and eventually it will be that there's no other way to see things but visually and everybody is doing that and it will seem weird what we do now and it will all change. but before that time, i think that information is what would be easier. until a become easy about it, until we become reasonably convinced that it will not hurt the institution, you will get a conservative reaction. that is what i think is the truth. >> it is unfair to put this question to you. you are such a youngster. did you really feel it has been improved since the process has been televised?

>> there are mixed views, but openness and transparency to improve the relations, and for all the reasons about your role in educating the american public, you can net it would potentially do the same. i do think it has been a step in the right direction of providing more transparency. i think in general americans should understand the challenges as well as parol

their institutions face. since my time has retired, perhaps we can provide you with more information and would be persuasive in the advantages and the positives in those types of acceptability of. >> if the senate judiciary committee voted today a bill but would require the supreme court to televise its own proceedings. lawmakers have of the courts to televise the oral argument on president obama as health care bill in march.

yet this is 40 minutes. >> lowenthal, feinstein. 2, 3, 4 we have six in the room. we should get started. usually when we get started people will show. three would fill judicial emergency vacancies in illinois and maryland, but also we have

an important transparency bill to reagan -- transparency bill. senator durbin and senator grassley of us us to discuss the bill to televise the supreme court hearings. all americans can witness the quality of justice in this country, not just those who had the opportunity to be physical at the hearings. that leaves 320 some americans who do not get to see it, we would deepen the work of the

supreme court, allow all americans to see the importance of the constitution. this is especially important while the supreme court is affecting all americans. next we will talk about whether people's elected officials have the power to enact legislation relating to the health-care market to hold insurers more accountable, to expand coverage to all americans, though a supreme court decision will impact all americans. there is tremendous public impact on this argument, both for those who supported the

bill and those who oppose it. it could be said the supreme court hearings are open to the public. technically that is so, but there are only a few dozen of the general public who can take time off from work or stand in line all night long to get in. lives dreaming to provide real--- provide live streaming to provide real-time public access. despite our public and private average, the supreme court has no indications that those proceedings will be made widely available to the american public on the day of the argument.

i believe they should. our democracy works best when everybody has access to their government. we made arrangements to accommodate thousands of individual spectators during that time in that hearing room. in addition, make sure that the hearings are broadcast live, stream the proceedings on our website. these technologies are brought to the american people in the role that our constitution continues to play in our democracy. the senate has been televising its proceedings for more than 25 years. the other body even longer. state courts, including state supreme courts have been televising their proceedings for years. i know that some of the justices are not hand to televising the proceedings. i and understand they do not want to be made fun of through

an unflattering video clip or be taken out of context. but that happens to the rest of us in public service all the time. it is not particularly pleasant, but it is part of our democracy. we try to counter miss statements and make sure that the record is available. last october, members of this committee, the fed judiciary committee held a hearing to look at the role of judges under the constitution. we were joined by justices scalia and briar. i appreciate their willing participation in that public

hearing could i thought that discussion was informative and useful. senator bingaman fall asked them why they did not open the supreme court proceedings to -- senator blumenthal asked them why they did not open the supreme court proceedings. so many cell phones are equipped with video cameras you have youtube. ubiquitous of the internet, everything is a available to be viewed. it is time for the supreme court to open itself to the american people, not just those members of the supreme court bar and those reserved for the hearing room. public officials' decisions largely affect the lives of

americans. they do book tours where they make money. some even attend fund-raisers. i do not know how anybody who voted in the name of the first amendment can allow unlimited but attack ads by super packs should not be accessible to the american people. four days ago, more than 11 million americans watched the super bowl. no one would have tolerated having that game recorded and broadcast days later. or the place being transcribed and released at the end of the week. -- or plays being transcribed and released at the end of the week. we can all either result or suffer together in real time. -- either exalt or suffer together in real time. now is the time for the supreme court's public proceedings to

be truly available to all americans who are affected by its rules. senator grassley, i know you have taken a strong position on this. >> i think we're pretty united that we want to hold over the four judges that are on the agenda for today and then take up the bill. unless there is great descent in this committee expressed against the bill, i will first associate myself with your remarks. thank you very much for the thoroughness of them. i will put my remarks in the record.

i also thank senator determine for his leadership in this issue of the bill. mr. chairman, you just laid out a very compelling argument for the passage of this legislation and i hope we get it passed. and i thank senator durbin as well. i would like to take some time to speak about another court issued that was just made public yesterday. judge emmet sullivan of federal district court d.c. district issued no opinion ordering the public release of a 500-page report outlining a series misconduct by the justice department attorneys from the public integrity section during the prosecution of senator stevens. in the opinion, judge sullivan disgustedly tortured history of the stevens prosecution -- discussed the tortured history of the stevens prosecution.

a public trial and conviction and a press conference celebrating the guilty verdict of prosecutorial misconduct. he noted that the evidence became clear and hard to refuse did the justice vacate the verdict. however, the justice department also stepped in to protect the prosecutors. the justice department initially sought to prevent any misconduct review by the court, arguing instead for an internal review that they conduct. to his credit, judge sullivan did not allow this and instead assigned a special investigator. following the completion of this investigation, the special investigator produced a 500- page report that found both the investigation and prosecution of senator stevens were

permeated by the systemic consumption of exculpatory evidence that would have corroborated his defense and testimony and seriously damaged the the testimony credibility of government key witnesses. this is an incredible finding and one that, as judged sullivan put it, has led to a continuing national discourse on prosecutorial misconduct and what steps should be taken to prevent it. i agree with judge sullivan and the public has a right to know that the special investigator -- what the special investigator found and how pervasive the misconduct was inside the public integrity unit of the justice department. the american people need to hear the truth about what happened, not simply trust the justice department's internal review process. in the decision to release the independent report, the justice

department should follow up on the final report issued by ipr. in an oversight commission in november, it was called for the release of the report -- "that is up to the people at opr." i want to provide as much of that case. despite the attorney general's desire to make disinformation public, his initial, that it is up to the people at opr to make that decision leads me to believe that it is likely we will never see the report that the justice department has frequently blocked reports. the attorney general ultimately

overseas opr. if he wanted to be shown to the public, he should order it released. casee case of the steven's and the notorious situation where the justice department -- it is easy to see why so many elected officials and american people have lost faith in the leadership of the justice department. these public failures paid a picture of a department where bad decisions under a republican administration consistently concealed piscatory evidence that would have damaged the testimony of key witnesses.

a department where whistleblowers who do not belong are a sure to face retaliation from supervisors and then are forced into bureaucratic limbo to adjudicate their cases. a department where one assistant attorney joe prepares a letter to senator saying that atf does not allow guns across the border while another assists and attorney general in mexico the same day advocating a plan to let down across the border as an investigative strategy which was explicitly forbidden by the deputy attorney general a month later. something is wrong and it is easy to see where the public is outraged. further, the overreaching by the justice department impacts us here in congress. legislation addressing online infringement hits a roadblock on the floor in part because of the public not trusting your current justice department to do the right thing.

instead, i heard from many constituents on this point during my 36 town meetings in january, the american people are worried that the justice department will use power for political censorship in the case of that law, even though all of us probably know there is a need for us to do something to stop stealing a property. that is the kind of impact that this trust has had and it affects of us all. these are all examples of serious problems that i hope will be addressed, not to mention the fact that the failed prosecution costs taxpayers threefold -- the cost to investigate and prosecute, the cost of the special investigators, and third, the defense attorneys paid to defend the prosecutors from contempt charges. the defense attorneys cost $10

million alone. the public's confidence in the department is questioned. the best in the department can do is to be transparent and accountable, something that was promised, not only by the president, but also by many confirmation hearings in various people working there, the transparency promised not having yet been realized. >> as you know, i applauded attorney general holder in his decision to drop the prosecution of senator stevens, which he did. the prosecution, as you pointed out was begun in the last administration. i welcome judge sullivan's report to be made public. i want to get these results so that our whole committee can be brief. i have expressed time and time again my concerns about the prosecutorial misconduct during the stevens trial as stated so

publicly. not just because it was another senator who was prosecuted, but i feel that that kind of misconduct can be allowed and if everybody is in jeopardy and we will have -- and we will hear in the committee about it. we have 10 people here with their request to be part of the -- under the rule, they will be put over. we will hear from them next week. a couple of these judges reflect judicial emergencies. we have asked everybody from the chief justice of the united

states on through to do something about this ever growing number of judicial emergency vacancies. the bill to permit the televise supreme court proceedings, i would note my own support of this bill and i will vote for it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i understand that putting over the judicial nominees is poor format -- is per forma. i might note that the nominee

john far is the first federal judicial nominee. he and i worked closely together to improve -- to approve both of these nominees on a bipartisan basis. i hope the next time we meet, as soon as next week, we may have our nominees moving forward. but the matter at hand is the legislation to permit the televising of supreme court proceedings. i am happy to say in that i got the message and conveyed it to senator leighton and now we are here. mr. chairman, supreme court

justices are appointed for a lifetime appeared they make decisions that change the lives of all americans. but the so-called public hearings of the supreme court are open only to 250 americans on a real-time basis. just how important is it in a democracy to bring the proceedings of an important american institution like the supreme court into full view of the american people? people in an open society do not demand in fallibility from their institutions. but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited

from observing. those are the words of chief justice berger in 1986. for too long, the american people have been effectively prohibited from observing the proceedings and open sessions of the supreme court. think about our extra effort to make certain that the nominations process and the hearings before this committee on supreme court justices are available to every american on a real-time basis. we believe it is a valuable part of our decision process. i think the same standard should apply to supreme court justices once approved by the senate when they cross the street. our bill would require televising of all open sessions of the court with one notable exception -- a majority of the justices of the supreme court can determine that the public televising of these proceedings would violate due process rights of one or more of the plan does before the court and make that decision and literally close the cameras. for those who argue that it is in the best interest of justice in some cases not to have the proceedings televised, we provide expressly in this bill

the that is exactly what can occur by majority vote among the supreme court justices. supreme court decisions affect everyone's lives and, in a democratic society where transparency and participation is valid, there is no justification for such powerful element to operate outside the view of the american people. the supreme court considers many important things. soon, there will consider the affordable health care act, a measure that lily touches the lives of every single american, every -- that literally touches the lives of every single american. our hearings on that measure were open to the public. the actual arguments to the supreme court should be open as well. at this point, we have

bipartisan agreement. democrats and republicans in both chambers have urged the court to permit live video and audio broadcast of the health care reform arguments. some argue that the supreme court is already sufficiently open and accessible. the court releases audio recordings at the end of the week. it makes written opinions available on the website. and offers 250 seats to the 300 million people who live in america with some preference to those who happen to be admitted to the supreme court to practice. the striking thing about these efforts of accessibility is the glaring omission of the real- time audio and video broadcast that are the predominant media tools in this modern digital age. there are some who say we should not allow cameras in the supreme court because only bits and pieces of court proceedings would be televised and they may be taken out of context.

that reminds me of an editorial comment a few years ago. it's said that keeping cameras out to prevent people from getting a wrong idea is a little like removing opinions from -- removing the paintings from the art museum for fear that the visitors do not have the art history background to appreciate them. for two decades, the legislative sessions and committee meetings of the u.s. senate and house have been broadcast live and the legislative branch is better for it. the majority of states permit live video coverage in some or all of their courts. it is time that the united states supreme court did the same. >> bear with me. i will put a statement for the record. let me call the roll right now on the bill. >> i will be very brief. >> if we lose the quorum, we will put it on the agenda. certainly, anybody can talk as long as they like.

>> chairman can you talk when you finish the vote? >> yes. >> thank you. >> first, call the roll. >> the those are 11-7. >> thank you for going back. >> i have opposed this in the past. i see no reason to change my point of view.

let me give you my opinion. the court does not want this. they do not speak out as a whole, but justices briar, scalia, rehnquist, kennedy, and alito have opposed this, plus the judicial conference of the united states. i do not believe we should tell the supreme court what to do. we are separate branches of government. and i do not believe that the justice is better because it is televised. i have seen actual situations where, in my view, it is worse where is televised.

i understand that there is a move to do this. this bill does have a narrow exception, except that the exception is so narrow that it would be rarely used. uc defense attorneys perform. and i am sorry to say that you see judges perform. in the simpson case, it was a big case in point in my view. i have come to the conclusion that, because something is televised, justice is not necessarily better. justice depends on law law and the interpretation and application of that law. i recognize i am in the minority. but i did cast my note vote. thank you very much. >> i appreciate this. i know the senator has mentioned this to me previously. i would also put in the record

senator grassley is statement -- senator grassley's statement in the record. >> thank you. i appreciate your work on this, mr. chairman. we had a very good hearing on this. we had a spirited debate about this at the hearing. many good witnesses and a few things that i use from that hearing held to respond to what senator feinstein said. first of all, the i what chief justice testified that the concerns of some people about televised court proceedings have not materialized in iowa. they have cameras in the courtroom, all of their hearings are televised, have been able to move forward as a court, and

they have seen it as a positive thing. and this is true of other courts inland print the other piece about this, and i do have sympathy -- courts in the land. the other piece about this, and i do have sympathy that there have been issues with that and a judge should be able to make that kind of decision. but i think you are in a whole different land when you're talking about the supreme court of our land and that is the u.s. supreme court. you do not have the issues of witnesses somehow affected by having a camera on board the types of concerns you would have if they would act differently because a camera is on. while some of the justices have taken a position against this, i think it was former justice souter that it would be over his dead body that it would be televised. the new word justices, particularly justice kagan, took the position that she would think it should be televised. under the bill, senator durbin has drafted, even though there are five justices are against it, they would vote to not have it televised so it would immediately not be televised if

they chose to do that. however, times will change. i think you will see justice is coming on and they will have different views as you can see by justice kagan's testimony. the release routinely and audio of the proceedings a few days later. you do night did it the same day, but a few days later. sometimes they do it the same day. this is something that justice

roberts implemented. it was an improvement on what used to happen. now they do it routinely. it is a huge step from the audiotape to videotape and real time does not seem to be a major step. this is simply making it more available to people so they can see their court in action. this is the supreme court of the land pretty do not have the concern that you have on the trial level. i would hope that eventually we would be able to watch our court on tv and it would not simply be a few people who are able to get into that courtroom, which is a public proceeding. a couple of hundred people who are somehow with the wherewithal to get in the door and get a seat. it is not just those people who get to watch it, but the nation should get to watch it, not just those who can afford plane fare to go to washington, d.c. >> thank you.

i want to add my voice on the judgeship confirmation issue. i asked the chairman to speak on the need to hasten the confirmation process, not to avoid careful scrutiny, but simply to fill the judgeships that are open and to ease the vacancy crisis that we have right now. my hope is that we can do so better than we have already. second, on the measure before us, if this bill is successful, i want to state my own views that the supreme court could come argument-by argument, a case-by case, exercise judgment as to whether or not the balance should be struck in favor of closing the courtroom in an exceptional case. but it should be only in an exceptional case where the dangers of theatrics or histrionics out with the public interest in having a larger audience available and accessible.

that is really the goal here, to educate and inform and come in fact, to meet the present interest -- and, in fact, to meet the present interest that causes to form lines around the block and to inform the public about what the supreme court is doing. i am not sure that everyone in the country would agree that the level of interest in every supreme court case is the same as the super bowl. but i think there are cases, and the health care cases one, where it should be on a par and there should be interest and accessibility. the danger of excesses is real. and it is real in every case. i can say, as one who has tried cases in state and federal courts and one who has argued several cases in the united states supreme court, the advocate always has to make a judgment about whether the judge will react and the jury will react in one way or another. and the control of the courtroom is ultimately in the hands of the judge.

when we heard from justices scalia and briar, the danger of any one of those justices impliedly sanctioning an advocate who is before the court will cause great caution and ultimately will result in the kind of self discipline, i think, that will avoid the kinds of dangers we have been discussing. if i could just take senator durbin's analogy, i want to associate myself with his remarks as well as the germans and the ranking members, all of them very -- as well as the chairman and ranking members, all of them very important. we're not closing the art galleries or the museums because the audience may not understand the art, but there is danger posed to the art itself.

why else do people do paintings are sculptures? the same is true, in many respects, of our democracy. the fear that public access will somehow harm the process runs exactly counter to the purpose of the process itself. thank you for giving us this opportunity to vote and for moving it. >> senator, you were attorney general of your state. like many others, you have had a chance at trial cases and appellate cases. i think that senator feinstein is still in the committee room. she made reference to the simpson trial. i totally agree with her that it became a media circus.

he is still in the meeting room. he made a comment to this. it became a media circus. how he became critical of a judge. i would note there is a huge difference between a trial in the arguments. you have a very structured saying. i think it to be hard to find one that once a grandstand. i have argued a lot of cases. you have a very limited period of time. it is a boat to close on a specific thing. i have wrestled this over the years.

there's so much distortion that what goes on by some of the media and logs. you have as much openness as possible to as many people as possible. i am constantly surprised by the number of people that travel around my state and talk about some hearing they saw on c-span.

i thought why would anyone be interested. at a time when people feel more alienated from their government, i agree that they should open the government up more. open it up. but people see what is going on. -- let people see what is going on. i was here when the debate was here. senator dorgan suggested it was telegraphed. their only put it as an

equivalent. the senate did not collapse. there are many who did not like the idea. there was some grandstanding that went off in. the country is better for its. when we had major debates, ready to go to war are not, people say you ought to know that. they need more openness. if anyone has anything else today we will stand resource. i take you all. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> should the u.s. supreme court proceedings be televised? we wanted to join the conversation at facebook.com/cspan.

shouldn't his life make him a role model for your future children decks should anyone who elect to this office always keep the promise tax be let back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. good to our web site to see video of those have lasting impact. >> do they not have the right to a protest against a government that they feel did not serve their interest tax who appointed us to sacrifice the lives of young americans trying to weigh in on the side of the government that represents perhaps the teens learn.

>> a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow. he talks about his role in the middle east. this is on c-span at 10:00 a.m. eastern. and 1:00 p.m., the institution form on a new strategic arms treaty. >> let for started the book, i

thought this must be an american story. we are laggards when it comes to living there. it is even more common in japan. >> afterwards, he looks at the growing trend of american adults choosing to live alone and what that means for the country. it is starting a dialogue between leaders and police. at 8:15, the one-woman play a the same name.

>> the american conservative tina no, conference is under way in washington. speakers included mitch mcconnell. he talked about the economy, deficit and other issues for about 35 minutes. >> thank you very much. it is great to see all of you. good morning. i want to thank the acu war, staff, and volunteers. thanks for the opportunity to gather as a movement to share of our ideas and our talents in the great calls of liberty. every year at cpac, past meets present. both gain new energy, enthusiasm, and allies for the fight. we have a chance to honor and to learn from the conservative giants of the past and to size

up new ones. we get to hear from those who are leading the cause of state houses across the country and here in washington. for those of you who have not noticed, our ranks are growing. one of the great developments in congress of the past few years is the emergence of so many strong, principled, conservative leaders. you just had a chance to hear from mike lee and ron johnson and you heard from marco rubio, i think we would all agree on one of the most inspiring young conservatives in america. [applause] our numbers in congress are expanding, and i can tell you this, i am very happy to have the right -- the reinforcements. we needed them after 2009 and a 2010. now the trick is to stick together and keep our focus where it belongs. i always love coming to cpac. [applause] and you probably know why. conservatives are just simply more fun than liberals. there is a reason for that, by the way. it is because we are always right. [laughter]

the reason liberals are always wringing their hands all the time is they know we have better arguments than they do. so they spend half their time thinking how to convince people that what is wrong is right, and the other half looking for conservatives to tear down, or cpac conferences to disrupt. you all know the liberal playbook. here is how it works. pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and then polarize it. rarely have we seen those tactics imposed with the kind of zeal we see today. the white house and its lieutenants have made an art form out of the orchestrated attack. they have shown they will go after anybody or any organization they think is standing in their way.

we saw just last week when one of the top democrats in the senate announced a plan to all law abiding citizens before a congressional panel just because they don't happen to agree with causes that he supports. you know the drill. expose the folks to public view, released the liberal foes on them, and then hope the public pressure or unwanted attentions of projects scare's them from supporting similar causes down the road. for president who's been so much time talking about fairness, there is a serious shortage of it in the white house and among many of his closest allies. again and again, this administration and its allies have used the resources of the government itself to intimidate or silence those who question or oppose it. and reward their friends and punish their enemies. this is why an administration that claims to support private sector job creation ended up killing a pipeline project that promised to create tens of thousands of private sector jobs. this is why a president who

claims to value diversity is telling the men and women who run religious schools and hospitals and charities in this country that they now face a choice that no one in the united states should ever have to make. violate your conscience, pay a penalty, or close your doors. we saw during the health-care debate when the department of health and human services issued a gag order on a private insurance company for the supposed offense -- listen to this -- of telling seniors what the president's health care bill would mean for them. as americans continue to struggle as a result of this president's economic policies, we see it in the personal attacks on private citizens or industries that the administration wants to make a convenient foil. these things that mean the office of president. they corrode our democracy, and they need to stop. [applause]

look, if our democratic friends cannot convince people of the wisdom of their policies, they should change those policies. but attacking private citizens or groups for the supposed crime of turning a profit, or expressing an opinion that the administration does not happen to share, is not in the president's job description. [applause] no look, the president's job is to unite the country, not divide it. his job is to bridge differences, not aggravate them. to encourage success, not condemned it. and to honor the free exercise of religion, and right there in the first amendment, not to suppress it. he was elected to lead all americans, not to occupy wall street fan club. [applause]

i don't know about your, but i think that the leader of the free world and his advisers have better things to do than dig through other people's tax returns, at a time when nearly 13 million americans are looking for jobs and cannot find one. i think the president of the united states has higher priorities than picking on fox news. [applause] at a moment when the national debt makes us look more like a third world country than the last best hope on earth, i think our highest elected official should be looking for solutions instead of steak -- of scapegoats. but unfortunately, that is what passes for leadership in the white house these days. here is a president who spent

two years reconfiguring the u.s. economy, who put the government in charge of banks, the auto industry, the insurance industry, the student loan business, and held garrett kern. now we are seeing the results, -- and health care. he acts like he had nothing to do with it. we know new president's face challenges when they come to office. ronald reagan certainly did. but once the of the office has been taken, americans expect their president to forge ahead and take responsibility for the policies that put in place. [applause] not this president. he wants to change the subject. here is my message to cpac. we are not going to let him get away with it, are we? [applause] look, we are going to push hard to reform the tax code. we will keep up the fight against a regulatory regime that is suffocating free enterprise.

we'll keep pushing the white house to allow americans to use american energy, and we will not let a single day pass from now until november without reminding the american people of what this president has done. [applause] we are going to remind folks that we are not in this mess because of a tsunami in japan or a debt crisis in europe. we are in it because the president got nearly everything he wanted for two long years. i assure you that when november rolls around, americans will know who is in charge when the stimulus was passed, when obamacare became law, it was in charge when america's credit rating was downgraded for the first time ever. they will know this president's record.

[applause] after that he will have enough time to play golf as he wants to. let's face it, the only reason we are getting any positive economic news at all, more than three years after this presidency began, is because the american people put a restraining order on him and pelosi in november 2010. last week's jobs report happen in spite of the president's policies, not because of them. it is the obama economy now, and we are not going to let people forget it. we will start with his promises. it is long list, so i will just mention a couple. three years ago, the president signed a trillion dollars

stimulus bill that we were told would keep unemployment below half a percent sign and -- below eight%. how did that work out? unemployment has now stood above 8% for 36 months, three straight years. if you lose a job in the obama economy, you can now expect to spend four weeks looking for a new one. fewer people have jobs today than when the stimulus was signed. more than three years into his presidency, there are still 5.6 million fewer jobs in this country than when the great recession began. among african-americans, unemployment is nearly 14%. among hispanics, 10.5%. among recent college graduates, and more than 13%. for those who need help the most, this president's economic policies have done the least. so if i were president obama, i would keep the champagne on ice.

this is not an economy to be proud of. shortly after they stimulus bill was signed, president obama and another promise. he said he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. how did that work out? last week had the congressional budget office said that the federal deficit for the coming year would be over a trillion dollars for the fourth consecutive year garrett kern he has not even come close, not even close -- for the fourth consecutive year. republicans have had to fight tooth and nail for every dime in savings we have secured. president obama has ignored the advice of his own deficit- reduction commission. he has ignored the dire warnings that come to us every single day from across the atlantic, and he has failed the american

people who entrusted him with the stewardship of this country. more spending, more debt, fewer jobs. that is the sad legacy of this administration chose the policies. -- of this administration's policies. that is held they will remember this president's three-year experiment in big government as a colossal failure that manage to bring about one good thing. one good thing came out of all this -- a resurgence of common- sense conservatism. [applause] thanks to the liberal overreach of the obama administration, countless americans have rediscovered the constitutional principles that bind us. they have a new appreciation for the fact that in this

country, the government serves the people, and not the other way around. that is why when the american people read that the compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled over the last 10 years, and that the benefit for federal workers are about 60% higher than taxpayers who pay for them, they have every reason to demand a federal pay freeze. [applause] now listen to this. right now, there are 2.2 million people on the federal workforce. yet at a time when the federal government in washington is routinely spending upwards of a trillion dollars a year more than it is taking in, layoffs of federal workers have dropped to fewer than 300 a year. according to one analysis i read, that means federal workers are 13 times more likely to die of natural causes than to be laid off. and this president, by the way, has added 150,000 jobs to the federal government during his term.

washington is a boom town. now you tell me, what about the performance of the federal government over the past few years makes you believe that everyone who works for it is absolutely necessary? the government is doing too much already. it is time to stop hiring people to fill jobs in washington that don't need to be done. [applause] it is time to impose some balance between the public and the private sector. under this president, government spending has gone up more than 20%. the federal debt has gone up 43%. this is one of the reasons i never tire of telling people the problem is not that government taxes too little, but that it spends too much.

i don't know about you, but the way i see it, until washington proves it can spend money more wisely than it does right now, the taxpayers have no reason to hand over another single dime in higher taxes. [applause]

look, until washington puts a higher priority on using the money it gets on things we need, instead of blowing it on solar panel companies, the american people should tell congress it does not need another sent cent. that leads to another thing the american people are reminded of the past few years. people should be rewarded for what they know, rather than who they know. you remember throughout the debate over health care, americans saw the white house cut deals with special interest and lawmakers that we later learned foreign-exchange for their vote that favored obamacare. then they watched as they granted waivers to the very groups that lobbied for the bill. they lobbied for the bill, but they don't want it to apply to them. most americans don't think that one group of americans should be entitled to special treatment just because of their political sympathies. that is just one of the reasons they will keep fighting to repeal this bill. [applause] i can tell you this, senate republicans want everybody in america to get a waiver from obamacare, everybody. not just the politically

collected project not just the politically connected few. that is why republicans in congress have joined together to fight the individual mandate in the courts and why we will continue to do so until this unconstitutional burden is overturned. then we are going to replace it with the common-sense reforms that lower costs, and that is what americans really want. let me tell you what all these things have in common. they all have one thing in common. every special favor or preference we have seen from this white house. here's the same thing. that is a lack of faith in the ability of americans to figure things out on their own. the roots of liberalism have always been the same. but liberals cannot accept is the idea of free people and institutions pursuing institutions as they see fit. with a deep respect for the differences of others. without government trying to direct their lives and destinies. the recent assault on the liberties is a vivid and troubling example of this. what this white house is saying is that they will impose a fine of catholic institutions for no other reason than the religious

police of them run counter. it is more than a violation of a conscience. this means that a place like the university of notre dame won now costs about $10 million a year. for catholic charities, the cost of religious freedom can now be as high as $100 million. this is not an administration that welcomes diversity. it is an administration that fears diversity. the call this a dangerous line. we will fight this attack until the courts overturn it and so we have a president too well reverse it. picking winners and losers from friends and punishing enemies and silencing critics, these things do not strike in the

heart of conservatism. they strike at the heart of what america's all about. these are the things that drive the obama and economy and an agenda that we have seen again and again. they have little regard for those who dissent or for those constitution's government to protect them. let me leave you with this. keep up the fight. some news the power of the office to curtail their freedoms.

we need to use the power free citizens to restore them. before i became a republican leader of the senate, i was sentenced for a campaign of laws. they were a serious blow to the right of free speech. it was not easy. this included some friends and my own party. the low point was when i watched a republican president signed into law a bill that i have been fighting for a decade. i did not give up. i sued the government.

i'm still fighting it to this day. i bring this up not to pat myself on the back, i bring it up to make a point. i will continue to fight it through channels that are my birthright of mine. everyone has this power. we have the ability to fight back against the infringement of our freedoms. no president is more powerful than the constitution of the united states. your job is to share that with others. to share that with others. the theme of this year is a question that answer itself. do still hold these truths?

rally in my lifetime or yours have we had such an opportunity or obligation to prove that we do. i want to thank you for your devotion to the constitution into the principles that inform its. i want to thank you for the determination in the energy in canada is that show our views. issues your commitment to the cause of liberty. liberty is actually preserved. in one have been any other way. freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. we did not pass it to our children in the bloodstream. it must be fought for, protected, and handed on to them to do the same. you are doing that necessary

work. the rest of us are so very grateful. thank you so much. >> also heard from elections. this is half an hour. >> part of my job is to tell you things you do not like to hear.

we're going to have some of that discussion as to talk about the 2012 landscape. i want to begin a question with you first. i want you to be honest. how many of you have made fun of the president's call for open change? raise your hands? with all due respect, and that is really stupid. the reason for that is simple. voters have voted against the party in power. they are unhappy with both sides. voters have changed as much today as they were in 2008. they do realize that there is no hope if they count on politicians. they are looking for that help. he ought to be encouraging people you support to offer that

positive step forward. we talked about the electorate landscape. i'm happy to have on the panel today erik erikson from redstate.com. we also got paulo from "the washington journal." as we talk about these issues, i want you to realize this election is being held at a special time. the last time that government spending went down in america was two years before i was born. it is not the clinton era or even the jimmy carter era. the good news is voters are ready to change that. we're not sure if the politicians have caught up. i want to ask ralph to start as off.

right now as a look at the presidential election, we see the republican electorate that is not excited about their front runner but 75% of republican voters think that mitt romney will be the nominee. have you see this playing out. >> the landscape is littered with improbables far later than it usually is. i hate to say this. none of the signs that i see are particularly good.

intensity has gone that the intensity is now with the democrats. i regard that is a very bad time. the enthusiasm among republican voters for any of the candidates is dangerously low. no matter who you have, you have to be partisan to believe they have the money to get the job done. that is for the nomination. none of these folks about how it generates a pared the republican party -- generates. the republican party put up a candidate who is not conservative, it has lost the election. if i am wrong on that, i would like some data.

>> this has been notable in your satisfaction. how did we get to this point? >> they blame george bush for a lot of things he is not blamed for. follow along. every president generally has this. george bush had dick cheney who did not want to run. they have a referendum by either choosing this are someone else. we went all the way back to 2000 and started over again.

we're now in the situation where it is a bit of a victim from the void that was left. i think a republican has yet to reset itself for them to be able to move forward. >> has the obama as a mission help the republican party in general? there is this recent issue about the contraceptive mandate. >> whoever becomes the republican nominee, and i would guess i take issue with ralph. i worked on every presidential campaign since 1980. i was 4 years old.

this is the most wide open, most topsy-turvy. think about this. there have been eight contests so far. the front-runner has won three of them. you have three different winners. i realize that later california and the states in the northeast will be winner take all. i would say the day of the convention decided it nomination was over and was settled, i think that will be the case in 2012.

whoever emerges whether it is romney are someone else is going to be a better, more disciplined, tougher candidates when they have to stand on a stage with barack obama. four years ago when barack obama had to go 12 rounds with hillary clinton and what was true in 1992 with bill said, you buy one and you get to. that is true. that was 2008 to the obama as well. he took on hillary, bill and the entire clinton machine. he could have never won the generals by the margin needed without first beating them. the first issue is the religious liberty issue. this administration hated that every catholic -- one in every six patients in the united states is in a catholic hospital. 90% of all the homeless shelters are operated by the church and synagogue.

one out of every 10 americans below the poverty level, which is about 57 million americans is a client of catholic charity. that is thought to include the other done nominations. for them to be told that they have to choose between violating their conscience of providing health care to their employers, shows not just this but and outright hostility by this president to religion into the religious values. >> beyond that, the president of united states has done something that jesus himself could not do. he has united muslims, jews and other baptists all together in opposition. he really is the nightmare. in 2008, barack obama 154% of the catholic vote. this morning he gets a 39% 1. he is down 15 points.

>> is that your dad said? that is your data. add to that the research data. it shows that in 2008, 49% of catholics said they or democrats. today it is 39% republicans and 15 point swing. those voters are going to be the swing votes. it is just about every battleground state. there has been a shift. what about the intensity tax what about feeling that they have the votes oral something bad happens? >> begins the light that he has no deeply held moral beliefs of religious america. it also gives the lie to the abortion one. it is not going to be enough to be anti obama, whether it is romney or santorum or whoever.

we have to have a forward leaning agenda that will excite and energize. >> we're talking about some of the issues. they showed the economy is the top issues driving a elections. before lehman brothers collapse, 43% said there finances were in good shape. when president obama took office, it had already fallen 35%. last summer it was down to 27%. right now 35% say their finances are in good shape. if that number keeps moving up, people feel better about the economy.

>> is a lot harder. i do not think that will be the case. he still have almost a billion more people out of work. historically, no one has been reelected as president in the year in which real personal income declined. right now that number is down. it is whether or not people feel like they have money in their

park it. >> you think it is more than the economy? >> i think it should mean more than the economy. i think republicans have decided that they're going with electability instead of issues. if electability is your case and it is based on i can fix the economy, then why do we want that the obamacare payments and millions of dollars. we need to have more of an agenda. they always thought that they could use the economy. there is a story to be told about barack obama. he is the man if you want to succeed in his america, we have to be on board his campaign. it resonates with people in the country. i think the republicans are dropping. it seems like we're setting

ourselves up to lose if the economy improves. we should be able to beat a man. >> all of these figures are interesting. we will go back and forth. we do not know which ones will be the ones that make a difference. this much i believe is true. unless the nominee has a message, a simple message that they need to get out, i do not think we have a chance. i do not know that every conservative thinks of himself as a republican. did you think of the republican party, the only available repository of your beliefs, the problem is you do not have any

candidates. they demonstrate the ability to get a message. why are any of these candidates right? what is it they're going to do to change america? the agenda of the leading candidates, the presumed nominee -- this is not how you do it. the problem is unless you have a core belief, you recall that conservatism. it is hard to come up with to our theme -- two or three things the way reagan did. i think the playing field right now belongs to obama. he will have more money. he will have the incumbency. >> let's go beyond the white house. what about the house and the senate now could 2012.

is that looking as bleak? >> i do not want to belabor the point. i think the gallup poll last week or the week before, the top 12 battlegrounds, romney was beating obama by a point. that is before the nomination has been resolved. keep in mind romney is acting as is sarah gets. no democrat has been elected president -- acting as a surrogate. no democrat has elected president in the history of the united states without carrying at least three southern states. obamacare in virginia, north

carolina and florida. i do not think we will carry one of the states. in terms of the house and senate, no incumbent president has game more than 15 states in a reelection since world war ii with one exception. that was lyndon johnson in 1964. it doesn't really count. it was not johnson treelike. usually you're going to have -- it was not johnson's re-elect. use a year going to have it. even reagan -- you are usually going to have it.

even reagan only picked up 15 house seats in 1984. he turned to the senate, i think the picture is better. nine months out, a lot of things can change. this seat is gone. now you are at 48, assuming north dakota good republican. it should. at that point we get to 51. you have to win to. then scott brown has to be elected in massachusetts. i like our chances. i have said the scary as possible outcome would be for the republicans to win the white house and not bring about any significant change. is that the scenario? >> i am afraid there may be an inability to affect change.

forget registered voters. look at people who are likely to vote. people who are likely to vote are expecting real change. congress has an 11% approval rating. do you know why they have a bad approval rate among republicans tax is because the tea party sees them re the -- republicans? it is because the tea party sees them raise the debt ceiling. it is fitting 2010 in perspective. he had to go back to the 1800's to find an election of that scale.

you take state, county and municipal races. there are cities in north carolina and south carolina and georgia were they used to be all democrats. you cannot find them anymore. the of became a republican. -- they all became a republican. suddenly the top of the ticket moves its. you have them running away from the ticket. we cannot just focus on the white house. . senate and house races. we cannot just focus on the white house. we have to focus on the house and senate. governors. and state legislatures. without a concerted effort to elect attorneys general. >> what would that mean for the

super packs? >> this would hurt us in a number of swing states. this is the first redistricting democrats have controlled. since the passage of the voting rights act. republicans have controlled the department of justice for every census redistricting. this is the first time the democrats has -- have done it. they try to pull back republican gains in the legislative races. they have tried to put republicans in tattered districts. we have to have a good turnout to give these -- get these people elected. >> is it possible for the republican presidential nominee to not be the leader of the conservative movement? >> of course. >> what happens if that happens? what does that look like?

>> no one knows the future. i have observed as long as i have been on this planet it is suicide. >> do you agree? >> it is not the best scenario. what i would say is speaking as someone who has been involved since the late 1970's that we fit -- spent most of our time doing what a lot of us are doing. you sort of sit around and say mcconnell, to be doing that and john boehner for romney or newt ought to be saying this. those are true. we need our leaders to plant their feet in concrete and take a stand not just in season but out of season. having said that, i also want to put the monkey on our back. i like what newt says when he said i am not asking you to be for me, i am asking you to be

with me. when you look at what we're going to face which is $1 billion, the labor unions, the president flying around with every special interest in his back pocket and the meanest, most vicious political team we have ever faced a sandlot. it is not just on the nominee's bac. it is on our backs. our responsibility. how many people in this room have attended a tea party event in the last two years? let me ask you. what republican politician made that happen? not one. we made it happen. on facebook and on social networking. from the bottom up.

>> it was the koch brothers to make that happen. >> whoever the nominee is let's not think of ourselves as passive. let's go out and turn out the biggest conervative vote in odern history and let's send barack obama back to chicago where he belongs. [applause] other than the desire to beat barack obama and a message about the economy, what is the key for conservatives and republicans? >> whoever the nominee as and i do not know who it is going to be. i like rick santorum's message. if his candidacy could be summed

up in a sentence. if you want to restore america's economic strength you must restore america's marriages and families at home. if you graduate from high school you get a job, any job and get married and stay married and you do not have children until you're married. you have an infant at -- infinitesimal chance of being in poverty and our vision is for a strong, renewed, and insurgent america is not america that is back to work. although that is important and it is not just in america with a balanced budget. with vibrant communities, religious and charitable institutions and strong marriages. >> why is that different from mitt romney's message or for ron paul?

>> romney has run as an economic turnaround artist. he has that. i think i was glad to see him talk about this religious liberty issue. >> back to the first campaign. it was 1856. lincoln set the tone. kalamazoo and said the nation was 80 and we were the envy of the world and how was a possible and lincoln said he thought about it. the reason is because this country, every man can make himself. rep in barack obama's america that is no longer true. the government makes you for you and the campaigns and the

candidate, the choice between sitting your agenda or barack obama's sitting in for you. >> every bit of polling data and policy data suggests america's best days are still to come. things may get worse before they get better. the policy discussions may not go every time you want the elections they want. in this nation still has an incredibly bright future because the american people still believe we are endowed with certain inalienable lightrights. i would like to thank our panelists. [applause] ♪ >> rick perry said he believed

the federal government is too close to wall street. the former presidential candidate did not mention the other candidates but warned the audience against using what he called billick for replacement for president obama. this is less than 20 minutes. >> many people helped me and seek a 28-year incumbent. the city budget chairman. the first republican to represent my district. during that campaign i had the opportunity to get to know, to me and spend time with every single one of the cabinets. i came to like and admire each and every one of them and hold them in regard today. there was one candidate who stood out because he passed the most important test of a politician can face. he had a track record of backing conservative words with actions and that is a trait that is too

lacking in politics today which we see almost each and every single day including within our party. it is easy. sometimes too easy to talk about being conservative but it is much harder to act, but, and to lead as a conservative. on every topic that was important in looking for a candidate, the taxes, spending, education, immigration, health care, individual freedoms and personal liberties, every single one, the man i am getting ready to introduce had proven himself to be the real deal. i believe at some point in the future, tomorrow or next week or 10 years from now. the country will wake up and realize we need conservative leadership. we will realize that what we have been doing for generations is leading us down the wrong path. we will realize if we do not go back to the things that served us so well for centuries we may

be doomed to failure. when that happens, when we realize that as a nation, what it means to be a conservative will be called into question. unfortunately what it means to be a republican or conservative may not be the same thing. there is a small group of us in the house and the senate and a large group of you in this room here today who have been working and will continue to work to preserve the definition of conservatism so the message of goldwater and buckley and ronald reagan will not be lost. there's a gentleman in texas who will have been doing the same thing and that man as rick perry. -- is rick perry.

[applause] >> thank you. a big thank-you to mick mulvaney. i am glad for his support and kind words and i am honored to be here with men and women who are foot soldiers in the revolution and -- sparked 31 years ago from the election of president whose birth we celebrated this week. i am talking about ronald reagan. president reagan, he must be staring down from heaven and thinking reincarnation may indeed be possible. when he looks -- somehow jimmy carter's failed presidency could reappear in the form of barack obama. has got to be thinking that. i had ideas about putting an end

failed resident's administration and people had another idea. in texas and am we had a unique way of addressing defeat. aggies never lose. we run out of time. you could say my campaign ran out of time but i have not run out of ideas or my belief in my shared -- our shared ideas. a candid if i am no more. but a committed tat amendment conservative i will be until the last breath i draw in my body.

this election is not about merely ending economic misery. rec that, runaway spending. failed washington policies represented in the form of the obama administration. the question has never been whether obama must go or -- but what kind of leadership is needed to replace him to get this country back on track. we do the american no great service if we replace the current embodiments of the government with a lukewarm version of the same. we need to stop pretending the main goal of the republican governance is to do the same thing as democrats. quit believing that. quick doing that. we did not lose the house on hand to dozen 6 because of an unpopular war but because the republican party traded in its

calling card of fiscal conservatism on the road to the corrupting your marks, excessive spending, and bigger government. that is why we lost. what 2012 baht vs is the chance to arf -- offer a different vision for america. we cannot tinker our way to victory. we have to be bold. we have to be clear. we must embrace constitutional conservatism. the argument is not just about how much we spend on various programs. we can never outspend or out- pander the liberal democrats. the argument must be about whether we centralize power or returning to the people and the states.

we do not need washington meddling in our local schools. we do not need washington and their epa discarding the clean air rules established by the states. we do not need the justice department deciding whether states have the right to require a voter i.d. to vote. we do not need that. we do not need washington that requires governors to come to washington and to grovel for health care waiver so they can take care of their poorest citizens in a cost-effective manner. i have been fighting this type of washington overate for 10 plus years. last year i proudly signed a budget that ended all state funding for planned parenthood in my state.

since then there is a dozen of those clinics that have shut down in the city taxes. because left-wing pro-abortion radicals do not like we did, president obama has invalidated a waiver that provides health care for more than 100,000 women in my home state. they literally set aside funding for preventive health care because we refuse to subsidize abortion. where we subject to this decision to begin with? nowhere in the constitution doesn't say health care should be run by the federal government. washington has no right to dictate how and from whom you

receive health care. where children learn in schools or how you protect your and vermin. if we elect leaders from the republican party who preserve the current state of the bureaucracy, the command and control policy from washington, d.c., we get the government we deserve. we ought to either be true 10th amendment patriots or strip it out of the constitution. one of the two. the separation of powers doctrine is not about checks and balances between congress, the executive and the federal judiciary. it is about divided sovereignty between the federal government and the states. our founding fathers from madison to washington now that if we centralized power in an

all encompassing federal procuracy that one day, the central government could become as intrusive and powerful as that distant crown from which they fought for liberty. our founders also protected and defended religious freedoms in our constitution and our young nation. today even our religious freedoms are under attack from the obama administration in washington. this justice department tried to insert themselves in the hiring decisions of religious organizations by challenging the ministerial exception. they failed. on a 9-0 vote. even though it is left-wing justices in the supreme court thought it was too far step. this demonstration is assaulting

the catholic church and people of faith across tarnation by forcing their pro-abortion agenda on religious hospitals, charities, and employees. the above administration's war on faith must be defeated. we must win this war. we must protect catholic hospitals and people of faith. to stop president obama's liberal policies dead in its tracks. as conservatives we now that freedom does not come from government. it is not granted by the constitution. it is a gift of a loving god. it is the government's role to protect it. that is government's role. the federal role in safeguarding

freedom is about defending our nation from foreign powers by securing the border and building a strong military. [applause] if washington would provide for the common defense, secure our borders, and deliver our mail on time preferably on saturdays, i would be happy. one at a three is not too bad. they're too busy regulating. two days a regulating our freedom than to fulfill their basic responsibilities and obligations. they're spending our country into a sea of debt so deep our children may not be able to come up for air. let me say said the else. about that. if it is halftime in ameritech,

i am fearful of what the final score is going to be if we let this president start the second half as a quarterback. [applause] much has been said lately about who really supports free enterprise and it is not. let me make something abundantly clear. we have the greatest capitalist system in the world but it will not continue to be if we use government to remove risk from the system. success on wall street should not come at the expense of main street. wall street and washington, that the ball must be broken up. you take the housing crisis.

a great example. the washington politicians pressured fannie mae and freddie mac and the banks to put more americans in homes they cannot afford. the federal reserve pushed interest rates artificially low. the subprime market exploded with these risky loans. some americans thought if you could get the house for zero down the could figure out how to pay the balloon note later. no one was watching the rating companies, the agencies that were giving these aaa ratings to complex securities that were filled with high risk loans. when the market crashed, those on wall street who saw coming made millions. those who did not see it coming, they got bailed out. now we learned that 700 -- $700

billion truck payment, that was paltry compared to the secret loan guarantee of $7.70 trillion. you ought to be outraged. yacht to be incensed. those paying the price are not the large banks who were over leveraged. not the insurance companies, not even the executives who continued to read these large bonuses after the walls came tumbling down. it was people like you and me. it was that are paying the price. average americans. main street businesses, our children who stand to inherit the worst financial mess this country has ever seen. it is wrong. it is not fair. it is weakening america. we need to clean up the corruption from k street to wall street so they cannot gamble with our children's future ever

again. [applause] whaamerica remains the most nobe experiment in governing ever offered in the history of mankind. for the first time ever, the founders of a nation recognized our rights are and down by our creator. after winning our freedom, they did not centralized power among themselves, they give back to the people. this election is about a smaller, humbler federal government. restoring power to the american people. if we have a nation that lives of two constitutional ideals, is not merely about spending less

on washington programs but returning that power to the people and the state's. it did not have to settle. you do not have to settle this election. you do not have to resign yourself to the faith this country will be less in the future that it was in the past. you have an opportunity. you have an obligation. you have the power and more portly, you have the constitution on your side to make conservative change. go forth, build a better nation based on those founding principles. take this country back and let the grandest experiment in free of the world has ever seen -- go forward powerfully and through your hands god will bless you and you in turn will continue --

he will continue to bless this country. our bless you. -- god bless you. >> of conference also heard from herman cain. he spoke for our requirements. >> is everyone having a great cpac? will we take back the senate in november? our next speaker is someone who knows about putting together a winning message. less than four months ago he was being barack obama had had in the polls and leading the field of candidates. to see that herman cain needs an introduction is an understatement. it is like saying our nation has its debt problem or joe biden should not be allowed to wander alone in public. i doubt there is anybody in this room who is not aware of his dynamic and unflinching

leadership on behalf of conservatism or his economic proposal that does more to promote the no. 9 and then sued depue -- than sudoku. america offers the highest flight pth. -- path. herman cain learned from his parents their family may not have had much money but they were rich because of their spirit and optimism. relentless in his pursuit of the american dream he earned degrees in mathematics and computer science and he worked in the u.s. navy and pillsbury. we know about his success in the business world. he was responsible for reviving god for this birth -- godfather's pizza and boosting burger king. his path to success was one

paved with years of hard work. he efectively confronted bill clinton at a town hall meeting. herman cain may have burst on the political scene with a vengeance but he has been fighting in the trenches of conservatism for years promoting and upholding the principles of our constitution from the board room to the inner city and everywhere in between. he was one of the founding fathers of the tea party movement and gave their national response to the presidency of the union address. he and understands what it is like to fight and to win tough battles with long odds. he was diagnosed with cancer. poor man who built his success on doing the math, this was another number. he is here with us today cancer

free. he is a man who truly understands what matters most in life and with his trademark smile always available to show others optimism. fellowships, hard work, family, industry, consistency. he is no longer running for president herman cain is far from standing on the sidelines. his revelation is carrying the mantle of his platform forward and keeping the torch of liberty and limited government alive. without further ado is my pleasure to introduce you to a man who remains a shining light for our movement and nation and teleprompter free for 30 plus years, herman cain.

[applause] >> thank you.

without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: madam speaker, every member of this house has sworn a solemn oath to support and defend the constitution and to faithfully execute the office to which they have been entrusted by their constituents. the stop trading on congressional knowledge, or stock act, goes to the heart of what it means to faithfully execute public office. the government exists to

promote the public good, not to enrich government officials and employees. those who are entrusted with public office are called public servants because their work should always serve the public rather than themselves. no one should violate the sacred trust of government office by turning public service into self-service. the risk of government self-dealing is heightened by the huge growth in recent years of the federal government and its increasing entanglement with the private economy. the risk of self-dealing increases when the government undertakes to spend nearly $1 trillion in stimulus money on private companies like solyndra. . or when the government inserts itself into the 1/5 of our economy represented by health care and dictates the terms of private insurance policies. the decisions made by big government can have big money consequences.

big government can move markets. that's why we need strong rules to reassure the public the decisionmakers are not enriching themselves by investing based on insider knowledge of government policies. this is the goal of the stock act. in the house version of the stock act achieves this goal. it strengthens the senate proposal by expanding the scope of the bill to require more disclosure and prevent all office holders from profiting from insider information. the house bill expands the legislation so that the ban on insider trading applies to all legislative, executive, and judici branch officials and their staffs. the american people deserve to know that no one in any branch of government can profit from their office. all three branches should be held the same standard because all three branches must be worthy of the public's trust. and the bill ensures that

members of congress who commit a crime do not receive a taxpayer funded pension. the stock act clarifies that members of congress and other government insiders have to play by the same rules against insider trading that have applied to the private sector for nearly 80 years. under the house bill, no federal government official may use nonpublic information which they learn by virtue of their office for the purpose of making a profit in th commodities or stock market. the bill strengthens financial disclosure rules for public officials. financial disclosure forms will be made publicly available in searchable, downloadable data bases on government websites. the bill requires prompt reporting of significant securities transactions by key legislative and executive branch officials. this will bring the financial dealings of public servants into the light of day. the stock act also strengthens discsure of officials'

mortgages so public servants do not receive special rates and offers by virtue of their office. the bill expands the list of crimes that result in a forfeiture of government pension rights and it prevents fannie mae and freddie mac from paying lucrative bonuses to the executives who bear so much responsibility for the housing crisis. the house bill adds a provision to prevent government officials from receiving special early access to the initial public official of stock, which can result in measured profits for the well connected. the bill requires executive branch officials to disclose their negotiations for private sector jobs justike legislative branch officials do under current law. the bill makes it a crime for executive branch officials to pressure private businesses to hire employees of a certain political party, a government law that currently only applies to congress. the stock act increases disclosure and accountability

for every branch of the federal government and ensures that public servants don't breach the trust of the american people. madam speaker, for all of the above reasons i support this legislation and encourage my colleagues to support it as well. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, madam speaker. members of the house, we come here this morning as the leaders of the judiciary committee and i have to assume that the chairman of the judiciary committee, mr. smith, like myself, are deeply disappointed that we are bringing a bill that we never had a hearing on before the committee for -- before the congre for a disposition.

here is a bill referred to six committees -- financial services, agriculture, judiciary, house administration, ethics, and the rules committee. only one hearing was held in one of these committees on this measure. it's never been before judiciary or any other committ. and so i want to begin by complimenting the author of this measure, the ranking member, former chairman of rules committee, the gentlelady from new york, luis slaughter, for -- louise slaughter, for a serious and important amendment that has never been treated fairly. now, i don't know what the explanation is.

maybe we can get to it during th proceeding, but i think that this is not the way that we want to move forward with a bill that was supposed to get to insider trading ban that everybody wanted, because there's no reporting requirement in this bill. and so i'll reserve the balance of my time and look forward to the discussion. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. ross, who is an active member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. ross: thank you, madam speaker. mr. chairman, i rise in support of the stock act today and in support of extending its reach

to the executive branch. all of us who have been honored by our fellow citizens with the enormous responsibility of protecting the liberties of this republic have a duty to hold ourselves to the highest of standards. you know it's ironic that in 2012 we are here debating a bill that would prevent public officials from enriching themselves through our positions. it's ironic because one of the great causes that impels the separation from great britain was the common practice of public officials using their office to increase their personal wealth. madam speaker, 236 years ago those patriots said enough. that spirit is in america's d.n.a. and we would do a disservice to all who came before us if we failed to act. i know that a vast majority of my friends on the other side of the aisle share this belief as ll. a calling to service noes -- knows no party label. madam speaker, i urge a yes vote

on the bill and yield back the balance of my time. thspeaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i am plead now to recognize the orinal author of this bill, and because of her deep concern about this matter i'm going to yield her as much time as she may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for as much time as she may consume. ms. slaughter: good morning, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for his generosity. try as i may the majority leader cantor and the house republican leadership were unable to move forward with the stock act without keepinat least some of the reforms that we included in its bill six years ago. however wn it comes to k street it appears that republican leadership couldn't stomach the pressure from the political intelligence community. after working behind closed doors the majorityremoved the major provision that would have held political intelligence

operatives to the same sands as lobbyists who come before the congress. i need to put into the record that political intelligence is worth $400 million a year. it is unregulated, unseen, and operates in the dark. fortunately democrats, republicans alike are fighting to keep political intelligence as part of the final bill. senator grassley shares my outrage that mr. cantor would let the political ielligence community off the hook. together with the supermajority of democrats and republicans in the senate, senator grassley followed my lead and included political intelligence requirement in the senate version of this bill. i think his statement yesterday tells you-all you need to know about his desire to see this language inserted back into the stock act before it reaches the president's desk. i would like to read that into the record if i may. it is astonishing and extremely disappointing, senator grassley

said, that the house would fulfill wall street's wishes by killing this provision. the senate clearly voted to try to shed light on an industry that's behind the scenes. if the senate language is too broad, why not propose a solution instead of scrapping the provision altogether? i hope to see a vehicle for meaningful transparency through a house-senate conference or other means. if congress delays action, the political intelligence industry will stay in the shadows just the way wall street likes it. it's hard, the stock act is a statement of how we in congress view ourselves and our lationship with those who sent us here. no matter how powerful our position may be or we believe it is, no matter how halo the walls we walk -- hallow the walls we walk, none of us is above the law.

with the passage of the stop act we can move one step closer to theaith and trust bestowed upon us by the america people, the citizens whom we serve. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold, who is also a member of the financial services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for two minutes. mr. dold: thank you, madam speaker. i certainly want to thank the chairman for yielding. i thank you for your leadership. i alsoant to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, ms. slaughter, mr. walz for your leadership with regard to the stock act. madam speaker, the american public believed that congress has the ability to profit from their position. and while this is illegal today in insider trading laws, i think that we've got an obligation to make it even stronger and even clearer to the american public and to everyone that we here in the united states congress hold ourselves up to a higher standard. i think this is expected of us as public servants.

i am pleased to say that in the stock act, in this legislation, moving forward, this language from my bill, h.r. 2162, the no pensions for felons bill. this language will strengthen and expand the existing law to require that federal lawmakers convicted of a public corruption felony forfeit their taxpay funded congressional pension. i know this sounds likeommon sense, but actually today there are those that are collecting taxpayer funded pensions that have been convicted of a public corruption charge. while servg in public office. this provision adds 21 new public corruption offenses to the current law, including violations for insider trading and others. additionally this will prohibit the former members of congress from receiving a congressional pension if they are convicted of a coved offense that occurred while they are subsequently serving in any other publicly

elected office. sadly we have seen this before where formerembe of this chamber like one from my state, former governor rob blagojevich, convicted of a felony, corruption charges, and yet at age 62 he'll be eligible for taxpayer fund pension. not only is this wrong, this is an insult to the american taxpayers. and this provision will address such violations of the public trust in the future. i want to thank the chairman for your leadership -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. dold: i want to urge my colleagues, not just on my side of the aisle, but across the aisle, to support this important legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyer madam speaker, i'm pleased now to recognize the distinguished gentleman from minnesota, who joined with the ranking member of the rules committee, in introducing the

original bill, tim walz. i yield to him as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. walz: i thank the gentleman from michigan. i'd also like to thank the chairman for his support of this bill and eloquent response on it. it's been a long six-year jury to pass this reform. it's taken hard work and bipartisan effort. the american people expects and deserves that. when i first came to congress in 2006 after spending a lifetime of teaching social studies in the public school classroom, i was approached by the the gentlewoman from new york, ms. slaughter, and brian baird, a former member from washington state, he said you were sent here to make a difference and do things differently. if you believe in reform look at this bill. i got involved right after that and representative slaughter i can say has been a stalwart supporter of this bill. she understood this is far more than just about clarifying insider trading. this is about restoring faith to the institution. she's done this not -- ethics

seems to be in vogue right now. it's been in vogue her whole lifetime. she has lived that sermon of ethics and living by the rules instead of just giving it. that i appreciate. understanding the integrity of this institution snds above all else. we must as the sacred holders of the privilege, honor, and responsibility given to us by our neighbors to self-govern ourselves, make sure that this institution is never tarnished. and this bill goes a long ways to doing that. thperception is that members of congress are enriching themselves. that's not only affront to our neighbors we are not playing by the rules, it is a cancer that can destroy the democracy. each memberf congress has a responsibility to hold themselves not just equal to their neighbors but to a higher stdard. the public wants us to come here and debate how we educate our children. . that's wt makes us strong.

to come to a compromise and move forward. if there is a perception that someone is enriching themselves, it undermines our ability to do those things. we are not here today to get a pat on our back. we're here to say, this is a victory not for us. it is one tiny step on a journey which is about restoring the faith of the american people and the institution. they can believe with all their heart that we are wro. they cannot believe that we are corrupt. they will have us and we will pass and we will bedust and is right here will still stand and that's what we're doing here today. so i implore folks, let's come together in a bipartisan manner. every -- and i agree with the gentlelady. i'm disappointed the political intelligence piece isn't in here, but as i said, i believe this is a first step. we can't wait for the perfect in order to move forward. i feel it's a bipartisan

compromise. i ask my colleagues, give this win to the american public and then let's get back in here, start working on jobs. let's get back in here and start working on the national debt. let's get back in here and figure out how we're going to protect this nation and educate our children into the future. this lets us do that. i think showing the american public we can come together, let's get this passed and have the president sign it and let's get on to real business. with that i thank the gentleman for the time. again, i thank the ranking member and members of this and i would be remiss not to mention a person who was one of the original seven folks on this bill, walter jones has been our republican colleague, has been a stalwart supporter of this. this is truly a bipartisan pie. ethics crosses the aisle. our folks in here are good people coming together for the good otheir citizens and for that i'm grateful for today. with that, madam speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to my texas colleague, mr. canseco, who is a member of the financial services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is

recognized for two minutes. mr. canseco: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my colleague, chairman smith. madam speaker, too often the american people feel that members of congress live by a benefit personally -- live from a different set of rules and -- than which ordinary americans live. to me that is unacceptable. it is imperative we rebuild the trust of the american people in their elected representatives. the stock act will help do just that. it explicitly bans members of congress and congressional staff from using information obtained on the job and using it to profit from securities trading and gives the securities and exchange commission the ability to investigate and prosecute them just like any other american. the american people expect that those who serve in government to do so with integrity.

the stock act will help ensure that those in government meet this expectation. i yie back the balance of my time. the speakepro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. . conyers: madam speaker, i'm pleased to recognize bobby scott, the chairman of the ranking member of the subcommittee which this measure would have gone had we been able to hold hearings, i yield to him as much time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. scott: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, the bill we're asking today, the stock act, would pro-- prohibit members of congress and other branches of government to use information derived from an individual's position or gained from an individual's duty for personal benefit. today we're amending the

senate-passed bill with a substitute which makes changes to the senate tax which is regrettably, requiring political intelligence activities be disclosed under the lobbying disclosure act. they sell that information to investment firms and the public should be informed about these pes of contacts. with this bill our goal is to hold members of congress as well as other government officials to the same standard as those in corporations who have the duty not to trade on information that is not available to the general public. now, most members of congress believe that this type of activity was wrong. whether explicitly prohibited by criminal law or at least subject to the ethics committee sanctions. and most of us assume that a federal -- a food and drug administration official could not call a stockbroker shortly before a blockbuster drug is

approved and profit off of that insider knowledge. we just assume that was wrong. but this bill codifies what most of us thought was already the law. this is not a complicated issue. this is the same standard that applies to those in the corporate context. it is wrong to trade on nonpublic information for our benefit and to the detriment of the public. the public has the right to expect that public interest comes first and that people should not have to worry about what would be motivating our actions as we make decisions that impact them. i acknowledge the work of my colleagues, the gentlelady from new york, ms. slaughter, and the gentleman from minneta, mr. walz, for drafting and introducing the house version of the stock act. this legislation represents an appropriate acknowledgment of what most of us thought already was the law, that the national government officials of all branches should not benefit financially from nonpublic information they learn by

virtue of their sitions and so i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam speaker, i will yield two minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy, who is a member of the financial services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for two minutes. mr. duffy: i appreciate the gentleman for yielding. i think we are all aware that this issue came out when peter wrote a book called "throw them all out." after that, "60 minutes" did a special story of how members of congress were befiting by using whether it was insider information or information that the rest of the public wasn't privy to. and i think that story and the succeeding several months has created a deficit of trust between members of congress and the american constituents. what iid is i introduced a version that would deal with this issue i thi very simply. i thought what we should do is mandate that members put their assets into a blind trust so

there is aright line between information that they have as members and their trading portfolio. if they chose not to do that they would have to aggressively disclose every trade within three days. now, my bill is not on the floor today, but the veion we have here today i think is much improved from the original version that came out. we have an improved reporting requirement that goes from 90 days, not to three, but it goes to 30 days, which is much improved from the original legislation. we've included the executive branch, which i think is imperative, and we have language that uses the blind trust as a potential opt out if you are t actually managing your funds. now, as we gather out and vote on this bill, vote on this bill, i think this is important that this is the first step, a step in the right direction, but as we come together and re-evaluate what we have done here, i think there's many more steps to take to ensure that

members of congress don't profit from the information they come across as a member of this institution. with that i'd yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i'm pleased now to recognize a member of the judiciary committee that's worked on this matter even though we couldn't hold hearings, the gentleman from tennessee, steve cohen, and i recognize him for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, madam speaker. this is a very important bill, and i appreciate the efforts put in it by ms. slaughter and mr. walz who have championed this for many, many, many years, and i appreciate the republicans for coming in with a bipartisan effort. the bill has indeed been improved by the senate, and it was improvedhrough the honest services statute that was added to it which our committee debated and passed i believe in a goodly fashion. i don't know if it's unanimous

or not, but that was the most important aspects, in my opinion, of this bill. there are public officials throughout this country who have abused the position of trust and that has hurt all of government by using the position for personal gain. the honest services statute used to be a vehicle by which u.s. attorneys could go after them. the supreme court ruled there was a defect in that law. it has been corrected in this bill. it means we got more effective ways to clean up folks who are using public service for their own benefit and restore public trust in public officials from the courthouse to congress. further, it makes clear that nobody can be using their inside information here to be making money in the stock market and other places. all of which destroys the public trust which we hold. this congress is so, so so much better than the ratings the public gives it. some of us because of a few bad apples and some us a

misunderstanding of what we do. this bill will go a long way to cleaning up congress and the impurities of impropriety which is important as impropriety. we need to be like caesar's wife, beyond reproach, and this bill will a lot towards it. i take my hat, again, to ms. slaughter and mr. walz, and i'm proud to be one of the original nine. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, the majority leader, mr. cantor. the speaker pro tempore: the majority leader is recognized for one minute. mrcantor: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman from texas. madam speaker, our government was founded on a promise. this promise was built on the trust between the people and its elected officials. we all have a duty to honor the trust of the american people and to work faithfully on their behalf. madam speaker, it is

unacceptable for anyone, any elected official or their staff to profit from information that is not available to the public. people in this country have a right to know and trust that officials at all levels of government are living under the same rules they are. if there is even the slightest appearance of impropriety we ought to go ahead and prevent that from takg place. it is incumbent upon each of us to start restoring the trust between the people and their elected representatives. that's what the stock act is all about. madam speaker, members on both sides of the aisle have worked hard on this issue. i'd especially like to express my appreciation to representatives tim walz and louise slaughter for the years of work onhis effort. congressman walz has been a leader on the stock act since he took office at thstart of the 110th congress, and i

paicularly want to recognize his willingness to reach across the aisle and keep the lines of communications open as we work to make clear that elected officials abide by the same rules as the american people. this bill we are bringing to the floor today puts in place measures that both strengthen and expand the senate's work on the stock act as well as remove provisions that would have made the bill unworkable or raised far more questions than it would have answered. we expanded the bill to ensure that executive branch officials and their employees are subject to the same reporting and disclosure requirements as those in congress. we must all live under the same rules. we also included a provision championed by representative robert dolled to ensure that members of -- robert dold to ensure thamembers of congress who are convicted of a crime do

not receive a taxpayer-funded pension after the fact. and finally, madam speaker, we added a provision that prohibits members of congress, executive branch officials and their staff from receiving special access to initial public offerings due to their positions. madam speaker, we intend to act quickly to send the president a strengthened workable bill that delivers on our promise to uphold the trust of the american people. and i urge all my colleagues to support the stock act and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i yield myself briefly. may i ask the distinguished majority leader one question why he took political intelligence out of this provision and i yield to the gentleman. mr. cantor: sure. i respond to the gentleman. i think that is a provision thataises an awful lot of questions. i think there's a lot of discussion and debate about who

and what would qualify and fall under the suggested language that came from the senate. and that is why in the stock act 're calling for a study of that issue to ensure that the integrity of this process is maintained. but i'd remind the gentleman the thrust of this bill is about making sure that none of us in elected office or those in the executive branc are able to profit from nonpublic information. the political intelligence piece is outside of is body and we are talking about us and the perception that has gathered around our conduct and i yield back to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: well, i thank the gentleman, because there are some members on the gentleman's side of the aisle that says if congress delays action on the political intelligence industry

, we will stay in the shadows just the way wall street likes it. . i think we ought to think about that and i'm hoping that the leader will continue the examination of the political intelligence industry piece. i am now pleased to yield to the distinguished leader on our side of the aisle, the gentlelady from california, nancy pelosi, one minute. ms. pelosi: i thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for giving us this opportunity to discuss an important matter, the integrity of congress on the floor of the house. i, too, want to join the distinguished majority leader, mr. cantor, in praing the leadership of congresswoman louise slaughter, our ranking member on the rules committee, and congressman tim walz, for their exaordinary leadership over time, their persistence, the approach they have taken to this to remove all doubt in the

public's mind if that is possible. that we are here to do the people's business and not to benefit personally from it. i listened intentatively to the distinguished majority leader, mr. cantor's, remarks about the stock act and its importance, and it does raise a question to me if it is so important, and it certainly is, why we could no have worked in a more bipartisan fashion either to accept the senate bill, which was developed in a bipartisan fashion and passed the senate 94 shall 6, it's hard to get a result -- 94-6, it's hard to get a result like that in congress these days. they were able to get the result because they worked together to develop their legislation. we had two good options. one was to accept the senate bill or to take up the slaughter-walz legislation which has nearly 300 co-sponsors, almost 100 republican co-sponsors on the original

stock act, the discharge petition has been called upon the leadership to bring that bill to the floor. what's important aut that is when we pass that bill we could go to conference and take the be and strongest of both bills to get the job done. instead secretly the republicans brought a much diminished bill to the floor. it has some good features so i urge our colleagues to vote for it to bring the process along. what's wrong about it is, though, it makes serious omission i want to associate myself with remarks that have been made earlier, i think they bear repetition in any event. senator grassley's remarks are stunning. a stunning indictment of the house republicans in tms of their action on this bill. heaid, and i know my colleagues have read this into

the record already. senator grassley said, it's astonishing and extremely disappointing that the house would fulfill wall street's wishes by killing this provision. that would be the provision on political intelligence. the senate clearly voted to try to shed light on an industry that's behind the scenes. if the senate language is too broaas opponents say, why not propose a solution instead of scrapping the provision altogether? i hope to see senator grassley sa, a vehicle for meaningful transparency through a house-senate conference and other means. if congress delays action, as mr. conyers has said, if congress delays action, id senator grassley, the political intelligence industry will stay in the shadows just the way wall street likes it. well, the senator's statement is very widely covered. "the hill" today has a big front page.

grassley republicans caved. iowa senator says, house doing wall street bidding. i think it's important to note that on the senate side there was interest in doing this study that is now in the house bill, and it was rejected by the senate by a 60-39 vote to include the intelligence -- political intelligence provision in the bill, jecting the study. now that that's already been rejected in th senate, it's resurrected on the house side in weakening of the bill. whether it's the political intelligence piece proposed by senator grassley or senator leahy's piece about corruption, i think it's really important that those two elements be included in the bill. a good way to do that, to find a path to bipartisanship in the strongest possible bill is to pass the bill today despite its serious shortcomings, and it's hard to understand why we are --

why these shortcomings are there, but nevertheless they are, pass the bill today, and go to conference. two paths earlier were to accept the senate bill or take the original stock act, strong stock act, to the floor. both of those were rejected. pass this bill, go to conference. it's very important that the hoe and the senate meet to discuss these very important issues. with all due respect to a study on political intelligence, that's really just a dodge. that just is a way to say we're not going to do the political intelligence piece. so, again, with serious reservations about the bill but thinking it's the better course of action is to pass it and i don't want anybody to interpret the strong vote for it to be a seal of approval for what its. but just a way of pushing the process down the line so that we

can move expeditiously to go to conferen for the strongest possible bill. i want to close again by saluting congresswoman louise slaughter and congressman tim walz for their relentless persistence, dedication to this issue. had they not had this discharge petition and the 300 -- nearly 300 co-sponsors, bipartisan, nearly 100 of them republicans, i doubt we would even be taking up this bill today. so congratulations and thank you. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. lungren, who is a senior member of the judiciary committee and also chairman of the house administration committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. lungren: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, let me just point out a couple of things in reonse to what has been said on the floor about the bill before us. had we adopted, had we accepted the senate bill, we would have had 16 drafting errors not

corrected. 16 mistakes in the senate bill that draft the wrong provisions of the ethics laws that already exists and would have ensured that what was said on the senate floor and is being said here would not be enforced in law, number one. number two, if we had taken the senate bill, the absolute prohibition about members participating in i.p.o.'s would not be before us. that is an addition we have in the house bill. that is an additional prohibition. that makes that an illegal act. it has not been in the past. the senate bill did not even talk about it. third, with respect to the question of political intelligence, i respect the senator from iowa very much. but i doubt he has ever prosecuted anybody and put them in prison for conflict of interestduring a public service. i have. i understand that when you -- could i have 30 seconds more? mr. smith: an additional minute. mr. lungren: i understand when you do that you have to deal

with the very careful constitutional questions of people dealing with their right to apply before the government their grievances. that has become known now as lobbying. it is a actually protected activity. and the idea that we have a congress committed to transparency means that we give out as much informations we possibly can. the are difficult, conflicting interests that have to be carefully determined if we are going to deal with the question of political intelligence. it doess no good to pass a bill that will be rendered unconstitutional. and it does us no good to not carefully consider this. as a matter of fact on the senate floor it was senator lieberman who asked his fellow colleagues to give them time on the senate side to study the issue so that precisely they would not render the bill

unconstitutional. i might add that senator lieberman also served as attorney general of his state and knows whereof he speaks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, madam speaker. we know that -- i yield myself 30 seconds. i'd just like to compliment the distinguished gentleman from california who was an attorney general himself and is very sharp on these matters. could you make available to us these 16 draft errors of the senate? i would be delighted to get them from you. mr. lungren: if the gentleman would send somebody over here you can make a copy of it right now. mr. conyers: thank you very much. i am pleased now to yield to the distinguished gentleman from maryland, the ranking member of oversight and government reform, ijah cummings, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for two minutes.

mr. cummings: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to thank ms. slaughter and mr. walz for your tremendous work. i stand here and urge our members to support this bill, but certainly i have my concerns. the house republicans stripped out of a bipartisan bill that passed the senate overwhelmingly key provision that is were supported by democrats and republicans alike. senator grassley and senator from iowa who i worked with quite a bit as ranking member was among the first who criticized their actions. and after they stripped out his provisions to require greater transparency over so-called political intelligence, consultant senator grassley said and has been said again and again and i think it needs to be plated in the d.n.a. of every cell oour brains it's astonishing, these are his words, and extremely

disappointing the house would fulfill wall street's wishes by killing this provision. that is an incredible indictment and i share his disappointment this bill does not go far enough to require the transparency that we need. will the me be clear, no members of congress should be able to benefit personally from information they gained by virtue of their service in the congress. however, house republicans have rushed to the floor a weakened legislation that members have not had a chance to read the way they should have had. perhaps as a result of the bush this bill also appears to have drafting problems that need to be corrected. for example, the office of government and ethics has indicated that the current bill could be interpreted as requiring the confidential financial disclosure forms filed by low-level employees such as staff assistance in the executive branch must be posted online. mr. speaker, while i support the purpose of this legislation, while i will vote for this legislation, i have my deep

concerns, but as mr. cantor said, hopefully we'll be able to address these issues in the future and come out with a better bill w that i yield back and thank the gentleman for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentman from yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: how much time remains on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has 6 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. smith: madam speaker, we are prepared to close. so i yield to the gentleman from michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i am prepared to close and i would do so by yielding to the distinguished gentlelady from texas, sheila jackson lee, the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized. for 2 1/2 minutes.

ms. jackson lee: let me thank the members of the judiciary committee on both the chairman and the ranking member, and as all have applauded congresswom slaughter, mr. walz for their continued leadership, and i'm very pleased to have been one of the long, as they say, suffering co-sponsors since i believe the 110th congress. it's important for our colleagues to understand that i think we a come here with the intent to serve this country and to serve it well. and i believe that when we self-regulate we only enhance this institutional body that has such enormous history because of the changing times. i don't believe that members of congress are spending their time dwelling on information that they have and using it for self-purpose. but we now stand here united saying that members of congress,

employees of congress, and all federal employees, are prevented from using any nonpublic information derived from the individual's position as a member of congress or employee of congress or gained from performance of the individual's duties f person benit. that is waving a fg to all of our constients, to the nation, that says that we are here to stand united for you. i hope that helps us as we move foard on payroll tax relief and unemployment, but there is a challenge that i think we have missed and i think senator grassley has carefully analyzed why he is, in essence, offended, even with 16, if you will, drafting errors, which i hope as we move to conference that we must do will be corrected. . mr. conyers: will the gentlelady yield to me just briefly? we have 16 from our

diinguished judiciary colleague, mr. lungren, and these are merely technical errors that are corrected by the enrolling resolution that surely you must have heard about. these aren't errors that would have gone not bill. and i thank the gentlelady for yielding. ms. jackson lee: and i thank the gentleman for clarifying. i still think we should rush quickly to conference. what is missing from this, and we can't say it more often than over and over again, from the abramoff matters that people knew years ago, and information thats potentially market moving is nonpublic or not easily accessible to the public is gathered and analyzed and therefore we are missing a large gap, madam speaker, by leaving out the provision on political intelligence $100 million industry. yes, we are going to support this legislation but we can't get to conference soon enough to make this bill comparable and ready forhe american people.

we must regulate ourselves because they entrusted us to lead this nation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam speaker, i yield the balae of my time to the gentleman from california, . lungren, chairman of the house administration committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is yielded 6 1/2 minutes. mr. len gren: i thank the gentleman from texas for yielding. -- mr. lungren: i thank the gentleman from tex for yielding. madam speaker, i'd like to particularly point to staff who have worked over this last weekend, including four attorneys on my house administration committee who spent a good portion of this last weekend going through the senate bill and trying to come up with what we believe is a responsible bill, a tough bill that could pass this house and frankly did not claim -- did not include the errors that we found in the bill on the senate

side. several months before the stock act debate in the senate, questions were raised publicly about the application of existing laws related to insider trading. specifically, there were questions as to whether or not the current laws applied to members of congress or their staff. as chairman of the committee on house administration, i and my staff carefully reviewed current law and we concluded that the prohibition on insider trading and the criminal penalties associated with it are very much applicable and not just to members of congress and staff of the legislative branch. so let me be clear. let us disabuse any of the noon that somehow they could engage in insider trading between now and a bill gets on the president's desk and h signs it. it is already illegal. it is already illegal. that's the advice i've given members when i've been asked. that's the advici've been

given to the press when they've asked. it's the advice that's been given by the ethics committee to members of congress and to staff. no one within the house of representatives or the senate or the executive branch or even the judicial branch, regardless of responsibility, title or salary, should be under the false impression that they are somehow exempt under these laws. they are not. i'd be happy to yield. mr. conyers: thank you, sir. why are we paing this law if the conduct we're prohibiting is already illegal? mr. lungren: i'll be very much happy to respond to that and i will a little bit later in my statement. sometimes when congress is dedicated to redundancy, there is a question of clarification. and the fact that we've had questions asked of us over the last several hours as house administration chairman, as the ethics chairman has done, gives rise to the question that some have asked and we have tried to

disabuse them of that notion all along. although we create and uphold the laws of the land we are not above them. as elected representatives we owe our constituents to assure them that the decisions we make are for the people, not ourselves. and this assurance, madam speaker, must be governntwide. america not only needs to know that all of their government officials are subject to insider trading laws but also need to know and need proof that they're adhering to them which is exactly what the amended version of senate 2038 accomplishes. in 2010 the u.s. supreme court issued a decision in skin vs. united states that set out several specific questions that sa must be answered in criminal statutes. they failed to answer t questions it set out. the amendment does more that eliminate the senate's defective provisions and

numerous dfting errors. our bill before us also strengthens the previous state and house and senate proposals by first clarifying the broad application of insider trading laws, making sure no one questions it. although, as i say, it is already against the law and no member ought to rush out now and attempt to use his insider trading -- information for insider trading, thinking he or she is not covered. they are already covered. it expands the financial transaction disclosure requirements. we're going to be required now in terms of actual transactions, financial transactions to report within a 30-day period as opposed to doing it quarterly. we are also going to be required to disclose our mortgages which are not required right now. so we are expanding the disclosure requirements. we extend the postemployment numbers. and this is an additional

point, i would say to my friend from michigan, the former chairman of judiciary committee, we end the preferencial treatment of government officials by prohibiting them from accepting exclusive access to i.p.o.'s. that has not been against the law. there's been some suggestion that might have been carried on by some members. i have no evidence whether it has or has not. but that is an additional prohibition placed in this by i believe is not in the senate bill, is not in current law but it makes it explicit. members of congress cannot participate in accepting exclusive access to i.p.o.'s. mr. conyers: if the gentleman will yield? mr. lungren: certainly. mr. conyers: i will take back to everybody on this side of the aisle, don't rush out and try to do any last-minute deals because it's already illegal. if you do the same with the members on your side. mr. lungren: i'd be happy to if they don't know that already. but when you read the

newspapers, you would think that somehow it is proper and appropriate. and i want to make it clear not only to our colleagues but to the american public, it is against the law now. it has been against the law, and if anybody has evidence of this, they should report it to proper authoritiesecause it is against the law. mr. speaker, the amendment before us, when applied to the underlying bill, creates the clarity and accountability necessary to ensure that government officials, elected, appointed and otherwi adhere to federal insider trading laws. it prohibits members, officials and employees of every branch of government from using nonpublic privileged information for personal gain, and it creates a disclosure mechanism for finding out when they do so. additionally, the bill denies pensions for members convicted of crimes. that is an addition to current law. eliminates bones for senior executives at fannie mae and freddie mac. that is addition to current law. and directs the g.a.o. to analyze. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. lungren: a a a a a a a a a a

.

have we used up one of those key spots? so i think caps, as long as we can have a w visa type of a scenario, where they're agricultural workers, allow them to go where the work is, they're not all employing to work today. maybe they're in transit from getting across the border from getting up to maine, washington state or new york, so i think caps are dangerous. >> if i have time for one more question. how do you feel about caps? >> on the caps, we have a de facto cap now with the bureaucracy that chokes all these programs.

so, you know, why not -- >> and it's ineffective, yeah. >> so, you know, the cap and the american specialty agriculture act is 500,000. should it be higher? maybe. let's pass that and get started. i know that if our country makes a commitment and puts the right statutory language in place that we can build a program that works for farmers and is accountable for workers, and so, yeah, we can have a program that treats workers well. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i see my time's up. >> yes. you'll have a chance for a second go-round. the gentlelady from texas recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the chairman for courtesies extended. i just have comments and a quick question, and then a pointed question to mr. goldstein, if i could. i've been working on these issues. i am not from any of the states

of the particular witnesses, but certainly have joined my colleagues in the importance of trying to address questions dealing with farm warningers -- farm workers, and in addition, i've seen the plight of many of the large farming communities as it relates to during these harsh times, the loss of product, if you will, in the field. i consider america to be the breadbasket of this world. not only do people here in this country need to eat at prices they can afford, but we are able to serve those around the world. i'm frustrated, however, because we are having this hearing, and many of you may have heard me over and over talk about comprehensive immigration reform, which would pale -- even though we discussed the farm worker visa separately, it would discuss a farm worker approach. when we talk about visas, you

can imagine in this time of unemployment, no matter how much you may make the argument are americans coming to pick products, there will be those who say you're taking jobs away from americans. let me just ask -- i'm going straight across the board if you can give me yes, no, and then i'll get here hopefully within my time. mr. black, does your state have housing, school requirements for migrant workers, farm workers? no, ma'am, we abide by the h-2, the 33 producers in georgia, i believe, that are use it h2a, they abide by these requirements. our you're saying you don't provide housing? i said housing and schooling for the children of my grant workers, housing for the families and schooling. >> those are the individual responsibilities of those crews that come to work with those farmers. they're living in the community. >> all right. so it's the burden of the

migrant workers, they provide their own housing. are their children allowed to go to school in georgia? >> yes, ma'am. but what i would point out is whether or not families are actually with them or not. you >> ok. all right. i thank you. i have to move rather quickly. and do you have any american workers in your field? >> very, very limited number. >> do they come when you call them? >> i'm sorry? >> do they come when you call them? >> well, the best example i have of that, congresswoman, is one of my growers in georgia this past year, under his requirements in hiring people through 50% of the contract period, processed 1,500 local workers, he was able to get eight of them to stay. >> let me move quickly. mr. winger, housing, schooling? >> currently a lot of growers will provide housing. they see that as an attractant to get workers. but it's not required.

and schooling, if they have children that are there, they go to the public schools. >> it's open to them? >> yeah. >> mr. wicker of north carolina? >> i can only speak to our h2 workers, and their families don't travel with them. the state department won't issue them visas to travel with them. >> what about american workers for mr. winger and mr. wicker? just quick answers, please. >> it would be the same thing. schooling is available through all the public schools. >> no, american workers working in your business. >> yeah, sometimes there's housing with it. >> american workers, u.s. people working in -- i'm asking you, do they work in your business? are they in the field picking product? >> we have some that went through the legalization process that are now american citizens. >> yes, ma'am, we do have u.s. workers. >> native u.s. workers. >> yes, local workers, absolutely. >> mr. goldstein, what are the problems that we should be looking at in this visa

program? >> well -- >> thank you, gentlemen. >> the problems were actually discussed in a 1909 report by the commission on country life to teddy roosevelt, and reported again in the commission on mike radio trore labor to president truman which said the same thing the 1909 report said and the same thing as the commissioner of ago tultyal workers said in 1992, we need to modernize labor practices, improve wages and working conditions to attract and retain the farm workers, stop relying on the desperation abroad to bring in vulnerable workers on restricted nonimmigrant visas. we need to stop and end the discrimination in labor laws against farm workers. they don't get overtime pay. small farm workers don't even have to pay the minimum wage. we need to do things to stabilize the workforce and treat farm workers as human beings. and we desperately need immigration reform, because

more than half are undocumented. and we should give them the same opportunity that this nation of immigrants has given to other people, to become immigrants, leading to citizenship, so they have bargaining power with their employers and they are earn the right to become citizens who can actually vote and have an impact on policies that affect them. >> thank you, gentlemen. mr. chairman? >> could i make a correction to the record? i know that the definition of native americans are those who were defined to have been here when all of us came, so my question was trying to establish whether u.s. citizens other than those who come from out of the country to work were seeking these jobs, and so i think you answered some are, some are not. >> i think the gentlelady will go on her second round now. do you support programs so you

can exploit vulnerable workers? >> so we could exploit -- >> exploit vulnerable workers. one of the criticisms expressed by mr. goldstein was that these various programs rely on vulnerable workers. i'm trying to ask your position on vulnerable workers and how your particular program does not rely on vulnerable workers if that's the case. how do you empower your workers to the program that you envision for us to try to solve this problem? >> well, mr. chairman, no, we do not support anything that exploits vulnerable workers. >> well, how would they be empowered by the programs that you support? >> well, i think it creates a lot of opportunity in the marketplace. i think the portability, some of the things you were talking about earlier, being able to compete is an excellent step for us to take. >> mr. winger? >> no, we don't -- the interesting thing is, if you're

worried about workers being taken advantage of, then give them a document so they can travel and vote with their legs if they think they haven't been dealt with correctly, and you don't need to be a citizen, you just need a legal work document that empowers you. in california, we have a minimum wage. we pay overtime for agricultural work. if you're really concerned about the plight of those that are living in the shadows and they're undocumented, then give them a legal document. it was interesting last year, last summer, we came by a peach field that was being harvested. every single one of them at lunch break had their phones out, and they were texting and calling people. the people we have working in the fields today aren't somebody that's just stuck back in the shadows, given a legal documentation so they can come out of the shadows as far as being a workforce, but there should be no reason that anybody should be taken advantage of. >> no, we do not support a program that would allow exploitation. then how are they empowered?

what in your program allows them not to be exploited? let me put it that way. >> they come through orientation and we have a collective bargaining agreement at north carolina growers are the farm labor organizing committee. they meet migrant health providers. they meet english as a second language providers. they meet wage an hour investigators. there's a lot of oversight and accountability. we give full disclosure. we keep records and provide wage statements. we comply with the law. that's how you make sure that workers are not exploited. >> as you may know, i'm kinds of frustrated by this whole thing. i was here in the 1980's. i was the republican floor manager of simpson-missoli. i wrote a lot of what is now h2a program hoping that would work. i look now and see it didn't work. we haven't had the protection of the farm workers that i believe we should have.

if they had a legal status and they were out of the shadows of illegality, and so i'm trying to put the best program forward that i think can pass and that can actually work. but then i hear things like a cap. does anybody here know how many tourists we have coming to the united states per year? 50 million. so what if i were here to advocate an arbitrary cap of 25 million? doesn't relate to the flow. doesn't relate to the market. doesn't relate to anything except we in congress decided we're going to have 25 million tourist visas here, even though the demand is 50 million t. seems to me it makes more sense for us to establish whatever program we establish without a cap, on an annual basis, reflects the need as proven by the agricultural community, approved by the department of agriculture, and then reviewed on a yearly basis. if in fact it's a million,

little a million. people seem to be afraid of saying that, but it seems to me it ought to be what the market tells us and then be real with respect to that and give people the mobility in the marketplace so that, in fact, they're not wards of a particular employer and find themselves back in their home country when they have a legitimate gripe with the employer that they have and an ability to join unions if they want to, not join unions. those sorts of things. i try and deal in the reality of what's out there. to me, caps is like saying we know we have 50 million visitors that come here, but we in congress are going say 25 million. why? well, because we think 25 million. maybe we ought to deal with the market in that way. whatever program we adopt, my hope in authoring my bill was to have flexibility and then

comes the protections of the existing law, which they can rely on. gentlelady from california. >> well, just a couple of comments. i wasn't here in the congress during the reagan years. but i think the problem we often talk about wasn't enforced, the real problem was that there was no mechanism for new people to come in. there was up significant capacity to meet our needs, whether it was agriculture or nuclear physicists. that was the problem. we're still grappling with that problem. my colleague from texas mentions the need for broad reform of the immigration laws, and before i was ever an elected official, i used to be an immigration lawyer, and i taught immigration law, and i

can tell you that the system is a mess. i mean, it's a mess when it comes to agriculture. it's a mess when it comes to family law. it's a mess when it comes to starter visas for high-tech. i mean, it needs to reform. i hope that we can do that. i sense that's not going to be in the remainder of this congress, but it's an obligation that i hope we can address, and it would be wonderful to do it on a bipartisan basis. i think looking at this ag area , and i credit everybody that's trying to address this, but the idea that we could actually get -- let's say we put a cap on 500,000. you wouldn't find 500,000 people to apply and be interviewed in offices to get to american farms in time to avoid the destruction of

american agriculture. the idea of a cap really is not even worth discussing, because it won't work. there aren't enough people to apply. we have to talk about how do we help the people who have worked in the fields to gain a legal status that allows them to continue to work, which we need them to do, but also allows them the dignity and rights that they should have so they can be treated fairly. i certainly would not suggest any individuals here, but that happens in the wide world we live in, and people need bargaining power, and they need the capacity to stand up for themselves which you can't do. they live in the shadow, that's how we want to describe it. i do understand that immigration is a subject that has become, to my mind, almost

irrationally hot as a topic in america. we really should just be thinking of what's the right thing to do for our country. when i think about how our country has been strengthened by immigration, my grandfather was an immigrant. we had enough to come to america and dream american dreams and become americans with us. and that's what this discussion should be about. we should embrace our history and make sure it's part of our future. and the ag discussion, as i think just a small part of that discussion. now, having said that, i want to talk about the economy, because we have a tough economy now. and even though we've got a

largely unauthorized workforce in the field, they're contributing to the economic wealth of the country. when i look at commissioner black, your testimony, you talk about a survey of respondents indicating that they had lost 10 million dollars due to georgia's new immigration law. but if correctly, and you can say yes or no, the survey was 57 owe people who responded but we don't know whether all those people were even farmers, and my understanding is that there are 48,000 farms in georgia. so the $10 million loss and the 570 who responded to the survey is not all that was lost in georgia if they have 48,000 farms. wouldn't that be correct? >> yes, ma'am.

and if i may explain the rationale, the methodology on the survey, rather than doing economic models and extrapolating, we wanted to ask direct farmers direct questions . of our 800 respondents to the surveys, they were all farmers. of the ones that answered the economic impact question, that was the 500 number you mentioned. and we said 26% indicated losses that totaled over $10 million. so that's roughly 125, 130 farmers. then one can extrapolate that however you may care, but we know that was the direct impact to those producers and their response. >> thank you. i know my time is up. i'll just note the university of georgia has done that analysis and what they are saying is that the direct losses would be $140 million in the spring of 2011 for just

seven of the key vegetable crops. according to their study, the direct losses would lead to an additional $250 million in indirect losses to georgia's economy for a total of $391 million lost to the georgia economy because of that immigration law they passed. thank you, mr. chairman. my time is up. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to address the adverse effect of wage rates. i have growers back home, harvesters who utilize the programs because they know that it's the right way to go about it. but yet their competitors in some instances realize that because the market drives wages more than anything, that they lose a tremendous competitive advantage and, in fact, the resulting outcome has been that you almost incentivize the hiring of illegal workers. i guess if we had, you know, fixed costs and fixed price,

then an adverse effective wage rate could be fixed for the growers' profit. but that's not the case. this is a market-driven enterprise, and my question to the gentleman is what is your comment on the adverse effective wage rate. >> well, congressman, it's a difficult issue. when you look in a packing shed that might have some minimum wage jobs, and yet you're forced -- that is placed on a job like that, having to abide by that effective wage. that's why i really -- when we talk about the whole issue of wages in agriculture, one of the things i'm glad we've been able to do in our study is kind of explode the myth that we underpay people, those doing the productive work. but the facts are thereof some

minimum wage jobs still left and having flexibility is important. >> mr. winger? >> i think any time you set wages at a certain level, and if you let people come in and meet that for what they're doing, their responsibility level, they're going to find what that wage should be. as mr. black has said, there's going to be certain things that have a higher wage rate because maybe they work harder, maybe it's outside. where others, you don't have the same responsibility. so let the market determine -- i mean, agriculture, i can't think of any group of society that is more free market driven, and let's let our wages be free market driven. >> how do you feel? >> we're advocating a minimum wage that's tied to the federal or state minimum wage, whichever is highest. what we're looking for is a base hourly wage rate that is predictable. i agree with these other gentlemen that the depression

of the grower, he's got responsibilities, skill sets, you're going to pay more than the base hourly wage rate. but it is so expensive to farm. what my members tell me consistently is this -- all i know is over the last 20 years, our wage rates have gone up on average 4.7% a year. i'm scared to go to the bank and push all my chips into the middle of the table and sign the note to buy another farm or invest capital and infrastructure to try to grow more and do better. i'm scared, because i can't get my hands around where we're going with this labor issue. all i know is it's going up, and it's driving me out of business. >> don't you think this incentivizes those who don't want to participate in a program to hire those that are illegal? >> we think it's actually too low. it is a market-based wage rate. it is based on a usda survey of agricultural employers' wages.

it includes wage rates paid to undocumented workers, and because undocumented workers are willing to work for less than u.s. citizens, that survey is resulting in depressed wage rates. in addition, -- yet my harvesters back home can't compete because there are too many being hired illegally at less than the average wage rate. >> we're advocating for a complete rate to that. we'd like to have greater enforcement of farm workers' rights. you just heard mr. wicker was saying some of these are making $30 an hour. i've been talking to some growers who say that worker makes an average of $10 an hour, which is above the average in most states, but can't we find a way to work together? maybe paying $15 an hour plus health insurance. >> that's a possibility. commissioner black? >> one other point, when you set things, one of our growers

completed his work, completed his paperwork, turned the paperwork in. in the process, they were changed one penny in our state. did the bureaucratic system help them change that paperwork upfront? absolutely not. he went to the back of the line and started all over for the change of one penny. another good example surely does create obstacles for people using the program. >> thank you. my time is up. >> i thank the gentleman and i thank all of our members here. i'd like to thank their witnesses for testimony today. without objection, all members will have five additional days to commit questions for the witnesses, which we'll forward and ask you to respond as properly as possible in writing so that we could make your answers part of the record. without oakland, all members will have five legislative days to submit any additional

materials for inclusion in the record. again, i'd like to thank our witnesses, and this hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> our coverage of the annual conservative political action conference continues. in a few moments, we'll have senator mitch mcconnell. in a little less than a half-hour, a for her oum this year's elections. and then former presidential candidates, texas governor rick perry and herman cane. -- and herman cain. on this morning's "washington journal," a conversation with james lewis, former director of the president's commission on cybersecurity. we'll also talk with senator john barrasso of wyoming. he's a member of the conference committee trying to work out an agreement on extending the payroll tax cut for the rest of the year. and a look at how the federal government measures price increases and how inflation affects entitlement programs, such as social security. our guests are michael horrigan of the bureau of labor statistics and barry bosworth of the brookings institution. "washington journal" is live on

c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> a couple of live events to tell you about today. the turkish foreign minister talks about his country's role in the middle east at the center for strategic and international studies. that's on c-span3 at 10:00 a.m. eastern. on c-span2 at 1:00 p.m. eastern, a brookings institution forum on a new strategic arms reduction treaty. >> just so we all remember, here is that wonderful moment when senator lott revealed his nostalgia for the state right segregationist south. take a look. >> when strom their manned ran for president, we voted for him. we're proud of him. >> talkingpointsmemo.com on the internet and his website's emergence into the breaking news business. >> the media ecosystem is such a different world today than it was 10 years ago.

i think things like that happen all the time now. i mean, i know that there's certainly many big stories that t.p.m. has had over the last decade, you know, more and more. now we have an editorial staff of 20 people, so we're breaking stories right and left. i think the thing is it's almost become it's become common place and not nearly as surprising today as it was back then. >> more about t.p.m. and josh marshall, subpoenaed night on c-span's "q&a." the american conservative union's annual conference is underway in washington. speakers thursday included senate minority leader mitch mcconnell. he talked about the economy, the deficit, and other issues for about 25 minutes. >> thank you very much. it's great to see all of you. good morning. i want to thank al and the

a.c.u. board, staff, and volunteers. thanks for the opportunity once again to gather as a movement to share our ideas and our talents in the great cause of liberty. every year at cpac, past meets present, and both gain new energy, enthusiasm, and allies for the fight. we have a chance to honor and to learn from the conservative giants of the past and to size up new ones, and we get to hear from those who are leading the cause in state houses across the country and here in washington. our ranks are growing. one of the great developments in congress is the emergence of so many strong, principled conservative leaders. you just had a chance to hear from mike lee and ron johnson, andy heard from marco rubio, one of the most -- i think we

would all agree one of the most inspiring young conservatives in america. our numbers in congress are expanding, and i can tell you this, i'm very happy to have the reinforcements. boy, we needed them after 2009 and 2010. now the trick is to stick together, to keep our focus where it belongs, and i want to tell you this, i always love coming to cpac. and you probably know why. conservatives are just simply more fun than liberals. there's a reason for that, by the way. it's because we are always right. the reason liberals are always wringing their hands all the time, if you notice that, they always wring their hands all the time, they know we've got better arguments than they do. so they spent half their time thinking how to convince people that what's wrong is right, and the other half looking for

conservatives to tear down or cpac conferences to disrupt. you all know the liberal playbook. pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and then polarize it. but rarely have we seen those tactics employed with the kind of zeal we see today. the white house and its lieutenants have made an art form out of the orchestrated attack. they've shown they'll go after anybody or any organization they think is standing in their way. we saw it just last week when one of the top democrats announced a plan to haul law-abiding citizens before a congressional panel just because they don't happen to agree with causes that he supports. you know the drill. expose the folks to public view, releaps the liberal thugs on them, and then hope the public pressure or unwanted attention scares them from

supporting similar causes down the road. now, for a president who spent so much time talking about fairness, there's a serious shortage of it in the white house and among many of his closest allies. again and again, this administration and its allies have used the resources of the government itself to intimidate or silence those who question or oppose it. and to reward their friends and punish their enemies. this is why an administration that claims to support private sector job creation ended up killing a pipeline project that promised to create tens of thousands of private sector jobs. and this is why a president who claims to value diversity is telling the men and women who run religious schools and hospitals and charities in this country that they now face a choice that no one in the united states should ever have to make. violate your conscious, pay a penalty, or close your doors.

we saw it during the healthcare debate. when the department of health and humor services issued a gag order on a private insurance company for the supposed offense -- listen to this -- of telling seniors what the president's healthcare bill would mean for them. and as americans continue to struggle as a result of this president's economic policies, we see it in the personal attacks on private citizens or industries that the administration wants to make a convenient foil. these things demean the office of president. they corrode our democracy, and they need to stop. [applause] look, if our democratic friends can't convince people of the wisdom of their policies, they should change those policies. but attacking private citizens or groups for the supposed crime of turning a profit or

expressing an opinion that the administration doesn't happen to share is not in the president's job description. now, look, the president's job is to unite the country, not divide it. his job is to bridge differences, not aggravate them, to encourage success, not condemn it. and to honor and embrace the free exercise of religion and trying right there in the first amendment, not suppress it. the president seems to have forgotten that he was elected to lead all americans, that he was elected to be president of the united states, not the occupy wall street fan club. i mean, i don't know about you, but i think that the leader of the free world and his advisors have better things to do than

dig through other people's tax returns. at a time when 13 million americans are looking for a job and can't find one, i think the president has higher priorities than picking on fox news. at a moment when the national debt makes us look more like a third-world country than the last best hope on earth, i think our highest elected official should be looking for solutions instead of scapegoats. but unfortunately, that's what passes for leadership in the white house these days. here's a president who spent two years reconfiguring the u.s. economy, who put the government in charge of banks, the auto industry, the insurance industry, the student loan business, and healthcare. now we're seeing the results, and he acts like he somehow didn't have anything to do with it.

look, we know new presidents face challenges when they come to office. ronald reagan certainly did. but once the oath of office has been taken, americans expect their president to forge ahead and take responsibilities for the policies they put in place. not this president. no, no. he wants to change the subject. well, here's my message to cpac. we're not going to let him get away with it, are we? look, we're going to push hard to reform the tax code. we're going to keep up the fight against a regulatory regime that's suffocating free enterprise. we'll keep pushing the white house to allow americans to use american energy, and we will not let a single day pass from now until november without reminding the american people of what this president had done.

we're going to remind folks we're not in this mess because of a tsunami in japan or a debt crisis in europe. we're in it because the president got nearly everything he wanted for two long years. two long years, and i assure you this, when november rolls around, the american people will know who was in charge when the stimulus was passed. they'll know who was in charge when obamacare became law. they'll know who was in charge when americans' credit rating was downgraded for the first time ever. they'll know this president's record. i have to add he'll have a bunch of time to play golf as he wants to. look, let's face, it the only reason we're getting any positive economic news at all,

more than three years after this presidency began, is because the american people put a restraining order on him and pelosi in november of 2010. last week's jobs report happened in spite of the president's policies, not because of them. it's the obama economy now. we're want going to let people forget it. we'll start with his promises. it's a long list, so i'll just mention a couple. three years ago this month, the president signed a trillion dollar stimulus bill that we were told would keep unemployment below 8% and drop kick us out of the recession. how did that work out? well, unemployment has now stood above 8% for 36 months,

three straight years. if you lose a job in the obama economy, you can now expect to spend 40 weeks looking for a new one. fewer people have jobs today than when the stimulus was signed, and more than three years into his presidency, there's still 5.6 million fewer jobs in this country than when the great recession began. among african-americans, unemployment is nearly 14%. among hispanics, 10.5%. among recent college deprad waits, more than 13%. for those who need help the most, this president's economic policies have done the least. so, if i were president obama, i'd keep the champagne on ice. this is not an economy to be proud of. shortly after the bill was signed, president obama made another promise. he said he'd cut the deficit in

half by the end of his first term. how did that work out? well, last week the congressional budget office said that the federal deficit for the coming year, obama's fourth year in office, would be over a trillion dollars for the fourth consecutive year. he hasn't even come close, not even close. on this issue, the debt the president has been completely and totally awol. republicans have had to fight tooth and nail for every dime in savings we've secured. president obama has ignored the advice of his own deficit reduction commission. he's ignored the dire warnings that come to us every single day from across the atlantic, and he has failed the american people who entrusted him with the stewardship of this country. more spending, more debt, fewer jobs, that's the sad legacy of this administration's policies. that's how historians are going to remember the obama economy.

that's how they'll remember this president's three-year experiment in big government. as a colossal failure that managed about bring about one good thing, one good thing came out of all this -- a resurgence of common sense conservatism. thanks to the liberal overreach of the obama administration, countless americans have rediscovered the constitutional principles that bind us. they have a new appreciation for the fact that, in this country, the government serves the people, not the other way around. and that's why, when the american people read that the compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled over the last 10 years and that the benefit for federal workers are about 60% higher than taxpayers who pay for them, they have every reason to demand a federal pay freeze.

anyway, listen to this. right now there are 2.2 million people in the federal workforce, 2.2 million. yet at a time when the federal government in washington is routinely spending upwards of a trillion dollars a year more than it's taking in, layoffs of federal workers have dropped to fewer than 300 a year. according to one analysis i read, that means the federal workers are 13 times more likely to die of natural causes than to be laid of. -- than to be laid off. and this president, by the way, has added 150,000 jobs to the federal government during his term, 150,000 jobs. washington is a boom town. now, you tell me. what about the performance of the federal government over the past few years makes you believe that everyone who works for it is absolutely necessary?

the government is doing too much already. it's time to stop hiring people to fill jobs in washington that don't need to be done. it's time to impose some balance between the public and the private sector. under this president, government spending has gone up more than 20%. the federal government has gone up 43%. this is one of the reasons i never tire of telling people that the problem with our nation's finances isn't that government tax is too little, but that it spends too much. i don't know about you, but the way i see it, until washington proves it can spend money more wisely than it does right now, the taxpayers have no reason to hand over another single dime in higher taxes.

look, until washington puts a higher priority on using the money it gets on things we need , instead of blowing it on solar panel companies, the american people should tell congress it doesn't need another cent. and that leads to another thing the american people are reminded of over the past few years, people should be rewarded for what they know rather than who they know. you remember throughout the debate over healthcare, americans saw the white house cut deals with special interests and lawmakers that we later learned were in exchange for their votes in favor of obamacare. then in the month that followed, they were granted waivers, waivers to the very groups that lobbied for the bill. they lobbied for the bill, but

they don't want it to apply to them. well, most americans don't think that one group of americans should be entitled to special treatment just because of their political sympathies, and that's just one of the reasons they're going to keep fighting to repeal this bill. i can tell you this. senate republicans want everybody in america to get a waiver from obamacare, everybody. not just the politically connected few. that's also why republicans in congress have joined together to fight the individual mandate in the courts and why we'll continue to do so until this unconstitutional burden is overturned. and then we're going to replace it with the common-sense reforms that lower costs, and that's what americans really want. but let me tell what you these things have in common. they all have one thing in

common. every special favor or preference we've seen from this white house reveals the very same thing. and that's a lack of faith in the ability of americans to figure things out on their own. the roots of liberalism have always been the same. what liberals just can't seem to accept is the idea of a free people and free institutions pursuing happiness as they see fit. with a deep respect for the rights and differences of others, without the heavy hand of government trying to direct their lives and their destinies for them. the administration's repeat assault on religious liberty is a vivid and troubling example of this. what this white house is now saying is that the federal government will impose a fine on catholic institutions for no other reason than that the religious beliefs of catholics happen to run counter to those of a sitting president.

but it's more than just a violation of conscious. this means, for example, that a place like the university of notre dame, the free exercise of religion will now cost about $10 million a year. for catholic charities, america's largest private provider of social services to children, families, and the poor, the cost of religious freedom could now be as high as $100 million a year. this is not an administration that welcomes diversity under the first amendment. it's an administration that fears that diversity. the obama administration has crossed a dangerous line, and we will fight this attack on the fundamental right to religious freedom until the courts overturn it or until we have a president who will reverse it.

picking winners and losers, rewarding friends, punishing enemies, silencing critics, these things don't just strike at the heart of conserve tism, they -- conservatism, they strike at the heart of what america is all about. these are the things that drive the obama economy, and they drive an ideological agenda that, as we have seen again and again, has little regard for those who descend or for a constitution that's meant to protect them. so, let me leave you with this. keep up the fight. if some would use the powers of their office to curtail our freedoms or limit free enterprise, then we need to use

the power of free citizens to restore them. you know before i became republican leader in the senate i was best known for a very long fight i waged against campaign finance laws. they were, in my view, a serious blow to the right of free speech. i can tell you it wasn't easy. and it didn't win me a lot of friends, and that included some in my own party. in fact, the low point, the low point in what whole fight is when i watched a republican president actually sign into law a bill that i had been fighting for a decade. but i didn't give up. i sued the government. i'm still fighting it to this day. look, i bring it up not to pat myself on the back. i bring it up to make the point that i'll continue to fight it through constitutional channels that are my birthright as a citizen. this is the great power the

founders gave each and every one of us, everyone in this room has this power. each and every one of us has the ability to fight back against the infringement of our freedoms by the government. no president from either party is more powerful than the constitution of the united states. and you all know that your job is to share that with others. to share that with others. the theme of thisier's cpac is the question that for us answers itself. do we still hold these truths? do we still hold these truths? rare until my lifetime or yours have we had such an opportunity or an obligation to prove that we do. so, i want to thank you, all of you, for your devotion to the

constitution and to the principles that inform it. i want to thank you for the determination. i want to thank you for the energy in supporting candidates who share our views. it's through your devotion and your commitment to the cause of liberty that liberty is actually preserved. it won't happen any other way. as reagan famously put it, freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. we didn't pass it to our children in the blood stream. it must be fought for, protected, and handed on to them to do the same. you are doing that necessary work, and i can tell you the rest of us are so very, very grateful. thank you so much.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the conservative political action conference also heard about this year's elections from activist ralph reed and "washington times" chief political writer. this is half an hour. >> we got a great panel here, but i have a question first. i want you to be honest. how many of you have ever mocked or made fun of the president's call for hope and change? raise your hands. with all due respect, i'd like to say that's really stupid.

the reason for that is simple. the last three elections, 2006, 2008, and 2010, voters have voted against the party in power. they are unhappy with both sides. voters are looking for hope and change as much today as they were in 2008. they do realize that if we have to count on the politicians for the change, there's no hope. but they are looking for that hope, and you ought to be encouraging republican candidates, people you support to offer that positive step forward. now, as we talk about the electoral 2012 landscape, i'm happy to have on the panel today eric ericson from redstate.com. wee also got ralph hallow from "the washington times."

and ralph reed from the faith and family foundation. faith and freedom foundation. and as we talk about these issues, just to put it in context, i want you to realize this election is being held at a special time. the last time that government spending went down in america from one year to the next was two years before i was born. that was not in the clinton era or even the jimmy carter era. dwight eisenhower was president and elvis presley recorded his first single in the same year that spending went down for the last time. the good news is voters are ready to change that. we're not sure if the politicians have caught us yet. as i wander over, i wanted to ask ralph hallow to start us off. ralph, the issue is very simple. right now, as we look at the presidential election, we see a republican electorate that is not excited about their

front-runner, but 75% of republican voters think that mitt romney will be the nominee. how do you see this playing out? >> the political landscape is littered with imponderables and improbables and unknowables far later in the contest than it usually is. i hate to say this at a conservative political action conference, but none of the signs that i see are particularly good. intensity has gone from -- it's usually with republicans. polling i've seen shows that intensity or enthusiasm about voting is now with the democrats. i regard that as a very bad sign. the enthusiasm among republican voters for any of the

candidates is dangerously low so that, no matter who you have win this, and you'd have to be an extreme partisan to believe it's not going to be mitt romney. he just has the money to get the job done to go all the way to the end zone. that is for the nomination. but none of these folks has the enthusiasm -- generates the enthusiasm needed in november to make -- bring more -- bring more republican voting independents and republican activists and so on. it's the same story. it seems to me that the republican party has had every time -- i hope this is not taken as a criticism of any of the candidates for the republican party, but every time the republican party puts up a candidate who is not conservative, it has lost the

elections. if i'm wrong on that, i'd like some data. >> well, eric, you have been notable in your expression of dissatisfaction with the field. how did we get to this point, and what does it really mean? >> you know, the left blames george bush for a lot of things that he's not to blame for. i actually blame bush for this. just follow along here. every president generally has an heir apparent when they leave office. george bush had dick cheney for a vice president, who did not want run, and typically what the base of the parties do, either democrat or republican, they have a referendum on that president's legacy by either choosing their heir apparent or someone else. because he left the void there, we went all the way back to 2000 and started over again ark lot of us having some of the same fights we've had, and we're now at the situation where all the candidates, including romney, are a bit of a victim of this void that was left by not having an heir.

i think the republican party has yet to reset itself from the bush years to be able to move forward. >> ralph, on this intensity issue, has the obama administration helped the republican party in general, and more specifically, is this recent issue about the contraception mandate going to provide some of the intensity for republicans and conservatives? >> well, i think that whoever ends up being the republican nominee, and i would guess take issue a little bit with my fellow ralph on the panel and take that -- i've worked on every presidential campaign since 1980. i was 40 -- i was 4 years old. and this is the most wide open, the most fluid, the most topsy-turvy -- i mean, think about this for a moment. there have been eight contests so far, and the front-runner has won three of them. and you've had three different

winners. and sitting where we are today, with the change in the party rules so that the delegates are awarded proportionally for the most part, i realize that later california, a lot of states in the northeast are going to be winner take all, but really, i would have said that the day of the conventions deciding the nomination was over and was settled by the rise of the primary. i'm not sure that will be the case in 2012, and i would say that whoever emerges from this process, whether it's romney or somebody else, is going to be a better and more disciplined, a tougher candidate when they have to stand on a stage with barack obama. remember that four years ago, when barack obama had to go 12 rounds with hillary clinton, and what was true in 1992 when bill said you buy one, you get two, that was true