keystone project that had bipartisan report -- support, would create tens of thousands of jobs, and the difference in approach between the president and house republicans really poinsettia fundamental difference in approach is as we move forward. house republicans support the keystone project. we support a keystone economy, driven by the private-sector, where we see innovation, entrepreneurship, and a limited role for the federal government. on the other side, we see the president using taxpayer dollars to support special interests and pick the winners and losers. as a friend of mine recently pointed out, when the government picks, it seems the government often picks losers. house republicans support the keystone project. we support a keystone economy. we embrace and all of the above approach to energy. we encourage the president to join us in this upper.

>> as the chairman said, we are working to make certain we get the obama health care bill off the books. house republicans voted to repeal the entire thing. we continue to bring forward ways to repeal it, brick by brick. this week, we will take up the repeal of the class act, which is an important step for us to do. this is a classic budget gimmick. for those of you who read the bill, go to title eight, section 8001 and 8002. that is where it lays out the class act, which is to be there for long term care -- long-term care. i would encourage you as you read this to realize we have no example where the federal government has stepped in to make these near-term investments where it has yielded the long-

term savings that some of the theorists expect to see. it just does not happen. it is time to get it off the books. it is not fiscally sustainable. >> good morning. i am a freshman. i have the pleasure of serving on the budget committee. we have been working to produce a budget i think america could be proud of, and working hard on 10 different budget reform process issues. as a freshman,, i got to the only place in the country where you can spend $10 this year and $12 next year and call it a spending cut. american families do not understand it. we are bringing a bill that is going to change that. it is called the baseline reform act. when the cbo moves to score, it should follow the law. it should follow what congress

is done. the current process is to assume the next congress is going to spend more than this congress. in fairness, with past congresses, that was a good assumption. but this congress has one trillion $50 billion dollars -- $1.50 trillion, on a downward trajectory. no more can we spend $10 this year and $12 next year and call that a budget. if you spent $10 this year, you need to spend $10 next year, and be honest for the first time in a long time. i support the leadership for bringing this bill forward. >> in florida, new gingrich ran an ad criticizing governor romney for depriving jewish individuals of $5 a kosher meals and said it was bad for

the country to have an elongated primary. do you agree with that? >> i am not involving myself in this presidential primary race. for those who choose to show up and vote in the republican primaries, you have to make the same decision. i have a big job to do, and i am going to stay focused on my work. >> how you intend to help underwater homeowners refinance? >> how many times have we done this? we have done this at least four times, where there is a new government program to help homeowners who have trouble with their mortgages. none of these programs have worked. i do not know why anyone would think the next idea is going to work. all they have done is to lay the clearing of the market. the sooner the market clears and we understand where the prices really are, it will be the most important thing we can do in

order to improve home values around the country. >> can you work with the president in any way? >> i have always been open to working with the president of the united states. if we have something that makes economic sense and is fiscally responsible, i will do it. >> you are a leader of the republican party. with the primary continuing, how concerned are you as a party leader that a drawn out, but her primary -- what impact will have on your party? >> i understand people are concerned with how long the primary process is. i would remind people that president obama and secretary of state hillary clinton had a fight that went through june of 2008. i think everybody needs to relax. this will resolve itself. >> where republicans are on the

payroll tax cut -- >> i am expecting support today from the chairman of the caucus for the senate. i do not see any reason why this cannot be extended. the house passed a bill that would extend the payroll tax credit for a year, extend unemployment benefits with real reforms, and take care of it. we pay for it in a reasonable, responsible way. most of the offsets are coming from the president's own budget. we have done our work. we are in conference. i hope they can resolve this sooner rather than later. thanks. >> our road to the white house political coverage takes you to the candidate events. >> i laid out a blueprint for an economy that is built to last, and has a firm foundation, where

we are making stuff, selling stuff, and moving it around. ups drivers are dropping things off a rare. that is the economy we want. >> if i am president of the united states, i will stop all the obama-iraq regulations. i will make sure we eliminate any that kill jobs and get america back to work. >> the minute people realize obama is gone, that is how decisive the changes going to be. and how rapidly change is going to be. >> follow the candidates as they meet with voters. >> i thought i saw you. >> we are working hard for you. >> use our web site to view recent video from the campaign trail, and to read the latest postings from the candidates, political reporters, and other viewers from social media sites.

in a few moments, a house debate on a proposal to repeal the long term assisted care provisions in the new health care law. in a little more than an hour, and house and senate conference on extending the payroll tax cut and federal unemployment benefits. >> thursday on washington journal, a decision on the congressional budget office's economic outlook. then more about the cbo report with the budget committee's ranking member, congressman chris van hollen of maryland. and robert jones, founder of the public research institute. he talks about the major religious groups in the u.s. and how they vote. washington journal texture caused and e-mails, live every morning, starting at 7:00 eastern, on c-span. with talk of possible legislation to improve the nation's cyber defenses, the

former cia director discusses dealing with national awareness of cyber threats from an aspen homeland security group event. >> i have an alarming thought. in some ways, this mirrors the discussion we used to have about terrorism back in the 80's and 90's. there was a great deal of difficulty coming to a national consensus about what to do about it until we had 9/11, which crystallized everything, and we knew what to do and the nation moved forward. we have not had that kind of event in siberia. we talk about it. the attack on zappos -- the only good thing that comes out of it is after a few more events there will be growing public awareness that this is a serious vulnerability. i think that will overcome some of the private-sector reservations about working with the government on this. >> watch the rest of the

discussion on line at the c-span video library, archived in searchable. -- and unsearchable. >> the house of representatives has voted 267-169 to repeal the long-term assistance care portion of the new health care law. the obama administration said in october that it would not implement that part of the law because of insufficient funding. this part of the debate is a little more than an hour. >> madam chairman, it has been more than two years since the class act was first debated as part of the president's health- care takeover debate. we knew then that the program was flawed and unworkable, yet the democratic-controlled congress ignored these concerns and instead rushed the class program through as part of the president's health care law. ealth care law.

now, two years and more than $800 billion later, we have finally heard from the president and his administration that while they have wasted taxpayer dollars, this program is in fact not implementable. surprised? well, you shouldn't be. unbiasedage ised such as the american academy of actuaries have raised concerns of the program some five months before the president's plan was even considered on the senate floor. members from both sides of the aisle also raised concerns about the program's long-term sustainability during this debate. most disturbing is what we came to find in a bicameral investigation last year that revealed concerns from within h.h.s. were rampant during

debate but were never brought to light during the democratic leadership or the obama administration yet the program was rushed through so we can, as then speaker pelosi noted, find out what's in it, and that's a quote. on october 14, 2011, secretary sbeelias announced what honest -- sbeelas announced what honest accounting was inevitable. the obama administration finally admitted there was no viable path forward and therefore was halting any further efforts at implementing the class program. the failure of the health and human services department to implement the class program certainly is not a surprise. however, it is a catastrophic consequence of what happens when congress rushes to enact costly policies and dismisses warnings from independent experts. most troubling are the budget

gimmicks used to sell the class program and indeed the entire law. the congressional budget office, c.b.o., estimated the class program would save money by collecting premiums from enrollees, premiums that will now never be collected in light of a failed implementation. we knew, madam speaker, madam chair, we knew the savings estimates for the president's health care plan were wrong. it defied common sense that such a massive spending expansion would have no cost. now, the president will have to explain to the american people why the health care law, obamacare, patient protection, affordable care act, unaffordable care act, he'll now have to explain to the american people why this health care law will cost them $8 1990 billion -- $80 billion-plus

more than what they were told. that's $80 billion on top of the trillions the president has added to the books since he took office in january of january of -- took office in january of 2009. today, we'll have an opportunity to start over on long-term care reform, an issue that's important to all of us as we hear from constituents regularly about the growing cost of long-term care services . the market has not even been penetrated 10%, madam chair. . we will now begin that process but first we must take this section out of the health care bill known as class, we must take it off the books. and i urge my colleagues support just what this bill does, remove class from the statute, h.r.

1173 repeal the failed class program so that we can now move forward with reforms that do work. with that, madam chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: there are millions of americans currently in need of a long-term care program and many more that will require these services in the future. despite the great achievements of our country the u.s. lacks in affordable and ethical system of financing long-term care services. the class program is a significant step towards finding a realistic solution to this program. however, many of my republican colleagues have taken a stands against -- stance against class without proposing any real solutions to long-term care access in america. i strongly oppose h.r. 1173 and consider it to be a blatant disregard of a growing crisis in this country. madam speaker, republicans

continue to propose repeal of various aspects of the affordable care act. we heard my colleague from georgia today and how many other times, how many on the other side have said, let's just repeal the affordable care act. let's repeal pieces of the affordable care act, but they never come up with any meaningful alternatives. the same is true today. we are talking about outright repeal of class without any meaningful or suggestion of an alternative. my message to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is, that we should amend the class act and not end it. this country is already facing a long-term care crisis, but the problem is only going to get worse as our population continues to engage, an estimated 15 million people are expected to need some form of long-term care support by 2020. if we don't solve the need for affordable long-term care in this country soon, we will also jeopardize our entitlement programs. currently medicaid pays 50% of the costs of long-term services and that price tag could be

rising every year. the class program was designed to allow people to stay at home and prevent the cost of nursing home care that burdened medicaid. now, i want to correct one thing. i know in the rules committee some of my colleagues talk about the administration's position on this bill. the administration made it quite clear in the hearing that we had on this bill that they are opposed to repeal of the class act. they acknowledge there were workable solutions under the class program that didn't feel they had the legal authority, i stress legal authority to implement them. so the department of health and human services has more work to do and i have suggested on numerous occasions that the class advisory council, which is organized under the legislation, be convened in order to off their expertise. the class program is a framework that will facilitate a solution to our long-term care crisis. however, all i continue to hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is that congress can't do anything. this is negative attitude. the idea that congress can't address any problem.

i just sincerely hope that my colleagues when they come to the table, come up with a workable solution. don't just tell me we have to repeal things. we can't do anything. the government can't do anything. cowardly running away from the problem to repeal is preliminary now -- simply not the answer. overall it promotes personal responsibility and independence. that's the values you talk about a lot. it allows the government to put choice in the hands of consumers while saving medicaid dollars. american families have two >> long-term care options and they need our help. rather than repeal class, we need to continue the dialogue and development of a viable plan forward. again, let's amend it not end it. moving forward with h.r. 1173 shuts the door on the problem that simply cannot be ignored. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lance, a very valued

member of the subcommittee on health. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. lance: thank you very much. madam chair. i rise today in support of repealing the class act. in hearings before the energy and commerce committee, my colleagues and i learned that the class program was a ticking time tomorrow fiscally. -- time bomb fiscally. kathleen a we'llous has said it's totally unsustainable financially. richard foster, chief actuary of the centers for medicare and medicaid services wrote in 2009 36 years of actuarial experience lead me to believe this program would collapse in short order and require significant federal subsidies to continue. the subject committee chairman kent conrad has called the program a ponzi scheme of the first order. to her credit secretary sebelius

in october called for an end adding there is not a viable path forward for class implementation at this time. madam speaker, we have a serious long-term care problem that is driving patients into bankruptcy and weighing down an overburdened medicaid program. but before we can develop bipartisan solutions to address this important issue, we must first repeal the misguided class program. only then can we begin anew and properly address the long-term health care problem. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: madam speaker, i yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the full committee, mr. waxman. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. waxman: thank you for yielding that time to me, mr. pane loan, and madam chair. i rise -- mr. pallone and madam chair. i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 1173. this bill is another republican

attempt to tear down and dismantle programs that provide health care in the united states . we have medicare, and the republican alternative to medicare is to shift more costs on to seniors, give them a voucher, let them pay more if they want more than that voucher will provide. and that voucher won't provide much over time. on medicaid they just want to shift the costs on to the states. so the states could tell a lot of very poor people i am he a sorry, we don't have enough -- i'm sorry, we don't have enough money to take care of you but we are not required to under federal law. they said they didn't want the affordable care act, they wanted to repeal it, but they haven't told us what they want to put in its place. they said that this was going to be repeal and replace. they proposed a repeal, we have no proposal to replace it. the republicans now want to take a part of the affordable care act, the class program, that is

a one and only significant initiative to put in place to deal with our country's long-term care crisis. they said those that are supporting this bill that the class act is not the right solution to our long-term care problem. i don't think it's perfect, either, but the solution is to amend the program to make it work, not just repeal it and leave nothing in its place. if we leave nothing in its place, we have the status quo. and what is the status quo? the status quo means that for some who are on medicare they'll have a minimal amount of coverage for their long-term care services. and to get any other help, people will have to go through the indignity of impoverishing

themselves. a system that is in place for the very poor would be called upon them the medicaid system to cover the their long-term care needs, especially if they had to go to a nursing home. many elderly and disabled individuals will be forced to leave their families and community of friends for institutionalization because that's all that some states will cover. families will have to do it because they'll spend down, they'll have to spend their money until they are in poverty. so they lose their dignity along the way in order to qualify for medicaid assistance. the class act was trying to take some of the burden off medicaid, some of that indignity away from seniors. medicaid expenditures for the most part are paying for long-term care, and that will escalate even further. in 2010 alone the medicaid

spending for these services cost some $120 billion. and we have a baby boomer population continuing to age. the number of americans in need of long-term care assistance will grow compounding each of these problems. what is the republican answer to this problem? nothing. just repeal the program that attempts to give some effort to deal with these costs for people who need long-term care. let's not lose this incremental piece. let's figure out how to add on to it. how to change it. but don't repeal it. i urge my colleagues to reject h.r. 1173 and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: madam speaker, i just want to remind everyone that under the class act there is not one person in the united states who would receive long-term care benefits under that act because it doesn't work. i yield at this time two minutes

to the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. mckinley: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise today in favor of h.r. 1173. this bill would save hardworking taxpayer dollars and eliminate a costly and flawed obamacare provision known as the class act. this program is sold as a self-sustaining program, one that would reduce federal spending. however the program was problematic from the start. the president and the democrat leadership in congress knew this fact for over a year and a half a -- ago and still include the class program in the health care bill. during an investigation it was revealed that the obama administration officials and senate democrats were very much aware that this was not going to work. and that the department officials warned for a year before passage the class program would be a fiscal disaster.

as far back as may of 2009, the c.m.s. chief actuary sent an email that warned officials that the program doesn't look workable. these 200 pages of exhibits from exhibit show that the department officials were voicing concern to senate leadership all the way up until passage in december of 2009. this was concealed from congress and the american public. after enactment, the concerns continued. on february of 2011, secretary sebelius testified before the senate finance committee that the class program is totally unsustainable in its present form. and finally, this past october the department announced that the program was still not financially feasible. what we are seeing now as well intended as it is, the class program is unworkable. the objective of providing

long-term health care is laudable and should be a priority of congress. therefore we must identify long-term commonsense solution for our health care. that is why last week i asked g.a.o. to conduct a study on the medicaid long-term care partnership program and survey states on how to improve the partnership program so that more americans can properly plan for their long-term care needs. this public-private partnership between states and long care insurance plans were designed to reduce medicaid expenditures by lessening the need of some people to rely on medicaid to pay for long-term health care. the partnership program is not the only solution to our long-term health care, but it is a helpful tool to help americans plan for their health care long needs unlike the unsustainable and costly class act embedded in obamacare. the repeal of the class act marks a small victory.

let's not try to forget that this program shouldn't be forced on the backs of hardworking taxpayers of america. thank you very much. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the champion for senior citizens, the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. schakowsky. the chair: the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. ms. schakowsky: i thank the gentleman. there is a lot of areas of agreement. we all agree we are in the midst of a long-term care crisis. we agree that today there are 10 million americans in need of long-term care services and support. and by 2020 that number will grow to 15 million and by 2050 that number of seniors who need long-term care will reach 26 million. the cost associated with long-term care are high. we agree on that. nursing homes can cost over $70,000 a year and 20 hours a week of home care can cost

nearly $20,000. but repealing the class act does nothing to address the glaring need for adequate coverage of long-term care services and supports. the class act addressed a number of critical needs including providing a way for persons with disabilities to remain independent in their community and bringing private dollars into the long-term services system to rereliance on medicaid without impoverishing individuals and families, and we also agree that the class act is far from perfect. . but it does provide a framework to begin to deal with the problem so it seems to me if we all agree on the need, not only the need for long-term care but the need to do better, then instead of repealing the class act and passing h.r. 1173 with no effective alternative we could right now today sit down and work together to repair this program.

by ignoring it or even postponing this long-term care crisis simply is not going to make it go away. i thank the gentleman for the time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pitts: madam speaker, i'd like to speak to h.r. 1173, the fiscal responsibility and retirement security act of 2011 which repeals the class program which was rushed into law in the president's health reform bill. last february h.h.s. secretary kathleen sbeelias is he bielias publicly admitted -- sebelias publicly admitted that the class act was, quote, unsustainable, end quote. but it wasn't until october 14 that the department of health

and human services announced it was not moving forward with the implementation of the class program, quote, at this time, end quote. on october 26, 2011, kathy greenley testified before our subcommittee that the department had spent $5 million in 2010 and 2011 trying to implement the program. the class program could not mean the law's 75-year solvency requirement and was not sustainable, was not a surprise to anyone who had been following the issue. even before its inclusion in the president's health care law, ppaca, in march of 2010, we were warned by the administration's own actuary, and the american academy of

actuaries and members of congress from both parties and outside experts that the program would not be fiscally sustainable. on july 9, 2009, approximately eight months before ppaca was passed into law richard foster wrote, quote, 36 years of actuarial experience lead me to believe that this program would collapse in short order and require significant federal subsidies to continue, end quote. i support the intent behind the class program, to help americans purchase long-term care policies that most of us will end up needing at some point but only about nine million americans actually purchase. long-term care costs are frighteningly high, and many americans face bankruptcy or

ending up on medicaid or both in order to get the care they need. but while the goals of the program were worthy, good intentions do not make up for fundamentally flawed actuarially unsound policies designed to show the illusion of savings. the president has left us with a budget hole of more than $80 billion. the irresponsible nature of the class program's inclusion in the health care law is just a sample of the budget gimmicks used to pass the health care law in the dark of the night nearly two years ago. the president will have to explain why years later the taxpayers are left with a failed program that will cost this nation at least $80 billion, that is more than 150

solyndra scandals. shelfing this failed program is not -- sheffing this failed program is not enough. -- shefbling this of failed program is not -- shelving this failed program is not enough. let's repeal the class program. not tinker around the edges of a model and take up real solutions to this problem instead. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1173, to repeal the failed class program so that we can move forward with reforms that work and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i yield, madam speaker, two minutes to the gentlewoman from california. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. mrs. capps: i thank my colleague from new jersey for yielding. madam speaker, i rise today in opposition to this bill. we all know that we have a long-term care crisis in this country.

what we have now is an unsustainable patchwork approach with wealthy people having access to private plans while almost everyone else finds the costs incredibly prohibitive. these are the folks who fall through the cracks every day. spending down all their assets until there is nothing left and then relying on our strained medicare program for care. this is what the class program tries to avoid. it would provide a benefit for individuals to stay out of costly nursing homes, benefits they already paid into. we can all agree that the class program currently written in the statute is not perfect but few things are. we can use it as a framework upon which to fix and implement this program, one that would be amended, improved and made sustainable rather than destroyed. repealing the class act does not remove the nation's need for long-term care. rather, it makes the path to sustainable solutions much more difficult. moreover, in the majority's rush to repeal, they have overlooked a vital component that will also be affected by

this bill, the national clearing-house for long-term care. the clearing-house, which was established with close to unanimous republican support, is the only dedicated place for individuals to learn about their long-term care options. however, a vote for this bill is a vote to strip funding from this vital public resource. in fact, the original bill abolished the program altogether until i fought to save it in our committee. and while the authorization has been saved, we all know that a program without any funding is not much of a program. so the result is yet one more obstacle for american families trying to care for their loved ones. these are the people who will lose out and definitely lose out by this repeal. so i strongly urge my colleagues to vote against the -- this bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. lipinski. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one

minute. mr. lipinski: i rise today in support of fiscal responsibility and in support of h.r. 1173. the class program was created with a good intention, releaving the crushing burden of long-term care. but we've known from the beginning this program would not be able to sustain itself without a massive bailout from taxpayers. the c.b.o. said so. medicare's chief actuary said so. more recently, secretary sebelius concluded the class act was totally unsustainable and decided not to implement it. and for this i give her credit. but the program is still a law, and given the $1 trillion deficit that we face, the only option right now is to make sure that taxpayers are not left with an unsustainable program in a big bill. this debate should not be about

the health care law in general. it should be about this program. it should be about doing what is fiscally responsible and that is eliminating the class program and getting to work right now in a bipartisan manner on a solution to long-term care. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: madam speaker, can i inquire how much time remains on each side? the chair: the gentleman from new jersey has nine minutes remaining. the gentleman from pennsylvania has 7 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. pallone: madam speaker, at this time i'd yield a minute and a half to mr. davis. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. davis: thank you, madam chairman, and i want to thank the gentleman from new jersey for yielding. h.r. 1173 would eliminate the potential for many of our citizens to be able to afford long-term care that he provides services and other supports --

that provides services and other supports. this is not the solution but instead a faulty and irresponsible policy initiative which will burden people and our health systems. regardless of when individuals may need these services, there's a lack of financing options to help them pay for the services they need, to maintain their health independence and dignity when they lose the capacity to perform basic daily activities without assistance. medicare does provide limited pay, long-term care services. medicaid does cover but pays only for services with people with very limited means. many private long-term care insurance plans are costly and difficult to acquire. and so i say that the real answer is to retain the services that we currently are poised to provide.

i oppose h.r. 1173 and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: madam speaker, at this time i yield one minute to another member of the health subcommittee, mr. guthrie, the gentleman from kentucky. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for one minute. mr. guthrie: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in support of h.r. 1173, to repeal the class act, establishing the patient affordable care act. the class act was unsustainable and unworkable from the time it was enacted. even at the time the health care bill was passed, it was evident that the program was completely unworkable. it is such an egregious budget gimmick that even health and human services secretary, kathleen sebelius, said this is unsustainable. repealing the class act is not as scary as those on the other side would have you think it would be. the obama administration has already acknowledge the program is unworkable in its current

form. however, the class act remains on the books. i strongly support ensuring americans have access to long-term care, but in order to move forward with a new plan we need to get the class act off the books. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i yield a minute and a half to the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. delauro. the chair: the gentlewoman from connecticut is recognized for a minute and a half. ms. delauro: madam speaker, i rise in strong opposition to the repeal of the class act. we are at another start of another session of the congress, and this majority is following the same playbook as last year. the american people are waiting for this institution to do something, anything to create jobs and restore our economic prosperity. instead of putting forward ideological bills that have nothing to do with jobs and that are intended to roll back health care and senior care in

america, right now, less than 10% of americans over 50 have long-term health care insurance. even though a large percentage of individuals will need long-term care services at some point. some studies indicate that up to 2/3 of americans that live beyond 65 will need long-term care. the class act, a bipartisan addition to the 2010 health reform, seeks to help to provide access to quality, affordable insurance for long-term care. the program must be actuarially sound and legally solvent. why? why would we repeal this bill? it is time for the majority to stop playing games, to get serious about fixing the economy. america needs more jobs, not less health care. i urge my colleagues to stand up for seniors and oppose this

repeal, and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york -- excuse me -- from new jersey. mr. pallone: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. doggett: is it just too much to ask that seniors who are struggling in a nursing home after a lifetime of work get a little economic security, that they get a little dignity? is it too much to bring just a little piece of mind to a family that is burdened with a parent that's suffering from alzheimer's or some other debilitating condition? sadly, this does appear to be too much to ask for some. one year ago the house republican majority's first major action once they gained control of congress was to repeal health insurance reform. and at the time they did that they said they were for repeal and replace, and they replaced

their repeal with a little flimsy 1 1/2-page bill that i call the 12 platitudes. it appeared to be that because during the intervening months they did nothing about long-term health care or any other kind of health care for the american people. today, they continue to deny americans' actual solutions to health care problems and once again they have a flimsy 1 1/2-page bill. they don't have repeal and replace. they have repeal and deny. they are in a state of denial that there is a problem with long-term care and they continue to deny meaningful relief to families that are struggling with health care bills and particularly long-term health care bills. there is a 75% chance that some american who reaches age 65 will find themselves in need of long-term care. and paying for that care can bankrupt a family and the

children of a parent who needs that kind of care. an average cost for nursing home services, for example, of $70,000, can surely and quickly sink a lifetime of savings. this bill is far from perfect, as it exists as part of the law. it needs to be changed. but instead of repealing it, we ought to be focusing on the change. where is the commitment to doing something about long-term care? there haven't even been hearings on how to resolve this problem. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. doggett: do you have another 15 seconds? >> i yield the gentleman 15 seconds. mr. doggett: a republican leader in the -- in this body said, it takes a master car penter to build a barn but any mule can turn one down. it's time to find a long-term solution for health care, not

just tear it down. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> it is unconscionable to say this isn't fair, they have a program they know does not work. that's building a false sense of security in people instead of working on the real policy. mr. pitts: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, our conference chair. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentleman for yielding. it is clear that the president's policies have failed. one in seven now have to rely on food stamps. half of america, now, is either classified as low-income or in poverty, and millions remain unemployed. yesterday, the congressional budget office announced one more of the president's failures, and that is, he is on track to deliver his fourth, fourth,

trillion-dollar-plus deficit in a row. somebody needs to tell the president, we've got to quit spending money we don't have for jobs we never get. one more failure, ma tam chair, is the president's -- madam chair is the president's plan. not a week goes by that i don't hear from people in my district, one businessman, i could start two companies and hire people, but based on the lack of facts in this obamacare, i'll continue to sit and wait. i heard from a gentleman who ran a music business in pal steyn, texas, who said, quote, our business is hampered by the uncertainty of tax regulations and obamacare. i had one in dallas, texas, after having to lay off 2 people, he said, swreel to terminate one more in february, due almost entirely to the

impact on my business of the health care reform we have. we are stymied. there is no doubt that the president's health care plan is killing jobs, house republicans have repealed it in its totality, it's been blocked by the president, by democrats, and so if we can't do it in its totality, we'll do it piecemeal. we need to start out by repealing the class act, which secretary sebelius said to is totally unsustainable. senate committee chairman kent conrad called it a ponzi scheme in the first order nevment's policies have fail. it's time to enact the house republican plan for america's job creators. it's time to repeal the class act. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. i yield two -- >> i yield two minutes to the gentleman from fuge, mr. pascrell.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pascrell: thank you, madam speaker. i'm tired of hearing the president is a failure. i'm tired. you can smirk all you want. there's no perfection on this floor, there's no perfection down the street. and you didn't give these speeches in 2008 when we were losing 500, 600, 700 jobs a month. not one of you came to the floor. shame on you. and now, what we want to do, we want to turn our backs on those 10 million americans currently who need long-term care. we have no alternative, we all agree that there needs to be change, and -- change in the present system, that has yet to work, we have to find a way to make long-term care both accessible and affordable. these problems will not simply

disappear. they're not going to go away. this bill certainly does not fix these problems, the bill does not provide an alternative. all it does is attack the progress made in the affordable care act. you've tried to take it down, you tried to take all the money away that's going in order to have a system in this country that change that was not sustainable in the first place. 62% of small businesses over the last five years went under because they couldn't pay their health care bills. and you stand there with no alternative whatsoever. whatever happened to the replace part of the repeal and replace? remember that? repeal and replace? that nonsense we heard last year? without the class act, or an alternative, people who struggle the most with daily tasks due to illness will be the ones to suffer.

you know that. you know that. there are millions of people out there suffering. yet we have not come up with an alternative plan. yet you condemn us, you accuse everyone of failing. where is your heart for the middle class? have you no heart? the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. members should remember that all remarks should be addressed to the chair and not to one another. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. the gentleman from new jersey has two minutes remaining. mr. pallone: and the -- the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania has four minutes remaining. mr. pallone: i -- i think -- i suggest that you go next because i only have myself and then we move to ways and means. mr. pitts: i believe we have the right to close.

the chair: that is correct. mr. pitts: i reserve. mr. pascrell: i yield myself the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: i hear that people should take personal responsibility. the idea of the class act, people pay into the trust fund and then when they need it, they take money out to pay for services so they don't have to stay in a home. this is their own money being spent to keep them in their home, in their community so they don't have to spend down and become a ward of the state, essentially because medicaid ends up paying for their nursing home care. this is a solution to a long-term care problem. not a complete solution but a partial solution. i agree with mr. pascrell, which is that when i listen to the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from texas was quite clear, let's repeal the entire

affordable care act. if we can't afford -- repeal the entire thing, we'll repeal it piecemeal, piece by piece, which is what's going on here today. it's not a very responsible position unless you come up with an alternative. we're in the energy and commerce committee. we've had hearings on this. i've yet to hear anyone come up with on -- on the republican side with an alternative. all they keep saying is, let's just repeal this and we'll figure out something else down the line. the problem with that is, mr. pascrell said there are 10 million americans who need long-term care. soon it will be 15 or eventually 20. so every day that goes by, there's not a solution for these people. and the disabled community and the senior citizen community are crying out for some kind of relief. so all i say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, don't just keep talking about repeal. i'll use the term mend it, don't enit. let's not end the effort to try to fine long-term care solutions

for america's seniors and the disabled. it simply isn't fair to come here on the noor repeatedly and say, repeal, repeal, repeal, and not have an answer. i'm more than welcome, the chairman of the subcommittee or any other member torque sit down with any of you at any time and come up with a bipartisan solution. but i haven't heard it yet. thank you, madam speaker. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: thank you, madam speaker. to close on our side, i yield to the distinguished member of the health subcommittee, dr. gingrey, for such time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. gingrey: madam chairman, as co-lead sponsor of this bill, i rise in strong support of h.r. 1173. i commend dr. boustany and chairman pitts for their leadership on this issue and i thank mr. lipinski on the democratic side. in response to a question i put to him last year, the c.b.o.

director douglas elmendorf wrote, and i quote, the secretary of health and human services has concluded the class program can't be operated without mandatory participation so as to ensure its solvency. h.h.s. secretary kathleen sebelius called the program insolvent and the chairman of the senate budget committee called the program, in 2009, a ponzi scheme. in fact he went on to say it woult make bernie madoff proud. in its consideration in 2009, the c.m.s. actuary, richard foster, told the obama administration staff that, and this is his quote, 36 years of actuarial experience lead me to believe that this program would collapse in short order and require significant federal subsidies to continue, end quote. he was ignored. in fact, he was eventually cut out of the email loop so that they didn't want to, the health

committee on the senate side and the staff of senator kennedy they didn't want to hear any more from him. subsequently, in december of 2010, the president's fiscal commission recommended that they reform or repeal, not amend, but reform or repeal the class act. the commission report stated that, quote, absent reform, the class program is likely to require large transfers or else collapse under its own weight. we recommend the class act be reformed in a way that makes it credibly sustainable over the long-term. to the extent this is not possible, we advise it be repealed, end quote. in february of 2011, secretary sebelius testified before a senate finance committee hearing that the class program was, quote, totally insolvent, unquote. as structured, and it needed to be reformed in order to work.

then in october of 2011, the secretary released a report on the class act that essentially found the obama administration could not make the program actuarially sound or credibly sustainable, to quote the president's fiscal commission, over a 75-year period. thank god for senator judd gregg, madam chairman, in putting that amendment on the senate side that called for fiscal sustainability, sert -- fiscal sustainability certification by the secretary over a 75-year period of time or it could not go forward. that's what happened. the class program is not simply flawed, it is broken. as currently written, it poses a clear danger to the fiscal health of our budget and to the american taxpayer. madam chairman, some of my colleagues, in defending this broken program have told me there's no need to repeal class because the secretary has already abandoned it. yet every day that we delay in

repealing class we prevent congress from passing meaningful, true, long-term care reform. all sides admit that class does not work system of the prudent step is to repeal it. madam chairman new york closing, i urge all my colleagues, support this legislation so that we can get to meaningful reform of long-term care and have the marketplace work its magic in regard to this so the penetration is greater than the current penetration which is less than 10%. with that, madam chairman, i yield back and urge all my colleagues to support the repeal of a broken, fails program, the class act. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> madam speaker, i rise to claim the time allotted to the ways and means committee in this debate. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes. mr. boustany: thank you, madam speaker. i yield such time as i might consume. the chair: the gentleman is reck thesed. mr. boustany: as a physician, i know of the dire need to solve this problem for many families across the country who are struggling with long-term care needs. as the oldest of 10 children, my father is a physician, he died 10 years ago from a lengthy illness, he did not have long-term care and we gladly bore that burden and were able to provide for him, even though it was somewhat of a strain. this is a problem for every

single american family in this country. what we've seen now is a program that was created in obamacare, a program that is clearly unsustainable by the administration's own admission. after almost a year now of rangling about this they finally come to the conclusion that we knew even before the bill passed that this was unsustainable, it was unworkable, it was fatally flawed. i know as a physician the worst thing you can do for someone is create false hope, and that's what this has done. as long as this stays on the books, on the statute books, we're not going to get anything conon this. we are not going to off -- anything done on this. we are not going to solve this. there are bills on both sides of the aisle that i believe we can work together in a true bipartisan fashion and solve this problem. but the class program is clearly not the answer. washington should learn three lessons from this debacle. obamacare's failed

government-run program. first, don't ignore reality. democrats ignored the expert actuary warnings when they used class as a budget gimmick in obamacare. president obama cannot create a self-funded sustainable program that prohibits underwriting unless he intends to force healthy americans to participate. what does that mean? madam chair, that means an individual mandate, another individual mandate. many constitutional scholars think that this is unconstitutional. we don't need another individual mandate. in fact, senator harkin said the problem with class is that it's voluntary. i think he basically put the cards on the table and showed what they want to do to fix class is to give us another individual mandate. most enrollees in class will be high risk causing premiums to skyrocket under the current program making class even less

appealing to average american families. the premiums will be unsustainable. it will require subsidies from the taxpayer. so first lesson, don't ignore reality. second lesson, don't break the law. the administration planned to break the law by excluding americans made eligible by the made and when the congressional research attorneys warned of lawsuits i sent letters to secretary sebelius for her legal authority to make this change. she then subsequently suspended the program but this didn't create the bad law. and unless we repeal class, the department of health and human services will break the law. when it misses deadlines in october and again in 2014. that's not very a very good example to set for the american people to have the administration breaking the law. this letter i have, i ask unanimous consent to submit the letter for the record. the chair: the gentleman's request is covered under

general leave. mr. boustany: thank you, madam speaker. so, first, don't ignore reality. second, don't break the law. third, don't compound our nation's long-term fiscal problems. a democrat, former congressional budget office director, alice rivlin, under the clinton administration, i quote, sin the class program is a new unfunded entitlement it should be repealed because it will increase the deficit over the long term, end quote. in fact, the president's own deficit commission agrees our grandchildren cyrimly cannot afford a new budget-busting entitlement. we can do better than this, madam chair, and we can work together to solve this problem, and i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the -- support this class repeal, support h.r. 1173 and beyond this we'll have the impetus to actually do some real work to create a real program that works for the american people. we can make it easier for disabled americans to save for future needs, expand access to

affordable private health care coverage and better educate americans on the need for retirement planning. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. farr: thank you, madam chair. i want to point out the last time i watched television they told me that we still have troops in afghanistan who should be brought home and we've not addressed the medicare physician payment cuts , the payroll tax cut extension, unemployment extension, roads, bridges and public transit systems are falling apart and congress hasn't brought forth legislation to invest in the infrastructure? mr. stark: to repair those vital sfructures. and we continue to have an

imbalanced tax code that lets members of congress get richer at the expense of working families. and we've done nothing to change that. yet, rather than tackle any serious problems, the republicans are using the very little time that they permit congress to be in session to debate repealing the law that the president has already made clear will not be implemented. in other words, we should repeal a law that isn't going to happen. now, that's a vital use of our time. he's clearly stated, the president has, that the class act is part of the affordable care act, can't meet the tests put in statute. now, remember that republicans probably would like to repeal all of obamacare, and i'm not sure exactly which part they want mostly to repeal.

in other words, i assume that the 2 1/2 million youngsters who now get health insurance, the republicans like to kick them off the rolls and let them go to work or earn their own way to health insurance. and it's lowered prescription drug costs, obamacare has, for millions of seniors, for a bill that the republicans wrote that was too costly. i presume the republicans would like to raise the cost of pharmaceuticals for seniors. republicans generally like to do anything that pharmaceutical lobbyists asks them to do. and i'm surprised they haven't brought that up yet. i understand that my good friend, dr. boustany, actually has the makings of a bill that would help long-term care. and i also understand that the only reason he hasn't

introduced it -- i'd be glad to make it an amendment, if it's ready to go now, is that the health insurance industry doesn't like it. well, if they don't like it must be spectacular and i hope we'll see it. maybe he'll tell us a little bit about it, and i'd like to applaud it because he's done some great work in this area. and we need to do this. the fully implemented obamacare health care, whatever you want to call it, by 2014 will extend affordable quality medical care to 32 million uninsured americans. that's the plan. maybe we can change it. make we can make it quicker. maybe we can save more money. but that has to come from the other side of the aisle. we've proposed this and i would hope that our republican friends would work with it to improve it and move us in that

direction. how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from california has 7 1/2 minutes remaining with -- 7 1/2. would the gentleman like to reserve or -- mr. stark: could i yield two minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin? the chair: is there objection? the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. stark: two minutes. mr. kind: thank you, madam chair. i like to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. i rise in support of the resolution. i do so because i believe the time the class act was inserted in the affordable care act was not a sustainable program. and sure enough when secretary sebelius and those at the department health and human services tried to analyze it and implement it they reached the same conclusion. i just hope that today my republican colleagues don't take too much glee or dwight over the fact that this legislation will pass and it is the repeal of yet another small

tex of the affordable care act. but just repealing without replacing doesn't solve the problem. with the rising long-term health care costs that our nations faces. and i know my friend, dr. boustany, shares my interest in trying to find a fix to this situation, and i hope that the parties are able to come together and address some of the paramount challenges we are facing in health care. how do you insent young healthy people to invest in health care issues? very difficult to do. i am glad that people recognize the challenge we face trying to come up with a solution. this just wasn't the answer. and to my democratic colleagues, i never believe with passage of the affordable care act, which i did support, was the end all, be all of health care reform. in fact, the great potential of the affordable care act was the vast experimentation that needs to take place in reforming the health care delivery system and payment system to learn what's working and isn't working. and then drive the system to greater efficiency, better bang

for our buck. that to me is what health care reform is going to look like in the years to come. it's going to be an ongoing effort, trying to determine what is working and what isn't. the class act, clearly the way it was structured, was something that wasn't going to work. so i agree with the resolution today that we should repeal it. it's the same conclusion that the administration, having a chance to look at it, reached themselves but it doesn't leave us off the hook of trying to find a solution to one of the great challenges of long-term health care in this country. so i would encourage my republican colleagues, and i know many of whom share this sentiment that this does not end the work that has to go. we have to figure out a way to start talking to each other, listening, trust each other to come up with some solutions. this isn't that solution today. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: thank you, madam chair. i now am pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from california, the chairman of the health subcommittee on house ways and means committee. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. herger: thank you, madam

chairman. i rise in strong support of h.r. 1173, the fiscal responsibility and retirement security act. it's now clear that the -- that long before the democrats' health care overhaul was passed, the obama administration knew that the class act was a seriously flawed program that could not be implemented. for example, medicare actuary rick foster said way back in june of 2009, quote, 36 years of actuarial experience lead me to believe that this program would collapse in short order and require significant federal subsidies to continue, closed quote. yet, these warnings went unheeded and the class act remained in the health care bill nine months later because it created an illusion of budget savings, an illusion based entirely on the fact that

it would design to collect premiums for a full five years before it would have to start paying benefits. yesterday, the congressional budget office estimated that the cost of federal health care entitlement programs will more than double over the next decade. madam chairman, for the sake of our nation's future, we must get these costs under control. the class act is an unsfeanable program that if it ever -- unsustainable program that if it ever begins operating would need a major taxpayer bailout. by repealing it today, congress can send a clear message that we are going to start finding solutions to rising health care costs instead of making the problem worse. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. stark: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from louisiana.

mr. boustany: madam chairman, how much time do we have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from louisiana has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from california has 5 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. boustany: i'm pleased to yield, madam chair, 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlelady from kansas, ms. jenkins. the chair: the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. ms. jenkins: i thank the gentleman for yielding. there aren't many areas where the former kansas governor and current secretary of health and human services sebelius agrees on. with you thing that we can agree is that the class act needs to be stopped. that's why i was glad that the secretary backtrack and pull the plug on the program and that's why i support a statutory repeal of the class act today. this act was designed as a new national entitlement for purchasing community living assistance services and was used by this administration as a pay-for to substantiate their

faulty claim that obamacare was going to reduce the deficit. however, as i and many others pointed out at the time, the deficit reduction claim was bogus and based on budget gimmicks that proved false when h.h.s. began implementation. you see, the c.b.o. can only project the cost of bills in a 10-year window so the obama administration used a budget trick by setting up the class act to begin collecting premiums in 2012 but not paying out benefits until 2017. a great for years one through 10 but bad later. this led c.b.o. to report that the program would reduce the deficit but it doesn't take a c.p.a. to realize that these initial savings can't be sustained over time. while we anxiously await the supreme court's decision on the constitutionality of obamacare as an individual mandate, i urge my colleagues to support the repeal of this failed portion of the bill today so we can get this budget gimmick off the government's books. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired.

the gentleman from california. mr. stark: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: i'm pleased to yield one minute to mrs. black, a member of the house ways and means. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. mrs. black: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise today in support of my colleague from louisiana's legislation repealing this unsustainable budget gimmick that created to make the health care law look less expensive. the class act was a long-term entitlement plagued with problems from the very beginning. from day one, concerns raised about the class act's program on sustainable cost structure, the administration ignored it. i have a chart that was presented to us in our ways and means on the markup of this bill and from the very beginning, there was six -- there were six

different occasions, up until march 20, when it was passed, of experts who said this was unsustainable. they have been referenced in the past speakers. since that time of passage, there were four others, including secretary sebelius in october of 2011 who said i do not see a viable path forward for the class implementation. i think what is so sad is we continue to put our head in the sand make the american people believe that this program is somehow workable. this needs to be removed from our law so that we can start again. this is a nonpartisan issue. we all need to work together in a bipartisan way. as a nurse for over 40 years, working with elderly, i recognize the need for long-term care. thank you, madam speaker. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. stark: madam chair, i'd like to reserve the balance of my time. pending that, i'd like to ask

unanimous consent to introduce into the record a letter of support. the chair: the request will be considered under general leave. the gentleman from louisiana has the right to close. the gentleman from louisiana has one minute remaining. the gentleman from california has five and a half minutes remaining. mr. stark: madam chair new york closing, i repeat that there are real problems in this country. much more -- of much more urgency than trying to repeal a bill that doesn't do anything, that won't work, that the president has said won't be affected. i urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on this republican agenda to tear down our health system. it's mugwumpish, it sticks your head in the stand, it says let's repeal thing, let's not go about fixing things. i'm sure dr. boustany has a

great bill. i'm hoping he'll bring it to us and we can proceed to deal with the problem of long-term care for our senior citizens. i have seven children who would like to see that done very quickly and get me off their hands, thank you very much. so anything we could do together, i'll look forward to working with the distinguished gentleman. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from louisiana. mr. boustany: i'm pleased to yield the remaining time to mr. allsen, a distinguished member of the house ways and means committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. paulsen: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to rise in strong support of repealing this misguided class act. we knew from the start that the class act was fiscally unsustainable but the president and those who supported the new health care law used this and inserted it into a budget gimmick to help pass the law this new program was an illusion, an illusion craft sod

the government would start collecting funds long before it would pay anything out, making it seem as if it would raise revenue and save money. it was clear that the program would have disastrous effects. the c.m.s. chief actuary himself said if implemented, the program would collapse. after months of failed attempt, even the administration has admitted the program is unworkable. minnesota families and small businesses are tired of the smoke and mirrors coming out of washingtonful let's do the right thing and repeal this terrible program and focus on what's really important, putting americans back to work. i want to thank my colleague >> the house voted 267-159 to appeal the coverage in the new health care law. >> family is a writer for congressional quarterly. white house republicans want to

repeal the insurance program if the department of health and human services have already suspended work? >> republicans have a goal of repealing as much as they can. this is just a really big target for then. it is an easy thing to strike down. if you are not going to go ahead with it, why not let this for this legislative victory? >> water the reasons for suspending work on the long-term care program? when did they make the announcement? >> they decided they would extend implementation. the law requires it be both voluntary and self sustaining insolvent over 75 years. it gave them a lot of leeway in crafting that program. last october they simply cannot find a way to make it work. it just cannot happen. >> there seems to be consensus on this issue. he wrote about the debate today that members of both parties

agreed that there should w ork on a new long-term answer. they disagree on how. >> republican say if repeal the class at it will put urgency toward a new program. everyone agrees that long-term care is a problem. no one is sure how to fund it and make it work in a way so the sickest people are not in rolling. acosta much money. >> democrats have talked about -- that would cost too much money. >> democrats have talked about this over health-care issues. have republicans offered any replace measures? >> we have not seen any from the republican majority. we learned that they are planning a big replacement bill that they will appeal once the supreme court reveals a. we expected in june. we should see some from the republicans this summer. >> today this bill coming up on

the long-term program. will it pass? >> it will pass the house. there will be some democrats to jump on board. he is asking harry reid to bring it up. that does not look as likely. >> he said some democrats would jump on board. why would they do that? >> they agree that this is something they have gotten rid of. some of these democrats in not vote for the ones in the first place. they will support this as well. >> and updates with congressional quarterly. you can read more. thank you for joining us. let thank you. >> by 2016 the world's leading a economy will be this. that is in five years' time. if the imf is right, the guy you like next of member will be the last president of the united states to preside over the

world's leading economy. >> mark steyn is a new york times best-seller. he is a frequent guest host on rush limbaugh's radio show. live sunday is your chance to call in with your questions. it is live at noon eastern on book tv. >> in a few moments, and senate negotiators meet on extending the payroll tax cut and federal unemployment benefits. in a little more than 2.5 hours, at a forum on job creation and immigration. then u.s. house debate on a bill to extend the pay freeze for nonmilitary federal employees. >> president obama will be at the 16th and a prayer press bar.

>> you have irresponsibility. >> professor william foster on the n-word and literature. also, he changed the reading habits of americans. a look at hinnenry luce.

the oil boom hits and it quickly makes texas a leading oil- producing states. visit the intimate street of beaumont, texas. american history tv on c-span3. >> a house and senate conference committee continue negotiations wednesday to reach an agreement on extending a payroll tax cut. that tax cut for workers paying social security taxes expires at the end of the month. members agreed that it should be extended but not on how to pay for it. this is a little more than 2.5 hours. >> good morning. this meeting of the conference committee will now come to order. today we'll discuss an extension

of the payroll tax. it is a reform of the related medicare extenders. i have spoken with them. we agree will tackle the issues in that order. we will also up today between senate democrats and senate republicans. in order to provide for more open discourse, we have also agreed to set aside specific amounts of time to debate on each issue, and we will not be time each member. i ask each member to be direct in their statements and mindful of their colleagues possibilities to be heard. in the tradition of the senate, vice chairman baucus will recognize senators. in the tradition of the house, i will turn to congressman levin for the purpose of recognizing house democrats. i will yield to house republicans to seek recognition.

given the limited time we have to reach agreement, we will discuss the payroll tax for up to 30 minutes, then unemployment insurance up to 90 minutes, and then the medicare extenders for up to 45 minutes. it is my hope, and one that i know the vice chairman shares, that the talks today will yield progress on the policies before us. we will start to build a foundation upon which we can find a resolution that can stand. the faster we move through the policies, the more quickly we can turn to pay-fors. it is a board to show the american people that real progress is being made. it is what they demand and deserve. none of us will get everything that we want. but our time is very limited. i urge the members to stick to the agenda in their remarks. one thing that i learned from the super committee, and i suspect others will share and agree with me, it is impossible to make headway on anything when everything is open for discussion at the same time.

by narrowing the focus today, i hope to widen the areas of agreement between house and senate. with that, i want to recognize senator baucus for any opening comments he may have, followed by senator kyl, congressman levin, and we will begin our discussion. senator? >> thank you. it is a pleasure to be here. >> we hear you. >> try again. >> all right. hi. can you hear me now? thank you, mr. chairman, very much.

i'm very happy that we are here, to roll up our sleeves and get to work. it is awfully good at the first subject is the payroll cuts. it is so important to so many americans, millions of americans individually, also along with a big boost to the gdp. i urge us to quickly wrap up this portion. i did not think there are many issues with respect to the payroll tax cut. hopefully we did that agree to have moved onto other items. helping senior citizens that they want to see through s.g.r. >> ok, senator kyl? >> thank you. just following in senator baucus' message, we need to get to the point where we are

starting negotiations, and not just lying down negotiating positions. we have done negotiations before. it is at that point that we all feel the good will of each other and reaching conclusion. i hope that we get to that point, too, and i will not laydown negotiating positions, but say i am ready to talk. thank you. >> thank you. congressman levin? >> i very much here the sentiments expressed so far. i just want to add a couple of thoughts. we must act and act wisely with a clear understanding of the significance of the issues that we face, because the three large subject matter is that we are considering today involve the daily lives -- and i emphasize that -- of millions and millions of americans.

the taxes they pay, 160 million americans, are impacted by the work that we do here. the unemployment concerns of nearly 500 -- 5 million americans are receiving this vital lifeline during this time, with the highest long-term unemployment on record. an average weekly benefit of $300 to help them and their family with the basics of living while they look for work. and the effective access to physician care for more than 46 million seniors and disabled. and beyond the well-being of families throughout our country, the payroll tax reduction and unemployment insurance affect the continued economic recovery and the well- being of our entire nation.

there are hardly three issues, and i think that motivates us all today, that have a greater impact on people's lives and the issues in front of us today. therefore, it should not be surprising if the resolution involve some policy issues where there are differences with whose resolution is neither easy nor only technical. that means they will require us as legislators to work extra hard and to work together as conferees, and we are committed to do all that we can to succeed, as indeed we must. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, congressman levin. as we all heard in the opening

statements last week, i did hear pretty much brought support for extending the payroll tax holiday through the end of the year. we have up to 30 minutes set aside for this topic. i hope that we can dispense with it in a timely way. with that, i recognize senator baucus. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will keep my remarks short. on the democratic side, senator casey will read off on the payroll, and i think senator kyl will lead off on s.g.r. with respect to the payroll tax, just a couple of numbers to help confirm its importance. it expires, the payroll tax cut expires, there will be a tax increase on 160 million american workers. we do not want that. that includes 600,000 employees in my state of montana. clearly, the expiration would hamper economic recovery.

we all want unemployment down. we want to boost the economy. at extending the payroll tax cut for a year will happen that regard. the economist i have seen are pretty much in agreement that gdp growth would decline by about 1.3%, or about $200 billion if expires. americans who have expressed the payroll tax cut for a while now, if it is extended one more year, that is about as much as it should be, that will give

certainty and confidence to americans that congress is not a yo-yo, enacting provisions without certainty. predictability is very important here. i urge us to work together to the extent that it does very much help our economy. i'd like to turn to senator casey now. centre casey is our lead person on payroll tax cuts -- senator casey is our lead person on. tax cuts. senator casey, it is all yours. >> turn my microphone on? >> you got it. >> mr. chair, mr. vice chair, thank you. briefly, on the payroll tax, one is the goal, the others are reasons to support that goal. the goal, obviously, and i believe it is bipartisan, that we need to extend the payroll tax cut not just for a short time, but through the rest of the year, the remainder of 2012. i think that is the basic goal that we are operating under, and i think it is very important.

one reason is to provide a measure of certainty for families and businesses, said they know it is in place. as senator kyl mentioned, about what a small business owner, the payroll, as somebody who is concerned about and needs to deal with payroll every day, giving them simplicity and certainty that they know will be in place the rest of the year. i also think the fact that we can come together and agree on something so important, 160 million families, provides in addition to the policy benefit and provides an opportunity for people to see us working

together, democrats and republicans, on a very tough issue, a very important issue for them. the second reason to extend a whole year is even more urgent, and senator baucus referred to this -- that is the gross domestic product impact. we have the vice chairman of the joint economic committee, who produces a lot of great reports. on the democratic side and that republican side. both reports. i will just highlight these for reference, and folks can get copies later. but the report yesterday was a county by county, state by state breakdown of the payroll tax impact on an individual worker, individual counties, for the remaining 10 months of the year. i will not go through all of it for pennsylvania, but what struck me was the similarity between the worker impact from the big city of philadelphia, a place that rep short represents, to a very small county and north central pennsylvania. the number would be $457. another county would be $408.

one end of the state, $421 per worker, way out west to a tiny little county, cameron county, just about the same number, 420 less per worker. this is real. it is real for workers weather in small towns or rural areas. let out west, a tiny county, cameron county, four hundred $20 per worker. this is real for workers whether they are in small towns or big cities. the other report that we put out was, and this is the title of a report from last week, held continuing the payroll tax cut in federal unemployment benefits will help american families and support the

recovery. one sentence for that i think would suffice for just my opening comments. i am quoting from a report here. delmar to reauthorize federal benefits in the payroll tax cut for the remaining 10 months of the year would have a significant impact on disposable personal income and could attract 1.7 percentage points from inflation adjusted gdp growth in the current calendar year. one final way to say it is that in pennsylvania, just on the payroll tax cut, one economist said that failure to extend that

tax cut for the entire year of 2012 without an adverse impact would amount to a little less than 20,000 jobs just in pennsylvania. i think folks know what is at stake here on jobs, gdp growth, as well as the certainty we can provide our families in our business. it is good to remind ourselves that we still have more than 13 million people out of work and as it relates to the payroll tax cut, 160 million workers that are depending upon us to come together, to work together and get a new, bipartisan agreement on cutting the payroll tax. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is interesting to me and a very positive development that the first issue we are taking up appears to be one on which we are going to be able to get broad consensus, for all the reasons that have been stated already, the impact on jobs, gdp, and frankly just the individual impact on families, 160 million people receiving

this tax relief is critical. i think it is very positive that we can apparently see this kind of consensus early in our deliberations on this process. with our economy continuing and the congressional budget office report yesterday telling us we have a projected unemployment rate of 8% until 2015, now is not the time to raising taxes on anybody in the united states, particularly those who are getting relief from the social security payroll tax cut. that being said, i think we also need to pay very close attention to our national debt and the impact of this decision if we don't offset these costs. right now, these taxes, if they were collected, would go to the social security trust fund, and we don't want to do anything to diminish the solvency and strengthen -- of the strength of the social credit trust fund. this will mean literally billions of new dollars of spending at the federal level that needs to be offset. this is the same cbo report that was put out yesterday,

indicated that we had just a phenomenal, a trillion dollar deficit problem now moving forward, and an explosion of our national debt. and frankly, probably the biggest threat to our nation right now, in my opinion, is the debt crisis that we face. i believe it is incredibly important for us as we move forward in implementing the agreed policy of extending the social security payroll tax cut that we do so in a way that is fiscally responsible and help to continue to address our major debt issues in the country. >> i apologize for being late. i was with dr. elmendorf, the head of the congressional budget office, and i am pleased there seems to be consensus that we need to move ahead to extend

the payroll tax cut for 160 million americans through the end of this year. i think that is a very important step to make sure people have a little bit more money in their pockets so they can go out and purchase more goods and services, so small businesses and other businesses can sell those goods and services and hire more people. that makes sense. as we pursue this conversation, we should consider what has been a different standard set by certain members of congress with respect to what we pay for and do not pay for, because it has been the position of the republicans in congress that we don't pay for tax cuts for folks at the very top, permanent tax cuts, and so it is a little

curious to apply a very different standard when we are talking about a 10-month tax cut for 160 moving people as opposed to a permanent tax cut that disproportionately benefits folks at the very top. center crapo, you are mentioning the impact of lost revenue with respect to the deficit, and you are right, this was a chart that just came up with dr. elmendorf. it shows that the cost of extending all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts is four $0.50 trillion, which more than doubles the cumulative 10-year deficit under card call. it is just an indication of the magnitude of this issue and something we all have to tackle. i do have to put aside one issue, because if we do not fill that hole, it does not have

any impact on the social security trust fund. senator kyl knows this and others know this. in 2010, we also had a payroll tax cut for a year that was not paid for. it did not take one penny out of the social security trust fund. and the social security trust fund trusty actuary has made that very clear, because we are transferring dollar for dollar money from the general fund into the social security trust fund, it has zero impact. with respect to the general fund, the issue is the same with respect to this payroll tax cut as it is for any tax cut, including tax cuts for folks at the very top, which gets back

to my original point. i just ask that if we are born to apply different standards, we need to fully offset it, that we not all set it in a way that hurts people who we are trying to help cover the payroll tax cut, that we not take it out on struggling families around the country when we look for deeper ways to make an offset, if we are going to move forward. senate democrats originally proposed a surcharge asking folks to the very top to share more of the responsibility. there are other ways of addressing it as well, but it seems to me that we should keep all those points in mind as we discussed, how much we all said it, and how much we are going to do that as we move forward. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time.

>> thank you. obviously we are going to have a lot of time to talk about -- our time is not that long. what we are really trying to do is make sure we agree on the policies today, and then we will have to address the issues you have raised. we want to begin to find areas where there is agreement, and speaking on behalf of the house republicans, we clearly do agree that we should extend payroll tax for the remainder of the year. i am hearing around the room broad agreement on this first issue that everyone, unless i hear in one object, that we all agree we ought to extend the payroll tax through the end of the year. so with that, --

>> i just want to make sure we are clear, i think there is agreement. >> we are not going to take a vote. >> the consensus to move forward, on the point mr. van hull and raises -- mr. crapo races, we can dispose of the issue of whether or not we are doing anything to endanger the trust fund to social security at the same time. >> we are really trying to keep narrowly focused on the issues before us right now. on that issue, because of that, i don't feel the need to give a long speech. being from michigan, i understand the importance of unemployment insurance, but i am hearing that we really do see pretty broad agreement on that. without objection, i would like to move forward and address the next issue we have at hand, which is unemployment insurance. >> it is only fair to say yes, we are all in agreement on both sides, both bodies, 10 more months, the payroll tax, the end of this year. there is a sense that will have to be paid for, but that raises the next question.

or going to find enough money that we can agree on to pay for it. i want to point out that it cannot agree -- if we cannot agree, or to the degree that we cannot, we may have to look at other options and the payroll tax. maybe a shorter time, not a full 10 months, the rest of this year. it is going to have some effect on the direction of policy. >> we will have that discussion when we get there, but i appreciate your raising that. >> let me just follow up on mr. baucus's common. i think it is progress we have moved beyond december. i just want to say how that separating policy from pay

forests is somewhat problematic, because the pay- fors involve policy. i think we should not assume there will be no reference to whether we pay for and how we pay for it while we accept the notion that we are going to try today to focus on policies and not address the issue of pay- fors, but there is a relationship in terms of policy of whether repay for and how. >> when we know all the policies we have, we will know all the pay-fors we are going to have. i am glad to see that at least for this part of it, i realized is a partial step forward, but again, i think it helps us at least narrow the issue and narrow our focus that when we meet again, we can decide how we proceed. we do have up to 90 minutes of discussion on unemployment insurance and as we discussed in the last meeting, i look forward to hearing the senate's position on some of the reforms that the house proposed.

i will yield to senator baucus to begin our discussion on uncommon insurance. >> a few short points before a turn to jack reed. we do, i think, want to address and help those people or unemployed. the unemployment level is still way too high. it is slowly coming down, but clearly not come down quickly enough. that leaves about 13 million people in america unemployed. 13 million americans unemployed. some of these folks are our neighbors, some we don't know personally but know where they are. it is an individual tragedy, people out of work through no fault of their own. they are just up. it cannot find a job. it is hard to find jobs in this economy.

these are people that deserve our attention. on a macro level, just a reminder, every dollar spent on unemployment benefits has a multiplier effect of a least $2, a positive effect on the economy. we get much better bang for our buck from federal dollars than state dollars spent on benefits than any other program. cbo has issued these charts and nobody has disputed those charts. is very important to the economy that we continue these benefits. i urge us to work through the more complicated issues.

there are some areas we can reach agreement on and second- tier issues and what not so can get to the more difficult issues. while we are discussing other ui policy, the house bill has certain policies that are not in the senate bill. to ask questions, constructive questions of each other, try to see what we are really trying to get at with some of these policy changes. i often think that the assumptions behind some of these policies, there is more agreement than we realize. we have to ask, what is the assumption of that and what are you trying to get at. that will help us reach agreement very quickly. senator reid, thank you very much for your work on this issue. >> thank you, senator baucus. mr. chairman, thank you.

as many of my colleagues have pointed out, we have seen over the last 22 months private- sector job growth of about 3 million jobs, but still insufficient to meet the demands of families throughout this country. indeed, i think we have got to begin with the notion of the benefits that were available to american working families of the last several years should be continued. and also make the point that we have a historically skewed this program as emergency spending. it was not offset. on one occasion in 1982 in which i believe there was an offset, there was a tax on employers and attacks on those receiving the benefits. unemployment benefits are not taxable. at a time we conceptually agreed to reducing payroll taxes, adding to those taxes seems to be counterintuitive.

we are at a point now where history strongly suggests that we have to provide continuous benefits as we have in the last few years, and we have to do it, and i would urge us to do it under the emergency basis we have always adopted. one aspect of extending the benefits to the 99 weeks is the logic of this program. it is countercyclical. if we truncate the number of weeks we might find ourselves in a situation where still we are looking at a% unemployment. it might stay around 10% unemployment, and then people will be left without any support. if in fact we do have an extended program in the economy and in helping us improve, they will not exercise those weeks. the logic really is to go big, not so small. i know we have been talking in a very collaborative and constructive way about some of the reforms that would be

acceptable in the program, and some, frankly, that would cause difficulties on our side, but also i think would not be helpful to working families. one of the things that is important to stress is that this really is as close as you can get to a working-class, working person benefit. you have got to work to collect.

you have to have a record of work. we are talking about people who have worked for years, who are now without employment. they need the help. their employers pay into the system with the expectation that they would have this help. we are in a job market that has for applicants for every one job. we are seeing long-term unemployment, record long-term unemployment. harder and harder for people to find jobs. doing it in the way we have done a the last several years. one of the other aspects of the impact of this program is that it is helping our middle-class barely stay above water. one of the interesting points i have found is that the median income of these ui recipients was $55,000. we are not talking about the program that is targeted to the lowest households in this country. we are talking about working people.

i have heard the stories that in this economy, most households have to spouses working. one may be lucky enough to have their job, but without the benefit the unemployed spouses able to obtain, they are in danger of losing their home, of not being able to continue to do the things they have always done. so this is a program that i think is hugely beneficial to middle-income americans. and it has to be continued. there has been some sort of talk about, this program is really useful, but it provides disincentives to work. $300 a week checked barely replaces half of what people were earning before they lost their jobs. but moreover, academic studies, and one that was just released two days ago by the federal reserve bank of san francisco, clearly points out that the critical issue here is a lack of aggregate demand. companies are ready to hire, but they are only ready to hire when

more people are buying their products. that is the problem. this program goes to that problem, too. there are economists on both sides that indicate for every dollar we put in to the unemployment insurance, we get $1.67 return. that is the biggest bang for the bulk of it -- biggest bang for the buck of any of these programs. getting demand up in getting people back to work, because we all do understand, once the demand rises in the united states, employment will rise. so for all these reasons, i hope we can move quickly to a principled resolution of some of the issues. we have already made some real progress on some structural reforms, which both sides agreed to.

there are programs that i would find difficult. drug testing i don't think helped get people back to work. in most cases, particularly given this long episode of unemployment, people who are losing jobs now have been working through tough times, and mostly they are very good workers. that have been working 30 years or more and the idea that they don't qualify unless they have to go sign up for school or do something else, i think is not what was intended and not she should -- and should not be part of the program.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captions performed by the national captioning interests tute] >> as we get into

physician-owned hospitals, i think we should all be aware, and you have been through this, mr. chairman, that we tried to wrestle with this issue over the years and with some care. and before we go back, i think we need to be careful. it is an example that these policy issues are not easy issues. and for those who think we are facing basically technical issues or easy issues, that's wrong. we have a lot of work to do. i think closing up our discussion i think illustrates a series of responsibilities that each of us has to millions of people. unfortunately, they are unknown, and therefore faceless. and i think if we could look at

them and hear them, it would be beneficial. we would come out with the right clugse -- solution. >> thank you. senator, is there anything else you would like to say? >> nothing. just to determine when we next meet and the subject of that meeting. >> thank you. i want to thank everyone for the productiveness of what we have been discussing. we will meet again tomorrow at 10:00 in this room, and we will get to you later today the topics for discussion tomorrow. but i look forward to seeing everyone at 10:00 in this room. yes, senator? >> i hope the senate will extend an offer to the hospital -- house today. >> that's why i wanted to leave

the topics open. we will look forward to reviewing that this afternoon. >> thank you. >> this meeting is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

>> with talk of possible legislation to improve the nation's cyber-defenses, a discussion on national awareness of cyber-threats from an aspen homeland security group. >> i have an alarming thought about all of this, which is to say that in some sways in the discussion about cyber mirrors a bit the discussion we used to have about terrorism in the 1980's and 1990's. there was difficulty coming to a national consensus with what to do about it, until we had 9/11 which crystalized everything. we have not had that discussion about cyber yet.

attack on zapos. the only good thing that comes out of that is, there will be a few more of those, and there will be growing public awareness that this is a serious vullnerability -- vulnerability that will encourage companies to work with the government on this. >> hear more at c-span.org/videolibrary. >> in a few moments, a forum on job creation and immigration. then at 6:15, a u.s. house bill on federal pay freezes. >> today on ""washington journal" a discussion on the congressional budget office's economic outlook with rob woodal, republican, georgia. then more from chris van holland

of maryland. then later, robert jones, c.e.o. and founder of the public religion research institute. he talks about the major religious groups in the u.s. and how they vote. "washington journal" is live every morning starting at 7:00 eastern on s&p. -- c-span. >> president obama is at the 60th annual national prayer breakfast today on c-span 2. later at 10:00 a.m., ben bernanke testifies before the house budget committee on the state of the economy. >> i laid out a blueprint for an economy that's built to last, that has a firm foundation. where we are making stuff,

selling stuff, and u.p.s. drivers are dropping things off everywhere. that's the economy we want. [applause] >> if i am president of the united states, i will stop all the obama regulations. i will make sure that any of those that kill jobs we lim eliminate and i will get america back to work again. >> i think you will start to see america recover election night. i think as soon as people realize obama is gone, that's how decisive the change will be. >> follow the candidates as they meet with voters. i thought i saw you. >> we're working for you. >> use our web site to view recent video from the campaign trail and read the latest postings from the candidates' campaigns and social media sites at c-span.org/campaign.

>> now a forum hosted by the hispanic leadership conference. the people in this hour-long discussion include the governor of puerto rico. >> i would like to ask pablo sanchez to please come back up here. if you have not "liked us" yet on facebook, please do that, so your friends can see pictures of you during the debate party last

night and they can be really jealous. so i am going to go ahead and introduce our distinguished panel. for our hispanic community, as for the rest of the nation, these are tough economic times. among latinos, the unemployment rate is 11% higher than the national average of 8.5%. the unemployment rate in our community is over 11%. higher than the national average of 8.5%. that is unacceptable. for young hispanic adults, the situation is even more precarious. with a staggering 35% unemployment rate, they are hurting more than any other group. our first panel, industries driving america's economy features individuals who know what it takes to have an environment conducive to job

creation in america. please join me in welcoming our distinguished panel of experts. i am going to start with the illustriousgody dominguez, from manpower inc. welcome, gody. next, pablo chavez. he leads the company's u.s. federal policy team.

pablo develops and advocates in a range of policy issues including privacy, content regulation, and online free expression for google. welcome pablo. it is great to have you. [applause] elaine l. chao is the longest tenured secretary of labor since world war ii. as the first u.s. secretary of labor in the 21st century, secretary chao focused on improving the competitiveness of america's work force by creating departmental programs to modern eyize our 21st century

workplace. ladies and gentlemen, a round of applause for the honorable elaine chao. [applause] >> eleganto! hey, you got flagged and everything. [laughter] >> it is my privilege to introduce someone that i used to sit on a board with at the hispanic leadership group in washington when he was the designate for puerto rico in d.c., and it is great to welcome him to my home town. the governor of puerto rico, luis fortuno.

welcome to miami. >> i should say that he's also currently the president of the council of state government and chairman of the southern government association. very impressive, and thank you for being here. [applause] >> and our panel discussions today will be moderated by our very own and the very great -- a guy who is a wonderful human being, the honorable doug polk -egan. he was the sixth director of the national budget office which provides budgetary analysis to the us -- u.s. congress.

we are lucky to have him and to call him a friend. mi amiga, take it away. [applause] >> thank you for the chance to be here today, especially the privilege of sitting with such an illustrious panel. let me take the moderator's prerogative to say two things. the first is, for me, this is just the most funny can ever have. i was raised in western pennsylvania by scotts-irish parents, which means i'm dull. pla [laughter] >> i'm a ph.d. economist. which means i'm boring. this crowd is never dull and boring. the hispanic leadership council is the most 0 privileged conference i have had the privilege of working on. i am delighted to be here. thank you.

[applause] >> the second thing, the staff dragooned me into using twitter. they have also dragooned me into encouraging you to share your tweets, your thoughts about the conference to hln12. if you want to be adventureous, you can tweet to me at dhedkin. we have now done our media moment. i did that ok? great. excellent. last night we heard about the importance of the rule of law. there is also the importance of the rule of panel. i am going to enforce it.

important driving sectors. we ought to go through the distinguished panel with opening thoughts on this topic. we'll have a conversation for a few minutes. with about 20 minutes left, we will open it up to questions from the audience. for questions over twitter, we will take those as well. if you are watching remotely, weigh in that way, as well. without further ado, i am privileged to open with governor fortuno. >> thank you. i would like to thank the hispanic leadership network conference for inviting me to share with this excellent group. i was actually able to join the first conference here in miami, and i am glad i could make it again. i am convinced the knowledge-based economy is where we need to go. in order to do that, we need to accomplish a number of things. first our educational system. we have to get our act together.

as you know, for hispanics, education is key. actually, back in puerto rico, we are keen in making sure that we emphasize science, math, being fully bilingual and being able to utilize all the tools that are granted this day. that's key. of course, in our case, manufacturing is extremely important, but i understand that this slowly extends from one region of the country to another. however, regardless of the industry, if we do not get our act together, if our fiscal situation continues the way it is today, we will not be competitive. simply put. if our tax structure is not changed dramatically, we will not be competitive.

to me that is key in the discussion. because we can talk about what the industry future may look like if we do not have the proper basis from which to launch that economy, we will not be able to compete. just look at europe right now. i believe that the fundamentals must be there, and they are not there right now. with that i will stick to your rules, and i'm sure we will have a lively panel. >> thank you, governor. thank you for your time. >> i am just delighted to be here with the governor. he and i have known each other in the past, and i think the world of what he is doing. how soon we forget. there is some relevantsy to look -- relevancy to looking at history. from 2001 to 2009, our country experienced an unemployment rate on average of 5.2%. it staggers me so much that we are now asked to get to -- used

to a normal of unemployment that is over 8%. when i was in office, the average unemployment rate was 5.2%. at that time we looked toward europe with asignificance -- with askance because they had these high unemployment rates of over 8%. now we find ourselves in a similar situation. in 2011 there was no job creation in the economy. last month it was reported that even amidst all the holiday season, retail trade was still weak, and that 200,000 jobs were created. that was cause for great celebration. well 200,000 net new jobs created every month is merely necessary to keep pace with our population growth.

we forget that two-thirds of the net new jobs being created these days are being created by small businesses. i think the hispanic-american community, especially the young people, understand that. as was mentioned by our wonderful m.c., our current unemployment rate is 8.5%, yet among the hispanic-american population it is well over 11%. it is well over 24% for young hispanic americans. if we took in people that wanted to work full time but could not find a job, the marginal unemployment rate is nearly 16%. so i have a colleague that used to work with me at the u.s. department of labor, and his name is paul conway. he started a new group called "generation opportunity." it is a new nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to educating,

engaging, mobilizing young americans between the ages of 18 and 29. they just did a survey of young hispanic americans. listen to what young hispanic americans say. young hispanic americans 18 to 12929 -- 18 to 29 years old want to see reduced federal spending in general and specifically prefer more cuts in federal spending over raising new taxes to get the economy back on track. they know that we cannot tax our way to prosperity. i think we have a lot to learn from these hispanic young people. [applause] >> thank you. pablo chavez. >> thank you very much for inviting me to join. i am in the awkward position by having been left a little speechless by senator rubeo's -- rubio's speech.

i will move on to say something. i will move on on the speech of optimism you were touching on. i work in the internet space. i have done this for about 15 years now. it truly remains one of the very, very bright spots in the economy. the secretary is right about the macro numbers in terms of economic growth. this is an industry which is demonstrating a tremendous amount of horsepower. let me give you some examples. up until recently, there was little in terms of research on the impact of the internet on the american economy and on the worldwide economy. for the last couple years we have seen data coming out. let me share a couple pieces with you. in terms of economic growth, the internet in the united states contributed about 15% of g.d.p.

growth. it is a pretty significant bright spot in the economy. it is really something that we believe we should be building upon. just with a small picture from google, we have a chief economist that has been running a lot of numbers about our country's economic impact. in 2010, the year the numbers are available for, we generated economic activity into the united states. that is not money coming into google's pocket. in florida that number was $3.6 billion bill for about 130 partners here, and it is a tremendous discuss story. again, google is a small picture . the second point on job creation. here again the figures are positive. 3.1 american jobs are based on the advertising support.

a small sliver of the broader picture. when you think about it, those are jobs that did not exist 10 or 15 years ago. they are brand new. internet advertising. facebook has released numbers about the number of developers. again, a tiny schiffer. 180,000 jobs depend on the facebook platform. this is fantastic news. for those that doubt whether the internet has a creative impact on jobs or a dilutive impact, a study came out with a study that indicates for every job that has been lost to the internet, 2.6 are created. that's incredible growth. hopefully we will have the opportunity to talk a little more about how we are building on your points governor about information and information is knowledge. thank you. >> wonderful.

>> senator rubio, thank you. what an awesome event we are having here. i feel privileged to be part of this panel of impressive leaders, and to be with so many like-minded hispanics. freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and the freedom to rise as far and as high as our abilities. [applause] you know, the way of the world is changing. we are seeing all kinds of workforce consolidation. we are seeing impacts in supply and demand. i think hispanics in particular have an important role to fill with respect to that.

we know approximately 50% of our u.s. population is filled -- made up of hispanics. this is forecast to grow compared to the national growth which is only going to be 2%. so 2% national, 7% hispanic. which means that a lot of the growth is going to be fueled by hispanic observation. we have to be ready to face a challenge. unfortunately, 38% of our hispanics have less than a high school diploma, compared to 10% of nonhispanic whites. we have 90% of hispanics with college degrees compared to 39% of white nonhispanics. and we know there is a direct relationship between being prepared and the unemployment

rate. the secretary mentioned a high employment -- the high unemployment rate. if the national unemployment rate is 8.6%, the hispanics with less than a high school degree have a 13% unemployment rate. we have to address that. we have to fix that. we also know that education leads to better pay and better jobs. i am very fortunate to serve on the board of manpower which is a global corporation that places about 3.5 million workers annually over the world. they have about 400,000 companies they can work with. this is what they have to say. they have their finger on the pulse of employment and sectors that are important. in terms of industry trends, we see a growth in the health and education sectors. and in the professional and business sectors, and a downturn

in manufacturing. we see startling growth in agricultural, stability, and financial services. according to manpower, the hardest job to fill, the number one hardest job to fill in the united states, does anybody know what it is? skilled trade. this is important because skilled trade leads to business ownership. you have an electric tradition -- electrician, and she goes and hires another electrician. the next thing you know, she has a van, and she has a small business going on. and small business is the engine that drives our economy. so we have to ensure that we change the mind set and on the value of skilled trade. we need to have people redirected in those areas.

we also have career shortages in i.t., accounting, teachers and machine operators. where are hispanics concentrated? in production, construction, and services. where are they least present? in professional and sales occupations. you can see we have some work to do. we have to make sure that we redirect our hispanic talent into those areas with growth opportunity so they can enjoy the economic benefits this country provides. >> thank you. [applause] >> one objective so is to drill down further into incentives and manpower. before we do that, i think it is worth noting, that we are in a situation where there is global

business in the united states. it is not an historiccally unprecedented event for a country to have duel problems of bad growth and big debt, liking -- like the u.s. problem. it has happened before. if we look at lessons of history, the best way to improve that is keep taxes low, reform them, and cut spending. this constitutes a softball. a person on this panel who has done just exactly that in puerto rico. [applause] >> what we have accomplished in puerto rico is doable at the national level. when i came into office, our budget deficit was the worst in the country. it was 41% of revenues. it was so bad, that i have to fly up to new york to a rating agency. and everyone in america knows

what a rating agency does. they were about to downgrade us to junk status. we should have been america's greece. in fact, when i was sworn in, i realized we did not have enough money to get our first payroll. we had to go to the legislature to get a loan. my wife of 27 years was there, and she asked me if we could get a recount. what did we do? we cut expenses. when you cut expenses in washington, at the state level you cut. like the way everyone does in your home or your business. we cut business by 20%, and it wasn't easy. actually, cutting expenses allowed us to cut taxes. actually, our internal revenue

code is similar to the sale code in the territories. so what we did, again, is doable at the federal level. yet, my predecessors, not only had they spent too much, but they had raised rates. the sub corporate tax rate was 41%. today it is 30%. in two years, it will be 25%. [applause] >> we made it much flatter. believe it or not, they created all the different tax brackets at the corporate level. we made it much simpler and flatter system, lower rates. and then we did exactly the same thing. we streamlined our profits. contrary to what is going on in washington nowadays. we used to be forced to go to 20 different agencies to obtain permits. these days you just get on line

and you get your one permit. [applause] it moves very quickly. it hasn't been easy. i will tell you just a few numbers. some of the sticks that we'll show you what can be done in just three years. our deficit which was 40% of revenues is now 6% of revenues. we were 50 out of 51 states that served on the state budget. today we are 15 and closing. today we have our first rating increase in 27 years. [applause] whole sales -- sales are up. contrary to what i was reading in the journal this morning, from 2011 they are down. home sales are up in puerto rico for 2011.

a growth by 90%. you say how could that happen? well, tax policy works. if you buy a home in puerto rico, first of all, you will not pay any property taxes for five years. no frans transfer fees. [applause] on top of that, there will be no capital gains tax the day you sell your home or your business. [applause] properties are selling for the first time in a long, long time. car sales are up. we built them up. and for the first time in six years, we are creating jobs. unemployment has been coming down after a very long period of time where unemployment was unacceptably high. it is still too high. historically it has been high in puerto rico. however, we finally have the

fundamentals to grow. actually, we just got yesterday the number for our exports. it is the highest number in our history for 2011 as well. is -- we are moving away from that. we are on the right track. i only washington washington would take a few chapters from our book. >> thank you. >> a theme of the conference is how can hispanics succeed. i can't think of a better plan for that than the hispanic leadership network conference in new york. >> how does one move on from that? >> it takes courage. i wasn't planning on running for re-election. i was planning on doing the right thing. it is that easy.

>> one of the things that comes up all the time, which is, what can we do now to improve the labor conference, to improve the prospects for hispanics in particular. given your experience, when you look at what's going on now, what are the two or three things you recommend? >> i think one of the biggest things plaguing our economy right now is a lack of economic growth and a lack of job creation. you can basically tell people, you have to go and hear a job and hear all the promising industries which cari very well pointed out, but the problem is, we are not seeing job creation. the average unemployment now is over 2.5 years. 44% of the unemployed d. 14 million who have been unemployed have been unemployed for longer that has been traditionally been

long-term unemployed. so you know what washington is doing? they are redefining what it means to be long-term unemployed. i think the governor has shown by practical example what needs to be done. doug knows because he talks about this all the time. it is really very simple. you have to keep the taxes low, get rid of all the excess, unnecessary regulations, and then make sure that we're spending within our means. those are very tough issues. a tax increase is definitely not the right policy. our economy cannot take an increase in taxes. it will only hurt our economy. so the panacea is very simple. [applause] >> your opening sugged suggests we have a mismatch between where people are now and where the growth is going to be. how do we bridge that debate? >> well, i think we need to redirect individuals and make sure we provide the training and opportunities to talk about

small businesses. you know, there is so much red tape you have to try to get access to capital. all of these things are hugse huge to hispanics. the credit rating has been dropped. we have employers who are saying we are waiting for a different leadership before we start hiring again. we have to help them do that next election. [applause] >> the governor says we are now in a knowledge economy. and cari mentioned these jobs are getting more and more high skilled. this is absolutely true. of the 200,000 jobs created, the majority of new jobs now are higher skilled jobs. it is not what you think. 20 years ago, a custodian at your school, he used to wear a heavy belt and if something was wrong with the air conditioning or heating system, he would take

out one of his tools and he would knock something and it would be ok. i don't want to insult them. now if you look at engineers, they don't have any belts anymore. they have one little gadget, and it is a computer. everything, the air conditioning of our system, about our facilities, the heating, it is all computerized. it speaks to the problems of fobs information foling technology. if you are in the skilled trades these days, which is an area where we need workers, we need to have information technology knowledge. all of our systems are now computer controlled, and we need to know how to use computers. i think that's one of the financing first things we need to do is let people know that we are in a higher skilled economy. and the older jobs of the past, even they are being moved into higher skilled categories. we have to persuade our young people to stay in school, get as

much information and training as they can, to position themselves to get these good paying future jobs hopefully that will develop soon will have a good career path in the future. >> did you want to say something? y wanted to say, i think that's the key. when i look at the gap between demand and the supply, the difference is the technology that elaine is talking about. we have positions we are losing because we don't have demand in the right spot. high prosecution is -- we don't have the knowledge in the right place. we have to redirect our nation's workers into the areas that are going to be high-growth. >> you are a bright spot in the panel because you are in an industry that is actually succeeding. how do you think about the growth opportunities, what your products provide in the way of

opportunities, especially for hispanic communities and the skillset that goes into participating in that industry? >> let me make a point and then respond more broadly to your specific question. all the points my fellow panelists are saying are absolutely right on. if you look broadly throughout the hemisphere, you realize the reduction in regulation, the reduction in taxes, reduction in red tape and so forth, they are so important when you look at economies like mexico where there is actually a lot of trep neural spirit. but the red tape and the lack of access to capital, the lack of the concept of venture capital is letting down that opportunity. a lot of entrepreneurship without access so capital -- what we have here is all of that foundational element. to your earlier point, we need to keep building upon that.

in terms of the directing we can do now to encourage job creation and encourage more entrepreneurs , two things. a university of maryland study came out that indicates job creation in the united states is job creation by new small businesses, start-ups. anything we can do to continue to encourage start-ups, to continue reducing the barriers of people creating their own businesses, in whatever trade they are in, that is important. the second point is technology and the internet, statistics show even with the standard mortar company, everybody who is actually using the internet is increasing the revenue to us. they are increasing employment to us. for those involved in import-export, they are increasing their business by more than two.

so again, everybody i think is talking about the same thing. we need to encourage the entrepreneurs. we need to encourage the use of technology. those things combined is, from google's perspective, we are hoping that will achieve tremendous results. >> in the spirit of using technology, i have been given technology, and we have a question in from twitter that says, "what ideas doed panelists have to increase private investment in labor training?" >> we are an incredibly compassionate nation. so when we talk about the skills gap, there are actually many attempts by the government and the private sector to address increasing the skills sector of our work force. the u.s. public taxpayer, you are already funding a $7 billion -- i know in washington that is not such a big number.

it is a huge number. $7 billion to $9 billion -- i can explain to you why it is $7 to $9, but it is not important -- there are groups disbursed throughout our community to help people get jobs, provide training, whatever. these are good people who man these one-stop career centers. there are many, i know, in puerto rico, but we must do more. we need to make the training the government gives relevant. the government does some training, there is private training, so it is a good partnership. i have challenges. the government runs training centers to provide more relevant training and to listen to the job creators, the employers within the community as to what

types of training programs pr best for that community. it doesn't make sense to have a training program to produce, let's say, a thousand hairdressers for a community that only needs 13. so there needs to be a partnership between the employers and the job trainers so that those who are going through these job training programs are indeed being trained with relevant skills so that they can get real jobs when they graduate from these programs. >> are there any special tricks for the skilled trade? this comes up again and again. there was a panel of large, foreign-based manufacturers, mercedes benz, folks that would invest in siemens. the reason it was difficult for them to feel welcome here is we didn't have the skilled trade. how do we address that? >> well, actually, i would say that it starts at the state

level as well. that's a chenl challenge i'm facing at the state level. if i may so. i am a lawyer, i can say, we have people trained in the wrong skills. we need more scientists. we need more technical people. we need more engineers. we have actually a lack of engineers. not just in preekorks but across america. that's what we need to do. we must commence k through 12. that's what we're trying to do right now. we have created schools for the 21st century. it involves the use of technology to actually incentivize students to stay in school and actually like math and science.

>> i think that the public-private partnerships are key. contrary to what washington says, the private sectors create the jobs. the government does not create jobs. we need the input from the private sector. number two, i think there is a natural bias against skilled trade. a lot of times, people direct their children to college. sometimes people want to be a welder or electric tradition. we have to talk about these professions as honorable work, and we have to promote that. >> if you have a question, raise your hand. someone will bring you a microphone. right here. please identify yourself and ask your question in the form of a question. >> good morning. i'm from the chamber of commerce from miami, florida.

i want to say to governor fortuno, you are my hero. i am from the center of the island where you very well know that we have a serious problem with unemployment and our youth that live on the island. we have an astronomical amount of land that is not in use. i would like to see that land used with a partnership of florida. we can make a partnership to make sure that that part of economic partnership can be a sister, a kind of marriage that we can have. we have a major empowerment that we need. we will be putting thousands of new jobs. the economy in central florida is going to be magnificent, and

puerto rico is going to be incredible. >> by all means. i so believe in our growth. actually, we have seen a trend recently of a lot more of the younger generation getting into our business, and this makes a lot of sense. we should be connecting with florida and other states as well. [applause] >> good morning. my name is nadia sanchez. i want to address something. there is an attitude about skilled labor. you cannot blame a parent for wanting their child to go to

college. however, there are plenty of kids that are not cut out for school, even in the high school level. why not build up technical schools on that level so that they can graduate from a trade school with a license so they can work in their area of interest right from the get-go instead of having high school dropouts and then trying to apply for jobs they may not even be trained to do. that's number one. but my real question is to mr. chavez. would you please address our government's attempt to censor the internet, considering how important the internet is in job creation. >> certainly. i think that's a reference to the online piracy act. it is somewhat controversial. look. i agree with all four of the republican presidential candidates that that particular bill, though well intended had a

little bit of an over-reach. here's the problem. the internet is american in so many ways. we are leading here in the area. the iranians look at what we're doing, and we take cues from us. the moment we start transferring the internet here, all those people will start doing it -- the moment we start censoring the internet here, they will start doing it even worse there. i will tell you our situation in china, that is not the situation -- environment we want to operate on. it is not morally correct orifice cally correct. we believe piracy bills are needed, but this particular way with censorship is not the way

to do it. >> i was going to go back to another point. >> were you going to wrap up? >> no, i was going to go back to another point. [laughter] >> this is nonpartisan. talk about job creation. i think it was really, really disappointing to hear from the white house that the president decide today veto the keystone pipeline issue. [applause] >> and i used to work with labor organizations. major parts of the labor movement wanted that project because it would have created hundreds of thousands of jobs. not only jobs, but skilled trade jobs as well. it was really disappointing to see how politics came in and the president aligned himself with the environmentalists. this is such a large project

that could have done so much with our economy and jobs. >> i think we're going to take one question here and then probably going to wrap up. >> actually, as a canadian to follow up, canada is disappointed with the president on that as well. this is a comment for governor fortuno. we're developing solar power products on the island of puerto rico. i can tell you in my two-plus years working on the island, in 100 years, with this new administration, the island has done a 180. when i first started working on the island, they were aallergic to paying more for developers. we're talking about hundreds of megawatts, solar, wind, land

energy. the legislation that was passed and approved had a huge impact on the mindset. it is heartening to see developers from not just other parts of the united states but other parts of the world coming to the island. if only that were a micro-cosam for what could happen in the united states where there is out-sourcing elsewhere. i think if those trends continue, great for puerto rico and other places that get it, but sad for the rest of the country. >> when you live on an island, you cannot connect to the national, so you must ask. being 70% on foreign oil makes no sense period. we look at what's happening in the strait of hormuz and we are crossing our fingers. that's were we are moving aggressively, but in a fiscally responsible way to promote other

sources of energy that will create actually the -- this is what you were mentioning. if i may, not just energy-wise, but other areas. toll roads, airports, schools there is plenty of capital out there waiting to be tapped, and it makes no sense for us to try to build everything, all the infrastructure that is needed to run, you know, your community, to run your state or your city. we have, i believe, the most aggressive and public-private partnership program in the country. we changed the -- we just created on the largest road in the country a toll road. in two or three months, we should complete the first airport in the country, which is our main airport. the same way we will be doing correctional facilities and otherwise. but that applies to energy

production. and that's what we're trying to do. do it in a fiscally responsible way, but in a way that is creating thousands of jobs. so thank you. [applause] >> so i have negotiated with the management, and i have bought us some more time. first, a rapid-fire round. if you could do one thing in terms of federal policy to improve the outlook for jobs in the hispanic community, what would it be? >> i would lower taxes for small and medium-sized businesses, especially those owned by hispanics. >> i would reduce the excess of regulations. since this administration has come in, the level of what's called significant rule making have increased more than 40%. that's not all rule makinging, that's not all regulation. that's just the significant rule making. $100 billion and up. >> shameless self-promotion. go to americanaction.org and

look at the regulation button you will see a catalogue of the cost of regulations in recent history. it is staggering. i encourage you to look. >> for latinos and other americans, we think fixed trade and having a 21st century trade agenda that includes free and open internet that is part of blocking nontarriff trade barriers from happening and turning the western hemisphere into the hemisphere of the internet would be great for the economy and latinos and many others. >> i would encourage a balanced budget and trying to reduce the deficit. i would give employers a sense of confidence and comfort that we just don't have. i would focus on that. >> wonderful. and we have time for more questions. questions. right here.