worse than the great depression. people were predicting -- sensible, outside, independent economists were predicting global economic collapse.

unemployment inside of 25%. perhaps a nationalization of the banks, etc., etc., decimation of the automobile industry and many other industries. a result of 25% unemployment would have been -- you know that you are enjoying this, jane. [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> i am not hurt, but i will not stop. let me just finish my thought here. everything that this president has done on the economic front has been focused on giving middle-class americans the economic security that they have lacked for a substantial period of time now, and which has been even more so work -- sorely in need because of this recession. >> recite some of the great things the president has done. [laughter]

>> i was just getting started. >> [inaudible] >> acorn is on how many jobs we lost in january, -- a quiz on how many jobs we lost in january, 2009? anyone? >> [inaudible] >> how much gdp contraction? >> 8.9%. >> 8.9%. [laughter] bloomberg. i think at [unintelligible] -- [unintelligible] i think that [unintelligible] is getting a phone call, del implying the recession that loop -- downplaying the recession that bloomberg. >> at going back to the super committee, they have to work this out. and needing to get into the nitty gritty.

how is the president beating up on republicans for five minutes? how does that help you get a deal? >> the president has made clear what he thinks is essential and what the red lines are in terms of the kinds of compromises that would be acceptable and the kinds of wood not. the fact is, it is not necessarily happy fact, but it is a true fact, simply by putting forward his ideas with his name on those ideas and saying to members of congress that he would like to negotiate, they will not necessarily compromise and respond. >> they had not even seen this yet. they had not had a chance to react to it. >> the president was not

reacting to a compromise that had not been proposed yet -- >> knowing the details -- >> he is also reacting to the votes that we just had on this issue, which demonstrated a profound reluctance by republicans in the senate to extend tax cuts for middle-class americans. because of that, because of a refusal to accept the majority vote of the senate, including republican senators, letting that measure moving on to -- one to the house and pass, the obstructionism here is real. what he is hoping, through his articulation and views on this issue, and most importantly his articulation on the voices of the american people, republicans will move. congress will act and get this done, because it is the right thing to do.

>> what about saying that republicans have warned the democrats on the hill and if the president attacks them, this will blow up. how do you justify that? >> there was a strategic notion behind this super committee, it was made clear by the republicans that anything with the president's name on it would become toxic to potential republicans making compromise. >> what about the super committee? >> they are a different beast from the payroll tax cut extension. republicans are always for tax cuts, if there was ever a truism, that is it.

republicans seem so grudging in their support, to the extent that there is support, in giving tax cuts to middle class, working class americans. to 160 million americans. their refusal, in unison, except for one republican, to back the payroll tax extension was because they did not want to ask 300,000 millionaires to pay a little extra. i do not think that there is anything more clarifying been that vote. -- than that vote. the president came out today to make his views on that clear. he looks forward to working with republicans in the house, the senate, and democrats to get it done in a way that is economically responsible, this approach. >> if the president does better in these negotiations, he is not in the room. once he gets in the room with

these guys, they start changing the rules of the game and start dealing with internal dissension in their own ranks. is there an advantage to the president remaining outside of these direct negotiations? >> there is no global doctrine, if you will, about how to propose that -- how to approach these things. the president has been intimately a gate -- engage with congress on deficit reduction and economic growth measures. health care reform or others. this summer he was very directly involved on a day-to-day basis. in the super committee process,

the president took an approach of a positive outcome by putting his views on paper and in detail to the public and the committee in this process. but stepping back and letting the congressional process take its course. >> in terms of the direct engagement, how will this compared to the -- direct negotiations? >> it will be different, as all of these issues are different. it is also a different animal, as you will, as payroll tax cuts are relatively modest proposals compared to a broad reduction packages. the president will be engaged, working with congress to get this done. as the president made clear, we cannot afford to let that clock

and go to zero. the american people cannot afford to have their taxes go up $1,000 on average on january 1. >> you were targeting yesterday in a conference call, seven red states, deep red states, with local news anchors and such. is the president calling people like [unintelligible] directly, rather than using this indirect approach? >> you are presuming in your question that we read out every communication and i assure you, we do not. this is a multipronged effort, if you will. there are many fronts on which to fight for middle-class tax cuts, and we will continue to do so. answering questions about this, i will say that i have no comments for you, as in this case.

>> regarding going to europe, is there any new message that the president is carrying to europe to work with allies abroad? second, can you tell us what they will be doing and what it will be adding to the staff -- what they will be doing and who they will be adding to the staff? >> the president asked timothy geithner travel to europe to meet with his counterparts. this is, rather, part of our continued engagement with europe. an important moment for them and of great significance to us. we have shared ideas and observations that would be useful based on their experiences. this is the continuation of a process that we have been engaged in for many weeks and months. particularly secretary died near -- secretary timothy geithner are, and other members of his team.

the white house staff and communications staff, there are big shoes to fill -- rather, small shoes to fill. but that position has been vacant. and it is a valuable and important position that needs to be filled. we are looking forward to her rival. yes? >> i am wondering if you can give us your take on the announcement of that proposal? >> it is not quite far enough. >> broadly, we support, you would not be surprised, the efforts of senators reid and casey to get this done, to get this payroll tax cut extension done. and to have it paid for in a way that is responsible and fair. it is always worth remembering

that the sudden, heartfelt concern the issue here amongst republicans left in the tax breaks of middle-class americans needing it to be paid for is a little out of sync with the position they have taken on tax cuts for these many years now. in particular, with regard to the -- to this republican leadership, they have institutionalize the the idea that tax cuts do not have to be paid for. -- institutionalized the idea that tax cuts do not have to be paid for. the president proposed the payroll tax cut extension extension and supported the senate democratic version, the original, which paid for it in an economically sensible fair way. this is why we support the latest proposal. >> given what you just said, the president made the point that

the republican assembly, as i said earlier, they felt no need to pay for this when they did not have to pay for other past tax cut. he also said that he was willing to find a responsible way to offer a cut to the cost. given the difference on the house have right now and the history they you reported, is it your preference to just go ahead? >> i think that the president's preference has been very clear about wanting to pay for that. i would ask you to think about your question, when you said that the difference was in paying for it. republicans got almost no support in their proposal, and that was from their own members. i do not know what that congress inferred, but i know that it indicates that the issue is not so much about a force, but it is about whether or not we will let this go to zero. whether or not there is any real profound support amongst

republicans in the senate and house for extending tax cuts for middle-class americans. the votes that we saw last week suggest that that feeling is not there, which is a shame. >> given that there is not sufficient support for the democratic preferred take, would a good second choice be to allow to pass out? >> the fact is that senators reid and casey have put forward a new proposal which have different, modified pay for this. we remain hopeful that republicans in the senate, eventually in the house, will hear the voices of the american people, who are making it quite clear, they need this tax relief. the economy's this tax relief. independent economists have made

it clear that not extending the payroll tax cut would have a negative impact on job creation. and that extending it would have a positive impact. that we would be able to continue these -- this growth in job creation that we have seen, expanding it, exactly what this economy needs. >> in the past, you have not been that excited about the pump ed up clock. >> let me be clear, the issue that we had with the debt ceiling countdown clock was that it could have a negative impact in raising the specter, which we hoped would never be raised, of the united states defaulting on its obligations, which would have the impact of causing global economic chaos, if it were to come to pass. this is quite different. this is about whether 160 million americans are going to

have their taxes go up on january 1 because congress refuses to act. in this case, said and house republicans refused to act. >> i know that you said you would not read into the conversation, but did the president speak to the congressional leaders over the weekend? >> i have no conversations to read to you, roger. >> [inaudible] >> what this president has made clear in his proposed message is that we need to do this over time so it is economically responsible. that was implied in his part -- embodied in his proposal on the american jobs act, as well as the senate democrats' proposal. going to the point that the president made from here, just moments ago, we should not pay for it in a way that does harm to the economy. that is very important and one of the principles that he brings to these discussions. >> does that mean five years?

>> what is important is that we do not do it in a way that actually does harm to the economy or the very people that would be helped by middle-class tax cut. we also, and i think the president made this clear, we are not going to reopen the budget control act when it has already brought us down to spending levels that are lower when it comes to non-defense discretionary spending since dwight eisenhower was president. >> thank you, jake. >> yes. >> the canadian prime minister will be in town. is it correct that there will be a signing of a new border security agreement? >> i was asked this the other day and i do not have anything new on it in terms of what, specifically, the two leaders will talk about or the acts that

they might perform. >> that there might be more than just a meeting about a good partnership? >> we will see. i have nothing new today. >> can you tell us what the meeting was all about this morning with a college president? >> i do not have any detailed information. this president is profoundly concerned with education, among other issues. he is also very concerned over the cost of higher education. i had to miss that meeting and do not have a readout for you. but i am sure that we will have one for you later today. chris? >> what we ask you about earlier [unintelligible] employment nondiscrimination act [unintelligible] giving an executive order [unintelligible] gender identity.

what is stopping the president from issuing an executive order? >> i do not have anything new for you on that. sorry, i probably do not have an answer that will move that story along for you. if you want to ask me, i can look into it for you. thanks. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> as this briefing wraps up, you saw the president urging republicans to join with democrats on extending tax cuts for middle-class americans. if you missed the president, you can see his statement of mine. go to c-span.org. faa administrator randy babbit is under review following his

arrest over the weekend for drunken driving. "he has requested, effective immediately, to take a leave of absence from the faa. the request has been granted. officials are in discussions with legal counsel about his employment status. the u.s. house is in recess right now, before getting legislative work under way at about 3:30 eastern. eight energy bills are on the agenda for today. no votes are expected. live coverage, coming up on c- span. >> tonight, on "communicators," a look at federal spectrum policy. we will have a discussion on the choices facing broadcasters, congress, the president, and the fcc. tonight, on c-span to at 8:00

p.m. eastern. >> it is so convenient to listen to c-span anytime, anywhere, with that the free c-span radio app. you can listen to our interview programs as well, including "newsmakers," and "afterwards." c-span, available wherever you are. find out more online. a discussion, now, on the cost of operating the federal employee health benefit program from today's "washington journal." host: today's segment, we are looking at the cost of operating the health care program for those that work for the federal government. it our guest is the author of the checkbook guide to help federal employees. thank you for being here.

first of all, who does this cover? who are we talking about? guest: civil to federal employees -- civil and federal employees and retirees and dependents, a total of 8 million people. the largest health insurance employer in america. blue cross, at nab, hmo's like pfizer and so on. federal employees, and in most cities, they have roughly 24 or 25 plans to choose from. but they are using more and more

high deductible plans. host: we have a line set up for federal and fleas and you can talk to us about your experience. but you are a republican, you can join us on -- again, the number for federal employees -- and what is the range? cundiff federline please choose which health benefits will work for them? guest: one of the ways i help them choose is that we rate all the plans for cost. people approach it from different ways. some people say they want the plan their doctor is in.

if you get an hmo, other people want to manage their own, go out of network, etc., so a lot is driven by personal preference. i think the main motive is money. the plans differ in their opinions. it turns out you can save a lot of money if you go to a plan with a lower costs. right now, we are near the end of the federal open season, for one month every ball were you get to pick a plan for next year. no exclusions, just joined the plan that works for you for next year. a lot of choice, a lot of options, and a lot of flexibility to vote with their feet. they get to pick their own plan. host: alter the checkbook guide

for federal employees. let's take a look at this, a multi-plant competitive system resulting from pressures brought to bear by the existing union and employee association. tell us about this. guest: one of the few ways the private companies could increase employee wages or benefits was through health insurance, a salary freeze. the federal government did not bother to get around to it. federal employees during the '50s really had to go with private plans on the wrong. mainlyos's were created for federal employees. there were a lot of union plans, still some around today. the national association of letter carriers plan. mail handlers, and so on. 1959, they finally got around to saying maybe they should do it the way that the private

companies do and the politics of the moment whereas such that there was a grandfathering rules were you do not do harm by taking away something you already have, so all the existing plans wanted to stay in their members wanted to stay. the program did not do what most of the private sector was doing which was to set up with one single plan. that is how it happened. host: mary from alexandria, va., and a federal employee. good morning. caller: 58 question in reference to what goes into capping the actual allocation is that federal employees have to pay. as you know, we have to pay this time. the amount that federal employees have to pay this time increase. typically what happens is that federal employees in the

washington, d.c., metro area, and other federal employees, the allocation that everyone has to pay in is rising, so who exactly determines how much and in federal lump the we have to pay in? before i entered the federal government, i worked in the private sector, and it seemed as though i paid far less to receive the same benefits. guest: the answer is no one besides except for the employees themselves. the federal contribution toward your premium is based on the average of all of the plans waited and it is a complicated formula. it pays on average 73% of the premium cost which is the same percentage of the average from the private sector as a whole. obviously, she would be receiving a better plan than average, but the neat thing here is while there is a federal

paper is going on -- a federal pay freeze going on, there is money laying on the table because people can switch from the plan they are in an age of local family can save $1,500, giving yourself a pay increase. there are lot of options. host: do think that means a decrease in services? how does it openly affect them? guest: not necessarily. some plans attracted disproportionate number of other people. beyond that, hmo's are better at controlling costs than pbs plans so they are better. -- than ppo plans. they offer great bargains for people with a health savings account and very good benefits. host: from georgia of of our

independent line. caller: i would like to throw out a couple of corrections. we were only given two choices, one of which was blue cross blue shield with hat huge out of pocket premium costs almost $700 not including any deductibles, copiague, medication, anything else on top of it. -- co-pay's. i am a retired federal employe and i pay $700 for a monthly premium cost that does not begin to cover things. guest: she is not in a regular federal retiree program is all i can say. everyone is offered the choice the matter where in the country they live. that is always the case. but she did not say up it was

for herself or family, but even for family coverage, it is not $700 per month and it does cover madison. you need to go check and it talk to them about your situation, and maybe something was filed wrong. that is not a typical experience. with waltertalking and friend says, author of the checkbook guide to help federal employees. you can find their website at theguidetohealthplans.org. fors look at the options federal employees. in late 2012 -- guest: over 200 plans. most of them are local.

any of them typically have two dozen choices. they always include a couple of hmo's, high deductible plan, three, four, five, consumer driven, and it typically 15-18 fee-for-service/ppo plan. they will have the ones that led to go out of network for fee- for-service. host: is it more expensive for the taxpayers to have such a range of options? does it matter at the end of the day before the bottom line? guest: actually it is cheaper. because it is competitive and it is not one size fits all, the plans compete for business. if one makes a better benefit,

lower-cost, better service, one of those three methods of competing is to keep those costs down, so the program outperforms the private sector experience on average by a fair margin. over the last three or four years, it has outperformed medicare and the cost control. the government controlled, government run it, price controlling health plan used to be the case that everyone had to be in one plant, but now with medicare advantage plans, medicare retirees can get a big plan choice, too. host: its delegate -- a federal and 40 from washington, d.c. caller: i want to ask for some advice. it looks like blue cross blue shield is changing their policy with regards to prescription drugs. i have been using the preferred provider system which means i go to a giant pharmacy.

i have been getting mailings about how they have now chosen a new provider system. i'm was wondering if you could give me any advice. guest: they go out and get bids on pharmacy benefit management companies and try to get a better deal for the enrollees. that is the way the system works. typically it would cover lots of local pharmacies, wal-mart, cvs, and so on. i happen to actually check. if they are dropping them, that may be a reason for you to change. the to be maintaining the same benefit to have now, which is quite generous. for generics, you pay almost nothing. host: if you are a federal employee and would like to join the conversation, the number for you to call --

republican from englewood, florida. caller: i do not want to talk about health care. i want to talk about the congress who was supposed to take care of the law abiding citizens of this country. just a minute. host: can give is a question that relates to the subject matter? caller: it you would listen. i want every federal employee to do with the have asked everyone else to do, take a 10% cut for the next two years and it will take a big dent out of the federal budget. then we cannot except in go forward with a 10% cut. host: we're talking about health care benefits. what can happen to federal employees in a sense of real cuts in the benefits that they get as a wet -- as a way of

saving costs? guest: since the cost of living has not going up, it will go up a couple percent next year, it is like a 3% salary cut that will happen. host: there are other ways they could tight nor constrict the benefits plan. guest: they could lower the contributions are the premiums. the years to pay 60% of the average premium and did some complicated savings, but it wound up being 73% on average. but they made a decision to lower rates to 65% or whatever. that was a trade-off between cutting health benefits and cutting salaries. there have been proposals to cut federal employee benefits.

the simpson-bowles commission recommended it. host: next caller. good morning. caller: i think everything was working great but for the private sector unemployment went so bad. now that the revenue is gone, we are having to pay into our own benefits, which we have never had to do. i think it 7000 regulations got erased, that the administration had put in, then the private workers could go back to work and the revenue would be there. we would not have this problem. guest: she is referring to the overall budgetary problem and the economy.

i do not think there are a whole lot of people that disagree, but there could be some rather substantial reforms in federal regulations. in fairness, the administration has, in fact, proposed a number of regulatory reforms to save money, but that will all have to play out over the next year or two as the congress and the president's all struggled with choices. host: from st. louis on the independent line. welcome. go right ahead. caller: i am a retired federal employee and i have an hmo united healthcare midwest. the monthly premium jumped almost $100 to $433 in 2012. c0-pay, this isp 10% of my gross income. should that not have some sort

of limit that is put forth to prevent people from paying an exorbitant amount? that is my question. guest: i am sorry the face that premium increase. it has to cover the cost for all of the people in it. that particular hmo, obviously, is on hard times, and has to raise the premium to cover their costs. the beauty of this system is that you control your costs next year. if that plan has gone up too high, find another. there are plenty of low-cost choices if your premium goes up $100 per month. you have two weeks left in the federal open season. you need to spend the next 10 days figuring out a better deal. it is not just that you do not need to have an increase, but you could archly get a decrease. host: let's look at some of the

numbers of. $43 billion in health-care benefits, covers 8 million federal employees, retirees, and a dependence. that is from the office of personnel management. guest: those are correct numbers. it is a huge program. you take into account the copayment that people pay, it is $50 billion per year program. they do a good job in day to day and your to your management. the reason prescription drug costs are so high is because most retirees are enrolled in medicare as a primary. then they have been left to pay

some they have a higher percentage. host: illinois, joanne on our democratic line. caller: i am a federal employee, a postal employee, retired on disability and my health insurance premiums have jumped greatly, i am paying $580 for this past year and i am with an aetna hmo. it will go from $580 up to $890. that is more than half of my monthly income. for the plans that they offer the postal employees that are in my area, we only have four major mel's and they are all very high out of my reach. then i look at the other fee- for-service programs and they are all ppo's. the monthly premium may be low, but when you go in to pay for

certain items, like having a test done, going to the hospital, something like that, they take a big chunk out of you. you have to pay 10%. some of these of the total cost, which could be thousands of dollars. they do not have anything really for us to choose from to offset these costs. they are just too high. now i have to go find another plan, and so far with only a few days left, i have not been able to find anything. they do not give the postal retiree employees at a good choice. guest: she has the same open season traces of all federal retirees, so roughly two dozen plans to choose from. at the hmo's in her area are too pricey, she can find a plan with essentially the same benefits, and i can give you an example in

a second, with lower premiums. let me suggest in her particular case, look at blue cross basic. in appo and keeps you network, and you are used to that, with the same kind of co- payment structure and you will pay $10 or whenever for prescription drugs. you will pay $30 for a doctor visit. it has a very good catastrophic protection benefit. it is an excellent example of the kind of choice that you have. host: she mentioned that she was postal service. the how to limit the plot of this program. why? guest: that is complicated. the postal service has a couple of big problems. they were set up to run in a way but the congress did not get enough authority. they cannot close a rural post

office with that out -- without an act of congress which is a ridiculous restriction. they are suffering partially due to the growth of the internet, the people testing and email in. they have an aging work force. they have their eye on $30 billion that they would have to pay in under current law to cover the costs of their future retirees and $30 billion that has already been paid in for their current retirees. the only way they can get the really big taxpayer subsidy that they are wanting for is to pullout. it is a money-driven issue and they claim they can run the program more inexpensively, but that is simply not true. with an aging work force, they are more expensive than their benefiting from being in the same pool. host: if they pullout, what are

the implications for the rest of the program? guest: not good. that is 8 million people and it gives a fair amount of leverage, for example, in enticing hmo's to produce a pay. if you are in a small city in the postal workers are a big group, you will think twice about staying in the program. both the postal workers and the other group can join the hmo. it can be hugely disruptive. a lot of the plans in the program are postal worker union plans that anyone can join. all kinds of people will see destruction, and the irony is the one to maintain current benefits and they will have to go up at least 10% as the age and a structure of their work force changes. host: federal employee joining us from illinois.

caller: is simple question. i have been on disabled pension for about 12 years now from the postal service. i have blue cross blue shield. my question is why they only offered two plans. my wife and i do not have any children any more. why did they not offer a plan for couples only. guest: great question. we get asked this all the time. what is the loss of the do not allow for that option? it is common for them to do that, self only or family of any size. the reality is because you are older, and more expensive, typically people in their 50's they can cost twice as much and kids are cheap to cover. it turns out that if there was a

premium just for people that had no kids, it would be higher on average than the current family premium. sorry it is not available, but you're lucky you do not have it. host: walton and francis. let's hear it from republican calling us from connecticut. hello, linda. caller: i'm a single retired teacher and i get my health insurance through the school system, sig and up. it costs me $630 per month which seems exorbitant to me. one of the things is i'm thinking of moving out of state, but i have to keep this health insurance. i was just wondering if there's any recourse to lower the cost and i will hang up to listen. guest: this is a wonderful example of why the program is good. if you're paying $600 a month,

you are paying a lot. they are not subsidizing your premium at all, but they only offer one or two plans that are comparatively stock, and you are stuck. if you're a federal retiree, you would have that these two dozen choices and you could pick the one to keep your premium costs down. i have no particular suggestions to offer you, though i should say when you turn 65 and join medicare, you'll find some very inexpensive choice is, medicare advantage plans and there are beeper service, and they are often not higher than the medicare part d. host: here is a bit of news coming to us, channel 11 news at noon from the ap. unprecedented cuts by the track -- cash trap the u.s. postal

service and they will eliminate the chance for letters to arrive the next day. they are affected at what is going on in the federal level. here is an email that came in. guest: it is not the size of the purchasing pool. a lot of them only have a few thousand people enrolled. what drives the cost down in the program or the purchasing decisions made by the employees as they move into the plan and

the offer better bargains. host: the competition. guest: exactly. it works and it keeps costs down. host: the second part is saying that there taxpayer subsidized and that it should be downscaled or the government should operate to everyone. guest: there are choices that has to be made as to the federal government's compensation policies. it includes wages, benefits like health insurance. there are deductions being made, just not in the spread ran at this time. the question of a model for everyone, it has been proposed many times. there have been bills introduced to let all the uninsured it joined in and even more modest departures for the current system. over the years, and mention the medicare advantage program which was designed after it.

the exchanges that will be set up are also modeled in large part after these. this is a proven success. host: so the last item that you mentioned, the health care law, if you have an insurance exchange market place, the customer would have an ability to pick and choose like making a broader marketplace, creating an incentive to lure clients over. guest: massachusetts already has an exchange, not exactly the same of what is in the health reform law, but they have two or three plan options, and the next state has 59 and 20 plans to choose from with open season is like federal employees do. they can go to the plans that offer a better deal. host: on the democratic line

from taxes. caller: newt gingrich was on your program and he gets his healthcare still from the federal government. why is that? if he got fired or quit in the private sector, he would not get it. why do they get it? after five years, these guys are vested in they can collect their health care after they leave office. why is that? guest: great question. the members of congress and their staff are using the same health insurance program as the rest of all federal employees, pretty much the same terms and conditions. they pay the same premiums, 73%. i've no personal knowledge of newt gingrich's health coverage, but under a law he was able to retire and keep as health

insurance into retirement. the interesting twist and health reform, one of the provisions in there is that starting 2014, members of congress will have to join the exchanges just like the uninsured. for now, they're in the same planet, the same pool, and they suffer or benefit from the same truces as everyone else. host: a federal employee from memphis. caller: i worked at the v.a. medical center in memphis and i make $38,000 per year. people always talk about government employees and what they make. the u.s. would shut down. i think medicare for all. they take it out of our check anyway and it gives a lot of money to medicare. thank you. guest: that is an option.

what they are proposing is to require all postal retirees to go on medicare. they cannot let medicare and it becomes the primary care and they then pay their insurance premium with a wraparound policy in most plans. there are improvements that can be made in the way it is designed as it relates to medicare, but medicaid for all is a different issue. i do not think very many people -- >> you can watch this and any c- span program on mine c-span.org. the house is about to gavel in. eight land and energy bills are on the agenda for today. no votes are scheduled. scal year 2012. in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on

which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are order. record votes on postpone questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 944. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 109, h.r. 944, a bill to eliminate an unused lighthouse reservation, provide management consistency by incorporating the rocks and small islands along the coast of orange county, california, into the california coastal national monument managed by the bureau of land management, and meet the original congressional intent of preserving orange county's rocks and small islands, and for other purposes . the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from new mexico, mr. lujan, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material 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: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, h.r. 944, introduced by our colleague from california, mr. campbell, will eliminate an unused lighthouse reservation. the bill would add them to the california coastal national monument. the lighthouse reservation has been in place since 1935 to provide locations for searchlights and other defense equipment at that time. the bill will provide for consistent management of geological features along the coast of orange county, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. hew has: -- mr. lujan: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lujan: two acts from the 1930's are preventing certain rocks, reefs, small islands and lighthouses off the coast of orange county from being included in the california

coastal national monument. president clinton in 2000 created the california coastal monument which spanned the 1,100 miles of coast along california and encompasses more than 20,000 small islands, rocks, exposed reefs and pinnacles. however, the act designating the monument included only unreserved and inappropriated rocks and islands. and under the 1930's act these natural and cultural sites were reserved. h.r. 944 would strike the reservation language in one act and repeal another act to provide that these areas finally be permanently protected as part of the california coastal national moon umet. -- monument. we support passage of h.r. 944, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i yeemed to the author of the legislation -- i yield to the author of the legislation, the gentleman from california, mr. campbell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. campbell: i thank the gentleman from washington for

yielding. the fact that it's supported by both the gentlemen speaking before me, and this bill passed the floor of this house by a vote of 394-4 last congress. it simply -- they ran out of time in the senate. otherwise i think it would be law today. so i appreciate everyone's indulgence with passing this bill off this floor again today, i hope. it's been mentioned this was from 1935. these rocks and small islands originally thought we might put light houses there and then they thought we might use them to defend the california coast against japanese submarines during world war ii. neither of those purposes is of much value any more, and so that's why if we put this in the california coastal monument we'll be able to preserve these rocks and island and the sea life around them and they'll become part of our environmental heritage going forward. and with that i thank everyone for their assistance, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new mexico.

mr. lujan: mr. speaker, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i have no other speakers on this and if the gentleman wants to yield back i'll yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lujan: i yield back my time. mr. hastings: yield back my time and urge adoption of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 944. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 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. lujan: mr. 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 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass s. 535. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 535, an act to authorize the secretary of the interior to lease certain lands within fort pulaski national monument, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from new mexico, mr. lujan, each will control 20 minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material 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: mr. speaker, s. 535 allows the savannah bar pilots association to continue leasing the facility at fort pulaski as they have done since the 1940's. congressman jack kingston from georgia is the author of the house version of this bill. the committee on natural resources in september heard in september. the national park service testified and supported and we believe this is one piece of legislation that will not cost the taxpayers a dime. so i urge my colleagues to support the legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new mexico. mr. lujan: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lujan: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lujan: fort pulaski was completed in 1912.

the savannah bar pilots was part in 1944. it appears that congress is a little late in formalizing this. they protect the people and the cargo entering the port of savannah. this has been a good use of part of the fort and should continue. we support passage of senate bill 535, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i have no further requests for time and i'll yield back if the gentleman yields back. mr. lujan: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house passes senate 535. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- the gentleman from new mexico. mr. lujan: mr. 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.

the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2360. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 204, h.r. 2360, a bill to amend the outer continental shelf lands act to extend the constitution, laws, and jurisdiction of the united states to installations and devices attached to the seabed of the outer continental shelf for the production and support of production of to amend the outer continental shelf lands act to extend the constitution, laws, and jurisdiction of the united states to installations and devices attached to the seabed of the outer continental shelf for the production and support of production of -- energy from sources other than oil and gas, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from new mexico, mr. lujan, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. and to include extraneous material on the billed 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: thank you, mr.

speaker. mr. speaker, i appreciate the opportunity to bring to the floor the providing for our work force and energy resources, or power, act introduced by our colleague from louisiana, mr. landry. the house natural resources committee is dedicated to creating domestic american jobs and protecting the safety of our workers. when we pass legislation that encourages safe and efficient energy development on federal lands, not only are we increasing domestic energy production but we're also generating the millions of jobs and support those in the industry. and i say, i mean all energy jobs. republicans in congress are committed to an all-of-the-above energy strategy. we promote wind, solar, hydro, and other energy. this will benefit families and businesses across our country in the form of lower energy costs and greater job growth. to help foster this private sector job growth, eliminating regulatory uncertainty can really clear the way to spur investment, protect american workers and spur job creation.

the bill under consideration does just that. the power act clarifies the outer continental shelf lands act to ensure the full and fair application of our nation's laws to all offshore energy development. including renewable energy, rather than waiting for various rulings and interpretations by federal agencies. this simple, commonsense bill will provide greater certainty to those looking to invest and develop renewable energy projects and the infrastructure to support those projects off our shores. i want everyone to be clear that this is not a major change in law. it is merely a technical clarification to ensure that federal agencies have the important guidance they need to ensure our nation's laws are applied in the manner in which they were intended. although not a major change, it's an important one, and mr. landry should get credit for putting this bill forward. american companies are on the verge of developing renewable energy on our outer continental

shelf, and they need the certainty that our laws will be applied fairly to their activities. developing our nation's energy resources benefits our economy, our people and our national security. i believe this bill helps provide the certain they need to move america down the path and applaud mr. landry for his work and i urge my colleagues to support the bill and i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new mexico. mr. lujan: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lujan: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lujan: h.r. 2360 would clarify that u.s. vessels must be used for transportation of merchandise, supplies, construction materials, maintenance materials between the u.s. mainland and offshore wind farms. the american wind energy association has indicated that their member companies already operate in conformance with the jones act, requirements for offshore wind farms. the offshore wind development coalition testified that wind developers already accept the applicability of the jones act for offshore wind farms.

the department of the interior has testified that the relevant statutes already apply. in addition, the interior department has already testified that h.r. 2360 would not expand current law but it would simply clarify that the outer continental shelf lands act applies to wind energy offshore to the extent there is any uncertainty. comments on this bill from u.s. customs and border department interpretation that h.r. 2360 would simply clarify that the jones act applies to offshore wind farms. the customs and border protection comments also reaffirm the interpretation that h.r. 2360 would not expand current law to can you ever vessels responsible for laying transmission lines or others in the construction process beyond what the law already implies. we share the interpretations of h.r. 2360 and of the underlying statutes. however, to the extent there may be uncertainty aided, we

have no problem with the legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i am very pleased to yield three minutes to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from louisiana, mr. landry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. landry: thank you, mr. speaker. when i talk to business owners around the country, two things i hear prevents them from putting americans back to work and that is regulatory uncertainty and inequity in government regulations. both the industry and the administration have confirmed the existence of ambiguity in the outer continental shelf. this is creating uncertainty and inequity, affecting job creation. the bill corrects the problems and strengthens our renewable energy industry by giving our stakeholders the information needed to make the right business decisions and investments. it levels the playing field for all industries operating on the outer continental shelf. we agree that the -- to effectively rid ourselves you have foreign oil we should support domestic energy.

both sides of the aisle don't often agree on ways to strengthen our energy independence and ways to create jobs. however, this bill affords us the opportunity to do just that. i'm proud to have bipartisan support for this bill and want to thank both the distinguished chairman from the state of washington, mr. hastings, and the distinguish gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, who helped us on this bill and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new mexico. mr. lujan: mr. chairman, we have no other speakers. we'll continue to -- mr. hastings: i have no other speakers. if the gentleman will yield back we will. mr. lujan: i yield back the balance of my time. mr. hastings: i yield back my time and urge adoption of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2360. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 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. lujan: i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present.

the speaker pro tempore: further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. hastings: i move to suspend 9 rules and pass h.r. 2351 the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 305, a bill to direct the secretary of the interior to continue stocking fish in certain lakes in the north cascades national park and national recreation area. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings and the gentleman from new mexico, mr. lujan, each will control 20 minutes. mr. hastings: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: i'm the author of h.r. 2351 north cascades national park fish stocking act. this bill has enjoyed broad bipartisan support for some

time. it passed the house under suspension of the rules in the last congress and was favorly reported from the senate energy and natural resources committee by a voice vote. h.r. 2351 is necessary to ensure the national parks service in coordination with the state of washington, has the authority to continue stocking fish in certain alpine lakes in the north cascades national parks complex. this complex includes the north cascades national park, ross lake national recreation area. and in 2008, the park service prepared an environmental impact statement regarding the management of the fisheries in these mountain lakes. the preferred alternative was to alou continued fish stocking in 42 of those lakes. the park service requested explicit authority to allow fish stocking to continue within the park complex. and this is exactly what h.r.

2351 does. many tourists visiting the park for its scenic beauty and fishing opportunities making fish stock an important component of the central washington economy. i urge support of this legislation, mr. speaker, and i reserve the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new mexico. mr. lujan: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lujan: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i recognize the chairman as well on his work on this legislation and the introduction of nonnative species into the national park should be prohibited, but in this instance, however, the national park service has found that fish stocking can continue without harm to other national park resources. importantly, the legislation continues significant protections for those resources. we worked closely with chairman hastings to secure house passage of this legislation and are please todd do so again today. the chairman is to be commended

on his efforts on the north cascades complex and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i i have no further requests for further speakers. mr. lujan: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i irge my colleagues to support this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the question will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2351. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. , in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 -- the gentleman from new mexico. mr. lujan: i i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. hastings: i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1560. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 144, h.r. 1560 a bill to amend the ysleta del sur pueblo and alabama and coushatta indian

tribes to allow the ysleta del sur pueblo tribe to determine blood quantum membership into that tribe. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, the gentleman from new mexico, mr. lieu haunch will control 20 minutes. mr. hastings: i ask that all members have five legislative days to include extraneous materials. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the ysleta del sur pueblo was originally based in new mexico and then relocated after the 1680 pueblo revolt to its present location in texas. in 1967 congress enacted public law 90-287 terminating the federal trust relationship with the tribe and placing the tribe under the jurisdiction of the state of texas. in 1987, the federal trust relationship was restored by public law 100-89. the restoration act limits the

tribe's membership to individuals list odd a certain tripal membership role and to descendants of each individual as long as they have a minimum of s/8 degree of ysleta del sur pueblo blood. in recent years they have tried to eliminate this which is consistent with the modern policy of allowing recognized tribes to set their own membership when they enroll indian people. h.r. 1560, permits the tribe to enroll members. similar versions of this bill have been passed by the house in the last two congresses. the committee has not heard any objection to passing this bill again. i think it's a good idea to treat the tribe consistently with how congress treats other federally recognized tribes. with that, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new mexico. mr. lujan: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

mr. lujan: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in support of h.r. 1560 a bill that removes the blood quantum threshold requirement for membership in the ysleta del sur pueblo tribe. the tribe in the state of texas have had similar conditions. h.r. 1560 corrects this inequity. by modifying the enrollment requirements the tribe will be able to preserve the unique character based on history, customs and language. this bill will ensure their survival as the oldest community in texas and only pueblo still in existence in the state. h.r. 1560 passed the house under both republican and democratic leadership in the 106th congress and in previous two congresses. i ask my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation of this very important legislation at this time and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i i reserve.

mr. lujan: i yield such time as the gentleman may consume to the gentleman from texas, mr. reyes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rahall: i thank my good friend -- mr. reyes: i thank my good friend from new mexico and chairman hastings and ranking member rahall in getting this legislation to the floor. i thank the gentleman from new mexico for handling the bill on the democratic side, mr. lujan and i want to rise in support of h.r. 1560 the ysleta del sur pueblo. this bill is crucial to the members of the ysleta del sur pueblo tribe which is located in el paso, my district, the 16th district of texas. this will grant them the right to determine their own membership. it seeks to correct unjust legislation approved by congress in 1987, which imposed a 1/8 blood quantum federal

requirement for the tribe membership. this law singles out and if not amended the tribe will lose their right to self-govern their community. the tribal community was established as was said by both the chairman and mr. lujan, in 1862, after the pueblo revolt against the spanish colonization of the americas nearly a century before the declaration of independence and more than 160 dares before the annexation of texas to the united states. this community represents rich culture and our heritage. the ysleta del sur pueblo has been an important part of the community's heritage for over 330 years. the tribe is an inseparable part of our history and should be allowed to preserve its status as a soverage nation for future

generations. i urge all members to support this bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i'm prepared to yield back if the gentleman from new mexico is. mr. lujan: we appreciate the work with the majority and work of chairman reyes and i would yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1560. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative -- the gentleman from new mexico. mr. lujan: i object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: further proceedings on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. hastings: i move to suspend the rules and pass s. 683. the clerk: roy for the conveyance of land. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings and the gentleman from

new mexico, mr. lujan will each control 20 minutes. mr. hastings: i ask unanimous consent that members have five legislative days to include extraneous material. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. and the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: s. 683 would convey approximately 31 1/2 acres to the wasach to a town in utah. the lands in question are primarilyly open grasslands surrounded by agricultural lands. the town is seeking these lands for ex pangs of the cemetery and town hall and fire station. national parks forests and public lands subcommittee chair rob bishop is the author of the house version of this bill and i commend him and senator mike lee of utah for their efforts to seeing this enacted into law. i urge adoption of the measure and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new mexico. mr. lujan: i ask unanimous

consent to revise and stepped my remarks and i yield myself such time as i may consume. this is a land conveyance to a small town in utah which requires that the land be used for public purposes. assuming this measure is approved today, this will be the third congress in which the house has approved this legislation. we have been pleased to work with mr. bishop in the last two congresses to secure passage of this measure and support passage again today. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i'm pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the author of the house legislation, mr. bishop as much time as he may consume. mr. hastings: two seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: great to be amongst friends, too bad they aren't here. 70 years ago the forest service paid the huge sum of $1 for two parcels of land that totaled 30 acres surrounded on three sides

by private property. in that intervening time period that the forest service has owned these lands, not only have they not used them and forgot they had them. the small town needs this for cemetery expansion as well as for a town hall and fire station to protect people who go on the real forest land. three times this house passed this piece of legislation and the senate has found it too complex to consider. the senate has passed a very similar bill over to us, not as good as the one we had, but when one considers a budget bill, multiple appropriation bills, repeal of obamacare, 16 jobs bills, numerous regulatory reform bills, the fact that the senate did anything should be a cause of our celebration today. and therefore, i urge, even though this is not a perfect bill, it's a pretty good one and i urge its adoption so we can send it to the president's desk and let the senate know that we do appreciate them when they

finally, finally do their work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new mexico. mr. lujan: mr. speaker, although we enjoy the opportunity, the conversation about all the work that is happening over at the senate, we have no further speakers and we yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i yield back the balance of my time and urge my colleagues to support the senate bill. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 683. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, -- the gentleman from new mexico. mr. lujan: i make a point of order that a are quo umh is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8, rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. mr. hastings: i move to success pepped the rules. the speaker pro tempore: clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate concurrent resolution 32, concurrent resolution to authorize the clerk of the house of representatives to make technical corrections in the

enrollment of h.r. 470, an act to further allocate and expand the availability of hydroelectric power generated at hoover dam and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings and the gentleman from new mexico, mr. lujan each will control 20 minutes. mr. hastings: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to include extraneous material. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: yield myself such time as i may consume. senate concurrent resolution is an enrolling correction for h.r. 470, bipartisan legislation introduced by our nevada colleague, dr. heck's bill. dr. members of the committee's bill which generates power at hoover dam to california, arizona and nevada, has been passed by both the house and the senate. however, some in the senate insisted a number of technical changes needed to be made to the

bill even though the affected agency that it could implement h.r. 470 as passed by both chambers. nevertheless, we will not object to this enrolling resolution making such technical changes because the legislation -- the base legislation is important for that area. so i urge adoption of this measure and i reserve the balance of my time. . . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new mexico. mr. lujan: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lujan: the senate approved h.r. 470, the hoover allocation power act of 2011, by unanimous consent. the senate approved concurrent resolution 32 which authorizes the clerk of the house of representatives to make small technical changes to the enrolled version of h.r. 470. we fully support the proposed changes of h.r. 470 and urge adoption of senate concurrent resolution 32 and i reserve the

balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i have no further requests for time. if the gentleman is prepared to yield back i will yield back. mr. lujan: i ye. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: i urge adoption of the resolution and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass senate concurrent resolution 32. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- the gentleman from new mexico. mr. lujan: 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. the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i move that the house do nowed a vurn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until >> tonight, a look at federal spectrum policy. you look at choices being made by the president and the fcc. tonight on c-span2. >> it is so convenient to listen to c-span anywhere with the free

c-span radio app. you get all three c-span television networks 24/7. c-span, it is available whenever you are. find out more at c-span.org /radioapp. >> governors talk about their approach to job creation, tax policy, and other issues. you would hear from scott walker from wisconsin, john k. sick from ohio, and rick scott from florida. this is part of the annual meeting of the republican governors association. moderated by indiana governor mitch daniels, that is -- this is about an hour and 10 minutes.

>> thank you for attending and for supporting this greatest political organization extant in our country right now. i drew the privilege of moderating the panel of four of the new all stars, with whom you were just reacquainted in that great video. i will observe not at all for the first time that i do not recall eight year in which more first-class public service talent was brought to the 4 than 2010. they were all on our side. just a remarkable new assortment. i am so excited about the future of our party, but more importantly, because of the class of 2010 you know all about

these folks. we will not take a lot of time with it. we have here several of the best examples of what i am talking about. i would like to start by introducing the new governor of new mexico, suzanne martinez. she could not make it this morning. [laughter] we are stuck with these four other homely guys. the ebert and efficient staff said do not forget to share with the crowd that it is scott walker's birthday today. [applause] that turned out to be inaccurate. [laughter] you do have a birthday sometime. we will take the opportunity to wish you one. bamut is on election day.

>> it is our host rick scott's birthday. somebody should congratulate him. [applause] our format now and our aim is for each of these tremendous leaders in turn to share a few thoughts with you, and then if you will prepare your own questions. we will make that request to our fellow governors as well as to the crowd. we would like a large portion of the ensuing 70 minutes to be directed by you with the topic of your interest. you got alphabetical order. you got right to left. we should start with our post, since he has been so gracious to

help put all this together for us. rick, you are off to a spectacular start fiscally and in terms of reform. rick is a great example -- each of these fellows is -- i remember encouraging them at meetings between their last election and there inauguration's, this meeting last year, to move quickly, decisively, do those things without equivocating, and i reminded them of the wisdom of one of my favorite songs. if i shot you when i should have, i would have been out of jail by now. [laughter] if anyone took that advice to heart, it is rick scott. >> thank you, mitch. i think the democrats wish i had not done quite as much. they were frustrated because i said i was going to do and i did

it and they were shocked. i walked in with about a $4 billion budget deficit, so we balance that, and for the first time in 20 years we paid down the debt. we had been increasing the debt level in florida to about a billion dollars a year. we did exactly what we ran on. we said we were going to cut taxes, and almost half of the business owners in the state did not pay taxes. we know we do not have an intercom -- an income tax. we cut the business tax for half of the business owners. people paying tax, we cut property taxes over $2 million. in an e -- $2 billion. another parent can take the money, a grandparent, but not somebody using drugs. you have to be drug screened.

education reform, we got rid of teacher tenure for new teachers. we expanded charter schools. it would be nice if we continued that. it looks like that will continue. we provided scholarships for kids going to poor-performing schools. we found 8000 regulations we were getting rid of. the rest we will get rid of and the next section -- session. doing these things, and i apologize to anybody to ride the high-spilled real project, we killed that. [applause] some of the theories of why i should have supported that is people would have flown to orlando to take the high-speed rail to tampa. you can go to california and do that, which they will never be able to fund either. we did those stains, and it

worked. jobs have come back. for the first 10 months of the year, we generated 110,000 private-sector jobs, and that is in a state that with four years running have lost jobs each and every year. cutting taxes, getting rid of regulations, i got rid of one agency -- we not only is owned things locally, we thought the state was smarter and we have banned rezoning at the state level. all those things have worked. jobs are coming back. the mood has changed. tourism is up 7% this year. the biggest thing is jobs are coming back. that is what we are doing. i am doing things that every other governor is doing. and try to come up with all the mitch money that came up for transportation, which would be nice, but it is difficult to do that now. that is what we have done. >> thank you, rick.

john kasich has had a quiet 11 months. nobody who knew john expected anything different, and you know what i'm talking about when i say one thing i have always admired about kasich is the understand intuitively and never misses a chance to express to people that all these couples behold deer are not about folks who are doing well now, those are about the folks who are wanting to do well in the future, and it is about preserving upward mobility. we all know this. not everybody stops long enough to make a claim. john, you always have in your different capacities, and it makes you a terrific spokesman for things we believe in and it is one reason you are off to a great start in governor. >> isn't mitch daniels one of the greatest we have ever seen,

as the governor of a state? [applause] that is right before i'm fixing to steal some jobs out of his stake. we have -- miche was a great role model for me to take a look at the way he moved indiana, but to me it is simple. i was in the congress for 18 years, and was involved in the balanced budget, and then i got out for 10 years and that was the best thing i ever did, to get out of politics for a while and understand how the real world works. when i came and it was not a matter of what the politics are of moving quickly, but we were in a ditch, the patient in ohio was in a ditch. we lost 600,000 jobs and only two states have lost more, michigan, and the other state is california, which is filled with a bunch of wack-a- dolldoles. it is because we did not

establish a good business climate. i am not a big one andfor cutti. my interest is i get the steven jobs approach, which is offer the customer a better product at a much lower price. you can find if in fact you think differently and you turn the cube, you do not have to be in the business of cutting. you can provide services that are more effective and less costly. one example. in our state for 30 years, the nursing home lobby the ability to have resources for mom and dad if they qualify for nursing home to stay in their own home. we fought that. it was tough. they spent a lot of money trying to block me on that. the legislature stood tall, and now in ohio, mom and dad qualify

for a nursing home and want to stay in their home for 1/5 four of the cost, they can do it in a high of. they have waited 30 years for this. look at the present system, and this is one of the most vexing problems governors have. we figured out a way to not put 12,000 nonviolent job -- lawbreaker's into our state prison next to somebody who could be a murderer or a rapist or a drug dealer. we can find them in a community setting where the public is sick and were they to be fully integrated back into the committee, because you take those people out of their families, and you got a big problem with children. we have passed that as well. that was something people want it for about 30 years, and we got it done. we used to do multiple prime contracting when we built public buildings. you need a prime contractor for

every piece of your construction. we have stripped that out. there's only one single prime now when building a public building in el hal, and that will save up to 25%. we also privatized hard to the left department. terry has done something similar. i am not sure exactly what it is. we believe economic development ought to be moving at the speed of the market, because i once saw a race between a statute and a glacier, and glacier 1. we created this not-for-profit entity and are filling it with people look and speak that language to your ceo's out here, and i myself had engaged constantly every day talking to ceo's across the country and inside my state. we will then power that organization bewith liquor profits and transfer it into

jobs ohio. all these governors are doing a remarkable job. it is a twist from one state to the another. we are up now over 40,000. we have engaged in 191 projects directly where we have met with companies. in that regard, but by seeding and creating new jobs directly, we have been involved in 43,000 jobs. frankly all that matters is jobs for. at the same time we cut the taxes. we cut the death tax. we also had the income tax lower, but we are still at a disadvantage to people like rick with 80% income tax. we provide a credit for anybody who invests in a small business and holds that investment for two years. on the regulatory side, you want

to come to business, we will figure out a way to do it. , we will shutahoo you down. we will move very quickly. where try to create an environment where families are going to have work, have a career, where children are born to be stronger, and everything we do is based on that, every single we do is based on that. work force training? training for a job that exists said they can have a lifelong career. those are the things we did about. we're thinking about leasing our turnpike. we study what they have done in indiana. i am not sure what yard run to do yet. think about the if the schroeder improvements we can make in ohio if we do that, which will lead to more productivity, workshop

creation. republicans -- that should be our whole focus. if it is something that can make it easier for an entrepreneur to be successful, these businesses to expand, or pick them off from other places like illinois and connecticut, we will do it. for those that worry about the country, i was in washington for a long time, and when i left i knew for the 10 years i was out that the change was gone to come from the states,, we would learn from one another, and finally a those folks in washington would learn something about what really works. it is fundamentally this -- look at the problem, try to fix it, strip the politics out, and keep politics to a minimum. , for a politician that is truly a public servant. bring your jobs ohio, please.

we will work with you. >> thanks, john. ohio was a lot of fun to compete with before you got there. [laughter] competition makes us all better, and having a week populated neighborhood, kasich and so forth, just that on the midwest's long term. i will leave it at that. next comes -- in the course of ragtime, we have been coming up and up and all these ratings, good places to the business, there are only a few states have them now. it will be hard to climb over tennessee. bill has been such a natural for this job. you thought the minute you met him, and he has shown that already.

he has jumped to an outsider, bill, without a whole lot of rancor, the kind that gets stirred up a like things with teacher tenure. tell us how you did it. it occurred to me if you are here listening to everyone you think i have some programming machine that they put these new governors in, because they talk about the same thing, education reform, the edge dressing tenure, charter schools. they then talk about budget reform. anywhere from $500 million to $5 billion upside down because they have been relying on stimulus

money. they are addressing job creation. we're doing that because that is what works, how we got elected. it is what we got elected to do. interesting this first session for us, the democrats kept saying the biggest issue is jobs, and you do not have a jobs plan. we want to see legislation addressing jobs. i said, i do not think that is how jobs created. fred smith, founder of fedex, has a chart he keeps in his office. in job creation, a direct reflection of capital investment. until the private sector is willing to invest capital, and the jobs created. no government ever has net created a new job. we have attracted them to our states. what we have tried to sell is our job is to make this the very best place for people to invest capital because capital finds

the very best return. that is its job. our job is to make certain the regulations are the most reasonable and opportunities are the greatest for job creation. that is what we have focused on doing. government, we had a deficit of $1.5 billion -- we had $1.5 billion of stimulus money. our budgets with being about 4% lower than year before, passed unanimously in the house and senate. we got some breaks in terms of things that worked out. we did go sell what the opportunities -- what the alternatives were. mitch -- many people have read mitch's book? mitch, need a book table out

here. if you are in government, it is great reading, a great primer for how to the state government. mitch has been doing this for seven years, and it was like getting to skip two grades. one of his favorite phrases is people will be surprised at how much government they do not miss. within that, is a situation where we found some of the places that we were doing things that you would never do if it was your own money. he would not. we started making those adjustments and changes. i asked every department head, and he started over again and it was your own business, would you organize it the same way? everyone of them after six months said no. let's go back and figure out how we would do it. we are in the process of doing that. that is painful because you end up addressing things people did

not want you to address, it means you will have fewer employees in the featured then you have now. we have fewer now than we have had in any of the last 10 years. if you explain to people like you do that and the alternative, they will get that. the final thing that we have focused on is education reform. for me is simple, in one generation, 20 years of america, we have gone from being number one in education to 19th. all of us get we cannot compete with that. going one to 19, our state was number one in the country for education payments. that is why we addressed tenure and how to extract student performance and tie it to a teacher of violation. we will continue to be relentless about that.

>> a man. -- amen. what is left to say about scott? scott, you have done it courageously things similar to what were done elsewhere, got out at least a tough as hand as everybody. because of doing it, you have drawn more than your share of recoil because of it. you have prevailed. you have done it with a smile, somehow. you are on your way to store for the election as governor, if we count on the way we should put some sort of record. we're proud of you and your help you. tell us about it. >> thanks, mitch. [applause] we had the occupy madison

movement before the rest occypy wall street. i was in national and i said they were all apologetic. i news to people being bused in from another state to be busted. anytime you do something of a book that is good for your state, there are current to be some out there who disagree. i was thinking about this earlier and these guys are right. this is a phenomenal crop of new governors who have learned from a great group of governors to begin with. i was thinking back about a year and a half ago, almost two years ago, in 2009 when night for started the jobs interview to be the ceo of my state. i did an interview a route wisconsin telling people what i would do to take over the state government and identified that i thought there was a crisis we face in economics, fiscal, and a

crisis in confidence in our government. we took office and we did not wait. someone in february said you did not unpacked get and you have done all these things. why? it is simple. you do not wait. you start the first day on the job. we call the legislature into special such on january 3 to tackle the first issue. we took on the economic crisis. we understand that people create jobs and not the government. we passed tax cuts. we passed tax cuts for manufacturing and agricultural interests. we did a property-tax freeze for two years. we did all of these things right off the bat. we did regulatory reform. we put in place major reforms to cut through red tape.

it was one of the biggest barriers to investing capital in putting people to work. we knew that litigation costs were huge challenges. we passed aggressive court reform in the first month in office. we made easier to have help savings accounts -- health savings accounts. we took the model of saying we will not just have a department of commerce. we said we would throw that out and do what others have done. we created the wisconsin economic development association to respond at the speed of business and not government. the good news was that it had results. three years before my election, wisconsin lost three of $50,000

-- 300,000 -- 350,000 jobs. in the last year, we have had an increase of 300,000. we're still seeing a positive growth throughout 2011. every year of our statewide chamber of commerce does a survey of job creators in wisconsin. a year ago, do you know how many people thought wisconsin was heading in the right direction? 10 percent of job creators said it was heading in the right direction. this spring after special session, that number went from 10% to 88%. 88% said wisconsin is heading in the right direction. we picked up some interest. we got more focus on other issues. we picked up interest nationwide.

you hear others talk about being in the top 10. for years, we were at the bottom. this year after our reforms, we went up 17 spots faster than any state in the country. the reason was because businesses were hungry to put people to work. they are scared about what the government will do to them next. we see an incredible contrast with our neighbors in illinois. in illinois, they raised taxes on individuals 67%. they raised it on businesses by 46%. he said it was like living next door to a dysfunctional family down the block. i have a lot of tourists from illinois so i need to be more gracious. we predicted a year later, they would be back raising taxes

again. just six months later in illinois, there were more tax increases. they are back with a multi- billion dollar deficit. they are laying off thousands of public employees. they are shutting down state facilities. that is the contrast between what we offer and what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing across america. we took on the economic and fiscal crisis. we have the largest structural deficit our state faced. our budget now has a surplus because we made tough, structural long-term changes. most people did not pay attention to the bond rating agencies until august. we did not do as well as puerto

rico, but we upgraded because we made structural changes. we did not rely on money from the federal government. we said we have to make a long- term decision. we have to think more about the next generation than we do about the next election. governors in both parties face deficits. there are four ray is --ways to solve the deficit. you can lay off employees. i said those do not help anybody. you can cut and illicit services. you can put in place real reforms. the vast majority of our budget is a to state and local government. we said we would empower local governments to put in place reforms that allow them to balance the budget and protect services. it is not easy testing.

the tough stuff is making government work. it is supposed to. -- it is not easy cutting. the tough stuff is making government work where it is supposed to. i have one example. it was not just about balancing the budget. we empowered our schools to balance their budgets and put more resources in the classroom. a school district south of green bay where the packers reside -- we love to kid about football. it is a great example. it is a mid-sized school district. they took the reforms we gave them by no longer being enslaved by collective bargaining.

they were able to use the reforms to ask for a reasonable pension and health fund contribution but to go out to the free market to buy health insurance. that saved so much money that they hired more teachers, lower cost and size, and set aside money. what we did with our reforms was not just about balancing the budget. it was about empowering our schools and local governments be able to hire and fire based on performance to put the best and brightest in our schools and local government across the state. that is about making government work better. that is what republican governors are about. we're not just about holding the line or cutting taxes. we're saying we're government does have a role, we will make it work better. >> i wish you had not brought up illinois. every time it comes up, i have to watch myself. i was in chicago a couple of

years ago. it was the day the olympics decision was coming out. chicago was electric. they thought they were going to win. we were for them. we thought we might get some spillover events. the news comes out midmorning that not only did they not win, they did not make it out of the first round of voting. it was a big downer. i am speaking to a big crowd and taking questions. someone asks me about my reaction to the olympics decision. i said what is this world coming to when chicago cannot fix an election any more? [laughter] [applause] the crowd thought it was funny. [laughter] "newsweek" thought it was funny.

the governor of illinois did not agree. even i am not quite old enough to remember this, but in the early days of spring shows the game shows, grouch marx had one where the duck came down in the 1 $50. he said the magic word. results. what we do for a living is not a game, but if it were, results would trump lofty principles, personal attacks. governors are in the results business. i thought that was well put by all of you. the reason they are already such

tremendous processes -- successes is because they personify what others do not think about. that is that it is a tremendously solemn duty to keep government to the size and scope it should be and not waste a single dollar on something unnecessary. a lot of things you do not need to do at all. there is an equally solemn responsibility to use the dollars as well as you can. that is what you have heard and will see for the balance of their tremendous careers. i do not want to wind up here begging. i hope we will seek a question.

just in case, i will ask one of the group. you said there are four ways to deal with an imbalance. i would suggest there is a fifth . that is givemmickry. do not fund the pension programs with the fiduciary duty says to do it, things like that. i am guessing that you found some of that. does anyone have an example they would like to share with the group? >> hours was a democrat but fiscally responsible. they did use the money for

ongoing expenses. one place you see it happening is when some states put together incentive packages. we will help to build a road, put together a training programs. but they also give tax credits down the road. that is real money, but some people do not count it as real money. some of the bills are coming due. i think that is fairly widespread. >> the whole subject of how states compete has drawn criticism. is legitimate. >> we just went through this. we had a company that left at the same time another came in. we have a tough regimen. it is a return on investments.

you do not want to get outside the two-year window. if you do not have discipline, you create corporate welfare. you are just passing money out. sometimes site selectors play a game. they are like people on wall street. there bloodless, shopping things around and forcing us to compete. if we all have a certain discipline and do not give away the store -- we are competing for sears. it is down to a couple of us. every once in awhile, you may do something special. you have to have discipline or you will be taken to the cleaners. i was one of the architects of the 97 budget agreement.

when i left in 2000, we had a $5 billion surplus. it was blown. now we are trillions in the hole. one of the hardest things to do is to change the culture of the legislature, the executive branch, the bureaucracy. if you do not change the culture, the same problems crop back up again. it is difficult. it is challenging. it is breathtaking what people appear have done. how did you change the culture? did you get a lot done in indiana. >> i think we did. we eventually rewrote the 70-

year old civil service laws. any worker in indiana and not paid with federal money is and that will simply -- is an at- will simply. we reward people aggressively. we have annual awards for individuals or groups who find a creative way to save taxpayer dollars or spend it better. annual performance reviews are going on. we pay on a bell curve. that is different from the way the government has tended to operate most places. it is still government. you are always going to chase the rabbit of high-performance. i think we have grounds for saying real improvement can

happen. if you walk down the corridors of the state office building, you will see who has the best and worst performance. trying to instill in people that what we're doing is supposed to get better even though we do not have competition that normally drives you that way. >> our reform plan is based on indiana. we want to see that success because we want to have in wisconsin as well. on the fifth point, you are right. i had a predecessor was not fiscally responsible. he put about $1 billion plus of

stimulus money into the budget to handle the medicaid and schools shortfalls. it was plugged in for those deficits. that is part of what drove our structural deficit to begin with. he took $1.3 billion out of the transportation system. at.ad to back fill th on top of that, he raided $200 million out of the injured patient compensation fund. we repaid that on top. i am sure a lot of governors had serious -- similar inheritances where it was like having both hands tied behind your back.

it is kind of like what you alluded to. it is the contrast between what republican governors are doing to tackle the tough decisions. for the first time in eight years, somebody came in and was honest about budgeting. we're not seeing that in washington. the downgrade is unprecedented. it has the mid range consequences in terms of the next three or four years. the wheels start to fall off. i am talking about an impact on my kids generation as well. there is a book that has amazing insights about the upcoming jobs war. china is at 10% gdp growth. 30 years out, our kids are going to be living in a world dominated by china. the reason we're leaders of the

free world is because of the free enterprise system. we have the financial might to do what is right. we will not have that in 30 years if we do not continue down this path. you have to put the power back in the hands of the entrepreneurs and innovators. in our states, what has to happen for our kids and the long term. >> i assume washington will not be able to get out of their own way. waiting for them to fix something is like waiting for godot. we have to have a focused demand from the federal

government. if you a going to continue to give us a head wind, give us the flexibility to design the programs. if the federal government would give us the flexibility to manage medicaid -- that does not mean to spend medicaid money on highway projects. give us the flexibility to manage medicaid. i have no doubt we would cover more people at a lower price with better quality outcome. the same is true on job training. let us manage our own job training money. we will not spend it on highways. give us a chance to manage these programs. if you cannot do anything else, let our people go. we have to keep demanding it. by not giving us flexibility on

a program like medicaid, it results in more pain for poor people. we have an opportunity to cover additional people if we have flexibility. i have never yet met a person in washington that does not say we should fix dual eligibles. when are you going to do something? this is a big problem for the states. i cannot get it. i know they want to keep control. they can still keep come -- some control. force us to spend it, but give us our money. we have to reasonable in what we ask for. but this is ridiculous.

they want to mandate more programs with no flexibility. >> first off, federal money is free money. we have a medicaid program that has worked for over five years. every two weeks we get an extension. they will not give us a long- term extension. we passed a great reform bill but cannot get a response. they'd send all of these programs down with all of these strings. they try to get special interest groups to attack you for not accepting the money. either raise taxes or let us keep that money ourselves. if i do not do the right thing, i do not get reelected. it does not make sense. >> you mentioned some of the

things you have done in indiana to change the culture. give us examples of things you are doing. we're trying to move from an entitlement mentality in agencies and departments to a service mentality on how we can honestly serve the needs of the constituents. i would like to have you share examples of things you have done to move from the entitlement mentality that we see from the democrats. the wall street journal just put out the best and worst managed states. california is the worst. illinois is the second worst. they both have the mentality, the entitlement mentality. i would like to see some examples where you have been able to move to more of a

service mentality. >> i will give you a quick one. part of that is the use it or lose it notion. no one else would think this way. in government, whenever you are allotted to spend, spend it or you may not give its next year. that is a terrible, perverted way to do it. we call it the june balloon. we look carefully to make sure the run rate in may and june is no higher than it has been. if it has been, we kill those [unintelligible] [laughter] that is probably not the right word. shoot one as a demonstration to the rest. [laughter] >> you are learning.

>> we made the point from the beginning that if you are a leader or colleague, your job is not to get rid of it. you will be judged and measured on it. it is part of getting people to conceive of the mission of public service in a different way. >> we took our budget and said every line has something we can measure on whether we will get results. i said this year over veto more because there is no measurement. anything i thought was questionable i said i would approve this year and not next year. we set of every line if we could not find a measurable results,

we would not included in the budget. in the private sector, the expectation is you have to reduce costs every year. we are saying every agency has to come up with at least a 4% reduction through efficiencies. they had never had to do it in the past. the biggest thing is having measurable results for every dollar that we spend. >> it is amazing what that will do for a bureaucracy. we have reduced backlogs in tax appeals. we have improved the ability to use the crime of. -- crime lab. you have to look at underutilized assets. if you have that in the private

sector, you get rid of it. we have sold 1 cruzan and privatized others. it has made a big difference in our correction situation. -- we have sold one prison and privatized others. the word "privatize" scares people. we will have to think of a different word. take a look at the bonuses and all of those things. i think it is simple. it is telling people in government to take a chance you go to work every day. you have a career in government. do not make it so difficult that you think someone is going to get you if you make a mistake. i think it is an attitude. you are in a career, and do it. raise the bar. take a chance. i will not punish you for a screw up.

i will be more upset if we as a team cannot figure out a better way to do things. that is hard to communicate to the 55,000 person bureaucracy. i would like to think we're gaining on it. the attitude of being creative -- i give awards and all of that. i think that is a big part of all this. come with a better program, thinking differently. the attitude starts at the top. it is our cabinet heads, the people who are leaders in the different areas. people want to do a good job. they want to feel good about what they do. disabled with thise children. they are excited. there recreating, combining,

saving money, and giving better outcomes. use see things like that and believe you can bring greater results. it is all about the folks out there. it is about delivering better service for children and the poor, getting their kids educated. it is about improving people's lives. i think it could become contagious overtime. it does not have to be a lot. give them $100 if they do a good job. we are creating that program. you have been governor like 15 times. you need to be telling us. >> we talk about a customer all the time. you either need to be taking care of the cme