ses. we are increasing our inspections. much of easy plays are located on the private or the state. >> as we push to open up land in a responsible way, not sacrificing one resourced for another, we also have to consider things like the casing. quite frankly, i hope we are thinking about what happens when the usefulness of the well is gone. i hope we are thinking about the up front. can you give me some sort of idea on with the idea is to make

sure the land is being leased responsibly and that the development is being done responsibly? >> let me start by saying that in 2009, when secretary salazar and i came into our new positions, we inherited an oil gas program that was on the verge of collapse. close to 50% of the possibilities being offered for lease were being protested or litigated. that is unacceptable. literally hundreds of leases that have been awarded by the department of interior -- specifically the bureau of land management -- were tied up in protest. the millions of dollars we had create -- collected from oil and gas companies were placed in suspense accounts until those protests and litigation could be resolved. the rules that were in place to govern the oil and gas

operations and ensure production verification of the oil and gas that were being extracted were over 20 years old. technology has advanced significantly in that time, but no one was paying attention to updating those rules. we had epa and federal agencies criticizing the analysis that was being reformed by the bureau of land management, primarily as it related to air quality documents. we have other public land stakeholders criticizing the leasing everywhere and anywhere mentality that was going on at the time. there were concerns about the environmental damage that was occurring as a result of not doing a very good job of looking at these plans before we committed those lands through leasing. we took it upon ourselves not to ignore those challenges or problems but to address them. one of the ways we have been able to address them is to

ensure there is a better opportunity to look at these prior to committing them through leasing. the primary purpose of our leasing reform is to make sure that the lands that we are going to be leasing are the right ones and they have the greatest chance to be developed in a timely manner. >> did you say that 50% of the leases when you took over were being either litigated or protested? >> close to 50% of the parcels we were offering will be in protest against. at this point in time, it is around 35%. >> ok. my time is up. we will save some for the next round. thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator. this is a very useful line of questioning.

there are a significant number of leases that are capable of being drilled that are not being drilled. is that the same situation where you have a significant number of leases already approved and get, the drilling activities are not domestic? >> yes, that is correct. there is a significant percentage of the leases that have been issued by the interior department offshore that are not currently subject to an exploration or development plan. we try to develop both through our leasing process and post- leasing processes to try to encourage prompt and diligent development of those leases, to bring them into exploration, bring them into production. as the director indicated, there are a number of commercial factors that way into industry decisions about when and where to drill. we are trying to line up

policing process and our incentives to influence those decisions so that we can have prompt development. thank you. >> director, in the present budget, we mentioned there's a request for additional fee is that will be comparable to the increases that we have provided. can you indicate how you improve your program? >> i would be happy to. thank you for the question. it is important that we are going to be leasing these parcels of public lands for oil and gas development that we have sufficient inspections to ensure that it is being done responsibly. it is our goal to inspect drilling operations, and those high risk operations are those with the most violations but also those producing the most

volumes of gas or oil. we also test for plugging operations and will completion operations. the additional moneys we would get from the inspection fee would provide sufficient fundsto our work force that would allow us another opportunity or greater opportunity to be on site when the drilling is actually taking place. >> thank you. one of the other aspect is the fact that the new technology, the fracking technology, has raised issues, which are being evaluated by other agencies. it is i would think something you are looking at more closely now in terms of your inspection program. is that accurate? >> it is. fracking is not new by any means.

our inspections have always included looking at the operations as they were occurring, but again, the additional at these would provide opportunities to be on- site more often than we are right now. >> the secretary also indicated recently that his intention to raise the royalty rate from 12.5% to 18 1/75% -- can you tell me how these rates, the present rate and the proposed rate -- compared to state rates? >> it varies somewhat. our primary goal is to make sure the american taxpayer is receiving a fair return for the assets being developed. that is the least that we can do. at the same time, as we go forward, and we have analyzed what many of the states are charging relative to royalty, the productions that are

occurring within our own state lands -- we have also done some analysis of what some of the other countries are charging relative to royalties or similar types of fees that are assessed of oil and gas companies. even though our budget was based upon an assumption that an increase of royalties would go to 18.75% for both oil and natural gas, let me reassure the members of this committee that that decision has not been reached. we are continuing to look at the full range of statistics that we have been able to compile, the analysis that we are continuing to reform prior to making any decision to increase the royalties. >> thank you very much. a very important question was raised about the difference between production figures on private lands and public lands, and i think there are commercial

reasons why, even though the lease is available, it is not being utilized. can you list the three or four basic number of rigs -- insufficient number of rigs? >> i do not have the rigs, but i do know that the availability is an equation that comes into consideration by the company's relative to where they will be developing or drilling. let me just say right up front that it is a lot cheaper to drill on private land than it is on public land. all they have to do is cut a deal with a private landowner. when you come before -- with a proposal to drill on public land, there's a lot of factors that we do evaluate, again, we have to look to the appropriateness of leasing certain parcels for development or any particular use. we have to adhere to

consultation to insure that the proposals that are afforded can be adequately mitigated. there are an awful lot of rules and regulations that the company's would have to adhere to, but each of those rules and regulations are intended to make sure that the production goes forward to the degree that it can be allowed as appropriate, but also, the leasing reforms that we have applied is to provide greater certainty that if they lease a parcel of land that they will be able to develop the parcel of land. i can tell you in 2009, that was not the case. >> thank you. i will follow on because you have given me a little bit of assurance by saying that the decision has not been made on this issue of increasing the rates on shore. you have stated, and rightly so,

that it is more costly to develop on public land. so as we look to a royalty rate increase, as has been suggested, that, too, adds to that cost, and again to my earlier point, i think it causes developers to look to develop on state and in private before they would turn to our public lands. i do think it is important to recognize the study that was commissioned by the department to look at the royalty rate structures on our federal lands and compared them to other states, as you have noted, to other countries. there is a consensus coming out of the report that says that a rate increase is not warranted. they compare wyoming to other on-shore areas, conclude that

wyoming's competitive edge is on shaky ground. alberta and british columbia are aggressively seeking to attract investment by offering incentives through lower royalty rates that encourage development. i really hope that the department is looking very critically at your own analysis and working to ensure, again, that we are not putting additional hurdles in place for development on federal lands, additional costs on top of the cost already in place. i am glad to hear you make the statement that it has not been -- a conclusion has not been reached. do you have any idea when you might make that determination, where you are going with that? >> senator, we really do not, or at least i do not. we had conversations as recently

as yesterday with the office of management and budget regarding proposed rules as it relates to royalty increases. wyoming is doing quite well. he cited the study that says they are losing their competitive edge -- >> your study, not mine. >> nonetheless, there are factors we have taken into consideration relative to what we will ultimately propose for any royalty rate increase. the royalty rate in place now for both natural gas and oil has been in place for decades. i do think it was prudent that we conducted the study, that we are doing the analysis to determine what is a fair return to the american taxpayer. >> let me ask you about the timeliness of where we are with ocs permitting. can you tell us how the department is doing with respect

to hiring the additional personnel that you need to conduct the inspections and process the permits? as i mentioned in my statement, in the last interior bill, we move forward the new fees to help with this effort, provide authority to not only increase the level of competition but really, to try to get additional funds for those personnel responsibilities. where are we with that? i am still hearing from folks that they feel that the agency is still understaffed, and that is causing what they consider to be ongoing delays. where are we? >> we began with about 60 inspectors and a modest number

of engineers that do the permitting. we have a target that is based on where the industry is projected to go in terms of the number of applications we would expect to get with all the new standards we have implemented and the work load that is required. it comes out to you need about a total of 150 inspectors, and you need about 230 engineers. we are on a process of hiring inspectors and engineers. in the area of inspectors, we have gone up from about 60 last year to 91 this year, and on the engineers, we have added about 10%. we are needing to add more engineers -- >> you have a long way to go. >> we do have a long way to go, but as you know, the appropriation just came out in

december. it was vital that we had some ability to incentivize those engineers to work for the u.s. government instead of for the oil companies. they are paid very well by the oil companies, especially when the price of oil is what it is today. we are in the process of implementing that hate incentive, and we also are doing some aggressive outreach to connect with new graduates from the engineering schools. we are even working with the american petroleum institute and other industry organizations to assist us with those people that may want to work for the government because of some of the benefits and perhaps some of the stability that we can provide that the industry does not. i am optimistic. it will take a couple of years

for us to reach our goal, but i think we will make a big stride this year. >> as you all know, the congressional intent was that part of these new fees be used to extend the capacity so that we could expedite the orderly development of offshore there. i do appreciate the timelines, and i also recognize that we cannot just snap our fingers and have these folks in place, but you will be able to count on me to keep inquiring with you on a regular basis to see how we are doing, not only in getting the bayous in these positions, but again, making sure that it is going towards the goal, which is a more orderly and expedited processing for these ocs permits.

not only getting the bodies in, but making sure we are seeing greater movement there. my time is expired, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. >> i want to talk about fracking for a minute. current complaint from the industry is there are just too many cooks in the kitchen. we are all in the process of studying it, and i've heard there's as much as 10 agencies involved in the process. i think the budget gives $13 million -- i think there's about $45 million for tracking research in total in the different budgets. duplication is something i'm always worried about, people doing the same work in different agencies when we could get a little better bank with about. i just want to get your perspective on what is going on with the research effort, and is there coordination between the agencies so there is not overlapping research? >> duplication is always a

concern for all of us, i believe, as we go forward during these lean times. i am aware of two studies we are assisting with, only with data. one study by epa and a second study being conducted by the usgs within the department of interior. our for dissipation is fairly limited to providing data that are then taken into account. as it relates to the bureau of land management, we are proposing a new rule relative to fracking. the full components of the rule are based on recommendations that came to us from the department of energy task force on fracturing energy technology. the three components we are focused on our public disclosure of the chemicals being used on drilling operations on public lands. many states have such disclosure policies in place right now, and

we want to make sure that the standards that will apply to public lands are similar to what is being applied on state lands. the second component will address well integrity to make sure the casing is being used during the operation are secured, and they will protect ground water. the third component is water management. both looking at the source of the water that is being used -- because there is a significant amount of water being used in drafting operations in most circumstances -- and then, second, what occurs with the disposal of that waste water after the operations ceases, making sure that the disposal is consistent with local and state law, not federal law. so those are the three components we have incorporated into our proposed rule. we anticipate releasing a draft rule as early as april.

>> i want to take it one more direction, and that is when i talk to the industry, the industry says fracking is going on so deep that it cannot impact the potable water. when i talk to other folks, they say that their water is being impacted. i do not know which is the truth. usgs has estimated that some of were first are losing about one or two feet per year due to increased energy production. i do not know why that is, but water is very, very important, and i just wondered -- can you give me any idea on its the top golfers are indeed losing that kind of -- being diminished by one or to a wheel feet a year, and secondly, why is that?

third, is there something we can do about it? >> i would refer you to usgs for answers to your specific question. i do know that many tracking operations require an extensive amount of water. that water has to come from somewhere. energy companies are securing water rights wherever they are operating in order to have access to such water so they can continue with the operation, but i will also give acknowledgment to the industry. they understand the potential impact and certainly the long- term impact of continuing operations that are currently taking place with the amount of water, and they are doing or at least proposing to do a better job of reducing water and actually treating water on site so it can be used there on an additional four new operations. >> it is a big issue. there was an amendment on the floor yesterday that i think

failed because some people did not want to encourage more fracking. we would like to see it done, but by the same token, 10 years for now, we do not want to look back and say, "my god, what have we done? i hope the research is being done in a coordinated fashion and very timely. i want to talk about well closure. could you compare the procedure to what happens on state or private lands in a state like montana when it comes to well closure? >> again, we take plugging an abandonment quite seriously because it is the last time we have an opportunity to look down the hole before the cement is place. one of our highest priorities as part of the inspection program is that when there is going to be a well that is going to be closed and abandoned that we have our inspectors out there

almost 100% of the time to make sure that the process is completed based upon the engineering that has gone into the design and approval process. >> can you give me any idea -- you may not have knowledge of what goes on on the state of private lands as far as well closure. >> i really do not. i know there should be some similarities, but some states do a better job. i will not cite any examples relative to does that better than others, but nonetheless, we are responsible for managing these wells on federal lands, and that is where our focus is right now. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. i have a few more questions, and then i recognized my colleagues for their additional questions. i understand you are going to use a new auction process format for offshore wind alternate energy, unlike what you do for oil and gas in the

gulf, for example. it raises the question of why the different procedures? first question. second, we have got to get that information out to potential applicants in a very expeditious way. otherwise, they might not be prepared when the auction occurs. you know, frankly, they also, i think, deserve the opportunity to evaluate and comment on the procedures to insure that they are fair to all potential parties. could you comment on the reasons for the new procedures, and also commit to getting the proposed -- the proposal out quickly so that relative parties can participate? >> the reason for the new procedures is that, strictly

speaking, offshore wind energy development is fundamentally different than oil and gas. you had a finite area that is being made available. you want to make sure that you get as much efficiency out of that area as possible, unlike oil and gas where you purchase a parcel, assume the risk, drill a well. it is a dry well, you go someplace else. here, we have a number of interested companies. we have a number of interests that we need to take into account in considering how to lease the finite area. that includes the efficiency of their project, the likelihood that that particular operator can actually bring a viable project online, and the best configuration of multiple projects within a limited area.

that creates a little bit more complex process. that said, we are very actively evaluating alternatives for this leasing process, with the idea of while addressing those multiple factors that distinguish from oil and gas, keeping it as simple as possible. there's a number of reasons for that -- we have gone through an extensive process to make the area available. we want to encourage the development of offshore wind, so we want to keep our option process as simple as possible while at the same time getting the area into the hands of operators who will be able to stand up real projects. with respect to the auction process and familiarity among operators with the process, you are absolutely right. that is essential. we put out a description, an information request last fall, and had a comment period and we

got a lot of useful feedback from operators about the different factors and alternatives we could employ, so we have been extensively engaged with operators through that process. we are planning into the run-up to lease sales coordination with operators to make sure they understand exactly how the lease process will unfold, exactly what will be expected of them because we want an efficient lease sale, and we want it to work, and we want it to work right out of the box. >> do you have an idea of when you'll be prepared to publish your final or at least final for comment proposal? >> we have done all the comments, so we are working on finalizing with the auction format will be. we hope to have all of that in

place for competitive leasing later this year. >> very good. turbines andve got transmission lines operating in the water, will employees conduct the on-site inspection? >> part of what we are trying to do with the additional funding we receive is hire structural engineers who can help us evaluate construction and operation plans, which is a key component down the road. eventually, when those operations are up, they will have a role in conducting safety inspections in compliance with those operations. >> you are collaborating right now to the handoff, i presume? >> yes, sir. this is a recently created two bureaus, but we have a lot of independent, and they're still evolution going on. this is a perfect example.

right now, our priority is with oil and gas safety, and establishing our environmental enforcement division, but we will be ready when the time comes. >> final question -- you do not have the same danger that we saw with the oil rigs exploding, etc., but you have the problems of hurricane damage. have we clearly set out their responsibility for the leaseholders in terms of their obligation to repair and remedial? there is no oil fund for this process, i presume. >> that is right, and there's other mitigation factors that ab and resources, marine mammals. that is why we are doing these environmental analyses, so we can develop a mitigation measures and requirements, to insure that the operations go up that can provide energy from

renewable sources, but also we are managing the potential impact. >> thank you very much. >> i want to add a couple more questions to the inquiry fracking. one of the concerns i'm hearing from folks is the concern that these will be overlapping or duplicative regulations on top of what they already face within the states. can you speak to that as an issue? give me some assurance there that we are not just adding on additional federal regulation on top of what the states are doing, and how you will work to eliminate any such redundancy. >> again, as i mentioned earlier, there will be three components of our tracking will

-- disposer it -- disposal of chemicals. the similarities that exist would be in the disclosure of chemicals. many states require operations to disclose what chemicals are being used as part of their operations. we will be requiring that, but we also hope -- >> will that information be shared publicly, or will there be provisions that will be allowed for protecting any trade secrets that might exist? >> the affirmation would be available publicly unless there is some rationale and justification that the companies would provide to keep that trade secrets from being made public. >> that would be considered on a case by case basis? >> it would be considered on a case by case, and we have a process in place to make the sides of the terminations. >> let me ask about onshore inspection fees. currently, blm collects over $32

million for the processing. the fiscal year 2013 budget proposes new authority to collect an additional inspection fee that apparently totals $48 million. how did you establish these? are they based on actual inspection costs? where do they come from? >> basically, they are based on actual costs or what our estimates of actual costs will be. the fee itself would be implemented in accordance to the number of wells that are on a particular lease. for example, if there is a lessee with a lot of wells on that particular lease, they would pay more inspection fees than a smaller operator. vanna has there been any assessment on the impact to small businesses that may be on the federal lands? we are talking offshore, and we do not worry about that because

you do not have anybody there, but has there been any kind of assessment that looks at what the impact may be on smaller businesses? >> we have done that analysis. quite frankly, the highest risk we have sometimes are with smaller operators. they just do not have the capital to do everything required to insure environmental protections for the drilling that is occurring or the production that is occurring. there is a necessity for us to get out there on the site to make sure operators are complying with the laws and rules of governing operations. we cannot ignore them, but we have taken into account the economic effects or impacts to operators. bad as you have done the analysis, -- >> as you have done the analysis, have you looked at the cumulative impact of the additional fees we're talking about? you're talking about new

inspection fees, increasing royalty rates, perhaps. are you concerned that what might result is more bonus bids coming out, less production on federal lands, which then results in less revenue to the treasury? >> we understand the cumulative effect on the industry itself, based on everything that we are doing to ensure environmentally responsible drilling on these lands and to make sure that we are making public lands available for such extractions, but at the same time, as we go forward -- well, that is a factor we have also taken into account as we review the royalty rate options before us. we are looking at the cumulative effects that the other actions we are also taking has on the industry. >> one more question. this is it for me. the department yesterday had

announced its analysis of the proposed merger that generated a fair amount of discussion when it was announced. i do appreciate what the interior has done to avoid the violation of the statutory responsibilities, but the analysis, as i understand it, fails to quantify how this merger is actually going to generate any savings or efficiencies. we had asked for an assessment of the cost and the benefits of the proposal, but from what i can tell, the department has failed to include any of the. i am of the mind that the interior department needs to go back and actually calculate whether the consolidation of administrative functions is really worth pursuing.

i know you have been involved in this, probably more than others out there. what can you tell us about this new proposal compared to what was originally laid out there, and about the fact that we have not been able to demonstrate that we are going to see any cost savings? >> again, i think the jury is out relative to how much cost savings there actually will be. >> you do agree that that is an important part of what this is all about? >> it is, but we also believe that there will be efficiencies gained based upon the actions that the secretary approved yesterday. when you read is that the bureau of land management will be providing administrative support to the office of surface management. where they were required to hire similar skills and positions that we already have in place right now, they would no longer need this type of positions because those services would be provided by the bureau of land

management. some of the revenue collections would then be transferred to the office of natural resource revenue. again, getting some efficiencies relative to the fading of positions, but the office of surface management would remain an independent entity within the department of interior, performing their mandated functions. all we are trying to achieve is some administrative efficiencies, some cost savings, and to allow the office of surface management to focus their limited dollars on the important work that they do perform on behalf of this nation. >> are you suggesting that the cost benefit analysis will still be coming to us? that there is an ongoing assessment in terms of what cost savings might be achieved that we might be able to learn that later? >> no, that is not what i am implying. we're going to learn how much

efficiencies there are, cost savings there are as we move forward. >> i am leaving here to go to another appropriations subcommittee where i will be inquiring with the secretary of the air force about where they are going to achieve certain cost savings, and they are kind of going into the same thing. we will see if we get the cost savings that we are hoping for. my argument to them was a made that argument to me in 2005. we did not achieve cost savings, and now, they are going back and doing the same thing. count me a bit as a skeptic if we are waiting to see whether there's any efficiencies that are gain. i think you know there is a lot of consternation about the specific merger. i would hope that we would be focusing on how we see those savings, how we gain those efficiencies. >> i think there will be some savings, but i just cannot give you the exact amount at this point in time. there will be less people that would be employed. the systems would be consistent,

or at least the systems we would have in place at the bureau of land management that would allow us to provide the support that osm would require. already in place, so it would not require us to do much adjustment or increase that type of capacity. and again, we would be benchmarking against what osm is currently doing and improving our own performance and operations. >> mr. chairman, thank you, and thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony. >> quick follow-up. you said there was going to be less people. is there duplication that will be eliminated? >> that is why there will be less people. there will be duplication eliminated. >> will there be a high level of accountability at least for us? >> you have my telephone number. relative to the support function

-- >> part of the problem i find is when it comes to accountability, not talking about your agency necessarily -- when it comes to a problem when it arises that there is -- well, too many cooks in the kitchen. you cannot nail anybody down. with this, from your perspective, help with accountability? >> i do. there's a lot of opportunity for us to improve our performance. in these lean times that we are all in, we need to be looking at every opportunity that we have to improve our performance, create the efficiencies that the american taxpayer are demanding, and to reduce costs because there are no new dollars coming our way. >> thank you. that was just brought up. ultimately in the end, i think money is important. but for us, i think what is

almost equally -- well, it is equally important in my opinion. if something goes upside down and there is more than one agency deal with it, people slip through the cracks, but that is not what i want to talk about. in your budget this year, $73 million was permitted to construct renewal projects on public lands. the agency has a goal of 10,000 megawatts at the end of the year. the department recently sent out a request confirmation on proposing competitive lease for plans, similar to a proposal that directs the agency to pilot competitive leasing for renewable leasing on public lands. the of the request is a bit different and does not include revenue sharing for states or communities or ecosystems, which are most impacted by the development and has minimal sideboards for mitigated -- litigation avoidance for natural resource damage. i believe it is because the blm does not have the authority to

do so today. i am optimistic to see the agency move forward, leasing is only part of the equation. i would like to have you expand on how your agency plans to address the broader impact if the permitting is expanded. >> first and foremost, we are quite intrigued by your legislation relative to not only encouraging the competitive process but also potentially the return of some of the revenues back to mitigate for the impacts associated with such development. we look forward to working with you, senator, and others in this congress to pass common-sense legislation that would allow us to meet our common goals. as we go forward, i would place greater emphasis on renewable energy development and using public lands to achieve that goal. we are quite confident that by 2013 we will have approved 20,000 megawatts of renewable

energy generated from public lands. that would include wind, solar, and geothermal primarily. we are also moving forward expeditiously through our land use planning process to actually designate, in the case of solar, solar energy development zones where we would do our best to steer development to areas that have already been screened, analyze, cleared for such development. we would be proposing to do something similar for wind in the very near future so we could steer development to the best places where the development could go forward and actually achieve our mutual goal of diversifying the nation's energy portfolio. at the same time, we have to stand that these are large scale projects. we need to make sure that there is appropriate mitigation to offset the lands that are being

dedicated for that particular type of use. we work very closely with the communities. we are working very closely with all public land stakeholders, with the industry itself, as well as environmental groups to come up with an appropriate occasion for such large-scale commercial development. and i think we are seeing some successes. >> that is good. i want to flush out geothermal a little bit, as long as you brought it up. i think it has an incredible opportunity. we have a bill which would expand our knowledge about geothermal energy and its potential. can you speak specifically -- you touched on it, but specifically on your efforts to expand geothermal production any barriers you are facing at this point in time to deploying this technology? >> quite honestly, it also has probably the highest potential

for future development and probably solar or wind as it relates to the amount of public lands that would be dedicated or made available for that type of particular use. we are very optimistic about the future of geothermal. prices are not necessarily competitive when you are looking at competing against coal and some of the other conventional energy sources at this point in time, but we do believe that geothermal will be a major part portfolioion's energy in the years to come. >> are you facing any barriers at this point in time other than money? >> no, we are not. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think a three-member committee with a three-member board -- this works out pretty damn nice. thank you very much for your time. >> i wanted think the witnesses for their testimony and for your skillful leadership of your agencies. i want to thank my colleagues for what i can attest to was a very productive and very

forceful hearing. there may be additional questions. i would ask all of my colleagues to submit them within a week and for the gentleman to respond as quickly as possible. if any of my colleagues wish to have statements submitted for the record, they will be without objection accepted for the record. with that, again, let me thank you. >> thank you, chairman. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> we take you live now to a valley with republican presidential candidate rick santorum in illinois and a butcher block manufacturing company. the speaker at the podium is the president of the company. just to let you know, rick santorum spent the morning

campaigning in missouri. he will follow this even with more in illinois. you are watching a live "road to the white house" coverage here on c-span. >> my guess is from here to the cameras back here, there is 1000 people, and we are well past that, so, congratulations. [applause] thank you, steve, for that introduction. let me be one of the first to welcome senator rick santorum to our great city. as many of you know, our city is filled with the rich history that dates back nearly 200 years. we are known as the crossroads of opportunity. it was founded were pioneers came looking for rich soil right for agricultural development and

cultural growth. today, with miles and miles of rail and interstate highway, the transportation center plays a vital role in central illinois and our great country. our town and county have posted political leaders and dignitaries alike. this event is no different. this factory is 87,000 square feet of new space designed to support the vibrant growth and expansion of john both and company domestically and internationally. it is a fitting place to hear from our special guest. the man who it is my honor to introduce has raised his hand time and time again to serve his home state of pennsylvania, and he has now answered the call to serve the people of our great country by seeking the republican nomination for president of the united states. let me take a minute to walk you through some of the things

senator santorum fought for each day in the united states senate. he fought for smaller government, less wasteful spending, a strong national defense -- [applause] some of his accomplishments include leading the fight for the congressional bank and the congressional post office. he is one of the authors of the 1996 welfare reform act. it is a member of the senate armed services committee and supported legislation designed to fight terrorism and terrorist states. most of what lay, and near and dear to many parts in central illinois, senator santorum fought each day to protect families and the unborn -- most importantly. [applause] he believes in preserving traditional marriage. [applause] he offered critical anti-

abortion legislation banning partial-birth abortion. [applause] and he will legislation to get rid of those internet creditors. [applause] today, we are honored to welcome him to this place, to this plan where john boost -- boos and company is celebrating its 25th year in business. i would be remiss if i did not tell you we are one of the oldest manufacturers of premium quality kitchen equipment and butcher blocks in the united states. [applause] we have a wonderful staff. they ask what i want to do with this, and i said, cassette and put it up there on the stage --

"put it up there on the stage. if they did not want it up there, they could take it off." there is another one in the county was manufactured in 1904. it is a tremendous product. we had tremendous people, and it is a tremendous company. the brand recognition is a direct result of the efforts of our hard-working committed people who wake up each day trying to provide a better way of life for themselves and their families. we are pleased to welcome into our midst and other hard-working individual, a committed public servant, loving husband and father, and a man who is running for the office of the presidency of the united states, senator santorum. [applause] we are honored -- hold on a minute.

senator santorum, we are honored that you are with us today, and thank you for making this a memorable afternoon for everyone here and across central illinois. without further ado, it is my pleasure to introduce to you senator rick santorum, republican candidate for the president of the united states. [applause] >> thank you. thank you so much. wow. thank you very much. what a great day. thank you, illinois. what a great turnout. thank you. wow. i am overwhelmed by the number of folks here. this is just awesome.

it is great to be here in southern illinois. the heartland really begins here. thank you so much for coming up, and thank you. what are we going to do on tuesday? are we going to have a big win on tuesday? what do you think? [applause] thank you so, so, much for being here. i appreciate the company making this -- we need to get closer? is that better? ok. just let me know what i need to do. is "beat obama" something you guys are saying? [applause] well, let me tell you -- the best chance to beat barack obama is to nominate somebody who can actually take it to barack obama on his horrible record as

president of the united states, and the best way to do that is to make sure we do not have someone who agrees with that horrible record as president of the united states. [applause] that is why i decided to get into this race. i apologize she is not here with me. i know. you get the short end of the stick, getting me and not my wife, karen and i have been married 21 years. we have seven children. we are very glad. [applause] as you know, at the age of 53 and with seven children ages 20 to 3, it is not exactly the best time to go out and decide to run for president of united states, but we just felt like as we thought about it, prayed about it, that we had no choice. because this country is in a

very difficult position right now. this country is facing one of those critical junctures in our history. this is the most important election of your lifetime and maybe since the election of 1860. this is the election where big things are at stake, and we cannot have candidates talking about little things. we cannot have candidates talking about this bill or that vote, minor things that are not really the core problems of this country. you will be getting lots of robo-calls. have you gotten any of them yet? and they will all be negative, tearing the other candidate down, all about little issues that are not at the heart of the problems that face this country. see, we are going out across this country, and the reason we are standing up in the face of 10 to one or more spending against us is we are out there talking about things that americans are talking about. we are talking about issues that

are of concern to them because they know that big things are at stake not just here at home but around the world. and we need a presidential candidate to take on this president, who can talk about those big things, who can paint a vision for this country. not just tear down the other side, but paid a positive and hopeful and optimistic vision about where this country has been and where it needs to go if we are going to be successful in the future. [applause] that is what i have been trying to do in this campaign. outcrossing the planes. we drove through illinois several times, back and forth to iowa. we talked to the folks all over this country about that positive, hopeful, optimistic vision, be leaving in what made

america great. and, of course, what makes america great is not a big, powerful central government. what makes america great is a limited government that believes in the unlimited potential of each and every one of you all across this country. [applause] that is why we have gone out and we have talked about the issues, the fundamental issues at stake in this election. i talk about my grandfather when he came to this country in 1925. he came because he was being ruled by a fascist dictator in italy. he was ruled by that dictator and having fought in world war i, he understood those people in

power, authoritarian figures. he did not want his children to grow up there. he wanted his children to have something he never had. he went to the only place where they had it. that place was a beacon for the rest of the world. he did not go to the united states, to agree coal fields of pennsylvania -- to the coal fields of pennsylvania, or of southern illinois, but the same kind of people came to those coal fields, people who wanted not government benefits, they were not looking for handouts from the government, they were walking away from a government that was giving them things and making them do what the government wanted to do in exchange for the gifts that the government was giving them. he did not come here for any of that assistance, except one,

freedom. [cheers and applause] what is at stake in this election is that torch that is so bright here in america and around the world, lighting the path for those who wanted to be able to pursue their dreams, live their faith, pursue their dreams to start businesses, and employ people, and work, and participate in community activities come and participate in church, and practice their faith. that is what america has always been about. it is a very simple concept, one that transformed the world. that is what is at stake, that beacon, that torch of freedom is

at risk because we now have a group of people in washington who would try -- who have been trying for years, but finally succeeded in taking fundamental freedoms from you, and making you less and less free, and more dependent upon them. i will never forget when i was still doing some work at fox news, this was the time obamacare, public enemy number one against the freedom of this country. [cheers and applause] i remember going into the green room at fox, shortly after president obama decided to ignore the results of the senate race in massachusetts where scott brown won and decided to shove the obamacare bill through the house of representatives without amendment, when a vast majority

of americans were opposing it, the tea parties or in the street, voicing their concern about government taking away their freedom, and yet, the president pushed on, broke every rule you can think of to get this bill through the house of representatives, and about two days before, i was in the green room and in walked juan williams. i looked at him and i said, you folks are committing political suicide. you'll get creamed in the next election. you are doing everything the public does not want you to do. you are ignoring rules. you're shoving it down the throats of the american people. you are not allowing any amendment. you are acting like tyrants. [applause] you will pay for it dearly in november.

[cheers and applause] of course, they did pay for it dearly last november. juan said to me in response, he just talked to the people in the white house, and this is what they said. we believe americans love entitlements. [boos] you can see evidence of that with the explosion of food stamps and housing programs and ssi and all of these medicaid, all of these highs in usage in our country. juan williams continued. he said, we believe americans love entitlements. he went on and said this. he said, once we get them hooked on this entitlement, they will

never let it go. see, that is what they believe. they believe in seeing each and every american not as a free person, not as someone that can provide for themselves, or even wants to provide for themselves and their family, not as someone who sees the responsibility to care for their neighbor, to form groups and associations here in the local community, to build strong communities of families and churches and schools and businesses were everybody looks out for everybody else, because that is not how they see the world. they see the world as that type of free association and bottom- up solution to problems. it is a broken model. it is a model, in their mind, that never worked. the only thing that did work is for those elites in society to be able to pass laws -- [no audio]

[inaudible] [cheers and applause] ok. to take their freedom and my microphone away temporarily, to take your freedom away, because they are better able to govern you and to tell you what is best. that is what they believe. i am not saying they are evil people. i am not saying they are bad people. but, they have a fundamentally different view of what is best for america and for americans. that is what this race has to be about. it has to be about that the big issue, of those big issues, as to who we are and who we will be as an american people.

[applause] every one of my speeches come i talk about these issues of government control of our lives. you want to try to bring people together? one of the things i hear all the time, we are so divided. the country is so divided. how can we possibly come back together? how can we possibly get a consensus? i think it is important that we talk about those big things. we talk about who we are. ronald reagan in his farewell address, the last thing he said to america, was that he was concerned about the future of america. he was concerned because, through our civic institutions, through our media, through our culture, through our schools, we were not being taught about who we are as americans, what made

us the greatest country in the history of the world, and if we have a version of history taught to ourselves, it is out of step with what really happened here, what really made us great, if they re-educate us, then we will lose our way and lose the freedom that we have. winston churchill said the debate is not about the future, the debate is about the past. how we define what works in america, who we are, will decide what vision we will cast in the future. one of the great concerns i have in what we have seen is this an attempt by this president to redefine america, when he goes to kansas and talks about how capitalism and free markets don't work, and never worked, that it created great inequality

of this country, and that this inequality is the scourge of our nation, america is economically unfair, individualism does not work, free enterprise does not work, we need a heavy hand in the government, and when the government comes in, we were better. that is his vision. that is him telling a news story to you here in america, his story. not the truth. his story. you remember the old soviet union? every time a new leader would come into power, they would tear up the old history books and write new ones. those of you too young to remember, that is what they did. they would rewrite the history depending on who was in favor and who was not. think about that. we think about to america really is. president obama about america --

about a year ago is responding to a budget that was -- paul ryan is going to put it in his budget next week. i immediately support it last year. i have spoken to paul this year and he has told me what is in store. i have no doubt i will support what he wants to do this year. president obama would have none of this. he castigated paul ryan for trying to cut entitlement programs, entitlement programs like food stamps, and medicaid, and unemployment insurance, and medicare, and social security, although he did not touch social security in his bill. he castigated paul ryan and said this. he said, america is a better country because of these programs. i will go one step further, he

read, america was not a great country until these programs were put in place. [boos] that is his story. that is barack obama's history. that is how he sees america, through the eyes of someone who believes that america is great when the government is powerful, takes money from some, redistributes the other, based upon what he believes is fair. that does not make america the greatest country in the history of the world. that does not make america different from any country in the world. that makes america like the country's your ancestors left to come here for the freedom not to be given those choices by the government. [cheers and applause]

we need someone who understands that what barack obama has done and what republicans and democrats together have done over the past six or eight years threaten the very foundation of our country. when -- we need to go out and talk about them. we need to talk about obamacare. every speech next week is the anniversary of the passage of obamacare. the week after, there will be a debate in the supreme court about whether the federal government can force every person in america to buy a product from a private-sector vendor that the government says you must buy. obamacare will be front and center over the next week. i know this is going to shock

you when you hear this. the congressional budget office came out with a new cost for obamacare. i know you'll be surprised to hear this. if there is anybody around that is faint of heart, please catch them if i say this, but obama care is not going to cost $900 billion, as the president said it would. obamacare will not dramatically lower health care costs, as he said he would. believe it or not, and i know you will have trouble believing this, it is going to cost almost twice as much as president obama said it would over the next 10 years. i know you are shocked to hear this. twice as much, almost $2 trillion over the next 10 years. $2 trillion of taxing you and then telling you how to spend

the money that they took from you. that is what they are going to do. with these regulations, they will not only tell you what product to buy, you'll be taxed, and businesses will be taxed, but then they will tell you what benefits you will get, and if you don't like them, if you have a religious objection to them, too bad. when the government says they give you a right, they can tell you how to exercise that right, whether you like it or not, and you had better like it. that is barack obama's freedom in america. [applause] we needed someone who can go out and take president obama on, someone threw out the time that i have been in public life that has stood for free markets.

anyone familiar with help savings accounts? i was the author 20 years ago when i was in the house of representatives. it is a system that believes in bottom-up, believes in free people having their own resources, being able to make health care choices themselves, having the flexibility and freedom, because they control the money, not the insurance company and not the government. that is what works in america. 300 million consumers controlling it, not one board put together by barack obama to ration care to everybody. [applause] i believe in the american people, barack obama, and unfortunately, barack obama and the other person competing

against this year in illinois, does not believe in free people making their health care choices. as governor of massachusetts, he instituted romneycare, which mandated every person by healthcare, which mandated an insurance policy that everyone had to have. you get four choices. it mandated you, it taxed businesses, and used your tax dollars to pay for half of that. it was a model the barack obama used. how do we know that? look at the two bills and listen to president obama. he said he listened and watched what happened in massachusetts, the romney-kennedy health care bill. yes, 10 -- ted kennedy and mitt romney signed that bill. when you have ted kennedy behind you applauding something, you

know this is not a freedom bill. [applause] governor romney was at the heart of the debate without an advocate for for the massachusetts plan, not for other states, but for the federal government to adopt. then, during the debate, he said, i never did it until we found out, yes, he did do it, again and again. why would the republican party even contemplate on this most central issue of the day, the issue that got the tea parties and millions of americans of their couches and into the streets, help us win the election, is the central issue, a constitutional issue whether the federal government can force you to do something, and yet we

would possibly here in the state of illinois put forward a candidate who was for that unconstitutional authority? when he was asked a question by fred thompson in the 2008 debates about mandates of health care in massachusetts, governor romney responded, i love mandates. mandates' work. he defended mandates. why would we give that issue away? why would we take an issue that is at the heart of what is going on in america, robbing you of your freedom, making you dependent upon government for your lives and for your health, and nominate someone who will not be able to talk about that issue, and listen to governor romney's speeches. how long does he talk about obamacare and the fact that he would repeal it? he puts out the one-liner.

does he get into the core issues? no, because he can't. we take away the biggest issue in this race with someone who is uniquely disqualified to make the case against barack obama. it is not just health care. on the issue of energy, we all know about energy and how the prices are skyrocketing. it is skyrocketing because we have a president who sees coal and oil and gas, those fossil fuels in the ground, as liabilities, not assets. things that will harm the environment, that will make the oceans rise. remember, the president said he would have the oceans received -- recede. [applause] he said, i try to put my faith

out in the public square. president obama is going to have the oceans recede, because he was going to be the one to waive his hand and stop all of the carbon pollution in this country. you saw here in southern illinois with the coal fields like we have in western pennsylvania, and ohio, west virginia, and kentucky, the permits for coal, for oil, for gas, anyplace that you are drilling now is on private land, not federal land, because the president will not allow it. he is denying permits in the gulf, causing unemployment in the gulf coast states and in the coal fields of this country. two-letter energy policy, n-o.

he has denied permits, denied opening up offshore, on the intercontinental shall come in alaska, and of course, building that pipeline from canada. the president says no. we need a president that will say yes to energy development in this country. [cheers and applause] you see, i've always been for energy, for drilling, for mining. i stand for producing more fuel in this country. i know, as the grandson of a coal miner, that we have a better standard of living a more available and the cheaper the energy is. look at the cost of living in the last couple of months. you see it at the grocery store. you're seeing it at the gas pump.

if prices stay high for energy, use of the consumer price index hit a 10-month high, and you will see it even more with the cheap dollar policy continuing. we will pay more and more when we go to the gas pump now. you see those figures go flipping by, and instead of paying tw-digit -- two-digit dollars, you are paying three digits. it gets into the $100 range. think of "o" for obama. that is why you are paying that extra amount of money. believe it or not, the same man who gave us romneycare and advocated for obamacare is also the person who is not for mining and drilling, who bought into

the climate change, the climate science, of man-made global warming, who advocated for cap and trade, and as governor of massachusetts, put the first c02 cap on coal-fired prior -- power plants in massachusetts and spoke about how this was a great advance for society, when the climate was favorable for democrats and even some republicans to buy into the climate science of man-made global warming, mitt romney led the charge, saying, we have to worry about fossil fuel development, we have to have clean energy alternatives, but as the climate changed, so did

mitt romney change. i knew this was not climate science from the beginning. i knew it was political science masquerading as climate science. [applause] it was all the rage and governor romney was right there, marching lockstep with al gore. ladies and gentlemen, we need someone who is going to stand tall, who is not going to bea a weather vane, but will. true north -- point true north and stand up for what is right. why would we nominate someone who has the same position of

president obama with respect to the use of fossil fuels? why would we give that issue away in this election? people ask me why i am the best candidate to run against barack obama. it is because i feel like come in many respects, i am running against barack obama here in this primary, because mitt romney has the same positions as barack obama in this primary. he was for the wall street bailout, like obama. another almost $1 trillion act. i can go on with a laundry list of the support of planned parenthood. he wrote personal checks. he said he had a conversion. well and good. after his conversion, he provided tax refinancing for a planned parenthood clinic in

massachusetts. the list is long. his policies are out of step, not just with the republican party, but with america, and provide no clear contrast. we are not going to win this election in the fall. governor romney has tried to win every race in every state, like he has tried to win illinois. we will not outspend barack obama 10-to-one. we will not run nonstop tv ads. imagine a campaign that is just about negativity, where there is no vision. we need to have someone that can paint that positive vision, that can rally people to get off their couches and working. [applause] we don't have all the money from

billionaire's giving you the super pac. what we have is more important. i am looking at it. my secret weapon here in illinois and across this country -- [applause] this campaign will be about freedom. it will be about economic opportunity, energy, manufacturing jobs. i'm the only person out there that talks about a plan that will get this economy turned around, not just by a lowering energy costs, but by taking a one-two punch to try to bring the jobs that allow people of all skill levels to rise in our society. [applause] i grew up in a steel town of western pennsylvania. i know the opportunities that manufacturing creates coming

here and across this country. this country was built on the back of hard-working people making things here in america. [applause] some people believe those days are gone. they are not. the only reason we lost those jobs is because government made manufacturing uncompetitive. the highest corporate tax in the world. the most onerous regulatory environment. on day one, we will repeal every high-cost obama regulation that was put in place in the last four years. [cheers and applause] we are going to work with democrats and republicans from the industrial states to eliminate the corporate tax on manufacturing until every manufacturer from all around the

country and all around this world come to america to build your business, grow your business, make things here in america. [applause] and we are going to say america is going to be a place where you can be secure. that we will not have another four years of $5 trillion and $6 trillion deficits. we are going to put this government on a big-time diet. biggest losers 1. we will shrink this government. we will get a balanced budget in five years. we will cut $5 trillion in five years. i will spend less money each year than the year before until we get to a balanced budget. [applause]

finally, we will have a president, one that stands with the budget problems are, and they are not where the president has focused his attention on. the president's focus has been in one place in cutting the budget. he refuses to cut it in a worlds. that, of course, is our military. the folks who go out there and served our country, defend our freedom. that is the press -- a place the president says we need to cut. as the area of the government that exploded under his term or under president bush's term, where we saw the dramatic expansion of our military and we have to shrink it because it is causing the deficit, but let me share with a couple of facts -- one, when i was born, the defense department military was

60% of the federal budget. it is now 17% of the federal budget. when i was born, entitlement spending was less than 10% of the budget. it is now 60% of the federal budget. but that does not even count obamacare, which would take that number to 70% of the budget and more. so what i have proposed -- one, i am the only candidate in this race, republican or democrat, who brought it to the american people. i will not cut the defense department. we will have the strongest military in the world. [applause] and i will do with the entitlement programs will begin with welfare it -- what we did with welfare when i manage the

bill as a freshman senator. the line of -- two lines of the senate and a freshman senator from pennsylvania, and we won -- two lions of the senate. we won because our ideas were better. it coincided with the vision of our country. welfare programs have no business at the federal level. none. most of them are run by the states anyway. so what we need to do is what paul ryan has suggested and what i suggested and did when i was in the senate. we take all these programs, take them, cut them. in some cases, cut them dramatically. sen the money to the states with two conditions -- time limits and a work requirement. [applause]

we are not doing that because we are mean. we are not doing that because we don't care. welfare reform is not about hurting people. it is about understanding that long-term government dependency does not help people. believing in the dignity and value of every person and their ability to go out and provide for themselves helps people and trends lives around to make this country a better country. [applause] the last issue -- and this is one -- i do not know what this will look like come november of this year. it may be about jobs and the economy, but it may be about something anxiety-creating, and that is the potential for [inaudible] we have a president who will make neville chamberlain look

like a aggressive confronting of the evil. when it comes to iran, no one has appeased more than this president. he has fought and kicked and screamed about imposing even the most minor of sanctions. he had an opportunity to join the green revolution in 2009 to overthrow the radical theocracy that is killing our troops and was killing our troops and is building a nuclear weapon and threatening our ally, israel, and the president said, "no, let's negotiate with ahmadinejad." then, we see just recently the prime minister of england -- excuse me, the prime minister of israel coming to the united states, speaking in washington, d.c. the day before, president obama says, "i've got your back." prime minister netanyahu stood

up and said, "time is running out. we have been patient, mr. president, with all the games you have been playing, but time is running out. we cannot as the state of israel allowed a nuclear iran that has repeatedly threatened to wipe out not just israel, but all jewish people. we have been down this road before, and we will not let this happen again." [applause] i spoke from that same podium the next day and said president obama does not have israel's back. president obama has turned his back on israel. [applause] that very day, the president announced that they would begin negotiations with iran. a series of united nations

resolutions say there will be negotiations with iran until bases developing and enriching uranium. president obama said, "you do not have to do that. we will still talk to you. we will still give you time. as we talk, you in the rich. as we talk, you build your ballistic capability. as we talk, you recognize -- what a nice -- weaponize that nuclear weapon." we need a president that stops talking with evil, tries to negotiate with evil, and stands up and says, "we will stand up with the people of israel and iran will not get a nuclear weapon on our watch." [applause] so i laid out a concrete proposal to say if i was president today, i would give an

ultimatum to the iranians, an ultimatum that said either open up these facilities for us to inspect them, begin to shut down these processes, close down these 40 facilities, or we will shut them down for you. [applause] we need to appeal to the persian people. the persian people -- that is who populate iran. they are not arabs. they are parisian. look at your bible. these are not folks who are hostile to the jewish people. it is the radicals who are pressing, killing, torturing the people. we need to embrace them, engage them. we need to understand and stand for what america has always stood for. we are a country that does not invade. we did not conquer.

we do not grab land or resources. america has always been a country that has stood for liberty, stood for the values of freeing people, creating prosperity. we cannot have a president who travels around the world apologizing for america and what we have done in helping the world -- [applause] my final plea to you is to understand what is at stake and do your duty that this generation is called to do. you know, our tea party folks have had a wonderful influence

over the discourse of america over the past couple of years. they have resurrected a document -- [applause] they have resurrected a document that had become somewhat of a dead letter -- the constitution of the united states. [applause] that constitution is the operator's manual of america. it is how the government is to function, but it must be read in context with another very important document -- one that it is tethered to. it is the anchor for the constitution, and that, of course, is the declaration of independence. [applause] if you look at barack obama and the left, they always try to dismiss the declaration. they tried to say it is not important. it is not a legal document.

it was just the sentiment of the people at the time, but it does not have any legal standing in american jurisprudence or in american law. but you cannot understand this document unless you read in the context of these words that you all know so well, but i'm not even sure we recognize how were evolutionary they truly were. "we hold these truths to be self evident -- that all men are created equal and endowed by their --" >> creator. >> with certain inalienable rights. [applause] our constitution does not give us rights. the constitution recognizes the rights that god had already given us.

[applause] the reason this country has done so well is because we understand that the job of the government under this constitution is limited to one thing -- protecting the rights that god has given us, trusting the people to go out and take those liberties -- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -- to go out and pursue real happiness as our founders understood it. that was not the freedom to go and do what you want to do, but the freedom to do what you should do, what you ought to do, what is best for you and your family and your community. that is what americans do and did. that is what created the greatness of this country. it was not some semi-god or demigod or divine processes to impose their will on all of us. no, it was believing in good and

decent people, going out and building a good and just society. that is the history -- the true history -- of america. [applause] and do not ever forget -- we changed the world. at the time of our founders, life in spot -- life expectancy in america was 35, as it had been for 2000 years. we were an agrarian society, as societies had been for 2000 years, and that america happened. america happened. did not happen anywhere else. did not happen in the islamic world. did not happen in china, russia -- no, america liberated the

human spirit, believed in the dignity of every person, gave them the room to be able to reach for the stars, succeed greatly, build, prosper, provide for each other because we actually had relationships and cared for each other, so we knew we had an obligation. i 235 years, life expectancy has doubled. we went from agricultural society to a technology society. wealth beyond comprehension even 50 years ago all because we had government that believes in you. ladies and gentlemen, that is what is at stake. you want to bring americans together, remind them of who we really are. [applause]

we have great and serious problems that face this country, but nothing that can stand in the way of free people. we can fix every one of these problems not from washington, but by giving you the tools and wherewithal, the opportunity to go out and make things right across this country. trust in you. [applause] at the end of the declaration of independence, our founders wrote these words. they signed this document knowing they were probably signing death warrants, going up against a far tougher foe against freedom than we are going up against, but nevertheless, they signed this document and pledged to each other, as i'm asking you to do here today -- pledge to each other that he will step forward.

our founders said they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. no one is asking you to pledge your life over these next 48 hours. no one is even asking you to pledge your fortune, although if you go to rabat rick -- to ricksantorum.com -- [applause] i promise i will not use it to buy robo-calls. i promise. a little bit of your fortune. sign up to be a volunteer. make phone calls. there are people here in illinois you can call. people across this country, people all over the nation know what is at stake. what is at stake is your sacred

honor. because you are stewards of a great inheritance. you are still words of a great country. you are stewards of your family name. [applause] in fact, your honor will either be of help or diminished -- upheld or diminished as to whether you can uphold that if you have been given. your honor, the honor of every american is at stake in the selection. let me assure you, just like in 1980, the people said we had to nominate and moderate because that was the only way we would win votes, by appealing to moderates. and conservatives across this land said, "no, we want an

election that is not about the difference between tweedledum and tweedledee. we want an election about a choice about where america is to go. we want a choice about whether we have a president who believes that he could rule and shrivel or whether we have a president who does not want to be the most powerful man in the world, who wants to return to power to you, the american people. [applause] i pledge you this -- in the next 48 hours, if you go out and spend your days to more -- tonight, tomorrow, monday, and you call your friends, you put

our pictures of on facebook -- i have been working here and shaking hands and taking pictures. we need you. i need you. your country needs you. if you go out and do your part -- i am during this 24/7. since i started to run for president, i have had five days of the campaign trail -- two for thanksgiving and 3 for christmas. i have been on the campaign trail every single day doing as many as 10 events in a day, and they will back me up. i am asking for three days. if you give me those three days here, you turn out in southern illinois -- i know you do not get a chance to outvote your friends in the chicagoland area

very often. primary turnout is everything. you do your job, and this is the pledge -- if you are able to come out of illinois with a huge and surprise win, i guarantee you that we will win this nomination. we will nominate a conservative, and it will nominate a conservative, we will be barack obama in the fall elections. thank you all. god bless you. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

bee

>> we're on your side. >> all right.

good enough. praying for you. >> thank you very much. ♪

>> thank you. thank you for that. >> thank you.

[laughter] [indistinct crowd noise]

♪ ♪

♪

>> the people up there cannot get out.

[indistinct crowd noise] >> thank you.

♪

>> you want a picture? >> thank you so much. >> all right, buddy.

[indistinct crowd noise]

>> good luck. good luck.

[indistinct crowd noise] >> nobody else was. yes. thank you.

>> all right, and molly. -- emily. >> thank you so much. >> don't do this. don't do this. don't do this. one of you have to take the picture. >> we are praying for you to be our next president. >> good luck to you. >> thank you. >> did you get it?

>> can we do one more? >> thank you. >> see you at the primary. >> i will shake the hand of the next president of the united states. >> we will keep you and our prayers. -- keep you in our prayers. >> thank you.

>> all right. thank you. got it? ok. thank you. >> can i take a picture? >> thank you. >> can i get the picture? >> thank you for running. >> i love that. >> thank you.

>> all right. >> thank you for serving this country and doing the best you can. >> it might be ok to do that. you got it? >> i can see that. good for you. how are you? there you go. hi. how are you? >> hey.

>> glad you are in this race. >> ok. >> thank you. >> all right. >> thank you.

>> can i take a picture? >> thank you. >> you are welcome. >> all right. thank you. >> thank you. >> seven of us. >> thank you.

>> thank you. good luck. >> oh, little buddy. little st. pat. thank you. let me sign that. there you go. thank you. >> we will be making calls for you. >> here, dad. >> excuse me. sorry.

>> here you go, buddy. >> dad, did you get it? here. dad. thank you. >> yep. >> all right. let's go. >> there we go. thank you. >> all right. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> thank you. >> all right. let's get moving. >> have a great day. >> thank you. >> we are trying. >> see right there?

[indistinct crowd noise]

>> thank you so much. >> they were good.

>> thank you for your service. we appreciate it. >> thank you. >> thank you and good luck. >> thank you. >> all right. here you go. >> thank you, rick.

[indistinct crowd noise] >> thank you. thank you. [cheers and applause]

>> american samoa rick santorum leaves the room after greeting the crowd, we will take your calls in just a moment on what you think is the most important quality in a candidate. we are going to get right to it. we have sherman oaks, california, on the democrats' line. gregory, are you there? >> yes. >> go ahead. >> a very important quality for a president is knowledge and intelligence, which is the stuff that made america what it is. little of that is in evidence with rick santorum or, regrettably, his supporters.

i hear a 20 per century version of no-nothingism. he says a false stuff about carbon pollution and the challenge of climate change. his republican party has already discussed it for the past 30 years. if he or republican is elected and the gop runs either house of congress going forward, we will never have a handle on climate issues and threats for the entire future of the human enterprise on planet earth. i really hope the young voters of america who have the most to lose or gain in the elections of 2012 will turn out in big numbers to elect the party of silence and knowledge. the real conservative earns -- conservatives will be guided by knowledge and intelligence, which is what made america what

it is. that is the democratic party. >> we will hear about the young voters after we take your phone calls. get a little analysis on what they are going to be doing in the 2012 election. another call now from california on the republican line. steve, what's it the are you calling from? >> it is in marin county. it is nice to see a politician who is not reading out the teleprompter. i think it is really important that a candidate has passion. it is very clear that rick santorum has passion. unfortunately, in this country, that is important, because voters that don't follow politics closely think likability is extremely important. romney, if he were a national candidate of the republican party, i think the mainstream media would rip him to shreds. i don't think he could win

pennsylvania or ohio. i think rick santorum would be able to win either pennsylvania and/or ohio. >> we will get randy's take now in kansas on the independent line. >> i believe the president needs to be willing to strictly follow the bill of rights and be willing to prosecute those politicians who don't. i think about the only candidate that will do that will be ron paul. any of the others are a joke. >> ron paul taking time off the campaign trail, along with newt gingrich. richard -- mitt romney and rick santorum spending time in illinois ahead of tuesday's close of primary. now we have a call for doug in boston on the republican line. >> i just want to tell you that if folks in illinois want their sons and daughters returning to the united states from iran,

vote for this warmonger. don't ever say we did not warn you. >> now, the independent line, nebraska. >> root quickly, i think character and integrity are the most important things i am going to use as far as choosing a candidate for the conservative party. i don't believe that has been taking place in washington, d.c. i have been an independent ever since i was 18. i don't like to vote for the lesser of two weevils, but i will vote for somebody with integrity and character. i thank you for your time. >> we will take a look at the delegate count from the associated press. today, missouri's caucuses are going on. the caucuses are just one more step in assigning delegates, which won't really be complete until late april at the

earliest. tomorrow, puerto rico,' -- puerto rico. on now to new boston, michigan. william, are you there? >> yes. >> what qualities are you looking for in a candidate? >> most of the qualities i am looking for are in obama, honesty, knowledge, and knowledge of not only political factors, but world economy, and i think we could do a lot worse than obama. >> now, alexandria in illinois, on the republican side. >> hello? >> what qualities are looking for? >> i am looking for strong conviction and moral values. there is one sentence in the

bible that meets a brick santorum's qualifications. "the fear of god is the beginning of --" art santorum has it. i am voting for him on tuesday. >> we will see it jason is on the line in virginia on the independent line. >> hello? >> sorry. mute your tv. >> sure. >> are you there? >> i am here. >> are you jason? >> no. >> what is your name? >> joy. i want integrity and someone who follows the constitution, and somebody who is not looking to link us to the world. i want ron paul. he is the only candidate. >> ok. phoenix next. arizona on the democrats' line. this is brenda.

>> hello. the most important quality a president should have is problem-solving skills, and not being opposed whether viewpoint. president obama has demonstrated this time and time again. he is a problem-solver. only problems he gets on his desk are the ones that nobody else can solve. other people do not have a perfect answer. rick santorum only talks about social issues. these are issues that state laws can pass and congress can take care of. he does not know anything about major issues, how to solve them, and he is really judgmental toward other people who do not believe like him, even if you are a christian, if you don't believe like him, he will label you as a non-christian, as he is trying to do obama. >> that has been a big part of rick santorum's campaign, focusing on social issues and conservatism.

we will go to new york city, republican line, john. >> i have been a moderate republican since ronald reagan. the current crop of republican candidates are too extreme. what i am looking for in a candidate, i don't see any available now, is moral values, the obligation to adherence to the constitution of the united states, and to the well-being and the interest of all the people, not just the top 1%. >> we are going to leave it there. that will be the last call. our conversation continues on line. go to facebook.com/cspan. check in via twitter. we will show the rally again on c-span2 night at 9:00 p.m. eastern, and we will have more "road to the white house" coverage tomorrow with mitt romney, who will be in northern illinois, at 5:00 eastern time.

we will have that for you live on c-span. we heard a lot about energy issues from rick santorum during his rally today and energy policy and gas prices were the topics of the weekly addresses as well. president obama says we should follow what he calls and the -- an "all of the above" strategy. he is followed by the freshman representative core a gardener -- cory gardener. is criticized for rejecting construction of the keystone oil pipeline. >> i know you have noticed over the last few weeks, the price at your local pump has been going up and up. because it is an election year, so is the temperature of political rhetoric. what matters most to me is the impact this has on you. when you spend more on gas, you have less to spend on everything

else. it makes things harder. i want to take a minute to explain what steps my administration is taking when it comes to energy. most importantly, producing more of it while using less of it. the truth is, the price of gas depends on a lot of factors that are often beyond our control. unrest in the middle east and tight supply. china or india are adding cars to the road, increasing demand. one thing we should control is manipulation that can cause prices to spike further. for years, traders at firms were able to gain the energy markets, distort the price of oil, and make big -- make big profits for themselves at your expense. they were able to do that because of major league put -- locals and the regulation. when i took office, -- they were able to do that because of major loopholes in regulation.

when i took office, i tried to address this. it is not just wrong, but dangerous, that some in congress want to roll back those protections and return to the days when companies likeenron could -- like enron could reap enormous profits. we are still giving the oil companies $4 billion of tax dollars in subsidies every year. congress should be fighting for you, not for big financial firms, not for big oil companies. i expect congress to vote on ending the subsidies. when they do, we will put every member of congress on record. they can either stand up for the oil companies, or they can stand up for the american people. they can either place their bets on a fossil fuel from the last century, or they can place their bets on america's future. make your voice heard. send your representative and e- mail, give them a call, tell them to stand with you.

tell them to be honest with you. it is easy to promise a quick fix when it comes to gas prices. there just isn't one. anyone who tells you otherwise, and a career politician who promises some 3-point planned for $2 gas, they are not looking for a solution. they are just looking for your vote. if we are truly going to make sure we are not at the mercy of spikes in gas prices every year, the answer is not just. the drilling. we are already drilling more. under my administration, we are producing more oil at home than at any time in the last eight years. that is a fact. we caught -- quadrupled the number of rigs to a record high. we have opened millions of acres of land and offshore to develop more of our domestic resources. those are the facts. we cannot just rely on drilling. we use more than 20% of the world's oil and still only have 2% of the known oil reserves.

if we don't develop other sources of energy and the technology to use less energy, we will continue to be dependent on foreign countries for our energy needs. that is why we are pursuing an "all of the above" strategy. we are also developing wind and solar power, biofuels, the next generation of vehicles, and thousands of americans have jobs now because of it. we need to keep making those investments. i don't want to see those jobs go to other countries. i want to create even more of them right here in the united states of america. after three decades of inaction, we raise the standards so that by the middle of the next decade, our cars will average nearly 55 miles per gallon. that is nearly double what they get today. that means you only have to fill up every two weeks instead of every week. that will save the typical family more than $8,000 over the life of the car, just by using less gas.

combined, these steps have helped put us on a path for greater energy independent. since i took office, america's dependence on foreign oil has gone down every year. in 2010, for the first time in 13 years, less than half the oil we used came from foreign countries. we can do even better. we will. what we cannot do is keep depending on other countries for our energy needs. in america, we control our own destiny. that is the choice we face. the past, or the future? america is what it is today because we always place or bets on the future. thanks, and have a great weekend. >> driving around the district these days, the first and oftentimes only thing my constituents want to talk about is the pain at the pump. in our state, gas prices have gone up 40 cents in just one month. that helps everyone. families, commuters, job-

seekers, and especially small business owners. it is not just american dollars at risk. it is american jobs. people in my district and around the country are fed up with the way the president is handling this issue, and rightfully so. the most forceful in the president has done about prices is try to explain that he is against them. the americans are right to expect more from their leaders, and to be fair, there have been signs of hope appeared last month, the president told leaders in congress he would be willing to work with republicans on all of the above energy strategies. that was encouraging. republicans have long supported such a strategy to develop our own resources, both traditional and renewable, so that we can lower costs and improve america's energy security. from day one, the obama administration has consistently -- there is actually less acreage

offshore open for energy production now than there was when the president took office. instead of increasing american energy independence, the president's first major energy initiative was a national energy tax that, according to him, would cause rates to skyrocket. he put stimulus dollars into a company that has since gone bankrupt, taking half a billion of taxpayer dollars with it. after spending money we don't have on what won't work and over-regulating what would come is there any wonder that gas prices have more than doubled on his what? make no mistake, high gas prices are a symptom of his failed stimulus policies. that is why it was good to hear that the president indicated he would be willing to work with republicans on energy. in the meantime, the house has continued to pass "all of the above" initiatives as part of the republicans' plan for america's job creators. right now, there are at least seven bipartisan house-past

energy bill sitting in the democratic senate, waiting on a vote. unfortunately, the president has yet to follow through and urged the senate to act. he has caught him -- has carried on with more of the same. he has called for raising energy taxes, which the nonpartisan congressional research service says would lead to higher prices. he has asked the attorney general to reconstitute an oil speculation task force that is never reported its work to the public. he quietly pushed members of congress to prevent construction of the keystone pipeline, despite overwhelming support for the project and the jobs it would create, and his lobbying might have made the difference in the vote. just this week, his administration pressed the saudis to produce more oil, even as it works to close off more production here at home. no, government alone cannot work wonders, but the other printers and job creators, given freedom and opportunity, kit -- but entrepreneurs and job creators,

given freedom and opportunity, cannes. president obama continues to block responsible energy production. our nation will continue to suffer with high gas prices and limited energy security. there is still time for the president to do the right thing and urged the senate to act. secure our energy future once and for all. thank you, and god bless the united states of america. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> president obama celebrated st. patrick's day [inaudible] right on the corner from the c- span studios. >> i don't know how anybody plays golf up there.

[cheers] >> this is the real one. >> so, how are you? [cheers] >> they are not going to win it, but they will go all the way. [indistinct crowd noise]

who's this? over here? that you? [cheers] >> you're getting old.

>> i am only 36. >> absolutely. >> president obama celebrating st. patrick's day at the governor restaurant near capitol hill. [cheers] >> next, and look at the impact young voters can have on the 2012 election from this morning's "washington journal." >> as promised, we are joined at the table today by two people who represent younger voters, younger constituents come as a look at campaign 2012. we want to welcome rob, also

alex. to both of you gentlemen, thank you. we call you young voters. what is your view of what is going on and how it is different from voters who are older? guest: the committee serves as the umbrella organization for students on 1800 campuses. in presidential years. the youth vote gained a lot of attention in 2008. we're looking forward to a spirited debate in 2012. at usef you're looking of votes, how are they fairing these days? guest: 2008 was a historic year. the turnout was at historic

levels. the other interesting thing is the margin of victory for barack obama was huge. it was 34 points. is ife're trying to see the voters come back. they're working very hard to mobilize those folks. we think very critical piece to the president's reelection. what the polling and data show right now, we think those folks will stick with the president in 2012, based on what we're seeing so far. host: does the president have to work harder this time around to make that happen? guest: of course, he has to work harder to make that happen. 2008 was an interesting year. you are running against the previous administration. now you are running on your own record. you have to go out and connect with young voters for the last three years. he is doing that quite well. 2010 was a tough year. midterms are always a lower turnout. we think that will bounce back

in 2012. host: you had john mccain to focus on last time. now there are four men to focus on. what does that mean, as they're looking at to they will pull levers for, in the process, but at the end of the process? guest: we have an exciting process working itself out. students support is strong behind each of them. governor romney has won the last couple of races and was able to win the youth vote in nevada and florida, incredibly important swing states in november. congressman paul has done a good job of bringing new voters to the party into the conservative movement. a matter who the nominee is, we are confident we will put forward better plans and proposals for young people and explain to them why they have not been better off during the last 36 months. host: you left out the other two. guest: all four have been great

to the organization. by the primary process. we also have important races in the senate. we need to keep the house as well. we are looking at montana and nebraska. there are competitive house races across the country as well. host: where do you see the house and senate standing right now and after november? guest: we believe in the last few weeks that the senate is looking like it is in better shape now. our chances in nebraska improved. there could be a pickup opportunity. we actually think the chance of holding the senate are better now than at any point in the last six to 12 months. we will pick up seats with the 2010.rties' wave in

can we pick up 25, 26 seats to regain the house? that is a tall order, but i think it is in play. we could actually have the house and the senate back in democratic control. host: 2010 was an incredibly important year for republicans and the house. -- guest: 2010 was an incredibly important year for republicans in the house. by reversing some of the redistricting, in 2010, you'll see districts go back to the original routes, more competitive come and stay favorable for republicans in their reelection. it has always been a concern. we mentioned nebraska. i am confident that will be picked up for us. a group of strong candidates. in maine, we have a couple of candidates that made the ballot.

i'm confident these races in ohio, missouri, florida, which are presidential swing states, will have good senate races. host: you have heard their positions. here is your chance to ask questions for the next 40 minutes or so. you can do so via phone -- we have set aside a special line for those of you who are under 30. it is an arbitrary number on our part. give us your thoughts on campaign 2012. we have the special sign set aside for you. you can always e-mail us and give us a tweet at cspanwj on twitter. how is it changing this time around? how do you use it? guest: i think twitter is becoming a huge part of the

dialogue. social media is transforming the way we get to young voters. every day, we are trying to get information about what is happening with the presidential campaign and with candidates struck the country. i think it will become an important tool for young voters this year. guest: we were asked how being a young republican is different today than it was in the 1970's or 1980's. it is the availability of information. twitter is an important part of that. the committee has thousands of followers on twitter. we have 300,000 fans on facebook. we're excited about reaching these voters where we know they are. we know they are on facebook, twitter, and youtube. host: here is our first call from florida. what is your question or comment? caller: good morning, everybody.

i would like to point out that the progressive movement that started in the beginning of the 20th century has been working wholeheartedly, and has seized control of our educational system from kindergarten all the way up through higher education. the only way that president obama won that last election was because he called in his chips. they have been brainwashing our kids and turning them against rational thought. i am 56 years old. i can tell you that you are not a man until you are 30. you have not got a life experience. you might be really intelligent. you might be a great mathematician or you might be pursuing things that are of import, but you really don't have a basis for rational thought until you have become a full adult. what president obama did during that last election was called in his chips with all of these college students. the only way he won that election was because of those

votes. he has -- the progressive movement has turned our kids against us rational adults. host: do you wish to respond? he took slights that education as well as younger voters. guest: i think young people have an important contribution to make in the political dialogue. i think that call was a little bit dismissive of that rope. we have young people serving overseas in the military that would like to think they have a voice in this democratic system. barack obama has connected with young voters because he understands the needs of this generation. he is investing in education, doubling the size of programs to make sure young people have access to higher education, making sure that two and a half million new young americans now have health care. young people are responding because barack obama is treating this voting demographic as a very serious one, voters that need to be talked to directly,

and their concerns need to be discussed specifically. i think that is why young voters are responding. they have not been brainwashed. they're connecting to the candidate that reached out to them. host: the republicans say there is a young voter reach-out? >> i think he has some good points. not one out of every 10 the college professors are registered to vote. it is starting earlier than secondary education. it is starting in k-12. the two parties and movements have to take a serious look at education and the stranglehold being put on that by the teachers' union. president obama in lockstep with the teachers' union, holding back or students. things like charter schools, school reform. our candidates are talking about how to really make a difference in education in this country.

host: next up, maryland. teddy. hello. caller: can you hear me ok? one of the things i have heard democrats in the last congressional election was the fact that a lot of democrats, blue dog democrats, everything the president tried to do, pushing the abortion bill, a lot of people, the democrats and independents walk away from the democratic party because of these democrats acting like republicans. i think the democrats want to get their numbers up again. they will have to kind of change these blue dog democrats or whatever you have to do in order for us to go to an agenda that is progressive and that the american people want.

host: i want to hear your thoughts. guest: you hear a lot about the soul searching in the party. what you don't hear about is the similar fight going on. you have a democratic national committee under debbie washington schultz that has moved far to the left and the extreme swing of the pend dumb. i think president obama knows he needs to move back to the middle to win. you have those saying, no, we want to continue to the left encontinue that democratic party banner which is fine with us because if they continue to move further to the left, our party continues to grow increase, and will be the big party in the political arena. host: but to be fair, the role of moderates, especially moderate democrats. guest: if moving to the left means, you know, two million new jobs created in 2011, an economy on the rebound, the lowest unemployment we've seen in three years, i'm not sure you can characterize that as liberal or conservative but what we're seeing is an actual rebound in the economy. so as far as the sort of scope

of the democratic party versus republican party, there's no doubt that the democratic party is by far the bigger tent party. i think it has more diverse ideology. republican primary is a perfect example of how we've essentially seen a race to the right i think it's actually hurting mitt romney who's likely the nominee. he's had to lurch far to the right of rick santorum and ron paul. i think at the end of the day the democratic will be far more united in 2012 than the republicans. i'm from west virginia. i wouldn't probably put myself to the furthest left-hand spectrum coming from a state like. i think there's a lot of space and will be after 2012 as well. host: i wanted to bring up this poll result that came up yesterday related to not only your age-group but i guess how people look at the economy. there was a story released by i think pugh but written about saying three in 10 adults now live with their parents because of economic issues what does

this mean for someone looking for a job and someone who's look at a future president? >> the data put out yesterday is very important. i think that's going to -- you're going to see that messaging continue in 2012. students are graduating college with record student loan debt, $22,000 is now the average debt for a college graduate. and they're going out and seeing $4 gas, finding these temporary jobs, not careers. and they're moving back into their parents' basement. and what we're talking about what our party is going out is the party of independence, getting a job where you can pay for your own health insurance, where you're not moving back into your parents' basement and you can support yourself as opposed to living on the dull of somebody else. host: how much power lies within one man to make that happen. guest: i think it's about a movement, about controlling both chambers and the white house. and overall, a policy geared towards economic development. the numbers can come on the backs of young americans. let's look at how those numbers affect young people. 18% unemployment in this

country, twice the national average, half 6 young people 18 to 29 didn't go to work yesterday. there's $16 trillion of national debt that our generation is paying for.for and president obama said he would cut the deficit in half and has had the three largest deficits in history. host: the president's stewardship of the economy and job creation today. guest: of course. we all know the president inherited the worst economic recession since the great depression. at are hemorrhaging jobs report raid per month. he not len i stop -- not only bottom falling out but for 23 straight months, we've had private sector job growth that is significant and historic. 2011 was the best year in six years in job creation. george bush only had one year as good we're climbing out of a very deep hole so it's going to take time. but second to that, what the republicans are doing, the proposals they're putting forward, actually results in probably the largest generational shift in wealth that we've ever seen.

they're not addressing these problems when it comes to education and unemployment and job creation. their top priority is making sure that large tax cuts for the wealthiest americans from the top 1% are held in place at the expense of programs that help young people get ahead. essentially what they're relegating our generation to is to be the first generation that doesn't have an opportunity better than our parents. these are the policy priorities of the republican party. it's why young democrats and -- it's why young people are not being attracted to this current field of republican candidates. host: albuquerque, in. in, for our guests. republican line. john, go ahead. caller: pretty much. great show. alex, i've been a republican for 35 years. i wonder if you could speak to how much support and why does ron paul have. because you can -- you're an expert in this area, with the younger persons. i'm an older guy, but i'm look at mitt romney with offshore bank accounts and saying, loser, that cannot win.

i'm look at republicans and democrats, humity dumbity -- humpty-dumpty, we're going to bankrupt ourselves, the drug wars, all of the key issues that ron paul says are right on the money and i'm wondering is the young republicans -- on the college campus, are they resonating with paul? let's play it forward another election cycle or whatever. you see the paul movement whether it has not face or banner, flag banner holder, as a growing wave into the republican party. i'll listen off the air. guest: absolutely. i think all candidates are excited young people are getting on to campuses, stirring their groups. paul carrying over from his 2008 election has always done well with young people. i think it's because he's going out and talking about a message that has to do with getting our economy back on track. and the idea of independence. so at the end of the day from 2008 to 2010, we saw a 20% increase in our membership.

and we continue to see growth in the last 12 months as well. and i think anybody that brings new voters and new individuals to a party and to a movement is exciting, we should embrace that i think congressman paul is one of those people. but all of the candidates, governor romney and senator santorum, speaker gingrich and congressman paul, are talking about young people and how to tex young people -- fex young people. congressman paul has run a great campaign on college campuses. so we're confident when we get to november, young people that supported will unite behind our eventual nominee. host: how different is the message from congressman paul to the other three. guest: i don't any it's that different. it's the idea of independence, by yourself, live and supporting yourself as opposed to depending on other people. we've seen a similar message from the other flee three candidates as well. this is about $15 trillion in national. did he 18% youth unemployment cannot be forgotten. it's twice the national average. young people are graduate and cannot find jobs. and the government is saying, well, we'll pay for your student

loans, for your health care. at the end of the day, we're still paying for it. it's on our tab. host: seattle, washington. i'll let you get a response as soon as we're done. seattle, washington. jonathan who identifies himself as 26. hello, welcome to the program. go ahead. caller: hello. 26 years old. i think it really breaks down to a couple of main issues of demographics and new ideas. basically everybody that turns 18 this year, 66% of them, of the four million, will be democrat. it's really because the republican party has shown a real lack of the ability to draw new ideas and draw new people into that tent. you hear the president talking about financial aid, lowering college tuition, things that really benefit young americans. you really don't hear that from much of the republican party. you hear ron paul talking about certain issues. and i think the reason he gets such a large drawing from the youth vote is because he offers new ideas, new principals and

brings new things to the table where as the other three candidates are really going on failed policies of the past. host: who did you vote for last time, caller? caller: barack obama. host: and your thoughts on this time around? caller: it's got to be the president, man. he's the only one in the field that has shown real consistency and really has the ability to affect change. he has over the past three and a half years, instrumented fundamental reforms in government in large part and done a lot of the things that he campaigned for. host: and how would you identify yourself politically? caller: independent. that stand.let mr. snyder? guest: john that i appreciate your call it sort of gets back to the very first caller talked about the brainwashed youth of america. jonathan sounds like a very thoughtful person who's done his home work and has really thought about how he's going to vote this year. what jonathan just stated is stint with what -- consistent with what we're hearing. young people are taking a look, seeing how hard the president is

working for the people peoplal -- millennial generation, voters under 30 and they are responding. if you look at youth turnout in the primary so far, if you combined all of the republican candidates, in most of these early states, the young voters who turned out for those four individuals do not equal what barack obama was pulling just himself. remember, he was in a very competitive primary as well hick hick and -- hillary clinton and others. but barack obama himself eclipses the field of republicans when it comes to youth turnout. they have a problem with young voters. it is well known. it is not getting better. and i don't think when it comes to november of this year that young people are going subtly wake up and think that offshore bank account mitt romney is suddenly the person looking out for their interest and will help them find a job. host: can you respond to him or the caller mention the lack of ideas coming from the republican side. guest: the other side of the aisle would like to say they have a lock on young voters. that's not true. the last 40 years the republican party has won the youth vote four times, tied it twice more.

in 2004 president bush lost the youth vote. we lost 66-32 in 2000. so we're treading in the wrong direction. why and what can we do to change it? but if you looked at 2010, you started to see that gap start to close. the national registration rates among young people went, as the caller identified, 66% identified themselves as democrats or liberal and it began to close as more people were registering and identifying themselves as republicans. and as conservatives p and people are starting to seat fact -- see the fact that the only policies interested in are those that get him re-elected. we talked about student loan reform. the fact of the matter is, this package saved the average student $4 to $6 a month. if you make more than $45,000 a year, you're not eligible. chose to announce this program in a op-ed in the harvard paper. the average starting salary of whom would be over $60,000. he doesn't get it. these aren't real reforms. tuition is rising 10%, 20%.

a 15% rise on a $10,000 a year tuition is not solved by a $4 to $6 a month fix. i think republicans are offering ideas, talking about plans to get this economy back on track. host: what's the biggest idea of them all? guest: an economic environment that brings job creation. it's not about job killing, regulating policies. it's about getting people on their oak of the and i think repealing health care is the first start of that. host: our guests are two people who represent younger viewpoints when it comes to political thought, especially during this campaign season. we're joined by alex schriver, we just heard from the national chairperson rod snyder, young democrat for america, serves as their president. we have about 20 more minutes with our guests. los angeles, california go ahead. democrats line. caller: hi there first i want to just in the interest of full disclosure, i'm a professor of political science. i want -- i was a little disappointed -- can you hear me ok? host: go right ahead.

caller: i'm sorry. i was a little disappointed that the gentleman from the young republicans was so critical of academia. but i know it's a topic for another time. but at some point i'd like you to reflect on whether or not your experience at college, whether you were penalized in any way for being conservative. but more importantly than that, and i think that's a topic that's worth discussing, what i would like to see and hear you guys talk about, because i think probably the best way to fix our political system, if i could change any one thing to fix our political system, it would be that young people voted. so i look at you guys and i think this is what's going to save the united states. young people getting involved. so are there areas on which you two can find agreement? on any topic whatsoever. it has to be that young people have common interests. you've had the same interests, social security, medicare problems. all of this stuff is going affect you. things that are happening now eventually you guys are the ones that are going to have to

pay for it. is there any area of agreement that you guys have? host: mr. snyder, do you want to start? guest: sure. i think philosophically what alex and i would like to see for this country is probably very similar. we want to see a strong economy. we want to see, you know, probably a strong national defense to ensure that america's future is bright. we want to see job creation. we want to make sure that people have a safety net when it comes to health care and retirement and things of this nature. i think the tough part is agreeing on the policy that get us there. and i actually think that disagreement is healthy. my concern in recent years has not been, you know, folks taking opposite positions on things as alex and i are probably going to do all morning long. it's the tone that we've seen in washington. it's the tone we've seen coming out of congress and on cable news. it's just become so venomous and advice relevant that it's hard for folks to sit down and have an informed discussion. that's what worries me. and that's what i think is probably turning away young

people from the political process. i've said before, you know, people are coming in and kind of poisoning the well and then telling young people why don't -- why they don't drink the water. we don't like what we're hearing. we want to see elevated debate about these shared goals that we have and how we get there. that's what i would like to see from the future of american politics. host: mr. schriver? guest: we both agree on the major issues at hand in this country. i think where we degree is how we get there. the griment is healthy. it moves the debate along. but this is not about kicking the can down the road. this is about how do we address some of this nation's largest issues, as mentioned, entitlement reform, medicaid, social security? and our generation, 20, 3040 years from now will be foot the bill and may not even be around to benefit from. so as we continue, i think this is a healthy debate of what we get this country back on track. host: of with swv next. -- helveda, west virginia is

next. caller: it's helvisia, west virginia. host: sorry about that. caller: it's ok. the point is i'm sick and tired of hearing about this lie about the economy. bush had 54 months of untrimmed -- uninterrupted growth which was interrupted by the democrats take offering in 2006. that's the reason why we have such a lousy economy. and my middle name is louis. and john l. louis was the worst thing that ever happened to west virginia. it has never recovered from his bad policies and union disruption. -- destruction. host: the bush economic era or accomplishment. guest: right. absolutely. we hear all the time that president obama inherited one of the worst economies ever. but let's look at 2006 when the democrats took back the house and the policy that they put in place and still dealing with some of the credit squeeze. the next credit bubble that was going to face this country is the student loan market, $1 trillion in student loans. that's just an astronomical number that young people are facing.

but i think president bush in any opinion did help the economy and did have the right policies. and we've seen the last 36 months policy that haven't worked. host: your take on president bush's economic accomplishments? guest: first of all, greetings to steve from my home state of west virginia. i like to hear callers from west virginia. even if we disagree. it's funny because folks keep talking about the deficits of the last few years under barack obama, but they seem to dismiss the historic deficits that began occurring under the bush administration. the economy that was in freefall at the end of 2008 was a result of poor policy decisions, of course the bush administration spending that was awry and quite frankly little regard for deficits under the administration. i think even in private, most republicans will admit that the party lost a lot of credibility during that period of time because it's not talking the talk or walking the walk.

so when i hear about deaf fits -- deficits i chuckle a little because it seems like it wasn't that important to them a few years ago. as far as the economy, the number speaks of themselves. we actually have seen real job growth in the last 24 months, a real rebound in the unemployment rate. it's just going to take time to dig out of this very, very deep hole. host: washington, d.c., let's get a response when we come back. washington, d.c., good morning. leon, independent line. caller: good morning. how's everybody? host: you're on. go right ahead. caller: i have five kids, three are in middle school and two are in high school, and they want to know how can the republican side say that they're educated where the ones they have running for president don't have an idea what's going on? and they are confused to one thinking that obama is the only one -- the only politician

that's educated. host: caller, when you say those on the republican side has no idea what's going on what do you mean by that? the things that come out of their mouth, man, they act like they do not know what's going on. host: such as? caller: they tell the children can pick out the lies. they're not telling the truth. the kids are lost. host: mr. schriver? guest: i disagree. areink the republicans highly educated. i think our field, top of the ticket and all the way through, are very intelligent folks who understand inherently the situation that this country is in. these are foremen that have all gone through quite a rigorous education, dr. ron paul, a doctor, governor romney, who ran one of the largest companies, responsible for turning around the 2002 summer olympics, senator santorum as well, speaker gingrich, serving as head of the house of representatives here in the united states. as we talked about -- we talked about what's going on -- i will say this. republicans lost their way. we started to spend more.

and because of that we paid for it. in 2008 you saw us pay for it. in 2006 you saw us pay for it but as our party has returned to our roots, smaller government, less spending, the responsible party out there -- i think you started to see the young people come back to us and say, that's what we want. and that's why we saw gains in 2010 and we will again in 2012. host: the cuts come at the expense of entitlement program? guest: all of the above. host: which affects you. guest: that's right. but i think our generation is willing to take on that burden of having a serious debate about where social security, medicaid and medicare stand in this country. 54% of young people disapprove of obama's handle on the issue. democrats like to talk about how was.ssful obama care they didn't do anything to fix the system. they add mills of people -- millions of people to an already broken system. people are still uninsured. this is about how do we get the economy back on track without putting it on the backs of health care on every taxpayer.

host: mr. schneider? guest: if republicans had their way repealing the affordable care act, 2.5 million young americans who just got access to health care in the last year would actually be thrown off the roles if they're so concerned about the 25% of young americans without health insurance, you don't start by repealing a law that just got 2.5 million young people juried. it's a tiny bit disingenuous. we have found a policy that is getting people health care. we need to continue moving forward with that the other thing about deficits , when we say all of the above, that seems to mean everything except tore revenue increases. when mitt romney was asked a few months ago, would he support a plan that had 10-1 spending cuts to tax increases, the answer was no. it seems that no tax increase or no revenue increase for the government is acceptable to this republican field. barack obama has said let's take a balanced approach, let's look and see where spending kreutz necessary. let's also take a look and see, you know, where do we need to

bring us more money into the covers? if you're a family around the table trying to balance your budget, you fry to figure out where -- try to figure out where you make cuts and where do you bring more money in the door. that's a responsible discussion the government needs to have. it sees can we afford to continue the bush era tax cuts for the wholest% of americans -- wealth yes% of americans, billions of dollars has has created a hole in our budget. host: is there a difference generationally on revenue? guest: how can you say it's a balanced approach when the president put for the budget that continues to add trillions of dollars in debt over next eight years? running some of the highest deficits in our country. there's nothing balance about the three largest deficits in american history. we have to get back to a balanced budget. we obviously support the balanced budget amendment, i would encourage everyone to see what we're talking about and understand that range government at such a great deficit is not healthy for anyone. in the upper chamber, in the

senate, it's been 1,000 days since the senate democrats have put forth a budget. one of the most forefront constitutional duties, and they haven't even fulfilled that. so house republicans have put forward a number of plans, there are a lot out there for voters to check out. i think all four have talked about how they would go through the budgeting process. it's a important debate. >> revenue increases. is that a possibility? guest: no. we have to look at how can we live within our means and how can we without raising taxes put this country back on track? host: kingston, ohio, maureen, democrats' line. caller: yes. i would like to go back to -- i'm 83 years old, and i'd like to go back to where h.w. bush, bush's father, was in the c.i.a., i believe, and north was -- with the guns and the drugs and he stood up and said, i'm a marine, i'm not going to be -- i don't want to take the

brunt of this being and bush admitted that he was the one that did it. he lost the desert storm war. he promised his son he would make him a president. the republican party, as far as down as i could reach, has been so corrupt. they are not for the people. they are a no party. host: your question or comment specifically for our guests, ma'am? caller: i would just like to know what the republican party if they did get back in if they would continue to bring into a dictatorship that we just got rid of. host: i'll let you address it as you wish, but i can turn this to foreign policy for a bit? specifically about decisions made out of afghanistan the last few days. mr. schriver? guest: look, the president has been successful i think president bush needs to be credited for keeping us safe for the seven years following 911. we saw the effect that that had

had on our economy. and in the past 36 months the president has had tremendous gains in capturing and killing some osama bin laden. we have seen the president's approach in afghanistan and how do we deal with iran. we -- an issue i think we both agree on, agreeing on the importance of israel and how that plays in our overall middle eastern policy and our approach to dealing with iran and the threat of a nuclear iran and how it affects israel. host: moving troops to base business 2013? satisfactory for you? guest: i think we'll wait and see. host: mr. schneider? guest: i actually think barack obama, as far as his first term goes, will be remembered as much for a foreign policy successes in the first term. it's actually been remarkable what we've seen happen. we brought the iraq war to a responsible end for the leader shf p this president. -- leadership of this president. we have taken a step to drawdown troops in afghanistan. our military under the

leadership of barack obama captured and -- osama bin laden's time here on earth has come to an end. and also looking at the situation in libya, which i think was handled also quite responsibly. no boots on the ground, gadhafi overthrown. it's been a tumultuous period of time in the middle east. and barack obama i think has been a steady hand at the wheel throughout this period of time. i think that young people who have come of age during kind of the post 9/11 era, including myself, my very first day ever in washington, d.c. as a young intern was september 11, 2001. a very profound impact on my life to see a president take such strong positions on foreign affairs, you know, osama bin laden, what happened in that situation, the capture and death, i think that has a profound impact on young people looking at are we safe under this president. i think the answer is yes. host: new york, thanks for holding on. joe, republican line for our guest of guests. we have about 10 minutes left with them.

caller: hi. make goodts vote points. but my point is most of the are pushednts towards liberal views. i think it's very biased in the schools the way the liberal attitude is pushed. host: mr. schnideer? guest: i'm not sure how to respond. i think young people have freedom of thought as every generation did prior to us. i think at the moment the democratic party and this president is simply connecting better with young voters and it's presenting a vision that young people are responding to. i don't think that's necessarily a liberal bias in the education system. i think that's a real dialogue that this president has put on the table that young people are responding to. host: how did you end up holding the political position that you hold? what was the one determining factor? guest: i come from a political family in west virginia mix dad is in the state senate. so i saw the value of public service kind of growing up

around the state capitol. it was something i wanted to get involved in. the young democrats seemed like a great place to step in. i didn't ever intend to be national of the organization. but one thing led to another. and i'm glad i did i think these youth organizations are a great place for young people to have a voice in the political process. it's not always that easy for 20-somethings to breakthrough and have their voices heard. but these types of organizations are a very positive way of doing that. host: mr. schriver? guest: i think young people -- for many, many years now college campuses have been full of liberalism. i threw out numbers about how much time president obama spends on college campuses. i agree with the caller that these students -- we have cases in iowa, california, about how these students are being treated on college campuses because of their political affiliation. i don't come from a political family, but my father and grandfather owned a small business. we produce chemicals. and over the past 20 years i saw my family's business and i saw the effect that these regulations had on our ability to own a small business and to

have run a successful company that employed people throughout this country. that's what led me to the conservative movement, join the republican party i, too, was free throw foundly affected by 9/11. i was in eighth grade. i remember sitting in my classroom that day and the feeling that i had seeing our country under attack. i got involved in 2004. went to school -- went to school in alabama. host: something that's been in the news, the talk of contraception, particularly as it's been going on in terms of coverage and health care issues related what does that do as far as the political debate going forward, particularly from your perspective mr. schneider? guest: it's interesting, the whole contraception debate. amongst young voters and young women, i'm not sure where mitt romney, rick santorum and the republican field is heading with it. basically, 99% of women of child

baring age use contraception. it's just a fact. the affordable care act was providing opportunity for young to have access to this. 15% of young women actually use it for other reasons, you know, for medical reasons. you now have a republican field that's taking a very hard line against birth control. and it sounds like some of these folks are running for president in 1812 not 2012. it's not resonating with young voters. it doesn't seem to make any sense. i actually think in november it's going to take a huge toll not only on the youth vote but on the women vote. i think it's going to be hard for mitt romney or rick santorum to bounce back and make a connection with these voters after this style of debate. it doesn't make any sense to me politically. host: mr. schriver? guest: i think the debate and the contraception issue, the democrats have wanted to identify this as a republicans' war on women. the hypocrisy to do that and to say that republicans have this strong stance against women across the board because of this

issue is just simply not truism think with young voters, is aially, this distraction. the harvard institute of politics, one of the leading institutions on polling young people, said 74% of young people, their number one issue is jobs in the economy. so when young voters go to the polls this november, they're going to be -- they get this country back on track. we know we're confident. host: one more call, akron, ohio. it's our last call. mike, independent line. go ahead. caller: top o the morning to you. happy st. patrick's day. i just want to let you know that i am a very proud irish-american i'm also a proud catholic as well. but lately i have not been quite so proud of my catholic church as i would like to be. i've got a short poem i'd like to finish with before i go -- host: why don't you address a comment or question to our guests. caller: ok. my comment is -- well, it

involves the birth control. i don't know how they believe that we are paying for somebody else's birth control. when you go for a job, you get a paycheck and health benefits. you could either get $1,000 a week or $900 a week plus health benefits. that's just an example. that's out of your paycheck. when people get health benefits, it's out of their own paycheck. nobles pays for somebody else's health benefits. host: we addressed health benefits as well as the health care act itself. between now and november what are your organizations doing as far as get out the vote efforts, things along that line? thet: our organization is umbrella organization for 250,000 students on 1,800 campuses. between now and november we'll send out to recruit, train, and mobilize new members and bring them to our movement. we're the boots on the ground for the republican party.

we're the unions of the right. we're out there knocking on doors, making phone calls to help get republicans elected. we're confident we can do that. host: crnc.org is the website. informationl find to find, join, or start a club as well as where we stand on various issues. we encourage you to check out our website, facebook and twitter as well. see what we're about and why we're the organization and the party that's talking to young people. host: mr. snyder? >> we're mobilizing young vote areas cross the country. we have chapterrers in all 50 states as well. not just -- some people misunderstand the young democrats is actually 35 and under so it's not just college campuses. we have high school volunteers that are quite often going around knocking on doors, make phone calls, young families, young workers in their 20's and even in their early 30's. it's a huge effort. it's a volunteer grassroots effort. it's not only reenergizing the young people that were part of the 2008 campaign but also those eight million new, young voters who have become voting age since

2008. one of the most exciting things i think for us is looking at the diversity of the millennial generation and how diverse it is for these voters under the age of 30. talking to some of these states, latino voters, we just created a hispanic caucus to start reaching out to young latino voters which were making up a huge portion of the electorate. it's an exciting year. reenergizing the voters and theacting new folks to party as well. host: yda.org. guest: that's right. you'll find information about your state and local chapter, how to get involved, and also on issues of the day. check it out. host: this is conversation with rod snyder of young democrats of america, their president, and alex schriver, national chairman of the college republican committee. thank you. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," washington examiner correspondent susan faricio, preview sunday's caucus in

puerto rico, and the illinois on tuesday. cbs news analyst jere van dyke, author of "captive" discusses the latest developments in afghanistan. and erica newland talks about the obama administration's consumer privacy bill of rights. and congressional efforts on internet privacy legislation. "washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. oklahoma renascenter tom co-gurn -- republican center tomko burn says changes must be made. his remarks came during a hudson institute forum thursday. focusing on the future of medicare. this is about an hour.

>> good morning and welcome to hudson institute. i'm ken weinstein, president and ceo of hudson. i'd like to welcome our live viewing audience at home on c-span, and thank our friends at c-span for covering today's event. hudson institute was founded 51 years ago as a forward-looking policy research organization designed to think creatively about how to achieve a better future in the face of the then unprecedent challenges of the early 1960's. key to our research then as today is a unique approach, a unique focus in trying to solve problems deemed unsolvable by the so-called experts. we have done this repeatedly over the past five decades by understanding policy in a broad specktive -- perspective, calling insights through integrated research that draws on economics in the power of markets, human ingenuity through science, technology, and innovation. a backdrop against

of shifting deem yogavita if i and geo strategy. to our research has been work on health policy and a belief as we've seen over the last 50 years that technology and human choice are central to lengthening lifespan and reducing the cost of medical care. our health care research today is anchored by senior fellow teve troy, the former deputy secretary of department of health and human services. there will be a "q&a" period shortly. now as to our speaker, i can think of no better speaker in the u.s. senate to examine how to solve the looming crisis of medicare which poses such a broad fiscal threat to our country than senator tom coburn of oklahoma. the senator is a rare bird here in washington. he is widely known for speaking his mind, for his genuine independence, for standing up to both the left and the right on critical issues, and, of course, for his fierce opposition to waste and federal spending. and a profound concern about

long-term budget liabilities, a concern we share here at mudson institute. -- hudson institute. the senator was known for leading the fight against earmarks and his back in black bill this summer which called for an unprecedented $9 trillion in spending cuts. dr. coburn is a physician by train and practiced up until this year, a businessman by background. elected to the senate in 2004 after three terms in the house of representatives. he currently serves with stinks as a member of the senate committees on the judiciary where he's the only nonlawyer. on homeland security and government affairs and on finance. and in response to the current medicare crisis, the senator has introduced the senators choice act which aims to reduce costs through a variety of means including competitive bidding for benefits and increasing cost-sharing by wealthy americans. the senator will speak briefly. he has then graciously agreed to take questions after his remarks. and you can follow us on twitter

and tweet live at hudson institute using the hash tag seniors choice. so he's graciously agreed to take questions both from the audience here and at home. and, ladies and gentlemen, without any further ado let me say what a great honor it is for me to introduce senator tom coburn and turn the podium over to him. [applause] >> good morning. we probably don't have anything in front of our nation that is more critical both for our national security but also for our future, even if it had no national security implication than our budget. and nobody denies fact that the greatest component of that is the federal obligations through health care. ronald reagan, long before he was president, identified a time for choosing. and, quite frankly, that's where are again today. in our nation. the choices between trusting

americans versus trusting an elite group in washington to make decisions for us. with my independents comes my desire to be able to make choices for me and make decisions for me. i often travel throughout oklahoma. and one of the things -- yesterday i turned 64 years of age. so i understand the aging process. and i understand the insecurity that comes with aging as your health has bumps in the road and you fail. and i understand how important health care is to seniors. but i also understand one other aspect of seniors' life that's just as important, and that's their prodigy, their grandchildren. we are now faced as a nation with making critical choices over a very short period of time. some have said that's not a short period of time. but i would tell you, we have to

make the choices within the next two to three years. if our children and grandchildren are to survive in an america as we know it. the key crisis is, how do we strengthen medicare? how dough provide -- do we provide quality health care for seniors that our grandchildren can afford? if you look at the numbers today, the average couple puts in less than $130,000 in their lifetime in medicare. taxes. and on average they take out out $350,000. if you combine that with the demographic shifts that are happening in terms of my age-group, the baby boomers, and what we're seeing coming into medicare, you can readily see that's an impossibility. and you hear the calls that we can't change medicare. and the fact is, we will change

medicare. we will change medicare significantly. but that does not mean we will change quality health care for seniors. and the reason that we'll change medicare is because the world's financial community won't loan us the money to pay for at the time way it is today. it is a fiscal impossibility for us to be able to borrow at the level that will be required to sustain medicare as it is today. so we have a choice in front of us. and we can follow what has been put forward in what i choose to call obama care, where we have a top-down elite bureaucracy that ultimately rations medicare. or we can use what we've used in every other aspect of our society save education and health care, and that's the good choices of market forces allocating scarce resources to drive efficiency and quality.

tackling medicare in an election year is what is known as taboo in washington. i think that's exactly the time to tackle it. to build a consensus of what the real facts are about medicare. the fact that it is absolutely unsustainable that close to 15%, that everything we spend on medicare is fraud or missed payments, and that we've not addressed that. that would buy medicare five, seven, 10 years of life just to address the fraud. we can't even get a fast act, which has 37 bipartisan co-sponsors on the floor of the senate that will actually addresses it. what are our options? our options are to choose between market forces and

washington elites. and just by example, can we trust consumer choice to allocate a scarce resource? can we be involved? that doesn't mean that a 95-year-old senile individual has to make those choices. but it does mean somebody could help them make those choices. and can we allocate through consumer choice more consistent, more economical, more efficient utilization of the resources that our children are going to provide for health care for us? i would tell you that trusting elites in washington is exactly how we're going to end up with the independent payment advisory board. nobody should defend other than the fact that that is nothing but a pure rationing board. the whole goal is to look at a cap and say, how do we reduce

payments within that cap to be able to control the cost of medicare. that's why it has a cap on it. peter orsag who actually identified and planned the npt independent payment -- the independent payment advise have board had this to say. we need to jess sensational -- jettison the civics fairy tale about representative democracy and instead to build a new set of rules and institutions. the problem with such commissions is that they've reduced the power of elected officials, and therefore make our government somewhat less accountable. i want you to hear that statement. we don't need democracy to decide thousand handle health care. we need elites in washington to decide how to handle health care. i would put forward to you that that's the destruction of freedom in our country. and when we have the elite

position that we know better, and the greatest country in the world that has achieved more efficiency, a greater standard of living and has done it through consumer choice and market forces and that we need to abandon representative democracy as we do that is the height of the choice that reagan identified. what are we proposing? we introduced in the seniors choice act an idea to create competition through premium support. if you're on medicare, you like it the way it is, you can stale there -- you can stay there. only problem is traditional medicare will have to compete with the market. so we allow you through premium support to buy whatever you want to buy. and we both age and health adjust that and income adjust that so that you have the ability to make decisions about

your health care, your financial situations with the aid of a system that will get you better care with less dollars. the assumption behind this -- and this is a recognizable fact. it's actually been confirmed by four separate independent studies. one out of three dollars that we spend in health care today helps no one. it doesn't prevent disease and it doesn't help cure disease. if, in fact, america would solve that problem that $1 out of $3, our health care burden would be much less and our health outcomes would be much better. how do we do that? we do that through the forces of competition and consumer choice. beginning in 2016 we require medicare to compete directly

with private plans. we modeled this somewhat after medicare part 2-6r7b. w -- medicare part d. we allow each senior a stipend equivalent to what they would be receiving today, but we set up competitive model within the private insurance plans controlled by a consumer protection board to make sure those plans are not cherry picking, make sure they're what they're supposed to be. and then we make medicare compete with that so what we do is we put the forces of competitiveness back into the system which we do not have today. ask yourself for a minute why we have an acute shortage of primary care doctors today in this country. why do we have that? because you have a price-fixing bureaucracy that has under valued the value of primary

care, internist, family practice, etc., and they've under paid it. so why do you have nun 50 doctors who -- have one in 50 doctors who graduate from medical school, one in 50, go into primary care? because of the investment they're seeing, they're responding to market forces. if we want more primary care doctors, what has to happen? you have to create a market incentive for them to go there. and the option against that is that the government will tell you what kind of physician you'll be. the elite position is we'll mandate only so many physicians in all of these other areas, so we force people into primary care. so the whole goal behind the seniors' choice act is to set up both through increased recognition of our aging so we would start 2016 by slowly

advancing the age of eligibility for medicare. we would start by 2016, premium support, competitive model, which is adjusted both for income -- on both ends of it. if you're on the very low end of income, you get an actual boot up in your premium support. of the 60,000 people who have adjusted gross income in this country who are collecting medicare today, you would get less help. in other words, would you pay the full costs on medicare part b. we also would have an impact and direct in terms of supplemental, policies. most people don't realize that people on medicare today who buy a supplemental policy consume 23% more medicare dollars with exactly the same health outcomes.

so we combined the a and b deductible together. we create a new maximum exposure for seniors, all seniors. we create a maximum exposure so that you know you'll -- here's the limit of which you will never spend any of your additional dollars on. we limit low deductible, medicare supplemental policies can do one thing that's most important in health care. i want to give one final comment on that as an example. when you have skin in the game, i don't care what it is whether it's health care, buying a car, buying groceries, whatever it is if there is a connection with an extraction from your pocketbook, you're a better consumer. when it's not when there is no connection, we see what we're

seeing in health care today. that there's no differential increase in costs for over consumption. and we do know through lots of study that we have over jutization in large areas in medicare. and the reason that we have over unit lization in large areas, it doesn't have that much to do with patients as it has to do with providers so we would put that in. and an example i used -- i've had the good fortune to take care of a ton of amish families. we have this large section in oklahoma that has a large amish community. and they don't have health insurance. they are the best purchasers of health carry necessity anywhere in the world -- health carry know anywhere in the world. they want to know what something costs before they buy it. they want to know why i have to have it. and if i have to have it, where can i buy it most cheaply? they negotiate deals on pricing. if i pay you in advance, i do get a discount?

in other words, they're the ultimate consumer in terms of health care. and the reason they are is because it's fully connected to their pocket. and what we need is a model to where we have a connection, not an absolute but a connection of price and payment to be reinstituted. and that's what we've tried to do through the seniors choice act. i get letters all the time from seniors about their health care and the way -- waste associated with medicare. i mean hundreds of letters every month about what they're seeing. and, of course, there is no connection to their pocket because medicare's paying it. they don't have a connection. and yet they know medicare's in trouble. the final point i'd make is why we have to change medicare. if you go back to the macroeconomics that are facing our country and the fact that

we're going to add another $6 trillion to our debt, and that medicare after popoca has increased its unfunded liabilities by $15 trillion, that's -- that's what the increase was through popoca in terms of increased funding, liabilities. we have to fix medicare. and it's not a choice. about the status quo, which is what the typical politician says, oh, we're going to protect medicare what we ought to be saying is we're going to make sure you have quality health care: but the system we have today isn't working is highly inefficient, and will bankrupt your children. so the choice isn't of medicare as it is today and nobody's going to touch it. the choice is, how do we fix it to where our children can, in

fact, afford it? number two how do we make it better? how do we get more security for that aging american so that they know that they're not going to be bankrupted, that their lifestyle is not going to be marketeddedly changed -- marketedly changed through any changes that we make in medicare and we can absolutely assure the american seniors that we can do it better, more efficiently, and they can can have the security that they have today but knowing that that security does not come by a loss of stand yard living of their children and their grandchildren. with that, i'd be happy to take any questions and go into any details on the bill. yes, sir? >> my name is thomas cloud, a

reporter with cnsnews.com. you mentioned market forces and consumer choice being the key to solving medicare. if that's the case, why not simply just phase it out and replace it with just kind of a cash directly to the person and let them choose among whatever with the cash? >> it's not cash. it's a premium support which is a payment and allows them to use it. so in fact, if i'm 65 years old or 66, 10 years from now when i'm medicare age, i will get a deposit into a health account of a fixed amount. and if i buy something that covers and meets my needs that is less than than premium is for, i pocket the difference. in other words, it's essentially what we're doing. what we're saying is you can take that same thing and buy

traditional fee for service medicare or you can buy any plan out there that meets your needs so we're essentially saying that. but still, you have the guarantee of having the ability to buy that every year. so we don't allow -- that's why why -- the committee that we've up to oversee this, make sure that we don't get cherry picking, that you don't get caught with an illness that you can't ensure so what we're essentially doing is what you suggest, but still allowing senior who's don't want to go there who say i don't want to have to make a choice about what's best for me, i want to stay in fee for service medicare. so you can do both. can you stay in fee for service. but fee for service will have to be competitive with the average costs of those plans so what it does, it not only causes the insurance industry to have to compete for these dollars, but it causes medicare to have to be

actuariarily equivalent. remember, $1 out of $3. and medicare -- in medicare isn't helping anybody. we're trying to make it $1 in $25 now so essentially -- and if you want to buy something better than that, if you're well to do and say i want to buy something better than this, can you buy something better than that. but you'll never get less benefit than what you're getting today in terms of the benefit you received, in terms of access to care. see, the problem where we're going with medicare today is the system we have set up is a promise with no access. ask somebody that's going on medicare today how easy it is to find a new medicare doctor. 40% of the physicians in this country aren't accepting new medicare patients.

and that's growing every year. why is that? it's because medicare isn't competitive. or they're overly competitive in some areas and under competitive. like the disruption and the mall distribution in terms of physician specialties versus primary care. so market forces would take care of that where as a controlled, elite system run by washington doesn't take care of it. >> if you're 50 years old today, then if you say you're going to get the medicare benefits of a 65-year-old today, let's say 25 years from now, you know, if you extrapolate the trends in health care, if people really understood that, they might say that's really insufficient or it's a lot less than what med scare promising me now.

medicare is promising me at 75 i'm going get, you know, as health care spending rises relative to everything else that i'm going to get a much bigger share. so doesn't that mean that at some point people have to be told that they need to save more? if they want to spend anything like the share of spending on health care that's expected 25 years from now? that's a great question. i think that discounts the fact that $1 in $3 doesn't help anybody. and can we use market forces to make it more efficient so that that incremental increase in cost isn't there? ask yourself why are health care costs rising? is it all technology? what it that's -- forget the demographic numbers, the increased numbers of seniors. let's just say the number of seniors is going to stay constant. why is it rising? it's rising because there's no

competitive forces and there's no connection with over utilization. the age-old joke as physicians is, why do people come see you? they come to see you -- it's cooler in my office in the summer time than anywhere else in town and it doesn't cost anything to come in to see you. now, that's an extreme example. and i don't mean to say that that applies. but the point is, is if you have market forces and if you have a need -- we're not promising a medicare that's like today tomorrow. what we're promising is quality health care that is affordable for you that is not rationed from washington that both you and your children can afford. and we're also saying if you're you probably -- if you're 50 today, you're probably not going receive medicare until you're 66 or 67 because we have a slow incremental increase in the age of eligibility.

but the point being is, can you allocate a resource better than we're doing today? is there isn't a study out there that says we're allocating resources very well. matter of fact, every study says we're >> let me give an example. the new health care law manled eights we use physicians i.t. we are giving every doctor in the country $50,000 to buy a computer system. we have taken your tax dollars to people who average $250,000 a year, and we are taking $50,000 of your money and giving it to every doctor in the country. mere is what the first exam has shown on utilization of i.t. the doctors who can now get their tests through a computer in terms of diagnostic x-ray tests, whether x-rays, tests,

whatever it is, get that throughout aid of i.t., order 14% to 18% more tests than doctors who don't. so if something is easier to utilize, guess what happens? it gets utilized. all these suppose he had benefits on i.t. aren't going to drive any efficiency. they are going to make us have more compact medical record that nobody looks at. if you talk to doctors on a compute rised model now who are using -- computerized model, because it has so many spots to fill in, they don't look at it they put a note on the bottom and says here is what i did. it will not save us money. it will save us information money when somebody doesn't have something over here, and you need, and you can go get it. right now it causes increased utilization rather than

decreased utilization. >> the first question from twitter. the question is do you think things might change if mr. santorum or mr. romney wins in november? >> well, i think some things will change. i guess on health care they are implying. here is what i know as an accountant, a businessman and figgins. we are on an unsustainable course. we can tell the political lie, don't worry about medicare, nobody is going to touch it then we are going to reach a bump in the road where the international finance ears are not going to lone us money to fix it. when i talk to seniors in oklahoma, in contrast, their grandchildren with what they have today, most of them want to make sure they do their part to make sure their grandchildren have a great future. we can do both.

doing nothing on medicare assures seniors that they are going to have a terrible outcome in terms of medicare. if you want to save medicare, we have to fix it now. we can't wait 10 years to fix it. we can't wait until we are in the middle of the baby boom cost explosion in medicare to fix it simply because nobody in the world will lone us enough money, nor will we be able to afford the interests costs off that money to be able to do it. so the question is not whether or not we are going to fix medicare. the question is are we going to fix it smartly and do it in a way that protects the quality of care of seniors, or are we going to wait until the international financial community comes in like they have with greece and say you will do this, this, this and this, even though it may not be the best thing for the citizens of this country. that is the choice we face. we ought to be reassuring

seniors we can provide quality health care. but how we are doing it with the tremendous waste in it, and the inefficiencies in it, and the top-down control in it ought to go away, and we ought to do it smartly. the way to do it, if you think about the two areas where america is really failing, we are failing in education. why are we failing in education? we have no competitive forces any longer that have any impact at all in terms of quality of education. the government is involved in an area. what has happened in health care? the vast majority of competitive forces have been taken out. and so consequently we don't get a response for efficiency and good allocation of a scarce resource. we just over utility lies -- over utilize it, and we consume it inefficiently. right here up front.

>> i respect your point of view, but the concern that i have is how would you guarantee that the folks you have labeled the government elites won't be replaced by free market elites? >> well, i guess the only way that could happen is if you didn't have this board that would say i am taking away your possibility. that is why we have put this oversight board up in terms of what is being offered. i tell you that you can still have medicare. you can have it just like it is today, but it has to be competitive. in other words, we have to drive efficiency in it. i would tell you that market forces aren't perfect. i would agree with you. but they are a darn sight better than any government bureaucracy i have ever seen. i don't know one area of the

federal government that is both efficient and effective because the motivation is you are spending somebody else's money. you asked me what our experience is in the last 230 years in this country. my experience tells me that we have done much better when we have trusted markets than when we have trusted elites. where is the virtue of the elites? do you really trust their virtue rather than yours? and the market forces? why is the average home in the united states 800 square foot larger than anywhere else in the world? why is the standard of living and the wealth in this country higher than anywhere else in the world? did that happen through government elites managing the forces in the market or was it in the market and people making

the choices best for them rather than what was dictated to them by a government board? when you can't get -- if our path continues where it is going and you can't get the services you want, or when the preventative services task force says sorry, your 75 years of age, and we are not going to do a mammogram on you and diagnose your breast cancer because it is not cost effective, if you want a government bureaucrat to decide that for you, you should oppose what i am saying. i trust the american people more than i trust institutions. i think the american people will look out for them and theirs better than any beurocrat bureblingic -- bureaucratic can. >> claudia anderson, the weekly standard. i would like to understand better how this financial incentive works.

you say the premium support goes into an account for the individual. say the individual has a good health year and there is something left at the end of the year. then that stays in the account, and then the next year they get a new premium support? >> it doesn't even have to stay in the account. if you're a senior and you have bought a health insurance policy for your medicare, and it costs less, you can do with it what you want. the point is -- the whole point for this advisory committee is to not allow the games that are played in insurance to cherry pick or undermine your health condition so that we create a competitive model. that does two things. one is it guarantees you coverage. number two is it drives towards prevention. what do we know? still in this country the first

sim -- system of the vast majority of people with heart disease is what? death. why should that be? why is that? it is a preventable disease. why is it that the first symptom of heart disease is they drop over dead? we want to drive prevention and management of heart disease. we don't have health care in this country. we have disease care. how do we revert that back to health care where we prevent disease or manage disease effectively? if you have 20 different companies competing for your business, and they know you are going to still be there, then what we want them to do, we want them to invest based on their own profitablity in your prevention of a major disease.

>> for you as a doctor, sir, how do you think treatment changes or differs as a result of medicare and government dictates? >> how do i think it changes? well, the first thing i think it changes based on medicare is doctors have no concern right now for what anything costs. there is no penalty for a figgins to order test -- for a if i situation to order a test that is not necessary. tell me what it is? if a doctor saw a patient foredays ago, and i look -- four days ago, and i can get the blood work now -- first of all, i have to meet hipa requirements, because i might

accidentally tell it. how do i do what i need to do that is both efficient and effective? what drives me to do that? blue cross-blue shield knows my profile as well as every other insurer in oklahoma. they know whether i am an efficient figgins. they know whether i odd excess tests. they have a profile. every insurance company in america knows everything about every doctor's purchases habits. one of the things that is happening to medicare patients because doctors are opting out, the people who are not opting out of medicare are not the best doctors. the once opting out are the

ones who don't need medicare patients. so market forces should reward doctors who are efficient and get there. well, who knows that? medicare knows it, too. as long as you qualify for medicare, you're going to get paid. so there is no market force on the quality of the doctor, but there is. if i am way outside for blue cross-blue shield, you know what happens next year? they don't want me. they don't want to allow their patients to see me because i am not an efficient or effective doctor. that is one of the things that is really positive. i have another story. i don't have time to go into it, but suffice it to say we resisted an insurance company who horford us a contract, my former partners and i, for caring for a large number of people in an strickler plant in my home town. we told them it was not enough money. ultimately they came back and

offered to pay us 20% more than anybody else in town because we were about 30% more efficient than the rest of the doctors in town in this large group. what they did was they looked at the data, and what they found is they want to have doctors who are efficient. we don't have that going on in senior health care because there is no pent if i over order tests. you can't develop a bureaucracy pig enough to micromanage that. just like we do at c.m.s. today. >> i am carey weems. we know that a disproportion nature -- disproportionate share goes to some.

would you see, first of all, people perceiving themselves better off in that position in fee for service, and if so, doesn't that leave a significant financial exposure in the medicare system? >> in other words, the assumption is as they get older, they get out of the insurance and back into that? i think there may be some of that. but again the biggest problem we have with seniors today, part of it -- we have two big problems at the end of life. one is the threat of lawsuits. you can have an advanced directive and a living will. i have been in this situation a number of times. i have taken care of a patient for 20 years. they come in with a late-term event or the hospitalization prior to their late will have term event, but we are getting towards the end of life, and

they have an event that is happening, and i am wanting to follow their advance directive, and a grandchild or a niese comes in and says you are going to do everything. this has actually happened to me. i said no, i am not. i have had a great conversation with your aunt. i have known her for 20 years. i am not going to do harm to her. what you need to do is fire me as the doctor. most doctors won't stand up to that. they hear the word lawsuit and start running. the other thing i would tell you is why is it, if noosket in that advanced case, there is no connection at end of life with the cost. the key thing i would tell you that is different about our proposal is that medicare has to stay competitive. so we are mandating that

whatever this average cost is over here, that is where medicare has to be. and so what we will do is drive it towards that. in other words, you as a patient can't cherry pick the program because the program has to stay competitive with the private market. >> a twitter question. i think you will find this one interesting. joshua thinks that your plan sounds like the affordable care act, exchange, subsidies, market forces. is this extending the market rules of the affordable care act? >> i don't know hardly any market forces working in the affordable care act. all we are saying is we are going to make sure who is participate negligence that market isn't cheating seniors in terms of quality or

actuarially equivalent programs. i feel greatly insulted that that is compared to the affordable care act. >> i am an economic development consultant here in washington and also a member of the no label citizens movement. i really appreciate your remarks, senator and the emphasis on the importance of the budget, informed decision making, choice, accountability and the importance of a robust representative government. i think those of us in no labels feel particularly that not only are some of our systems bironas you have alluded to some of the problems with medicare, but congress is broken now, too. we wish that members of congress were all about the importance of the budget, informed decision-making, accountability and representative government.

i wonder if you could share with us your thoughts. you have seen how things are made there on khalil -- on capital hill, and we as taxpayers have skin in the game there and with other important issues. what can we do that could help fix congress so that some of these same principles you have talked about today can be a part of the decision-making process under way and so that thoughtful proposals such as the one you have described can be honestly considered and debated? >> well, that is a good and tough question. it is going to be getting had me in trouble. i don't mind getting in trouble with my pearce. the first thing you have to do is stop sending career politicians to washington. we have the government we have because the american people have send them here.

they are wonderful people. they have great hearts. most of them lack a frame of reference about what the we will world is like. when you take somebody who has never had real exposure in the real world on real issues that require blood, sweat, tears and hard knocks, you have people without that, who have been in a political position the whole team, they are working at a deficit. the deficit is the real world and common sense. if you look at the senate, 65% to 70% of the senate is filled with people who are the exact opposite of a guy named ron johnson. he had no political experience whatsoever. what is his number one thing? fixing our problems. he doesn't care about the politics. there is more conflict on our side of the a.l. with guys who want to fix the problem rather

than care about politics. the other thing that hurts is everybody is always thinking about the next election. we need people who hate the job but want to fix the problem. if you want to fix washington, you can do process reforms, and it will make some impact, but it is not going to change until you change the motivation of the people that are here. the horizon is the next election. we will fix it after the next election when we are more secure. it goes back to human nature. everybody wants to get stroke. a politician's stroke is getting re-elected. we have the capability to fix every problem in front of this nation right now. that capability is there. the problem is if we fix it, we will all get fired. great, let's fix it and all go

home. [laughter] the point is most people don't want to go home. i can't wait to get home. what i would tell you is you have the congress you have sent here because you as americans have decided you are going to put your benneteau and your vote with career politicians who tell a big story. they are great deal salesmen, but their action is far different than what you have been told. ask yourself the question. there is a bipartisan bill called the fast act which will address tons of the fraud that is occurring today in medicare. bipartisan support in the house and the senate. we worked with c.m.s. to develop this bill. why isn't it on the floor and passed and sent to the president? it has nothing to do with medicare. it has everything to do with the next election.

and there are hundreds of things like that. there are 27 different jobs bills waiting that have passed the house that aren't going to come to the senate floor. not because the country doesn't need them. because it does fit with the scenario of the next election. the motivation is we ought to be americans first and republicans, democrats and independents second, and you see exactly the opposite of that. we can change all the process you want. until you change who is coming up here and what their motivation is in terms of being here and getting the stroke, you're not going to change it. next question? are -- >> dr. coburn, i appreciate the idea that market forces can control our health care costs and improve the system. but i worry that it doesn't operate like a true market not because of government

involvement, but because of the imbalance of information between consumers and insurance companies primarily, but also consumers and their actual care. i am wondering if you are considering the senior support act, helping them under what they are choosing. not just the premium, but the kind of benefits you are receiving, the kind of care you are receiving, and the kind of out of pocket expense you are exposing yourself to? >> that is a great statement and question. we have looked at that. that is part of what this organization is going to be that is going to control this. right now we have 15 supplemental plans in medicare. we tell them what you can put out, what you have to put out. the question is the same thing. the question is can seniors november gate that? up to a point, yes. my mother died a year and a

half ago. my brother and i helped her navigate what the choices were when she no longer could do that. we are talking about a very small group of people that are not going to have family involved in making those choices. the question is how do you keep the bad actors out, and how do you keep those that want to cheat in the system? and how do you have enough transparency when something is going on so that seniors are not taken advantage of. i got back to the other point. one of the reasons our health care is out of control is everybody thinks somebody else is paying the bill. i am the first to admit that market forces won't solve everything, but i guarantee they will solve it better than what we do today. there will be people who fall through the cracks, and it won't be perfect. but the allocation of dollars

will have a much better consequence than today. there will be a consequence for a doctor over utilizing something thause they will be watched. they are not going to do it inappropriately. there are no controls, no brakes on this system now for bad behavior in terms of the market. what we have to have -- the question is can we have great health care for seniors and have it in a way that is much more affordable than it is going to be in the future? i think the answer so that is yes. that doesn't mean we trust markets 100%. we let markets work, but we have controls. if we have a bad actor in that, it is identified and gone. >> time for one last question from the audience and then one last twitter question. >> all right. right up here.

>> you said many times that a big factor is finding the doctors that over utilize as a criteria. what are you going to do against the ones that under utilize testing just so they appear good and score high? >> first of all, there are two different aspects to your question. one is laziness. the other is whether or not you have a doctor that is committed to your health care. if you have a doctor not committed to your health care, it doesn't matter what system we have, you're going to lose on that. if you come to me as a doctor -- if i am really a if i situation, and i am going to cut a corner on your health

care so i look good, i have already violated my hippocratic oath. the difference is i can look good and somebody else pay the bill when i over utilize. that is the whole point of where we are going right now. guaranteed medicare is not guaranteed quality care, and is not quarne teed access. the choice is are you going to have access to a doctor in the future? that is the first thing. we are going to have a shortage of 150,000 dollars in the next 10 years in this country. the doctors may age are saying see ya. i am not messing with this anymore. that happens today. that happens because when you go to see a doctor on average

they don't spend the time they need to spend with you to listen to you about what is going on with your health care. that is happening because medicare under pays health care doctors. so what do they do? rather than spending 45 minutes with you to hear what is actually going on. the average right now is 30 seconds before they interrupt you because they have to get busy to see the next patient. they hear part of what you say. they order a whole bunch of tests and walk to the next room. they are on a treadmill because we are on a medicare system that says you won't make it if you actually spend time with a patient. there is a group of doctors out there that says i quit it all. i am going into cons o'hair

medicine. i am finally getting to practice medicine the way i was concerned. i get to sit down and listen to my patient. on average they are ordering 40% last senses because they are listening to the patient. the insurance companies are getting better outcomes and reduced hospital zaces. we were automobile trained, no matter what you do, listen to the patient. they will tell you what is wrong with them. nobody is listening because we have a system that says here is all medicare is going to pay. i can't pay my nurses if i practice medicine the way i want and get reimbursed from medicare. what good is a medicare if you can't get a doctor? if you can get one, what good is it if they won't listen to you? you? so i would