access team dealing with these issues and bilateral discussions, but it would be much more useful to have anthat is the reason we ofd this mechanism of a mediation that someone is independent might have a feeling that this goes to far. or i don't see a problem. but situation in both situations. reach may be too big of a question, but you have quite a lot of issues where you could at least argue that the importer has a more difficult job to do than the domestic producer. if that is the case, and then you can go to a fully fledged

settlements or you try to solve the problem through the mediation process, and open at least the government would react after mediation? . >> i am going to have to bring our discussion to a close, which i hope will continue through the lunch. i understand is that the back of the room. i encourage everyone to go and serve yourself, and we will resume at 1215 for a presentation -- at 12:15 for a presentation. each year. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> that concludes our coverage

at this point. it will continue on our web site. go to c-span.org. as we continue our road to the white house coverage with appearances by mitt romney in rick santorum. both candidates are in illinois. mitt romney is at the university of chicago for remarks on the economy. live on c-span 2, rick santorum is in dixon, ill.. it is the second of four events for the former pennsylvania senator. there are 69 delegates up for grabs and the republican presidential primary. congress is back today. the senate returns at 2:00 for general speeches. of four-o'clock 30 they will resume of bill aiming at small and medium-size businesses. tomorrow the senate is expected to hold three bills to limit the debate on the bill and

amendments involving investor protections of revising the import/export bank. the senate is live on c-span to. the house is back up for clock with legislative work. also, budget committee chairman paul ryan may release his budget plan this week. we may hear remarks on the floor throughout the week. what coverage of the house here on c-span. also this week, the house armed services committee will hold a hearing on recent elements in afghanistan. john allen, commander of the international securities force and acting defense undersecretary in principle under secretary for policy are expected to testify. live coverage of that hearing tomorrow. it serves a 10:00 eastern. -- it starts at 10:00 eastern. earlier today the education conference here and watching to address the high-school dropout rates and to prepare young

people for college in the work force. here the education secretary speaks and moderate a panel on education. and this is about 45 minutes. >> i want to give a quick shout out to offer their groundbreaking work of the years to identify and promote solutions to the high-school dropout crisis. please give them a big round of applause. [applause] this morning i want to provide a preliminary progress report on the school improvement grants. as all of you know, the goal is to achieve achievement or far- reaching intervention. it supports schools, leaders, teachers, unions and local partners in the community to undertake this challenging work. we're seeing some very

encouraging signs of progress in this first year of data from are six schools, which actually fuel -- you experts anticipated. -- few experts anticipated. the starting progress is painfully self-evident. the united states cannot meaningfully boost education rights and promise education rights to every single child without ending a failure and the chronically low-performing schools. this is literally for decades that children have been cheated out of world-class education and underperforming schools. it for far too long all of us here educators and leaders have possibly as the third of this failure with the complacency that is deeply disturbing. it states and district officials have traditionally been in these schools, instead of treating them as the educational emergency that they

are. from the moment i became the ceo and the chicago public school in 2001, i have had many people tell me there is not much that can be done to transform a failing school. skeptics on the left of the political spectrum said the barriers of poverty and race and the attachment of parents to the neighborhood schools were just too tough to overcome. those on the right of the political spectrum said teachers of union and district administrators would never buy into dramatic and fundamental change. and then a child left behind long require persistently low- performing schools to take action to improve student learning. in reality, chronically under- performing schools were required to do little. for years the program provided little or no resources to help support change in the schools. almost no high school, for example, were included in the

federal school improvement efforts, even though just 15% of our nation tries schools produce to nation drop out. they pointed fingers, bickered, and at the end of the day no meaningful change to our nation's children. early in his administration, president obama said america could no longer maintain the status quo in chronically-low performing schools. we cannot continue to tinker. he believed, and i believe, dramatic change is desperately needed in low-performing schools, and we reject the idea that some school or children or neighborhood are destined to fail. in 2009 our administration with the support of congress created a new and much more ambitious program for turning around low- performing schools. it gives states and districts for options for dramatic improvement, but all of them require schools to institute

far-reaching changes to improve student learning. as my friend says, a tall goal here will not lead to fundamental change. -- a tweak or toggle will not lead to fundamental change. the money has gone to over 400 schools, and in the first % were high school. were almost immediately, analyst, loggers, and attendance almost uniformly predicted it was a flop. they said it would have little affect on student learning in student outcome. they said even if the program work to turn around as -- turn around a few schools, it

would never succeed with lasting change. fortunately, a great community partners in parents did not listen to those skeptics. most importantly, students themselves more than stepped up to the challenge. these courageous teachers and community partners understood turning around low-performing schools is some of the most controversial work it would never undertake. they knew it was among the most important and potentially the most rewarding work it would ever do for their entire careers. they knew the difficulty of the work could not be an excuse for inaction. they did not claim to have all the answers. they approach the work with real humility -- real humility coupled with a sense of urgency. we're still seeing the results from the first year of the program. our preliminary data shows after just one year the commitment to change is producing dramatic

gains in learning in a significant number of schools. we all know none of these are where they need to be or where they will be, but that progress, sense of momentum and sense of hope israel. we have about 850 schools in the first cohort. we now have preliminary achievement data from 43 states. in year one cover roughly one in four schools of double-digit increases in math proficiency. about one in five schools took double digit increases in reading proficiencies. all told, the% of students that are proficient in math or reading went up in just the first year. now, as encouraging as these increases in academic achievement are, i want to be clear that obviously they are still preliminary. we're only talking about the first year data. everyone realizes there will be several years of data to confirm a lasting improvement in

academic achievement. we're continuing to get data on other outcomes that matter to end testing of student progress. things like graduation rates, drop out rates, discipline, attendance, and others. this is just a first look, but it is encouraging to see the research is finding the turnaround school and reconstituted school can dramatically improve student performance and substantially boost graduation rates. even more encouraging, they are doing district buyt-wide. it is equally heartening to hear there has been a big drop in the number of high-school dropouts nationwide, especially from 2008. the number of high schools in america were graduation is not

the norm fell from about 1750 schools to 1550 schools. it all totaled nearly 400,000 fewer students. were the ingredients in secrets to the success? we're seeing the schools that boost achievement tend to share at least two common elements. first, they have a new dynamic leader who is deeply committed to the students and surrounding community. i am talking about extraordinary principles. every monday morning he gets up really early and drives to 0.5 hours to his school. all week long he lives on the reservation before driving to 0.5 hours back to his family for the weekend. the second thing that turnaround schools have in common is they have teachers and adults that

share relentless focus on improving instruction third collaboration and the use of data. all four of the models give professionals in the stool -- and the district and the resources they need to be ambitious teachers. they provide professional development and greater use of data and increase learning time. they all provide improved teacher about tuition systems that for the first time provide meaningful feedback. the road to success is not the program itself. it is the focus, passion, commitment of practitioners to drive success. contrary to a lot of predictions that were made, the program has helped to spur innovation in the field, instead of somehow cycling it. magnet elementary school has adopted a peer to peer elevation

system that requires all teachers to be observed in classrooms and serve as observers and other teachers classrooms three times a year. in ontario, teachers are making better and smarter use of technology to improve instruction and real time. and las vegas, kit carson elementary school, using funds to turnaround program that added an hour work to learning time at the end of the school day. as a result of the additional hour work, reading and math proficiencies in crude -- improved. down the road smith ridge elementary hired a new stem coach and data specialists to give teachers meaningful feedback and daly coaching. students themselves have a big role in tracking and analyzing their own progress and of powering students to take ownership of their own learning is a were important. weekly assessments monitor how students are learning state standards and all data tracked

for each student's and journal. at the heart of the successes are teachers and school leaders who are excited about the prospect for change. it is what motivates them, get them up every morning and keeps them working late into the night. this is absolutely a labor of love. these teachers recognize how demanding the work is, but they see the potential for fundamentally transforming the lives of their students. they know school culture is a difficult thing to change, but they believe all children must be given the opportunity. teachers at successful turnaround schools feel they're part of something big. let me give you an example of being a part of something big. one of the panelists you will hear from in a few minutes, cheryl smith and portland, oregon will talk about how the program has work in her district are roosevelt high school.

two years ago roosevelt was named one of the worst schools in the state. if the first year in the program, roosevelt has had a 14% jump in the four-year graduation rate. attendance is up, test scores are up, and discipline issues are down. just as important, the educators have fostered a new belief among students about what is possible for them. the arts are thriving, and so is the drama program. last summer the students perform a play at the international lesbian a special in nebraska. to make sure all the students can make the trip, she took out a second mortgage on her home. that is a remarkable commitment. but to get her help, and i am going to figure out why we do that -- how to do that. they are collaborating with management to decide turnaround

customize support for teachers and to professional development for staff in turnaround schools. a final barrier to turning around schools is parents are supposed to fight change in the right schools. houg we're finding that parents are driving change in enhancing opportunities. community engagement is crucial to successful turnarounds. you cannot smell -- still partners without parents. tha11-- -- spell partners without parents. together for tomorrow is already under way at six demonstration sites around the country. working public -- with the white house and corporation for national and community service, we will expand this effort to foster more community

partnerships to invest school improvement. in the end, none of us can do this alone. coit does take a village. children only get one chance to get a quality education. as dr. martin luther king said, we cannot wait for reform to happen. we cannot wait for equal educational opportunity to be realized. this is the civil rights challenge of our generation. i want to thank everyone here and everyone in the field for their courage, commitment and leadership in bringing you hope to schools, communities, and most importantly, to children were the light of hope had been. this is a movement. i believe it is about so much more than education. it is a daily fight for social justice. together it is upright we will win. and-- it is a fight we will win. [applause]

now like to bring up the real stars of the show during the hard work and having a panel conversation. cheryl smith is the superintendent of the portland public schools. we have a fantastic turnaround school here in d.c.. row smith, business and a teacher. also, a senior there. [applause] >> i am glad to start with the real start of the show doug. you have been at the school for four years. i would like to hear about what

the school was like before the turnaround. >> the first couple of years, when i came i was 14 years old. everyone else was older than me. my first year there i was young, so a lot of stuff was new to me. a couple of kids was in there. [laughter] >> a couple of dudes. >> i was not really used to it. there were smoking in gambling in the school. i was trying my best to stay away from it. it was all around. it was hard. a couple of years after that when the news that came, there was not really none of that. everything was shut down. to go our students taking education more seriously now? -- >> are students taking

education more seriously now? >> yes, sir. >> what do you think change? >> i think the teachers. they did not really care. now they make sure we sit down and the chair and make sure we do it right. me being on the basketball team, they will not let me play in the game unless my work is right. >> who that is not to talk? >> no, it is not like that at all. to go i have been there seven years. it is an alternative school. often times do the tough struggle. what you choose to work there? my duty, nott's only as a product of the d.c. public schools, a former resident of the city to give back to the students what i received when i was at the school. i had teachers that cared and motivated me and made me feel as if i battered it did have a

stake in my own future. i feel like it is my duty to get that back to my students. and [applause] >> walk me through. you have been there seven years. what was the culture like then and now. >> before we had a very low attendance rate. our restoration rate was very low as well. we have students that word come to us every day that were disengaged academically and socially. now that we have made changes, which have been difficult, because change is difficult, but it is also necessary. with students i come to school because they want to be there. we of students that come to school because they could see the light of the end of the tunnel in regards to graduation.

they have opportunity to not only come and feel a sense of pride in be encouraged, but they can also receive the graduation diploma much quicker with our exhilarated program that allows them to earn more credits over the course of the school year than ever before. >> change is hard. change can be threatening. how much are you scared of it and how much did you resist it? walk me through your thought process walking into this. >> for me, i have to feel empowered myself. i had to get up in the morning and tell myself yes, i could do this. i do make a difference at the end of the day. i am not able to reach of the students in my classroom. being able to touch the few, seeing them graduate, seeing them go on to college, seeing them successfully go out into the world of work mix all the difference. >> what do you think about this young man? >> this is my teddy bear.

[laughter] i have seen him grow into a fine young man. he was a disengage student, but he it's been empowered. he received instruction that was quality instruction. he was not just in the cost to get grades. he realizes the skills will make him have a better and brighter future. i am excited for him as he prepares to graduate this june. [applause] >> after a quick conversation with superintendents beth, i agree to open it up for questions from audiences. you have roosevelt high school, one of the low was performing schools in the state. walk me through what the school was like before. walk me through what you did and the results. pretty remarkable progress and

one year. what we through the progress of how you got to hear from there. >> roosevelt high school was one of the low was-performing and the state. it had been a school that was organized into three small school on a single campus. we use the opportunity to mobilize the strategy and bring it back together it at the unified campus. as you called out in your opening remarks, the school had a 14 point gain in graduation rate. double digit gains in achievement, both in reading and in math. a 28 percentage point decrease in disciplined referral. the big one is an increase in students that are choosing to attend their neighborhood school, which is roosevelt. one of the previous things was a downward spiral of students choosing to opt out.

key factors are leadership. we have a dynamic principal who was an instructional leader. she understands partnership and how to engage partners in the school, and she is an inspirational and galvanizing leader. she has built an energy in the place that has been remarkable. secondly, there was local ownership in both what model school chose to undertake, and we have the district participation in choosing the model and billing the plan and identifying what strategies were going to be used in writing the grant an ongoing implementation. relentless focus on instruction. part of the strategy is

instruction. finding time for teachers to collaborate. we of teacher evaluation tool, which we have implemented across the district. this has transformed the relationship with our teachers union and how we work together with the teachers' union as well. the last thing is partnership. it has been huge. this have been partnership with the faith community, business community, universities who are helping to build a college culture at roosevelt and teachers -- students believing they are aspiring to go to college. non-profit partners were helping us work on how we use out of school time and effectively to support student success in the classroom. a combination of all of those things. it is a different place than it was. you feel this to the energy that is really exciting.

>> this change is really hard. it sounds fantastic, but it is not easy. how hard was it? how much resistance was there? secondly, a huge amount of progress. is this more than you anticipated? less than you anticipated? >> it was not a foregone conclusion that we would apply for the grant. even the fact that the school community decided we were going to go forward and apply for the grant was a deep conversation with the union and teachers and the administration of the school as whether this was an opportunity or jumping through hoops. we did a pretty amazing process of the front end with the leadership and i went and sat with a small group of students that explored what it meant to apply for the grant and evaluated the different options, but we have the entire staff of

we sat in the fishbowl of we figured out what opportunities and challenges and the strategy going forward. the union and i said you figure out what you want and we will remove the barriers. that is what we did. that has been a huge piece of this success, the school owning the strategy and feel like they're driving the work and not being prescribed from someplace else. this has been transformational change. thate we're on a a path we continue to see change. >> any questions for our panelists? do we have microphones? one here. another microphone here. >> i am a friend of martin, an education advocate in northeastern, ky. -- brenda martin, an

education advocate in northeastern kentucky. i would like to look at the curriculum and tell as of that increased your culture. >> well, stereotypes -- i really did not pay attention to things like that, because i am just tried to get an education mainly, but the curriculum was pretty easy, but it could be tough at times. the teachers made it kind of easy for me. they stayed by my side until i really understood what i was supposed to. >> the stereotypes can be major for me. it can be debilitating. when you're talking to colleagues, know when you work at the school that is considered

the bottom of the barrel. the wingy were working at a school where people fear the oil are of budget rejects. -- where people feel they are a bunch of rejects. with regard to our curriculum -- [applause] >> with regard to our curriculum, it is indeed curriculum and challenging. we found with having a higher economic -- academic standards, our students fell to they have earned it and really have taken new skills and strategies the way they can use in the future. it has been embraced. >> thank you. >> and the stem director for d.c. public schools. and i have to say that as twitter and email is bursting with pride of both of you appear. we're so proud to have you sitting up here but the

secretary of education. [applause] my question is about what next? if you are getting ready to graduate, and you have obviously figured out things that are working. so what is next to we can take what you learned and really tell your story to other kids and make sure other students can lift themselves up and learned from what you have done. what do you think you want to do next to help us do that? to go i know for sure i am going off to school. -- >> i know for sure i am going off to school. school first appeared and hopefully i will go to north carolina central. [applause] after that, i would like to come back and speak about my story and my rough trails through high

school and things like that. i love to talk. [laughter] >> my good friend. >> i am with america's promise alliance. i would like to ask a question to the portland rep. you reference community support. there are many people in the audience today that represent non-profit organizations at the community level. what is the most effective way to reach out and be supportive of the students and the schools that really need our help? >> at roosevelt specifically it has taken a number of different forms. we of a nonprofit that is a step-up program where they are providing advocacy and tutoring, directly related to the students and teachers in the classroom. there is a direct relationship.

we have some community schools that are present at roseville campus that have been meeting each month support. we have a family engagement corn later that is organizing with commuter-based organizations family night that are really getting families with the school. we have a church that has wrapped its arms around the school and the building and energy on the campus that has a lot of different activities. a mechanism for different individuals to support the school. the alumni has been hugely -- cutely engaged as businesses supporting roosevelt feared that the university has in caves individual students with our students and the relationships carry on once the student goes on to college. they have taken different shapes of figuring out where does the

community organization or individual have to offer with what the school needs? they are not random partnerships. their focus and the line on what roosevelt was trying to accomplish with students. >> did you identify three or four changes that were specific in your school? >> i can get stronger back to the presentation, because we have done things that roosevelt that we're doing at the district. one of them is academic priorities students. at us students are coming out of eighth grade and moving into ninth grade and putting a special emphasis on attracting the ninth grade. and we have a ninth grade academy. we are tracking students being on track to graduate as they

moved into 10th grade. having the appropriate amount of credit. that critics their on-time graduate. -- that evaluates their on-time graduate. the collaborative work on wants teachers is a huge piece of the collaborative problem solving that teachers are doing. >> my name is a man up from united way of tucson and southern arizona my question is about parent involvement and whether it that as part of your strategy as well. you mention family engagement night. i it was wondering what that look like. >> yes, we do.

we have used service organizations and have relationships with families in a way that links families to schools. river broad definition of what it means. we have had a wednesday morning parent volunteer warning for parents show up in force at the school and our presence at the school. we have an outstanding individual who organizes the parent engagement, and she is hugely energetic but looks for the right match. >> good morning. my name is brian d. as. iaz. what did you find that you held on to and were able to come out and make it through the four years. how were your parents involved

in assisting to get you where to your at this moment? >> i held on fast. they were pushing me along. they were really behind me. if they had not, i probably would not be here right now. my parents told me i do not have to follow the crowd. i really think them a lot for that. [applause] >> good morning. my name is jim cantoni. i just want to say give inspiration, get inspired. i think inspiring potential so children receive greater by outcomes is what i am hearing.

dkwon, martin luther king said that intelligence + character, that is the goal of true education. what have you seen that over the past several years at roosevelt school that has -- how has it affected your character and the character of your school? what percentage of that has helped you thrive? take a 100 >> 100%. my character has evolved. my first couple of years i really -- i are ready to school was not for me after high school. with the new change that has come, i settle down and richard

a little bit started getting my head in the books and things like that. i said my character has matured 100%. >> you are realizing it martin luther king's dream. i would like to encourage you to become one of the next presidents of the united states. [applause] thank you. >> you can have my job first. take a good morning. and i am with an organization of volunteers. i am very proud of you. i look back at myself, and i have a flashback of me being the intern for senator strom thurmond in california. i am from a small town, but we had a lot to offer. i would like to ask the audience, are you all proud of sasha and maliah obama?

i am also proud of the nation's children. i wrote a proposal that the objective is to assist you did to organize a wishing well that will showcase the nation's children and honor the first children. i know the president and mrs. protective ofvery their children, as they should be. to g three mor questions. >. >> 3 more questions. >> i do not really have a question, because everyone pretty much as the questions i wanted to ask. i wanted to commend your younger brother. from where i come from, i have seen the destruction spirit and i have a little brother that was distracted by that. for you to focus and put your

mind in the right place, it just know there is nothing you cannot do if you want to do it. you could do anything you want. you were on the right path. you have the right people with you. i commend you, young brother. [applause] >> my name is aaron hacket, from hampton roads, virginia. [applause] i have a question coming from this side of the partners you mentioned. you said there were a lot of non-profit organizations that were helping out. first of all, what are the non- profit organizations? what has been the best kind of activities and after-school programs that are most effective? for us, trying to engage high school, what would you advise

for us trying to get involved? it seemed you are reaching out as a school for them. this is us reaching out on the other side. will offer self enhancement inc, and they are at the conference and will be presenting this afternoon. they have been a long-standing partner in the community to start working with young people and their families in the second grade. it is all about the relationships they build with students. they have a 984-year cohort graduation rate of the young people they have supported. [no aud[applause] they will be part of a presentation and a session that will be worthwhile to go to. there partnering with us some one of the high school summit jefferson high school that is partnering with the community

college on a middle college model and a non-profit partner is really in sharing we are going to be able to guarantee success for every one of the students that a part of this program. i suggest it is a great place to start. it is self enhancement ink. the session here at the conference is about scaling up successful practices. it is later this afternoon. it is a great example of one of our partners. and to go good morning. and i am a practicing school counselor from chicago public schools. and [applause] [applause] we know school counselors are an underutilized resource nationally. my question is how our school counselors engaged and the transformation process at your respective schools? >> at our school the school

counselor does a number of things. for one thing, creative scheduling. secondly, our counseling staff takes the time to work with individual students to meet the emotional needs that often come with this. also, career planning, as well as college planning. we have counselors that are available to local students with the federal student aid form, college applications. we work on interviewing techniques and strategies for those students who desire to go out in the world of work. those wraparound services but students need. i would say flexibility in terms of making sure students are getting the classwork they need.

and changing that if they are not on track with what they need that is a hugely overlook strategy. also, linking students with a community resource that they need, as well as paying individual personal attention. we have an exceptional the school staff tat i am talking about today. >> there is a national move for career readiness. if your counselor has not signed on, please have them do so. thank you. [applause] >> my name is terik burno. my question is specific for dkwon. you mentioned the culture associated with your school. in response to a question of you said you were able to be your own leader.

in stockton and through some of the other states there is a pervasive giving problem. what we often find is some of the best students we work with are still overwhelmed by the king issue, whether it is generational war neighborhood- wise. was your success link to the fact you were not overburden to join a gang or something you also struggled with? >> it was not necessarily a struggle, because i know pressure is a lot, but if i do not want to do something, i am not going to do it mainly. [applause] where i came from coming gangs was a bit part of the streets. so me being me, i stuck to the books and listen to my parents and teachers and a couple of my friends to have done it before that have graduated and went on to college.

i just followed my own route. >> do you find your vested of some are highly motivated that have the potential to succeed but are overwhelmed by the gang issue to the extent that it interferes with academics? >> the streets are a major distraction for students nationwide. the district of columbia is not a cent from that. students come to us and see our school as a safe haven. we have students that attend from every area of washington, d.c.. many times those neighborhoods are very dangerous and overwritten with gangs and- negativity. the students come into the doors and they lay down the neighborhood beast, if you will. everyone is a family and there to serve our common purpose, which is to learn, a graduate, and become a successful citizen. [applause] >> thank you for all of your

thoughtful questions. please give a round of applause. thank you so much. [applause] >> in just under half an hour, more road to the white house coverage. mitt romney and rick santorum are campaigning in illinois. we will go live at 1:15 eastern to the university of chicago for remarks from ripped from me. he will be talking about the economy. live in just a few minutes, rick santorum will speak in dixon. it is the second of four campaign events in illinois today. 69 delegates are up for grabs

tomorrow. you can see that live on c-span to at 1:00 eastern. congress is back today. the house returns at 4:00 eastern with legislative votes after 6:30. live coverage on c-span with a double and. paul ryan may release his budget plan this week. we could hear remarks on the floor about that this week. a short time ago we spoke to a capitol reporter who was following the process. >> paul ryan is about to release the budget proposal this week. joining us to speak about this is nancy cook. when can we expect to see the budget? >> paul ryan is expected to unveil it to our morning at 10:30 at a press conference. he is doing a series of events at conservative think tanks throughout the week. >> what are some of the key items the proposal emphasizes? >> some of the key things are deeper spending cuts that were

agreed to of the budget control act in august. he is also supposed to push back the mandated spending cuts for defense that were part of the deal, and one of the big things, which democrats are expected to go after him on, the way he will restructure medicare and medicaid as well. >> you talk about how the budget will be presented to congress in the article. what approach is the expected to if floyd win this is rolled out? >> this year he is talking about it in moral terms. he is talking about how americans have a moral obligation to tackle the debt crisis. this time he is attaching a much greater sense of value to it. >> how much political risk is there? take a there is a huge amount. the democrats cannot wait for this. there are ready lighting up the

ads saying paul ryan will try to kill medicare. this whole idea of getting republicans to vote for it in a close election year could be politically damaging for republicans and hopefully they come out of the elections. >> have we heard from those on the right and proposal? >> we have not yet. in terms of who his plan is closest to, he and iran may have some similarities in what is proposed for medicare, medicaid, and deep spending cuts. >> nanticoke, thank you for joining us. -- nancy cook. >> if we will have coverage when the budget is released to congress. very quickly, the house is in this afternoon at 4:00 eastern. we will have the house live on c-span. the senate returns in just over

an hour. lawmakers will offer general speeches. they will continue work on a bill aimed at loosening security regulation. tomorrow the senate is expected to hold up to three votes. the senate is live on c-span to. shortly we will join mitt romney on the campaign trail in chicago. until then, a look at politics in this year's election from today's "washington journal." blackwell is running as. good morning, and they keep for joining us. >guest: good morning. host: two candidates are rising to the surface of the polls. which one of them has a better shot when it comes to really appealing to the conservative

vote? rick santorum says it is his, but mitt romney says republicans will support him. how does conservatives of play into the race? guest: i think conservatives want limited growth and job creation. this comes down to a debate about the size of government intrusion, and i think the candidates that can best articulates not only this popcorn but a vision of getting back to constitutional government is going to be the one at that picks up the lion's share of the conservative votes out there. this is a horse race. people talk about momentum. they talk about delegate count, but at the end of the day it is about who can hit 1144, the magic number of delegates as this campaign that moves towards tampa. it is a horse race right now.

illinois this week will be of major prize for a candid it. although the proportional allocation of the delegates based on performance based on the district within the state. host: ken blackwell. here are the numbers to call. a story recently says are more in the gop want newt gingrich to step aside up for the party say. you just that friday morning i will be with you in tampa. is this good for the party? guest: it is part of the process. those who talk about muzzling folks out of the race are a

little bit naive. at the end of the day, the voters speak, and they will be done. right now there is no clear path for rick santorum or wrongly to the 1144. so he understands the process. if he stays in, he can be a major influence. he has to be realistic. this chorus of "step aside" will expand rapidly, if he does not have a substantially better showing in some of the upcoming primaries. host: at what point is it time for a candidate to get out? guest: when that candidate and his followers decide he should get out. sometimes they say this is for the good of the party and this is not about me pursuing my ambitions, no matter how fleeting those ambitions seem to

be. this is a matter of what is good for the party. each individual candidate has to come to that decision point in his or her own given time. i do not think people are going to be able to push newt gingrich out of this race. he is a veteran of a lot of political wars. he is a standard bearer. it's only when he perceives his this advantages outweigh his advantages of staying in. primaries are a dialogue among the party faithful. they are speaking to each one of these candidates. nobody has blocked this down. nobody is the runaway favorite. as a consequence, santorum, romney, and gingrich are still in the hunt. if this goes to tampa, i do not anticipate you'll see ron paul

get out. his collection of delegates can be pivotal an influential in tampa. host: ken blackwell, a couple of things have changed since the last time there was a presidential election. the citizens united. do you think that has changed this scenario? we've heard from presidential candidates in past years that when the money runs out, that when you get out. newt gingrich is not facing that yet. guest: he is not facing that yet. i am a big believer in -- money is a political speech in our political process. what i push for is absolute and complete transparency and a very timely fashion so we know who is speaking in any political debate.

i think there are people who will allow their voices to speak through their dollars, but they are not stupid. at a certain point, people will stop speaking through their dollars, through candidates that to not stand a chance. that will have an impact on the individual candidate's decision to stay in or get out. host: bolivia joins us from birmingham, alabama. good morning. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: first, i want to make a suggestion to c-span before i move on to what i need to say about the republican candidates. why you all didn't have a line for just women to call in this morning to talk about the republicans issue on women -- you should just have a line for women. give us a voice of our own. thank you. about the gop candidates -- being a an african-american and

a woman, the republicans are not speaking to my issues. santorum is the only candidate who covers all the spaces. regardless of political party, he goes on msnbc, cnn. mitt romney only goes on fox news. what is this with newt gingrich -- "i want to be the american president, president obama wants to be for saudi arabi --" c'mon, get real. president obama is the american president. i feel bad because i went out and voted and my vote counts. do not talk down our votes.

everybody's vote is important. i voted for president obama and i am not anti-american. i am an american black woman and i want to be appreciated. guest: thank you so much. this election is about which direction america will go in the balance of its third century. will it be a government driven by big central government, the federal government? will it be a country that is totally dependent on of the federal government to manage its economic affairs? will it turn to the original motion of limited government and optimum individual liberty driven by an understanding that in america, our limited government system works economically when we have strong families?

one of the things that you know if you look at just centuries and centuries of authoritarian governments is that when you see them concentrate power is when they do two things -- either destroy the family and silence at the church. we at the family research council believe that religious liberty is essential to a limited government model. secondly, and primarily economically, we believe that strong families are important to economic success and economic growth. human capital generated by young people getting married, stay married, and having children and to getting those children are hallmarks to our economic prosperity in the future. host: ken blackwell, the caller said that she did not

feel that republicans were appealing to women, african- americans. story in "the washington post" says that the women's vote could be pivotal in the illinois primary to the candidates get the women -- how should the candidates get the wittman's votes? guest: speak to the needs and issues of women. sometimes we partition american aspiration along gender lines and racial lines to finely. most people want the opportunity to make a better life, and as a consequence, those candidates that are talking about how to keep families together, how to grow this economy, create jobs and opportunity, and speak to the issue that every mother, grandmother, aunt want, and that is to create an educational environment where their children

can have -- a cha -- have a chance at a better life through quality education. all you have to do is look through the country and see that women are at the forefront of the school choice movement. they are basically saying we want to create an educational system that expands choice, empowers parents, and provides the opportunity for children to have a quality education and a better life. host: ken blackwell serves as the platform to be vice chairmanship for the rnc. he was republican nominee for governor of ohio in 2006, served as ohio secretary of state, and has been at the mayor of cincinnati, the city where he is joining us from this morning. howard, independent caller bank in muscle shoals, alabama. caller: good morning.

guest: good morning. caller: we need in this country a big thinker running our country. no corporation that wants to ward willmove up o hire a small thing forbid we have a small thing for running the country as president. -- small thinker running the country as president. we need somebody who thinks big, not somebody who puts a tin can with a motor in it and calls that an automobile. the underground gas belongs to the american people. who in our government signs the leases giving that oil to the oil companies, where they can refine it and sell it back to us? they need to have in those pieces that date and will supply the needs of the american people -- they will supply the needs of the american people.

they to do the same in this country if foreign countries pay more for the food we are manufacturing and producing. it will go overseas, too, and we will starve. host: go ahead. guest: thank you, caller. what we have here is a classic clash, as the caller outline, between the two models of government. let me use this example -- there are those who see government as a mechanic. government can fix ever problem that we have. in order for government to be a better mechanic, it has to give larger -- get larger and more intrusive. then you have government as the gardener. it nurtures freedom

opportunity, gives initiative to good men and women in free- market the opportunity for a better life. there is a fundamental clash that will play out in this race. the president, given to his activist instincts, once a larger, more muscular government. if you look at his policies, government is the mechanic. government tries to run through central government policies energy production, and that doesn't work. it puts us at a competitive disadvantage. if we let markets work and free men and women operating in this market on their initiative, we have the resources in this country and the individual and collective genius to be energy- independent as we go forward.

that is the sort of division that the caller is talking about. there will be the clash between these two models. it will be the turning point in how we finish out america's third century. host: joseph in georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. on the gas issue, if a war years ago they wanted to say it was -- four years ago they wanted to say it was bush fault. now that obama is president, they want to say i.t. is not the president's fault. -- it is not the president's fault. they have not been drilling like they could in anwar and of the gulf coast. if they could get more of that crude all of the ground, you

would have the gas prices go down. to me, i am tired of hearing them say it is not obama's fall, and the same thing with the pipeline. he is not allowing their to be a lot of jobs in this country, if you that the pipeline goes through. host: let's leave it there and get a response. guest: well, look, it goes back to the clash i just talked about. ever since the 2008 convention, when the republican platform pushed the all of the above strategy in terms of energy production in this country, that has been the clash. the president has basically seen a path towards alternative energy sources by penalizing those who produce energy and gas in this country.

as a consequence, we see gas prices at the pump going up and up and up. that impacts all classes of the voters. let's go to the previous caller, women who drive the kids to school, drive to the grocery store. they see the price going up and up and up. that is something that is on the minds of women across the board. everybody has to understand that the vote of women is in play for both sides. if you look at the president's popularity in recent polls among women, it is not going up. a lot of people are saying, a lot of pundits are saying that this is a weak group of republican candidates and they

will hand the president a lot to re-election -- a walk to reelection. the recent polls are not saying that. his numbers are going down, and they are moving in the wrong direction. at the end of the day, people want to see gas prices come down, they what is the job opportunities expand -- they want to see job opportunities expand, and they want to see a smaller, less intrusive government in their lives. host: gallup did a poll that showed candidates romney and santorum are stirring less enthusiasm than john mccain did at this same step in the campaign process four years ago. among those polled, when asked if they would vote in these as a plea for mitt romney, 35% said yes, -- vote enthusiastically for mitt romney, 35% said yes. john mccain, four years ago it

was a 47% who said they would've vote enthusiastically for john mccain. ken blackwell, does that concern you? guest: it really doesn't. at the end of the day, there is a different mix of candidates, at this point in the competition, john mccain was clearly the preferred candidate. that is not the case now. competition, whether a it is economic or political competition, is good. this is the vetting process. this is the opportunity for those who aspire to be the standard bearer to speak to the grassroots across this nation. at the end of the day, if you begin to look at the top line numbers, the republican candidates are actually starting to do better in the competition against president obama. as a result, this notion that there is a devastating impact on

the candidates on the republican side as a consequence of the competition, i think, is misleading. we will see a stronger republican candidate as we get to tampa. i told you earlier that right now there is no clear winner before tampa. i happen to believe there will be a clear winner before tampa and i doubt we will have a managed convention on the floor when we get to tampa as republicans. might now there is no clear path -- right now there is no clear path. host: tennessee, welcome. caller: for the good of our country, i have two points -- it

is incumbent upon the american people to our reason to prevail over prejudice in the decisions concerning the election coming up for the president. as far as limited government is concerned, mr. blackwell, your argument -- since 1954, it has been a rational for any african- american to be concerned or in support of limited government, because it was government that allowed us to be able to vote without being suppressed, having our votes oppressed. as far as the clash of ideas in terms of the economy, there is no question that everybody in america at, most everybody in america is in favor of capitalism and free market, but

had it not been for government intervention with the automobile industry, so many millions of people now working would be out of work at our automobile industry would have gone down the tubes with respect to the republican laissez-faire philosophy. it seems to be pathological for any african-american to be talking about limited government in view of the civil rights act that had to be pushed through over states' rights. guest: thank you very much for your point of view. i respectfully disagree. look, we have a mounting debt problem as a consequence of a government that is larger, more muscular, and more intrusive in our lives. right now our debt is over $15

trillion. as a consequence, we see our debt as a percentage of gross domestic product increased substantially, so much so that the united states of america is almost indistinguishable from european socialist countries. at the end of the day, we need to get the country growing again, because the debt problem is a three-dimensional monster. right now china holds 47% of our debt. we have a national-security problem as a consequence of big government and big government spending. we are mortgaging our children's future, saddling them at the point of birth with a humongous in debt. what we have this

intergenerational theft going on that we must stop. as a consequence, we have anemic economic growth. african-americans who want to work, who want to see an expanding economy, understand that the key to that is, one, not big, muscular government- sponsored schools, but school choice, and they understand we must get back to limited government, we must get to a balanced budget inside of five years, i think, in order to get our economy growing again so that we maintain our premier position as the most prosperous democratic republic in world history. host: ken blackwell is with the family research council, a family empowerment senior fellow.

james is our next caller on the independents' line. caller: i just wanted to say that if we think about why china is so wealthy ny they bonus set much of our wealth, if we go back to the mid-1990's, the trade agreements primarily pushed through by republicans, on by the democrats who saw with the money was -- since then it 52,000 american manufacturing operations ship off to china, 6.5 manufacturing jobs, a collateral number of people jobs. republicans are whistling by the graveyard they created with regard to jobs but republicans told us about the great prosperity that would happen as a result of these trade agreements. bush made china a most favored nation partner. can you imagine that? an ideological and military enemy of the united states. i want to let the listeners know

that these losses of manufacturing operations should be laid at the doorstep of republicans and democrats, and that is why i am an independent. guest: i think any time the federal government, whether under the control of democrats or republicans, has chosen big, muscular, central government or federal government, in our case, that has been a loser for us. but let's go back and look at it decade of the 1990's, when not only were we for free trade, we should have been pressing for fair trade. but in the 1990's, we had a tremendous expansion of growth and job creation. it is is free and fair trade did actually create wealth and create jobs and opportunities. i think the caller would agree that with a 9/11, we, in fact,

started to spend more and more of our resources not on domestic production and economic expansion and job creation but in defending our interest around the world. i'm not sure that i would the right to say that the caller sort of cower in a corner and not go out and do what we had to do to make the world safe for an advance american interests globally. host: let's go to twitter. guest: well, i am a big believer in neighborhood-by-neighborhood sort of expansion of participation. that means there is nothing -- no forum that is unimportant,

whether it it is a school board meeting, going out your county commission meeting. this is an election where we cannot sit on the sidelines at any level, and particularly at the presidential level. we have to increase in voter participation. that means more americans have to speak to those folks who are speaking to lead us so they know where we want to go as a country. voting -- >> you can see this segment in its entirety at c-span.org. we are live now with mitt romney, set to make remarks at the university of chicago on the economy. tomorrow, holds its presidential primary. 54 delegates are at stake. >> the adviser for the program "presidency 2012 -- the purposes

of government." president zimmer of the year was the chicago along with the dean -- they cannot be here but they extend their welcome to the governor and thank you for being here. we have students and other faculty members. we would like to welcome you to our program with a republican presidential candidates, the former governor of massachusetts, mitt romney. [applause] and i would be greatly remiss if i did not recognize the governor's wife, who is here, ann romney. [applause] illustrates the school's continued commitment to fostering an in-depth endeavors

public discourse -- and diverse public discourse. the school has embarked on this yearlong program to explore the purposes of government and presidency in preparation for the 2012 election coming up. the program's serious objective is to bring the candidates, presidential candidates, together, campaign strategists, party leaders both republican and democrat to present their views. to be very clear about the program, the university of chicago is not endorsing a candidate or advocating ia particular public policy position. the university is committed to providing an opportunity, though, for all the buzz and to candidates and party leaders to present their views on the major issues for debate, such as the economy, which the government governor will be addressing today, and others including education, health care, energy,

urban affairs, and many other issues. the program's bottom line seeks to promote a dialogue and discussion on the purposes of government. that will happen today, but will continue after words. the debate on governor romney's positions will be talked about in courses throughout the campus. the governor has agreed to take questions. you have been handed out cards. please write down your questions and handed them to people at the side of the auditorium. the professor, who i will introduce in a moment, will read the cards and return to the stage to ask the governor some questions. in order to promote progress -- in court -- promote a rigorous inquiry, we must respect civil discourse. to that end, we don't encourage disrupting the event or

preventing fellow audience members from hearing our speaker, resulting in the disruption of the event. we appreciate you supporting the fundamental principles of the university of chicago. with that having been said, i would like to bring forth to you are professor who will introduce the guest speaker, gov. mitt romney. the professor has written widely on the separation of powers, issues, at american political institutions, especially the presidency. his research has appeared in numerous professional journals and other publications. his honors list is very impressive. he is a professor of american politics at the paris school, co-director of the program on political institutions. currently he is working on a book tentatively titled "wartime president," which will examine the impact of war on the power

to u.s. president wields at home. before he came to the university of chicago, he was at harvard and at the political science department at the university of wisconsin. in 2000, he received his ph.d. in political science from stanford. a well qualified individual academic professional to introduce to you governor mitt romney. >> thank you. [applause] welcome, everybody, to the "presidency 2012." i know you are not here to see me. that was a nice introduction. aco things -- a few things. governor romney received his b.a. from byu, got a j.t. and mba -- a lesser institution j -- jd and mba from a lesser

institution in cambridge. [laughter] he was a star football player in the university of chicago in 1943 and what not to play for the bears -- you recovered. [laughter] if you ought not checked on-line this morning, keeping track of these things, the delegate count is 516 for mitt romney. santorum is the closest one out, and he does not have quite after that, at 236. romney has a 15-point edge in illinois' leading into the campaign. [applause] eight-point edge nationwide. he is just coming back from a puerto rico, where he got all 20 delegates. you are on a bit of a run --

[applause] but we are not here to talk about a horse race. we are here to talk about issues. that is with the series is about, trying to get clarity on what are the key issues we as a nation thinks add to hear what you have to say about the economy. there is no bigger issue in this election and that the economy. it is our pleasure to welcome you, governor mitt romney. [applause] >> thank you, thank you. thank you so much, thank you. thank you. thank you. i appreciate in particular your mention of my dad's first cousin, who played football here at the university of chicago and also for the chicago bears. my name being mitt romney, they assumed i would inherit those

athletic talents. i did not. it is good to be back at this family familiar place, and i appreciate your introduction is today. it is good to be here at the university of chicago and i appreciate your posting me here. it is also good to visit the campus that houses the friedman institute. milton friedman played an extraordinary role in our nation and the concepts of the economy that i am going to talk about today. he used to tell a story about having gone to asia in the 1960's and some government official asked him to visit one of their massive work sites, and when he got there, he saw thousands of workers trying to build a canal with hand shovels. milton turned to one of the engineers that was there and said, "why are you using machines?" "you don't understand, this is a jobs program." without hesitation, he replied, "i thought you were trying to

build a canal. if it is jobs you want, give the workers spoons, president barack obama has not understood the government does not create prosperity. for last three years, the president has expanded government instead of empowering the american people. he has put his deeper in debt, and he slowed the recovery, and he has harmed the economy. i believe he has attacked the cornerstone of america's prosperity -- economic freedom. today i will talk to you about economic freedom and why believe it is so critical and how, as president, i would restore it to get our economy going again, not just short-term but long term. as you know, this november, we face an important decision. our choice will be not one of

just a party and personality. election will be about principles, our economic freedom will be in the ballot. i intend to offer the american people a choice -- i spent 25 years in business, by the way. business is to take me to different parts of the world and i was often struck by enormous differences between different nations that in many cases were living right next door to each other. i was interested in the difference in their prosperity and how was that nations so close to each other could be so different in terms of prosperity. look at mexico and the united states, israel and egypt, chile and ecuador. i read a number of books that purported to explain the differences, one of them by jarod diamond argued that the difference was due to the metals -- minerals in the ground and natural resources. that did not explain it all.

i happened to read a book by professor david landis. in that book he traces the history of all the great civilizations on the earth, those that have come and gone. after about 500 pages of analysis, he concludes with this observation -- he says if we learn anything from the economic -- the history of economic development, it is this -- culture makes all the difference. culture makes all the difference. culture. what is about america's culture that maz-mat is the greatest economic power and a history of the earth? -- that has made us the greatest economic power in the history of the earth. the willingness of americans to take risk, our commitment to honor, contract, our family devotion, our commitment in

ourselves and our patriotism. i believe one feature of our culture that propels the american economy stands out t--. freedom. the american economy is fueled by freedom. the american people and their free enterprises drive our economic vitality. the founders wrote that we are endowed by our career with the freedom to pursue happiness. in america, would be free to pursue our own course in life and we would have economic freedom just as we have political and religious freedom. we would not be limited by the circumstances bowerbirds or directed by the supposedly informed hand of government. we would be free to pursue happiness as we wish. the founders were convinced that millions of people all freely choosing their occupations as they wished and their own enterprises, all pursuing their individual dreams, would produce great prosperity and of course

they were right. economic freedom, as you know, is the only force in the history -- history of the earth that is consistently succeeded in lifting people out of poverty. it is the only principle that has created sustained prosperity. it is why our economy rose to rival those of the world's leading powers and has long since -- and has long since surpassed them. today, our status and standing in the world are in peril because the source of our economic strength is threatened. over last several decades and frankly, over the last three years, washington has consistently encroached upon our freedom. the obama administration is the principal reason why the recovery has been so tepid. if we don't change course now, the assault on freedom could damage our economy and the well-

being of american families for decades to come. we see this attack on freedom in every corner of the economy. let me start with taxes. by their very nature, taxes reduce their freedom. their only real role in the free economy is to fund services that are essential like our national security and education and providing for people who cannot care for themselves. yet the president has proposed raising the marginal tax rate from 35% to 40%. he has also proposed special breaks for his favorite industries and further increases in taxes for businesses he does not like. there are endless subsidies and credits intended to shape behavior in our economic society. think about what that does to the freedom to pursue one's demand started business or to grow a business. i happen to be in st. louis last week and spoke with dr. bernard

and he and his son make amplifiers for electric guitars. they recently had to lay off two very pleased. this owner said that by his own calculation the government takes 65% of what his business makes. would takeobama, by goin that up to 70%. if you're one of the few, the very few of these entrepreneurs who seek success and generous profit in your business, the president wants to take 40% of that for federal income tax and then you have to add the payroll tax, the gas tax, the state tax, the city taxes, property taxes, excise taxes and so forth. on top of that, you have to factor in the regulatory burdens. the cost exceeds the total cost of all income tax payments in this country. pretty soon, those kind of taxes

and costs add up to produce substantial burdens. businesses shut down. jobs are eliminated and dr. bernard decided is too risky and too costly to started -- an entrepreneur is decide it is too risky and to cause it to start a business. another example is dodd-frank. it is an 848-page behemoth that will be followed by thousands and thousands of pages of new regulations. regulations of course are essential to the functioning of a free economy. burdensome outdated regulations serve only to restrict freedom and therefore imperil enterprise. the victims of the regulations are not the nameless, faceless banks. they are the employees, the business owners, the customers who rely on those financial institutions. this administration's regulations are even invading the freedom of everyday americans, not just the banks

and corporations but citizens. mike and chantal sackett run a small business and idaho and it will build a home on their property but a few days after they broke ground, an epa regulator told them to stop digging. they said they were building on a wet land. their property is not on a wetland register. it's it's a residential area. nonetheless, the epa would not repeal the decision for there were told it could not go to court. in this case, an unelected government bureaucrat robbed them of their freedom. no recourse, no remedy, they could do what the epa wanted or they could face millions of dollars in fines. under president obama, those same bureaucrats are insinuating them selves into every corner of the economy. they prevented drilling rigs from going to work in the gulf,

they keep coal from the mind, they impede the reliable supply of national gas, they are even telling farmers with their 15- year-old sons and daughters are allowed to do on the family farms carried you remember that famous quote from will rogers -- he said this country has come to feel the same when congress is in session as we do when a baby gets a hold of a hammer. it is a question of how much damage he could do before you can take it away. will rogers was concerned about the damage congress could do. today, our freedom is never safe because unelected, unaccountable regulators are always on the prowl. under president obama, they are multiplying by -- like proverbial roberts. the number of federal employees has grown by 140,000 people under this president. those regulators do a lot of damage. reregulation, there are unintended consequences, an estimate costs, and unwanted

influence of special interest to care very deeply about how those regulations are written for their benefit. the bureaucratic impulse is to make more rules, never to get rid of old rules, and each of those regulations tends to erode our freedom and stifle our prosperity. by the way, the obama administration's assault on economic freedom is not just limited to actions against individuals and free enterprise. it extends to intrusion in the workings of the free marketplace itself. when government rather than the market routinely select winners or losers or put its hands on the scales of justice, then enterprises and dr pepper north cannot predict their prospects and free enterprise becomes or replaced with chronic capitalism, solyndra and others. when government put $500 million

into solyndra, you can imagine the scores of other solar energy entrepreneurs either lost their investors when that happened or failed to find any. when the nlrb tried to keep going from opening a plant in south carolina, it sent a signal across businesses of all, that they should be dissuaded from making investments in right to work states, limiting their freedom. when general motors shares were directed to the uaw, political payback replaced the rule of law under bankruptcy. rule of law is absolutely fundamental to the functioning of a free economy. when the free market is imperative in this nature, it is devastating to opportunity and when the heavy hand of government replaces the invisible hand of the market,

economic freedom is the inevitable victim. for centuries, the american dream has met the opportunity to build something new. some of america's greatest success stories of the people who started out with nothing, just a good idea, perhaps in a corner of their cross. too often today, americans look at what it takes to start a business and don't see promise and opportunity. they see government spending in the way. the real cost is not just the tax is paid and the money spent complying with the regulations. it is the businesses better never started. the ideas that are never pursued, the dreams that are permanently deferred. we want to build an interstate highway system and the hoover dam. today we cannot even build a pipeline. we once led the world in manufacturing and exports and infrastructure investment. today we leave the world in lawsuits. labor unions once served as a

symbol of worker rights and fair treatment and a growing middle class. today the two of them represent the worst of special interests and chronic capitalism. after spending three years attacking business, president obama hopes to erase his record with a speech. in a recent address, he said we're all in ventura, we are builders, we are makers of things, we are thomas edison, we are the right brothers, we are bill gates, we are steve jobs. the reality is that under president obama is administration, these pioneers would have found it much more difficult if not impossible to innovate and invent. and invent under dodd-frank, beja -- they would struggle to get a loan from their community bank. the regulator would have shut down the right brothers for their debt solution and the government would have bent thomas edison's light bulb. oh yes, they just did [applause]

every great innovation, every world changing business breakthrough begins with a dream. nothing is more fragile than a dream. it is essential to the genius of america that we have developed a culture that nurtures the streams and streamers that honors them and, yes, that reward them. there has always been something uniquely brilliant about america. don't believe the president understands this fundamental secret of america and day-by- day, juggling regulation by regulation, bureaucrat by bureaucrats, he is crushing the dream and the dreamers. if we continue along this path, our allies will be ruled by bureaucrats and boards and commissions and czars. that pat erodes freedom and

deadens their entrepreneurial spirit that is so unique. freedom is becoming the victim of on bounded government's appetite and so is economic growth, job growth and wage growt has government takes more and more. there is less and less of an incentive to take risks and invest and innovate, to hire and the proof is in the weakness of this recovery. this administration thinks our economy is struggling because the stimulus was too small per the truth is this economy is struggling because our government is too big, too intrusive, too invasive of our economic freedoms. i am now running for president in part because i have the experience and the vision to get us out of this mess. i'm offering a real choice and a very different beginning. i have a conservative economic plan that will deliver more jobs, less debt, and smaller government. my agenda takes american the right direction. . it preserves freedom and

encourages a risk and an ovation it's a. foster competition. allows americans to pursue happiness as they choose and will lead to greater opportunity and instead of expanding government, i will shrink it. instead of raising taxes, i will cut them. instead of adding more regulations, i will reduce them with an overriding concern. do they help or hurt jobs? that is just the beginning. they're still more we've got to do. before we can create enduring prosperity, we have to restore our economic freedom. to build a strong america, we have to empower americans to pursue happiness as they choose, not as government directs. we have to restore the world's most competitive economy, not relinquish it to cronies or bureaucrats. we've got to elect a president who puts his faith in free people and free enterprises and in the founding principles that

made this country the greatest nation in history. together, we must restore america's promise by renewing our economic freedom. let's affirm our conviction that america is a land of opportunity and freedom and usher in a new era of prosperity and leadership. thank you so much and god bless this birdland. thank you. -- thank you so much and god bless this great land. thank you. [applause] i think we will invite professor howell to come back and start some questions. i look forward to what you have to offer. thank you. you can use this one if you want. >> hello? [laughter] >> it's magic. questions hereee and i will reset -- read them

verbatim. the growing deficit and escalating date of the top risk factors of the u.s. economy as a student at university, i would like to know the key steps that you would take as president to address these concerns especially considering you have proposed recently a package of tax cuts that will only make these matters worse. >> first want to correct that last parenthetical which is the tax cuts. my tax plan actually cut the marginal rates across the economy by 20%. instead of the president raising taxes, i take taxes from 35% to % to create jobs. that generates revenue for government. that is the best way to make that happen. i also point out that i will reduce and restrict deductions and exemptions at the same time

so the combination of reducing some of those tax expenditures and create more growth will mean the policy is revenue neutral. i will not add to the deficit with my tax plan. by getting growth into our economy again, i will reduce it. i've also got to cut spending and i recognize that. i have a three-fold approach to how you cut federal spending. we have to eliminate programs. some programs we like and some we're happy to get rid of but we have to eliminate some programs. there are too many and it is a major washington elected officials to go there and come up with a program they can go home and say look what i created. you know how many work force treading presley of washington? 47, 47 different work force training programs reporting to eight different agencies. think of the overhead. no one in business will allow such a thing. i will take all those programs and collapsed them down to one and send the money back to the states and say you create the

programs. we will eliminate programs. i will get rid of obama care. that is $95 billion we cannot afford. [applause] that is easy. subsidies to amtrak and pbs and the national endowment for the arts and the national endowment for the amenities, planned parenthood, i will eliminate those subsidies and those organizations will have to stand on their own. then we need to send programs back to states. medicaid, food stamps, housing vouchers -- i would take these anti-party programs and give them back to the state to run in the way they think is best and limit how they grow to the light of -- to the rate of inflation. finally, i would shrink the size of the federal work force that remains by 10% to attrition and links the pay of government workers with the pay that exists in the private sector. [applause] that is good enough. >> second question -- many young

people have been affected by the recession more than most. given that you have delivered this talk of a university, what might you say specifically to young people about your economic policy? how can you address crippling student loans in a lagging economy that would speak to the struggling young adults particular america? withdon't mean to be flip this because i actually secretive it. i don't see how young american can vote for a democrat. i apologize for being so offensive but in the humor there is some truth there. that party is focused on providing more and more benefits to my generation and a mounting trillion dollar annual, deficits that my generation will never pay for. the interest on that debt is going to young people in america. some have called up the greatest

intergenerational transfer of wealth in history of humankind. my party is consumed with the idea of getting federal spending down and creating economic growth and opportunity so we can balance our budget and stop putting these debts on new. these debts are not frightening to people my age because we will be gone. they should be frightening to death people your age who are concerned about your future and wonder what your tax rates will be and wonder whether social security and medicare will be there for you. adding insult to injury is the fact that we have an administration that when they were running for office said that social security and medicare or in deep financial trouble and yet 3.5 years later, have offered no proposals to balance those programs. and make and sustainable. i have. you may not like my ideas that at least i put ideas out there.

to save those programs for your generation and i have laid out with my economic plan proposals that preserve economic freedom, creates growth, will provide jobs for you as you come out of college, and will make sure we don't pass our burdens of debt onto you. that is at the heart of what my party is about, making sure we preserve this extraordinary his unique nation in the history of the earth, this exceptional place which is imperiled by debt, lack of willingness to deal with the challenges we have, by stagnating growth. and by an attack on economic freedom among our other freedoms that are being attacked. that is what is it about. i shake my head that we're not doing as good a job as we should be doing to connect with young people across the country. you should be working like crazy for me and people like me, conservatives who want to keep the cost of government down and give you a brighter future, thank you. [applause] >> i believe we have time for

one last question as president, what would you do to target poverty in areas like the south side chicago? >> one of the best things i can do is take money associated with poverty programs in washington -- i mention this before -- take money that is in poverty programs like food stamps and housing vouchers and welfare programs and take those monies and bring them to the state and to the localities and say you know better than we how to help your own people. what kind of work force training is needed? a kind of heart -- housing opportunities are there in your region or your state? as opposed to the federal government telling every state and every locality how to put in place anti-poverty programs, give states and localities the power to do that themselves. i happen to believe in the concept of federalism.

associated with that -- as one piece -- the money goes closer to the problem. a second piece is changing our education system to put the education of our young people first and the interests of organized union labor and the teachers units behind. [applause] the cost of crummy education is not born and a wealthy community. among wealthy people are people of higher income and above. they are able to choose neighborhoods to live in, communities where they think are good schools. they can decide to go someplace where there are good public schools or go to parochial schools or private school and pay the extra tuition and may have opportunities for charter schools. if you are poor, your opportunities to move to some place with a great school

limited. i want to fix our schools in the urban centers of our nation and we know how to do that. this is not a mystery to us. there have been great institutions like the mackenzie institute, is a great consulting firm, they have an institute that does studies around the world and a look at education in some of the most effective places in the world like finland and south korea and singapore and chicago and boston and other places. they found that classroom size was irrelevant to the quality of education which was not apparent. that is not what people anticipated. spending did not seem related. overwhelmingly, the characteristic that had the most impact on the quality of education was the educational attainment and scholarship of the teachers. in places like finland, they

choose teachers from the top five or 10% of college graduates and in our country in many places, we are choosing from the bottom 1/3. why don't young people want to go into teaching? because it does not pay well and the teachers' unions are focused on people with long tenure about to retire and retirement benefits, pensions, health care benefits. we need to be more concentrated on the starting conversations of people coming out of college so we can attract the best and brightest and give them a career path not based on tenure but based on accomplishment. we have some examples for this. we have higher education. we do pretty well in higher education. these principles we have to bring to our schools to help people in the most troubled areas of the country and give the resources to the people closest to the challenges and provide education which lifts people out of poverty and

communicate that the principles of america, hard work, education, family formation - these principles will help provide people with a future that is more prosperous and promising. i appreciate the chance to be with you today. our questions are overbought co i have enjoyed the chance to speak with such an esteemed group. i appreciate the number of faculty and students and others who have made here today and look forward to seeing you on the trail. i need you to vote tomorrow. i would appreciate your support. [applause] it is an exciting time for the country. this is a choice. freedom is on the ballot this year. it as to whether we will continue to have a government encroaching further and further into freedoms or whether we will restore the principles that made the nation it is.

i represent a restoration and a reclaiming of america's founding principles. the declaration of independence is my inspiration and the constitution is my blueprint for this path forward. i would appreciate your help, your votes, and let's get the job done and take back america. thank you so much, thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] ♪

kalamazooa gal in

playing] >> ♪ k, a --

i've got a gal we are going to michigan to see the sweetest gal in kalamazoo zoo, zoo, zoo, zoo, zoo kalamazoo ♪ [big band music playing]

[stars and stripes forever playing]

[no audio]

>> mitt romney wrapping up here at the university of chicago, the second of three campaign

appearances she -- he is making in illinois. 54 delegates are up for grabs. we will have complete coverage of the illinois primary on the c-span network. congress is back today. the house returns at 4:00 eastern for legislative work. they will recess until 5 -- until 5:00 for votes at 6:30. representative paul were in may addressed his budget this week. we could hear more from the house on this. paul ryan is about to release the budget proposal this week. here to talk about it, nancy cook. when can we expect to see the budget? >> paul ryan is expected to unveil it on capitol hill at 10:30 at a press conference. then he will be talking to a conservative think tanks throughout the week, the

american enterprise institute and the heritage foundation. >> what are key items it will emphasize. >> deeper spending cuts that were agreed to in the budget control act in august. he is also expected to push back the mandated spending cuts that were part of that deal. with the big things the democrats are expected to go after him on is restructuring medicare. >> you talk about how the budget will be presented to congress in your article. what approach is he expected to employ when this is to hold out? >> he has been talking about it in almost moral terms. he has been talking about how americans have a moral obligation to deal with the crisis began last year, he was talking about it in terms of out of control spending. this week, he is talking about a greater sense of values to it.

>> , political risk is in this budget? >> there is a large amount of political risk. the democrats cannot wait. they are going to say paul ryan is going to try to kill medicare. "seniors, watch out." it could be very politically damaging for the republicans and will certainly come up in the election. >> have we heard from any of the presidential candidates on the right-hand proposal? >> we have not because it has not come out. they have put out their own plans. is hiss of who's plan closest to, he and mitt romney do have similar site -- to have similarities in what they propose. >> thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me. >> again, live coverage of the house here on c-span. the senate dabbled in a short time ago at 2:00 eastern.

gaveled in a short time ago at 2:00 eastern. tomorrow the senate is expected to hold three votes on a bill and amendments and the export /import back. that is live on c-span2. white house spokesman jay carney talks about the transportation bill and the budget proposal from the republicans. w >> ow. -- >> wow. good crowd. how is everybody? good afternoon.

thank you for being here. i hope you all had a great weekend. i hope you still have a decent bracket under way after all those upsets. before i did questions, and when to start with a statement from the president. "last week, the senate passed a bipartisan transportation bill that will keep construction workers on it be built -- on the job and keep our economy growing. now the house needs to take bipartisan action so i can sign this into law. an economy built to last depends on a world-class infrastructure system that allows us to transport people and goods as quickly as possible. that is why we need to continue to create jobs by rebuilding and modernizing our roads, bridges, and railways, and that is why my administration will continue to fight for the long-term investment to make sure america continues to compete and succeed in a global economy." >> [inaudible]

>> we commended the senate -- we are calling on the house to follow the senate's lead and pass a bipartisan transportation legislation. you know, the items, the menu shot in the bill, we will let -- the minutae in the bill, we will let the congress figure that out. >> [no audio] -- >> [inaudible] >> we say the house should act in a bipartisan way and passed the bill. we look forward to the president signing into law a bipartisan transportation bill because it will be an absolute necessity that we continue and maintain world-class infrastructure. >> clearly, we are drawing add distinction here.

the administration is not necessarily putting a statement of in support of this bill. >> i hear you. you can draw whatever distinctions you want. we strongly urge the house to pass a bipartisan transportation legislation, as the senate has. the president looks forward to signing into law a bill that is bipartisan in nature. we commended them for passing. i do not want to get caught in semantics here. i want to make clear -- [laughter] we want to see action. congress, on a bipartisan piece of legislation. >> [unintelligible] b >> en -- >> ben? [unintelligible] >> it has raised questions about

the history of the war. look intoesident's the personal story of sgtbell? >> i have not looked into the -- the president is very aware of the incident and has spoken about a. for details about the investigation and the individual you referenced, you need to put those questions to the defense department. there is an active investigation. >> you have not heard him reflecting on the story, at any of this personally? >> i would just say the president focused on two things. he made clear last week the incident -- the killing of these innocent afghan civilians is a

tragic and terrible event and does not represent what our military stands for or what the american people stand for. he made that clear. there is an investigation that is taking place. we are not going to wade into that from your. -- from here. thursday overall mission our men and women in uniform are -- there is the overall mission our men and women in uniform are implementing in afghanistan. i am not going to talk about conversations the president may or may not have had about this. >> on the broader topic -- when the president apologized to president karzai about the burning of the koran, he said that he did so in the interest of keeping the united states troops safe. why would that incident necessitate an apology, but not the massacre of civilians?

what would that not require an apology? >> well, i think we made very clear our feelings and the president's feelings about the terrible incident that occurred in afghanistan. there is an investigation, an active investigation ongoing. i would refer questions about that and ask you to appreciate how we respond to questions about it from here. the fact is that the vast majority -- everything that we do there in afghanistan is focused on our goal, disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al- qaeda, stabilizing afghanistan sufficiently so we can train up and transfer authority to afghan security forces, and withdraw

our troops as we do that. the bravery and courage of our men and women in uniform has been a standing throughout and continue to focus on that mission in very difficult -- outstanding throughout and they continue to focus on the mission in very difficult circumstances. >> on the anniversary of the health care a lot -- i am wondering if we should expect to hear from the president on that milestone, up or would he just assume -- on that milestone, or would you just assume -- [unintelligible] i would say two things about that. the president -- >> i was a two things about that. president is focused on doing everything he can to help our economy grow and create jobs, to create an economy that is built

to last and make sure we're doing everything we can in washington to bring that about. the president does speak about health care on occasion and will continue to do that. but he is focused on a foreword agenda right now. f -- orward -- forward agenda right now. working with congress to create jobs. the administration is very focused on implementing the affordable care attacked. as you know, it has resulted in benefits for millions of americans, millions of seniors who would benefit because of the prescription drug provisions related to the so-called don't at all -- donut hole, and the provision in the affordable care act that allows young folks to

stay on their parents policies. we are focused on implementing the lot and an aggressive -- implementing law and an aggressive agenda with regard to the economy. i have no announcements with regards to the president's schedule in that regard. >> [unintelligible] wednesday, thursday, on energy. how do you hope to avoid making it into a puerto rico move -- a into upp.r. move? -- into a p.r. move? >> energy in general and the price of gas is on a lot of people's minds, understandably. the president is aggressively advocating for and pursuing and all of the above energy strategy as a matter of policy. we will be going to the u.n.

first, to boulder city, nevada where he will visit the largest photovoltaic planet operating in the country -- plants operating in the country. why is that important? because we need to continue to pursue and all of the above energy strategy. next he will be going to oil and gas production fields located outside carlsbad, new mexico, an area home to 70 active drilling rigs. why is that important? we must aggressively expand domestic oil and gas production in a safe and responsible y. we have seen oil and gas production at eight-year highs. even on federal lands, production is up within the last three years and the president is committed to continuing that.

then he will travel to cushing, okla. to discuss it infrastructure improvements that ensure these projects are developed and a safe and responsible way. you all are responsible with the cushing pipeline. why is that necessary? we have a glut of oil that is bottled up, a lack of infrastructure necessary to move that product to the gulf. he is focused on that. the all of the above approach is the only way we can enhance our energy security. drilling alone is not an answer. if it were, we would have solved the problem. as i just said, we have been increasing domestic oil and gas production, increasing the amount of drilling you're doing on federal lands and federal waters, and we will continue to do so.

but with a small push and no known reserves, but a huge demand for oil on the world market, we need to diversify our approach. that is the approach that i think the broad majority of the american people would also support. >> you and others have been talking about the all of the above strategy for a long time. the point of going on a trip like this is to be photographed in front of solar panels, an opportunity to sell that more? >> i think the president wants to travel around the country, whether that is for the recovery act, the need to of the consumer protection bureau, for investments in alternative energy, investments in oil and gas production. it is to focus attention on an agenda that requires not just his leadership, but cooperation with members of congress, so we can get more done.

it is the only feasible way to ensure we upgrade our dependence on the need of foreign sources of energy in the future. this is an active policy agenda in very much looks forward to highlighting. >> tomorrow night, or tomorrow is the sec filing deadline. can you tell us, any evidence -- how many events as they have attended backs and how it has gone? >> i do not have that. scott? what -- >> what is the activity and that he is calling on congress to pursue? >> we need congress to pursue the all of the above approach. whether that is increasing oil

and gas production, increasing investments, sustaining investment in alternative energy. the need to highlight this, i think, a lot of people rightfully want to know what the strategy so this does not happen again and again or buy annually as it has been happening in the recent past. -- or biannually as it has been happening in the recent past. the president will make clear what we can do, what we are doing, and the steps that necessary to enhance our energy security in the future. >> thank you. governor romney says the economy is coming back, something i do not think you

disagree with. [unintelligible] does that make it less of an argument for him in an election year? >> the president absolutely does not believe the recovery is inevitable. we need to do everything we can here in washington to ensure the recovery continues. it is certainly within the capacity of washington, as we have seen in the past, most recently last summer, to take action that can harm the recovery. we cannot let that happen. so, no. the recovery is not so far along that it can continue without leaders in washington making the right decisions, taking the right actions to insuree -- nsure -- ensure we can continue

to grow. the transportation bill is an example that. to pass a bipartisan transportation bill, the kind of bill that has been passed frequently over the years, will result in the halting of numerous construction projects across the country, job loss instead of job creation. we cannot let that happen. washington needs to focus and doing what it can to help the recovery continued. as we have seen in the last three years, there are choices you make in the face of recession like the one he encountered in 2009 that can either double down -- like the one we encountered in 2009 that can either double down or we can make the hard choices. the president made hard choices the first couple years in office that have led us to where we are

today, which is a period of sustained economic growth that needs to continue and to expand. a period of 24 months of private sector job creation and needs to continue. we have seen the creation of nearly 4 million private sector jobs. the hole dug by the recession was something like 8 million jobs. there is more to be done. >> first of all about legislation -- there is not piece of legislation -- >> i do not have a specific agenda to put forward for congress to take action on. the opportunity to help economic growth continues and the opportunity to, at least potentially, restrain growth or reverse it -- no, i understand.

in general, i do not have a list of items that congress could act on. we have talked about this in the context of the president's "we can wait -- "we can't wait" agenda, items medium and small that to not require congressional cooperation. he needs to continue to work with congress, and he will continue to do that. weather is an energy, transportation, the jobs at that is yet to be passed, the startup legislation he put forward. there are a whole host of things on which he needs congressional operation. >> why should we not view it as solely a public-relations stunt? >> you can view it --

>> up point by point rebuttal -- a point by point rebuttal, and scenes like this trip is designed to rebut. >> the idea that he has a comprehensive all of the above approach to our energy challenges, i think it is appropriate to highlight. there is a long story ending -- there is a longstanding agenda of traveling around the country to pursue a policy agenda, and that is what he will be doing on the strip. because it is so important. is so important to the future that we -- it is so important to the pitcher that we pursue this all of the above energy -- to the future that we pursue this

all of the above energy strategy. often the plan is just to drill more, which there is not a single energy expert out there that would argue that is the solution. we need something bigger than that and broader. >> it is not like you are out there doing these trips when you are -- >> as someone who is a veteran of a lot of trips, i beg to differ. the president has made those trips. the vice president has made those trips. it is not just recently. let me move around a little bit. victoria? >> [unintelligible] >> our message has not changed, which is that we consider that relationship very important, not

least because of its importance to our national security interests. it is a complicated relationship that requires a lot of attention, and we give it that attention, and we will continue to work with them on our shared goals of eradicating terrorism in the region. there's no question the cooperation that we have had from pakistan has contributed to some of the successes we could have had in taking the fight to al-qaeda in eliminating the senior al-qaeda leadership, in removing the senior al-qaeda leadership from the battlefield, and we will continue to pursue that agenda. >> [unintelligible] is there anything you can do about that?

and again come up with afghanistan, what is the situation -- and again, with afghanistan, what is the situation? >> the president had a phone conversation early friday morning with president karzai. we continue to have conversations with the afghan government about that issue. our focus is very much on implementing a strategy that includes transferring combat lead to afghan security forces in 2013, with the aim of ultimately transferring all authority to afghan security forces by 2014. on pakistan again, without addressing the specifics of your question, we understand there are challenges in the relationship. we work closely with our counterparts, and we're very clear about what our objectives

are in terms of american national security interests. >> [unintelligible] pass this bill now. why is there not a bill that he is traveling around the country saying "pass this now"? >> there is not a three-point plan, a one-point plan, or a five-point plan that would lower prices at the pump. global commodity is, the price fluctuates globally. what we need to do is not pretend there is some silver bullet solution, but focus on a broad agenda that is aimed at increasing production of fossil fuels in the united states, expanding our investment in alternative energy, taking the

kind of administrative action he took, working with major automobile companies to increase efficiency standards to the point that american consumers will save $1.7 trillion and 10 billion barrels of oil over the course of that program's implementation. that is the kind of approach we need to check. that is the kind of approach you will highlight on this trip. the american people need to know that there is no easy solution to this challenge. that we need to maintain and across the board effort on all these areas of the energy economy, or else we will not get out of this predicament in the long run. we have to do with. >> the idea that the president may not speak about this on the anniversary of the health care law seems strange.

[unintelligible] the white house has been talking for two years about educating the public about the benefits of this. doesn't the polling data suggest people are not buying it? >> the polling data that suggests that members of the senate are attacking at. we suggest implementing it so more americans see the benefits it brings. he is not -- i did not make any announcement one way or another about what the president's schedule would hold on this issue, but we are focused on implementing, not discussing anniversaries particularly. although i am sure others will want to discuss it. if you talk to americans and look at the data on this, if you ask them if the alternative --

as proposed by some folks who oppose the affordable care act -- giving power back to the insurance companies to they can throw you off your policy is to develop an illness or prevent you from getting insurance if you have a pre-existing condition or prevent young americans from staying on their parents' insurance policy, i think the answer would be "no, we do not want that." and there will be calls to take that away, those positive changes the way, and it will be met with a great deal of skepticism. the president will continue to focus on the economy, and jobs, on energy policy, and let others have that debate if they want to have it. >> friday about disaster preparedness. it was an online commentary suggesting is the executive branch the ability to allocate food or water in wartime.

there is a notion that the white house is preparing for a war with iran. can you explain exactly what the executive order was? >> [laughter] >> i cannot explain the reaction to a. i think it was a fairly standard piece of business. the president has made it clear most recently we need to discuss this at length a couple of weeks ago. we are progressively pursuing a policy focus on tightening sanctions against iran, increasing the pressure on iran, and increasing the isolation of the iranian regime, because this president believes we have the time and space to do with. we will seek at that diplomatic approach can produce the desired result. as he has said from this podium, it is easy to talk about war, but you need to talk about potential implications and consequences of war. he takes no option off the table

with dealing with iran, but he focused on the diplomatic approach, because it is ultimately the approach that has the best chance, if successful, of ensuring iran does not ever build a nuclear weapon. that is the approach he has taken. >> [unintelligible] travel focused around the energy policy -- i am wondering what evidence you have seen on what the effect is on the broader public? >> i am not sure i get the point of your question. energy is an important issue. is a huge issue for our economy going forward. is a huge issue for our national security going for. there is no question that

americans are very concerned and should be about the prices they are paying at the pump. the president is very focused on that and he understands the hardship that causes. one of the reasons he fought so hard last year and this year to have a payroll tax cut for 160 million americans is so that extra money could be in the pocket of these americans to enable them to deal with the expense caused by higher gas prices. it was felt this time last year and it is true obviously it this year. it is the focus of this president for that reason. is also part of a broader argument about where we need to move economically as a country. enhancing our energy

independence is part of addition this president has for a stronger, more secure america and the 21st century. he is talking about it for those reasons as well. that does not have an effect, i imagine, on polling data, but it could have an effect on long- term economic viability. >> [unintelligible] are americans buying that? >> again, i would give you the same answer. is wholly understandable that americans are concerned about the price they are paying at your local gas station. the prices are very high. the president believes that americans understand that politicians to say if only they were in power they could fix it with a simple proposal, most americans understand that that is baloney. is not plausible.

it is laughable as policy. drill, drill, drill will not get you anywhere, because it could, and the fact that we have increased oil and gas production in this country would have resulted in a decrease in prices at the pump, not an increase. the fact is there is not a direct correlation there because it is a global economy. the price of oil is affected by a number of factors including the price of oil in india, china, brazil, and a number of countries including this one. to reduce the effect that fluctuations have in this country, we need to take an all of the above approach to our energy policy. >> we have seen the statement regarding the attacks this morning. has the president been in contact -- contacts with the president of france to express

-- [unintelligible] >> i do not have any calls to read out to foreign leaders today. obviously, his sympathies go out to the families of the victims and the french people. beyond the statement we put out, i do not have anything else on that. >> on syria, what is the next move for the u.s.? the president frequently talks about keeping up the pressure, just a matter of time, and yet the violence continues and assad remains in power. >> we're continuing to work with a broad international coalition to isolate the assad regime, to put pressure on the assad regime. we are strongly supportive of kofi annan's mission.

we are working with our partners to ensure that sanctions against the regime are enforced globally. and we're continuing to work with our partners to provide humanitarian assistance. it is vital for every country to understand the kind of brutality perpetrated by the assad regime against the syrian people puts a stop on the wrong side of history. -- puts assad on the wrong side of history. we are going to work with the friends of syria and our international partners on this issue. we will continue to put pressure on assad, continue to call on assad to cease the violence. >> what if that is not enough?

putting the pressure on the regime to stop the violence, if the violence continues? >> i think the president has addressed this issue and -- specifically, you are asking for example, about providing arms? we believe is not the right approach to take to continue the militarization of the situation in syria. we make the point that as we deal with upheavals in countries across the region, we look at them very specifically. each country is different. the circumstances in each country is different. comparisons are often made with the situation in libya and the differences, i think, are often spelled out. i do not want predict in the future at what point, if certain things happen or cannot happen, additional strategies might be put in place. i would simply say the approach

we're taking now is the one we believe is the right one. we are working with the international community to further the pressure on assad, helping with our allies to provide humanitarian assistance, and hopefully, further united the international community against the -- further uniting the international community against the assad regime because of the brutality. >> a question on the gas policy -- getting blamed for $4 a gallon -- >> questions about the election, you should refer to the campaign -- >> [unintelligible] >> at the president is not concerned about getting blamed. president is concerned about making sure we have the right policies to make sure we get this right for the long term. you and the number of your

colleagues have correctly pointed out the hollowness of the proposals put forth by some of those who are critics of the president, masquerading as energy policies. you simply cannot drill your way out of this problem. under this president, oil and gas production in united states have increased significantly, both on private and public lands. under this president, we have signed a permit to build the first nuclear power plant in 30 years. under this president, we have taken a path through investments that will ensure we doubled the amount of renewable energy produced in this country. under this president, we've put in place historic fuel efficiency standards that will do more to reduce our consumption of oil than all

whole host -- than a whole host of proposals put out by others that they pretend will lower the prices at the pump by next week. this is not an easy challenge. president is being very honest with the american people about what we need to do to ensure we deal with this challenge in the long term. said, -- so, poll numbers are one thing. getting the policy right is another and more important thing. >> can i ask you about two things that are going to be in a. one, the call to reopen negotiations on the spending cuts -- spending caps, to cut another $19 billion.

the other is medicare. what do you think? >> we will wait to see what is in at. the call to abrogate or violate an agreement everyone signed on to in august, as we talked about before, it has to raise questions about keeping your word. about where we are. this is the result of a serious negotiation that ended in significant reductions in discretionary spending, non- defense discretionary spending. i think a lot of alleged bid -- elected officials say we should keep our word and keep that agreement in place. there's another aspect of this about blowing up the sequester. another agreement, handshake, signature, the suddenly people want to onto because they have

found out it is going to be inconvenient. it is designed so that those cuts will be objectionable and onerous. no one wants to see them going to place. -- go into place. they are to force congress to deal with the challenge presented before it and get our fiscal house in order, to enact legislation that would reduce our long-term deficit and debt. to do that, the president believes, in a balanced way. that is the approach that needs to be taken here. what we do not need -- and i have not seen the details of it -- is another proposal that will preserve and extend tax cuts for extremely wealthy americans to get done extremely well in the last decade. we have to preserve -- to preserve tax subsidies for oil and gas companies, tax subsidies

that have been in place for a century. as taxpayers, giving money to oil and gas companies making record profits -- i think that is a tough sell. but we will see. to pay for that and achieved a modicum of deficit reduction, you know, basically in the medicare as we know it, asking seniors to pay a heck of a lot more, that is just not an approach this president supports. we will see what it is when this comes out. the prologue is not very promising. >> jay, there's a lot of attention of the weekend about the killing of a florida teenager. the police [unintelligible] -- no charges were filed. is the president aware of this case?

>> we at the white house are aware of the incident and we understand that the local fbi has been in touch with the fbi. and our thoughts and prayers go to the victim's family, but obviously, we're not going to wade into a local law enforcement matter. >> with the case of professor gays in cambridge, that pales -- a professor gates in cambridge, that pales alongside this. >> i cannot comment on that. >> [unintelligible] can you describe in the president's policy strategy, when does it pay off to smooth out for most americans those price jumps? when does he envisioned to pay

off this up -- when does he envisioned we will pay this off? >> we seen our reliance on foreign imports decrees. we've seen an increase in domestic oil production. we put in place to efficiency standards that will have a significant impact in terms of reducing our demand for foreign oil. all of these things will have a cumulative effect to reduce a portion of our energy consumption that comes from foreign sources. by doing that, we see the impact in the global oil market on average americans. that is the overall bull. for economic reasons and national security reasons. -- that is the overall goal. there will be a huge demand for

fossil fuels as rising economies continue to grow and as this economy continues to grow. there are going to be huge opportunities economically in industries that take advantage of and exploit the need for alternative energy sources. president is committed to those industries growing and thriving in this country, so we do not get into a situation where we trade our independence -- trade our dependence on other countries for foreign oil for at dependence on other energy sources. is a long-term focus -- it is a long-term focus. that is what the president is focused on. i want to be clear. the president is focused on the current dilemma. he has talked about the measures he is taking, asking his justice department to look

into potential speculation and fraud, and the other issues that we can addressed here. but he is also honest about the fact that there is no magic wanted you can wait to suddenly reduced the price -- there's no magic wanted you can wave to sell to reduce the price of gasoline. >> [unintelligible] >> i do not remember saying that, actually. i do not think i did. >> when you got a question about health care -- [unintelligible] >> i will have to look at that. it was never a plan i am aware of to have him travel. i will check the transcript. >> afghan president's karzai wasquote -- was quotes as saying

there are two demons in our country. what is the concern that president karzai is saying one thing to the president and another thing to the afghan people. -- to the afghan people? >> we have regular conversations with president karzai, with the afghan leadership. we are fully aware of the concerns that he has and has had about some of these issues. obviously, the last several weeks have been very challenging. that has brought these issues to the forefront again. we are focused on implementing our strategy, a strategy which has, at its core, both the need to disrupt, dismantle, and the ft al-qaeda, but the need to transfer -- and defeat al-

qaeda, but the need to transfer authority to afghan security forces. we're in the process of drawing down the forces, and as the president has said, the withdrawals of u.s. forces will continue beyond that as to transfer more and more territory and more and more of the security responsibility to afghan forces, who are being billed as part of the implementation of the strategy. the specifics of the footprints and what force will be deployed, i am sure that will be worked out. we're making sure the strategic partnership discussions -- and we will continue to do that. we're very cognizant of the fact that the incidents of late have provided great challenges, and we are working through them, remaining focus on what the mission is, the reason why we

are there to begin with, because we are attacked here in the united states as part of a plan that is conceived and authorized and executed out of afghanistan by al-qaeda. that is the reason why we are there and that is the reason al- qaeda is the principal focus of our mission. >> this that kind of rhetoric complicate our mission in -- [unintelligible] >> we will continue to work with president karzai, as i said. president obama had a discussion with president karzai early friday morning. the two men see eye to eye in terms of what the mission is in 2014. we are just going to continue to be focused on that and the implementation of the strategy. yes, sir? >> but the president and prime

minister -- discussed -- kenyon discuss what pressure is being -- can you discuss what pressure is being put on beijing and moscow? >> i cannot read out to the conversations of diplomatic negotiations, but we were very disappointed in the veto. we made that clear. we're working with everyone to focus attention on the happiness behavior of the assad regime -- their heinous behavior of the assad regime, the fact that his ultimate giving up of power is, we believe, only a matter of time, and the fact that the syrian people will always

remember who was with them in this terrible time and to was not. so, we're working with everyone to try to unite behind a strategy to isolate assad and to get him to halt the violence and to step aside. thanks, all. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> congress is back today. the house returns at 4:00 p.m. for legislative work. they will recess at 5:00 p.m. with votes after 6:03 p.m. live coverage when the gavel back in. also, budget committee chairman paul ryan may release his budget plan this week and we could hear remarks throughout the week. that is on c-span. the sun devils in, too, today. -- the senate gavels in at 2:00 p.m. today.

tomorrow, they will vote to limit debate on the bill. and on amendments involving investor protections and reauthorize in the investment bank. the senate is live right now on c-span2. and a hearing on reece involvement in afghanistan. the commander of the international security assistance force and james miller jr. are scheduled to testify. we will have live coverage of that at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c- span3 and on c-span radio. a reminder that tomorrow, we will have coverage of the illinois primary, the 84 delegates are at stake in that state. keep it on the c-span network for complete road to the white house coverage.

>>. centcom had remarks at waterfront plaza in dixon, an illinois -- rick santorum have remarks at war from plaza in dixon, ill.. >> i want to welcome you to my home town. [applause] the last time we had a presidential candidate to come to dixon, he won. [applause] this was his home town, too. diction -- nixon knew him as the "dutch." the rest of the world knew him as ronald reagan, though according and president of the united states. his path to the presidency started here. the statute was not here then. and the stricken from russ was not called reagan way. but this is where his character was formed. two blocks away is the church that helped to form his deep

faith. and further down with the school that helped form his mind. three blocks at was the home that had his strong mother to help to build his character. it was that have and those attributes fed eventually lead to him leaving the white house, attributes like sincerity, humility, and a deep faith. we all agree that there will never -- never be another ronald reagan. but we still look for those attributes in our candidates. that is why i have chosen to endorsed senator rick santorum, because i see those reagan asked -- reaganesque qualities in him. [applause] in december, i was talking to a store owner who happens to be a democrat. she likes giving me a good- natured ribbing when i come in and she said, who do you like for president on your side? and i said, i really like rick

santorum -- and this was in december -- but i just hope he can get some momentum. well senator, you have the momentum. [applause] and finally, senator, when you capture our party's nomination and you're looking around for a vice president, dixon, ill. is not a bad place to look. [laughter] just saying. [laughter] seriously, ladies and gentlemen, it is my great privilege to honor and to endorse and introduce to you the man i believe will be the next president of the united states, senator rick santorum. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. what a great crowd. thank you for coming out. tim, thank you.

i appreciate you coming out and welcoming me here. i welcome all of the democrats that are here to welcome me, too. i appreciate that. it is an honor to stand in front of this statute in this town that did so much for this country. because this town helped shape and mold ronald wilson reagan, and ronald wilson reagan changed the world. he had a big effect on changing the world as we know it. [applause] i always say the great thing about america is that we go on every day and we live our lives and try our best to provide for ourselves and our families, and ordinary people just doing ordinary things. but we realize in america, those ordinary things, just like those who were raised with dutch reagan here in dixon, they end up contributing to extraordinary things. and that is the idea, that

people can come from small town america. in my case, a first-generation american, and then have the opportunity because you were taught the principles of hard work and honesty and integrity and doing what is right even though it is hard, doing what is right even when no one is watching you. all of those things, which you were taught here in dixon and across small town america, those are the things that make our country what it is. that is what makes america unique in the world. but we are a country that from its very inception believe in the basic principle that government should be limited and that we should have unlimited potential in the american people. that is a great combination. [applause] i have been told by some local meteorologist that our time is short here. [laughter] the weather has passed, but it

is coming back. i will not give a very long speech. i know you will be excited to hear that. but i do want to talk a little bit about what ronald reagan stands for and stood for. and why it is so important that we have a candidate that does that in this election, that stands on the pillars of what ronald reagan built as the modern republican party. remember, when ronald reagan took the helm in 1980, he had fought some battles. he had been fighting battles for a couple of decades to try to revive conservatism in this country. and he fought an insurgent campaign against a sitting incumbent republican. if we do not have a sitting republican -- we do not have a sitting republican incumbent. but we have someone who is the choice of the establishment republicans, someone whose turn it was. we see that a lot with republican politics for

president. it is almost inevitable, whoever is next in line. that is to the republicans tend to put forward. and ronald reagan said, no, we do not need the next in line, we need something very different. what was going on in 1976, and even worse in 1980, was something that was corrosive of the american spirit. there was a time in the 1960's and 1970's that we stopped believing in what made america great. we started believing in government control of aspects of our lives, that it would make america strong burk. back in and in late 1970's, the world -- the word "liberal" was not a dirty word. now even liberals do not like being called out in america. [laughter] but there is one man who changed that. he changed it not by going down

and tearing down his opponents, but he created a vision of who we are, where we came from, and what we can be in the future. that was the greatness of reagan. it was not rhetoric. it was not just that he was a great rhetoric titian, someone who could coin a phrase. tician,tition -- rhetori a good coin a phrase. his policies were rooted in the greatest of the country, meaning it was rooted in the american people, not a big powerful government. [applause] and reagan ran that insurgent campaign in 1976 and people were saying, why don't you get out of the race? you have no chance of winning.

and he fought. he won 11 states in 1976. i might add parenthetically that if we happen to win illinois, that will be the 11th state i have one in this election. [cheers and applause] but he fought the battle. he fought the battle in 1976 that laid the predicate in 1980. after four years of misery because, unfortunately, republicans did not universally accepted his message. he was considered too conservative, someone who was not delectable because we need to appeal to -- not electable because we need to appeal to moderates and democrats. they thought we had to compromise that vision. we had to be something not true to ourselves, that being true to

ourselves as reagan was, to the conservative principles that our country was founded upon, that was not a winning formula. we had to sell ourselves short in order to win the election. we found we did not win the election. and jimmy carter went about the process of weeding america on every possible fund. -- weakening america on every possible front. now we have a similar election coming up to the election of 1980. we have barack obama and four years of we can in america. -- weakening america. we have a president who is talking about leading from behind, talking about reducing foour military and pulling back american presence in the world. we have a president who does not believe america is a source for good. ronald reagan talked about us

being a shining city on a hill. we have a policy that requires the president gore on the world and apologized for what we have done in this world -- to go all around the world and apologize for what we have done in this world. ronald reagan would never apologize for what we have done in this world. [applause] we have in this election is very similar theme. we have a president who has made us week, who has cut our defense. we are approaching an almost $4 trillion budget, over $1.2 trillion in deficits, expanding and exploding the deficit by $5 trillion in a matter of four years. but the only place the president

can find to cut its defense spending. it is the only place that he is willing to take a pound of flesh. and it is the only thing, the principal thing that the federal government has to do, that the state and government and locals and individual governments cannot do. it is in this area that the president is responsible for our budget deficits. defense spending was 60% of the federal budget. it is now not 60%. or 40 or 30 or 20. it is 17%. and yet, president obama has gone over and over that we need to cut some more. let me tell you what the president reagan said in 1980. we will have the strongest military and i will not cut defense spending. it will have a strong and forceful america. -- we will have a strong and

forceful america. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, that was one of the legs of the three legged stool that the president -- of president reagan. peace through strength, and it worked. it worked against the red menace that many said we had to appease and negotiate with. it forced it to its knees. ronald reagan had the courage to go out and do what our founders were willing to do, speak truth. it from our founding documents, our founders were not afraid to speak the truth. and when ronald reagan got up and called evil evil, and called the evil empire what it was, oh, the press was in a tizzy.

they went crazy. how could we be so inflammatory? the greatness of america, ronald reagan knew. we did say what was good and what was evil. and reagan also knew that we would no longer be great if we could not tell the difference between the two. [applause] oh, there is an evil in this world. it resides in the hearts of radical islam must -- islamists who want to destroy freedom loving institutions, who want to oppress not just others around the world, but people within their own faith, subject in them too harsh, sharia law, torture, and debt -- and death,

particularly in the nation of iran. and we have a president who got up and said recently that we have israel's back, when we all know that he has turned his back on the nation of israel. [applause] we cannot allow iran to get a nuclear weapon. i have been saying that for eight years. i have authored bills in the senate. i have passed bills over the objection of president obama, then a senator. but we actually passed bills to put sanctions on iran, on their nuclear program. we talked about engaging the persian people. iran is a persian country, a country that is not at war with the jews historically. a country with a proud and noble civilization that is being hijacked by a bunch of religious zealots.

we have the opportunity to engage them in 2009, and instead of doing what wiggin would have done, engage and fight in places to iran -- what reagan would have done, engage and five in places around the world, help them. no, this president sided with the mullahs, sided with those who kill freedom loving people, particularly americans. we need a president who will stand up for the very principles that made this country great, and gauge the freedom loving people -- and engage the freedom loving people in this world, not to fight a war, but to prevent a war, to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon. [applause] and of course, one of the most

vaunted legs of historical that reagan talked about was that he talked about limited government and free people. [applause] how many jokes did ronald reagan to tell about big government? he understood that government was in the way of free people being able to live their dreams and work and read the fruit of their labor and take care of their families and communities, because he saw it here. he sighed in dixon, ill.. he saw community. he saw how we build a great society one neighborhood at a time. people taking care of each other. the football coach, the baseball coach, the folks at the ymca, the folks at the civic and community organizations, at the library -- everybody looked out

for each other. we were a community, because we did not have all of these government programs to take care of people. it was our responsibility as brothers and sisters in the committee to look out for each other. and in small-town america, as this man just said, it still is. [applause] that is the vision that reagan tried to remind us all of. remind us how important was to allow the businessman, the entrepreneur to make a profit, and not to condemn them as being rich or greedy. the 1% does a lot of hiring of the other 99%, and that is a good thing. [applause] ronald reagan stood for free markets, for a free economy.

he would be appalled to look at what is happening today with the government takeover of health care. margaret thatcher, as she left the prime ministership of england and it looks back as she served at the taint -- same time as reagan did. she said she never would have been able to accomplish what she did is not for america. she said the reason -- she said she never would have been able to accomplish as much as america. she said the reason, government health care. she said, once the government has their books in you and your -- they're hot in that you and your children and your loved ones, they've got you. and there is no amount of tribute you will not pay to get what you think you need to preserve your health, and more importantly, to preserve the health of walthose you love.

that is why obamacare is the number-one issue in this race. it is an issue of fundamental freedom. it is about whether you will be a generation that will be the generation of what reagan talked about. he said, freedom is never more than just one generation away from extinction. we did not pass it to our children in the bloodstream. it must be fought for, protected, and handed on to them to do the same cannot or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was like in the united states when men were freed. [applause] do not be that generation that reagan warned about.

there is only one way to stop it from being that way, and that is, to make sure that we nominate somebody who can take on barack obama on the issue of health care, on the issue of freedom, on the issue of liberty in this country. [applause] someone who has not been for government mandated health care, someone who has not been for top-down government controlled either at a state or federal level, but someone who understands how critical government control of health care is in our society. and is able to go after barack obama and make this the central issue. there is a poll in four states that is the first in the country that shows two-thirds of americans oppose obamacare and

the individual mandate. two-thirds of americans. [applause] why would the republican party put up on nominee who takes that issue off the table? who takes the health -- the health-care issue and government mandates, both at the state and federal level that he has supported, why would the republican party nominate someone on the issue of the day? that is why you have to help me here in illinois, and help me get elected. [cheers and applause] and the third leg of the reagan stool is talking about what he understood, too, as he grew up

here in dixon that was important. school is -- school. you build a society of individuals. it is like building a house on grains of sand. you have to build a society on something solid, that has grains and straw, cement and clue that can hold fast upon which you could have these structures. -- upon which you could put heavy structures. reagan understood that foundational building block of society was the family.

marriage and the family are at the core of foundation of society. [applause] he also understood that in order to have limited government, you had to have people living good and decent and moral lives. the ribordy says, i will be my own government, i will live -- if everybody says, i will be my own government, i will live by my own rules. go out after we leave here and drive down the left side of the highway and see how that works out. you cannot live according to your own rules. you have to live -- we have to live according to rules that are decent and fair and allow us all to pursue our dreams. and when people break those moral grounds, then society becomes a very dangerous place

and government gets bigger. we have to hire more people with uniforms in this country and we are less free. these are the basic things we all understand. edmund burke said we will be free of the chains that we put upon ourselves, but we will be constrained by the chains that men put upon house if we -- put upon us if we do not help ourselves. [applause] ronald reagan understood that faith and family means freedom in america. [applause] that it all works together. i know we are concerned right now about the economy in this country. and we have talked about economic liberty and limited government and balanced budgets and less spending and strong families and faith and

commitment. all of those things work together to make america work. it fits. you cannot have limited government unless you have free people living good and decent and moral lives, and strong families to help each other around, so you do not need government to come in and pick up the pieces when families and communities breakdown. you cannot have a strong national defense unless you have a strong national economy, and people going out and prospering and living lives that allow us to grow and create the dynamism that our country has -- our economy has created. then you can afford to have a strong national security and defend our country. all of these things work together. reagan understood these things wove together in a great mosaic that is the united states of america. he understood and he brought people together on that concept.

all based upon the founding principles of our country. reagan often quoted and rely heavily on our founders, people who chartered the course for america. in the last few years, we have had a movement in this country that i thank god for, because they have resurrected one of those founding documents, something called the united states constitution. [applause] i carry it with me. it is an important and critical document in our country, a document that is the operator's manual for the american government, it is the house as to its function -- is the how of american government as to its function. a very extensive powers are

given to the states and to the people. limited powers are given to the federal government. [applause] reagan reviewed this document. he understood its importance. but he also understood the importance of another document that he quoted off of. and that another man from illinois would " beautifully and frequently, abraham lincoln -- would quote beautifully and frequently, abraham lincoln, and that was the declaration of independence. [applause] these two men of illinois in you that with -- that the constitution without the declaration of independence could be a very dangerous thing for men in power. the constitution is tethered to the declaration. why? because the declaration tells us who we are. there are many on the left who would like to dismiss the

declaration as a document that existed before the american government was established, and therefore has no legal binding in america. but it has a moral binding in america. and that binding comes from one phrase that we all know, and i'm sure you were taught here in dixon, ill.. and that is, we hold these truths to be self evident. truths, here is this word again. we hold these truths to be self evident, apparent to all, people of faith, people of no faith, that all men are created equal. [applause] is that true in other civilizations around the world? is it true in the muslim world? is it true in the third world? of course not. for those who clamor for a

quality understand where that concept comes from. for equality -- 40 qualit understand where the concept comes from. it comes from the western world. we are endowed with certain inalienable rights. our rights do not come from the government. the concept of equality does not come from the government. the concept of truth does not come from the government. it comes from our creator. [applause] this is what made as different than any other country in history of the world. no other country in the history of the world ever said that we are equal and that our rights came from god. no, we came from south --

thousands of years of society where the kings had rights and it is to be to to those -- and they distributed them to those they thought were worthy in their eyes. and we said, no, all life is sacred. [applause] and we changed the world. because we had a constitution whose job it was to simply recognize the rights that were already written in the heart of every person. and there to protect those rights and allow you, the american people, to build a great and just society, to change the world by losing the human spirit, by -- the unlimited potential that reagan used to talk about all the time,

that infectious optimism. why? because he saw it in the eyes of people here in dixon, ill. and across the country. he saw that humans park at lincoln talked about. he understood the greatness of our country -- the human spark that lincoln talked about. he understood the greatness of our country. i believe there are some in washington who believe that they should make decisions for you because you are incapable of making them anymore. what a pathetic view. [applause] and we did change the world. for two dozen years, life expectancy had been 35 in the western world. we were an agrarian society for 2000 years, until 1776. and in 230 years because of america, because of you free

people, life expectancy has doubled. we have gone through an industrial revolution, a technology revolution. imagine what the world would be like today if we were still having kings and emperors and dictators. managed society for their benefit, instead of having free people from the bottom up governing america. making sure by their actions, both by putting the uniform on of our military, as well as being citizens of this country of keeping america free. at the end of that declaration, the founders wrote this phrase, of which they attach their names to. all of them were men of wealth,

property, stature, education. they signed this document knowing they were giving up all lost workday to lose. in fact, they were giving up their lives because they were signing a treasonous documents to the most powerful army in the world. but they did so willingly, because they believed so much in that concept that has proven to be that transformational concept in human history. here we are now and we have taken that plane from previous generations who have sacrificed for you -- that flame from previous generations to a sacrifice for you. reagan held that george hyde and told those tyrants -- held that torch high and told those tyrants to tear down walls. [applause]

there were no different, the people of the greatest generation, the people of reagan's generation, they are no different from the people here today. they did what they had to do. they stood up and they rose to the occasion to preserve freedom. ladies and gentlemen, what is necessary now in america to preserve freedom is for each and every one of you to engage in that struggle in this election. do not be those people that reagan talked about who would have to tell their children and children's children what it was like to live in an america where men were free. you do not want to ever have that conversation. and unless we do the right thing in this election, we will be the generation that allows that torch to go out, that beacon of hope for the world. the best way to make that happen

is to make this election like the election of 1980. don't make it about who can best manage washington, were be the ceo of the economy. we need somebody who can talk and strike blows for big things, like reagan did, for freedom, and for america. [applause] let's just be brutally honest about it. there is one candidate in this race who can never make this race about freedom, because he simply abandon freedom when he was governor of massachusetts, and he abandoned it when he promoted obamacare in 2009. [applause] you listen to any of his speeches. he never talks about it. he cannot talk about it. why, when that is the most important and pressing issue in our country right now, the big central issue -- how can we

nominate someone who cannot summon the energy, someone vision,n -- summoned divisi the and ellicott -- elevate this country to something big and important and lasting. you can do that in illinois. you can put someone forward who can try to communicate that message that is at the heart of what america is. you help us here in the next 24 hours. if you go out and are willing to vote for me tomorrow -- [cheers and applause,] i appreciate that. and that is great, but it is not

enough. we are up against being outspent. the reporter who talk to me today said we are being outspent 10 to one. robo calls, radio ads, television ads, all tearing down. no vision. no hope. no promise of what america is to be. we must do better than that. [applause] i am asking you what our founders signed in that declaration, to pledge to each other. but we mutually pledge to each other, they wrote. our lives and our sacred honor. no one is asking for your lives in the next 24 hours. no one is asking for your porch -- although, if you go to ricksantorum.com -- [laughter]

passed a hat. but your honor is at stake as the town of dixon, the town of all of this man. what will dixon say? will they stand up and uphold the freedom, uphold the legacy of this great man, of what he did for this great country, of the difference that he made? or will that have been in vain? will we be the generation that reagan feared and talked about in his farewell address, that talked about -- that forgot what made this country great. i need you talk about it all for the state of illinois. i need you to rise up and speak loudly. from the place of freedom here in dixon, ill.. let the voice of reagan be heard across this land. thank you very much, and god bless you.

[applause] >> plaze benjamin, rick santorum. -- ladies and gentleman, rick santorum. ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] ♪ >> hello, dixon. there is only one ronald reagan. there is only republican candidate with the views of the reagan administration.

that is, rick santorum. we are in the 16th congressional district. i want to say the names of our delegates who are pledged to represent rick santorum in tampa, florida. you've got to go down and vote for each of these people in order for us to win the 16th district. one of them is over here to my koczinski.dennis kaniewsk another of our delegates from princeton, and illinois. khristine arndt. and from the county of ford, jan peterson. her husband is serving as an

alternate delegate. kristie shilling is here, the wife of congressman bobby shilling. let's give her a round of applause over here. the great congressman from the 16th district is here. and i am from henry county. i will be on the 17th district out. i am running with a rich galva.rom, the mayor of diyal i'm also running with james radel, from erie, illinois. and from sterling, ill., k. farris. do not forget to vote for your delegates. thank you very much. ♪

>> and yard signs are available back here at the lemonade stand. god bless you all. get out and vote and get your neighbors to vote. ♪

rick santorum is our man" by the harris sisters] ♪

♪

["home" by dierks bentley] ♪ ♪

[unintelligible conversations]

>> that was rick santorum of the second of his four campaign appearances, that when earlier today in illinois, as the state prepares to hold its primary tomorrow. there are 54 delegates at stake. we will have complete coverage on the c-span networks. in a few moments, the u.s. house will gaveling to begin the week. the return at 4:00 p.m. eastern to begin legislative work. we're expecting them to go to recessed shortly after gaveling in and then return at 5:00 p.m. for a vote on a couple of suspension bills. budget committee chairman paul ryan is expected to release the budget proposal this week. we are likely to see members make remarks about that all week. earlier, we spoke with a capitol hill reporter who was following the budget process on the hill. >> budget committee chairman paul ryan is about to release

the republican budget proposal. joining me is nanticoke. when can we expect is -- is nancy cook. to see it?n can we expect >> pala brian is doing a hearing -- paul ryan is doing a hearing and then a number of meetings throughout the week to sell this blueprint of the idea he has. >> where are the key proposals? >> some of the key things are deeper can -- and deeper spending cuts that were agreed to in the budget control act. he is also supposed to push back the man did -- mandated cuts for defense never part of the deal. one of the big things that democrats are expected to go after him on is that he will try to restructure medicare and most likely, medicaid as well. >> you talk about how the budget will be presented to congress in the article. what is mr. ryan expected to rely on as it is rolled out?

>> this year, he is making sure to talk about it almost in moral terms. he has been talking for the last few weeks about how americans have a moral obligation to tackle the debt crisis. last year it was more about out- of-control spending. this time, he is attaching greater responsibility to this budget. and >> what are the political risks? >> the democrats aren't all -- are thrilled. they are lining up ad saying that paul ryan will try to kill medicaid. in this poll, trying to get republicans to vote for it in a critical election year could be damaging for republicans and will certainly come up in the election. >> have we heard from any major candidates on his proposal? >> we haven't yet, most because it has not yet come out. i would say in terms of who his plans are closest to, he and

mitt romney have the most similarities in terms of what their proposed for medicare and medicaid and the spending cuts. pregnancy coca, thank you for joining us. >> thank -- >> nancy cota, thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me. >> and a reminder that the house will dabble in at 5:00 p.m. eastern. the senate will double in at 2:00 p.m. tomorrow. tomorrow, it is possible there will be a vote to limit debate on a substitute for the small- business bill. the senate is live on c-span2. >> in march, 1979, c-span began televising the u.s. house of representatives to households nationwide. and today, our content of politics and public affairs, nonfiction books, and american

history is available on tv, radio, and online. >> we have even had advised that we do not do, as i did today, and come in with a plain old white shirt and a summer tie. heaven forbid. i do not know whether my colleagues feel of this would be a better decorum for the senate. and i see distinguished senator stafford over here nodding know. perhaps the people of ohio would be glad to make a judgment on what they would seat here attired in the u.s. senate. mr. president, these are just a few of our concerns here in the senate. and i am sure that none of us will do a thing differently in the senate of the united states now that we are on television. thank you. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies as a public service. >> the strong support we have in our region of the country, from

which this bill originated, gives us an excellent base to go to the member for its wit. and it in my view, we will go forth -- to go forth on november 5 with. and in my view, we will go forth. then you have the 270 electoral votes necessary to win the presidency. >> as candidates campaigned for president this year, we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our website c-span.org /thecontenders for a video. >> there has been disagreement and considerable argument. but do not let anybody be misled by that.

you have given here in this and moving and dramatic proof of how americans differ >> the u.s. house is about to dabble in for legislative work. they are likely to be set shortly after and return back for votes at 6:30.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. almighty god of the universe, he give you thanks forgiving us another day. we give you thanks for the beauty of this city as the blossoms of spring burst forth with the promise of hope. may the mines and hearts of the members of this people's house be similarly filled with beauty and hope as they return to the important work to be done. it is difficult and often contentious work. bless them with peace and patience and with goodwill. bless us this day and every day and may all that is done within these hallowed halls be for your greater honor and glory, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's explodings and announces to the house his approval thereof.

the journal stands approved. pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from american samoa, mr. faleomavaega. faleomavaega i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america -- mr. faleomavaega: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair -- the speaker: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker: without objection. >> mr. speaker, last week i was furious to learn veterans in south louisiana must wait even longer to receive an upgrade to promised veterans clinical services in lafayette and lake charles, due to bureaucracy incompetence or worse, something worse. after years of hard work, effort and patience, the v.a. is pressing the reset button on these projects. this is unacceptable. i refuse to stand by and allow

washington to give false assurances of hope to those who fought so bravely for our country. as lake charles american press stated, i quote, it took the united states and its allies 45 months to defeat the exiss powers of germany, japan and italy in world war ii. mr. boustany: it's obscene that 46 months after the v.a. announced it would open a clinic in lake charles, veterans are still waiting for ground to be broken, end quote. making broken promises like these to our nation's veterans is shameful. i will continue to lead the fight to protect our veterans against broken promises of the v.a. in washington and i look forward to bringing specific concerns to veterans affairs secretary's attention regarding this absurd incompetence. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, the time to

accelerate our withdrawl from afghanistan has arrived. mr. moran: afghanistan has very little to do with the security of most americans. osama bin laden is dead. al qaeda is decimated. in fact, there may be 50 at the most al qaeda between afghanistan and pakistan. there are more in other parts of the world. but the reality is the afghans don't want people from saudi arabia or egypt or yemen or whatever telling them what to do. but neither do they want americans telling them how to live their lives. but while we, our security is not threatened, we owe a responsible -- responsibility to our brave young men and women in uniform because their security is threatened. largely through reasons that were wholly out of their control.

they're waging a valiant fight to do what we have asked them to do. but we have a responsibility to make sure that no lives are lost in vein. it's time to accelerate our withdrawal from afghanistan. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: to revise and extend. mr. speaker, this friday, march -- marks the second anniversary of obamacare. since that day two years ago we've seen multiple reports and heard firsthand the disastrous effects of the law that allowed the federal government to take over our health care system. people in the fifth district of north carolina tell me they're worried about the cost of health care and about the 15-person board that will be making decisions about their health care. the president and democrats said, quote, if you like what your health care plan, can you keep it. but now we know this is not the case. the independent payment advisory board will pick and choose what should be kept from

-- cut from medicare and medical services and they will do so without any accountability to the american people, to congress or to even the president. as we prepare to vote on another bill that would repeal another part of this disastrous law, we should remember that americans should have the freedom to make their own health care decisions, mr. speaker, and obamacare takes that away. it's time to repeal obamacare for good. either in whole or in part. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from american samoa rise? mr. faleomavaega: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. faleomavaega: mr. speaker, i rise today with sadness to pay tribute to his majesty, king george v who passed away yesterday. i was privileged to have known the majesty for many years. and i will remember him as a noble leader who was passionate about serving his people.

king george assumed the throne in 2006 and after the death of his father, his majesty, he led the pacific's only remaining monarchy into a more democratic form of government, introducing tonga's first elected parliament and prime minister two years ago. he was known for his progressive leader who promoted the private sector, technological advances and many more as an open economy. as fellow poll nearbyans, the people of american samoa share many historical and cultural ties with the people of tonga and we join together giving our deepest condolences to her majesty, the queen, the royal family and the good people of tonga. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise today to share troubling information about a chinese telecom firm

which is attempting to increase its market share in the u.s. mr. wolf: yesterday "the wall street journal" reported that, quote, the network business has thrived at the expense of struggling western network companies and is quietly building and investing its own brand of high-end smart phones and tablets. but many americans may not be aware that numerous government reports have linked the corporate leadership to the people's liberation army, raises serious concerns about its products being used for espionage by the chinese government. last week respected national security reported bill wrote new information about chinese telecom companies report the chinese military and information warfare programs is raised fresh concerns. that is why both the bush administration and obama administration have reportedly intervened to stop and block their growth. wawe is controlled by the same

government that jails kathy bishop -- catholic bishops and protestant priests. it is providing the very rockets that sudanese president bashir is using to kill his own people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. burgess: madam speaker, this week and next we'll have two opportunities for a thoughtful, forward course on health care here in the people's house and across the street, at the highest court of the land. the supreme court next week hears out arguments on the limits of federal control in health care. a ruling's expected later this summer. perhaps, perhaps our long national nightmare will be over. and guess what? half of americans reported in the hill today, half of americans think that the supreme court will do just that. and this week americans will witness the house embarking on

a course of their treatment for the health care law. we are going to vote to repeal the unelected, unaccountable panel that's squeezing out patient access. we'll insist on medical justice reform to drive down the costs of liability coverage for doctors who make sound treatment decisions. madam speaker, the last congress force-fed the american people a new health care law. americans are demanding a second opinion. after revelations of unrealistic assumptions, cost overruns, americans want to change -- want a change of course and now this congress will act. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately

clearly, that is the kind of demagoguery we do not need when you're trying to take care of our seniors need and access for care. my good friend and fellow physician from tennessee, dr. bill roe. this is a board of bureaucrats at that is designed to put a doctor and a patient. that is not what we want.

this is going to take the form of the rationing of care. they say it is not, but it is. that is not the direction we want to see medicare going. repealing this is extremely important and it has been a bipartisan effort here in the house, and i really hope we can move on in the right direction and get the legislation passed for seniors, now and in the future in terms of their access to care. >> i am alan dunley from mississippi one. we had a debate and discussion on how to deal with our enormous debt and the medicare problem that is driving a large portion of that debt.

when we passed that budget, the other side did not want to discuss the issue. they just make commercials up chairman ryan pushing seniors of the cliff. -- off the cliff. they only want to deal with sound bites and demagoguery and have not put forth reasonable alternatives. nor have they put forth a better status quo. right now the status quo is cutting $500 million that will result in rationing, that will result in patients not getting the care they need. the status quo will also result in an unelected group of bureaucrats and making decisions

for people in north mississippi. i do not think either of those is good. i hope we can continue this meaningful discussion on reform of the medicare program while we protect existing recipients. we will also make sure the program is there for their grandchildren. and we will also repeal this unelected group of bureaucrats that stand between patients and their doctors. >> thank you for being here today. i am the congressman from illinois 14th district. it is two days from friday when the health care bill first pass. now we do know, as nancy pelosi said, we know what is in the bill. and there is still much in their not to like. i have a problem with the unelected bureaucrats deciding

the care our seniors are eligible to. it will limit access to care. the board can decide what kind of treatment can be given. the other, that is not spoken about so much that needs to be discussed, are the cuts that happen, and the savings only happen with be paid out positions. doctor after doctor, a position after physician is saying "i can no longer take any more medicare patients." what good is it for someone to have medicare when they have no doctor who will be able to see it -- see them? that is limiting access to care. we need to do the right thing and fix medicare for our seniors, for our future. this is the wrong direction. i think this is an important issue. and we have to address the real problems of lawsuit abuse and the problems inflicted because of lawsuits against doctors and

hospitals and the amount of defensive medicine that goes in and how we often pay a price for that. and drives up the cost of care that we can have and our seniors can have. let's do all we can to address the real problems of health care, and that is the cost to help care. make sure the patient can still see the doctor he wants to see. this is what we can do if we come together and work together to fix medicare. i will hand it over to my colleague. >> is great to see you all. is certainly a special week in washington. i am fortunate in that i have a group of senior advisor site in northwest pennsylvania. those of the people -- we are talking about them today. this is something they did not envision and they do not understand. as we watch the cherry blossoms -- i am told they will peak on wednesday and declined. we have a group of citizens out

there that have peaked and now they are in decline. my mother is here. she is 86. her husband is 88. these guys are veterans of the war's. they have paid their dues. and they know, they know they did everything they were asked to do. they paid the price. they played by the rules. that are trying to understand why, why at this time in their lives are they being robbed of the more -- most important thing seniors should have, and that is peace of mind? after you have paid into the program, and you can think, this is taking care of by the government, because i always paid into this program. let me tell you, they are starting to find out what everyone else is finding out. not just republicans, by the way, but there are democrats saying "maybe we should have read it."

they do not answer to anybody? not elected, but appointed? did not answer to congress or the electorate? can pretty much to do anything they want to do? we know that medicaid under the current model is not going to last. all we are trying to do is fix it. keep the most vulnerable part of our population, our seniors, who have done everything they can to preserve this great country and at this late date we are going to penalize them? no. not on our watch. not in our time. we will repeal this. we have plenty on the other side who voted for it, who will say probably should have read it. probably should have tried to understand what it would do to the people i represent. and we are going to fix it. it is a little bit crazy where we are going with this. you know what?

i am not going to be able to handle medicare patients keeping these people are telling their sons and daughters -- maybe this is not the bright procession -- this is not the right profession for you to go into either. we have to look at what the government has done to hurt its citizens. this program has heard them deeply. dr. harris, you're going to speak on this issue also. thank you. >> thank you very much. the independent payment advisory board was devised for one method and one that the only. it was designed to reduce cost so that money could be spent on the affordable care at. only in washington could you design a system that would use 15 unelected people, by lot of minorities -- byatt, law, a minority them being health-care

practitioners, deciding how health-care would be delivered to our seniors. that is the opposite of what our seniors want. our seniors want that decision about health care to be made between a patient and their physician. that is it. no one looking over their shoulder. know when deciding in that individual case that is appropriate, care or not. is about time for reform. i was an anesthesiologist before i came to congress. change was dramatic, all driven by the tort crisis in the united states. there were no more senior obstetricians. they left the practice. all the groups were eight or nine obstetricians. a woman going in for care it did not develop a relationship with a single obstetrician, but a large group.

all as a result of the lack of tort reform. it is about time we took that up in congress. we sent the bill to the senate about a uriko. and the senate took no action. this time when we -- about a uriko. in the senate to no action. thank you. >> i would like to open it up for questions. >> [unintelligible] >> when you said the law, you're talking the broader law? i would say the opposite. if you leave the board and

emplace, you were not changing the way medicare works. you're not changing the rules so you squeeze more value and reduced cost -- and reduce cost. all you're doing is cutting costs in medicare system, which by definition means less services provided to people, fewer doctors willing to take medicare patients. so, i think just the opposite is true. let me read this to your. yesterday, there was a guy called the senior medicare patrol officer in arkansas, and in my district. he was said a senior center. a lady stood up and said "i do not understand why i am forced to pay my medicare premium, but cannot find a doctor who will take me because i am on medicare." that is a problem now the bank

that will only get worse. >> are you talking about the obamacare law in its entirety? still over 50% one it repealed? ok. clearly, it was a front loaded to have a few items people do like. it allows kids to stay on the program so there is access to care they're. it has to deal with medications in the doughnut hole area. now as we start to roll into the real cost plea rationing you'll see that's go back and 60%-plus would favor repeal.

>> [unintelligible] >> you are talking about cutting 500 billion in medicare. is not a sensible or rational are reasonable approach when it comes to senior access to care. >> i might be able to address that. we all know if we deal with the debt, we will deal with medicare as well as other programs. we have 10,000 new retirees going on medicare. the president says i am not going to reform its. i am not going to encourage innovation. i am not going to do any of

those things. in this going to focus on reducing those line items as needed to reduce services. in my opinion, that is the total, about. just because you're against the health care board, but does not mean you are against doing something. you can reduce cost and harm access to care, or you can reduce it cost in a reform why -- reform way -- you can debate which one you want. the one thing we ought to be able to agree on is the status quo is completely unacceptable, and from the president's quote, what he has said, he seems to get it. but his actions in his vote --

we're not going to do anything to change the program. there are good ways to save. and there are less preferable ways to save. this particular proposal, this particular law, ipab, will do nothing to make medicare run differently. it will just say, we are out of money. now we will cut it. >> look, obviously -- the status quo with medicare is not feasible. i have seen at speaker boehner and president obama work on this all last summer. would you guys be willing to turn on new revenues? >> you are offering in new -- your offering -- there are a

number of ways to reform the tax code. who has spoken more about reforming the tax code -- i do not know if anyone has. i pay for that every chance i get. what we have said -- medicare is a completely different issue because of this. with medicare, there is only one reform plan. ipab is not a reform plans ipab. ipab -- is not a reform plan. ipab is just a cost cutter. there is only one plan that has passed either the house or the senate and that is our reform plan. you can talk about taxes all you want and i will be happy to stay

and talk about that. i am all for reform of the tax code. i believe we can get more revenues by did -- by adopting a fair approach. we talked about that last year. at least the spring marked the main -- at least the framework. there is no option on the table with medicare. i would love to debate medicare reform. i have not seen it. >> [unintelligible] none of you were here when they passed the health care law. ipab was often characterized as ls.ath pane would you still describe it in those terms? >> let me address that.

we do not know what is going to turn out to be because the build a very broad authority to the independent pavement advisory board to control this in any way they saw fit. they could in fact fulfil the entire requirement through end of life care. they could, on the other hand, impose an across the board payments to all providers, which would really result in the rationing of care you have heard about. in my rural area, it is already hard to find a primary-care provider who takes medicare. it is completely non specific about how that is done with no congressional oversight suet. with regard to the question of cost, you know we have budget neutrality rules. if you combine this ipab repeal,

we actually return money to the treasury. is completely consistent with republican principles. >> the budget will apparently include some medicare reform. i wanted to get your thoughts on that, your reaction to it? >> i think it is another example of the house leading by throwing reforms out there for discussion so that we can solve this problem. nothing but cricket's from the senate on this front. they are still struggling with the issue. we did something on this last year. as i said this before, i am happy to debate all sorts of reforms that saved medicare. but the status quo is unacceptable because the status quo, as president obama and senator lieberman and many others have pointed out, the

status quo leads to bankruptcy. when you hear the demagoguery about proposed reforms compared to the status quo, that is intellectually dishonest because the status quo is not a possibility. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> and that live from the radio television gallery on the capitol hill. the house will return at 5:00 eastern, about 30 minutes from now. they will vote on two measures. both expected at about 6:30. as a break, we will bring you the discussion with the founder of the nonpartisan group no label. he discusses the make congress work project.

this is 40 minutes. we will show you as much as we can before the house comes back. one of your key areas is the budgeting process and the budgeting process is not working correctly. how would you like to change it? >> the first thing is to get the trains moving on time. the framework was laid down by the congressional budget act, and the idea is you get all the appropriations done before -- so government agencies know what they will be doing for the next year and how much time they have to do with. the last time that happened on

time was 1996 and we have been money in the -- we have been running the government since then with short-term fixes. it is extremely wasteful for state and local governments. our suggestion is to link the self interest of members of congress to the budget process. we call our proposal no budget, no pay. if you do not get a budget, your page stops and it does not start again until you submit a completed budget to the president of united states. >> you lay this out in simple steps. take us through the process. guest: the theory of the budget process is that the president submits his budget, an analysis of the budget, the congress of the united states through the two budget committees gets together. they come up with their own

budgets. they get together and come up with what is called the budget resolution. that is how it is supposed to work. that is supposed to happen by april 15. it has been some years since there has even been a budget resolution. the appropriators are supposed to get to work, and that has not been happening either. so, in theory, there are 12 appropriations bills and they're supposed to be signed, sealed, and delivered to the president for his signature well before september 30. it does not happen. >> is the no pay plan constitutional? guest: it is definitely constitutional. we have done research on the s. it makes it clear that congress

is not allowed to vary its own pay while is sitting. we're working on an law that would take effect in the next congress, which would have the effect of linking congressional pay to performance, and that is indeed constitutional. host: it would make it -- it would block all lawmakers' pay if a budget resolution is reached by october 1. there are some bills that have gotten traction. tell us how people are supportive of your effort. guest: the lead sponsor in the senate is a senator from nevada, dean heller. the lead sponsor in the house of representatives is jim cooper from tennessee. and there are an number aco-

spons -- co-sponsors. we're gathering steam day-by- day. we had a hearing on the committee chaired by senator lieberman, and the senior republican member is susan collins of main. informal hearing last wednesday, a lot of energy in that hearing. host: senators guzman, and too many house sponsors to name. ron paul, diane black of tennessee. you can see the list there. 33 co-sponsors signed on.

let's get to the phones. caller: good morning. i am really proud you are making this effort. thank you so much. i notice there's quite a bipartisan list their. i also wanted to suggest -- in the senate with this filibuster, it has to be unconstitutional when laws are passed with a simple majority in the senate, it can only be certain laws. it seems that there has to be a stop to that. to take what should be and what is constitutionally a simple majority and it just by virtue of the threat of filibuster, it suddenly becomes this two-thirds vote.

to me, is unconstitutional. there has to be something that can be done. i wonder what you had to say on that matter? >> e-mail the number of really good points. let me run through them quickly. first, known -- you know there is bipartisanship of our sponsors. we made up of democrats, republicans, and independents. we started 14 months ago. we're now up to 500,000 members. they are bipartisan. that is our mission. we understand nothing is going to work in the congress or the country and must get the two parties to cooperate more. on the filibuster, we totally agree, and that is one of our 12

make congress work proposals. we do propose to trim the number of incidents where it could be applied. remember "mr. smith goes to washington"? we're proposing to go back to that. i dislike the filibuster as much as you do, but the constitution allows for the senate and the house, end the not need the president's permission to do that. people have never argued that this is unconstitutional. we have this observation -- host: we have this observation.

-- guest: that is one of the most frequent observations about or objections to this proposal, and we have actually done a lot of research on that. two point. first, a lot of people who are wealthy on paper have their money tied up in stocks, bonds, real estate. even wealthy people need cash flow. very few can get by without their checks for very long. when a house member said that to me, i smiled and said, "that is music to my years. maybe a poor people's caucus will put pressure on the richer

folks. host: he is the co-founder of no labels. is a senior -- he is a senior fellow at the brookings institution. past experience and time spent as a deputy assistant for public policy for president bill clinton from 1993 until 1995. he was also the director for philosophy and public policy at the university of -- he was also a sergeant in the u.s. marine corps. caller: what i want to know is, how can anyone believe anything any politician says one politics are so wrapped up in back door deals? that is both sides, democrats and republicans.

how can we believe anything any politician says when nothing happens the way they say? is always watered-down or always "0, we have to make special concessions for a big corporation or this industry." how come you cannot have it straight for word -- st. forward "this is what it is, this is what it does dollars they say one thing and make backdoor deals. nothing happens the way citizens wanted to. is about the american citizens. we choose. we put you guys in office. it is just disgusting. congress in itself is just discussing right now. vastt: you are with the american majority with the sentiments you just voice. be reputation of the congress of

the united states in the eyes of the american people has never been lower. recent surveys are around 10%. i suspect used car dealers do a little bit better. having said that, the point is to try to fix the institution. no labels does not believe members of congress are batting correct for the most part. we believe they are good people trapped in a failed and obsolete system of rules and procedures, and what we are trying to do is to add a citizen's voice to encourage them to do what they know is the right thing. i want to make one other point. yes, there is much too much money in politics. we also have to recognize this is a large, diverse country, and many people campaign for office on the basis of platforms in

which they sincerely believe and push for when they get to the house of representatives or the senate. if you are in the house with 434 other people whose opinions and constituents you have to contend with, and if you're in the senate, 90 other people. there is a difference between compromise and corruption, and we would like to dissuade the american people compromise can be honorable when it involves the search for common ground. host: you like to see structural changes to encourage bipartisanship. is that just a matter of enforcing behavior? isst: to some extent, it about forcing a change. in senate testimony last week, the question arose of why we

were pushing so hard on these will changes. why could we not simply appeal to members of congress to do the right thing? the senior senator said that to make. it was very sincere and heartfelt. i smiled and said, "i wish things worked that way, but they don't, and -- but i do not think they do, and neither does the father of our constitution, james madison." he urges caution is due bolster legislators and push them in the right direction. we to believe in a number of reforms to force the two parties to talk on a bipartisan basis with the camera's not rolling, to put together bipartisan leadership teams. we appeal to them to sit together -- which we thought was a good start -- at the state of the union address a few months ago. nearly half of the members of

congress did so. in our judgment, it becomes much harder to create the conditions for compromise when the members of the two parties do not even know each other. is so easy to demonize people when you have never sat down at the same table with them, which are most members of congress is now the case. there are very few bipartisan meetings. the serious proposal to change that. host: it includes having monthly bipartisan gatherings, having a bipartisan leadership committee? guest: this would be a committee made up of the senior leaders on both sides. the effort would be to work out on a monthly basis some sense of what the agenda is going to pay for the next month. if congress spends an enormous amount of time bickering about what they're going to talk about.

they disagree and what they're going to talk about even before they get to the substance of the matter. if you have agreement between harry reid and mitch mcconnell, people like that. ok, what are we going to get done in the next month? that would be fabulous. host: hal from on our independent line in jackson. caller: how realistic is it that congress can meet an agreement when the new signed pledges with lobbyists -- i refer to 95% of the members of congress on the republican side signed a pledge with grover norquist never to increase revenues. as long as they are giving away their votes, how can they reach agreements. -- how can they reach

agreements? guest: that is a terrific question. we spent a lot of time thinking about exactly that question. one of our 12 make congress work proposals is what we think of as the no pledge proposal, and the proposal is very simple. we urge members of congress to make no pledges and to take no oaths, except their oath of office to protect the constitution. in our judgment, the responsibility of members of congress as the defenders of the constitution, which means voting to promote the common defense and the general welfare as the constitution says, overrides any special interest pledges that anyone makes and we believe that members of congress ought to discipline themselves not to make those pledges to anybody. not to grover norquist. 2 no special interest group.

-- not to a special interest group. host: let's look get some of the other details. we talked about no budget, no pay. it also includes an up or down vote on presidential appointments. it calls for making members come to work and question time for the president. we can do more in to these as our callers call in, but what is this "sensible majority?" guest: ah. frequently there is a bipartisan majority that wants to bring a bill to the floor, but there is objection from the leadership, or the chairman of the committee. what to do? there is a procedure in the house of representatives called discharge petition, where you if you can get a majority to sign saying the bill should be

brought to the floor, you can do that. unfortunately, because members have to do this on a public basis as opposed to anonymously, the leadership can bring a lot of pressure on them not to sign such a petition or to remove their petitions signature at the have signed -- if they have signed. that is on the house side. the senate has no such comparable procedure and we're urging the senate to adopt such a procedure. if you have democrats and republicans who would like a bill to get to the floor for debate and to have a stubborn committee chair for an objection, the majority can work its way. host: bill galston is co- founder of no labels. that web site is nolabels.coorg.

guest: we could not agree more. we're talking about a 2.5 day work week. we're talking about the house and senate not being in session at the same time keeping they do not coordinate their schedules. we believe congress should adopt a three weeks on, one week of schedule of a five-day workweek and the house and senate ought to coordinate their schedules and that is one of our 12 agenda items. host: folks will argue that members of congress need to get back to their home districts to be in touch with their constituents. that is why they have the constituents workweeks. all work at home. . a w -- ork at home period.

guest: we absolutely agree. you can go back on a friday afternoon or evening on the third week, and you then have nine solid days at home to do your constituents work before you get back on the plane sunday evening. that combination, we believe, would make legislation, the legislative process, work better and it would allow members to spend concentrated time with their constituents. right now, you get on the plane, you fly home, you do a fundraiser or two. if it is frantic. we think our proposal would make life or reasonable for everyone and work better. host: let's go to kelly in oklahoma city, okla.. caller: i was wondering if you have clearcut plans to cut the

national deficit. what would those be? think it'snk -- i going to get bogged down in the senate. i don't mean to be pessimistic about a. it seems like everything is bipartisan in neihaus. i think he will have a heck of a time. guest: we are not anticipating anytime in the house or the senate. -- an easy time in the house or the senate. the no budget, no pay proposal

was the most popular among the public, but least popular with his colleagues. there was a smile when he said that as a chuckle in room. is not easy for congress to vote for something that might interrupt their pay. that is a tough vote for them personally. we will do everything in our power to move this legislation forward. there are people with experience working with and on behalf of no labels to try to deal with individual members of the house and senate. as for the broader question, the debt and the deficit, we think our proposal is a good start. recognize it is not enough. there have been in number of commissions in the past two years king on budget and fiscal reform.

no labels may come to grips with some of those proposals in the months and years to come. we're focusing on procedural changes to get congress working. host: pat in north carolina. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have been trying to get through it through the -- as the republican convention when it was in florida. it seems as if my questions have been answered. i was calling in reference to the constitution, compared to grover norquist. you have answered about why they are taking so many days and weeks off. guest: it is not often that somebody calls in and says that i have satisfactorily answered any questions rather than two questions.

host: let's hear from matthew in phoenix, arizona. what do think about their efforts? caller: i wanted to thank you for the work you're doing. it seems be apathetic to our -- empathetic to our congressmen in the house and the senate. giving them nine months to put together a budget seems generous. for the work that has to be done, i would think the proposal should be worked on much earlier in the year and perhaps so that they can discuss the matters and work of the details. i saw the house last year hold everything up. that is the reason for the disapproval rating. i could not believe what they did by shutting everything down. maybe we can push that

timetable up a little bit. guest: i think you're right, we're being generous. if you look at the actual letter of the 1974 congressional budget act, the bills are suppose to be done well before the beginning of the next fiscal year. we think it would be a huge step forward if the appropriations bills were actually finished and sent to the president even one or two days before the beginning of the fiscal year. that has not happened since 1996. we would be delighted if members of congress complied with the letter of the law. we would be satisfied if they try to comply with the spirit of the law. host: we have a comment on twitter. twitter.