and prosecute, i've increased funding for investigators and for judge advocates to receive specialized training. we're also putting in place one integrated data system, the data systems frankly were spread among the various services. we're going to put them together into one data system in order to track sexual assault reports and monitor case management so that we'll have a comprehensive database for information available later this year.in addition to our fon holding perpetrators accountable, we have been focusing on what more we could do to prevent sexual assault. our leaders in uniform, officers and enlisted, are on the front

lines of this effort. they have to be. we must all be leaders. for this reason, i am directing an assessment do in 120 days on how we train our commanding officers and senior leaders on sexual assault, prevention, and responds, and what we can do to strengthen that training. it is important that everyone at in uniform be aware of this and have the training to prevent these crimes from occurring. these are important steps. i want to be clear that this is an ongoing effort that will remain a top priority. there is much more work to be done to prevent this crime. we will be announcing additional initiatives over the coming weeks and months. let me close by speaking directly to the victims of sexual assaults in this

department. i deeply regret that such crimes occur in the u.s. military. i will do all i can to prevent the sexual assaults from occurring in the department of defense by taking whatever says are necessary to keep what ever happened to you from happening to others. the united states military has a zero tolerance policy for sexual assault. we will hold the perpetrators appropriately accountable. i expect everybody in this department to live up to the high standards that we have said and to treat each other with dignity and respect. in military force with a promise

is to help each other and to leave nobody behind, that promise must began by honoring the dignity of every person on or off the battlefield. thank you. ask the major to join me up here on the questions. she knows these questions. >> given the magnitude of the problem, of the things you announced. to be -- of the things you announced appear to be dated with the margin. can you explain why the u.s. and israel postponed the air defense exercise? >> on the first problem, i will turn to the major-general to also respond, sexual assault

cosacross the country has been difficult for communities and states to deal with. it is in the very nature of the crime. that is here any military as well. individuals with the individuals hesitate. if there is peer pressure not to report it. as a result, too often these cases go unreported. we're trying to change the mindset. that has already begun. it is clear that they share the concern that i have just reflected. what we're seeing are more reports coming in. what we're seeing in our more prosecutions taking place. this has to be a continuing effort.

the most important thing we can do is try to train leaders at the command level to make clear that they are aware of this issue and that everyone are able to say when they see the possibility of these situations either developing are beginning to occur that they take steps to stop it. that is the best way to try to maintain some sort of zero tolerance policy. >> every week we assess hundreds of new military members. we have to tell them about the service core values. that is why training of fronts all the way through someone's career is very important as well as training our officers. i look at it as a triad, making sure they build the climate or someone feels comfortable coming

forward to say i've been a victim of sexual assaults. they can take a strong case to try to hold them accountable. >> the question on the exercise the minister approached me and indicated that they were interested in postponing the exercise. this is about the top exercise we had that in order to plan better and to do this so that we would be able to conduct that exercise that it would be better to postponement to have planning efforts that will lead up to the exercise. we are committed to making it occur.

>> >the prosecution and conviction rates are pretty low. do you agree there has to be more aggressive prosecution of perpetrators? how do you go about getting that done? >> for successful prosecutions to take place, they have to have good evidence and be able to nail the case in court. oftentimes these cases come down to one person's word against another. what needs to be done is to make sure that evidence can be gathered, that people who are victims will report. if those steps are taken, i want

to assure them that the prosecutors say the seriously and take these cases to court. oftentimes there is a hesitancy because of what i just said. we have to make sure the prosecutors are as aggressive as we feel they should be in order to make sure that the signal is sent. anybody who does this will be held accountable. >> that is why we are so intent on getting some of the specialized training. to be able to handle these things. they are difficult to build. >> 19,000 is a big number. do either you have data that shows whether this is a worse problem in the military than it is in the rest of society? if i can ask a separate question.

threats caused you to make any changes in the disposition of u.s. forces ta? >> it was an estimate based on a survey we did in 2010. this was based on 100,000 samples. we had about 2000 that said they have been such an assault of the previous year. we came up with this. we think it is a good number. four years ago, in 2006 only did the first survey, it was an estimate of 34,000. we're starting to see it come down. we will do another survey to find out. >> how does it compare with the rest of society? >> i do not anyone had -- know

if anyone has this. >> with regard to your question, i have been reading some of their reports in the press. i want to make clear that we have always maintained a very strong presence in region. we have a navy fleet located there. we have a military presence in region. we have continually maintained a strong presence in region to make clear that we're going to do everything possible to help secure the peace in that part of the world. we always continue to make preparations and to be prepared

for any contingency. we are not making any special steps that this plane in order to deal with this situation. we're fully prepared to do with that situation out. >> are you seeing a spike in the number of cases? dealing get to the current wars? there are reports from lawmakers saying that the president sent a letter to their leadership asking for talks. is that chu? >> we have seen an increase of a number of reports. since then, the number of reports have steadily track. it means a victim is coming forward and willing to say i need some help. you have to look at it in both

ways. more people are aware of what sexual assault is. maybe the stigma has been reduced. we want them to make that. >> obviously, we have always made clear where our policies are both in terms of their not obtaining a nuclear weapon and not closing the straits. our goal has always been to make clear that we would hope that any differences and concerns we had would be peacefully resolved and done their international laws and rules. we abide by them. we hope that iraq and would do the same.

we have channels and which we deal with the iranians. we continue to use them. >> is diplomacy still a viable option? is this something the u.s. is seeking to engage in? >> it is always an option to try to pursue diplomacy. in order for that to work, it takes to be able to engage. we've always expressed a willingness. we have always made clear that in terms of any threats to the region where some of the behavior comment that we will also be prepared to respond internally if we have to. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> president obama took the advice of a state department and denied a permit for the pipeline to bring oil from canada to the u.s.. you will hear about the decision from leaders in nancy pelosi. -- leaders and nancy pelosi. >> c-span's wrote to the white house covers six to live to the to the white- raooad house covers the candidates live. >> they seem surprised if there putting people on food stamps. >> there is no reason we cannot compete. you are selling them around the world. we can manufacture this idea.

foreign companies are compancomg here. i support the right to work. >> i have young people who have gotten their eagle scouts. there is a role for everyone in life. >> by more video from the campaign trail. >> the state department today recommended that he deny a

permit to bring oil from canada to the u.s. it said the department does that have sufficient time to obtain the information necessary to assess the the the project is in the national interest. president obama agreed with the recommendation to deny the permit saying "i am disappointed that the republicans in congress forced this decision." >> republican leaders responded in a 20 minute briefing. it is shipping american security to the chinese. there's no other way to put it. the president selling out american jobs for politics.

the president was given the authority to block this project if he believes it is not thehthe interest of united states. is it not in the interest to create tens of thousands of jobs? is a not and a natural interest to give it an outlets like canada? the president has said he will do anything he can to create jobs. today that promise was broken. the president expedited the that has beenct under review for four years. he said the energy pipeline projects can create hundreds of thousands of american products.

it has bipartisan support here. the president decided to reject it anyway. the president will send a to the political base even in the name creating jobs. the president's policies are making the american a economy worse rather than better. in latest decision, it is but the latest example. this is not the end of the fight. republicans in congress will continue to push this because it is good for our country and economy. it is good for the american people. >> thank you. today president obama has

decided to create jobs the in china instead of the united states. i went to the canadian embassy weeks ago and met with officials there. they said they want to do business here in the connected states. if they cannot comment they have to take urgent here in the united states. if they cannot comment they have said they were -- they said they want to do business here at in united states. if they cannot, they said they will go elsewhere. wellspun makes the pipe. they laid off some workers right after the president said that this decision would be after the next election. the folks were hoping for the opposite decision today. i spoke with them a bit of both. they said their concerns are

that now they have all this pipe, hundreds of miles of pipes that will reduce the cost. they may have to lay off more workers because of that. this is an indian company that in vice did predict invested in little rock. -- this is an indian company that invested in little rock. i am going to work with the speaker to do everything i can to get this reverse. -- to get this reversed. >> a few weeks ago on january the seventh in the president's weekly address, he vowed to do to "do what ever it takes to get the economy moving and create jobs."

today what we see is the president has shown that the actions do not match the rhetoric. by deciding to block the development of the keystone pipeline, he has decided to block the creation of 20,000 new jobs. as has been said, this was a bipartisan pipeline project. there was bipartisan support in house that will put people back to work right away and boost our domestic energy security. examples have been shown now the energy supply will go elsewhere. the jobs connected will go elsewhere. either we're going to get serious about the number one issue, the creation of jobs, or not. the president has decided that he is thought serious if this is the decision he will make on

this particular project. there is no question the president's policies have failed to create jobs. this is another wrong move for america. these are small businesses that we need so desperately. three years ago, barack obama was inaugurated as our president. we were told that if we passed his stimulus plan dodd/frank that it would help our economy. instead, we had the worst employment since the great depression. millions more have lost their jobs since he became president. his policies have failed. it is a new year. it was an opportunity to try new policies. after studying keystone for three years, 23,000 shovel ready

project just got buried. canada has energy in jobs that could be destined for the united states of administration -- of america. the administration has said they are destined for china. it is a devastating day for families who want jobs. >> it has been more than three years since the administration has been studying the keystone pipeline. in october of 2010, secretary clinton indicated that she was inclined to support this project. in august, the state department completed their analysis. they agreed that the proposed route was [inaudible] we had a provision that the president should decide based on

the national interest whether pipelineone should move forward. when president obama took office, the gas price was $1.93. now it is almost twice as high. this is a pipeline that will bring as much as 1 billion barrels a day. where do we go from here? we have asked secretary clinton to come testified before us. the president will not say yes. we want the american people know that we will. no option will be off the table. we cannot wait. >> thank you. as a supporter of the pipeline and author of two of the bills,

i am deeply disappointed our president decided to put his politics above the nation in energy independence. there the two things that the pipeline brings to the united states. this is not over. he did not mention why denying the permanent -- permit is in the national interest of this country. the governor of nebraska said that the keystone xl pipeline at a time when 8.5% unemployment is at in national interest, it is a no-brainer. i agree. they say they need more time. as fred mentioned, this is the same state department that was telling us all summer that they

had all of the information to make their decisions to press releases. secretary clinton made public statements that all was in order. bake had already chosen the route. they told transcanada where it should go. they did not see any reason to deny this. now, seven months later, they have changed their mind. for me is pretty obvious it is all about election-year politics. also, july 25, the white house through omb issued a statement that says they have all the information, and that they are working diligently, and that they will have a decision by

december 31, 2011. in the middle of january, they're saying something different. who is next? >> i am from the state of west virginia. what this decision says to me is a repeating pattern from the president "delay, obstruct, delay, obstruct, lost jobs." the administration is now delayed. they are repeatedly holding up our permanents -- permits. they have delayed the ability to get permits on the outer

continental shelf. read the pattern. we have seen this from the administration. they are willing to sacrifice -- they talked a lot about infrastructure jobs and how great they are. what creates more infrastructure jobs and creating a major pipeline? as the speaker said, this is not the end of the fight. a means that much to the american people. >> thank you. even though i represent tennessee, i grew up in south mississippi with a data in oil industry. i remember as a child i would have classmates at school or friends from church whose dad went away to work on the pipeline.

there's always a sense of pride that was tied to it. the work was hard but the work was consistent. it is doing something that was my be important for our country. it was making certain that we had energy. i kind of light that feeling that we were all in on this team together working to make this country great. how in the world did the president arrived at this decision? based told us today they told us they had all the information they need it. -- they told us they have all the information they need it. we need this job and energy.

our country needs energy independence. it leads us to believe that the president made a decision that does not support what the american people are wanting to see done, to grow jobs. >> any questions t? >> what is the end of the game? >> all elections are on the table. the facts are indisputable that the state department has had this under review for three years. all the reviews have been finished. under the agreement that was in the legislation, at the

president had to make a decision. it had to be based on what was in the national interest of our country. for the president to say that the keystone pipeline is not in the interest of our country, i think most americans are scratching their heads and wondering why. >> do you expect this to play a role in extending the payroll tax? >> all options are on the table. >> what with the options the dabe? >> this will not go away. you can count on it. >> but what are the options > what can congress do that they cannot do before? >> there are legislative the goals that will be moving in the weeks and months ahead.

republicans on capitol hill will continue to do everything we can to make this a positive decision for our country. the american people are still asking "where are the jobs?" the president has the ability to great 20,000 direct and 100,000 indirect and he says "no." >> republicans seem to state -- we are 17 days in. was it worth it? >> this pipeline is important to our country and what the president says is the number-one issue on the minds of the american people. that is creating jobs. he said he would do everything he could to create jobs. he did not. for >> via been talking about

national security. the president has written a letter about a direct talks. do you agree with that? >> i think it is very difficult to have talks, with a country around the world who has vowed to do everything but wipe us off the face of the earth. this is not the kind of environment that i believe can lead to a constructive discussion. i think it makes america look weak. >> thank you. white house briefing focused on the administration's decision not to approve a permit for the keystone pipeline. this is a little less than an hour.

>> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the white house for your daily briefing. it is always a pleasure to see you. i have a couple of things i want to say at the top. first, following the president's state of the union address, he will begin a five-state, three- day swing across the country. he will begin his trip with a visit to the cedar rapids area, followed by an event in the phoenix area, before traveling to las vegas on january 25th. on january 26th, the president will hold events in the las vegas area and the denver area before traveling to detroit that evening. the following day, january 27th, the president will deliver remarks in the detroit area before returning to washington, d.c. more details, including

information about the president's events and media credentialing, will be released as they are available. secondly, i want to anticipate a number of questions you may have on a particular subject based on reporting, sourcing and anonymous sources about the keystone pipeline. and i just want to get it out of the way up front that i'm not going to confirm any reports. i'm not going to get ahead of the administration, of the secretary of state or the president. we may have more information for you about that later today, but i'm not going to get ahead of the secretary of state or the president. i would simply ask that you review the facts here, which is that in a precedent established long ago that has held through many administrations, both democratic and republican,

pipelines like keystone that cross transnational borders, as this one would, the permits for those pipelines have been reviewed in a process led by the state department. that was the case here. when, in the case of the keystone pipeline, concerns were raised about the environmental impacts on the air and water quality in nebraska by, among others, the governor of nebraska, a republican, a decision was made that an alternate route be sought, and that, therefore, the process had to be delayed so that an adequate review could be undertaken, following the same standards that have always been in place, that were in place in the beginning of this process for this particular pipeline, and that have been in place for these kinds of projects for many years. in a purely partisan effort to score a political point, republicans in congress insisted on inserting an extraneous provision within a bill that

had nothing to do with pipelines, but was a bill to extend a tax cut to 160 million americans -- a tax cut that this president fought very hard to get and to extend. even prior to the signing of that legislation, the state department, which, again, reviews this process, made clear that setting an arbitrary deadline through this purely political effort would put the state department in a corner, would severely hamper their ability to review an alternative route and a new pipeline route in the proper way, a way that has long been established by precedent and that would take into consideration all the criteria that are so important in decisions like this, economic impact, national security impact, environmental impact, the effect on the water that our children breathe -- or rather water our children drink and the air that they breathe.

they made clear at the state department in a statement prior to the signing of this legislation that imposing an arbitrary 60-day deadline on this process would make it virtually impossible for an adequate review to take place of a route, an alternate route, that to this day does not yet exist. so i am simply reviewing the facts as we know them. >> yes, but he signed the law that says he had to do that. >> and we made clear -- well, he signed a law that forced a decision to be made in an arbitrary fashion, no question. and i don't have an announcement about any decision that would be forthcoming on that. but i'm just reviewing the facts as they existed yesterday as well as today. >> the facts are the law says that -- >> let me get erica. >> but to follow up on that, you're saying that you don't want to get ahead of the president or the state department, but the law specifies that it is the president's decision.

so is there any reason that this announcement would come from the state department -- >> again, i'm not going to get into details about -- i've made clear that we may have more information for you on that later today, and i'll look to that -- i would urge you to look to that for guidance on that question. >> and just to be clear, are you saying that there has not been a decision made, or you're not -- >> i'm not saying one way or the other regarding that. >> and can you speak to some of the republican criticism that's already coming out, anticipating what the decision will be, that the president hates jobs, et cetera? >> well, i think i did anticipate some of that in my opening remarks, but i would make clear that there is a proper process that has existed for many years and many administrations by which a project like this is reviewed and a permit is either granted or denied.

because of concerns expressed by numerous stakeholders, including the republican governor of nebraska, it was decided that an alternate route through nebraska was necessary. the choosing of that alternate route has not even been completed yet. the state department, which conducts and oversees this multiagency review process, made clear at the time, in december, that inserting this extraneous provision in an attempt to get a political victory -- because for some reason extending a tax cut to 160 million americans wasn't victory enough -- the republicans put in jeopardy a process that should be immune from politics, should be conducted on the basis of pragmatic and considered analysis, and tried to hijack it through that. and the state department warned

that that would create serious problems. so the president's commitment to job creation has been amply demonstrated by the policies that he has pursued, that he has signed into law, that have contributed considerably to the creation of 3. 2 million private sector jobs. they've been demonstrated by his fierce commitment to doing everything he can, both working with congress and acting independently, to further assist the economy as it recovers from the worst recession since the great depression, to further assist the economy as it creates more jobs -- most notably, recently, his proposal, the american jobs act, which if the republicans were committed to job creation they would join with him in making sure that all of the provisions of that law became -- of that proposal became law, including the provision that would put 400,000 teachers and first responders back to work, the provision that would help us rebuild our infrastructure and put idle constructions workers back to work -- hundreds and hundreds of thousands of americans who would have jobs were the republicans to finish the work of passing the american jobs act.

so that would be my answer to that criticism. jake. >> you say that the move by congress to force the president and the state department to make a decision within 60 days about this pipeline is partisan. how is it any less political for the president, faced with a difficult choice between jobs and environmental concerns -- the two important constituencies for his reelection -- to say, you know what, i'm going to delay a decision on this until after the reelection in november 2012? how is that any less political than what congress did? >> well, because there is an established process by which

these reviews are conducted. when, because of the concerns expressed by many stakeholders, including the republican governor of nebraska, a decision was made that an alternate route needed to be considered, that process needed to be delayed and the full review needed to be conducted on the alternate route. i mean, that's the way this process is supposed to work. >> what would have happened if the president hadn't intervened? if the president hadn't -- >> the state department -- first of all, again, the decision to create an alternate route was made based on the requests of stakeholders affected by the original route, including, again, the governor of nebraska and others in that state. and that necessitated, as deemed by the state department, which has to conduct this review, the postponement, and the allowance of enough time to thoroughly review the new route. again, i think it's important to note that, as the state department made clear, 60 days

is simply not enough time. we don't even have an alternate route identified yet, so how could anyone possibly review it thoroughly, in the manner that is expected in this process? so the point is, is that these things are supposed to be decided in a methodical, responsible manner so that all these criteria are properly weighed, because a decision like this has long-term implications for our economy and for our environment, for our national security. and those criteria all have to be considered as the decision is being made. the effort to score a political point, in a process that was wholly unrelated, because they were unhappy about the fact that the president was pushing for a payroll tax cut extension for 160 million americans, i don't think makes a lot of substantive sense in terms of the issue that proponents of that course say they care about, which is a decision that needs to be made on a pipeline and the potential economic -- positive economic impacts that that would have.

you got to let the process unfold the way it's supposed to unfold without this kind of extraneous political interference, and then a decision would be made on the merits. >> would you clear this up, though? >> sure. >> the president signed this into law. it says that unless he finds that it is not in the national interest of the united states, within 60 days, then the project will go ahead, he takes no action. it leaves the state department out of the equation and puts it squarely on the president. >> again, i'm not going to preview for you any information we might have about this process or decision prior to that taking place. i'm not quibbling with the legislation the president signed into law. i am making a broader statement about who conducts the review, and the fact that the state department, which, again, through decades of precedent, conducts this review, made clear

back in december what it felt the impact would be of an arbitrary deadline set by -- for political reasons. so if your issue is like -- if your concern here is who's going to make the decision, i'll suggest you wait for the decision to be made. >> the logical extension of that would be that the president would find that it's not in the national interest, just go ahead -- >> well, i would point you to what the state department said, that it would be impossible -- or highly unlikely, if not impossible, to conduct a proper review of an alternate route that, again, on january 18, 2011, does not even exist, so how could you possibly review it? >> doesn't he have to do it? >> again, i'd point you to the future, 2012 -- what did i say? i don't think i've made that mistake in any checks i've written so far this month. >> hasn't the nebraska governor said that he doesn't have these concerns anymore and he's okay? because you keep citing him, but he's since said --

>> he's not okay with the original route. that was one of the primary reasons why this -- >> but he said it should go forward while an alternate route is looked at, though. >> you don't grant a permit for a pipeline with a significant portion of it missing. >> yes, but you keep citing that he's opposed, but he's saying -- >> he was opposed -- >> before. >> his opposition was important to the decision to seek an alternate route, which then delayed the process. and then the process requires the permitting of the full pipeline. it's not a partial proposition. i want to go to alister. >> can we stay on this? >> yes, we can. >> just -- i'm going to change the subject very quickly. officials in iran have said that they reached out to western powers to discuss restarting negotiations over their nuclear program soon. so do you have any response to that? and could you talk about your -- the administration's attitude towards getting back to the negotiating table with iran? >> well, our position has been

clear and has not changed for a long, long time here. we have made clear from the beginning, when the president took office, that the path is open to iran to get right with the international community, to fulfill its international obligations, abide by its commitments, and that the international community, including the united states, would be willing to work with iran if it were willing to do that -- to ensure, for example, that it had access to nuclear technology for non-military purposes. and that stands. iran's behavior and its refusal to engage in serious discussions about this issue, its refusal to live up to its international

obligations, its persistence in pursuing a nuclear program in a manner that's not consistent with those international obligations has led to the consistent ratcheting up of pressure on iran, led by the united states, but together with many, many international allies and partners, and that process continues. and it has put enormous pressure on iran. it has isolated iran. and that continues. but the fact remains that there is an alternate course here available to iran should it respond to the letter from the p5-plus-1 and be willing to live up to its obligations. this is a simple choice that has been available to iran from the beginning. ann. >> thank you, jay. in general, the president doesn't oppose the construction of pipelines. after all, this is just an extension of an existing one. overall, the president thinks that they're an important part of the oil infrastructure? >> definitely. and i think that's an important

point to make, which i think i made yesterday, which is that this president's commitment to expanding domestic oil and gas production is firm, and has been demonstrated by the fact that, again, in 2011, as was the case in 2010, the united states produced more oil and gas than at any time since 2003. and he has continued to make more territory available, both in the gulf and in alaska and elsewhere, to production and development. and he has done that in a way that at the same time maintains the standards of safety and responsible development that he thinks are key. so he takes an all-of-the-above approach here. he believes firmly that we need to continue to exploit, if you will, our domestic resources. we need to continue to invest in clean energy technologies. and doing so, taking this approach that includes oil, natural gas, nuclear power and other clean energy technologies, is the best energy policy and the surest way to ensure that we increase -- improve our national security and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

and so this is not an either/or proposition, it's a both/and. you can do this, you can increase domestic oil and gas production, as has been the case on his watch, and do it in a safe and responsible way. and doing it in a safe and responsible way includes ensuring that the proper reviews are conducted for a proposal like this keystone pipeline, in accordance with longstanding bipartisan tradition in multiple administrations. >> this, of course, is an extension to canadian oilfields. does he had an opinion on tar sands and whether those are an appropriate place to -- >> the president is a firm believer in the fact that we

need -- that we can and we must develop energy sources in a safe and responsible way. and obviously there are -- you have to take a lot of factors into consideration when you do that. the overall issue here is about economic security and national security. and that's why it is so important to embrace the possibility of further development and ensure that we do it in a way that's safe and responsible. and that's true for oil, it's true for natural gas, it's true for nuclear and it's true for clean air technology -- i mean, sorry, clean energy technology. getting ahead of myself. mr. henry, again. >> thank you very much. can i follow up on iran real quick and then a question on taxes? you said in your answer to alister, by talking about the p5-plus-1, and that is a channel the u.s. can use. but there's a lawmaker in iran and the foreign minister in iran are both on the record saying that a letter has come from

president obama directly to the supreme leader saying that there should be direct u.s. -iranian talks. has such a letter been written, and are you open to direct talks? >> our position has not changed. any communications we may have had with -- or may have with the iranians are the same in private as they have been in public, and that is along the lines of what i just restated in terms of our position and our policy. the p5-plus-1 structure is in place. if the iranians are serious about restarting talks, then they need to respond to that letter. that is the channel by which -- the mode by which the restarting of those talks would take place. again, our expression of our position is the same in private as it is in public. the statement that there is a path here towards renewed talks and a path here for iran to pursue if it so chooses that would allow it to get right with the international community, that would allow it to stop the process that has isolated it further and further, has been apparent from the beginning and it remains available to iran to this day.

but iran has shown no inclination thus far to make that choice, to make that decision. and what we have seen over the three years since this president has been in office is he has -- by pursuing the iranian issue in the way that he has, he has ensured that a world that was in conflict over this issue is now united -- an international community -- and an iran that was united is now in conflict. and that is the effect that the president's policies have had on iran and on this process. he has brought to bear a level of consensus in the international community on the need to pressure iran and isolate iran on this issue that did not exist prior to him taking office.

>> but can you address going back to the '08 campaign, then- republican-candidate john mccain was complaining that direct talks with iran that the president had talked about then in the campaign would show weakness because why would you sit down with a country for direct talks -- >> the president has always made clear -- >> -- wipe israel off the map? >> -- the process by which negotiations or talks would take place is the p5-plus-1. the president has always made clear that -- as he did when he took office, as he stated during the campaign -- that by offering the possibility of resolving this dispute with the iranians through negotiations and talks would strengthen the united states' hand, because if iran agreed to do that and fulfilled its international obligations and abandoned its nuclear -- its pursuit of a nuclear weapon, that would be to

the greater good and in the interest of the united states as well as its allies and partners around the world. and if it did not, it would be clear to the whole world that iran was the problem here -- not the united states. and that is exactly what has happened. we have a level of international consensus about iranian behavior that we did not have before. we have a situation where iran's economy is clearly suffering from the effects of the international sanctions regime, as well as the unilateral sanctions that various nations have placed on iran. and that isolation has caused disunity within the iranian leadership and made clear to the world that they have isolated themselves outside of international norms. >> the last thing, on taxes. yesterday, when norah asked you about mitt romney saying that his tax rate is around 15 percent -- this gets back to the old thing that you mentioned, the president has mentioned, about warren buffett paying less

than his secretary because of the rate that capital gains are taxed. what is the president's -- from a policy standpoint, what then is his solution? i mean, he's talked about various things like the buffett rule and whatnot, but in terms of law, is it to bring capital gains tax rates up closer to income tax rates so that's more fair? is it -- what is his prescription then? >> well, i appreciate the question, ed, and it's a legitimate one. the president has made clear what his principles are in terms of tax reform. he is for both corporate tax reform and individual tax reform. and one of the principles that he would bring to the table in the development of individual tax reform is the buffett rule, which would ensure that millionaires and billionaires, because of the nature of their income, do not pay at a lower rate than middle-class americans -- that warren buffett

does not pay a lower rate in taxes than his secretary, as mr. buffett himself has said. how you get there is a matter that i will leave to the president and others to propose, because tax reform is a -- there are many ways to skin the cat, and it's a complicated process. but the principle of the buffett rule is one that he believes is very important, because it goes right to the situation we were talking about yesterday and that you raise, and that is that it simply, as a matter of fairness, does not make a lot of sense for millionaires and billionaires to be able to pay taxes at a much lower rate than somebody making $100,000 a year or less. and so that is a principle he would bring to bear here. it is particularly -- there are a variety of ways that -- there are a variety of loopholes within the tax code that -- or elements of the tax code, as well as loopholes within it, that create that situation, not least of which -- and he's identified this -- is the carried interest loophole, that allows hedge fund managers and private equity managers to take income for their labor and have it taxed at a capital gains rate. the president believes that's just -- in the world that we

live in right now, when middle- class americans are struggling, when they've seen their wages stagnate or decline, when there's enormous economic pressure on hardworking american families, that's just not fair. and we have important things that we need to do to ensure that america is strong and that our economy is powerful in the 21st century. and so we need to make sure that everyone has a fair shot and everyone pays a fair share. april. >> hi, jay. back on keystone, realistically, a timeline -- now that there's been a rejection, what's the timeline as far as an alternative route. what do you think that -- when do you think you'll -- >> you're giving us answers, so you didn't take issue -- >> well, i've been reviewing facts that have been true prior to today. as for pipeline proposals of the nature that are -- of the nature of keystone that are

transnational, i mean, those would go through the normal channels, through the state department. and their duration in terms of the review process would be -- again, absent extraneous, political interference, would take place in the normal manner. but that's just the way the process exists. >> -- in a 60-day process? >> well, the 60-day thing was the arbitrary element inserted into an unrelated tax cut bill. but that's not how the process works. the process works in the manner that the state department has run -- designed and run it for many years. >> and the reason why i ask that question is because there are already concerns about the fact that "tens of thousands of jobs" will be lost because of this rejection. so would you consider this more so of a deferment of job creation? >> well, let me just make clear here, as the state department decided and the president concurred, the review process was extended because of a decision to change the route.

that process should be allowed to take its course. the review should be allowed to be conducted in the appropriate way with all factors weighed and considered, overseen by the state department. that is certainly the way this thing should happen. unfortunately, because of the decision by republicans to insert this extraneous provision within a tax cut bill, there is this arbitrary deadline of 60 days, forcing the administration's hand. but again, the broader process will continue to work the way it has always worked, again, predating this administration. >> but i'm talking about the issue of job creation that comes from this and while people are screaming that tens of thousands of jobs are lost now because -- >> april, you have -- these projects -- you have to weigh a variety of considerations,

economic impact, environmental impact, health and safety, national security -- and that's the way it should be. there are hundreds of thousands of teachers and first responders who could go back to work right away if congress would act on the american jobs act, if republicans would stop blocking the provisions within the american jobs act that this president proposed and democrats support. there are tens of thousands of construction workers -- infrastructure jobs, not unlike the building of a pipeline -- who could be going back to work rebuilding our infrastructure, making us more competitive for the 21st century, if republicans would support, as they often have in the past, the kind of infrastructure investments that are included in the american jobs act. and again, as we've said earlier -- i've said earlier this month in briefings, we remain optimistic that that kind of cooperation could be forthcoming this year, because it really is incumbent upon

every elected member of congress as well as the president to work together towards the goal of improving our economy and creating jobs. kristen. >> thanks, jay. just to follow up a bit on what april was asking, the bottom line is the keystone pipeline has become a political lighting rod this year. so what's the administration's level of concern that the debate itself has really in some ways pitted this administration against some unions who are saying this would put them back to work? >> i would simply say that on issues like this there is a non- political, professional process that has been in place, was established long before this administration came to office, and is the proper way to conduct the reviews for applications for permits for these kinds of transnational projects.

that review process is run by the state department. it was being run by the state department. a change in the route was made because of concerns expressed -- legitimate concerns expressed by stakeholders in nebraska and elsewhere. and because of that, the process had to be extended. that's how it's supposed to work. there are a lot of factors to weigh in these kinds of decisions, including national security factors, issues of the health and safety of our children and the residence of folks in the area of any proposed pipeline, economic impacts, job impacts, the effect on our energy security. and that's the kind of process that the state department oversees. it involves input from many agencies. and that's the way this should proceed. it should not become, as you say, highly political in the way that it has become because of the decision to insert an

extraneous provision within a tax cut bill. >> i understand there is a non- political process, but given that we're in a reelection year, isn't it impossible for this not to take some sort of a political -- >> it's up to others to decide how political they want to be about any kind of decision like this. this president, this administration, is tasked with the responsibility of reviewing these matters in a way that's appropriate, that takes into consideration all the different criteria that need to be brought to bear in a decision like this. and that's the approach the state department has taken and the president has taken, and will continue to take. >> and just to ask one quick one on another topic, jay. representative peter king, chairman of the house homeland security committee, as you know, back in august, raised some concerns over kathryn bigelow's upcoming osama bin laden movie, raised some concerns that there were potentially some classified information that was leaked about the kill and capture of osama bin laden. last week, the cia and the defense department officially

opened an investigation up into this project. what's the administration's reaction? >> well, the cia and the defense department are part of the administration. and i would point you to them and their announcement of their look into this. what i made clear at the time is that there was some loose reporting in a column about what the white house did. and i made clear that in discussing that mission and those days with folks involved in making this film or writing books or articles or doing tv pieces, we said all the same things and none of it was classified. >> and you're confident that this investigation -- >> well, again, i would refer you to the defense department and the cia -- with regard to that -- because i was part of that process -- with regard to the white house's engagement with reporters like everyone in

this room, practically, as well as others who were working on magazine articles or books or films, we provided the same information to everybody, and none of it was classified. laura. >> my question is a process question. why, knowing as you do the interest in the keystone issue, and knowing as you do that this decision is going to be announced later today, why would you announce it after the briefing, and therefore put yourself in a position where you won't answer any questions about it and where we won't have an opportunity -- >> well, i'm not going anywhere. you know you guys can ask me questions. i'm here most days. >> okay. all right. >> you're welcome to fill a seat. the'll call you after decision comes out. >> i know it's hard to believe, but the schedule of decision- making and policy processes and stuff are not all dependent on my schedule, or the briefing schedule, or the communications shop. and that's how it should be. so, again, you guys probably don't like me to brief in the middle of the evening or something, so i would just

point you to the fact that we may have something more to say about this later today. margaret. >> thanks. on keystone, without confirming a rejection, can you explain to us what a rejection would mean? in other words -- (laughter. ) no, no, i'm not -- i'm totally serious. >> no, good question. >> okay, so if transcanada has to submit a new route, does that just -- like, does the clock start at zero again? are we looking at another 10- year process? you can say that house republicans forced their hand on that, but i'm trying to understand what does -- what would a rejection mean. would a rejection mean -- >> well, let me make two points -- >> -- begin at the complete beginning? >> well, let me make two points. first of all, these reviews are conducted by the state department, and the details of how they work are best explained by the state department. however, i would point out that absent the payroll tax cut and the insertion of an extraneous provision within it that had

created this arbitrary 60-day deadline, there was a process in place that wasn't 10 years, but when the route had been changed was -- i think it was 18 months, if i'm not mistaken. and that's because that's the amount of time that the state department believes was necessary -- would be necessary to properly review an alternate route. i would refer you to the state department for more details about how that process generally works, depending on whatever decision was made because of the necessity created out of this legislation. >> so this is the white house's understanding that this would probably begin another 18-month time clock then? i can ask -- i'll ask my state department reporters to ask -- >> i don't have a white house view to express on that except for what i just said, which is that the process -- i mean, because it depends on a lot of factors, including the outcome of this decision. but as you noted in even your question, there are players in this process, including companies, private companies, there's another country involved, which is the reason why the state department is engaged in this.

so i would be -- i would not want to speculate. >> it may have been eight months from now that you guys gave it the green light, and what i'm asking is, is that option now totally obviated? is that no longer an option? >> i would just refer you to the state department. i just don't have details for that. and again, it's based on the premise of a decision that i'm not announcing from here. >> and any white house reaction, in just working principle, as you've gone through your day, have the internet provider and website protests affected you guys in any way? >> well, i don't have any effects or impacts that i've noted beyond to point out that we made very clear over the weekend our views on this, and we had tremendous response to our "we the people" initiative. and we think it's an important process here that has been conducted where there's a lot of external input expressed about the many important issues that are at stake.

and our firm belief is that we need to do something about online piracy by foreign websites, but we need to do it in a way that does not impinge upon a free and open internet. and what that means is that both sides, loosely defined, the two sides in this issue need to come together and find a solution that strikes a balance. and i think that process has been benefited by the interest and the number of voices that have been heard on this issue. we've been really impressed by the volume of response that we've gotten online to what we put out over the weekend.

lesley, and then jackie. >> jay, can you give us a little bit more on the president's visit to florida tomorrow and some of the republican criticism that he's going to be there just a few days before republican gop candidates will arrive, after south carolina and polls are down in the state for him? >> well, i've discussed his travel. i mean, he goes to states all across the country. and every president should travel across the country to meet with americans from as many states as possible -- and that's a principle this president pursues. he will travel tomorrow to florida, to orlando, to walt disney world, where he will unveil a strategy that will significantly help boost tourism and travel, which is an important and sometimes overlooked sector in the u.s. economy. the action will be taken as the president's "we can't wait"

agenda of executive actions that will aid job growth and do not require congressional approval -- which goes back to the point i made earlier, which is he's pursuing every avenue possible here to tackle what he thinks is our most important challenge, which is growing the economy, creating jobs, positioning the american economy to compete and dominate in the 21st century. and this is another indication of that effort. i think -- >> -- a few days out of the florida primary being started, it has nothing to do with -- >> you can argue that, but, first of all, our schedules are made with a lot of different considerations well in advance. i think i read reports a few weeks ago that this thing would be over after iowa. you can't -- that would -- or that it could go on until may as it did in -- or june, as it did in 2008. that would make it impossible for us for -- if we were

guessing in the weeks in advance that we make travel arrangements like this, it would make it very hard for us to go to many, many places. this is -- it's obvious when you're making a tourism and travel announcement that one of the premier sites of u.s. tourism industry is orlando, so it seems pretty self-evident that you would do that. >> can i follow up on that? >> sure. >> is the president disappointed that senator nelson won't be with him tomorrow in orlando? >> i'm not aware of any opinion he's expressed on that. >> apart from general state of the union follow-up, what's the message next week on this five- state tour? >> well, since he'll be talking about the subjects that he raised in the state of the union, if i were to talk about the subjects he'll raise in the states that he visits i would be getting ahead of the president. so look, i think one thing you

can be sure of -- and this is broadly speaking, you shouldn't rule out other subjects -- but that he is fiercely focused on economic growth and job creation and pursuing every -- using every tool available to him to assist in that project. so that will certainly be a topic generally of his address next week, and it will be a topic that he discusses on the road both after the state of the union and beyond, as he has so frequently prior to the state of the union. >> and i appreciate that the florida plan had nothing to do with the fact that florida is about to vote, and then he's going to nevada, which is the next state up to vote. it seems awfully coincidental. >> well, look, again, if we -- we would have to rule out -- remember what happened in 2008. we would have had to decide back in december or november -- and

we make decisions fairly far in advance about where we're going to travel -- that we couldn't go to any state that had a primary -- that's 50 states, basically -- because all of them could be the place where the nomination was decided in the other party. we can't do that. this president, as every president is, is president of all the united states of america, of all the people in the country, and he's going to travel around the country to talk about the issues that are important to americans in every state, including, most importantly, economic growth and job creation. brianna. i'm sorry. did i miss you this whole time? >> i didn't consider it -- >> okay. >> on keystone you talk about these are processes that have been in place in other administrations. i mean, the president has talked about kind of greasing the rails in some ways to create jobs. isn't this sort of one of those bureaucratic mountains that he's talked about moving? >> well, you eliminate red tape and you eliminate bureaucracy, you do the kinds of things that

he has done in an unprecedented move with his regulatory look- back process that has eliminated a lot of rules and regulations to make life easier for american businesses. but you do that in a careful review to make sure that you're not eliminating processes or rules that are vital to either health and safety of the american people, or national security, or energy security. so, no, you don't ignore potential issues involving the health and safety of residents in numerous states who would be affected by this pipeline. you have to --it's your responsibility. and that's why this process is always done in a manner that's very thorough, very considered, that weighs all the different factors that are at stake here in a decision like this. >> but wouldn't it serve him -- >> i mean, the issue here is to short-circuit a process and

approve a pipeline, the route for which hasn't even been decided -- or proposed. >> i'm not saying in a haphazard way. but wouldn't it be better to move forward in some way, in tandem with the state review? some way to move forward on this instead of being hit, as he's going to be hit, over and over by republicans who are saying, according to transcanada, this is 20,000 jobs -- and they're going to put it over and over in different pieces of legislation and it will be a fight over and over. isn't he better off moving forward in some way? >> there are going to be a lot of fights. and i understand the republicans, for lack of alternative arguments to make on the proper way to balance our

budget, or on tax reform, or how we should best pay for the kinds of investments we need, or why they oppose putting 400,000 teachers and first responders back to work, or why they oppose putting construction workers back to work, that they will grab onto some other arguments. but that doesn't mean the president doesn't have the responsibility, and his administration doesn't have a responsibility, to conduct a review like this properly and by the book. and that's how they're going to do it. >> these are private sector jobs. they don't require any expenditure by government. >> that's not the issue. the issue is the impact that a development project like this, transnational development project like this would have on the health and safety of the american people in the region, on our economic security, on job creation, on our energy security. these are -- there's a variety of factors that have to be considered, and they should be considered. they should not be set aside out of -- for political gain. i mean, let's go back to how this happened, right? the president was making a very compelling argument about the need to implement the provision within the american jobs act to extend the payroll tax cut.

his original proposal was to expand the payroll tax cut so that americans got -- 160 million americans got a bigger tax cut this year. republicans went from opposing that to being ambivalent about it to suddenly deciding that they needed some -- because they were going to have to go along with it in the end because it was the right thing to do and their constituents were telling them it was the right thing to do -- to deciding they needed some sort of political victory, and this is what they settled on, an attempt to hijack a process, to short-circuit a review process that needs to be conducted properly in order that all the prerogatives here are considered. and that's how it should be and that's how it will be. george. oh, jackie, i said you next. >> on another issue that pits constituencies against each other, you mentioned that, on saturday's blog post about the issue of intellectual property rights and piracy, that you were just trying to urge the sides to come together on a solution. but it was widely interpreted

in some as the white house taking sides with google against hollywood. why do you think that's the wrong way to look at it? >> because as i just stated, we believe there is a need absolutely to address the problem of online piracy conducted by foreign websites, which is the real driving issue here. we made clear in the statement that we put out over the weekend that we oppose the so-called dns filter, and we made clear what our principles are in how we pursue -- or how the government ought to pursue addressing the issue of online privacy, and in doing that, it must not impinge upon the freedom of the internet because the internet is such a vital resource for our economy and for the american people. but these are -- there are absolute issues here that -- and interests that all sides of this debate have, and they're

legitimate, and that's why there needs to be the kind of dialogue we believe that could bring us to a resolution -- that could result in a resolution that is balanced and addresses concerns about online privacy, but doesn't impinge upon the freedom of the internet. >> but you had bills moving forward in each house towards markup, and typically this administration is, if anything, deferential towards the legislative process in congress. why -- >> everybody hear that? >> why the timing? and why was it timed on a saturday? i mean, there are so many aspects of the timing of this that are unusual. >> well, i think there was a great deal of focus and interest and intensity on this issue. we have the "we the people" process and solicited opinions on this issue, and the threshold was met for us to respond and we did.

i think it's entirely appropriate for us to put forward our view on pending bills, as you stated, at least on the provision in particular within one of them or both of them on the dns filter, and on the overall principles that we think should guide this process. >> thank you. >> anybody else? george, i owe you, and then that will be it. >> yes, i just wanted to clarify -- >> and then cheryl, i know you're dying in the back there, sorry. >> i just wanted to clarify your answer to ed. are you confirming that the president sent a new letter to the leadership in iran? >> i'm not -- we don't discuss specific communications, diplomatic communications. i would say that we have a variety of channels through which we can communicate with the iranians and that any message we communicate to the iranians about these issues would be entirely consistent with what we've said publicly, what i've said publicly, the president, the secretary of state and others. and you can be sure of that. cheryl. >> two personnel issues -- i

know you love talking about that. are you considering -- >> i have no personnel announcements to make. >> is the president considering larry summers to head the world bank? >> i don't have any personnel announcements to make. >> and is the president actively looking for a new omb director, or is jeff zients going to stick around for a while? >> well, he just became acting director for the second time. so i don't want to foreshadow anything. the president is very appreciative of jeff's excellent service so far, his willingness to be acting director in the past, his willingness to do this again now. this is a very important role. it's very important specifically as regards our interactions with congress. so he's very pleased that jeff is taking on this responsibility. >> has the president talked to

prime minister harper? >> i don't have any foreign calls to announce. >> so he hasn't talked to him? >> i just said i don't have any foreign calls to announce. thanks. >> will we have the president on keystone? >> am i the warm-up act? >> yes. >> i have no -- nothing more to say on the matter. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> house minority leader nancy pelosi spoke with reporters for about 20 minutes wednesday afternoon. most of the event focused on thekeystone pipeline. >> could afternoon.

-- good afternoon. here we are back to work. we all know what is at stake here. the first order of business is to pass the payroll tax cut for 160 million americans. as unemployment insurance for millions of americans who are out of work through no fault of their own and for tens of millions of seniors for us to pass legislation that will enable them to see their doctor under medicare. this is something that we all know is a possibility. we have been over this for a long period of time. i can just assume that after a large absence from congress republicans will come back to work. it can be done in a short period of time. let me say with the

unemployment insurance, traditionally most of the time it has not been paid for. if it needs to be paid for, the same thing with the payroll tax cut, think of this. the double standard of republicans. for tax cuts for the wealthiest people of the country, they do not have to be paid for. tax cuts for the middle class, the have to be paid for. let's join them together. that can also cover the unemployment insurance costs as well. as far as the ability of seniors to see their doctor under medicare, we think this can be paid for by the war savings funding otherwise known as the overseas contingency account. there we have it. we have the three major

provisions of the legislation that was passed for a two month. in december. we can take it to the end of the year. if the republicans insist on paying for payroll tax cuts for the middle class as the have not insisted on tax cuts for the wealthiest, we have a way to do that. again, we are in session two whole days. mr. hoyer told us it will be two full days. there is plenty of time to meet and directed by legislative business to get this done. it is just a matter of priorities. we know that the payroll tax cut, the unemployment insurance are not only good for the individuals, for these families, but it is good for our economy. it has a macroeconomic effect. money will be spent quickly and injected into the economy to create jobs.

a taxcreate jobs and give cut to the middle class. let's do so in a way that does not increase the deficit. we all observed on monday martin luther king day. what a wonderful thing to do so this year seeking that beautiful monument on the mall. imagine martin luther king standing there comfortably among the washington monument, jefferson memorial, the lincoln memorial, fdr memorial, the great presidents of our country. a great leader for our country. he talked about the fierce urgency of now. we could not afford the luxury of gradualism. we do not need gradualism now. we need strong statements to create jobs and to reduce the deficit and make the feature bright for our children. >> could you talk for a moment

where you are now on he piracy acts. we have had an avalanche of criticism of this the past few days. people are criticizing the bill. >> i will be happy to answer that. i just want to see if anybody has any questions on our legislative business which is imminent. it has to go forward and if it needs to be paid for, a surcharge on the wealthy. savings from a ftr. let's get the jobs done. >> republicans have all along said absolutely no to a surtax on millionaires. it sounds like we are in the same position that we were prior to the recess. is there any movement at all backs it seems like we are

hitting the same positions we saw in the beginning of the fight. >> let's review that. we had many objections to what the republicans were proposing before. many of them legislative language in this bill, much of which they walked away from. the fact is, the surcharge is the simplest easiest way to pay for this. if republicans have some other suggestions, let them put them forward. democrats are not going to dip with one hand from the middle class and take away with the other hand. that is what republicans want to do. we won a payroll tax cut, too, but we want to the -- seniors to pay more for their medicare. this is not going to be paid for by a penalty to the middle class. if you have another idea, tell us why the surcharge is not the best way to go. >> republicans make the.

they passed a bill on the house and that democrats did not pass a bill in the senate. q. did not offer an alternative in the house. they do not want to negotiate themselves. they say it is up to zero democrats to offer alternatives. >> we just did. we just made a suggestion. i think it is up to the american people. the american people know our economy will benefit from the effect of having the tax cuts for the middle class. unemployment insurance brings a lot of money into the economy. it increases demand and increases jobs. this is about jobs and is about doing so in a way that is fair to the middle class. we will continue to make that argument. if they do not want to accept a surcharge, what are they accept -- suggesting in its place tax we are not giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

it is absolutely necessary for us to have a fairness in our budget decisions and in our tax decisions. >> the president was expected to announce he is rejecting the keystone. >> that is a little off the subject. i will come back to it. it is about as close to this, but none the less. you are right. it was in the bill. we will come to you next. >> you mention paying for it with the savings from the war cost, those may score but on the practical level those expenses are not expected to happen in the future with the clout of iraq. a very strong case to be made that is a gimmick. my question would be, is that not sort of the kind of

gimmickry that people are tired of hearing about where you pay with something with phantom money? >> it is what the republicans used in the rye and budget. -- ryan budget. they use the overseas contingency account for that. one of the biggest favors that we can do for american seniors really it really should not be considered a favor, it is something they deserve. take off the table forever whether they can see their doctor under medicare. this is something that even the republicans in the senate have been inclined to spend some were savings to do for partial fix. we are saying, we can do it all right now. let's get it off the table. that removes the uncertainty. let me say this because i have been following this issue for a

long time. the sooner you do it, the less it costs. as you drag it out, it just increases the cost to the taxpayer. it is not any more of a gimmick that when it was used for another -- other initiatives along the way. >> the president is expected to reject the keystone of pipeline from canada. they made at the comment that it would be a job creator in this country and the consequence is the oil would be shipped to china rather than the united states. arthur not consequences to rejecting this text let me make a few points on the subject of the keystone pipeline. the president has not made an announcement yet. i do not have a heads up from that other than i just came back from a conference of mayors and it never came up and said the rumor was as you described. if the republicans cared so much

about the keystone pipeline, they would not have narrowed the presidents options by putting it on the timeline they did. they left him little choice. this oil was always destined for overseas. it's just about whether it leaves canada by the way of canada or the united states. without taking a position, i do not agree with the stipulations this is oral going to china instead of the u.s. it was always predict this is oil always going to china rather than the u.s. there are arguments to be made on both sides. we should not be building a pipeline if the oil is staying in the u.s. it is not. the republicans need only look in the mirror why this decision

is announced there was no way in the this timeline the president could do anything else. i do not know if it is a definitive answer. we do not know until we hear. >> so on the sopa act, there has been an avalanche of criticism on both sides. i know there are folks in your neck of the woods are very involved in the tech community. what do you think about wikipedia giong blank in protest, and is there a compromise that could be forged that's obviously there is bipartisan opposition to where this bill was written now. >> that was about four or five or six questions. are you ok with that ta? i take great pride in our golden

state. it is the center of the imagination for the world. whether you are talking about the development of content or technology and distribution of largely in the north but throughout our state, with this imagination we will be able to come up with some technical fix for us to deal with protecting intellectual property and copyright without infringing freedom of expression on the internet. more particular to what you said about some of the sites shutting down, i have heard a great deal from my constituents on this subject as you can well imagine. you have to come there and see it. it is the most amazing place -- in terms of technology for the future. i like what google has done.

they blanked out, but they have a statement that says in regard to protecting intellectual property, we have to sit down and get together and do something that has consensus going forward. i am not doing justice to the essence of this statement. all i saw was a blank. i have heard from many, many, many constituents. they are all very concerned about freedom on the internet. the are concerned about the impact on the content. would you develop content if it will already be taken by somebody else attacks on the other hand, we are in a different world of communication and technology. we should be able to work this out. the conference of mayors endorsed sopa.

some did, and some did not endorse it. it is a wonderful opportunity for us to have a national debate on a topic that has an impact on people. young the people want to know why wikipedia is shut down today. what is the internet about? it is about the future and privacy. those interests have to be protected but we also have to protect intellectual property. >> this is between silicon valley and hollywood. is it fair to say you are on the side of silicon valley? >> i am on the side of the american people. i hope we can find a way to have a bill that addresses the protection of content and the freedom of distribution and technology. >> how is 60 days adequate time to come to a solution on the long-term extension for payroll

tax cuts but 60 days to come up with a decision on the keystone project is not? >> none of the provisions of a payroll tax cuts are new. everybody knows -- this is a smorgasbord that we have seen over and over again. there is nothing new about it. when you are talking about all that it takes for an international agreement, and that is why the state department was involved, because the pipeline will cross an international border, you are talking about a much more complex issue. when i was in canada last year, i was at a speaker's meeting in september, this was subject a. my question to them was, why do you not take it up through canada? they do not want to. they do not want to take it out

through canada, they want to take it out through the united states. it is going out. there are major complexities to it. by putting a time line on it, it predetermined the logical response. will it be definitive? i do not know. we will see. i will be gone by then it from here. >> the president is coming up next tuesday for a state of the union address. have you had any conversations with the white house about the things that mike come up? >> i would not engage in a conversation with the white house except to say to you that i have expressed to the appreciation of our congress to the president for his taking on the message of fairness to the american people. i think without his involvement out their rigid let me say it in a positive. for the presidents involvement

in taking the message, i think the winners for the middle class of america. they get to see their own doctors under medicare. we are proud of the president. i think the most enduring theme in america is reigniting the american dream. we have plenty of work to do. we believe that we will strengthen the middle-class and rebuild the middle class by engaging in the abcs we talked about before -- make it in america. at 2 beeper detection test but to be reliant. building infrastructure whether it is broadband or pipelines of

america. i do not know if this will happen, but part of our democratic message is we want a new politics for the future, new politics free of the heavy interest of special interests. disclosure would be an important part of that. signed the bright light onto who is making these contributions. that is part of for rego from here. disclose, we can do some of that now. we have to when to do that. all of it is important to strengthen the voice of the middle class. while we do that, fight efforts to -- i do not like to say

repress the vote. it is too discouraging. we must protect the rights of voters to make sure they cannot vote and their votes will be counted. it is about, again, a vision about the american dream which is what our country is about. it is about ways that are part of the american jobs at that contains many of these provisions. we have a lot -- he is a master of communication, but we do not know what his speech will be but we know what his values are. our vision and values will be reflected in his speech as well. one more question. >> republicans today, their attempt to disapprove the presidents request for the debt

limit. your thoughts on that? >> the very idea that the country had to undergo the juvenile behavior of the republicans this summer when they were willing to jeopardize the full faith and credit of the united states of america to such an extent that our credit rating was downgraded, to such an extent that our reputation was questioned. i think it sent a message to the american people that it was important for them to know about the tea party congress. today it is just another exercise in that juvenile behavior. thank you all very much. did i wish you a happy new year? >> i you betting on the forty- niners? >>

>> who did we but yesterday -- i just cannot be waiting to eat that chocolate ice cream. if he saw it in a movie, how could we suspend our disbelief to pull this off. i grew up in baltimore where johnny unitas pulled it off. my kids grow up in san francisco with joe montana -- same thing. we saw that happen. i am going to be in the midwest and in baltimore, a number of places on my way home this weekend. i do not know if i will go to green bay for the game with jake who ever thought new york would win? i am really happy to be going home.

was it not thrilling football four of my children were born in new york. new york is kind of a second or third depending on where they are in the next. baltimore, new york, san francisco, my son and law is from colorado. we had almost everything in the game. somebody was going to win and be happy in the family. we are really thrilled. >> you want forty-niners and baltimore ravens as the final? >> would that not be great? it is easy for me, i am from san francisco. i am from baltimore but i would like san francisco to win as

well. we will see. is it not break to watch those? >> you will be at the game? >> i will be at the game. thank you all. >> and a few moments, gop presidential candidate mitt romney campaigns in south

carolina. the white house -- the house debates on the presidents request to raise the debt limit by more than one trillion dollars. several live political events to tell you about tomorrow including two in charleston, south carolina. in the first, ron paul speaks at the college of charleston. at 2:00 eastern, the southern republican leadership conference meeting in charleston hosts rick santorum, former presidential candidate herman cain, and the head of the family research council tony perkins. we are covering president obama speech at the apollo theater. that is at 9:30. >> only those who showed their resolve to defend the freedom of the west can be trusted to

safeguard it and enter the challenging, turbulent, and unpredictable times that lie ahead. [applause] the decade and the century which opened up before us must cd lasting triumph of liberty of common cause. the world needs britain and britain he needs us. >> nicknamed "the iron lady" by the soviet union in 1976, she is currently being perpetrated on the servers green -- she is certainly being the scene on the silver screen the by meryl streep. >> that is not our view. we do not wish to hand over

powers to other bodies. >> search, watch, clip, and sure, it is what you want when you want. >> our coverage continues with republican presidential candidate mitt romney at a campaign rally in spartanburg, south carolina. [applause] ♪

♪ >> good morning, everybody. that is your clue not to say anything else. i am a southern baptist, but i am not that that this minister. if i was a baptist minister, i

would say what a beautiful day the lord has given us. i think the mitt romney crowds are getting better every day. thank you for coming out here this morning. south carolina has an outsized the burden. we are first in the south, and people see that as a privilege. it is actually a burden. we have to elect somebody not just to win the nomination but to be the next president of the united states. we need a leader. we need a leader that has private industry experience. we need somebody that can create wealth and jobs. we need a leader, and we need him now. we do not need to wait for years. we need to stop mr. obama and send him back to chicago. as you know, the campaign in south carolina gets rather heated. we have everybody from barack

obama and moveon.org and newt gingrich attacking us because we believe in free enterprise. mitt romney has been a success in free enterprise, and we will take those skills to the white house. he has come here today because he believes in spartanburg county. the you believe in spartanburg county? he is running for president. he is giving up a volatile part of his life because he believes in america. do you -- he is giving up a part of his life because he believes in america. the you believe in america? it is my honor to introduce not just mitt romney, but his lovely wife anne. >> thank you. do you know who this guy is here? nascar legend david pearson. do you want to say hi?

say hi to everybody. >> ok. i will say hi. >> that is the kind of speech i like. straight to the. and it gets the job done. it is great to be here. i love it here. what is south carolina day. this is gorgeous. what kind of tree is that that's i do not even know. that is a mitt romney tree, there you go. you guys are kind to be here this morning. how beautiful it is in this wonderful state. i love this country. i love to have the chance to do what i am doing. i have brought one of the best people from the world today.

when she turned almost 16, i really did take a notice. she went to a party at a friend's house and i was there too. i went up to the fellowship came with him. i said, i live closer to her than you do. how about i give her a ride home and for you. he agreed. we have been going steady ever since. my sweetheart, and romney. >> thank you. it is great to be here. it is wonderful to have the children. mitt and i have been married a long time. we met in high school. there are no secrets here. we know everything about each other. we have had an extraordinary life. now it is time for some serious things to happen in this country. i asked mitt romney a question about one year ago. i am not asking you if you can win -- can you even get the nomination? i am asking you that if you can win, can you make a difference

and turn this country around? he said yes. i know now what we have to do. you have to go and run and you have to be barack obama. [applause] we can get distracted by a lot of things going on right now, but you have to ask yourself this question. who can beat barack obama? you have to ask yourself another question, who can turn the economy around attacks on the one person, this guy right here. -- who can turn the economy around? this person right here. he would remind the what i was doing was more important than what he was doing. my job as a mother would bring us lasting happiness, and it has. it is great to see my five sons married and to see these great grand children that we have.

my other great joy in life that i have is watching my grand children misbehave. when they are really naughty is what i love it the most. i look at my sons, and i say you guys deserve every second of this. it is great. it is great to see they followed the example of their father. they are wonderful husbands and wonderful father's, too. that brings us great joy. i am excited about where we are. south carolina, you have a job to do. you have to make sure and make the right decision right now. you have to decide who can beat barack obama. it is an important decision you have to ask yourself when you go into the voting booth. you have to ask you can turn this country around. it is this guy right here. [applause] >> after she speaks, people always ask me, why do we not let her run for president instead of me. i have to take the microphone

away from her a little earlier. i have had the chance over the last -- how many months now? i have had a chance to go across america. and remember the campaign promises of barack obama. wewe did not get hope. i go into people's homes and they are having a tough time. i spoke with a woman did they with tears running down her face who said can you find me a job? i am looking for a job. 9.9% unemployment in south carolina. it breaks your heart to see what is happening across the country. i see people who plan on retiring and they are now working minimum-wage jobs. i see people who were thinking of starting a family and they are having to hold off because they cannot find the work that would make starting a family possible. it has been a tough time. this president has run out of

ideas. and now he is running out of excuses. in 2012, he will run out of time. we will get rid of him. [applause] he has failed in almost every dimension. when he ran for president, he said he would get this economy going. he went on the today show shortly after being inaugurated and said, if i cannot turn this economy around in three years, i am looking at a one-term proposition. we are here to collect, right? [applause] 25 million people in america are out of work or have stopped looking for work. we have part-time work and need full-time employment. median incomes have dropped 10% in the last four years. you have soldiers coming home from iraq and afghanistan and they cannot find work. you have young people coming out of colleges and universities that expected to have a great job waiting for them and find they cannot find work. if they do find a job, it is

well less than the kind of skills that they trained and prepared to provide for the free enterprise system. these are tough times. the american people want to see something that is really different. they want a turnaround. i spent half my life learning how to turn things around and make things better. i have had that opportunity is. i did it in four different enterprise's current business in trouble, i save about 1000 jobs there. once i started a business of my own and it became successful and is now a world leader. i was hired to run the olympics in salt lake city. games in trouble, scandal, people asking to give the games back. we turned that around. i had a two billion dollars shortfall -- a $3 billion shortfall in massachusetts. we turned that around. that is how we know -- that is what we know had to do. if there's ever a leader needed to turn things around, it is now. [applause]

this is the type of a choice for america -- decide which path we are will go down. president obama fundamentally believes that the government is the source of our strength. i believe that the people of america is the source of our greatness. president obama looks to the capitals of europe for inspiration. i look to the towns and cities of america for my inspiration. he wants to see government that is larger and larger and larger. i want to see government that is smaller and simpler and smarter. he is comfortable with trillion dollar deficits over the coming decades. that will take us on a course inexorably to be like greece or italy. and there is no one big enough to bail us out. i will not build those massive deficits. i will push for what jim demint has been asking for. cut spending and balance our budget. and [applause]

i think the right course for health care is to repeal obamacare. [applause] the president thinks that the right course for america is to insist that we have unions, even where employees do not want them, by forcing something called as card check on american workers like here in south carolina they said that boeing can build a factory in south carolina because it is not a union factory. but we believe in market enterprise. [applause] perhaps sensing that other countries are growing stronger, his view is that we need to be nice to everybody because we all share common interests. i do not agree. i think some people in the world do not share our interests. i think some people in the world seek to suppress other people. i think some people in the world that the intent of expanding their power to other nations. i believe that the right course

to -- the right course for america is not to appease other nations and to not assume that america is in decline. this must be an american century. we must continue to lead the world. [applause] the president's path is one of declining investment in our military. i hope you saw the significance of his decision to cut $350 billion out of the military budget and has plans to cut out another six under $50 billion. we will cease from -- another $650 billion. being ableized from to be in to conflicts at once. our navy today is the smallest since 1917. our air force is smaller and older than any time since it was founded in 1947. the president wants to pull back their troops. my view is that we must maintain a strong military so superior to

anywhere else in the world that no one thinks of testing america's military might. [applause] one of the things i find as a go across the country and i talk to small business people -- i imagine there are a few of you here today -- people say to me why is the president attacking business? why is he attacking free enterprise. i feel under attack. almost everything he has done has made it harder for small business. made it harder for community banks. they're the ones that loans to small business. obamacare raises the specter of war costs for employees at soap business's pull back. making the national relations board an arm of unions, made business is less likely to invest. his proposals to raise taxes made businesses pullback. every policy he has pursued, his

massive expansion of regulatory powers has made small business want to pull back. everything he has done has attacked business. his rhetoric has attacked business. i must admit that one of the things i am so proud about in our party is that we stand up for freedom and free enterprise. i was disappointed over the last couple weeks to see one of my opponents attacking free enterprise, just like the president was. that is not the role of the republican party. that makes us that -- action, you know, the speaker the the day, in the debate, he talked about how he treated millions of jobs when he was working with the reagan -- created millions of jobs when he was working with the reagan administration. government does not create jobs. it is the private sector that creates jobs. [applause] congressman taking responsibility or taking credit for helping create jobs like al

gore taking credit for the internet. [laughter] you are the guys who create jobs in america, not congressman, not even presidents. this president has it entirely wrong when he attacks the private sector. do not attack the private sector could do not attack risk-takers. do not attack those who are trying to create a greater futures for their families. profit appeared it will allow people to grow. free enterprise is under attack from the right and the left and we have to stop it. we have to stand up for freedom in america everywhere we see it. [applause] this is an election that i think is, in some respects, for the soul of america. if you go back to our founding fathers, you recognize that, when they crafted the words of the declaration of independence, they had substantive meaning of enduring value. they said this -- the creator had in doubt us with certain

unalienable rights, not the state's, -- the krieger had an dallas us with certain unalienable rights, not the state, the creator. -- the creator had endowed us with inalienable right, not the states, the creator. by virtue of our own freedom to pursue happiness as we choose and we built our enterprises. we call them free enterprise and free enterprises. and they built a strong nation and the success of those who are willing to get an education at a place like will for college, who were willing to work hard, take risks, have great dreams, maybe a little luck -- their success did not make the rest of us poorer. their success mid the rest of us better off. that is the nature of america.

adam smith is right. free enterprise and pursuing one's dreams makes this nation stronger. we are in american society, an opportunity nation. president obama is trying to turn us into an entitlement nation. an entitlement society where everybody thinks that the government owes them something. and they look to government to take from some to give to others. in that society, the only people that do well of the people who do the giving and the taking, government. america is not destined to be an entitlement society. we remain a matt/opportunity nation with freedom for all. [applause] i love our national hymns. of course, our "star spangled banner," "america the beautiful," one of my favorites. oh, beautiful for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain. when i was in iowa, i used to say that corn was the amber

waves of grain. i think that got me the eight- point margin there. [laughter] 0, for heroes prove delivering strife for more than self did country love and mercy more than life. are there any soldiers in active duty? [applause] thank you. appreciate your service, ladies and gentlemen. there is another verse that strikes me. oh, beautiful for petrie dream -- for patriot dream that sees beyond the years. i am convinced that the founding fathers, in crafting this great country and establishing our declaration of independence or writing the constitution wrote not just for their time, but for the years beyond appeared that the principles that they embodied in those documents were not temporary, but enduring. i am convinced that the constitution and the declaration should be our blueprint going forward. despite the challenges that we

have, which are enormous, if we follow the blueprint of the constitution and the principles of this great land, if we enshrine freedom and opportunity, we will again remain the kind of strength and power that have allowed us to lead the world. this is the shining city on a hill. ronald reagan sought and its still is. the light has dimmed the last three years. we will make it right again. i love america. i love the people of america. i love the patriotism of our people. we're the only people in the world to place our hand over our hearts do it -- over our hearts during the playing of the national anthem. i am convinced that, if our leaders are men and women of integrity who will tell the truth, if they will draw upon the patriotism of the american people, we will overcome whatever challenges we have and remain as we have always been, the greatest nation on earth.

thank you so much. [applause] a great to be with you. thank you. thank you, you guys. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> leading up to saturday's south carolina's primary, courage takes to live through the candid events all this week. >> every time you turn around, this is an a ministration which

is against american business, against american jobs, against american energy. and then it seems surprised that they are putting people on food stamps and they think it is an accident of nature. >> there is no reason we cannot compete making cars. you are doing it here. you're making bmw pause here and selling them around the world. [applause] here ande making bmw's selling them around the world. [applause] we cannot compete. foreign companies are coming here to write to-to-work states. >> candidates get their message out meeting voters.

>> find more videos of the campaign trail at c-span.org /campaign2012. >> new to gingrich's daughters say that -- new to gingrich's daughters say that his campaign has been reinvigorated. this is more than 40 minutes. >> first off, i would like to thank all of you for coming. newt's campaignf knew i

here in south carolina. i think the debate put a new wind in our sales. we are honored to be in the daughters. newt's i would like to thank all of you for coming once again and i will introduce barbara. barbara, thank you. [applause] >> this is a great day. thank you very much for coming out. there is some as going on. i want to thank james publicly. he volunteered to organize is coming out put as many people as possible in here. -- he volunteered to organize this county and put as many

people as possible in year. i wanted to make sure which room i got so i could shear allowed. anyway, we both understand how hard it is to go around a state. i ran twice. i ran around the whole race. i have been to every nook. i cannot imagine how difficult it is to do the whole united states. i also know that it is very hard on family. the candidates can take a lot of stuff. but -- i have two daughters also. it was interesting the conversations they had with many people. but that is what supports you, your family through this. before i introduce them, people ask me why i am endorsing newt gingrich. of course i would. i would not be here if i were not endorsing him. but i want to leave three words with you.

when people going to the voting booth, i want people to remember these three words -- first, a vision, is sound vision of american exceptional is in for the 21st century. the second is sought out plans and solutions to get them done. and the third word is probably the most important word -- courage. the courage not to give in and everybody is polling at you from five different directions -- is pulling at you from five different directions. i do not know which one was born first appeared but i will do whichever one is here. this is kathy gingrich glovers. and jackie gingrich bushmen. they are here. and thank you for coming to the low country. [applause]

>> i think that is an open-ended question with a need for an answer. thank you so much for having us in this fabulous establishment. the aroma is so enticing. i have seen some of the food going by. thank you to our prop. for having us. we really appreciate being here. rietornk you to our prop for having us. we really appreciate being here. >> when people say who do you most want to say see onstage against barack obama, the answer is newt gingrich. i really do think that is because we are in south carolina. it is a special place to me.

i went to presbyterian college here in south carolina. my dad is a georgian. we are from georgia, right across the border. i think there is a lot of familiarity. i think there is a lot of warmth that we feel for being here. most of all, i think there is a lot of passion and life in the people of south carolina. you can feel it. could you not feel it? it was elected, was it not? it was wonderful. the electricity in the air, you could actually feel it coursing through your body. dad felt that and you ran with it. one of the ideas that i like to throw out there is that, when he becomes the nominee and he debates barack obama, i think we should have pay-per-view. [applause] and not down dragnet -- all that money we could raise would go to the national debt.

i want to talk a few things about that and why it is so important that south carolina takes precedent. and why it is very important for you not to vote, but to drag however many people to vote for him. because it really does mean a lot. first of all, we are in a point in our nation's history where, if we do not beat barack obama, we will not have for years of the same. will get much worse. it is important for republicans to have someone debate him onstage, but a candidate with the toughness and courage to withstand the bronze of attacks that come his way. it will happen. it is a fact. the joy i have had on the campaign trail -- i have spent a lot of time with kathy. is my dad.ny

he is determined. he is not a parade. -- he is not afraid. he did not have to run. this is not something he was compelled to do as a person. he was making very good living with no one bothering him. and we knew, as a family and he knew, as a person, that if he ran it would be long, hard, personally painful. but he also knew that where we are as a country, we had no choice. he is doing this because of this children, my children, and he is the only candidate that has balanced a budget, reform health care, and also -- taxes. his the only one, including barack obama. i think you will see another great performance on thursday night. he is fun to watch. with the electricity that we

have in south carolina, i have no doubt that we can go on to victory. we need everyone to call everybody they know, to facebook, to e-mail, and spread the word appeared we need a candidate that can stand toe to toe with president barack obama and come out on top. we have no other choice. we have to get it done. [applause] >> just to build on that a little bit, there maybe some folks with questions and we are delighted to answer those to the best of our abilities. again, you're all passionate. you do know a lot of people. there are a lot of people who are not here because they wanted to be but they are being trained as poll workers. the people of south carolina, send the message out that we have to coalesce around a republican conservative. the christian community is doing that. they understand that any vote that is not for newt well in the

end before barack obama. we need someone who can pull the team together and carry this state through and make it happen. still free to spread the joy, to spread the love. newt can rise to the occasion. this is the historic event. we have never seen so many debates carry on. thank you. if you would like to have questions, we will do our best. >> we can see that the apple did not fall far from the tree. [laughter] >> they are so shy.

you know your dad really well. and i know everybody says sometimes people are up there on tv. but what would you tell us that really captures who he is? >> i will bragged. you never this already. 's top-notch debate experts are my niece and nephew. when you were watching on thursday night, maggie, jackie's daughter, she does count his smiles. he does a smiley face right there on his piece of paper and you can see his hand going in that circle and you can see that

smiley face. her son robert is quite eloquent. he says short and concise. we all know and love my dad. we know that he did best in 90 seconds. he had so much to say that it takes that. but even in 90 seconds, and short and concise is still pretty good advice. it has great affinity for his grandchildren and they love him dearly. they either chat right before or send a little video right before the debate appeared he really listens to them. i think it is really important to keep in your mind's eye that he is getting some of the best coaching in america right now. >> is an important for a candidate to spend 80 beforehand prepping. -- to spend a day before and prepping. -- beforehand preppring.

we do need someone spending a day thinking what questions someone might ask and deciding what to respond pinon need someone who can look and the questions and provide a into that is deep. i love it when he talks in the debate. every time he broadens them. he brings the question back up to where it is really important and it shows the kind of knowledge that he has. that is the kind of man we need as our president. >> jackie, i would like to talk about that as well. we had some people volunteer with our campaign over the last few months. one of the questions they ask me was how does he prepare for a debate?

the speaker on wines. he relaxes. he prepares. that is why he is such an exceptional debater. he is not talking script. it does not have the talking points. he is not getting grilled back there. when you catch them in the debate today, he has his knowledge base and eloquently expresses his points to the american people in a way that they can understand. you can see others get off they are talking points and get rattled. we do not need that in a nominee. president barack obama, when you get him on the debate stage, he may walk around the teleprompter, but he will -- [laughter] most people are shocked to find out that that is where that comes from. >> richard is a former state

representative in this area. he has been a great help in this campaign. i would like to have a to come up for a moment and say a few words as well. >> if i may interject, richard and my husband is here. richard and i go back to north carolina days. we have been friends longer than he would like for me to admit. [laughter] is meant to be here with cathy. when i was in the legislature in north carolina in the 1980's, i had a coffee shop there and paul was in school in developing his tennis career. i had the opportunity to attend a number of southern republic exchange committees. we talked about how do you govern from a conservative perspective. that is when the republicans did not have control of congress for

more than 40 years. we did not have control in the south as far as state legislatures. but we were discussing how do you govern from a conservative perspective. newt was in the vanguard of developing the southern conservative movement. if there is one thing i want to leave with you, newt gingrich, when you hear him speak, i am not asking you to be for me. if you're just for me, you will elect me, and think that now it will take care of things. he says, i want you to be with me. this is bigger than newt gingrich. this is a movement about turning the country around and living based on what the constitution says. the federal government has gone as so far beyond what the founders intended the role to be. i was sitting down with nude in the 19 eighties, maybe 1990, and

he made the point that he had criticized ronald reagan to his face about not doing more to reverse the entire matter programs and to get conservative ideas bushwa he was president. and reagan told him -- ideas pushed while he was president. and reagan told them that he was pushing for conservative changes they were not used to. that is why people say negative things about the speaker. he was trying to push the conservative ideals that we had talked about in those meetings we had in the 1980's about how to govern from a conservative perspective. that is what newt is bringing now. with his contract for america, now he has the new contract for america. it is not just elect newt gingrich. but if you do not elect a congress, the house and the senate that can help me make these things happen, it will

not happen. that is why, absolutely, it is not about newt gingrich. he is the leader of that movement, but we have to help the movement truly become a movement. you talk -- you hear in the news about rolm paul's effort as a movement. we need to buy into what newt gingrich is talking about. we need to buy into the contract with america as part of a movement, not just to support newt gingrich, but to support the changes we have to have to turn this country around. i don't even think that it is about being barack obama, even though we want to do that. the bigger issue is not being barack obama and getting control of the white house. it is turning this country to the constitutional principles that made it great. [applause] it is a pleasure to be here with newt's daughters.

>> and if anybody has any questions after this, go to newt.org. is a lot of information about the contract with america. >> can i applaud one thing in that also. can i plug one thing in the also? a lot of people do not realize that the responsibility for education is in the state constitution. and it is a state's rights issue, quite frankly. i know your dad has spoken that. really need to get them out of our hair, so to speak. and not only to downsize the u.s. department of education, but to make sure that the money gets to the local classrooms for kids. and also to offer more choices. kids learn in different ways and

there are different curriculums. but if we do not have an educated work force -- he said this the other night -- he told the whole audience that they started cleaning. >> exactly. [laughter] >> our first job was in cleaning. >> but we want children to work and have opportunities and they are not there now. i have one last question. what is the most awesome question you get asked? look at the way they look at each other. >> i do not know. >> may be what it is like to be his daughter >> that will work. >> they do not get to ask anybody else. my answer actually is that it is a lot of fun. we grew up living a very vibrant life, doing a lot of fun things. there have been challenges, but not unlike any challenges you all phase.

whether it is family issues, health issues, financial issues, but they're also great opportunities and we get to meet lots of really great people such as yourself. >> i was 7 when he began campaigning. one of the things i learned from him is persistence, had to be very persistent. that has been very helpful in my life. you can see that today in his campaigning. he is still very persistent. i think we have been very lucky. we are a very close family. one of the joys of campaigning is spending time with my sister. we're glad to have paul here. it has been really fun to be on the bus with melissa and with a dad. we are a very close family. we have a lot of fun. that is something that a lot of people do not know about him. he looks so serious. he is a really fun guy. he is flat out fine.

he is funny. and i wish everyone could get to know him like i do. he is a wonderful person. he is a great father. he is an even greater grandfather. he is a year good guy. he is in it for all the right reasons. [applause] >> i would like to bring out that we are here to motivate you and get you to the polls and to speak your mind. it is important to realize that south carolina plays a historical role in the process. not just that we have picked presidents since 1980, but this is a unique cycle. it is truly the challenges we face in the country. what i am moved by is that in a lot of people do not realize that the 21st century contract with america is a management document. it is not a campaign platform. you'll find years of knowledge

and research that goes into giving you a specific ideas and solutions on how to fix the problems that face this country. it is the exact opposite of what we have seen with barack obama where there is no plan, no leadership. if it is clearly over his head. -- he is clearly over his head. i believe he is uniquely qualified to lead this country. and it is the unique opportunity of south carolina to determine we will have a conservative nominee that will draw a contrast between us and barack obama and he will take the fight to obama. he will expose him for his record and we will win the white house and get this country to its constitutional findings that -- founded on which it was founded. recruit your friends. if they are not in favor, tell them to talk to me. get them to the polls and let's do it on saturday.

we are speaking on behalf of the entire nation. [laughter] >> thank you very much. this is such a shy group. i have never known people to be this shy, quite frankly. >> thank you again for being here.

[indistinct conversations]

[indistinct conversations]

[indistinct conversations]

[indistinct conversations]

[indistinct conversations]

we are going to need somebody that is tough enough to withstand it. somebody to stand up with them on a debate stage and articulate to the american people the decision they have. since he has a depth of knowledge, he can provide that contrast very easily. he can provide real examples. that is the challenge i think we will have. he has prepared for this all of his life.

we know it will get more and more challenging. he is ready. he is a happy warrior. there was an article today that said he is like the energizer bunny. he just keeps going. he keeps marching forward no matter what. he is ready. >> is there a particular topic he think he can go toe to toe with barack obama on? >> that is a thing about dead. there is no one topical area because he has done this for decades. -- that is one thing about dad. it is one of the huge advantages that he has. we are thrilled to be here. who does not love the coast ta?

>> thank you. >> nice to meet you. >> hello. this is richard brooks. >> nice to meet you. thank you for coming. >> he was a sports reporter. he used to wear a bow tie. >> used to wear a tie? >> thank you for coming by. >> how did you like it here? >> i loved it. >> did you get barbecue? >> no, i was thinking about getting rid of. do they have ribs?

>> that played is about all you will want to eat. you can carry it around with a white box. >> i am trying to see what else. >> you know what else i did since the last time i saw you -- >> how many ribs are there and a half rack? for all of us to have some? >> about 12 inches.

[indistinct conversations]

>> i went down and set up greeneville. it was nice in there. they had an oak table and the back. we took it apart and put it in the back. a set up all that area. then they sent me down here to help out. [indistinct conversations] bu

[indistinct conversations]

>> several lots of political events to tell you about tomorrow, including two in charleston, south carolina. ron paul speaks at 11:00 eastern. at 2:00 eastern, the southern republican leadership conference hosts rick santorum, herman cain, and tony perkins. and we are following president obama's speech at the apollo theater ir.

that is at 9:30 eastern. >> in a few moments, house debate to raise the debt limit by one trillion dollars. house gop leaders on president obama as decision on the keystone pipeline to bring oil from canada to the united states. on washington journal tomorrow morning, and we will talk about the south carolina primary with joe wilson who represents the southern part of that state. we will focus on the administration's decision to deny a permit for the keystone pipeline with susan casey. you can:with their questions about this year's campaign to

curtis gans. "washington journal" is like every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >>hoover argued a couple of things. he argued that american policy toward japan in 1941 was rather provocative and perhaps in a juvenile way he said we are putting pins in rattlesnake. eventually the rattlesnake will strike back. >> saturday night on "afer words," george nash on the former presidents evaluations of executive branch decisions starting with the second world war. also, jeff charlotte on religion in america.

hay wexler on understanding our constitution. >> the house on wednesday blocked president obama's request to increase the debt limit by more than $1 trillion. under a deal worked out last summer, the president can raise the debt by $2 trillion and two stages. if this is the second stage. it goes into affect unless the house votes to disapprove. the resolution was never adopted in the senate. this is a little less than the two hours. madam speaker. i rise today as a proud primary sponsor of the subject resolution that is before the desk. madam speaker, i'd like to start my conversation with a few numbers.

15.2 trillion dollars. that is the size of our national debt. we as a nation are borrowing at the rate of $58,000 per second. that is approximately $45,000 for each man, woman, and child in america. this type of debt is not sustainable. madam speaker, this resolution is offered today to send a message to the nation and to the world -- >> madam speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. the house will be in order. members are advised to take their conversations from the floor. the gentleman is recognized. mr. reed: thank you, madam speaker. this resolution is submitted to send a message to the nation and to the world that this chamber

is going to lead and not hide. we are going to deal with the issue of the national debt once and for all because it is time. the path that we are on is not sustainable. it is a path of bankruptcy, it is a path that will destroy the american dream if we do not stand up to the plate and lead us out of this fiscal nightmare that we now find ourselves in. now, many people in this town and in this chamber and in the chamber on the other side of the capitol probably would like this issue to go away until after the election. the problem is is that the issue will not go away. and even though if we don't want to deal with it politically, we need to deal with it substantively. and my resolution that is before this chamber will send a message

that the constant borrowing on the backs of our children, our grandchildren must come to an end. i quote the words of our own president when he was senator in the u.s. senate. the path that we are on is similar to the words he echoed and stated in his u.s. senate chamber when he said this constant borrowing, this national debt is a complete failure of leadership in the white house. we need to lead. and that is what we are going to do. so i ask for support on this resolution from all of my colleagues to stand with us, make the hard decisions, deal with this issue to stop this insanity that is truly a threat to our very nation. and also it is a threat to any economic recovery that our

nation hopes to enjoy in the short term. . because if we do not get this debt under control, small business america, entrepreneurs, the people that will put america back to work, will not have the confidence or the certainty to invest in the american market that are going to lead to real jobs and to deal with the problem of our unemployment once and for all. so with that, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: you know, there's a very basic fact. i've listened to the rhetoric. if house republicans prevailed on this bill, what would be the result? chaos. chaos.

the house republicans have become the party of chaos. six months ago they took us to the brink of default. no one in this country liked what they saw or maybe a very few. not the american public at large. surely not the markets. surely not the markets. but apparently house republicans did and you're at it again. here we are in the first full day in the house when we're in session this year debating a measure that will take us immediately back to the brink of default. house republicans have once again, relying on the votes of others to save them from

themselves and to save this country from them. this is postering, posturing, not legislating. this is rhetoric, not real action, and we've seen this movie before. 174 house republicans voted for the budget control act that set out to keep the government functioning and address our long-term debt, but many decided to turn tail and on september 14, 228 house republicans voted in favor of the disapproval resolution to end the president's authority to pay our bills. that's what's fiscally responsible, paying bills. basically they were for it before they were against it.

it's a rerun of a bad movie. when the american people clearly want us to move forward, and unfortunately house republicans have turned to washington with the same confrontational tone they left when they nearly allowed the payroll tax and the unemployment insurance to expire. and i want to emphasize that. the same confrontation, instead of a spirit of seeking common ground, essentially confrontation. and i think the american people have said to you, enough is more than enough. house republicans act as if we don't already have a deadline looming. one with vast implications for millions of american families, that's what we should be talking about. in six weeks the payroll tax cut expires for 160 million americans.

federal unemployment insurance begins to end for more than three million people searching for work, and access to health care becomes endangered for 46 million seniors and the disabled. well, last month -- while last month's jobs numbers were encouraging, the private sector gained nearly three million since the recovery began. but with 16 million americans looking for work, we need to do more. we should be doing everything possible, everything possible to ensure that our recovery doesn't falter and you're here supporting something if it prevailed that would deeply impact our economy and economic growth. so here we are in the third

week of january, and now we have a conference committee on these issues charged with the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance that -- but that hasn't yet happened. not for lack of wanting on our part. we've been eager and wanting to begin. families and businesses that have been planning for the year should not wait until the 11th hour for once again uncertainty. brinksmanship has had for republicans i'm afraid as demonstrated today become the rule. so i urge -- we should reject this cynical, this rigidly ideological attempt to take us back to the brink of default. if you prevailed, it wouldn't take us back to the brink. it would throw us over. the resolution fortunately is

going nowhere. its only impact will simply divide and distract from addressing the real needs of the american people. so i assume, as happened once before, a majority and maybe a vast majority of the house republicans will come down here and essentially contradict what they helped to pass. that contradiction isn't even good poll tickets -- politics and it's terrible policy. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: thank you, madam speaker. what i'd like to say is that time has passed since we passed the balanced budget control act.

there has been no action on the debt. we have seen nothing out of the white house as to a plan to deal with this national crisis. and my colleague on the other side, i'll remind as i am a conferee on that conference committee to deal with the payroll tax rate, to deal with the unemployment insurance, to deal with the doc fix, i was here through december, we were here last thursday, friday working on it. and i'm glad to see now the house democrats are here to do the work. we do need the senate to join in that conversation, and i my hope is that -- and my hope is that they will join in that conversation soon. we are capable men and women in this chamber, madam speaker. i am confident that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. we will deal with the payroll tax rate.

we will deal with the issue of unemployment. we will deal with the issue of the doc fix, but we will not take our eye off of what is becoming one of the fundamental issues of our generation and that is our national debt and that's what this resolution speaks to and will constantly remind all of us that we need to be diligent on this issue to get it taken care of once and for all. and with that i would like to yield to my colleague from colorado, mr. lamborn, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for three minutes. mr. lamborn: i thank the gentleman for the time and for his work on this vital issue. i'm opposed to raising the debt ceiling limit. how in the world can we raise the debt ceiling if the senate will not work with us to pass a balanced budget. the senate has not passed one in three years. no one would walk into a bank and ask for a loan without a plan on how to spend that money and pay it back, so why is it

ok for the federal government to operate that way? it's not. the latest increase to the debt ceiling limit allows president obama to borrow an additional $1.2 trillion, which brings our national debt to $16.4 trillion, and he will likely be back at the end of the year asking for another increase. to put that into perspective, after the revolutionary war when we became a country in 1776 and after that, many wondered if the young democracy could withstand what many at the time considered a crushing debt. the nation had borrowed heavily to pay for the revolutionary war. the debt when the war was over was about $34 per american which in today's inflation adjusted dollars would be about $653. today's debt, by contrast, is nearly 68 times that size or $45,000 per american. it's bad enough to borrow money

like there is no tomorrow, but to do so without even a budget in place is simply wrong. today, i have introduced a bill to stop this madness, the budget before borrowing act, h.r. 3778, is a straightforward, no gimmicks approach to spending money. it very simply says the nation cannot raise the debt ceiling limit unless the house and senate have agreed on a budget resolution. this could only be waived with a vote of 2/3 of both members of the houses. to conclude, i am opposed to raising the debt ceiling limit, and i urge my colleagues to support this disapproval resolution. with our current debt load and lack of a budget, the president has no business asking to raise our nation's debt at this time. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it's now my privilege to yield one minute to the gentlewoman from florida, ms. wasserman schultz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida is recognized for one minute.

ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in firm opposition to this resolution. a political stunt that prevents the increase in the debt limit that this congress has already approved. this is a dangerous distraction from our efforts to move the country forward, support continued economic growth and promote job creation. and it lies in the face of the budget control act which 174 house republicans voted for last summer. in 2011 my colleagues across the aisle caused multiple self-inflicted economic crises. the republican majority simply has not learned that these kinds of empty partisan measures can cause immediate harm to our economy and hurt working families everywhere. this resolution is nothing but a deeply harmful and dangerous charade, dangerous for americans still struggling to find work, dangerous for our economy that is depending on our robust and focused recovery and dangerous for our responsibility as a

legislature, tasked not with these grand charades of brinkmanships. we have already seen our credit downgraded and seen other countries face the worst of default. i urge my colleagues to reject this resolution and protect the full faith and credit of the united states of america. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: madam speaker, i am happy to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. paul. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for three minutes. mr. paul: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. paul: madam chairman, we're here today to try to prevent the national debt from going up another $1.2 trillion. but in a way it's a formality because most everybody knows the national debt is going up $1.2 trillion. and this is sad because this process is a really very mixed effort to try to curtail

spending. and this power to the president to ask for a debt increase and then we have to get 2/3 of the congress to prevent this from going up, this is a creature of congress. it's also a creature of a mental status here in the congress of overspending on just everything. and it would be nice if we could blame everything on the current administration or even the past administration but this crisis has been building for a very long time and it's very bipartisan. there's been way too much cooperation in this congress because those who like spending cooperate and they keep spending it and for a long time we were able to get away with this because we were a very wealthy country. now we're nonproductive. the good jobs are overseas and yet the spending is escalating exponentially. we're really not facing up to the reality that the problem is spending. yes, we have to deal with the debt, but the debt is a consequence of too much spending. where do we spend too much money? in two places, overseas and

domestically. we need to stop the spending. you know, it's really in my mind started about 40 years ago when there was a guarantee that you don't have to worry about debt because we always had somebody there to buy the debt. if we'd had a market rate of interest where you didn't have the federal reserve buying the debt, interest rates would go up and force us to live within our means. as long as you have a federal reserve there with no linkage of anything of soundness, since 1971, the congress has been reckless and the deficits had continueed to grow and the crisis -- continued to grow and the crisis is an inevitable consequence. i believe we are in denial here in congress. if we had the vaguest idea of how serious this crisis is financially not only for us but for the world would cut spending because you can't solve the problem with debt by accumulating more debt. it's just impossible to do this. and one other thing i think we fail to do on both sides of the aisle is really cut spending

overseas. it is considered that if you spend more money overseas you have more defense, and there's no truth to that. just spending over $1 trillion overseas doesn't necessarily give you more defense. and yet nobody's willing to cut. some of these automatically -- automatic cuts is supposed to be in line, they come out of the supercommittee, everybody's squirming already. how are we going to prevent these cuts? and this pretense we might cut $1 trillion over the next 10 years is total pretense. we are in total denial that is cutting something. there is a proposed increase baseline budgeting of $10 trillion. we are going to cut $10 trillion over 10 years? that's over $1 trillion. our debt is going up $100 billion a month. it's a charade. the american people know it's a charade. they are tired of this. they've known about this. we need to make up our minds, are we going to live within the confines of the constitution,

get out of this mess. . >> another 30 seconds. mr. paul: thank you. the crisis we face as i said is not just domestic because it is a worldwide crisis. and if we don't do something, we will be forced under very dire circumstances because we cannot bail out the world. we are prepared now through our federal reserve to bail out all of europe. we have been downgraded. france is downgraded. greece is downgraded. we believe that all we have to do is spend more money and inflate the currency. believe me, we ought to face up to reality and live within our limits. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it's now my privilege to yield three minutes to the very distinguished senior member of our committee, mr. charles rangel of new york. mr. rangel: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. rangel: i was awed in listening to my friend,

congressman paul, he usually comes up with some far-fetched ideas that i have no idea what he's talking about, but the truth of the matter is that he is right. america is walking down a very serious economic path that could not only jeopardize what's left to our fiscal system, but good or bad the whole world depends on our system. and i cannot believe that a group of americans, especially members of the congress, would say that the president of the united states is not authorized to pay off the debts that we already had. we certainly can find a lot of agreement as to how we got there . whether it's president obama or bush's tax cuts, or two wars that the congress never declared.

hey, all you need is a mathematician to add it up, but we got it there. we owe them money. who is so less patriotic, who cares so little about our country that you would have in addition to the falsehoods they tell about us, saying and we don't pay our debts, either? it's a question if you want to talk about what we do in the future as relates to spending, but i know the debate has to deal with people who don't pay taxes. i know the debate has to say that people are taking unfair advantage of a tax code with so many loopholes in it that the most conservative republican has to agree it's time for a reform. there's a broad area we can talk about and what we are going to do about wild, reckless spending. but you just don't do it by saying that i am so angry with the president. i am so politically involved in opposing him, that i will deny

him the opportunity to do what every president has always done and that is to be able to tell the world that you can count on us to pay the money that we have borrowed. now, being a politician myself i know there's extreme things that we go through, but love of our country has to be something that we believe in. and i don't know what republicans feel such a strong commitment to the tea party or whatever other people having parties on the other side, that they would say that they would stop america from paying its debts. i don't believe it. you don't believe it. you know this is not going to pass. but my god, i don't think we should be dictated about connection with what foreigners think about us. but they should be some pride in

saying if we make mistakes, they are our mistakes not european mistakes, not foreign mistakes. if we borrow money and we don't like how much we borrow, that's our domestic problem. but for god's sake don't let us fall in such partisan position that we are going to say that the united states of america, the leader of the free world, we know how to borrow. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: thank you, madam speaker. i'm now privileged and happy to yield to the gentleman from florida, mr. rooney, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. rooney: thank you, madam speaker. our national debt now stands at more than $15.2 trillion. that amount exceeds the entire u.s. economy. washington's reckless spending now burdens every child born in the u.s. with a $50,000 share of the national debt.

if we don't do something about it now, we'll be the first generation in american history to leave our children worse -- a nation worse than we inherited. and our skyrocketing debt doesn't just affect our children and their future, it damages our economy and our unemployment rate today. it's a drag on the economy that fuels uncertainty. it hurts our credit rating. it slows economic growth, and it prevents job creation. when president obama took office, he pledged to cut the deficit in half by 2012. after three years in office, has he yet to introduce a credible plan to get our deverses under control? no. -- deficits under control? no. instead under his watch the country has hit three of the highest deficits on record, and that's unacceptable. the national debt has grown by more than $4.6 trillion in his three years in office. we can't solve our debt problems until we address the root cause

of this issue and that's overspending here in washington, d.c. in house we pass a budget that would put our country on the path to a balanced budget. the senate didn't pass a budget. they dew point take up our own -- our budget, they did nothing. we passed nearly $1 trillion in spending cuts and we are planning to do more this year. the senate, as i said, has not written a budget in nearly 1,000 days. if your family was trying to get out of the red, you would sit down at the table, figure out how much you are making, how much you're spending, and where you should cut back. the senate refuses to do that. think about that for a second. how on earth are we supposed to get our fiscal house in order if the senate won't even write a budget? and why won't the senate do their job? one word. politics. it's no wonder we have a 12% approval rating. madam speaker, it's time to cut out the credit cards here in washington and stop spending money we don't have. the longer we wait the harder it will be to fix the mess that we

are in. putting our country on a responsible fiscal path is the only way to restart the economy and ensure our children a prosperous future. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it's now my privilege to yield three minutes to another distinguished member of our committee, mr. pascrell, from the state of new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. pascrell: thank you, madam speaker. the gentleman from michigan. listening to the debate you're not hearing the same thing you heard seven months ago, i'm told. but when you look away then you say, gee, didn't i hear this before? maybe that's true on both sides. but you know bruce bartlett, who is a former advisor to president reagan, and a treasury official in george bush's administration, wrote about the five myths of the debt.

the five myths of not paying the debt. or not increasing the debt. and one of them i think bears witness today of what i have heard. the myth that it's worth risking default on the debt to prevent a tax increase given the weak economy. this is a republican saying this. i'm just repeating the words. he says, while republicans' concerns about higher taxes are not unreasonable and they are not, most economists believe that any fiscal contraction at this time would be dangerous. in fact, they note that a large cut in spending in 1937 brought in another sharp recession. it's very easy to say that the president is the -- the purpose, is the reason why we had the plague and the tremendous deficit, but if the private sector wasn't spending money,

then we would have had five million more people out of work. the government has the responsibility when folks can't do for themselves what we expect. that undermines the recovery of the country and that's what happened in the great depression. republicans respond that tax increases are especially harmful to growth. however, they made the same argument in 1982 when president reagan requested the largest peacetime tax increase in american history, and again in 1993 when president bill clinton asked for a large tax increase for deficit reduction. in both cases conservative economists' predictions of economic disaster were completely wrong. and strong economic growth followed. i wasn't here in 1993, many of you were here in 1993. you remember what the dire consequences of those -- the clinton plan was.

and what happened. we had the greatest boom in 50 years. just like the economists who told us we were heading to nirvana since 2001. and i don't want any part of nirvana if that's it. and none of us do. so, we are not talking here about helping the middle class, that's for sure. we got bailouts for them, for the other side. we know what the results are. all of us know that. it's not a partisan issue, really. you're trying to say you want to protect people's taxes, and we want to say we got to pay our debts. but we are really not 180 degrees apart. i think we need to do both. and if we don't sit down together, we are not going to do both. i yield back, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. manzullo. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. manzullo: thank you.

madam speaker, any vote to raise the debt ceiling should be tied to restraints on spending. this is the voting card. america's most expensive credit card. during my time in congress i voted nine times against raising the debt limit because it was not tied to spending controls. this is another time to say no. last august we were hopeful that we could have gone beyond the $4 trillion mandate in the budget control act, but it did not happen. unfortunately the supercommittee can could not come to a consensus and we have been drifting ever since. we are now projected to add $2.1 trillion to the national debt since august with the president's most recent request. i voted over 700 times against $2.6 trillion in spending over the past five years. that's a good place to start to find the savings that we need to get serious on debt reduction. we need to vote yes on digs approving to raise the debt limit yet again so we can get to

work to cut the spending. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i was looking over the vote from the first of august and it's interesting to see -- hear people coming forth who voted aye on august 1 and now essentially want to repudiate that. i now yield three minutes to another very distinguished active member of our committee, james mcdermott, dr. mcdermott, from the state of washington, from the snowy state of washington. mr. mcdermott: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for three minutes. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, it's been more than a year since the tea party took over the house. 375 days, and all that time the

republicans have not brought one bill to the floor to help the economy. not a single bill. today after a long vacation and on the only day of legislative business in the month of january, the republicans are yet again wasting the american people's time putting out press releases. we aren't voting to help americans get jobs or make education better or investing in roads or bridges. no. instead the republicans have us voting on their top priority. to default on our country's debts. ain't that something? priority? today's vote is exactly why the public is disgusted with the congress. the hypocrisy of this vote boggles your mind. republicans wage unnecessary wars on our credit card? they cut taxes on the very rich. and blow up the deficit. and now they don't want to pay for the spending binge. .

i got the republican study committee's email outlining their agenda for next year. i admit. i subscribed. we have 14 million people unemployed. we have huge competitive challenges with our other countries. there's lots of investing we need to do at home. but what's the republican program as they put it out over the email? nothing. they didn't have one, not one new idea in that agenda. all the republicans want is more war, more deregulation on wall street, and more dirty air and no help of any kind whatsoever for the middle class. madam speaker, the republicans are wasting the americans' time. we need investment, not a republican default. they're spending their time in south carolina now selecting their next leader to lead into the same congress of no. this is the congress of no

we're watching. they don't pay their debts, they don't have any ideas, they don't provide any jobs. it is simply the no congress. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: thank you, madam speaker. i'd just like to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle the last time we took a vote on this issue back on the budget control act in august is a much different time than today. since august we've been waiting for a plan from the other side dealing with our national debt. we've been waiting for a plan from the white house to deal with our national debt. nothing has occurred. so, madam speaker, there is no repeediation of our vote from august. this this consistent with what the american people are telling us, that we need to get our act together in washington and i join my colleagues on the other side. my hand is open to work hand in hand to dole with these

problems once and for all. i'm willing to sacrifice my political life to do what needs to be done for the american people. i just hope my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join in that same sentiment. let's put politics aside. let's deal with the substance of the day. let's deal with this underlying national crisis that is represented in our national debt. you have many friends over here that are looking to reach out, hand to hand, join arm in arm to deal with this problem and deal with the economy of our nation once and for all. i just ask you to jump and join us rather than fight us. and with that i'm happy to yield to my colleague, mr. flake, for two minutes, i believe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for two minutes. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman for yielding. this vote has been called a charade. that is true, it is. let's face it. the president will veto it.

the senate will sustain the veto. having said that, for years and years we raised the debt limit without a discussion. let alone a vote sometimes. it would just happen procedurally. that's wrong. at least this time we've had a discussion back in august. i didn't favor the budget agreement that we had there. i did not vote for it because i think if we're going to raise the debt ceiling then, boy, we ought to have a plan to pay down the debt or actually deal with the deficit. but i think we have to admit that even if the senate had passed the house-passed budget, the so-called ryan budget, we would still have to raise the debt ceiling. i don't think anybody really disputes that. we are going to have to raise the debt ceiling again and again, but at least put together a plan to deal with our deficit and we haven't done that. now, in our candid moments on our side of the aisle, we were headed toward this fiscal cliff long before the present president took control of the wheel. he stand on the accelerator to

get us here faster. the congress only decide to take action when we stand on the edge of the cliff. it could happen when we have a treasury auction and no one wants to buy our debt. it could happen sooner than when we want to realize. it behooves us now to put together a plan to deal with our debt and deficit. that plan does not exist today. i think for that reason we should vote for this resolution and then put a plan to deal with it rather than just letting future generations inherit this debt. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself 15 seconds. mr. flake, the problem is if you prevail you'd create an abyss. you'd create an abyss. i now yield two minutes to a very distinguished gentleman from georgia, another active member of our committee, mr. lewis.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. lewis: madam speaker, i want to thank mr. levin for yielding. here we go again, madam speaker . instead of working on legislation to help create jobs , house republicans have gathered us here for political gains. this bill is not constructive. mr. speaker -- madam speaker, it is destructive. it is disruptive to the most important task we face, helping struggling america get back to work, get our economy moving again. we've been down this road before. we fought this so-called battle last year. the debt limit is america's credit card bill. and just because we don't like

the banners doesn't mean we don't have to pay it. it's just that simple. when you get a balance on your credit card you pay it. we all do it. this exercises a waste of time and taxpayers' dollars. i urge all of my colleagues to vote no on this bill. let's come together and work for the good of this nation and not partisan -- the time is always right to do right. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: i'd like to remind my colleague on the other side of the aisle, when you get a credit card bill that you can no longer afford, you do pay it but you cut it up and you stop the spending so you don't exacerbate the problem. and with that i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. goip madam speaker, i thank -- mr. gingrey: madam speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding and i rise in support of this resolution of disapproval of increasing the debt ceiling another $1.2 trillion. you heard colleagues on both sides of the aisle, members of the ways and means committee, the distinguished former chairman, mr. rangel, and others speak about why we have to raise the debt ceiling and that it's something that's been done over the years and certainly that's true and the nine years that i've been a member, this being my 10th year, i've seen it happen many times. a lot of times it's passed, as mr. flake said, procedurally and the public doesn't even know it. now, i rarely disagree with my friend from arizona, but i take a little bit of exception with what he said. he said the president has just stepped on the accelerator a bit. i would say $4.5 trillion in 3

1/2 years is not stepping on the accelerator just a bit, madam speaker. that's putting the pedal to the metal. and this has gotten so totally out of hand that it's got to stop. so this is not on our side a waste of time, as the gentleman from washington said. we are not just pandering to the tea party. listen, we're paying attention to the conservatives in this country that first got my attention in 1964 and the conscience of a conservative and quit all this spending and get our fiscal house in order and we need to do that by cooperating on each side of the aisle. this resolution will fail. we understand that. the american people need to know there are members of this congress that are going to stand with them, whether you call them tea party or whatever, and try to den grade

them. but questioner -- denigrate them. but we are going to stand here with them. we are going to take the time today. it may be the most important thing we do, to say we are not going to overspend and just automatically -- and then we're going to say we are going to cut over the next 10 years but we are going to borrow over the next year $1.2 trillion. my colleague has yielded me a little bit of additional time. i am ready to wrap up. this is what we need to do. this is what the american public needs us to do. it's time for us to get together in a bipartisan way, solve this, solve medicare, solve social security. as former speaker newt gingrich said on the campaign trail just yesterday, it's time to take social security off budget and have it stand alone, not let the cock raise the trust fund -- not let congress raise the trust fund. we now owe $2.-- if we don't

increase the debt ceiling then seniors won't get the social security checks, that's baloney, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it's now my privilege to yield to another distinguished member of our committee, mr. neal, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. neal: let me call attention to some of the statements that have been offered here. mr. reed, the reason you were invited to this floor to manage the time as a freshman member of congress is very simple -- you weren't here for the reckless ride that the republican party took during the eight years of the bush administration. that's why you're here and the other freshmen have come to the floor, you weren't here for this tirade of spending. when you said you cut up the credit card, so we're going to cut up the credit card for the v.a. hospitals? after 35,000 men and women have been wounded, serving us honorably in iraq and afghanistan? now, look, i voted against the

war in iraq and i voted against the bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. fact. not opinion. bill clinton says goodbye and there's a $5.7 trillion surplus. balanced budgets four times in five years. it's only happened five times since the end of world war ii. mr. flake is one of the few republicans that will come to the house with a straight face and say -- let me tell you how we got here. he knows how we got here and mr. gingrey is a friend and he knows how we got here. you can't cut taxes by $2.3 trillion and fight two wars and honor the commitment we have to those men and women who have served us honorably in iraq and afghanistan. and while i was against the tax cuts and while i was against the war in iraq, i'm going to vote for those appropriations to take care of those veterans' hospitals. you don't cut up the credit cards when they come back. you use good judgment before

you send them off. what happened here during those eight years with the prescription drug benefit? what happened during those eight years with weapons of mass destruction? what happened with tax cuts? and by the way, the corresponding argument on those tax cuts -- tax cuts pay for themselves. well, guess what, we're staring at a $15 trillion deficit and debt because of those reckless fiscal practices that took place. for the republican party to make these arguments today about this issue, which, by the way, mr. flake is correct about again, it's but a charade. you meet your obligations, you pay your bill. that's what the credit card is about and not to pontificate in front of this chamber today about reckless spending when for eight years nobody had the courage on that side to stand up and say, enough is enough. and i thank the gentleman for

yielding the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mrs. blackburn: i thank the gentleman for the time. every time i go back home to tennessee and as i hold town hall meetings, i do hear from my constituents enough is enough, stop the madness, let's get the nation's fiscal house in order. that is what the american people are demanding that we do. and just so we all realize what the debt is -- you're talking $15.2 trillion. nearly $5 trillion or 1/3 of that debt has come onto the books in the past 3 1/2 years. that is the rate of acceleration by which this administration is pushing this nation to the brink. and that is why our

constituents are saying stop it. it's the reason for this vote today. to pass a resolution of disapproval, to send our message to the president that, look, time is long past for you to bring forward a plan to deal with this debt. it is your responsibility to do so for this country, and it is your responsibility to do so for future generations, to make certain that children and our grandchildren, like my two grandchildren, tonight have an increasing -- don't have an increasing share of this. this past year, our family's share of our national debt grew by $30,000. $30,000. it is time for us to realize that we have to stop the out of control spending, we have to freeze the spending, then we have to begin to cut and remove

and eliminate items that are unnecessary to the budget. let's reiterate our commitment to getting back on the right track, getting our fiscal house in order. let's reiterate this commitment to the american people, that we have hit the high water mark in spending and we are going to join together in a bipartisan fashion to make certain that we get the federal government's fiscal house in order. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. >> i now yield three minutes to another -- mr. levin: i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from the great state of oregon, mr. blumnary. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in letting me speak on this measure. what we are dealing with today is a smoke screen to ensure the

self-inflaketted crisis of confidence that's been unfolding with our friends on the other side of the aisle over the course of this last year. everybody knew that we would honor our debts that had already been incurred. but they fogged the issue, created doubt, pushed to the brink, and this charade today is a result of what was required to help them get off the ledge onto which they had climbed that risked damaging the credibility and credit worthiness of the united states. the issue should be how we spend money. we need to change how we do business. and i think with all due respect, there are things that we could be working on now to make some progress.

there is an opportunity to reform our tax system that is complex and unfair. we're just finding out that mr. romney, with hundreds of millions of dollars, pays less in tax than probably the undocumented workers who worked in his yard. there are opportunities to deal with carried interest, with unnecessary tax breaks that are permanent for oil and gas, while important emerging technologies like wind are in a state of limbo. and the public agrees that the most fortunate among us should be paying a little more. it's only fair. they can do it. it makes a difference. we could be working together on agricultural form to spend less money but target on farmers and ranchers, rather than large

agribusiness. we should accelerate the health care reforms that started out bipartisan and relatively noncontroversial that actually would help us no longer spend almost twice as much as other developed countries for results that aren't as good. instead of getting down to brass tacks, my republican friends are playing games like this measure. luckily, the game that they are playing today won't crash the global economy, but it will further erode confidence in congress and it delays the day that we work together on the elements that i just described, where we could get bipartisan support, change how we do business, redeuce the deficit and give the taxpayer more value for their dollars.

thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. >> thank you, madam speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, madam chair, i thank the gentleman from new york for yielding. let's look at president obama's record after three years. he's left a record of debt, despair and downgrades and here we are debating whether or not president obama is able to grab another $1.2 trillion that he adds to the debt of our nation that our children and grandchildren will have to pay. the reason we were downgraded is because president obama himself has still refused to put a plan forward to balance the federal budget. his budget that he pushed forth doubles the national debt in its first five years. then he becomes the first president in the history of our nation to have our debt rating, the debt rating of the united states, downgraded. you look at the despair.

as americans are trying to get jobs. we're get regular ports today that president obama is going to reject the keystone pipeline. turning his pack on 20,000 american families who were looking for those good jobs. here in america. making us more dependent on middle eastern countries who don't like us. the canadians, who are good friends of ours, wanted to send oil to america. that's oil we don't have to be buying from middle eastern countries. instead the president is going torque as we're hearing reports of today is going to turn his back on those 20,000 jobs. he's going to send that oil and those jobs to china. now how propost-rouse is that. as the president is trying to rack up more debt on the nation's credit card, at the same time, he's turning his back and running 20,000 more jobs out of this country. that's the record of this administration. that's what president obama has given us. you wonder why we've had over 8% up employment for almost every single month he's been

president. we can't afford the obama economy. we need to reject this increase in the debt ceiling, stop spending money we don't have and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmuth. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. yarmuth: i thank my good friend. madam speaker, i understand that the republican majority will vote today against the president's request to raise the debt limit. to borrow a phrase from a former speaker of the house, can we please drop the pious baloney? less than six months ago, republicans voted for precisely what they are voting against today. this republican leadership created a national crisis and walked us to the brink of default. then they voted far bill to end the crisis, but slipped in a

provision to allow them to attack the president for a decision they don't have the guts to stand by. this is not leadership and it certainly is not governing. it's an ideological game that's ventured well beyond the absurd. mr. flake, i think in a very important moment of candor, talked about the fact that the very budget that the republicans passed this last year would in fact raise the national debt by more than $6 trillion over the next 10 years. you cannot square logically an opposition to raising the debt ceiling when you have voted for a budget that does exactly that. it raises the national debt. with all due respect to the gentleman from new york, when he says nothing has changed in the last seven months, nothing has changed in the last seven months. we agreed on something, we knew what the debt was going to be, the deficit, we agreed to

accommodate it in this way. the only thing that's changed in the last seven months is that the republicans are now trying to renege on the agreement they made seven months ago. that's the only things that's -- thing that's changed. the american people have been loud and clear on what they need from this congress. responsible investments in infrastructure, education, and job creation. they want everyone share in the sacrifice for our economic recovery, including billionaires and big oil companies. madam speaker, it's time to do the work the american people have asked us to do. they don't have time for more pious baloney. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky yields back. the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: thank you, madam speaker. i remind the gentleman that what we have done on our side of the aisle is at least we've put a plan in writing by adopting an aprove -- approving the budget. we're scrust looking, in the last seven months, we have been

waiting for a plan from the white house of how are we going to get out of this national debt crisis in black and white? not political speeches. but in black and white. so we can take it back to the american people and have an open and honest debate as to where we're going to prioritize our spending and how we're going to get out of this hole. that's what we're looking for. that's what my colleague from arizona, mr. flake, is talking about. we are at the point on this side of the aisle, ladies and gentlemen, to say we don't care who is at fault. i'm at the point, democrat, republican, we're at 15.-- we're at $15.2 trillion, whoever is responsible for it, i could care less. what i care about are my kids, my grandkids who aren't even born, aren't even on the face of this earth, of getting our act together in washington and getting a national plan put together that we can join arm in arm and stand with each other to deal with this issue. with that, madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the

gentleman from kansas, mr. huelskamp. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. huelskamp: thank you, madam chairman. i rise today in opposition to raising the debt limit again and again and again. last week i traveled across the first district of kansas to host seven town hall meetings and kansans reit vated -- reiterated the same thing i heard on town halls last year. overspending, overregulation and yes, overtaxing must end now. kansans are not concerned about the next election like most in washington seem to be. they are worried about the next generation. between the first day this president took office and today, debt has grown by $4.6 trillion. in comparison, it took from george washington to bill clinton to build up that much debt. now the president wants another $1.2 trillion. unfortunately, the real battle

to prohibit this $1.2 trillion mortgage on our children's future was lost five months ago when the house passed the budget control act. since the budget control act passed, the congress has failed to produce any cuts from the supercommittee. we failed to pass a balanced budget amendment. senator reid not only refuses to pass but refuses to consider a budget. that doesn't paint the picture of the -- the culture of overspending in washington for the past half century has led us to where we are today. every president has refused to balance the budget. every member of congress who advocated for their special interest, every special interest who came to us, they are all to blame for where we stand today. when this debt limit is reached, every man, woman, and child in america will have their own debt to pay to washington of $50,000. this doesn't take into account

the mountains of debt we face for future entitlement programs. this is not about us. this is about our children and grandchildren who will have to pay this back. unless and until washington can get its grip on reckless spending and borrowing, the future of our country will remain online. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kansas yields back the balance of his time. the chair will advise the gentleman from new york he has 34 minutes remaining on his side, the gentleman from michigan has 35 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: it is my pleasure to yield five minutes to our distinguished whip, mr. hoyer from the great state of maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, according to a new poll by "the washington post" and abc news, 84% of americans disapprove of the way congress is doing its job.

i don't know that the other 16% are paying attention pause we're not doing our job well. and this certainly is not doing our job well. the reason it's not doing our job well is because it is a pretense. a sham. this legislation is to pay bills that we've already incurred. whether as the gentleman said it was incurred with your jotes -- your votes or our votes, we have incurred those expensesful 69 -- those exes. this is about -- those expenses. this is about whether america will pay its bills. the previous gentleman said nobody has done anything about the debt new york point of fact, we did something about the debt. we put revenue at levels commensurate with our spending. and as a result, in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, in 1997, we brought the debt -- the

deficit down to $25 billion and for the next four years western had a surplus. now, a couple of those years were not real surpluses because we counted on social security revenue but two of those years were real surpluses. this is about whether we pay our bills that we had incurred. not doing this would be irresponsible and would lead, i think, to further disrespect by the public and properly so. one of the reasons for this feeling by the public is that americans are tired of political games. this is a political game. this is a game that will say, see, i voted against debt. now, let me tell you how to vote against debt. when you cut taxes in 2001 and 2003, i agree with my friend, it's not about blame, it is

about learning, however. when we cut tacks in 2001 and 2003, 2001 under george bush, we didn't pay for them. we pretended they would pay for themselves. they didn't. alan greenspan says they won't. we ought to learn from that. learning from that, we ought to say, yes, we'll pay our debts, the president doesn't want this money. it's not for the president. it's for bills that we incurred in fighting two wars, in giving tax cuts, primarily to the wealthiest in america, to passing a scription drug program that frankly all of us now support, but we didn't pay for it. as a result, we got deeply into debt. we have to show courage, wisdom and hopefully intellectual honesty in getting to that. the american public are tired of seeing republicans spending

time because of electoral positioning and they would be tired of us doing the same thing. that's what all-what this is. this is not our debt. we voted against it. but that's not responsible. it's not honest. and i think most of you know that. the resolution before us today is simply another waste of time. more than that, it undermines competence here and around the world. some of that debt, of course, we owe to people around the world. it is the essence of political gamesmanship and does nothing to reduce the debt or create jobs, and we spent the whole day on it. this is the only full day we will spend in january debating any issue. americans know that we ought to pay our bills. they know we reached a deal in august that said both parties would work together to reduce our deficits in order to provide certainty to our

businesses, certainty -- families around the dinner table. this would only provide more uncertainty at a time when our people need to see us working together on a big balanced deal to meet our fiscal challenges. my friend and i are both for that effort. i am very much for that effort. but i don't pretend that not paying the bills that we incurred are going to solve that problem. the only thing that's going to solve that problem is we are going to ask everybody to contribute their fair share. yes, we are going to have to make some cuts and make some cuts that neither side will like and raise revenues that neither side will like. but i will tell my friend, who is waiting for his grandchildren, i have three grandchildren now and i have two great grandchildren, and he's right. they're the ones who are going to have to pay this bill. and i saw my young friend and new member from south carolina -- i can't call his name right

this second -- can i have two minutes. mr. levin: i yield three minutes. mr. hoyer: i saw my young friend passionate about not passing this to his children. i could have given that speech. i voted against the a.m.t. without paying for it. we paid for it when we set the a.m.t. i think it needs to be fixed and we'd pay for it. i would vote no on this resolution, and i strongly encourage my colleagues to do the same. why? america is disheartened because they do not believe we are honest in dealing with them. they believe we play political games. they believe that we are not addressing the issues they know are of importance and know do not have easy, simplistic answers. i hope that democrats who vote no will vote no joined by a

large number of republicans, not because you like debt, not because any of us like that. and very frankly i voted for the clinton revenue increases in 1993. the prediction on your side of the aisle was it would destroy the economy, unemployment would spike and the deficit would explode. none of that happened. you were wrong. all of us are wrong from time to time. dead wrong. as a matter of fact, we enjoyed the best economy i have seen in my adult life in the 1990's. and we have seen the worst recession in my life after pursuing the bush policies for eight years. yes, we were in charge for the last two but we couldn't change policies because the president had the veto and the majority votes to sustain that veto on this floor. so, ladies and gentlemen, let's be honest with the american people. we've all incurred a debt. we all spent the money. we drove on the roads.

we were defended abroad. we invested in health care. research. we all incurred these debts. we know we need to solve it. we know that will be tough but honesty will make it easier. honesty between ourselves, honesty with the american people and honesty, integrity and courage. i say around this country talk about, you know, greece has a real problem. they are 128%. i think we are at 100%. the problem with greece is they don't have the resources to solve their problem. america, the good news for us is we have the resources to solve our problems. if we have the courage and political will to do so. this vote is a small token of showing that we have the courage, the wisdom and the

political will to do so. we need to pay our bills. vote no on this resolution. show the american people that we have courage, that we have wisdom and we can have the political will to make america the continuing strongest country on the face of the earth, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: thank you, madam speaker. i would like to say to mr. hoyer that i have a tremendous amount of respect for him as a member of this body, and i have joined him to support the go big effort. and what i would say is by this resolution, look at what we have done on our side of the aisle. we have brought this conversation out of the back rooms. we have brought the ideas and proposals that we heard from mr. blumenauer from oregon, i believe, who talked about comprehensive tax reform,

agricultural reform on the floor of this house in front of the american people in an open and honest manner. and what we have done on our side of the aisle is to stress that these conversations will no longer happen behind closed doors, but they will happen on the floor of this chamber. and i'm confident, i am confident that when we come together, like we are, like the foundation that we are setting in our conversations that we are going to solve this problem. but until that solution is enacted, i will get up every day as a member of this house to champion the cause of getting the fiscal house of washington, d.c., in order, to get our reckless spending under control and get this economy going. and with that -- mr. hoyer: will my friend yield? mr. reed: i'd yield. mr. hoyer: i want to thank him for his participation in addressing this issue and frankly in my opinion he was

one of the 100 signatories saying, let's say get a big deal. we have to get a handle on this debt. i want to thank him. but i want to assure him as well -- i have been here just a little longer than he has -- this debate has been going on for some period of time. this is no new debate. with all due respect, it's been on this floor, i've been raising this issue for some 20 years, very frankly. others have as well on both sides of the aisle. the debate has been going on, but as i said, we need to summon the courage and political will to not just debate it but to address it and address it effectively and i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. reed: thank you. madam speaker, with this i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from mississippi, mr. palazzo. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized for two minutes. mr. palazzo: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank the gentleman for my time. it's a new year and we have a new chance to tackle some new problems in this session of the 112th congress.

but real problems need real solutions. we saw what was possible when the house came together last year to pass conservative job-creating bills and a plan to cut $6.2 trillion in government spending and reduce deficits by $4.2 trillion over the next decade. we also saw how little got done when democrats in the senate and the obama administration consistently ignored the wishes of the american people. this administration has said it will continue to wage its 2012 campaign against this congress. so instead of working with us and encouraging the senate to consider the numerous jobs bills we have passed in the house, the president has chosen once again to try to divide us and the american people. make no mistake, the issue of spending will be as important in this second session of congress as it was in the first. it remains so because our economy has not stabilized. government is still too large and too many people are still looking for work. yes, the president inherited a bad economy, but his destructive policies have made it much worse.

i support this resolution of disapproval of the president's debt limit increase because shouldering future generations is not following. i say if you're ready to work together on some very real solutions to real problems in 2012, so are we. we've been ready. america deserves and demands better than the short-term drive the car off the cliff mentality our president has given us over this past year, and we in the house will continue to bring forth real leadership and real solutions to the real problems facing us for this generation and for those to come. before i yield one of my colleagues talked about the path to prosperity, the republican budget, he said, yes, it includes simple flies the tax code, repeal the government takeover of health care and address the number one driver of our deficit and that's medicare. we call that plan the path to

prosperity. the president and democrats only alternative has been a path to despair. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: mr. reed, mr. hoyer mentioned this, you know, on ways and means for years once the republicans came to the majority, we protested they weren't paying for anything. so this isn't a new issue. it isn't a new issue. i now yield five minutes to the ranking member of the budget committee and a distinguished former member of the ways and means committee, the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for five minutes. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam speaker. and i thank my colleague, mr. levin. you know, day after day, month after month we hear members of congress, republicans and democrats alike, come to the floor of this house and say we've got to do more on jobs,

we've got to make sure that we get this fragile economy moving again. unfortunately, while we say those things in this body, we haven't yet taken up the president's jobs initiative that he presented to this congress last september. we've taken little bits and pieces here. we've had two months now on the payroll tax cut. i hope that's good news. i hope we can get the rest of it. but the rest of it has being absolutely ignored. these people said they want to focus on job creation and get the economy moving again. and what's incredible about today is we have our republican colleagues advocating a course of action which if we took them seriously would wreak absolute havoc in the economy. it would destroy jobs throughout the economy. that's not just me saying it. that's republican economists, independent economists, democratic economists. if the united states for the

first time in its history refused to pay its debts, if the united states for the first time in its history refused to make good on the full faith and credit of the united states, the economy would fall to pieces. millions of people will lose their jobs. you know, if we want to be taken seriously, we have to be serious about the consequences of our actions. and if we take the course of action being presented, we'd have a fiasco on our hands. look, the american people, i think, understand full well what's going on here, but i do think it's important to make clear what the debt ceiling does. you raise the debt ceiling in order to cover obligations already made. it would be as if if we don't lift the debt ceiling it's like we woke up one morning and said, we won't pay our mortgage.

or if you went out and paid good and services with a credit card say, we are not going to pay the credit card. you know what happens? you lose your house if you do that. the credit card company will come after you. if the united states was to renege on the full faith and credit of its obligations it would be a disaster in the international economy. and yet that is apparently the course of action being advocated by our republican colleagues today. now, what makes this really political theater is people know that more responsible members of congress and certainly the president of the united states is not going to let that happen. they are not going to let that reckless outcome to happen. and that's why in so many ways this is unfortunately just political theater and it's one of the things, frankly, that contributes to the american people's low view of the congress, this kind of political game playing. another thing that contributes to that is members of congress

refusal to take responsibility for their own actions. last year, we had the republican budget on the house, there are major differences between the republican budgets and democratic budgets but the reality is, the republican budget, overwhelmingly voted for by our republican colleagues, would require us to lift the debt ceiling of the united states. the very debt ceiling our republican colleagues are now telling us they don't want to increase. it would require us, it would have added $7 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years. how is it that people can come down and vote for a budget that says we're going to ask the united states to take on these additional obligations and then vote for a motion or resolution that refuses to take responsibility for those very actions?

and i think that's why the american people are understandably losing much of the confidence, certainly in this house of representatives. now obviously, we have big challenges with respect to the deficit. let's get together and solve them. as my colleague, mr. hoyer, said, in order to do that we have to come together in the spirit of compromise. we have before the country a number of approaches. we've had a number of bipartisan commissions. we have simpson-bowles, rive ledge-demin chee. -- domenici. they have a framework for solving the issue. all the frameworks say we have to make tough decisions on this making cuts but we also have to deal with the revenue side of the equation. the major obstacle to dealing with the revenue side of the

equation is we have one person who say you can't close a loophole. mr. levin: i yield the gentleman an additional two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> we have our colleagues -- mr. van hollen: we have our colleagues on the other side taking a pledge to the grover nor vist organization as opposed to the pledge we take to support the united states, and under that pledge if you close a tax loophole for the purposes of deficit reduction, you violated the pledge. if you say, you know what, gas prices are doing well, oil companies are doing just great, we don't think they need a taxpayer subsidy, you can't get rid of -- rid of that if you're going to use that money for deficit reduction. it's a violation of the pledge. let's get serious about deficit

reduction. let's take a balanced approach. we have a bipartisan model, at least a framework, in simpson-bowles. but let's be serious about that. the reason this process on the floor of the house today is not serious is because everybody recognizes the united states can't afford to default on its full faith and credit. everybody, that is, except for the folks who are apparently going to vote to say we can't raid the debt ceiling. that we are not going to take responsible for paying for obligations already due and owing. budgets already passed. what kind of message is that to our children? you've got to pay for your debts, but you know what, you don't really have to, wink, wink, nod, nod, go ahead and buy those things on your credit card and then decide the next day you're not going to pay for them. what a terrible message that is.

let's take responsibility, colleagues, for our actions. let's not play political games. and most of all, let's not follow the advice that our republican colleagues today are recommending, which would undoubtedly, if taken seriously, result in economic chaos and a huge loss of jobs. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: i'm happy to yield to the gentlelady from new york, ms. buerkle. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. buerkle: thank you, madam speaker and to my colleague from new york. we prepare our remarks to come down here and speak but as i listen to my colleagues across the aisle, i have to comment on a couple of things today. first and foremost, this is not a democrat or republican issue. the debt this nation faces is not partisan, it's an american

issue. we need to join together and to figure out a path forward and to hear my colleagues oy across the aisle demagoguing, we heard them demagogue our republican budget. i challenge the senate so put forth a budget and let's put a spending plan in place. this debate about the debt ceiling is critical to this country because we can't get the senate to the table to debate a budget system of we've got to somehow get their comments out and get to the american people how very important it is to stop the spending. the united states of america doesn't have a taxing problem. we have a spending problem. and until and unless we get our spending under control, we cannot move forward as a nation. it isn't about taxing the american people anymore. they are taxed enough. we need a fair and flatter tax, income tax. we need to revise our tax code. most importantly, we need to stop the spending. this past week, our president

came out, madam speaker, and he talked to us about consolidating departments within the federal government. about decreasing government. making it more efficient. and yet he comes to us and he asks us to increase the debt ceiling. that's talking out of both sides of your mouth, madam speaker. this president, i believe, thinks government has the answers and he wants to give the bureaucrats a blank check to move forward and to spend this country into oblivion. i came here as the mother of six children and the grandmother of 12 because i believe the best thing we can do for this country is to get our spending under control. stop spending money that we don't have so that the country that we give to our kids and our grandchildren is a better place with more opportunity and the american dream. i yield back. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i now yield three

minutes to the active gentleman, the very active gentleman, from vermont, mr. welch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. welch: thank you, i thank the gentleman. the course of action that is being proposed by the republican majority is two things. one, it's reckless and irresponsible, and two, it's cynical and very political. first of all, why is it reckless and irresponsible? it is because this country has never seriously considered defaulting on its obligations, saying no to paying its bills. what great country would ever seriously suggest to its citizens that it will stiff its creditors with all the economic chaos that would ensue? also, the reason that we have to raise the debt ceiling is not so we have permission to spend more money. it's to meet obligations that have been incurred. many of those obligations, incidentally, are for

expenditures i opposed but you supported. the war in iraq. the extension of the bush tax cuts. medicare scription drug part d that was never paid for. the extension of the bush tax cuts a year ago december. when it was going to add $800 billion to the 10-year deficit but even on the in order to accommodate that, you wouldn't raise the debt ceiling. so that's the irresponsible part of this proposal. obligations incurred are obligations that must be paid. i was against the iraq war and didn't want to spend that money. had i been here, i would have voted against the bush tax cuts because i thought it was bad policy. but as a member of congress, those were congressional obligations, i believe that we and i have an obligation to stand behind them. but secondly, the reason i believe this is cynical and political, is two things.

first, these budget requirements are ones that were incurred in many cases at the urgency -- at the advocacy of our republican majority. secondly this process we're now doing is one that was designed to allow people who wanted to stand up and vote no against extending the debt ceiling the opportunity to -- the opportunity to do so so they could chame they were against it even though it was designed as well to guarantee that the debt ceiling would be raised. just putting the full burden of making that happen on the president of the united states. i'm glad that he's willing to bear that responsibility, but i question whether the american people are fooled by a congressional maneuver whereby the majority is saying that we want to say no, that we're against raising the debt ceiling, even though we guaranteed the process by which it will happen. i thank you and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: i'm pleased to yield two minns to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. desjarlais. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. desjarlais: madam speaker, our nation is $15 trillion in debt. what does that really mean? it means that every american's share of the debt is roughly $48,000. it means that our debt is more than our nation's yearly gross domestic product. it means we must borrow 40 cents on every dollar we spend. and it means that china can purchase a new f-35 joint fighter every day with the interest we pay them. while these facts alone should cause concern, the truly frightening patient is that there is no plan in place to prevent our debt continuing to grow. increasing the debt limit by another $1.2 trillion will mean by the end of 2012, our national

debt will be in excess of $16 trillion. but worse than that, raising the debt limit sends the message to job creators that we are still not serious about making the necessary spending cuts and reforms to pay down this unsustainable debt. my constituents have given me a clear message, make the federal government live within its means. that will require us to prioritize our spending and make tough spending decisions. but there's no other choice. it is simply impossible to continue to run yearly trillion dollar deficits, yet that is exactly what some in washington want to continue to do. there's absolutely no doubt that if we don't change this course, this reckless spending bing will ruin our economy and bankrupt our nation. that is not fair to our future generations. we have an opportunity here today to say enough is enough. we can be the congress that acts to put this great nation back on

the right track. i urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this disapproval resolution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. ross. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. ross: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my colleague for yielding. today i rise against the debt ceiling and i rise in favor of reality. madam speaker, my freshman colleagues and i arrived in washington, d.c. from various backgrounds. many, like me, own their own businesses. others include auto dealers, funeral home director, dentists, doctors, a pilot a football player, a roofing contractor and others. the point is, madam speaker, people who lived an worked in the real world came in as freshmen, as my colleagues. many in that same group have been told we just don't

understand how washington works. the fact is, washington doesn't work. only in washington is slowing the rate of growth and spending called a cut. only in job creators called a myth but bailouts are called a stimulus. madam speaker, the sad reality is that washington doesn't work, but what is more saddening is that it can. our founders in their enduring wisdom crafted a system of government with checks and balances. just because we have a president that is willing to spend our way into further debt does not mean s branch of government has to go along with it. we have the ability right here, right now torque stop repeating the fiscal insanity that has led taos trillions in debts and deficits. the fact that we're even talking about raising the debt limit without any realistic, credible plan to pay off our debts shows just how ingrained in our thinking this irresponsible

spending has become. the fact that this president wants to spend more in g.d.p. than we match in rev thues or tax rates is a travesty to these people, our children and grandchildren. the fact that our friends across the capitol can't pass a budget for more than 1,000 days is unacceptable. the fact that we are printing money to buy our own debt makes sense only if you've got your economics degree by passing go and checking $200. madam speaker, the entire government has a choice. we can make a government work for the betterment of the american people. mr. reed: i yield an additional minute to the gentleman from florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ross: we can make washington work for the betterment of the american people. will we live in the real world, prioritize spending and go without? or will we continue to play in congressional candy land, the place where some say the sky is

blue and others say the sky is red and in at the last minute a deal is declared saying it's purple and it's called progress. madam speaker, the sky is blue. at this time, i ask congress and the president to join the rest of the world world -- real world, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: how many more speakers do you have, mr. reed? mr. reed: we have three or four. mr. levin: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york has 23 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentleman from michigan has 17 1/4. the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: madam speaker, at this time i'm happy to yield three minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. fitzpatrick. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for three minutes. mr. fitzpatrick: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i am here to state the obvious, that the federal government still spends too much and it borrows too much. president obama has asked the congress to raise the debt limit by $1.2 trillion. let's put this number into

perspective. there are 83 million families in the united states. so what the president is really asking is for every hardworking american family to mortgage an additional $14,450. while middle-class americans are struggling, the president has requested to pile more and more debt on top of hardworking taxpayers. americans are tired of hoping that their lawmakers will come together and find commonsense solutions to a very serious problem facing our nation. our national debt stands at over $15 trillion. our outstanding debt totals 100% of our gross domestic product. our credit rating has been downgraded. medicare will be bankrupt in nine years and social security faces insolvency. the time for hope has past. we must act. america simply cannot wait. we got into this mess because of a decade of budget tricks, accounting gimmicks and empty promises. we did not get into this

situation overnight, and we certainly cannot get out of it overnight. but the fact is we need a commonsense budget and a federal government that is efficient and effective, not one that wastes money of hardworking taxpayers. if we do nothing, american prosperity will drown in debt as we are currently on an unsustainable path of $1 trillion per year deficits. but if we make the hard decisions today, we can avoid the unacceptable consequences that we will surely face. we're all in this together, and we must find a solution together. america never backs down from a challenge. we can and we will make the right decisions today so we can restore the american dream and give our children and our grandchildren a future full of opportunity. therefore, i support the resolution and call on the president to work with the house and the senate to put in place a budget that guarantees a more stable and secure future for america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: let me reserve so i don't have to do this each time until, mr. reed, you finish and i'll close and you close. mr. reed: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: i am pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. kinzinger. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. kinzinger: i am a military pilot. i've been overseas and executed this nation's wars and i'll tell you one of the things i've seen firsthand is the biggest threat to our national security is our national debt. this debt ceiling increase is a symptom of overspending that has consumed washington for far too long. president obama's request for $1.2 trillion increase in the debt limit points to the serious fiscal challenges we have found ourselves in due to decades of irresponsible and

reckless spending. for decades, members of congress who continue to serve voted simply to raise the debt ceiling without ever offering a plan to stop the bleeding. it wasn't until the new house majority arrived that my freshman class when we turned the focus of the conversation from cutting -- from how much more to spend to how much more we can cut and we turned the conversation to how to cut spending in washington, d.c. we dended that washington stop doing business as usual and include spending cuts greater than the amounts raised. in june i told president obama head on in the weekly address that under no circumstances will republicans support irresponsible legislation which increases the federal government's credit limit without any spending cuts or budgetary reforms. it's high time we cut up the government's credit cards and draw a hard line to stop the government from overspending which is hampering our economy's ability to grow and thrive. currently every man, woman and child have a share of the

public debt that exceeds $46,000 apiece. unemployment rates are through the roof, and the irresponsible spending habits of prior congresses and administrations have racked up trillions in national debt. the culture of washington must be reformed from the ground up. the future of our nation depends on it, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan continues to reserve. the gentleman from new york. mr. reed: thank you, madam speaker. at this time in time i'd yield two minutes to the gentleman from nevada, mr. apple day. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from -- amodei. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nevada is recognized for two minutes. mr. amodei: i want to thank the gentleman from the empire state. i hope this congress has had a very good learning experience, especially those new to this body, essentially saying that you new people need to learn how we do things here in washington. well, as the newest member of how we do things here in

washington for about 122 days, i can assure you that the people who gave me this job know how we do things here and they're tired of it. they understand that washington has a fatal spending problem. they understand that the answer to every question is not more federal spending. that is the problem, more federal spending. i find it interesting to hear my colleagues from both sides of the aisle talk about, we need to pay our bills. we need to talk about what we incur as bills before we fake more money from others. this is not a problem that we got here by by ourselves in a partisan matter. it was in fact a bipartisan problem, but to treat the solution as one that requires only one side solution or the other, get us to this point that people talking about ea