the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 180, the nays are 226, the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . the ayes have it. the gentleman from california. >> i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 240, the nays are 164, the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: the chair announces apointment pursuant to senate concurrent resolution 112th congress of the following of the members of the house to the joint congressional committee on inaugural ceremonies. the clerk: mr. boehner of ohio, mr. cantor of virginia, ms.

pelosi of california. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, just last week, the nonpartisan congressional budget office served a devastating blow to president obama's most frequently uttered promise during debate over the affordable care act, quote, if you like your present coverage, you can keep it, end quote. the c.b.o. predicted it would

lead to a net loss between 300 and 500 million each year between 2019 and 2022 and 20 million americans losing their current insurance plans. as we approach the second anniversary, the full impact of this law remains unknown, however a few things are quite clear. supporters said it would lower cost, it hasn't. they said it would improve quality, it hasn't. the president said you can keep your current plan, but this clearly isn't the case. new regulations will force most firms and up to 80% of small businesses to give up their current plans by 2013. mr. speaker, the american people can't afford another year of the so-called affordable care act. thank you, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? ms. ros-lehtinen: consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. ros-lehtinen: today, i rise to recognize the 100th anniversary of the beth david congregation in my congressional district, this saturday, march 24, beth david will hold its centennial celebration to honor its congregation and founding members. for the last century, beth david has been the cornerstone of the south florida jewish community. what started out as a congregation of a handful of dedicated jewish families has become a dynamic, thriving institution that is a cultural epicenter for judaism. but beth david doesn't have an incredible rich history to the jewish community, but at the forefront in actively engaging

our entire community tirelessly working to remare the community. and for that, i congratulate beth david and i thank all of the congregation for everything they have done and everything they have meant to our south florida community. i wish them continued success and 100 more years. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> request to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. fleming: we have reached a landmark, two years since the passage of obamacare. more and more the american people have been hearing about the independent payment advisory board. the centerpiece to obamacare and inevitable rationing of health care. this is a board of 15 unelected, unaccountable and not necessarily health care experienced individuals who will

have more power than even congress itself when it comes to deciding what care every american will receive. the board members will not be under congressional oversight and will not answer the phone when you call to complain. americans agree by 57% to 38% margin obamacare and ipab should be fully repealed. so far democrats have been unwilling to listen to the outcry from the american people. they will have another chance to respond to we the people's by voting with republicans to repeal ipab and hopefully willing to repeal obamacare in its entirety when it is brought up for a vote in the future. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. roe: i ask ask the house to

address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. roe: we begin to debate a bill that would eliminate the ipab. this denial of care board is comprised of 15 unelected unaccountable bureaucrats that will be empowered to cut medicare in order to meet an arbitrary spending target. not only will this result in seniors being denied access to medical care, it will put the government in the middle of the patient-doctor relationship. spending cuts will automatically go into effect unless congress finds alternative cuts of the same amount and because implementation of the board's recommendation is exempted from judicial review, citizens can't even turn to the courts for help. as a physician with over 30 years in practice, i can tell you the president's proposal, which he has repeatedly defended, is wrongheaded and

dangerous. we must act to save medicare from bankruptcy, which will come as soon as 2016, but ipab is not and must not be the answer. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee yields back. are there further one-minute requests? the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. bachus of alabama for today and mr. marino of pennsylvania for today and the balance of the week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i very much appreciate that and i appreciate the majority leader giving me the time to come down here today because i've got ipab on my mind, mr. speaker. i mean, ipab. i say that like everybody knows what that is because we talk about it here in this chame we are all day long -- chamber all day long. ipab. a word that was not even in the lexicon of america until the president passed his health care bill. what is ipab? i happened to bring down with me today, mr. speaker, the front page of the president's health care bill. the patient protection and affordable care act, as he describes it. this was the 900-page law that was passed that completely restructured 1/6 of the american economy. completely restructured it. and the question then is, when we -- when we're talking about the patient protection and affordable care act, when we're talking about how we change the individual health care decisions that every american gets to make, what do we get

for it? what's the value added there? because i think, mr. speaker, at the end of the day when folks are talking about what motivates them, it really is affordable care. that's why we named the bill this way. the patient protection and affordable care act. we want patients to be protected, to be able to make their own health care choices, we want care to be made available to folks at prices that american families can afford. 900 pages in that health care bill, mr. speaker. now, ipab is kind of the, how would we describe it? we call ipab the hammer in the health care bill because there are lots of way to -- ways to save money, mr. speaker. you can save money by introducing competition into a system. how many coke machines do you walk by? i have a soft spot in my heart for the coke company, but how many machines do you pass on the street where the coke is selling for $3 a can while the pepsi right beside it is selling for $1.50. how many? have you ever seen that happen?

and the answer is no. because competition completely moves those machines out of the marketplace. if the pepsi's $1, the coke's going to be $1. if the pepsi's $2, coke's going to be $2. competition controls those prices. what controls prices in the patient protection and affordable care act? because we've heard time and time again, mr. speaker, on the floor of this house, that the patient protection act restricts my choices as a consumer. we've heard time and time again on the floor of this house, mr. speaker, that the patient protection act restricts doctors and the services that they provide. we've heard time and time again, mr. speaker, that the patient protection act restricts the choices that insurance companies can provide. so if it's all these restrictions on competition, how in the world does the patient protection act save the money that needs to be saved to make health care affordable? the answer is this, it's in section 3403. again, i don't encourage folks at home to read this bill, mr. speaker. unless they've got time on

their hands. there are lots of good summaries out there. it's over 900 pages long as signed into law. i don't think folks are going to be able to read this back in their offices, mr. speaker. this is about 46 pages that i've put up here just on one, in case we needed to reference it. but 46 pages of law defining this brand new thing that we've never had before in america, the independent medicare advisory board. and if you read these 40 pages, mr. speaker, what you're going to find is that the congress that passed the president's health care bill, and it was not this congress, mr. speaker, you were not here in that congress, i was not here in that congress. it did not pass the congress under normal rules and procedures. it passed in a manipulated reconciliation process, designed intentionally to thwart the will of the house and of the senate. but in that bill they said congress can't control these costs.

and candidly i'm glad. i don't want congress controlling my health care costs. so what did they do? they went to an independent commission, the president is going to appoint this commission, mr. speaker. the president will appoint members to sit on this independent medicare advisory board and what they will do is decide where medicare should save money. now, my mom and dad just went on medicare, mr. speaker. i sit down with them, i look at their statement of charges that they get back when they go to the doctors offices. it's not always easy to understand but we go through it together. and it occurs to me that if medicare is going to save money, there's only one way medicare can do that, if we don't allow competition in the system, if we don't allow patient choice in the system, if we don't allow provider choice in the system, there's only one way that medicare can save a dime. and that is by restricting services.

restricting services. now that comes in lots of different ways and i want to make sure i'm absolutely candid, mr. speaker, and accurate. candid and accurate. because this is the panel, do you remember the death panel discussions? do you remember that becoming a part of the lexicon in america? the death panels that congress was going to create? this is that. i mean, this is where that idea came from because what we have here is a board that makes decisions, recommendations about how to change medicare spending. well, if we're not going to provide competition, if we're not going to allow doctors more decisions, if we're not going to allow other providers more decisions, then the only way to change the financing structure of medicare is to restrict either the services that medicare provides or the amount of money that is being paid to providers. i want to give my friends who passed this bill the benefit of the doubt, mr. speaker. i don't believe there's a single member of this body who

would stand here in the well and say that their decision about how to save the medicare program is to restrict the services that medicare beneficiaries can access. not one. i don't think one member, republican or democrat, will come to the well of this house and say that their proposal for saving medicare is to find seniors in need of health care and tell them no. not one. but, mr. speaker, what's the effect then of the independent pade payment advisory commission -- independent payment advisory commission? let's look at what folks have said. this is george miller, one of my colleagues here on the floor of the house, a democrat from california. we're taking up tomorrow a bill that will repeal this independent -- this patient advisory board, this medicare board. we're going to repeal it tomorrow, i believe, here on the floor of the house. and when talking about that, my

colleague from california said this, ipab is a critical measure for lowering health care costs. and he's absolutely right. i'm not picking on him at all. i'm endorsing what he has to say. that's what these 40 pages of law, mr. speaker, do. they are all designed to cut costs. but we've talked about it. if we're not going to introduce competition, if we're not going to introduce choices, if we're not going to introduce options, how are we going to cut costs? we all agree, republicans and democrats alike, that the ipab board is a critical measure for lowering health care costs. peter orzag, the o.m.b. director, said this about health care costs in medicare. the core problem is that health care costs are concentrated among expensive treatments for chronic diseases and for end of

life care. now, mr. speaker, let me reflect on that a minute. i've just shown you the 40 pages of law in the president's health care bill that are the cost-saving mechanism that the president has proposed and that has been passed into law. and the o.m.b. director, office of management and budget director, for the obama administration said this, the core problem is that health care costs are concentrated among expensive treatments for chronic diseases and end of life care. now, mr. speaker, what choices then does that give us? if we agree that ipab is a critical measure for lowering health care costs and if we agree that health care costs are primarily concentrated with expensive treatments for chronic diseases and end of life care, how exactly is this unelected board going to lower those costs? it's an honest question, mr.

speaker. if that's what has to happen for medicare to be saved, exactly how is this board going to do that? and every american on medicare, every american approaching medicare needs to have that on their mind. what is it that ipab, this unelected board, is going to do to save costs? we all, republicans and democrats alike, agree that the only purpose of ipab is to control costs. we agree, republicans and democrats alike, that the money in medicare is concentrated among expensive treatments for chronic diseases and end of life care. so if the ipab is going to control costs and the costs are here, what choice do we have but to deny individuals expensive treatments for chronic diseases and end of life care? what else is there?

now, to me that's common sense, that this is where the president's proposal is going. i do not endorse this proposal. i was not here in this congress, mr. speaker, when this proposal passed. and had i been here, i would have voted in -- an enthusiastic no. but nevertheless it is the law of the land as we sit here today and our seniors are at risk. how many times have we heard supporters of the president's health care bill say, no, no, no, ipab is not a medicare rationing board. in fact, if you want to dig deep into these 40 pages, you'll find that over and over and over again. folks continually say, this is not a medicare rationing board. but we know where the costs are and the question is how do we control them? what my friends who support the president's health care bill say is, no, no, no, we're not going to deny care to medicare beneficiaries, we're just going to clamp down on payments to

doctors. that's what they say. we're just going to change the payment schedules for doctors. well, i've got news for you, mr. speaker, that's been the medicare plan for decades -- decade upon decade upon decade upon decade and this is what you get. this is from a cnn money article from january 6 of this year titled "doctors going broke." and it recounts the many changes that have happened in the medicare system as we continue to do nothing about choices, nothing about options, nothing about getting the consumer involved in health care decisions, but continuing to use the same old broken tools to solve the medicare issue. it says this, in 2005 medicare revised the reimbursement guidelines for cancer drugs. which effectively made reimbursements for many expensive cancer drugs fall to less than the actual cost of the drugs.

now, you can tell me you don't want a medicare rationing board, mr. speaker, i don't want a medicare rationing board either. but if what we're going to have is a board that is going to cut the costs of medicare and they are going to do that by cutting reimbursements to providers and what we already see is that we're cutting reimbursements to providers to a point where those reimbursements fall below the cost of the service, what do you think's going to happen to medicare beneficiaries when they go to seek service? i'll tell you. you know, the president's health care bill, mr. speaker, primarily solved the challenge of the uninsured by dumping them onto state medicaid polls -- policies. well, i don't think that's a particularly creative solution but it is certainly an option. my uncle is a primary care doc down in central georgia. used to be a bunch of docs who would see medicare patients in that part of the world. today he's the only one who will see medicaid. only one. in five counties, mr. speaker, he's the only doc who will see medicaid patients. now, don't tell me that our

goal here in congress is to help patients find care if we're going to lower reimbursement rates to a place from no doctor will accept them. i don't care that you have an insurance policy. if you can't find a doctor who will take it, it does not matter that the government says you're guaranteed health care, if you can't find a doctor who will provide it. mr. speaker, that's not news to anyone who's had a job in the private sector. . that's not news to anyone who has had to write paychecks or a consumer. ever have that coupon, go into the store, got a big old store and have the coupon and don't have the product. that's what we're doing when we clamp down on costs. don't you dare believe that we can continue to cut docs year after year after year after year and your family and my family

are going to find care that they cannot. that same article, mr. speaker, doctors going broke again, january 6, 2012, from "money" magazine. recent steep, 35-40% cuts in medicare have taken a substantial toll on taken a substantial toll on revenue. these cuts have destabilized private cardology practices. a third of our patients are on medicare. so these medicare cuts are by far the biggest factor, and then, and then, mr. speaker, he says private insurers follow medicare rates. so those reimbursements are going down as well. you know, he's right about that. when the federal government pays 2/3 of all the health care costs

and the federal government decides it can get away with paying less, everybody wants to pay less. i don't fault folks for that. what i fault folks for is standing on the floor of this house and promising the american people that they pay into so it will be available for them in their time of need and cutting rates to a place that you cannot find a doctor who will serve you. mr. speaker, the hypocrisy of saying we're going to care about people in their time of need and putting the people out of business who provide for them in that time of need is deafening. same article, january 6, 2012, doctors going broke. same doctor, cardiologist in

philadelphia, if this continues, i might seriously consider leaving medicine. i can't keep working this way. he talks about how the law of the land is going to provide further cuts. he says if that continues, it will put us under. it will put us under. my dad is going in for heart surgery in 30 days. we shopped long and hard to find a doctor that we would trust to do that surgery, just as every american family does. who are folks going to trust, mr. speaker? who are folks going to find if we put the people who provide the care out of business? ipab, mr. speaker, these 40 pages from the president's health care bill, the only 40 pages that are designed to reduce costs, do not reduce costs through competition, do not reduce costs by providing

consumer choices, by not providing access, by cutting reimbursements to the place where the marketplace rations those services on its own. don't believe for a moment, mr. speaker, that cutting reimbursement to doctors doesn't equal cutting services, and that's really the hypocrisy, mr. speaker, for lack of a better word. i hear on the floor of this house, we are going to save this money. we are going to cut those reimbursements to docs. all right. sounds like you are rationing services. oh, no, that's not going to ration services. they don't have the authority to cut out services. what are they going to do?

cut the reimbursement rates. what's going to happen? when you are rebim yourselfing folks, they are going to quit providing. 31%, this is according to that factcheck dorgan folks that look at the claims this is what they say. 31% of primary physicians restricted medicare patient in their practices. you know what that means? 31% of all the doctors in the land who provide primary care services, those most needed services said they do not take every medicare patient that comes knocking on their door. they can't. they restrict how many medicare patients they will take into their practice. we are putting docs out of

business and into retirement, who is going to provide the care, mr. speaker? who is going to provide the care if we force the people who do it today out of business tomorrow? 62% of family practitioners would stop accepting medicare patients if reimbursement rate cuts follow current law. hear that, mr. speaker. hear, -- hear that, mr. speaker. if current rates follow the current law -- i'm not talking about if a new draconian procedure gets put in place or a future crazy congress tries to socialize health care, no, no, if the current law of the land as passed before you and i came to congress, mr. speaker, if the current law of the land

continues, 62% of family practitioners would stop accepting medicare patients. what's ipab going to do? control costs. it will cut rurlts to providers. what happens when you cut reimbursements to providers? 62% of all of america's family practitioners will stop accepting medicare patients. mr. speaker, what we do here has consequences. this isn't a think tank downtown that has the freedom to just pontificate, make recommendations, wonder how things could have been. this is a body where every single thing that we do has the potential to effect positively

or negatively, the libes of every single citizen of the land -- the lives of every single citizen of the land. there is no free lunch, no something for nothing. you can control costs through competition. you can control cost through consumers getting involved in their health care and providing more choices. you cannot control costs responsibly by putting providers out of business and rationing care through the long lines that are then going to result. we are going to deal with this bill tomorrow, and i would be happy to yield to my friend from the rules committee to help make that happen. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules, filing under the rule as we're just

speaking about. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 591, resolution providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 5, to improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden, the liability places on the health care delivery system. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. the gentleman from georgia may proceed. mr. woodall: i'm very lucky i was here that my friend filed that rule, because what we're doing down here isn't just howling at the moon. what i'm talking about on the floor right now is repealing this independent payment advisory commission to stop this cycle of destruction that has already been put into place and no sooner than we come down here to do it and my friend from the rules committee files this rule

so we can do this bill not two years from today, not after the next election, not six months from now kicking the can down the road, but we can bring this bill to the floor tomorrow to address the concerns that we're talking about today. that's why you and i came to congress, mr. speaker. that's why this whole freshman class came to congress. i have been here for 15 months and what i have found, my fresh men do not evaluate their success by how many favorable newspaper articles are written about them or how many times they have seen their face on tv and don't evaluate their success based on what the mass media has written about them in this town. success is based on whether or not the promises they made to folks before they got elected are the priorities that they set for themselves now that they have been elected. and each and every day i see people making that a reality.

republicans and democrats a like came to this congress for a different purpose, with a different mission, with a different vision, and i see them implementing it every day. makes me proud. speaking of being proud, mr. speaker, you know, i tell folks back home, they say, rob, how come we don't see you on fox news preaching the good conservative news. i say anybody watching fox news, they don't need to hear it from me. the folks who need to hear it are the folks on on msnbc. this is a headline recently from the web page, mr. speaker. this is what it said. in risky election-year move, republicans offer medicare alternatives. oh. sounds ominous. sounds ominous.

in risky election-year move, republicans offer medicare alternatives. why? for the reason that i just spoke about, where we have senior members of congress who didn't come here to pontificate or grandstand but came here to make a difference. i don't care that it's an election year. if anything, in an election year, we ought to do more of the right things and spend more time each and every day getting it right. risky election-year move. mr. speaker, i would be disappointed if we did anything else. medicare is in crisis. this ipab board is further destabilizing the medicare program. it may be a risky move. i sit on the budget committee and this is a march 15 article, mr. speaker. and they're talking about the plan that we in the budget committee are going to hold a

markup on tomorrow that does what? all of these things i have been talking about, mr. speaker, bringing choices to consumers, bringing competition to the medicare system, investing consumers in medicare outcomes. it does all of those things, mr. speaker, that we believe can control costs using the power of the marketplace, using the power of the american people, using the power of the american family and not just by rationing care as this ipab board does. this is the headline, in risky election-year move, republicans offer medicare alternatives. they go on to say this, running the political risk during an election year, republicans continue to offer proposals to cut future medicare outlays, that's this dramatic rise we see in medicare spending. it's not a rise associated with quality of care. it's not a rise that is associated with whether or not people get the services they need.

it's a rise that is associated with an out-of-control that has no consumer involvement at all, absolutely no competition at all or free market involvement at all. and it's going broke. we have a proposal to fix it. what is our proposal? i didn't just bring our proposal, i brought our proposal and i want to compare it to the president's approach. there are two things we need to talk about when we talk about changes to medicare, mr. speaker, and you know this better than most. there are changes in the medicare program that save it for future generations and then there are changes to the medicare program that destabilize today's seniors. big difference in those two things. i'm in my 40's mr. speaker. my uncle sam has to come to me today and say rob, i know you have been paying your medicare taxes in every single pay check

since you have been 16 and i know we promised you medicare like it was there for your parents and grandparents but rob, we have bad news, we overpromised and underdelivering and we have to renegotiate our medicare contract with you. we do. that is the bad, bad news for your generation, mr. speaker, for my generation and for everybody younger. the government, surprise, surprise, has overpromised and underdelivered. and the time to tell me that is now, not when i'm 65 and i can't make any more choices but today. i have divided this chart up into two categories what are our proposals for current seniors, and what are our proposals for future seniors? the president's plan -- it is important that we do keep our promises here. it's no senior's fault in this country that they are dependent on medicare.

they paid into it their entire life through part a, medicare taxes and promised it would be there in their time of need. they didn't ask for it, the money was taken for it and now they deserve those benefits. here's what we do. . here's what we do, program coming to the floor of the house next week has absolutely no changes, no changes, mr. speaker, no changes for today's seniors. if you're on medicare today, no changes. no disruptions in our plan, mr. speaker. that service, it's already begun for you, it is going to continue uninterrupted for as long as you need to utilize the program. but the program's going bankrupt, mr. speaker. and so we're making some changes that will preserve and

protect it for this current generation of seepors. if we do nothing, bankruptcy looms on the horizon. and if current seniors want it, we'll allow them to get what i'll call personalized medicare. like what members of congress have. you know, mr. speaker, folks often think, in fact, my mom sends me the email once a week that says, i can't believe you're getting free health care in congress. we have the same plan as everybody in the federal government across the country. you open up a book with 35 plans and you choose the one that works best for you. imagine that. imagine that our seniors today have had a lifetime of health care choices the dithe day they turn 65, mechanicing -- mr. speaker, they surrender their freedom as an american and are forced into a health care system they cannot opt out of. cannot opt out of. you're in it.

you can opt out of medicare part d or medicare part b, but you're in medicare part a. and if you want a doctor who won't take you, he'll take other medicare patients but not you, the law of the land prohibits you from paying out of your pocket to see that doctor. that's the law of the land where? russia? china? that's the law of the land in america. you're 65 an suddenly your freedoms begin to be erode. we say let's make medicare sthre choices we as members of congress have and rest -- let's make them available to current seniors. to recap, no chirgese disrummingses in our plan. we preserve and protect the program for seniors for the 30-year life of the program and personalize medicare to make it more like what we have in

congress so we can give the folks choices. what does the president do for current seniors? he empowers 15 unelected bureaucrats to cut medicare in ways that will most certainly deny seniors care. do i need to go back to the 40 pages, mr. speaker? the patient protection and affordable care act, section 4303, the advisory board, ipab, this is what it does. it's the 15 unelected bureaucrats that have the power to cut medicare in ways that as we have discussed will most certainly deny care. if what your plan is, is to cut reimbursements to doctors, fair enough. i think it's shortsighted, i think it's dede instructive, but if that's your plan, embrace that plan, i say to folks who support the president's health care bill. embrace it and defend it but be honest with the american people who know if you cut those reimbursement rates to that

level that doctors cannot see patients, they will not see patients. here's one that doesn't get talked about much, mr. speaker. the president's plan raids the medicare program and removes $682 billion. this is a program that's already going bankrupt, this is a program that already needs substantial reform to protect it and preserve it for another generation. the president's health care bill which isn't something that might happen, it's something that's already the law of the land, takes $682 billion that was intended for medicare beneficiaries and cuts it out. saves it, is the tell of art they use ash here. as you well know. cuts it and saves it. what do they save it for? so they can bring it over here and spend it on the president's new health care plan for the rest of america, the nonseniors.

programs already in trouble. current law under the president's health care planerer moves $682 billion designated for medicare beneficiary, takes it out, moves it to the rest of the population. again, exacerbating the challenge. future seniors, what are we going to do? our plan, coming out of the budget committee, as passedy the -- by the house last year is personalized medicare. not just for current senior bus for future seniors, mr. speaker. for folks like you and me in our generation, when we get to medicare age, we would have choices, all of americans would have choices to choose the plan that works best for them. do you need a plan that covers scription drugs? choose that. do you need a plan that's flexible so you can sumner florida and winter in new jersey, that though i suspect

they'd be summering in new jersey and wintering in florida but if they're traveling they immediate that man. maybe they have young kids in the house and they need a plan that speaks to young ters -- youngsters as well. folks could choose the plan, just like we have here in congress. our plan, mr. speaker, means that wealthy families will get less and sick and low income families will get more. mr. speaker, we talk about shared sacrifice around here all the time. and i am not in favor of raising taxes on the american people. the american people can't afford it. the economy can't survive it. but what e-- but what we can do is start giving away less from washington, d.c. so what we say for future seniors is, folks in my generation, your generation, mr. speaker, is that your support from the medicare program is going to be less than low income families. if you've done well in your life and you can afford to help

with the cost of your medicare, we're going to ask you to do that. we're going to means test these things. we'll still be there for you, medicare program will be there for you. proms we made are still going to be kept but in the renegotiation, we're going to confess what america already knows that this program is going bankrupt and cannot be sustained and that nrd to -- in order to sustain it, we'll ask folks who can afford it to pay more and recognize that folks who can't afford it will pay less. that's our program for the future. to cey and strengthen medicare. what does the president propose? this is so important, mr. speaker. can i go back? can i go back to what my good friends at msnbc said? this is how they described the plan i'm describing to you. in a risky election-year move, republicans offer medicare alternatives. the president for future seniors offers no serious plan to save medicare.

if i had the president's budget down here with me, mr. speaker, it's about 12 inches tall, it's a serious budget, i don't fault him for doing a budget, it sets out his priority bus there's not one medicare reform proposal in these 12 inches of budget. not one. why? because traditional politicians, mr. speaker, think it's risky in an election year to propose things that shake up the status quo. mr. speaker, it ought to be risky in an election year to maintain the status quo when you know a program depended on by millions upon millions upon millions of seniors is going bankrupt today. not tomorrow. not 10 years from now. it's happening today. it's upside way today. the time to stop -- it's under way today. the time to stop it and save it is today. i don't care if folks think

it's scary to propose it, that's what we came here to do. what happened, mr. speaker? what happened to folks that caused them to believe the reason they came to congress is to get re-elected? what happened? you didn't come here to get re-elected. i didn't come here to get re-elected. we came here to make a difference for families back home. we came here to draw a line in the sand for saving america. we came here to get the american dream of a successful economy and freedom back on track. it ought to be risky to sit here and do nothing, mr. speaker. that ought to be the risky thing. what has happened to this country that the risky thing for those who call themselves public servants is to do something instead of nothing? because that's what the president oproposes in his 10-year budget plan. nothing. nothing that does one thing, that takes one baby step forward toward saving medicare.

in the budget committee, we're proposing serious alternatives. are they going to be frightening to folks in my generation? i don't think so, mr. speaker. we have a long time to retirement despite our gray hair, we've got a couple of decades left before we get there. we've got time to prepare. we will and america will. but it is our responsibility to offer those alternatives. the president offers nothing and medicare goes bankrupt. this chart says it all, mr. speaker. there is a path to prosperity for america that we are proposing here in this house. and there is the president's approach. and they could not be more different. our approach tells the american people the truth. there are a lot of political pundits that believe that telling people the truth is a risky thing to do in an election year. i tell you it's our solemn obligation. i'll tell you the oath we took requires taos tell folks the

truth. i tell you the responsibility that our voters back home have entrusted us with requires us to be bold. and if the consequence for trying to save the medicare program, not just for this generation of seniors but for generations to come if the consequence of that is that i frighten voters back home and i get defeated, so be it. so be it. no one sent us here to get re-elected year after year. they sent us here to do the work that they asked us to do. they september us here to follow through on the promises we made during the last campaign. they sent us here to offer serious solutions to what we all know. democrats an republicans alike. serious problems threatening the future of our republic. and none is more serious when it comes to the social safety

net here in this country than the giant fiscal crisis looming in medicare. i'll leave you with this, mr. speaker. we have the law of the land that's already on the books. it's in the president's patient protection and affordable care act that bill that raids medicare in order to fund his other social priorities. that bill that hastens its demise from the demise of medicare rather than preventing it. in that, they find 15 unelected bureaucrats that they say will not rationer is intriss cut reimbursements for docs and we have testimony after testimony after testimony after testimony that says go ahead. if you think you need to cut docs, cut docs but the that those docs won't be there for you when you need them to be because they can't. because they can't. do you really belief it, mr. speaker?

does anyone believe it, find your primary care doctor that live downs the street you know him or her, they're in your sunday school class, they coach your kid's soccer team, you know who they are. do you really believe that they are the ones driving the medicare program into bankruptcy? do you really believe it? or does the washington establishment just use our docs, the healers in our community, those folks who are there for us when we need them the most, does the washington establishment just use those folks as the scapegoats for what is a much more serious, much more systemic underlying problem with the way that we finance federally funded health care systems in this country? competition has served this country well, mr. speaker. individual responsibility has served this cupry well.

entrepreneurship and innovation have served this country well. and we have a choice now to embrace those functions that are so indicative of who we are as americans and where we've come from and use those tools to set medicare on a new and sustainable course, or we can go back to business as usual. . more pages of federal regulation. more blame, more unelected boards on make health decisions for us instead of letting us make those decisions within our family. choice to me is clear. mr. speaker, you know these aren't things that we're just

down here to talk about. you know these just aren't ideas that are being brainstormed. we have a real opportunity to make this change, not two years from now, not after the next election, not six months from now, but tomorrow. tomorrow will bring a rule to the floor of this house to allow for consideration of a measure that will repeal ipab once and for all. ipab, this word that was not in our lexicon two years ago but now threatens to control the health care decisions of every senior in america. with a successful vote tomorrow, mr. speaker, we can make that a thing of the past. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields

back. does the gentleman from georgia have a motion? mr. woodall: i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to a journ. its

>> women moved towards republicans and war on women has started. the narrative is republicans are bringing this on themselves. the war on women is hysterical and probably turn down the rhetoric on both sides. there has been some nasty comments. there has been some legislation out there, but this has heated up over the contraception mandate and ultimately, it is not the republican party that is waging war or hostile against women in any way. >> the mandate brought it to light and didn't have anything to do particularly when it came to women specifically? >> that's how it has been framed.

they are talking past each other on this. the right has framed this as a religious freedom issue, which i agree. but this is individual choice and freedom of choice not to have to sell things, freedom not to purchase things and this is about the government getting into the business of health care. all of that combined is what i think americans are responding to. unfortunately, the conversation has taken the form of what about birth control, rather than talking about this is about the proper role of government. this is a changing relationship between citizen and state. >> for the women you represent, this isn't a top level topic of discussion or concern for them? >> look, despite the fact that the economy seems to be improving a little bit. on friday, the "wall street journal" said unemployment is down to under 8%. there is some sign that the economy is recovering. i think that is what women are interested in. still, democrats are talking

about reproductive rights. they are talking about women's bodies. women want to see a strong economy and job growth and national debt range and know they have more choice and control in their education and health care for their families, but for some reason, we're still talking about women's bodies instead of all these issues that i think really matter to women. >> as far as conservative women, where are they as far as 2012 and the four candidates that are currently running for office? >> very socially conservative women are moving towards santorum but we will see what happens in illinois. i'm not sure how much longer the race is going to continue in this shape. but republicans have a lot of work to get out this economic message and hard that you have these other forces working against you. >> is this ultimately going to be about who can win the office and secondly about the issues involved? >> i hope so.

my personal preference is the issues involved and then followed by the person who can win. >> who do you think that? >> romney has the institutional support. i thought santorum would maintain his momentum. but this recent conversation about pornography, i don't know how long that's going to sustain him. it's not going to get me to vote for a person. there are a few bigger fish to fry and we need a candidate that is able to respond. we have the two-year anniversary of obamacare and the supreme court about to start arguments on individual mandate. this is what we should be talking about, if a republican is going to repeal this and replace it, that's what santorum and romney would be out talking about. >> we are talking about issues related to female voters.

here's how you can answer questions. >> if you want to send an email or twitter, use one of those avenues as well. the release or the telegraphing of the paul ryan budget plan, is there anything that surprised you as far as the proposals? >> i'm not a tax expert and i haven't looked at the fine details, my understanding is that paul ryan is really putting out advancing ideas that will spur economic growth and obviously his roots in social security reform is something that women should take careful attention to. it is really not good for women, despite what women's groups will

tell you, it is skewed towards men and doesn't represent the changing gender roles. and i think we are in good hands. >> violence of women's act being voted on this week, what is your take on what's being proposed? >> what is different, because i understand and we have someone at the independent women's forum who tracks the legislative history of it, but i think that what's different this time around is that it has been expanded. the definition of what constitutes violence against women has been expanded and i think our biggest concern is that we don't lower the burdenen of proof. and we don't want equality of women to be at the expense of men or other individuals. >> first call is from doris in chicago, illinois. caller: i don't think this young

lady realizes everything that's been going on in these republican-led states all over the country. they are passing all these mandates and supposedly the mandate in the health care law is what they're against. they're passing mandates for ultrasounds, vaginal probe ultrasounds, all sorts of mandates that affect women only. i thought they were against mandates. i thought they were against big intrusive government, and in texas, they have cut the network that provided care for 220,000 women. cut cervical cancer screenings, down to 40,000. that's a war on women. host: that's the state level.

guest: the independent women's forum is make sure we advocate of government getting into the business of health care. i'm not here to represent the republican party but talk about what i think is best for women, and to the extent that your caller is talking about the virginia law for instance, i agree with her. i don't believe we should be mandating anything at the state level or at the federal level. that is one part of it. the other part is a lot of femnist groups work hard at the national level to negotiate specific benefits and at the state level and you were referencing in texas these quote benefits for women. the problem is that we often underestimate what these benefits cost. we have had actuarial ramifications in that we are often not thinking of what it costs in terms of taxpayer dollars and why the 23-year-old man who is trying to pay off

college loans is burdened with my birth control for that matter. host: for the washington, maryland. on the republican line. caller: one thing i would like to ask if i could, earlier she stated it was the democrats that was primarily focusing on the birth control topic. and similar to what doris said and what i'm concerned about is that it is the republican party that is advancing this legislation that is speaking specifically to overreach from my perspective. and so if we get back to the basis of more limited government, i believe the counterparts the democrats are speaking primarily to what they are seeing in the form of legislation being brought to bear by the republican party. and so i'm concerned there.

secondly, if i may, it also seems like the major problem is that health care as we know it is a function of employer-based provisioning and so, i think the government, while maybe not optimal is the only way to get to a universal-type system of equal access. the problem is that if it's really based on your employment, then for those that are underemployed or unemployed, they bear the brunt of not being able to get health care. i would like to hear your comments on that, please. guest: a lot of people are concerned about these state-level laws. i can't explain why this is all happening right now. for democrats, i think they are looking at this and thinking wow, this fell into our laps. this war on women has been going on for a lot longer and largely usually -- been directed towards

economic issues and been directed to people like rush limbaugh and this has come together at the same time and sort of this perfect storm for republicans and i don't think they have necessarily handled it as well as they could. to your point about health care. i absolutely agree. we need individual patient-septemberered choice and only way you get that through market-based reforms and not a government-run health care system. the problem is when we advocate for specific benefits for people, we ignore the fact that these benefits don't come out of thin air. insurance companies are forced to push those costs on to other subscribers. and so that's why the i'm paying for somebody's viagra the same way a young male is paying for my birth control. allowing greater freedom of

choice for people so they can make the choices that they and their families need. caller: smart young lady you have there. we are all concerned about the economy. i'm not concerned about -- i get upset when people say, free, free. there is nothing free. i do not wish to keep working for 10 more years to make sure that someone else gets birth control that is younger, basically more educated than i am. i have to worry about my children, my family. if we eat. there is nothing free. and i thank her for bringing it up. this is what we are worried about is the economy. let's get the jobs back and revenue will come in. thank you, young lady. host: -- guest: the other thing that

concerns about this kind of discussion that is revolving around birth control it perpetrates this myth as women in need of government protection. what you are responding to, look at the cover of "time" magazine this week, women are outperforming men education neal and professionally and out earning men. women are doing well in this country and the country revolves around birth control rather than job creation, women take offense to that. hofthoft what should be there? host: we want to take government out and fewer regulations that are going to make the business world less predictable and more difficult for companies to get started and invest in new resources. we would like things evened out

we want elimination of the crony capitalism, picking green energy over oil and gas, for instance. i mentioned that because the world economic forum released numbers showing that the oil and gas industry is the number one creator of jobs in the energy sector and we have white house funding the green jobs sector. we want to see that we are allowing market forces to control where the economy grows. host: jacksonville, florida, fran, democrats' line. caller: i would like to speak to the health care issue that the young lady was talking about and how she wants the government out of health care. actually, i think the best thing for women and people in general is that the government is involved in health care. as one of the callers said before, health care is tied to your employers now.

we know that the wages have come down for the normal people and have gone up for the higher level people. and that only enslaves people to the companies because they need the health care. if the health care wasn't attached to jobs, more people would be entrepreneurs, where they could go out and use their ideas for themselves and not have to sell themselves to a corporation so they could have health care. guest: i agree with you. i think that this is an old system that we have health care attached to our jobs that limits flexibility and limits the ability to move on to new opportunities when they arrive. a better option would be to have a market in which people could buy insurance plans that fit their lifestyle and their needs. everybody doesn't need a one size fits all system. it increases costs and decreases the quality of care that we

receive. to the extent that you know i think health care should not be connected to our employers, i agree entirely. i have a health savings account through my husband -- my husband's work and it does require a little bit more interaction, if you will. there is a $10 co-pay and i have to think about what i'm spending money on and if we have money in the account. but it works and allows me to have more choice and threcks built over my health care. host: privatization would look like a health savings account or does it go further? guest: once you hit that higher deductible then the insurance kicks in. but we have to make choices. i just don't run to the emergency room. host: why is this a better

system? guest: my husband if he were to leave his job, we own that money. host: republican line from ohio. caller: all the people in general, we are in a hole here. i think people are tired of high price of gas, which is driving up the price of food and this is for low-income people and middle class probably. they need to do something about that and the jobs down here, obama put a hold on the drilling just because of a few birds, that cost thousands of jobs down here. i don't think the president is doing anything.

just started helping out last year. first few years he was the president, he was running around all over god's creation instead of helping the united states. that's my opinion. guest: you pick up on an important point, women are the number one purchaser everything from groceries to automobiles. and i think that there is probably no group in the country that is more acutely aware of the cost of groceries than women. i was at the grocery store and i was appalled at the price of milk and i was deciding how much do my kids need to drink this week. energy prices do have an impact on not only job creation but also that cost of food. and that's why it is equally offensive when we see the president has the opportunity to green light the keystone pipeline and create 20,000 new

jobs and open up new supplies of oil and bring down the cost of energy. but he said no to that to apiece environmental interests. and that kind of action from the white house is much more hostile than anything we are seeing on the right. host: how does independent women's forum handle endorsements? guest: we don't take a stand on social issues, abortion or gay marriage. they are so decisive. thr contraceptive mandate is much more, but it has brought us into a new interesting atmosphere. host: taking a look at the presidential candidates on the republican side and how they relate to women's issues. i want you to look at it and get

your reaction to it. >> if i'm president i'll repeal obamacare. one of the things we'll repeal is obamacare. the repeal of obamacare. i will repeal obamacare. host: the argument they're making is that health care costs more for women and connects it to the republicans wanting to repeal the president's plan for health care. guest: sometimes if we recoil, but women do have different

health care than men. i'm a mother of three children. we will need more health care needs than other members of society and we have to recognize that. this is not blind gender discrimination when we are talking about different pricing. what actually cost insurance companies to provide coverage for people. there is a lot of rhetoric that is wrapped up in all of this, but the fact is there are actual economic numbers we have to consider and when democrats try to make that republicans are wanting to charge women more simply because they are women, that is a misguided way to have this conversation. affordable care act is trying to mandate that you can't charge people differently. somebody's paying for this and the fact that we need the individual mandate in order to afford all of these new coverages that the white house is insisting on. host: from florida, kevin on our

independent line. caller: i wanted to correct a couple of young issues this young lady brought up. as far as the pipeline, she said something in reference to she's upset with president obama because the pipeline would bring jobs and bring gas prices down. we all know that's not true and for her to get on tv and make people try to convince people of that, she knows that's not true. we know that gas is in the world market and totally out of president obama's hands. second issue i wanted to bring up to her as far as the war on women comment earlier, one of the first bills president obama came into office was to give women equal pay for equal day's work, why would you be against that? caller: the caller is referring to the lilly ledbetter act.

the problem is two-fold. one, we have the equal rights amendment of 1964. this bill does significantly increased the window in which women can file claims. they have an additional 180 days which makes it indefinite. one thing we are concerned about is that we don't assume that the work force is hostile towards women. i think there are bad employers who do discriminate against women, but i think on the whole, women are an extremely part of the work force and employers try to accommodate them to the extent that they can. and when we pass legislation like this, it not only perpetrates that myth, but it assumes that the workplace is openly hostile to women and that is bad across the board. third thing it actually costs women. when we make it so expensive to hire women, make it so risky legally to hire women, guess

what? employers are not going to hire them. they would say why do i want to hire a woman of child-bearing age if she makes a mistake, i will be held liable. instead, women have so much offer that employers want to hire them because they are some of the best out there. host: george, democrats' line. caller: i'm not sure if you are not adequately representing the organization but rebrand the republican women's forum because most of the talking points are down pat. let me correct you about health care. you talked about the health savings account. they are subsidized from a tax point preferably. furthermore, it's a budget account which with a limited amount you can contribute. it would be great if we knew what our health care needs are. that said, the proper role of

government generally speaking is meeting the needs of citizens, the freely market meets. health care is not a want, it's a need and therefore you have programs like medicare and medicaid which exist because citizens have needs that exceed their ability to feasibly meet those needs. that's the guiding philosophy that congress recognized when they enacted medicare and medicaid in terms of previous legislation. secondly with regard to your continued criticism about obama's policy regarding energy, previous caller said prices are set in the world markets. the u.s. is a net exporter of oil, so don't give me the baloney we aren't doing enough to produce oil. and these are undeniable facts, please acknowledge them and

think reality, and stick to your talking points. host: i agree with you on the point about the energy global market. i realize that the keystone pipeline is not the only factor in creating greater energy supply. so i apologize if i was unclear. that being said, the keystone pipeline would have created a lot of job growth and we are in an environment right now where we need more job creation not less and talking about shovel-ready jobs and the president turned his back on because of the environmental lobby. the other thing is that gas prices are affected by a global market but they are affected by what is viewed to be coming down the pike and if we saw that, more supply is coming along, that has the potential to bring down prices and third point is

just because we don't tap into these oil reserves doesn't mean they are going to stay there. the chinese will come in there and work with canada and they will control this oil line and may not do it in a way that is environmentally safe as we would do here from home. host: there is a fact that america lost over 750,000 jobs in the last month of the bush administration and now he highlights the president's record of 23 months of adding jobs. guest: the economy is doing better, which is why i would hope that this rhetoric would tone down. the fact is six months ago, it was very difficult for the president to get out there and run on his record. his signature legislative act, affordable care act is widely

unpopular. the economy was going up and down. the markets were all up yesterday and unemployment is down, and there seems to be signs of growth and there are still challenges that lie ahead and they haven't evened out. the president has a republican party that hasn't settled on a candidate and doing infighting and he has the opportunity to rise above all of this and talk about his goals and ideas for the future, but for season that's not happening. host: would you attribute growth to stimulus spending? guest: i don't think the white house can pick winners and losers, that is not the way to stimulate growth. we need to allow the market to recognize where growth is needed and investment is needed and that's the best approach. host: where is the job creation coming from? guest: entrepreneurs, people who are feeling there is more security. the best thing we can do is

create stability and extend tax cuts to make it clear that we have a budget that the national debt is not running awry, that we are going to have money in this country and not be dependent on china, for instance. those are the kinds of things that business pays attention to more than do we put money into shovel-ready jobs that are temporary and short-lived. host: drew, republican line. caller: getting back to what you said about oil, we have enough oil in this country to survive for a long, long time. we can drill for miles and get that oil. birds are not the issue. another thing about what you said about the health care, thousands of women can't afford health care. we have had a good program about health care programs here in the united states for a long, long

time for women. so what's wrong with that program? host: we need to have a -- guest: we need to have a safety net in this country. we do not need a one-size-fits-all government program that is going to bankrupt the country. i guarantee we won't be able to take care of those most in need. host: next call is buffalo, new york, john, democrats' line. caller: what is going on with the republicans now, they are giving way to their impulses and trying to translate that into policy. sustain levels -- my main question is, i want to ask and let's say the republicans have their way and we continue to see

a decline in wages and no head start, no this, no that, i want the caller to explain to me how a women earning say minimum wage or a little above minimum wage with a couple of kids is going to go out into the marketplace because you guys are going on and on about the market, how is she going to buy decent health insurance for her and her familiar? can you please explain that to me. guest: women in need, the best thing we can do for low-income women is to grow in the economy that gives them better flexibility and more choices in their lives. greater choice in education. women who are low income and perhaps single mothers need as much flexibility as possible. we encourage for-profit education for that reason because it gives women more opportunities to better themselves, take control of

their lives and make things easier for themselves. i want to make it clear that we aren't anti-women and not anti-individual. we just want -- we don't believe that government is the best solution. host: buying health care for low-income women, how do they do it? guest: we would have a marketplace that would open up opportunities, buy health care on different prices depending on your needs. and we are an extremely charitable country. the united states has been the most charitable country around the world and when government steps in, it removes the need for those charities. but for centuries, for more than 200 years we have had both religious and nonreligious groups that have reached out to members in their communities to help them. we have to remember that americans have that history and that willingness and continue to

give even during a period of difficulty. host: matt smith said you have come out in more support of oil drilling and development. do you support green energy? guest: i support it if it is yielding better results. i don't think we should put all of our eggs in one basket nor do i think that we should be subsidizing oil and gas. i'm saying that i think we need to allow the market to go where there are promising results and when you are seeing the white house backing failing companies should give people pause. host: mesa, arizona, judy on the republican line. caller: you are doing a great job representing what the real american woman is saying. i listen to so many media outlets that say that women aren't involved or women aren't

behind this candidate and don't relate to women. this is the year of the women vote. all of these men can -- host: are you there? caller: we are the mothers and the grandmother, like you said, we buy the groceries, we drive the cars. we multi task our lives and we don't need the government making our lives -- host: she is breaking up. guest: it is frustrating and that in 2010 we saw that was the message coming from the republican party and the year of the republican women. we had all sorts of women running on platforms addressing those very concerns that you are mentioning. women like -- of those many people, 15% of them made it to the house, only one made it to

the senate. many on the governor level did not make it. some of that momentum sort of ebbed after the election, but i think it's still there. women want to see government out of their lives and greater individual freedoms and allow markets to direct things and to that extent, to the extent we can get more women out there talking about it, it's very important. host: executive director of the independent women's forum. what's the forum about? guest: all issues are women's issues. we advance the idea, individual rights and free markets and we push back on legislation that is put out there in the name of protecting women. host: all issues are women's issues, and do you cover social issues as well as economic issues? guest: too often when we talk about women's issues,

reproductive issues, health care, education, economy, job growth, these are the issues. host: aside looking at the republicans for their platform issues, what else is important? guest: affordable health care act. we released a brief a few weeks back challenging the constitution nationality of the individual mandate. and so we are very concerned about where they stand. host: how the members of the court might decide because it deals with issues of interstate commerce, concerns from the organization how it might come down? guest: we recently brought on a new general counsel who will be talking more about it over the next two weeks but we are very concerned about the executive overreach that is part of this still and what this means and people who support it now should

think about what that executive overreach will be like. host: if the court decides the individual mandate portion of it and decide to put it aside, would that be ok with you? guest: no. i still don't believe in government sort of trying to impose mandates, trying to impose a government system on everyone -- forcing a kind of one size fits all health care that does not work. >> you can read the republican's budget proposal released today. more now from a capitol hill reporter. john shaws is with market news international. house budget committee chairman paul ryan released the details of the 2012313 blueprint today. what are the highlights in his proposal? >> ryan is offering a new plan which reflects what he offered last year. it's a plan that makes fairly

deep cuts in spending, seeks to fundamentally overhaul medicare, medicaid, calls for sweeping tax reform. a lot of these particular policy issues are things that his budget committee can recommend to some of the other committees, but the budget committee just puts out a broad framework. so ryan plan sets out a broad framework which he claims would cut spending by $5 trillion over the next 10 years compared with the budget the president offered and he said his plan would cut the accumulated deficits by $3 trillion more than the president's plan would. >> what's the general democratic reaction to the release? >> skepticism, hostility, anger, things you might expect. the ryan plan did not get a very positive reception.

the senate majority leader, harry reid after speaking with senate democrats came out and ripped into it pretty fiercely and said his changes to medicare would effectively dismantle the program, said it was way overblown. the democrats are also focusing on a narrower issue, which is the whole notion of what the level of discretionary spending for the 2013 fiscal year would be. the democrats argue that in last summer's brutal debt ceiling negotiations, there was an agreement that the spending for f.y. 2013 would be $1.47 trillion. ryan has offered a budget that actually cuts this by about -- less than $20 billion, again, not huge amounts this this is something that that wrangled the democrats. they said they reached an

agreement on the f.y. 2013 spending level and accused of violating that agreement. >> what's the next step for the budget resolution in the house? >> what will happen is tomorrow ryan will present it to the house budget committee. they will spend a very long day arguing about it, voting on amendments, probably by passing it late in the evening. next week, it will go to the full house and likely to pass on something close to a party-line vote. its fate becomes far less clear than that. senate chairman content conrad said he will offer his own plan sometime next month. but harry reid has suggested that you it may not come to the floor. he said the ceiling level and saying no need to have a full

scale debate on the senate floor. >> covering the budget debate on capitol hill. john shaw with market news international. thanks for the update. up next on c-span, "road to the white house" live from politico. . . [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> good evening, everyone. welcome to "politico live," we are coming to you live tonight across the country on c-span. we're also in the d.c. area on news channel and as always on politico.com. we've got tons of fun stuff in store. mikey just emailed me, we go right to mike allen in our

newsroom, exit polls show romney is up by 12. we think it's a romney-santorum night, we think gingrich and paul have no chance, we won't talk about them. >> those exit polls are the ones that had mitt romney winning mississippi and winning ohio by four to five point when he wound up binning -- win big one point. you might dial it back a bit. a politico live stream tradition, save this tape, i'll say romney by eight in illinois. the conservative numbers out of boston, they're thinking seven to nine points. people in illinois think it could be more, could be double digits, a double digit win certainly would call into question the viability of rick santorum in his remarks tonight, he's going to be in gettysburg, pennsylvania. he'll make a bole claim. he's going to claim in his remarks tonight, his concession speech, that this is halftime in the g.o.p. presidential

race. maggie, is he going to be able to sell the idea that this is halftime, that he can wade through the tough states in april to get to the frontier states in may? >> easily. i think this is not a great day for rick santorum. even without a double digit win you described his speech as a condition session, we're not there yet. we've had these odd moments but i'm with you. i think this is not going to be santorum's evening. even though his campaign today argued that the math is in their family -- favor, that they are closer to mitt romney in delegates than we all think they are, they've offered up no proof of that, they just keep saying it. they want a fight at the convention where they can have a jump ball. >> what's the romney strategy coming out of tonight? they anticipate a victory but victory or not, how do they deal with louisiana and other states? >> santorum could win louisiana on saturday. what may be the decisive night

is going to be in wisconsin on april 3. we expect that romney will do well, that's when maryland and d.c. are as well. he could have a big night then if we he does well in wisconsin they hope that after that, the way they put toyota me is, people are going to get sick of covering rick santorum if he can't make a case that he's getting close. you'll hear the romney folks pull out their abcuses, pull out their calculators again. i think tomorrow you'll hear them say that rick santorum, to catch up, to get the nomination, would have to get about 75% of all the remaining delegates and they're going to use that to argue that it's a mountain he can't climb. romney gets further and further ahead, santorum has to get more and more in all these contests. so i think you're going ohear the romney folks hope to shift to more -- a more general

election strategy. they have a massive task ahead of them, in addition to introducing themselves to the rest of the electorate that's not been tuned in in -- tuned in all -- on all these republican nights. if you're the nominee, you have to start thinking about a v.p. search process, convention, debates in the fall, taking over the r.n.c., keeping the current chairman but they have all that to think about. so they hope the press will more an more show santorum as a nuisance. >> we'll get back to you, mike, we'll have mikey cam throughout the night but we need to orient people to where we are and where people are. >> we've got plenty of resources to talk about this one. 54 delegates up for grabs in illinois, that's not insignificant. we have got reporters with the can dats all other the country. rick is in illinois with rom nea, we have someone in

pennsylvania with santorum. ron paul not on the trail tonight, he's taping tv appearances. we want to bring you into the conversation all night long. patrick gavin, our, let's tall him our social media guru for the evening, is taking your questions, comments, an more. use the hash tag politicolive or email hi him at live@politico.com. we'll deal with whatever concerns you have tonight. >> we pretty much screwed up the projections. >> with help. >> this is our eighth politico live, if you roll back the tape, you have to take mikey's prediction with a grain of salt, he predicted a double win for romney last time, and that didn't happen. we understand there are some balloting issues an there won't

be an immediate result. i feel like there's a different santorum and a different romney. romney focused on how to present himself to a different electorate. santorum changes all the time a transformational campaign. >> a transformational, profound image. this should have been a great week for santorum since we were last here he had two surprise victories we couldn't stop talking about it last time. we went from there to puerto rico and i think it was never in play was to him. he went to catch a break. >> and get the glamour shot. lloyd out on the beach. we love that. >> someone else caught him too, laying out pool side. >> we're trying to get that picture up. >> that was not a great moment,

number one, number two, mitt romney a not great day after his losses in the south, he seemed cranky on fox news, he got it together. he stopped talking about delegate math an things that voters actually don't want to hear about hefment stopped making this race all about himself. these were a bunch of points we at politico made in stories, on the blog, and so forth. rick santorum not osm had this problem with the poolside shot, he walked into the statehood issue in a terrible way in puerto rico, he got off message, he said english needed to be the official language, the main language. he was never going to win but this didn't help he raised expectations for puerto rico, he started making like heck have a play for it, it's never going to happen. it was a mere 09-point loss, not a huge deal. 5 points. this was not a great week for santorum, he should have had

momentum but managed to kill it. and he had this line about the unemployment rate where he got carried away talking about how the fundamentals of the race for him, fundamentals, very newt gingrich type word, all about freedom. he said i don't care what the unemployment rate is, it doesn't matter to him. it does matter to a lot of people. >> we have our delegate expert tonight and then once again another bizarre apportionment evening. on c-span, we love to hear from you all, love to hear you on twitter or hit me at live@politico.com. we want feedback, criticism, critique but i'll walk us through how this thing will be portioned tonight. >> the interesting thing about tonight, it doesn't matter how well santorum does, he is still in trouble. mitt romney, as you see, he doubles rick santorum easily. he's got more than the rest of the field combined but tonight

in illinois, we have a classic what has become, unfortunately for rick santorum in this campaign a classic mistake in organization. his team did not get delegates on the slate in four of the 18 congressional districts in illinois. what does that mean? it means of the 54 delegates up for grabs tonight, rick santorum already can't win 10 of them. he can win the popular vote, to well in urban areas, which he's not expected to, but say he has a fantastic night. in the enhe may say momentum, we were up against the impossible herb loves to use that word, loves to grab that underdog, but he's going to come out losing on the mathematical end because of mistakes. in one district, a volunteer threw away petitions with the names on it. these are mistakes you can't make. like in iowa, you remember right after iowa, we learned that he went to a caucus and of course you can do that, and his team didn't invite the cameras

along, which is a great photo op, didn't invite them because they didn't know the rules. they didn't know cameras could be inside caucuses. this is a problem for santorum. >> mikey's saying the romney camp going to spin he has to win 75% of delegates, the math matters. reid epstein is going to join us, covering mitt romney, he's in illinois , and reid's parents got a shoutout by name on the campaign trail. he can tell us about that but before that, walk us through the romney thinking. i don't want to read their body language, it's been an awful indicator for nuss a given race but what are they thinking about the strategy post-tonight, they're thinking what will happen and they'll react thousand howe? >> they've bven pushing the delegate argument, the idea that should romney perform as well as they hope he'll do

tonight, that santorum's loss would be even more. that's what we'll start hearing after can 9:00 or 10:00 tonight after illinois is called and the speeches are done andern goes home. >> the romney campaign didn't like dealing with you, now you're getting shoutouts. what happened today? >> my father, shell lee epstein is vice president for communications at bradley university, where romney held an event last night in peoria. he was involved in arranging the event. so he worked with the advance guys and with the secret service guys that september the event up in peoria and he was introtused to the candidates and with the advance guy, when

he got up about 10 minutes into his speech yesterday, he said -- went into a riff about how he has the press traveling with him, i didn't know where it was going, one of them -- he said, one of them has his parents here today, i did the best i could to duck under the table. >> because he kissed up to you, you have to write something very aggressive against him tomorrow. we have juan in a summers traveling with rick santorum, in pennsylvania, i don't know if that's a sign of confidence when you're not in the state you're competing in. >> speaking with rick santorum and his advisors, he said he's in pennsylvania because of the connection to lincoln and it's his home state and a state he hopes to play well in. we're told not to see it as a sign he's going to do poorry he hopes to do well.

that said, the polls aren't -- aren't seing that but we'll see. >> you look like you're in front of a mall? >> i'm outside the gettysburg hotel where rick santorum is going to be speaking. thought i'd give you a little variety. >> when i it comes to santorum, the polling day di-- data, the favorability for santorum is starting to dip in a lot of states, even state he is didn't win, he's had better favorability ratings than romney but for the first time we're seeing romney on top. what do we attribute this to as far as what you see when you're traveling with the campaign? why all of a sudden are people souring on santorum more than they did previously? >> it's really interesting because if you look at his events on the ground, you're not seeing that. i saw one of the best crowds i've ever seen for santorum yesterday on the illinois-iowa

border where he had people, it felt like a church service. people were standing up, clap, responding to everything he said. while it's been evident in the polls, the crowds are as roaring as ever. i've been at rallies, seeing his testimony in churches, and it seems like people are still firmly, firmly true believers. >> we'll bat back -- get back to you juan in a. -- juana. but first we have we got this. what implication would it have if ron paul got out of the race? who would benefit? >> i think romney would benefit. i think ron paul has a minimal number of delegates and would try to sway them toward romney. i think the smaller contraction of however much of the vote is available can only help the frontrunner. it's not likely the paul voters would go to santorum or to fwing rich.

they also might stay home and not take part in the process but i think at that point, when you have an x eeg out of a -- an xing out of a certain group, that helps the front runner. >> ron paul has zero chance of winning the republican nomination. gingrich now at zero chance of winning the republican nomination. he's lost 29 of 30 races to date? >> 28, i think. not all. >> he's won one more state than jon huntsman. >> two more. he won georgia and south carolina. >> so we don't think he has a chance. he's going to stay in, we understand from his people, he's having meetings. all the way through the weekend. >> that's many most likely rick santorum's. >> he's got three appearances in louisiana every day through saturday. >> his whole calendar goes through the south. he'll have a chance in texas because of rick perry backing him. he's doing a regional thing

that's not a path to the nomination. >> the focus has to be on santorum and romney. i think it's interesting talking to a lot of folks in washington, it seems like each day they get more comfortable with the idea that romney will be the nominee and they could be content with him being the nominee. there's still deep unease, there's tremendous unease when you talk to republicans about whether or not he's the right guy, especially if there's an improving economy. people say, you're betting -- betting against the economy. politically, you kind of are. the economy is such an indicator for obama's strength, when jobs start coming back, you start having projections of robust growth you see his numbers go up. romney was also the confidence guy, the i can manage the he needs to find a new pitch that can appeal to ind dependent -- independent voters, particularly women, who republicans have done a good job of scaring off in the last few weeks. >> we've seen a little bit of that with ann romney, made a

very overt pitch for women, saying we need you. she hasn't done something like that before. she's just been kind of out there, but this time it was very overt and romney is now talking about energy and foreign folcy. he's trying to shift the conversation a bit away from the economy because it's not clear where that is. >> did you find it interesting when he conceded yesterday by saying the economy is on a road to recovery. things are getting a bit better he had to hedge that a hair by saying, but it could have gotten there a lot quicker if it weren't for barack obama, he stood in the way of progress. it's been interesting to hear him concede. you look at unemployment which is still obviously the big barometer if a lot of people. in illinois it's .4% or ppt 7%, the numbers that just came out. it's the highest in the midwest. we talk about michigan and how important it was with michigan an detroit. it's high for the illinois

system of we're seing a lot of exit polling already tonight that indicates people are most concerned about the economy, still going with mitt romney. >> i think he is the person basing his economy argument on the economy. >> i think we have lois in the newsroom who can get into this conversation especially on the issue of this emerging and growing gender fap for republicans no doubt that this whole debate about contraception has hurt them with independent women. lois walk us through, how bad is the damage for republicans among independent women in particular and is it something that can be easily repaired? because jea, the focus groups for obama must show this is a winner because this is all they do in the behind the scenes in front of the scenes politics, some kind of event aim at women. >> it's really tpwheasmed recent polls are showing that in a matchup with romney, that obama can beat him by 20 points aamong women and with santorum it's 26 points. i think that the republicans,

you know, since january have continued to shoot themselves in the head, the foot, the heart, on this issue. it was a series of events but they all contributed to it, i mean, santorum interjebting contraception into the conversation therks whole debacle with rush, it's rick perry in texas. it's bob mcdonald in virginia. there's just a series of events that are making -- is making it appear the republicans are hostile to women. the democrats, i have never seen them so focused. they are rifted on this together on message, i think that they're, i don't know if it can be easily repaired, it might be able to be repaired. but here's the rule of thumb. if women vote democrats do well. if women are motivated by what they think is some hostility toward women, that's going to bode very well for democrats. >> i think one of the things that republicans could do, it's something the romney camp is talking about, is do they need,

if he were to win the nomination, to get a woman on the ticket? one of those talked about is condoleezza rice but on fox news this morning she said no way, i have no interest in it. they have to go for somebody who wanted to be in elected office. that was a pretty firm declaration. i don't think they were that interested in her to begin with but there's not a huge bench of prominent women in the republican party that want the job and that are sort of eager to have it and that romney would want to have it. is there anyone out there? >> i can't think of anybody that jump into my mind but i think they are going to need some kind of game change in there. i'm not sure that romney is the kind of person that will just do it for -- just to have a woman on the ticket. they're going tore very strategic in materials of what states the president -- the vice-presidential can dats can bring in. this is going to be a very close race.

and as you were saying earlier, there's a lack of enthusiasm for this candidate so they have to appeal to republicans just to get them out to the polls. i think they've got some real issues here. i'm not sure that they're going to focus it all on women. they might be able -- oa woman vice-presidential candidate. they might appeal to women in different ways. ann romney is doing that and also trying to soften mitt up in the exit -- and the the exit polls are showing she might have had some impact because they're showing he had some connectability he didn't have before. >> i think there is one, governor martinez of new mexico. mitt romney has two big problems right now, independent women and i think the latino vote. which both of them on their own can be a killer for him. there's been a lot of too talk in high command in the romney world about taking a much more serious look at her. she has a -- an impressive

record, her ratings are favorable and when you look at people, she has to be up there with rubio or our fine governor here in virginia. >> they might have had a chance with niki haley. >> she has a new book zfl where she talks not so flatteringly of the romney camp. portman has more of a shot, that he doesn't bring anything to what you just said, to the ticket. the virginia governor has some serious problems right now because of the ultra sound bill, it has a real problem with bill. i think chris isaak tee won't get it for a chris christie won't get it far variety of reasons. >> is there anybody who wants it more than governor christie? >> i don't think there's anyone pining it for it as much. >> there was a poll out that showed that even in virginia,

obama versus romney/mcdonell did not do well he said forget it, who cares, no one is looking at v.p.'s, don't worry about it. >> do you want to see a few things coming later in the program? we'll have craig cam, i promise, but also a new segment called eat your vegetables. we have more policy reporters covering issues like health care, if we're going to have three hour, we're going to make people master something for three minutes. if it goes long, we go long. what are the things you'll be looking for? you always do your takeaways and things to look for. what are you looking for beyond who wins today? is there anything in margins, in the exit polls about -- to give you a better indicator? >> absolutely. a couple of things. one of the things we talked

about this a lot with jonathan martin a fabulous addition to the set, i would like to say. >> handsome guy, well-dressed. >> great feedback on my colleague. one of the things that jonathan talks a lot about, there's two elements here, a class divide in terms of mitt romney supporters, versus santorum and gingrich, not specific to either of them. it's the under $50,000 a year earners. romney has struggled with that. one thing i'm watching for is how he does with this grandpa. another thing is does he make inroads with rural voters? santorum has done well in the exur ban areas, rm nee in the urban areas. romney would like to see some growth with the other side of the party, santorum is never going to do better if he doesn't start doing better with the types of voters he has not been attracting. and if romney gets a 10-point

margin, the whole narrative switches. it doesn't change the delegate math, it will still drag on to may. >> i promised we wouldn't talk much about gingrich or paul but we'll sneak in late. gingrich is in the red today so it looks like he's struggling with money. don't know if his sugar daddy will keep him going. >> sugar daddies are anybody who spends millions of dollars on a superpac to float a can dat. >> a candidate who is not doing very well. >> he wants to do it forever, he can get on tv and be part of debates if there are anymore debays for us to watch but for newt, how does this end? do you think he just wans to keep it going? we had a great piece ethe other day of the two newts. >> goes to the zoo a lot. >> i think -- i think there

are two newts debating what to do. there's the one who recognize he is doesn't have a root, he could have a kingmaker or the closest thing to a kingmaker he'll ever be. there's no poll that show this is santorum would overtake romney. that's santorum adding his vote an gingrich's vote and assuming he'll get all of gingrich's vote. >> peter hanby, one of our favorite cnn reporters said mcdonald totally wants it more than christie. we have hanby trying to fact check here. >> you talk about, this is interesting, you talk about, this is a housekeeping matter we need to get out there talk about two newts, there are also two states when you look at illinois and maggie talked a little about this, you have urban area where mitt romney is expected to do well and the suburban, the southern states where he's not going to fare as well. that's santorum territory.

there's some x factors out there we need to consider. one, it's a pretty day out. turnout hasn't been great so far. early voting not significant, about half of what we saw in 2008. also fewer people showing up early this morning in the polls. on top of all this, we have problems right now with the polls. i don't want to say hey, what the hanging chad, we're not going to delair claire a panic just yet but they had power outages at some locations, they had to go to paper ballots, some weren't cut the right size, they didn't fit the machines so they're having to hand count in some areas in illinois. or cut the ballots to fit the machines. so we are seing a snag tonight in illinois. that cowl mean, which would only make jim vandehei elated -- he loves the long nights. but it is once again something to keep an eye on because illinois having a little bit of

a ballot issue. >> we're going to mikey in one second. media matters will probably start picking us with nasty emails. the drudge report, he has mitt romney in double digits at the top of the site. the lea story is about tebow and my advice on tebow, he should go to the packers, working the system that's been fantastic at grooming quarterbacks. and he'll play if they go down at all. >> i'm downstairs. >> roving cam. >> we've got the mikey cam, andy is wired up here. right mind me, you can see the editors working on the stories going up. off preview there. behind me, they're putting the "politico" print edition to bed. we have a sneak peek. pall ryan is is the story with

the republican budget. this is a work in progress. it won't actually say headline goes here, there'll actually be a headline there. over here behind me, reporters all working on live stories tonight about the returns out. as soon as the polls close an it's called, alex will be crazed. you have a couple, you're going to hop on at 7:30, we have you for a few seconds, what are you seeing in the exit poll demographics that might be illuminating? we know the result, right? >> right. you'll see the usual ingredients of a romney victory, more upscale votersing more suburban voters, the majority of voters will be self-identified suburban voters. >> astounding stat tonight out

of the exilt poll datas in the illinois republican primary today, 98% of the voters were white. another surprising percentage, it was a heavy evangelical turn utah. turnout overall was down. that's why i'm sticking with my save this tape prediction of a seven to nine point romney victory as opposed to double digits you're seeing elsewhere. we're going to make one more stop over here, eisenstadt, covering the primary races, he stepped away, he's doing actual work. josh is behind us, you have msnbc on your tube, what's chuck todd saying? >> well, they're saying it's going to go on from here, this is not going to be the end of the line for rick santorum, they'll go on to wisconsin and it seems like every one of these is a must-win that could bring around the enof the race.

i'm sure we don't contribute to that sendment but that's what i'm hearing. >> and joe williams, one of our white house reporters, is right here. if you're the obama campaign manager, they're in illinois where the primary is being held, what are you thinking? >> you're thinking this goes on far while an the longer it goes on, the better for your fie, because the republicans will continue to duke it out. more opportunity for you to get your point across when the dust finally settles. they'll have their work cut out for them too in that their message will have to be strong but they're not wasting time on getting going. >> and let's look on joe williams' defpk, almanac of american politics opened to illinois here. we're going to send it back upstairs. >> mikey, keep at it. find us good scoops to go to. one interesting thing that's happened over the last couple of weeks, there was an active debate inside the republican

party about whether or not a long campaign is good or bad for the candidate. the argument pg it's food, it sharpsens you you know what's going to come at you in the general lech. i don't know that there's a single republican in town that does this. they've had problems with women. suffered more. other than that, i think it's been fantastic. >> michael steel, a happy, happy man. i think he's the only one who is happy. no, haley barbour was saying this is not the worst thing in the world to have a contesting convention. he said, i don't think anyone in require thought rind -- right mind has thought this is good. >> maybe if he had never run before. but he's been out there, you don't need to learn fen who he is and allow for the mistakes.

>> i think mitt romney is not the greatest can dat in the world. he's got skills as a businessman and other skills but i think being a political candidate is not necessarily he highest among them. some people get better after time, i don't think he does. >> it's like a programming note behind the scenes, there are certain operatives, certain officials when they say something, you really do have to listen. i put haley barbour in that category, put karl rove in that category, ed gillespie, who ran the reform n.c. an ran the bush white house for a while. they know so many people and are in constant contact with people across the country, it's tons of expertise, a mirror of what happened throughout the party.

at the risk of losing sources and friends, we'll identify some people you should listen to. >> you talk about mistakes when your on the trail that long. rick santorum, the unemployment comment he is had to step back from very quickly. we want to play that clip so people at home understand what we're talking about. >> i don't care what the unemployment rate is going to be. doesn't matter to me. my campaign doesn't hinge on that. >> i do care about the unemployment rate. i want to get people back to work. >> easy to d that in these exins -- campaigns cow can't do that. it's not only about the employment rate but when the unemployment rat is 8.5% and people are out of work and if you factor the real unemployment rate of people ho quit working and are truly out

of the work force at 16% or 17%, i don't think that's the best message. i'm not karl rove but i don't know if i'd advise a republican candidate to say that. >> i agree with you. and the full context was not great. the full context was, the economy should not be the pig message. rick santorum, i think it's an important point that gets lost with him. we know he lost his last race by a lot. newt gingrich and others remind us of that he's not used to running in the youtube area, in an area where everything you say is recorded, kept tallies on. he went on two of tv shows today, he denied on one that -- something that he said yesterday. and then he repeted it at another radio show. >> here's what he had to say

after being questioned about the unemployment line. >> of course i care about the unemployment rate, i want it to go down but i'm saying my candidacy doesn't hinge on whether it gos up or down. >> what's worse? that unemployment line from him or we saw about a month ago when mitt romney said i'm not worried about the poor people, i'm not concerned about the poor. he meant because there are catch-alls like social security or medicare. >> the correct answer is romney what nominee said. getting back to what maggie was talking about, the reason that all these gaffes in the prologue campaign matter, they keep feeding a negative narrative of mitt romney. if you thought he was aloof and stiff an disconnected from your own personal reality, everything that's happened over the last two months has amplified that concern. nothing has helped to diminish that concern.

that's why i think it matters so much. >> i think that's right. i think that essentially it's two narratives, one for rick san rortum that he's all about social issues and things other than the economy. he keeps saying, the media is dragging me into these fights about contrasepping and other things. he needs to feign a way to seem bigger. the primaries are supposed to make you bigger, your message by bigger, your campaign war chest bigger. this has made romney smaller with everything, it's made everything smaller except his entries. >> what does it mean when the governor said he didn't want to fete involved in the race, he said it's the first time he hasn't backed a horse or gotten involved. what tuds that mean? >> a lot of people are sitting

on the sidelines. we're talking about a guy who is unone of the ultimate outer statesmen of the part, thinking about it -- he is not getting solve. frankly, he doesn't -- he is not afraid of the nominee. you're talking about a situation where he doesn't fear as the person who is going to be the likely strap dard bearer. >> the politico philosophy -- number one -- >> no talking heads. >> and number two, must be matters. we'll go to bab lee. we have about five different reporters who all they do is cover the influence money has on the political process, we think it's that important. walk outs through numbers, what has happened in illinois and throughout the campaign. we don't know what happened to the candidates last month but what we do know is this has turned out to be way, way more

expensive than anyone expected. the superpacks are doing a vast majority of the spending and if you look at restore our future, mitt romney's super pack, it spent twice as much as it raised last month an most of that was attacking rick b santorum in ads. a lot of it is about the money and a lot of it is about how much more money can these candidates and their superp.a.c.s raise to keep this longer. >> abbey, if the back room can put the graphic back up there. if you look at illinois alone, where you have 3.5 -- 37 million dollars that romney and his super p.a.c. have spent. that's a thumping. that's so hard to overcome. you can say it doesn't matter that much or restore our future is not really mitt romney. it's all mitt romney, same doe far gor -- donors give to that,

when you're outstending somebody -1 and of i look at about 12-1 in the chicago market. >> some say 21-1 in chicago. >> is there any indication either from what we're hearing early returns on what february looks like or january that santorum can close that gap or that romney is starting to struggle cash-risewise? it seems like that could be happening or was until this week. >> santorum doesn't show signs of being able to significantly close that gap. he's raising about half of what omni is raising in his campaign. the superp.a.c. is doing much the same. i think there is a red nag out there for the superp.a.c. restore our future. shaff of the one they -- money they raise came from one donor. so the superp.a.c. an the campaign are looking to try to find new doe no, sir to keep this going.

if they can't, they'll run out of money. even though santorum is not really catching up, this is a limit to how much they can con to spend at this rate. >> excellent point, abbey. we'll get back to you through the the might, especialfully new numbers start to trickle in. >> on that graphic, we department have romney's numbers because they haven't come in yet. patrick gavin, our social media guru, what are we dubbing him for the might? >> our twitter guy. >> before we get to the question, we have a tweet. we get some serious treats -- tweets and some not so serious tweets. here's a tweet, is that the exact same red tie you wore at the last politico live show? that's what he wants to know. >> no way, it's a different one

. i only have five ties. now that we're tv people i'm going to look really good. >> is it indicative of any political leaning? red versus blue? >> no. >> they said they really like your jewelly. >> thank you. >> we welcome all tweets an feedback, serious, not serious, hash taling politicolive. we've got somebody watching from crass, the weather guy in seattle likes what we're doing. tell us where you are, how we're doing. we have a question from evan taylor i want to throw back to you guys. evan wants to know when you take a look at what you see this week, afghan, syria, iran, yet you don't hear a rot of that out of the republican peeled right tissue feel right now. do you agree with that?

do you agree with that sentiment from evan. if you do, why as the topic not come up while you have been campaigning arn the world? >> it's been frightening that mental problems -- the continued presence in afghanistan and iraq. there's been so little talk about it. part of that is the positions from the candidates, pretty much indishable. i think there's an accepted republican theology on foreign policy and there isn't much deviation from that, putting ron paul in a separate category. i think this is an area where i don't think president obama wants to admit it or republicans want to admit it but a lot of areas are not that far off. you can talk about rhetorical levels and how quick we can get people out of afghanistan but

they're not that different. when it comes to the war on terror, the biggest political issue for republicans since 9/11 new york most cases, president obama has continued president bush's policies. if president bush had had a thiffered term he would have governed much like this. >> alec burns and i, i give a shameless plug for burns and haberman. he's the co-author of the blog. we wrote a story about this yesterday about the fact that the foreign policy issue has a, not been at the forefront, and b, republicans, and i agree with you, i think they're all in the same boat but there are areas where their not sure where they want to be as a party because barack obama has been so close to president bush's position. they're trying to figure out what the post-bush foreign policy looks like, rather than

just never forget, remember 9/11, never let it happen again. >> i have republican voters in the counterterrorism world professionally who are not big fans of president obama but can't criticize him because they feel he's taken president bush's mantra and pushed it a step farther. they feel he's done good on that. the interesting thing is how far the rhetoric may go. we've heard speeches where the line was if president obama is re-elected iran will get a nuclear weapon. >> from mitt romney. >> this is worth a discussion. perhaps we can get mikey cam to line up josh gersteen who covers these issues. these issues are so important when you think about what's happening with iran and the consequences of that or what's happened in egypt and the consequence that has on oil prices and our own domestic policy. >> we're wondering whether or not we're going to see this

become a bigger issue and it doesn't sound like it. >> i don't even know if it will in the general election. be as big of an issue. particularly if the economy is still, i guess i would call it sputtering. unemployment, growth is still anemic. if that's the case, i think the debate is going to be very much about domestic issues. i think it's baffling to a lot of people, baffling to folks in the media, baffling to anybody who has a son or daughter serving in iraq or serving in afghanistan or in the armed forces anywhere last not more talk about this because the consequence, the terrible kill big the soldier in afghanistan, you know, it just seems like it's still such an abstraction to most people. not as real as it probably should be. maybe once the campaign heats up and the -- >> it might. it might. i think you're right. i think there is a lack of total grasp and i don't mean that is a -- that as a knock.

i think people don't have a tactile feel for it, how sick the american people are of these wars. the polling suggests they are, there's a war-wearyness in the nation. i think when you have a head-to-head race, it's not -- going to be impossible not to discuss this. >> the only problem is if you had a romney-obama debate they'd say the same thing on iraq, afghanistan, syria, the same thing on iran, might differ only on the edges with how we should deal with china. it's only on the margins this isn't george w. bush versus howard dean. you don't have two radically different world views. you essentially have a unification on how, at least on the war on terror. i'm sure we'll get tons of emails saying there are huge differences. i think it's rhetorical differences, i don't think they're massive programmatic differences. >> they're not actually, the policy platforms are not far

off. >> the polls close in 13 minutes. we're getting some reports that say the lowest chicago turnout in presidential primary history is being predicted. the lowest chicago turnout in presidential primary history is being predicted. granted, thises -- this is opaw ma's backyard, it's not like in november it'll be a factor but it speaks to the continued dialogue we have about not enveloping some sort of coalescence or excitement about the candidate. >> this is big, you're onto something. we had rich priebus on here a couple of weeks ago, who said it hasn't been that off from previous leches. it has, especially in a loft the most important states, at a time when republicans should be more fired up than ever. they have a real, i think, opportunity to beat president obama. they have fundraising they've never seen before. republicans could be at parity in this election. they had no shot at parity last

time arn. they should be enthusiastic about this campaign. state after state, it's nothing. >> 46,000 is what we saw through thursday. in 2008. the numbers were good. you had 81,000 back then. 46,000 now 81,000. what's interesting is, because, remember, you've got other races going on in illinois right now. 89% of the votes so far were democratic votes. >> as jim said, we've seen this in state after state. i've argued before and still believe it, it's something of an apples to oranges comparisons. i think there are specific states that can generate ballot initiatives. it's hard to grab from one year to the next and say there's a problem for the general because you could make the flip side case, everybody thinks romney is the nominee why vote in the primary anyway? but people are not in love with the idea of coming out to

support of -- i spoke to someone at one of his ralliss, they said, good turnout, the enthusiasm not there, not a lot of palpable energy. it's like medicine, we know he's good for us but we don't want to take it. >> would you say a loft opeople who are excited about the prospect of a republican president are doing it because it's someone other than obama? a couple of quotes looking through tine's show lineup, these are from voters in illinois, if a frog was running against obecause mark he'd vote for the frag. another man a 74-year-old republican, i would vote for a dog to get obama out. >> republicans are animal lovers. >> i don't think we want to have the whole animal conversation. i knew where you were going with that. >> but i read two different pieces. you'd think anti-obama would manifest in more excitement. the thing to watch for, for all the division you see inside the

republican party and any lack of enthusiasm, i do think that will change once you have a nominee. they're never going to love mitt romney but they'll love the concept of beating barack obama. the thing you need to watch for at that point is, do you see a surge in low-dollar donations? looks like a surge in high-dollar donations, that helps the republican party. and do you see a surge in people wanting to get involved in these campaigns? president obama has major structural advantages, so much better wired in these states, so much better staffed, spening all their money, jim messina is spending all his money out of chicago looking at ways to wire every single state to contact every voter they can. in a 50-50 country, that matters. we have juana summers back with us in gettysburg, pennsylvania, what are you hearing from the santorum folks and what's happening there right now? >> the room is just starting to fill up behind me, i don't know

if you can see it but rick santorum will be speaking mind a banner that says freedom. that's different from past election nights where he's been speaking behind a banner that says "made in america" but it's central to the argument he's making to americans. i wret earlier this week about how different the arguments they're making are. mitt romney is talking about job bus santorum is saying it's about something much, much bigger. it's about freedom, about restoring america's core. you can expect to hear a lot of that tonight even as he's in a race that might not tush his way. >> talk about how his mess act seemed to have changed over the last couple of weeks. >> sure you know, as we were campaigning in rust belt states new york ohio and michigan, there was a strong energy base and manufacturing message. in recent weeks, we've campaigned in the south, in mississippi and alabama as well as in louisiana. he's shifted away from that just a little bit.

you're not hearing as much about manufacturing but hearing the word jobs virtually never come up. instead it's about big ideas, restoring america, faith and family equal freedom. i don't think we heard the jobs message resurface until yesterday which i know you talked about, he said, i don't care about the unemployment rate. that's not what he meant but it's the last big sount bite i think will be sticking with him. >> what are his big ideas? he has -- if he had to list his big three transformative ideas, they are pa what? >> one one they have biggest thing he is talks about is families, strong families, that's one of the building blosks the economy in america. he talks a lot about foreign policy, specifically how it could be one of the biggest issues in november, especially with the economy rebounding. those are two of the biggest issue he is talks ability on the stump. >> juana, getting back to the

family issue, i have a family, i love my family but how does he see the federal government contributing to healthier families and therefore a healthier country? >> if you listen to rick santorum when he he talks about family and the connection to government, he thinks the pe thing is to let families determine for themselves and provide for themselves as opposed to getting in the way and telling you how to manage your family that situation is santorum's nightmare. he want famslies to provide on their own as best they can. >> where do you go from here? >> tomorrow morning 5rk:45 a.m., i'll be on a flight to new orleans. rick santorum will campaign in louisiana and then he'll photosan antonio two states they say are important to him. i also expect to see him heading to wisconsin in a couple of days. a fun trip there for us as well. >> you get to hear out -- to

hang out in new orleans on our dime? and then you go to god's country? >> there'll be no hanging out. no hanging out. we'll be running pack an forth, we'll be car vaining down the streets, we have a day in alexandria, louisiana, for another 5:30 a.m. flight. >> when she turns in receipts -- >> we encourage our reporters to live it up. >> what i thought was interesting, a nice insight by juana there, rick santorum changed his bapper, now it says freedom. the reason that caught my ear, when you listen to his speech yesterday, underneath that statue of ronald reagan on the horse, ray began's birth place, he says reagan's name no fewer than 50 times and gives his own version of win one for the gipper, he talks about how romney abandons free do he said it in a couple of speech, we

want to play that sound bite for you now. >> he simply abandoned freedom when he was governor of massachusetts and he abandoned it when he promoted obamacare in twipe. -- in 2009. [applause] >> i get the point. it leads to -- it leads to a better question, why is romneycare, the romney health care plan on which portions of the obamacare plan predicated and crafted, it doesn't seem like it's working as an attack against romney. santorum is a good person to deliver it. his trashing record is better on that than newt gingrich's is. why hasn't it worked? >> i think you're right that santorum is the best members of the jury but he didn't deliver it until -- best messenger for it.

his win was not marked a win for a couple of weeks, then the tally changed. he has had trouble sticking to a message. we discussed this earlier tonight. i think the freedom thing you're hearing him talking about is appealing to the tea party folks, a lot about a turnout generator more than anything, i don't know what they've been spending their money on but he raised $9 million in february, i think it hasn't caught on because it wasn't used earlier -- early enough. pawlenty tried to use it in the debate, he whiffed on it. after that didn't work they got affray of trying it. ? mitt romney starts almost every speech saying, we're going to get rid of obamacare and even when he's questioned in a critical manner by people at town halls, i need a vow for you that you'll get rid of obamacare, he continues to, at least with conviction in his voice say that's the case. it's hard to stick to him a

little bit. >> i think they have a chance -- far question you expect. i think there was a chance on a debate stage, i think his can dats had a chance to thunk him over the head with this and they declined doing it >> polls close in two minutes. maggie, par already game, one thing excites me more than reading maggie's seven takeaways. >> five takeawas. >> i get the bonus before they're edited. who do i reich more than that? web. hit us at live@politico.com to get an email directly to me or one of us here on stage. craig cam, craig is our editor, he controls the coverage.

hopefully mikey is with him and can let us know how we're processing this, what different themes we're looking for to write about tomorrow morning? >> craig cam and mikey cam ha verged -- merged into one supercam tonight. craig gordon, the last few nights there's been a lot of drama, surprises. tonight we think we know what's going to happen? whether my save this tape prediction of a single win for romney is right or whether the exit polls dunl digit lead is right. >> i hope the reporters are getting stories written ahead of time. we're looking at a 6%, 7%, 8% win for romney. so when you have that many polls lining up that many in a row, you do think the books are cooked for romney tonight and that should arow us to get the stories done a little before dawn like we usually