>> on monday, the supreme court stars three days of hearings on the constitutionality of the new health-care law. hear the argument for yourself. 1:00 p.m. eastern each day with coverage on c-span 3 and c-span radio. our coverage starts monday morning live on c-span with "washington journal" and continues throughout the day. >> coming up at noon eastern, we plan to take you live to a tea

party rally. participants are gathering on capitol hill in washington, d.c. near the supreme court. among the speakers, herman cain, the virginia attorney general joined by members of congress and local tea party at this -- activists from around the country. >> this week on "washington journal," the director of the consumer financial protection bureau. he will talk about some investigations the bureau is taking. president obama named him as the director with a resources appointment. "newsmakers" purse sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on c- span. -- air at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00

p.m. on c-span. >> i remember watching in horror as my mother's head lay on the chopping block of our kitchen counter as she cried and begged. sonja sohn starred in the wire and started and started"rewired for change." >> we are looking for real healing. what has unfolded is that what we want to see is a deep level of healing in the life of a young person and in the lives of the entire community. >> more sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on "q & a."

>> on wednesday, ben bernanke said the european debt crisis still poses a threat to the u.s. economy. the chairman was joined at the house oversight committee by treasury secretary tim geithner. both men responded to questions about u.s. debt and the housing market. >> the committee will come to order. the oversight committee mission statement is that we exist to secure two fundamental principles. >> the statement is we exist for a fundamental principle. per se, americans have a right to know that the money washington has is well spent. americans deserve an effective government that works for them. our duty is to protect these

rights. our responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers. they have a right to know what they get from their government. today's hearing is most important because in 2009, europe has been struggling to emerge from a sovereign debt crisis brought about by massive government spending and a weak economy. america could say the same. we have been struggling since 2009 to emerge from the debt crisis from the massive government debt. that is not the issue today. the issue is if the european union spends hundreds of billions of euros with imf

assistance. can america afford one sovereign debt crisis such as greece? we have been watching the crisis. there is a certain assumption that eventually it will be solved. there is an assumption that we know what we are doing and that it will be solved. clearly, at this hearing builds on the good work of patrick henry and is asking the greater question. what if we go beyond greece?

there are other means of the problem is manageable. our witnesses are the two most important individuals. they have a good understanding of the capabilities and ultimately what he can do it if you go wrong. secretary geithner has been a loyal servant and has been intimately involved in matters in europe. our primary question will be on what u.s. exposure to the u.s., what impact to taxpayers it could be. we will try not to look to the past but to the future.

let's understand that while we have a budget deficits, our debt is 100 term of gdp. we are still remembering the good in the very bad of tarp. we are remembering the individuals are involved in what it would be spent for. none came to pass. the secretary geithner does not anticipate needing a bailout. our obligation is to anticipate and to plan. the questions will be what is plan b. with that, i like to recognize the member for his opening statements. >> i thank you for your service in our country.

i thank you on behalf of the committee. this is a very important issue. european officials have taken actions to reestablish the ability in a eurozone. american officials have helped the consultations. no one is declaring mission accomplished with the signs of improvement are hard to miss. the house republicans released a budget proposal of $5.30 trillion over the next 10 years. its will shift costs to seniors. the majority will seek for greece's financial troubles.

the united states should cut taxes to avoid these things. do not believe it. while strong medicine is needed, who should be taking the hit? what we have learned is that austerity measures imposed have very real negative consequences for hard-working people what they leave the economic elite unscathed. secretary geithner warned against this. you said this.

"we need to stay intensely focused on strengthening our economy in the short term. we cannot share cut our way to growth." house republicans have viewed this. different problems require different solutions. economists agree that the investment grade by wall street or the forces of our economic collapse. housing is ground zero. the economy's problems are high employment and jobs.

the settlement's sad truth is that millions of barrels or not need the belief -- borrowers will not get the relief they need. regulators will not allow them to participate in the settlement. much of this will be in the form of printable reduction. we want to ensure our economy at home is strong enough. we must end of the housing crisis here at home. the un data shows the principal reductions would save taxpayers billions of daughters. -- billions of dollars. it is my hope that we examined the euro crisis in keep in mind what should be our opening goal. i ask consent to enter this into the record. >> this addresses this issue.

>> thank you. >> you are welcome. when i go to the chairman of

the subcommittee for his meeting. >> thank you for calling this meeting today. americans watched this deteriorates. it resulted in millions of job losses. several banks are propping up institutions. our european friends fight to fend off a wave of turmoil. in december, my subcommittee invited officials from the federal reserve and what actions they would consider in reaction to it and what measures remain. the federal reserve had just authorized liquidity swap lines.

the headlines read to the tune of billions and trillions. they held an auction to provide banks with over 500 million euros. it an event was acquired in greece. as the book ahead, european story is far from over. they're trying to substantiate their record effort. balanceusing their sheets to rescue the global economy. the economic storm facing europe has this. we are here to address this

incredible issue. i am interested to hear how our foremost efforts of you this. with that, of a bike to yield the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. the chairman said that he wanted to find out if the united states possibly could be drawn into the euro crisis. i have been to europe. i been all over the place. i am convinced we are already drawn in. i would like to find out how deeply we are drawn in and out

simple the problem could be. i want to find out if we are bailing out the europeans. the european central bank is over there as well. they are having their money supply. my colleague talked about the money swaps. let me first say that exposure is 641 million of dollars. for france and germany is $1.20 trillion. we have $109 billion outstanding. what does this do to our

exposure? how much will that cost the united states? timothy geithner has dismissed reports that we might participate in a special european aid fund. i would like to know that to be true in the future. increased our contribution to the imf which is currently 17% of the overall budget. they will need another $500 billion. how much exposure are refacing right now attacks come at exposure are we likely to have

added? will be underwriting the crisis tax thank you. >> i think the said committee chairman. the bill goes to the ranking member of the subcommittee, mr. quigley for five minutes. >> thank you. i am honored to be the ranking member the european debt crisis met this. in 2010, our forces totaled 430. the global market is not what it was 10 years ago or five years ago. there can be no question a help the european economy is in the best interests of the united states. i am encouraged by secretary geithner.

i'm encouraged by the efforts by our leaders. beaders created a compact under 25 days agree to new rules. restructuredy debt. the european central bank is also purchasing bonds and providing loans.

these actions have lessened the market here at home. the eurozone has a long and challenging road ahead. some have likened our economy to increase. -- to greece. we need a balanced approach to get our own fiscal house in order. we have to ensure that reducing the deficit we do not a the mission of government matters. they made harder to fill this mission. we need to take a balanced approach to measures. now is not the time to pull the rug out from under them. a long-term deficit reduction plan is not compatible with economic growth.

we cannot allow politics to stand in the way of the foreclosure crisis. strengthening our economy must be the number one priority. it either afford to hearing the testimony. thank you. i yield back. >> before i introduce the witnesses, i want to caution the committee it is our policy when i invite guests to tell them what the committee is about and expect they will have answers for our questions. at the same time, they have an expectation that today's

hearing is primarily a technically been exclusively about the european debt crisis and how am i effect america. although there is a ripple effect that he may want to ask broader questions, if you ask questions that are not germane to the subject to which we invited our guests, it is their option to say whether they were prepared or not prepared. the only ask them here under that fairly narrow subject. you are very good beyond that. we do not intend to have the ask questions and expect you to answer them. with that, we submit to our committee roles. -- rules. >> please raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear that this

is the truth, and the whole truth and nothing but the truth? all witnesses answered in the affirmative. please take your seat. >> a little bit like yesterday, we've of like you to stay as close to five minutes as possible. as we would like you to know that you're opening statements are placed in the record. i'm not sure we did a coin toss. >> thank you. thank you for giving me a chance to talk about the implications. we have an enormous respect for your efforts to avoid the crisis. our economy is getting stronger. with a lot of the challenges are here.

unemployment is still very high. housing markets are very weak. we still have a long way to go to repair the damage. risks around iran are adding to pressure. this accounts for about 18% of global g.d.p.. it is a major source of sourcing. a larger portion our for our trading partners.

the financial markets damage confidence been slow the momentum of recovery here in the united states of the past few months, there are active encouragement support. they have put in place a comprehensive strategy. first involves economic reforms, a tough reforms. they can improve the competitiveness. the second includes reforms. they have stronger disciplines. they can limit the future deficits and debt as a share of gdp.

it involves a coordinated effort. the european financial system and involves a fire wall of a fund's to provide this to the government. they can help retain this. the efforts have helped calm financial assistance to reduce provincial tensions. -- the efforts have helped calm financial tensions. we're going to have to carefully calibrate financial support and fiscal consolidation. these will not work with the support that enables the government to borrow. if every time economic growth comes in weaker than expected,

governments are forced to say this. the most important unfinished business of this broader financial strategy in europe, met leaders are reviewing options for how to expand at the combined capacity of the two funds so they can make clear targets to make resources more available. the imf has played an important role in europe. there are financial support for those in greece, ireland, and portugal. it is in the interest of the

united states to continue. the resources cannot substitute for the incredible european firewall. this has played a major role in every financial crisis. any resources with interest that has gone awry is backed by financial safeguards. they have more than 60 years of experience. the crisis in europe has take some of the wind out of the recovery. we hope they will build on these efforts in the coming weeks. there is a stronger financial firewall. we will continue to work closely with them.

>> thank you. >> thank you. thank you for inviting me. for two years, they have this on global financial markets. there are concerns of fiscal sustainability. pessimism about the economic situations can undermine confidence. this is an impact on the u.s. economy. we have seen those underperform. financial strains have been evident during times or it is most turbulence. we saw a global retreat from riskier assets. it can increase the cost of corporate heads. we have seen our own financial

institutions focus on your. we have seen some improvements in recent months. it has helped improve its own financial markets. several actions have contributed. bacon undertaker financing operations that have helped the funding. banks have increased their holdings of sovereign debt. secondly, the euro leaders have been taking steps to on a more sustainable fiscal path. the sovereign debt best mcginley reduced.

did they are intensifying their efforts. the key u.s. and imf have pledged considerable funds as part of the package. the economy remains in a deep recession. there has been the approval of the new fiscal compaq treaty. it isn't important step toward solving fundamental tension. although progress has been made in more needs to be done, there is an expansion of fire walls regarding contagion and sovereign debt markets. there are continued efforts to continue the growth. the federal reserve has been

following these closely. policymakers are focusing on this from having any adverse once contribute. it they can support the flow of credit. news of are reestablished lines was limited. in late november we agreed to the central banks of canada and switzerland to extend this period the lower cost of the ecb have a loved and to reduce the cost. they provide them. this has had a beneficial impact i would add the swaps are very safe.

they present no exchange rate. each is trying has a short maturity. their currencies for what is here. the fed is working with other agencies to monitor our financial institutions. the money markets have avoided this.

our assessment are broadly head-in the other direction. these are broadly dispersed. although they have limited exposure, their exposure to european banks are much more material. these funds remain structurally it vulnerable. the risk of contagion does give concern. the u.s. financial sector would have to content with an array of broader markets and equity prices. most recently, at the fed

released the results of our comprehensive capital analysis. it is a stress tests. we imposed a hypothetical scenario. it involved a deep recession of the united states. there is a decline and activity abroad. this was designed to capture but exposures for the financial stresses that my arrive. it shows is it if they get majority continue to make expectations.

the recent reduction remains difficult. it is critical that leaders follow the policies to insure this. i'm sure they understand the challenges they face. they take the necessary steps to address the issues. they work with our financial institutions in counterparts and are ready to use the tools at our disposal. >> thank you. in the stress tests, i assume the fed system would work. is that correct? it is all of the $1.40 trillion.

we checked to make sure we are comfortable with the counterparties. that means degraded yourself. correct? >> we looked at the positions of the banks. we verified they are largely hedge against sovereign defaults in europe first. we assured ourselves to have the strongest institutions. aig was not properly regulated. it was done appropriately -- it was not appropriately hedged. >> you are comfortable saying there are no i e -- aigs hiding

in the woods? >> they have covered all the largest bank holding companies. we looked at other large banks. within that range, we do not see any similar problem. >> thank you. >> one of the most important questions is to ask about earlier times. the eurozone has an economy that is nominally our size. it has a euro conversion of about $14 trillion. some countries have positives. it is clear for the american people to say the same size is similar.

if this is the case, why have are they not being treated much more likely treat our states that what is the justification for the american people for the similar wealth to ours, sang which part of the united states put in? >> we have a fiscal union as well as monetary union. the reason we do not see the same kind of stresses is that from the federal government -- >> from the taxpayer, they are similar to us in the positive

side. human beings move freely within the eurozone. money moves freely. they act as a protective trade partner. they treat each other in a way they do not treat us. we do not enjoy the advantages of selling into the arizona that the eurozone enjoys. -- into the eurozone that the eurozone and joyce. we are doing it in our own self interest. why isn't the eurozone of being asked to step up much more? why does it come to the american people when they have the same wherewithal? when they have a problem with a rogue nation, they turn to the imf. >> that is a good question.

our position has been that europe needs to step up and do more. we've asked them to move in the same direction as the united states. >> as you said, we have never lost any to the imf. we have been fully repaid it has been a good bet overall. the american people are wondering what i ask.

doesn't it strengthen your hand when me clear that the american people are saying "no, you will have to convince us to go against the the communities." >> we have a very similar view. europe is a very rich continent. you are right to point out, they do not have the mechanisms that we do in the united states. these are very powerful. the imf is an institution where members have a right to request assistance. our judgement has been in the

intersted in the u.s. and better for us for the imf to play a modest role alongside the european authorities going forward. they have asked the imf to take more of the burden. we said that is not appropriate. they are a rich country. peopleake sure understand the world needs to see europe demonstrate that they are prepared to do what it takes to make this work. we can help with support. we are not going to do that in a way to put the u.s. taxpayer at risk. >> thank you. >> thank you very much.

europe has a housing crisis. >> parts of europe does. >> you agree that housing has to be addressed? >> i do think our economy is still suffering from a lot of collateral damage. you see that in housing. our judgement is that we should do everything we can to help repair that damage.

to help the economy over time. >> it would be the cost of more than $5 trillion in medicare that we know of. chairman bernanke and i have talked about the same number of times. you gave a speech in which you said principal reductions may be an effective means of avoiding foreclosure. is that right? >> sometimes it can be effective. >> you also agree that principle reduction can be one that is well designed. is that right? >> yes. you have private banks on their own offering this to their borrowers. the limited number of countries are taking somewhat different

approaches. it is different because of the nature of the problems. cannot see this across the housing front yet. they have not been aggressive as we were in trying to move earlier. >> they tow their bottom line. they want to keep people paying lower mortgages and said the foreclosures. this helps the homeowners and shareholders. the only official who does not view that appears to be [unintelligible] his opposition is trange because his own data shows principal reduction would save billions of dollars and that principle reduction would help

the homeowners. based on his own data, he should be doing printable reductions now. -- principal reductions now. can you tell us why treasury is doing that? why are these incentives important? >> under the law, treasury does not have any authority to tell the fha to undertake specific activities. under the mandate, it have to make sure the things they are doing are in the interest and taxing region of maximizing overall returns to the taxpayer.

principal reduction is part of the strategy to limit the losses. we have been having discussions with them about how to narrow the differences. i think it would be better for me to come back and talk more about it separately. we could get a better sense of where we come out. >> he said the minister of the costs could be high for i.t. systems. he is made that argument to you. >> he is in the process of looking again at those questions.

>> your response was to "look further?" >> yes. we want to make sure they're doing things consistent with their obligations. making sure they're doing things that will limit the losses. >> let me ask about the stakes here. he controls all of the loans guaranteed by fannie mae and freddie mac. how many families would be affected by his decision? >> it is hard to tell. it is not part of the popular wisdom. they are more conservative and more careful in their underwriting system. the quality of their loans are better than the broader market in this context. our job is to reach as many

people as we can. we can make a good, strong case for the country on the merits. >> the gentleman's time is expired. we will send you a copy of the information from brooklyn so that you are briefed before you come back to the ranking member. with that, we go to the chairman of the full committee, mr. burton, for five minutes. emeritus is a forever term, as is chairman. >> the exposure the united states has in portico --portugal is $54 billion.

france is $685 billion for a total of $2.08 trillion. i am concern about what happens if the euro stars to devalue and how it affects the united states' ability to collect on this indebtedness we are having with europe. i will combine some of these questions so you will have more time to answer. we have been printing money with qe 1 and qe 2. this may be continuing. is there an -- a mid our long term cost for printing money we have loans to europe? how much would that be? the federal reserve has created this foreign currency swap

mechanism. it has outstanding loans as high as $1.20 trillion. you say it is $65 billion. it is still a considerable amount of money. what happens if you have some the faulting over there and they cannot repay those loans? the european central bank is printing money right now. that will cause some inflationary pressure. what will that do to the indebtedness we have? the foreign currency swap takes our money and exchanges is for your rose -- for euros. it appears we are providing dollars that are loaned or swapped to europe and refused to buy money lent to commercial banks. if that is the process, it sounds like we are cooking the books to make this look

legitimate. finally, i have been to a number of these countries. the unrest is apparent. some of our european now -- european neighbors have not passed austerity measures. even after they have, there is a lot of dissension in the country. there is a big country as to whether greece can survive and maybe spain, italy, portugal. how much are we expose is the european recovery does not take place? can you give us the figures indirectly and directly as far as exposure is concerned? do your numbers include foreign currency swaps? that is a lot. if you can run through that, i would appreciate it.

>> on the swap, the number was $109 billion. it is down to $65 billion. it was constructive. it the euro devalues or depreciates, it has no affect. we get paid back in dollars. the european bank debt -- takes any exchange risk. we get paid back in full because the you see be takes all of the credit risk. we are not taking any -- the ecb take all the credit risk and the exchange risk. you mentioned some numbers and i was not clear whose exposure you were talking about. obviously, our banking system is exposed to europe. we are a major trading partner and we have many investments there. it was exactly what we tried to

do in our stress test scenario last week. we considered a severe scenario that considered -- included a sharp decline in activity in europe and a major financial stress. all of this is an attempt to measure the impact on our banking system of a new crisis in europe. there would be significant losses. what we found was that all of the banks were able to meet a reasonable level of credit -- of capital even following the losses associated with such any bands. -- an event. >> gentleman, the academic question is, the balance i

talked about in my opening statement about austerity measures and the impact of a recovery. your view on that issue and how the european plan strike that balance and how effectively it might do that. either or both of you, please. >> i think the answer to your question depends on which country you are talking about. there are countries like greece, ireland, and portugal that are under european union, eurozone, and imf support. they have no alternative but to do what they can to reduce debt is the deficits. they have been trying to do that although the slowing in growth has made it difficult. there are some countries that have some kisco stakes -- fiscal stakes.

europe is slowing. their economy is slowing. they are addressing longer-term fiscal issues in a comprehensive, long-term plan. they are trying to do it through their fiscal contact. it is comparable to been plant -- to the plan the united states would take. >> the chairman is exactly right. you have this thing which the countries that have lost the ability to borrow on their own without support. you want there to be a medium- term plan to gradually phase in the reduction of deficits to come. you want that to be balanced or complemented by programs trying to improve growth and performance.

first, you have to get that balance right. it takes a bunch of financial support to make sure those reforms have time to work. you want to make sure they are faced -- phased in gradually over time. you want to avoid the risk that it has to be matched in the immediate spending cuts. that is the balance you want to have. >> how do they do it? >> if you want to talk about countries that are more acute, how do they tried this balance? the concern is, if we are so dependent on their recovery, perhaps we can learn some lessons. did they go too far with the countries that are hurting and stymied the opportunity for

recovery? >> you cannot say that for greece. there is no opportunity available for them than to do this tough mix of reforms across the board. other countries have more time and space to bring a bit more care and balance. greece and ireland and portugal are small economies in aggregate. what hurts the united states is a longer. bank of weak economic growth in the major economies in europe. -- what hurts the united states is a longer period they are able to shift some of the tension and some of the focus and europe to broader strategies that will make growth stronger across the continent. >> in your overall assessment, the chances for recovery -- why are they perhaps less

optimistic or more optimistic about where europe faces versus the u.s.? >> the fundamental reality of the u.s. is that it will take a very long time for them to work that through. judge realistically, looking at the prospects ahead, even if europe is able to be successful in avoiding a catastrophic financial crisis and they have the means to do that, even if they're successful in avoiding that, then the risks are that europe is still growing on average at very weak levels. that will mean that growth in the united states is weaker than it otherwise would be. again, this process has a lot of risk in it. there is a -- it is very fragile that is why it is so important that they're doing everything they can, not just to restore some financial stability, to help lay foundations for stronger growth. that is why we have such a strong economic interest in helping them make that happen. >> thank you. >> a very good line of questioning. we go to mr. mcenry for 5 minutes.

>> thank you both for your service to our government. you certainly have both served in some challenging times, not just in the last three years, but a long run as well. chairman bernanke, i want to ask about your legal authority, the fed's little 40. -- legal authority. so the fed establishes sovereign debt for the united states. does the fed have legal authority to purchase other country's sovereign debt? >> it does for the purposes of reserve holdings. they currently hold a small amount of debt of very high quality. i think it is france, germany, and japan. but we are not in beijing and -- engaging in purchasing debt of

troubled countries. >> but that could be considered? >> we are not considering it appeared >> -- we are not considering it. congress made clear in earlier discussions, some decades ago when this issue came up, that the purpose of this authority was to maintain foreign exchange reserves. i don't think that it was the intent of congress that we get involved in sovereign debt issues. it is not our intent to do so. >> beyond that, does the fed accept as collateral foreign debt, sovereign debt from foreign countries? >> some of the debt we simply own as part of our foreign exchange reserves. >> beyond that pierre >> in other cases, we have short-term resources agreements and other -- repurchase agreements and other arrangements where we do take collateral for a short time. again, we're making sure that we have sufficient to make sure that we're comfortable with the safety of those short-term

arrangements. >> secretary geithner, to have a few questions about the international monetary fund. within treasury, you have a designee who serves on the 24- member executive committee of the imf. in terms of the actions taken with the recent imf loans to greece, were you involved in the process? was that a discussion you were engaged in? >> of course. we pay a lot of attention to any decision, any meaningful decision the imf makes in the context. >> looking at that, is the treasury -- i know you have mentioned this before, but i want to raise the issue again. are you considering additional contributions to the special imf european bill a fund?

-- european bailout fund? >> no, we are not. the imf already has $400 billion of available resources it can use if necessary to help support the needs of its members. europe, of course, has very substantial financial capacity to put behind their strategy to resolve this crisis. therefore, we do not see the case for coming to congress and asking for more authority in this context. >> is the treasury considering being involved in imf nab, the arrangement -- >> we are in that. congress has participated in them. so, yes, when the imf draws on the new arrangements to borrow, just like a supplemental pool of resources, then, yes, the imf draws on the quarter resources. we do participate in those drawings. we have 60 years of experience with how the imf puts itself in that context.

the record supports our judgment that there is very substantial strong financial safeguards that protect the interests of the u.s. taxpayers in that context. >> under god for it -- under dod-frank, there are a number of provisions dealing with the imf. our designee engages in a decision with the imf to loan money with a country that has a greater than 100% debt to gdp ratio. the understanding of what the credit risk is and how this decision was made. that has to be presented to congress. is that being done? >> of course. we have a rich history and a long history of the votes we can cast in that institution. we will meet that. >> --

-- and it is a 30-day provision. we would expect that in the coming weeks. >> the way that provision is structured, in some cases where the existing level of debt in the country is high, there is a higher burden on all of us to make sure that the reforms that come with this assistance give us a reasonable prospect that it will be improving the path for sustainability. >> i look for to the report. -- we look forward to that report. >> thank you appeared to clarify -- thank you. to clarify for the record, i heard correctly, the imf does not maintain a whole pile of money. they maintain the ability to draw by the members based on an allocation. so the american people understand, you're not coming to was for new money, but there will be distributions at times within the current limit that just occur as a result, a trigger. so, they do not sit there with all of our money. the fact is they will be taking your money. is that correct? >> that is exactly right.

the way the law of the land is structured, we cannot lend money to the imf without the authorization of the congress of the united states. congress authorizes the scale of the commitments we can make members ask the imf for resources and they have to meet conditions and then they can draw on those resources. then we provide a part of those resources. again, the exposure we take is backed by not just a substantial amount of imf gold, but other safeguards. >> thank you. the gentleman from virginia. >> thank you. welcome to both of our guests this morning. mr. geithner, you testified that ireland and portugal ran a large -- and spain ran large surpluses but they were victims of the crisis contagion. you also noticed that spain reduced its structural deficit through austerity measures. do you believe that there is a lesson that's -- some lesson in that? i would think that to have this

kind of crisis, it would be deeply in the whole of debt. both ireland and spain. how does that work? >> you are right. i think the popular perception is that the crisis in europe is overwhelmingly the result of dust -- a tickets of fiscal profligacy. -- decades of fiscal profligacy. that is not quite right. it was certainly true increase where greece -- it was certainly true in greece. >> i will come back to greece. >> there are other countries where you saw a rise in private borrowing in the banking system by the private sector. a damaging loss in the relative competitiveness of their businesses relative to germany in that context. when the crisis hit and confidence eroded, their fiscal positions did deteriorate dramatically, as always happens in that context.

but the fundamental cause of the crisis was not a long time of extreme fiscal profligacy. >> mr. bernanke, one of the medicines' recommended here, obviously, is draconian fiscal austerity measures. we had a new budget out yesterday that certainly subscribe to that philosophy. many european countries actually adopted that policy in terms of austerity measures. did those economies grow faster or slower than the united states since 2009? >> the economies of europe, with the exception of your to some extent, have grown significantly -- with the exception of germany to some extent, have grown significantly slower than the united states during this time, probably for the reasons you said. there crisis was more acute than ours. there in earlier stages. they reacted more tentatively than we did in the united states. for the reason, the scale of

the challenges they face has been weaker. the context is that you do want to be careful to try to balance the imperatives of restoring fiscal sustainability with the recognition that long-term fiscal sustainability. -- one term is causing the building, not just your ability, depends on getting the economy going again. >> one of the comparisons that is often cited by some even here in this body is that the united states does not busy is not careful given its debt posture and its lack of discipline will look alarmingly like greece. i personally find the comparison invidious. upon any examination, given the fact -- i refer to michael lewis's book on the european crisis, it is shocking what happened in greece. they did not have macroeconomic data. they engage in outright

deception when eu officials came to examine the books. they did not have any central control over their own economy at all, unlike the united states. they did not know how much that they had. -- how much debt they had. but i would like each of you to comment on that comparison. is the u.s. headed toward the road of greece? >> it is certainly true that the situations are not directly comparable. first, increase's debt introductory -- dead tree to -- tree's debt trajectory looks worse than ours or that of other industrial economies. -- debt trajectory looks worse than ours or that of other industrial economies. their short-term issues are not -- cannot be demille ameliorated by monetary policy since their part of the eurozone -- cannot be immediately ameliorated by monetary policy since they are part of the eurozone. they need to find a strategy that will credibly unconvincingly put us on a path of long-term sustainability.

>> thank you. >> no basis for comparisons with greece. we can recognize that our fiscal position, long term fiscal position, we are in a much stronger position than the economy as a whole. it is probably because our economy would grow faster than europe's overtime. it is probably because we are a younger country. it is probably because the commitments we have made to health care and social security, even though unsustainable, are much more standing than the ones in europe as a whole. we are in a fundamentally different position and more comfortable position. as well, we have made a stable -- and sustainable commitments. and substantially more room for maneuvering how we address those. address them, we need to address them and not put them off indefinitely. we need to do those things to help the economy to grow.

>> the gentleman from south carolina. >> mr. chairman, is there a connectivity between the cost of energy and economic recovery? >> yes, there is, especially when there is a supply side element.

higher energy prices create at least short-term inflation. that act as a tax and reduce consumption spending and that is a drag on the economy. yes, higher oil prices and higher energy prices are a concern. >> i think the price per gallon in europe is a double if not more what it is in the united states. >> yes, because of much higher taxes. >> can you imagine any scenario under which someone would advocate boosting our price per gallon to european levels? >> there are a lot of policy issues related to that. >> i need for economic reasons, not environmental. economic. >> the question is whether or not there are other goals that are served -- environmental goals, congestion goals, and the like pierre >> -- and the like. i think higher energy prices would slow growth in the long run.

that is, from a purely gdp growth perspective. >> what would you use to describe if are price per gallon suddenly doubled? >> that would have a catastrophic -- >> i would not say that would have a catastrophic event, but it would have an effect on consumer confidence and boost of inflation. it would be a very negative effect. >> what is our debt as a percentage gdp curly? -- currently backs>> i can give you the precise numbers in writing. as we -- as a percentage of gdp currently? >> as i give the person -- i cannot give you the precise numbers, unless in writing. our debt to gdp ratio is somewhere between 60% and 70% of gdp today.

>> there has been one request in the increase of the debt ceiling. that is, since i have been here. i understand there is another one coming. i do not know whether it will come before the first tuesday in november or after the first tuesday in november. i will not hold due to the number. you do not have to go research it. you're smart enough. i have seen you testify enough. you will probably be able to answer this question of the top of your head. if this were the last debt ceiling you could ask for, the final one, and you had to make it large enough for all current and future obligations, what with the request need to be? >> i do not know how to answer that question. but me answer something differently. it makes no sense for the country and congress controls how much we can borrow every year. we have no control to spend beyond what congress authorizes. to put -- for congress to put its members every six months on a very difficult vote on whether they should continue to

authorize us to do things they have already authorized to do. i do not know how to add to that -- answer that question. you're talking about the future. >> the lot -- the last debt ceiling increase was for how long and half for how much? >> under the deal we reached last august, we set up a mechanism where congress imposed on itself three votes over a 15-month period. >> what will be the amount of the increase in november or december? >> it depends. congress makes destroyers. -- makes its choice. congress has to make the choice on, the 1 -- congress makes this choice. congress makes the choice on -- how much they want to give. >> you just used the word unsustainable. if we had one more chance to borrow all the money that we need, assuming current variables, hell big with that number have to be? -- how big would that number

have to be? >> i do not know how to answer that. let me try it a little differently. you have to decide as a member of congress, you want to give congress when you want to vote -- how much time you want to give congress until you want to vote on it again. again, the debt limit does not decide how much we can borrow. you decide how much we can bar because every year you have -- >> how much debt would we need to meet current and future obligations assuming the status quo indefinitely? >> that i can be happy to give you in writing. >> how about a round number? >> no idea. if congress authorized no additional increase in spending or revenues forever, how much we have to bar? -- how much would we have to borrow? i can do the math, but -- >> $20 trillion? >> i can do it in my head. >> $50 trillion? [laughter] i have seen you testify before. you are a very smart.

would it be a lot? >> it would be a lot. it would make you uncomfortable. >> interesting transition. >> thank you. every country and every culture, of course, is very different and it is very risky to go looking at different cultures. i do want to ask you about germany. there are some in the congress to believe that the way out of our present recession and dilemma is to impose draconian cuts repeatedly. even forsake the budget deal which was very difficult to reach.

it was reached at a huge south africa -- a huge sacrifice, the loss of our aaa rating. i look to europe. this was a worldwide recession. and i look at the differences among those various countries. the british seem to have adopted something of that approach, the approach to emphasize retrenchment overgrowth. -- over growth. i am intrigued by germany. everybody's favorite example of the strongest economy in europe, perhaps in the world today. i do not understand and i believe we need to come to grips with the theory that they have embraced during this recession. they're one of the few countries in europe not to cut the budget deficit. i take it was not terribly out

of control. i do not know. i am going to ask you. in fact, they added to their deficit, certainly in 2009 and 2010. one of the few countries in europe to do so. i am truly intrigued by country that did not abandon its working-class, did not abandon its social net, has a national policy that has maintained unemployment low. i know they have some things that are culturally oriented toward work sharing and the rest. they also subsidize employers to keep people on the jobs. we do that in a scattered fashion. but i believe we have to come to grips why this country continues with a country that we identify so closely. we need to come to grips with their model and how they do it.

i have to ask you how has germany maintained itself and continue to grow -- and continued to grow without cutting its deficit. >> let me take a first stab at that. germany, when they had ratification, there were -- reunification a couple of decades ago, there were significant problems with the competitiveness and efficiency of their industries trying to interview the two parts of germany together and they made a -- trying to integrate the two parts of germany together and they made a very sustained and successful effort to increase the sustainability and productivity and competitiveness of their industry, which is to their credit. in addition, as part of the eurozone, they have benefited quite a bit from that arrangement. first because they have a sort of an export market that they

have easy access to. secondly, because the bureau, -- the euro, which is an average of the -- a reflexive average of the strength of the different parts of the eurozone, it is probably weaker than a torchmark would be. -- weaker than a door to mark would be -- weaker than a deutsche mark would be. they also have work sharing policies. in this particular case, there's a question whether that is a good strategy in general. sometimes, they could promote inefficiency because not enough workers are moving among industries. in this particular case they avoided some of the layoffs that we saw in the united states and the unemployment rate remained lower. it is lower today than it was before the crisis. in turn, that meant that their fiscal stress has not been as great as some other countries.

so we have -- so they have had a number of things supporting their economy and they certainly deserve credit for the improved competitiveness. but it is the case that not every country in the world can be a major exporter. somebody has to buy. so that model is not necessarily exportable in itself to every country in europe. >> police time has expired. the gentle -- the gentlewoman's time has expired. the delavan from ohio, mr. turner, is recognized for five minutes. >> secretary geithner, the title of this hearing is sovereign debt crisis, causes and lessons learned. focusing on the portion of lessons learned, i have a concern as we look to the issue of europe which stands for my -- which stems from my concern of

the bailout process that has happened in the united states. as we look to what occurred in the u.s. with bailouts, i think many people, like me, have a significant concern about conflicts of interest coming issues of lack of transparency, -- conflicts of interest, issues of lack of transparency, and a lack of openness. mr. secretary, as we look to the auto bailout, you served in three different roles. you served as the secretary of the treasury looking at the issues of the taxpayer dollars and exercising the ownership interests of the united states to the extent that the united states became an owner frequently in the auto bailout produce serve as the co-chair of -- youth served as the co- chair of the auto deaths forced. you were not involved in the gm bailout, but you were leading all of the agencies in one role or another. throughout these processes, you have refused entry has refused to answer questions. you have provided an redacted documents or disclose information that people have tried to hold accountable the

treasury to find out what has occurred, where the tax dollars have gone. one of those issues of sex retirees were 25,000 people lost -- affects delphi retirees where 25,000 people lost a significant portion of their profits. the three roles big winners and losers and that is where our tax dollars were picked as losers. if you look at the hardship left in the wake of the gm bailout, the concern is how will we look to the european crisis and whether or not similar conflicts of interest, a taxpayer dollars, and a lack of openness or transparency. as you know that the delphi retirees have tried to get the information and they lost their pensions. the three roles of your self, both in the treasury, ppgc, and

that of the task force the -- they have been closed. documents have not been provided. redacted documents have been provided if at all. most recently, which have the pbcsg saying that you have been involved there is this sense of how do we have this system through bailout for a person like yourself would have the three roles that conflict exists and get congress have no ability for oversight? individuals who lost their pensions, who do not have an ability to hold you or treasury accountable in seeking additional information? this comes at a significant price. we have the $1.3 billion loss in the chrysler deal, the $25 billion or so in the gm bailout. when we looked at the european issue, how can we be assured, looking at the performance of what occurred in the prior bill , that we will not have this

issue of conflicts of interest, a lack of transparency, that there will be open as, that congress and people impacted by this will have access to this information? i sit here as a member of congress knowing that treasury is not answering the basic questions about the decision making that occurred with the delphi pension retirees losing their pensions. how can we look to the european issue and not know whether or not our own government will be willing to tell us the decisions that are being made and the basic financial underpinnings of the decisions that occurred? secretary? >> let me try to be responsive. our financial crisis caused enormous damage across the country. not just in the case of delphi, but that is a good example of how much damage caused -- how much damage was caused. we have made sure that we are as responsive as possible for all your requests for

information and we will continue to do that. >> does that mean you'd be willing to release an redacted versions of documents? when you say you have tried, if you send us the documents that were redacted in litigation, you're not being forthcoming. that is not the "here's what your government did." >> we will try to be as for coming as a campaign every -- i disagree with you on that. but we will try to be as forthcoming as we can. every action that we took in this crisis has been subject to not just the oversight of four separate from bodies of congress, but i'll of the congressional committees involved. -- but all of the congressional committees involved. >> waiting minute, sir. the one with the delphi retirees is still pending. >> the secretary can summarize his answer. >>i just want to point out that we have provided an incredible level of transparency over every decision we made with the taxpayers' money in that

context. the rules you just described to me are rules that congress gave to me and my predecessors. there are no conflict in those roles. in fact, we have a very robust set of checks and balances to give the ability and the right to receive a thing we have done. -- to oversee everything we have done. that is what we continue to do and i respect and honor that process. >> the congresswoman from new york is recognized for five minutes. >> i join my colleagues to will come ben bernanke and secretary geithner. secretary geithner was a former new yorker. a think i speak for all of new yorkers when we say that we're so proud of you. i would like to follow-up on my good friends questioning. there is a consensus in this country that, if we had not invested in the american auto industry, we would have totally lost it. lost it. i do not know about my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but it is hard to

imagine in america that we do not make our own car. i would prefer to see more things made in america with american jobs. and it was at a hearing in this committee where gm testified that we are now the leading car producer in the world appeared -- in the world. they are employing 1.3 million americans and their now exporting the vault. -- the volt. i would call that an american success story. i call that the american dream. if it is true that your the architect of this program, i'm not so sure that your and many people worked on it, but if it is true that you are the architect of it, we should be carrying him around on our shoulders and thanking him for saving american jobs, building american exports, building of the economy of our country. so i would like to say thank you, secretary geithner. now, i would also like to continue on mr. turner's questioning, which think is a very valid one. we need to learn from the

crisis that we just went through. i would like to ask both of you what lessons we've learned as a country and how we will be better prepared in the future. very specifically, how would you compare the actions that were taken by the american government in the face of the crisis that we faced in 2008 and 2009 and the actions we took with the actions that have been taken by europe? i would like to begin with chairman bernanke and then secretary geithner on what was the difference in their response and what were the lessons we learned to make a stronger and preventing it. -- to make us stronger in preventing it. i would like to close by saying that christina roemer testified before congress that the economic shock of this

particular downturn in our economy was six times greater than the great depression because of the lessons and reforms that we put in after the great depression, we were better able to combat is. hopefully, the lessons we learned now will help us not only to combat it, but to prevent it in the future. chairman bernanke, and thank you for your service. >> we did make a very strong effort to arrest the crisis. it was a global crisis. we worked with the europeans in order to do that. relative to the history of financial crises, it was the -- with the size of this one, we were successful in stopping it. since then, i think the united states has become more aggressive in strengthening our financial system and i would cite, for example, our 2009 stress test that were highly credible and lead to substantial capital raising in our banking system. the capital in their largest banks have increased by 75% in the last two years, something in the order of $300 billion. so i think we have taken a lot

of positive steps to strengthen our system. there are many aspects of dodd- frank, including order liquidation that have been very constructive we also have to learn lessons about how we got into the mess in the first place. there were gaps and weaknesses in our regulatory system, mistakes by supervisors and regular it -- and regulators, including the federal reserve. obviously, lots of problems in business practices, which we are still seen. i think we will not really have learned the lesson unless we can correct those issues as well. >> secretary geithner. >> the best way to look at what we did is to judge us on the results. if you look at the path of the american economy since the beginning of 2009 and compare that record against the record in europe and the record in the united states and other countries with as financial crises --

>> thank you, mr. geithner. my time is almost over. i would just like to put in the record that i have been researching you. you have been very positive about the crisis. europe has the ability to avoid the debt crisis. geithner any direct quote -- "the your opinion has the ability to avoid -- the european union has the ability to avoid a crisis." and you urged eu members to speak with one voice about plans to solve their debt problem. do you agree with that statement, that europe has the ability to solve this debt problem? >> this certainly have the -- they certainly have the economic and financial resources. their economy is about the same size as that of the united states. they face very difficult political problems, getting an agreement among 17 countries on a path forward. so it will not be easy. but, yes, i do think they have the capacity. >> thank you. >> mr. man from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes. >> let me express my appreciation to both of you as

public servants for making this commitment that you have at a tremendously challenging time, not just for our nation, but our world. i am grateful for your efforts. of this a, there are many complexing questions. one of the things that struck me in your review of the the totality of the circumstances in europe, one of the places where, in my estimation, just seem to identify more the hesitancy with respect to this issue of the currency swaps, in which we take american dollars and make them available to the european banks and then they will be paid back in american dollars by the central bank. what is the real purpose behind that? is there any distinction from the other imf funding and other things? is it in liquidity issue? >> it is a liquidity issue, not a long-term level. -- long term loan.

the longest that these loans are made is three months. we have their counterparty -- it is not the country or the bank. is the european central bank, which we have every confidence will repay. as i said, we have collateral as a currency. so we have a lot of confidence in the financial integrity of those swaps. they have very finished -- they have very good financial benefits to the united states they lend in the united states so it directly affects their ability to make loans to american businesses and households. secondly, they do a lot of lending to support trade globally. a lot of it takes place in dollars. that activity strengthens the role of the dollar is the principal trade currency and is the leading reserve currency. so our agents are very much -- our interests are very much involved at no financial cost.

we have achieved a significant improvement in funding conditions in europe. because of that improvement, the demand for those swaps is actually going down. so we think that has been successful step. the president of the cbc has -- of the ecb house made a point in saying that what a good contribution was. >> you mentioned three months. is this a rowling line of credit? over the course of three months, you get repayments and then you make new available credit as well? or access to the -- >> yes. but we approve not just the program, but every single draw. there's never a point where we could not and the program. -- could not end the program. >> what is the totality -- >> the totality of our exposure right now is $69 billion. of which $54 billion is to the ecb and the rest is to the bank of japan.

>> what is their exposure in terms of other things to the european sovereign debt and other forms of -- >> as our stress tests analyzed, the exposure of our banking system to the debt of the weaker countries is net about zero. even though they hold some such debt as they have -- they have written some insurance on the debt. they have hedges in the other direction that protect them from loss. we are comfortable in the security -- >> where is the strength of the head just coming from? -- what is the credibility of the hedges? where is the strength of the hedges coming from? >> the hedges are written by strong european institutions. and we're quite comfortable -- we cannot imagine a scenario where essentially every major european institution -- >> if i'm nodding correcting -- if i am not in correct in your

-- if i'm not incorrect, your testimony, you did express some reservations and there is one area of exposure, which was the currency swaps. >> no. we're quite comfortable with the securities cops -- security swaps. >> we are also living in a very dangerous world. i know you run these with respect to models. the instability that is currently existing in the relationship with iran and what may happen -- to what extent do these models -- are these models impacted by unrest? would there be reordering if there is significant unrest in the middle east? >> jimmy near banking system? >> yes. >> -- do you mean our banking system? >> yes. >> we have not done stress tests on -- -- based on the shock to oil prices. but we have done stress tests on

the worst scenario. cause oil prices to double, as was suggested, it would have effects of that sort and we believe our banking system has sufficient capital to deal with that. of course, it would be very costly to the american economy and to the banks and the financial system more generally. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my time has expired. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly. >> i would like to build a time back to the chair. >> thank you. i will use it to briefly. this has been destructive group -- very instructive. we thought we would get you out of here before 1:00. if we get you out of here before 12:00, will you be willing to stick around for a second round? good appeared before we go to that, a couple quick questions. -- good. before we go to that, a couple of quick questions.

and does want to clarify. -- i just want to clarify. the european central bank can print an unlimited amount of years, the same as we can -- of euros, the same as we can theoretically print an unlimited amount of dollars. >> yes. they have only -- >> they have only cheated on that a few hundred *. -- a few hundred times. >> they have kept a good record, but they have cheated on other monetary things. the fact is that greece is where it is because nobody was watching what greece was doing while they're pumping up its debt. is that true? >> i would argue that it was greece and some of the other authorities, not the ecb, that was responsible for that. >> but is not the ecb the arbiter of whether not there -- who is responsible to prevent within the eurozone violations by the eurozone?

and ultimately, the value of the debt -- the debt affects the value because, on a common currency, they are agreeing to live within certain guidelines which clearly no one was watching when any countries just ignored the guidelines, at least as to get. >> there was a stability in growth pact which was supposed to limit debt and deficit. it was violated. for political reasons, there is not sufficient enforcement of that. they're trying to strengthen the with the fiscal compacted they have agreed to recently. >> within the obligation we have for currency swaps, are they obligated, not withstanding political pressure, to make us whole? hypothetically,if the year were to drop in -- half, there would have to give -- if indeed euro

were to drop in half, there would have -- they would have to give it back twice as many euros to get dollars. would that be in their jurisdiction or would they have to go back to that interesting vote of some members? >> that is within the jurisdiction of the ecb. i have no doubt they would honor their obligations. >> that is the underpinning of your confidence that these swaps are in fact extremely safe. >> yes, sir. >> i appreciate that. i think the american people have to understand that the swaps we're talking about today are not the swaps were talking about in the aig's era. one more question -- i have the answer to it, but i want to make sure the american people hear it. i think the ranking member addressed it. the drop -- to talk about huge amount of debt built up in this country in mortgages. you may have noticed that the term principal production has been in every question. is it not true that, in europe, their loans are recourse. in the u.s., almost uniquely in the world, they're not recourse.

in europe, they cannot walk away from their loan until they have exhausted all of their resources. in the u.s., you can have a pile of money, millions, and you can walk away from your mortgage if you do not want to do with it. is that right? >> i think that is true in some countries, but i am not sure that that is true across your. -- across europe. >> we did not find any countries that were. -- that were non-recourse. the ordinary default in europe is generally that you sign as you would for any personal loan could they take the house and then they come after you for the deficit. >> you did see an increase in borrowing for household, not just in mortgages, but generally in those countries in europe. even with the slightly difference in system, you saw a very large rise in debt by individuals. >> i went to the debt clock. that may not be the best one,

but it is the one we all tend to use because it is on the internet. i looked in round numbers at the time of the crisis. we were at $14 trillion -- about $1 trillion more in mortgage debt than we have today. that shows me that, overall debt of mortgages has fallen, if you will, in relatively small amount. it is certainly less than 10%. what does a really save you from -- what does that really say to you from the standpoint of debt-to-equity if the debt is down by that relatively small amount but housing values are down less? and how does that make you feel relative to the security of home mortgages. i realize that that is outside of the scope of this hearing. it is ok if you're not prepared. >> it is about $7 trillion of homeowner equity lost by the falling house prices. obviously, leveraging in the

housing sector is up. but things are moving in a deal leveraging direction as home -- in a de-leveraging direction as hall purchases have gone down and homeownership has gone down and there have been write-downs and people pay down their debts. >> i will now take advantage of this opportunity. way second. let me call on one last first- round member, the gentleman from texas. >> i would like to yield my time to mr. mcenry. >> chairman bernanke, is there a current fiscal -- is our current fiscal trajectory sustainable in the united states? >> no, it is not. >> what is a sustainable debt load for a country such as ours? >> there is no exact number. i think the current levels would be sustainable if there were kept more relative to gdp.

that is an important criteria. if we could, over time, get the gdp to debt ratio down to 75% and then come over time, begin to improve that, that would be much better situation. but as it stands, the cbo projection shows that come under current law, the debt-to- gdp ratio will explode in the next couple of decades. >> explain what happens -- you have mentioned this before, just to clarify -- what happens at the end of this year? in terms of our fiscal situation. >> for a number of reasons, under current law, if no further action is taken, what i turned the fiscal cliff, general first, -- january 1, 2013, as a number of taxes and other things

expire, the bush tax cuts, the payroll tax, and the spending side and the sequestration arising from the failure of the super committee to agree kicks in. if all those things happen, i think that would be a very sharp and rapid fiscal contraction that would be a serious negative for the economy. i hope congress will take the opportunity to think through where they want fiscal policy to go. this will be, in some sense, is forcing event. >> austerity too fast, and spending cuts to soon, and tax increases that would have a negative impact on economic growth, that is the fiscal clift your speaking of. >> a very sharp change in the fiscal stance in a short time frame would have a negative effect on growth. it is important to achieve stability over a longer time

frame. one day is short to have such a change in the position. >> secretary geithner, i know you have spoken of this. you are the economic spokesman for the administration and you have taken that role on a vigorous fashion. i have heard you speak about the tax increases in terms of the president's budget. it raises a number of folks taxes at the end of this year. can you speak to this cliff? under that scenario of sustainability, the president's budget that he submitted to congress falls short of that. and there is only one fiscal plan that actually puts us on that sustainable path over the long term, over the next decade, the next 20 years, the next 30 years, and that is, the budget we passed out of the house last year, the president's budget that we submitted this year -- last year.

the president's budget that we submitted this year puts us in a very harsh spiral for tax increases and for not addressing the cost spirals of the budget. >> i have a different view. let's look at it this way. cdo did an assessment of the implications of the president's budget on the long-term fiscal path, and they concluded that we will reduce our deficits over the next three to five years that makes them sustainable. that means the debt burden would start -- the step -- the debt burden would not grow and the economy would start to fall. the revenue to government as a percentage of the economy, what is the historical norm?

>> if you go to the agreement last summer, we needed to find savings of roughly $4 trillion to achieve that objective, to get debt levels down low enough. we had to hit a $4 trillion target. congress agreed on $1 trillion of cuts last summer. that leaves us with about $3 trillion left to do. we have a very detailed set of savings in medicare, medicaid, and other subsidies that would provide an additional $1.50 trillion in savings. the overall balance is roughly $2.50 of spending cuts for

every $1 in the increases. the reason no one likes to raise taxes is because if we do not find the additional tax revenues out of our system, that we have to find an additional $3 trillion in spending cuts in medicare or education or defense. which we do not think we can justify it. we will have to ask someone else to pay higher taxes, and we do not think that is a fair thing to do for the american people. we have some other differences between us, of course, and those mostly relate to over the longer-term how we bring our commitments and helter to a more sustainable level. we have fundamental -- our commitments in health care to a more sustainable level. we have fundamental disagreements on how to do that. we have millions and millions more americans retiring in the coming decades. that is an approach which is very different from the

approach that you guys embraced in the budget. >> i thank the gentleman. i will also ask that the record indicate the cbo scoring for obamacare be put in at the same time to complement the two cdo claims. >> that helps us, though. >> not so much. mr. burton, would you like to lead off as chairman emeritus? >> sure. my colleague asked a while ago about the exposure of the united states and our financial institutions. according to crs, in u.s. dollars in september, 2011, our total exposure total $2.08

trillion. can you quantify that? you said you did not know what i was talking about. >> are talking of the banks, the u.s. economy? i'm not sure what that refers to? -- what that refers to. >> if i submit this, would you check it out and let me know? >> absolutely. >> i appreciate it. the second thing i would like to ask is, one more time, not a banker or a finance our -- finance here or financial expert. but i would like to ask this question one more time. if there is a default in europe by greece, italy, spain, portugal, some of these other countries, and a european bank has to start printing more euros, which would cause a deflationary problem and devalued their currency, you said you did not worry about

them paying us back because they have money and holding. but what if they cannot? they will have to pay us with these dollars they have to pay house with currency that has been devalued substantially. how will we get our money? will we refinance the debt? >> first, the ecb has been very clear that they will not be financing sovereign debtors. and they have not. their primary commitment is to the 2% inflation rate in the euro. i do not see any likelihood that the ecb would print inflationary amounts of money in order to address a default. >> it seems to me that europe is absolutely committed to keeping greece in the european union, and to make sure that nobody is leaving. if these expenses continue to

increase and they have these civil disorders, and possibly in italy and other countries cannot -- other countries, the european central bank and germany and other countries will have to pay to keep these countries afloat. if they do that, it seems to me the european central bank -- and i talked to some of the leaders over there -- they said like we did with quantitative easing, with print whatever currency when needed. if they did that, since there would be an inflationary spike at some point. if we cover our debt, how -- if we cover their debt, how would they repay us? >> the european central bank has capital itself. >> meaning, they are u.s. dollars. >> but i guess, their capital is in the year rose yeareuros. that is correct -- in euros. >> how would they repay us?

a lot of those banks will go belly up. how will we get our money back? >> the european central bank is a highly solvent institution committed to low inflation. it is, in turn, supported by a network of central banks from the 17 countries -- >> i understand, but that is not really answering my question. >> what you are envisioning where they could not pay as back would be absolutely apocalyptic. it would be a collapse of governments in europe. >> let's say, greece in the fall. >> it has already. >> i understand, but let's say, they have been forced to leave the european union. and we have a cascading effect into italy comedy portugal and spain, and some other countries. in a worst-case scenario, the european central bank and other countries say, okay, we are going to try to keep this from

being a catastrophe. and they will stop printing euros. we are obligated -- how would we fare in the u.s., and what would be be repaid? and what kind of impact would that have on our country? and i know use the term apocalyptic explain a little more thoroughly. and >> again, the money that we have lent -- first of all, the swap that we have made, we have taken collateral for it. which is coming down. it is backed, first, by the european central bank, which, in turn, has behind it 70 national -- 17 national banks. those banks are backed by gold and also backed by the eurozone. it is a three-month obligation. you are talking about a situation where national governments are defaulting across the eurozone.

>> if i might follow up. >> 30 seconds before a brief follow-up. >> i know some of those governments are there are having political problems, and they are not anxious to pour more of their money and resources into saving other countries, germany in particular. when you say the 17 other central banks are going to come across and help keep everything afloat, there is a political problem involved in that, too. . .

.

[captions cop right national cable satellite corp 2012]

>> to the left of the capital, the justices are getting ready to hear oral argument on the constitutionality of the affordable health care act. >> who do you want to decide about your health care? the problem is the people who pay have the power, and we are not going to let the government take over our health care.

>> let's give lisa a round warm welcome. >> what a great day. it is nice to look out and see all these american flags. ♪ oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light what so proudly we hail at the twighlight's last gleaming whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight o'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming

and the rockets red glare the bombs bursting in air gave proof through the night that our flag was still there o' say does that star spangled banner yet wave oer the land of the free and the home of the brave ♪ >> god bless america.

[applause] >> next grant coming who is a retired sergeant and retired army ranger. he is going to do our pledge of allegiance. let's welcome greg. >> please join me in the pledge. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and the republic for which it stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all. [cheers and applause] >> now we'll have ken blackwell from faith and freedom. he will be speaking in a little white while, but he's doing an invocation right now. >> defenders of liberty, please

bow your heads. in god's word we are told in psalms 11: 3 there is a question. and the question is, if the foundation be destroyed, which shall the righteous do? today we put this in context. we know the foundation, the foundation of our exceptionalism is our moral foundation and our deep appreciation and love for liberty. so the question is, if the foundation be destroyed, what would the lovers of liberty do? further in god's word we are told that there is a cloud of witnesses watching how we run the witnesses that is set out before us. that cloud of witnesses have defenders of liberty, and they are watching us at this moment.

so defenders of liberty, we pray to god in his word that we are never afraid to take a stand to defend the foundation, god's word, and to defend our liberty. god we pray this prayer in your name. amen. [cheers and applause] >> next we have -- jim hoft, g8

gateway pundit blog. >> let me say, we are back! after all the media attack, after all their name calling and abuse, yes, the tea party is back! they thought the tea party was dead. boy were they wrong! [cheers and applause] >> they called you racists, they called you nazis, they called you radicals, but you didn't let up, and you didn't back down. the tea tea party is back.

harry reid told us, the tea party was lost. boy was he wrong. you wait and see harry reid. the tea party is back. nancy pelosi called you dangerous, she called you extremists. but her awful threats didn't keep us away. you came out here today anyway in the rain. the tea party is back. two years ago this week, the democrats marched through the capital to ram through obama care. they taunted you. they marched right down in the middle of your protests. they provoked you. they wanted you to be violent. and when you weren't violent, they lied.

they lied about you, and they said you are spitting on them. they lied and said you called them the "n" word 17 times. and the corrupt liberal media carried their lies, and they still lie about that today. but you know something, it has been two full years now, and they still don't have their video. and we have video, and we know the truth. and we have the proof. no one has collected that $100,000 reward. it's still there. the tea party is back. today in the united states we have some company. six months ago democrats created their own astroturf group, the occupy camp.

since when was squatting in a city park legal. they call this tactic "freedom of speech." they still don't understand the constitution. they forgot who they are. you see, they are the violent ones. they are the radicals. they are the marxist extremists. within weeks of the start of this glorious movement, these people were involved in over 6,000 arrests, over $30 million in damages, massive vandalism, theft, violence, murders, deaths, papers, and child sexual abuse at their camps, and public masturbation of all things. well, we have some news for these violent occupy criminals. and the liberal media that supports them and the power-grabbing politicians out

there, your violence will not silence us. [cheers and applause] we will not be threatened. we will not be bullied. we will not retreat. i want to close with this. we lost a good friend. a dear friend and patriot this past month. andrew breitbart, may he rest in peace, he showed us how to be strong. now it is our turn to walk through the fear and the violence and the attacks, and we will not back down. let the bells ring. we will not back down.

[cheers and applause] we will be strong, we will be courageous, and we will repeal. today, this week and always, we will stand for america. thank you. god bless america! [cheers and applause] >> thank you. i want to introduce you to some speakers we have mc-ing today. we have debbie dooley from my hometown of atlanta, georgia. we have diana rimer from pla -- philadelphia, pennsylvania. we have from seattle washington.

we have kevin mooney from jacksonville, florida. brad cummings from iowa. [cheers and applause] you can't see him, dennis from dallas, texas. they will be helping out today. [cheers and applause] all right. nks we have one of the congress men who has been standing by us time after time after time. you may have heard him this week on fox news or last week on "hannity," it is texas congressman louis gohmert. [cheers and applause] >> well, you know what the rain does. it makes things grow. so it must be that an act of god like rain wants us to grow.

and i know that's what we're going to do as this week goes on , right? some said they wanted to fundamentally transform america, we didn't want them to do that. we tried to tell people, the only transformation needs to be back to the freedoms we once had. [cheers and applause] but now this group that is been fundamentally transforming america. now almost half the u.s. is not paying income tax. that has been going on for a while. under this administration, it has made a dramatic move forward. but obama care takes a huge leap down the road to socialism and to what i'll keep calling the

"gre" the government running everything, and we don't want it. [cheers and applause] well, we have the real tyranny of the health care bill, the obama care, was that a minority who are a majority up here, but a minority of americans crammed a health care bill down our throats that was a government take-over masked as a health care bill and forced it on the majority. that is a tyranny of the minority and it has to stop, and i know you want to see that happen. if obama care stands, you would have, i would have next generations would have a big brother such that not even

orwell could not even have seen coming. it has got to be stopped. now, if the supreme court doesn't know that people care, unfortunately, they are human. it has an effect when they don't know that people don't care. so let me ask you, do you care? do we want government controlling our health care? >> no! >> now, the president doled told the lady himself, who asked about her mother, who had so far a10 extra years after she got a pacemaker. >> and you may remember the video. go online and see it. it is him saying it himself. he beats around the bush for a while, and she is wanting to know once you control health care with people -- would people

like my mom be able to get a pacemaker. would you consider her quality of life. he finally gets down to it and says, maybe we're better off telling wrur mom to take a pain pill. well, folks, i don't know about you, but the biggest pain i've got is this bill. [cheers and applause] but i have a prescription. the prescription is a two-step treatment. first, more exercising of the right to vote these people out of office. [cheers and applause] second you apply liberally here

in washington until the warts are removed. then in the future, hopefully people will understand what happens when americans don't get out and hire people on election day. you got to read the resumes, you have to interview the politicants, and then you hire the people -- the applicants, and then you hire the people that are not going to take your rights away. that's what we have to do. you've started today. things will be going on all week, as you can here. tomorrow there will be another group up here, as i understand, capitol hill, 2:00 to 4:00. come on back. and keep coming back all you can so the supreme court knows. now, the supreme court should strike this down. it is unconstitutional. the government has no right to

tell anybody, you must buy a product to live. and this business about, well, gee, states tell people they have to buy car insurance. that's very clear. that's for the privilege to drive on the highways, and there is not a state in the union that requires anybody to buy insurance on themselves. you have to buy it to cover the other guy in damage you might do for the privilege to drive. totally different situation. so not only should the supreme court strike it down, if there are any loops or seeds of those big warts in this bill that haven't been removed by the supreme court, we've still got to repeal the bill. repeal the bill. repeal the bill. repeal the bill. [crowd chanting "repeal the

bill"] all right, folks, let me just say one more thing. steve king mentioned in a phone call we had last night. we talked about we have never been more blessed than we were when we were about to vote on this monstrosity. and you came from all over. it had been so discouraging. and you showed up, and you were like just a big old dose of enthusiasm. you were a blessing to us. you were an answered prayer. and here you are again. so let me tell you, tea party patriots really are an answer to

prayer. are you an answer so prayer. it's our government. let me tell you, though, in an order earl society, you do need a government and they do things like issue permits. so you can have aassemblies like this. the permit is for this area. there is no permit to have this in front of the supreme court. there is no permit to have it immediately across the street on that sidewalk across from the supreme court. but i would suggest to you that we all do have to go back to our cars, go get a taxi, some will be going to the metro. and let me tell you, the best way to the metro or to get a can cab, when it is all over here, i'm going to be going back to my car, and i would love it if you would let me show you the best way and we'll just walk toward the supreme court, right?

i just want to let you know, i'll show you the best way to go to your car or the metro, and if you want to pause somewhere along the way and say a prayer, that's ok, too. a few quick questions, and i'm done. the answers are simple. it is either "yes we can!" or "no we can't!" can we keep fighting until obama care is gone? [crowd "yes we can!" ] >> can we elect a new majority in the senate? yes we can. can we force republican leaders to have the courage of their conviction or get new ones? >> yes we can! >> if we can, then we'll be

cured of this terrible disease. god bless you for coming. [cheers and applause] so are you guys going to follow louie as we go back to our cars and our trains and our buses? yes, we can! yes, we will! next we have someone from washington, d.c. who shows up to these things. some of you have driven 13 hours and 14 hours, and when you are not here to do that, she is here at almost every event representing you. her name is lisa miller, and she is with the tea party, washington, d.c.. [cheers and applause] >> wow, a tough act to follow. welcome to my hometown.

>> i have seen the inefficiencies, the bait and switch, the ripping off of the american dream all my life. welcome to my nightmare. what really comes to me, and i know there will be attorney generals to talk about the legal aspects of the supreme court case. my dad taught at george town university law school for decades, since world war ii. when i'm sitting at the dinner table, the first thing that comes to my mind is, what are we thinking about when we instituted social security. what did our legislative body -- what gave our legislative body the thought they have the right to tell us what products to buy and when to buy it above anything but the safety net? and why is the federal government talking about the safety net when i read the u.s. constitution, it mentions nothing about that. now, i have no problem taking

care of the poor. but it is clearly a state, local, charitable responsibility. i hear people say well it is our church's duty. well, no, actually it is the body of the church's duty. it is our individual responsibility to take care of those who can't take care of themselves. above that, local state taxes should be it. roosevelt thought, well, since we need it, we will make everybody do it. even though they can save for their own unemployment, they can save for their own disability, they can say for their own retirement. they made it compensatory for us to participate in these programs like we were children and we couldn't take care of ourselves. the problem is stare deciisi.

that reminds me of a thief that stole a lot of money and said, wait, i have property rights. i should be able to keep this stolen goods. that's what the government is saying when they say we can tell you what to buy, when to buy it. anything above the safety net and anything that causes us to borrow money to get it. because if we're being charitable, we pay out of our own pocket, right? we don't ask our children to pay for that which we wo wish to be charitable towards. that would be theft, wouldn't it? so the problem i see as just an individual nonlawyer is that we got off track back in 1937 with social security -- when social security was passed. and we need to deeply think about what the purposes of all of these programs are and how they harm us, because they are going beyond the enument numerated powers of the constitution.

yes, we have problems in society . the constitution gives us the frame work of how to assist our fellowman. and nowhere at any time should we be forced to give money to anybody that is more than poor. like in these health care exchanges. they are saying those with presifting conditions can go into it, even though they can afford their own health care. we are being asked to pay for something someone can already pay for. we need to take responsibility for our own lives. [cheers and applause] >> i happen to be in insurance and financial services. what is the solution? well, maybe they can tell us what to do. meaning they say, well, if you are going to participate in the labor market you have to save your own money for unemployment. so if you lose your job, you can take your own money and use it. but you don't ask anybody else to pay for it. now, in countries that have this

program, those that become unemployed have a lot more money. why is that? because government can't steal it. in counties in texas where they decided to waive social security and put their money in their own accounts, those that make $26,000 instead of getting a thousand dollar benefit when they retire, they get $1800. those at the top of the income spectrum, instead of making $2,000 they make $4,000 or $5,000 a month. why? because the government can't steal our money. the bottom line is the government should never be engaged in the market. they should regulate and oversee it, but not ever participating in it on a federal, state, or local level. [cheers and applause] so what are we going to do? we're going to repeal health care!

[cheers and applause] hey, everyone, i want to let you know. they say the tea party is dead, but not only are we not dead, we are now global. and on the weekend of taxing, not only will we have rallies around the country, we will have rallies around the world. [cheers and applause] and right now there are seven countries signed up with a possibility of maybe 20, 25 countries signing up because everybody wants to be free. and i'm going to introduce our next guest, james christopherson. he's the executive director at judicial action group. please put your hands together. [cheers and applause] >> we're here about this bill today.

and we want to remind them that we are watching, that america is watching. we're here to remind all the supreme court justices that we expect them to uphold their oath of office with a promise to protect and defend the constitution of the united states. there is one justice in particular that seems to be reminding of this, that seems to need reminding of her duty to the law. justice kagan. [crowd "booing"] as president obama's top pleasant lawyer she was involved -- apellent lawyer in the beginning. they was involved in preparing legal defenses for the president's health care law as early as january 2010. two full months before the mandate was a law.

imagine that. preparing to defend a bill that is not even a law yet. i think someone was a little worried. given the past involvement, kagan ruling on obama care is like a football coach leaving the football game at half time and returning in the second half as the referee. i don't like that idea either. kagan made the coaching calls to involve the department of justice in the case. she hand picked her own political deputies to manage the case defending obama care. kagan read the administration's playbook as her team of lawyers e-mailed her about the arguments they would use in court. title 28. chapter 455-b requires recusal in any case where a judge or justice has served in governmental employment and in

such capacity participated as counsel. that includes justice kagan. that describes justice kagan. she knows the law. she has recused herself in 25 of the first 26 cases. yet for some reason she seems intent to rule on obama care. [crowd booing] >> we agree, justice kagan should sit this one out. perhaps play a game of golf, take a trip to hawaii. have a little vacation. but she must not try to play coach and referee in the same game. join me today as we deliver this message. justice kagan, follow the law you were sworn to uphold.

defend the integrity of the court you are honored to sit on. justice kagan, recuse yourself. [cheers and applause] >> all right. next we have someone who has been instrumental in getting this -- [no audio] we have an obama care litigation attorney. he is a director for the religious liberty at the family research council. [cheers and applause]

>> hello, americans! when we started looking back at the district court, i found brief on an issue called severability. we're challenging two sections. out of the 450 section law. 207 pages. what we said in our brief, it is not good enough to take down the individual man depate. it is unconstitutional, but that's not good enough. there are contraception mandates in this bill. there are mandates on your family. on your doctor. on your ememployer. on your insurance company. and all of them will drive the country bankrupt. all of them will ruin the finest health care system in the history of the world. america does not have a health care crisis, we have a health care cost crisis. driven up by bureaucracy, mandates, by trial lawyers, and we need to sweep this monstrosity of a bill off.

[cheers and applause] to do that, the brief that the family research council filed was the only one saying, don't stop at the mandate. for the same reason the supreme court requires you to take it all down, i wasn't sure. when the judge said in his brief, i agree, he struck obama care down. in its entirety. i told my wife, next time we have a child, if it's a boy, his name will be benson. that issue is alive and well, and that is out in the supreme court now. and that is why dozens of members of congress have joined us.

we need to take it to the supreme court and make the case, take obama care down. thank you for coming out. [cheers and applause] >> speaking of congressman michelle bachmann, she couldn't be here today, but she asked me to read a statement. i'm going to do that quickly. "greetings fellow patriots. thank you for coming to washington to send a loud message to your government. we do not want socialized health care. this "road to repeal rally" is a continuation of a long fight against a horrific piece of legislation. the tea party patriots have done an incredible job keeping the momentum mind the effort to repeal. it pains me not to be here at the start of this important week before the supreme court takes up the constitution nalt of the largest social welfare entitlement program in our nation's history.

but i am with you in the fight. from the inception of obama care, i have been fighting to kill this abject failure of a bill. i was the first person to introduce the repeals bill because i wanted the american people to know that we, members of congress, have not waived the white flag of surrender. what are we waving instead? where is our flag? "and we will not give up our legislative duty. it doesn't matter what the outcome of the supreme court hearings are, if they find it unconstitutional, we will push to repeal the law. if they find it constitutional, we will push to repeal the law. we will work it through the legislative process because that is our duty, to defend the constitution of the united states." [cheers and applause] "your presence here tells me you have joined me in this fight. i urge you not to stop."

>> i know you guys are, because you are here in the rain. "this must be the seminole issue of 2012. we must keep this before the conscious of americans. obama care is financially reckless and will only continue to bloat the federal bureaucracy. that's not all. through the couldn't septemberive mandates, we have seen a glimpse of how this bill can recast american society. if this bill is not repealed, we will experience a different america. thank you for standing firm today. remember, this road to repeal is a marathon, not a sprint. but together, if we don't give up, we can ensure the stability of the nation we love. thank you for your dedication to this issue. again, thank you for being here today. god bless you, and god bless the united states." [cheers and applause]

>> in 72 hours notice you guys got here. we had a film maker who started depill manying for "fire in the heartland." he has also since then filmed a movie about sarah palin, the undefeated. please welcome me in joining -- please join me in welcoming stephen k. bannon! [cheers and applause]

>> your cause is just! do we think it rained in normandy? do you think there was rain and snow and mud in valley forge? your d.n.a. is exactly what led those patriots to victory. don't ever forget it! [cheers and applause] >> i've had the great honor in the last three years to watch your rise, along with people like governor sarah palin of alaska and andrew brietbart. it is that legacy that they never want to talk about. this -- [no audio]

[no audio]

[no audio] >> we're having some problems with the audio here. this is the tea party activists. they are protesting the supreme court who is getting ready to hear oral argument on the constitutionality of the affordable care act.

we hope to get back to this because we are hoping to hear from herman caain. while we work on the sound, we will let you watch part of "washington journal."

>> i have to be careful not to impair any investigation that's taking place right now. obviously, this is a tragedy. i can only imagine what these parents are going through. and when i think about this boy, i think about my own kids. i think every parent in america should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this. and that everybody pulls together -- federal, state, and local -- to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened. so i'm glad that not only is the justice department looking into it. i understand now that the governor in the state of florida has formed a task force to

investigate what's taking place. i think all of us have to do some soul searching to figure out, how does something like this happen. that means we examine the laws in the context for what happened as well as the specifics of the incident. but my main message is to the parents of trayvon martin. you know, if i had a son, he would look like trayvon. you know, i think they are right to expect that all of us as americans are going to take this with the seriousness that this deserves and we'll get to the bottom of exactly what happened. >> those were the president's remarks again. if you want to comment on the case 202 is the area code. 737-0001 for democrats, 737-0002 for republicans.

twitter is the first comment this morning. joseph ramirez says, what the president said is nine. what we need to know is what happened? we do not know. so the comments on the president's comments. new jersey on democrats line. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. what i want to say, in addition to trayvon martin, and what's going on with him -- >> you can watch the rest of this online we will take you back live to the tea party happening near the u.s. capitol. currently speaking is kevin blackwell. >> better left to the states than to the individual. obama care expands the organized

power of the state and robs individuals and families from making decisions for themselves. obama care is a clear and present danger. [cheers and applause] today we rededicate ourselves to defend liberty. today we pledge to stand up for liberty, to speak up for liberty. to pray up for liberty. to rip up obama care for lip liberty. god bless you. take a stand. [cheers and applause]

>> thank you, ken blackwell. guys, let's do a little quhant. repeal the law! repeal the law! repeal the law! [crowd chanting "repeal the law"] >> next we have from reed media research center, he watches liberal media and let's us know what they are doing. brent bozell! [cheers and applause]

>> look mr. president, no teleprompter! i was asked to rip this thing up when i'm done, and i feel like doing it now. i've got a couple comments, and they are for the president. i want him to understand something here. he said in an interview with cbs, he said our constitutional scholars said, he said the problem with the constitution is not what it tells you what you can't do, he said it doesn't tell you what you can do. i have a message for our constitutional scholar. it is called the ennumerated powers, and health care ain't there. [cheers and applause] next week the court will be taking up that issue, and elana kagan should be taking a vage vacation. but in the event the court loses its mind on this one, let's look

at this from a different angle, from the practical side of things. who here believed this administration when they said it was going to cost $900 billion a year? who here was surprised when they learned it was up to $1.7 trillion a year? who here believed this administration when nancy pelosi and harry reid and barack obama and every one of these liberals looked at the american people and pledged that we were going to save $2,500 a year, who believed that? is anyone surprised that it has gone up $2,200 per person? and then there is the thing called democracy. think about this, folks. they threw everything and the

kitchen sink trying to sell this . the day is passed, it passed in a bipartisan fashion from their standpoint. bipartisan means they got everything, we got nothing. the day after it passed, what did the president do? he went on the road to sell it. now wait a minute. if you had the support, what are you doing selling it after you have won? the american people weren't buying then, and they are not buying now. i have to rip up some more of this. [cheers and applause] it has been two years. more people than ever before are opposed to this. where do we stand? we stand where nobody wants it. it is unconstitutional. it is not working. mr. president, get redd rid of this stupid bill. what does he do instead? instead he comes out with a mandate. let me tell you, folks, i'm

speaking here as a catholic and an american. this president came out with a mandate, and he ordered me to fund somebody abortion. or as an employee, to put up the money for it. mr. president, i'll get around that stupid law, but if i can't get around that stupid law, here i am, bring out the handcuffs, because you will have to arrest me. ladies and gentlemen, destroy this bill. destroy this law. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> next up is dr. john whitley from north carolina. please put your hands together.

>> ladies and gentlemen, our founding fathers are crying today for the abomination that is occurring in this country. so bear with me here. it is a wonderful day to be here in the united states on the grounds of the u.s. capital exercising our first amendment rights guaranteed by our constitution. let our voices be heard all over this country and especially by the people here that are going to hear this case next week that we are serious about our country, we are serious about our liberty. this case comes down simply to liberty versus tyranny. democracy versus socialism. [no audio]

i spent a lot of money getting my education, and i am not going to let anybody tell me i'm going to bee tray my patients. i am from the great state of north carolina where i hope it will halt the re-election of the guy that lives down the street in the big white house. i speek not only for myself, but for hundreds aof other physicians that we provide the best possible care for everyone we can. and as rush limbaugh would say, don't doubt me on what i'm about to say, listen to me clearly. if obama care is not repealed in its entirety, and not just the

individual mandate, which is getting most of the press, there's a lot of bad you know what in this bill, i can tell you private practitioners will cease to exist, all physicians will be employed and under the direction of government insurance payers. the other thing that will happen in this country if it is not repealed is private health insurance companies will not exist. and the confidentiality of your health records, your personal health health information, will be forever stored on government computers to be analyzed, accessed, scrutinized by who knows whom. trust me, this will happen. and i saved the best for last. if it is not repealed, and we have universal socialized health care in this country, it will actually be medicaid for all of us, including the wealthy.

physicians and health care professionals across this country are upset and angry at this unconstitutional take-over of our health care system. the obama administration, in my opinion, is an anti-democratic administration. i'd like to leave you with this. it is my body, it is my health, and it should be my choice. [cheers and applause] and to those individuals who are truly proponents of socialized health care, let me direct this statement to you. leave me, my bo, and my doctor the hell alone. [cheers and applause] i would also like to remind you that two years ago yesterday, this president and his progressive administration took the unbleebable step of marching -- unbelievable step of marching us further into socialism. never in the history of these united states has a

commander-in-chief duly elected by the people made such an historic move toward socialism. i am heartened today to look out among this group and mass, despite the rain, and i am absolutely stoked that the freedom-loving americans are here in numbers, and you will go forth from this place and echo the sentiments you heard here about liberty and freedom and no to tyranny. [cheers and applause] .

any better than it is today if this law is not repealed. and that truly is the way. and the last clip i will say is what the soviet union and its mighty army could not do, the signatures of these justices on a simple piece of paper can do and that is to put us further down the road of socialism and away from our democratic republic. so to my god and to every man, woman, and child here today, i beseech you go forth, let your

voice be heard loud and clear. the institution -- constitution is a word that we live and die in. you have to believe in the constitution. it has helped us become the mightiest country on the planet. it's not time to veer away from it. so god bless america. god bless all you great patriots. thank you so much. [cheers and applause] >> thank you, dr. whitley. this is the only other thing i have to read. it's from a man who has been standing by us, fighting with us throughout this whole entire thing. he actually missed his son's wedding so he can vote no on this bill. but he had to miss today. he had to be back in the district for his states -- constituent wents. so i have a message from congressman of iowa, steve king.

i want to thank all of you for coming today in this very appropriately named road ore peel rally. we've traveled a long road together but the journey we've been -- but it's a journey we've been compelled without choice to undertake. for many of you, today's trip to washington was not a new pilgrammage. many of you have been coming to this capital to fight for several years now. how many of you have done that? [applause] every one of you! we stood together on these grounds and fought obama here in the fall of 2009 when it was first brought to the house floor and we did it again between nancy pelosi, harry reid and president obama used budgetary and parliamentary gimmicks to force it from congress and enacted into law. and after president obama care was signed into law, we joined

together in a new fight. the fight for complete 100% repeal. [applause] we worked hard to ensure that repeal would be the central theme of the national referendum on nancy pelosi and he liberals in congress. with your help, we rally the support of the house republican conference to my discharge petition calling for the house vote on my legislation to repeal obama care. that discharge petition became an important tool in the 2010 election. it clearly defined who was for repeal and who was not. it helped drive americans to the polls in 2010. and helped to bring about a republican majority in the house. [applause] whoo! but our work didn't stop there. at the beginning of last year, we worked together to bring my

repeal language to a vote in the republican controlled house where it passed overwhelmingly and with your help, we sent that same language to the senate where every republican senator voted to repeal, to pull out obama care by a group. this weekend, we're approaching a new bend in the road to repeal. as the supreme court takes up the case. so we know no matter what the court decides, our mission will remain the same -- continue the work necessary to bring about a full legislative repeal of obama care as this such act has never been enacted. [applause] the american people have rejected this government takeover of health care. obama care infringes on our liberty and they know the price tag is unsustainable. every day brings new revelations

about skyrocketing costs. the american people continue to speak out against obama's individual mandates. it's attack on first amendment conscience protection and its multi-trillion dollar price tag. obama care is one massive empty promise and it must be repealed. [applause] i thank you for answering the call to be here today. just as you have done so many times in the past. i am committed to making sure that this is the second that this second anniversary of obama care's passage is the last and i know by your presence here today that you are as well. i look forward to continuing this journey with you. the tea party patriots and constitutional conservative everywhere down the road to repeal.

together, we will prevail. [applause] together, we will repeal obama care! [cheers and applause] next, we have an incredible speaker. she's a patriot and a citizen just like you. sunny johnson from virginia! [cheers and applause] >> hello. you know how important this is. i'm out in the rain so forgive me for what i might look like. all right. so it's about citizens. we've been dealing with this. so i always like to take a minute to reflect and we need to think back on what we've learned, some lessons we've taught and still, how far we have to go. so what have we learned? we learned why obama thought it

was so important that 26-year-olds stay on their parent's insurance. because in his economy, there are no jobs for them to buy their own. [applause] but it also leaves them the time and energy to go and find something to occupy. [laughter] we learned that obama cares. not about us, but about his union friends that contributed to his campaign and helped him get elected. can i say waver, -- waiver, anyone? we learned that when nancy pelosi said that we had to pass the bills to find out with a was in it. she was talking to civilians and h.h.s. said they make up the rules as they go or maybe to the c.b.o. as they fine find a $1 billion of spending here or there. what's trillion dollars between friends? it's not like we have to write a

budget or anything like that. [laughter] [applause] we found out that most of congress don't even read the bills that they passed nor do they read the constitution that they have sworn to uphold. you know that pesky little freedom of l.j. and those pesky little -- religion and those pesky little american who is hold on to their faith? what's wrong with them? we've learned that they will hide their socialistic agenda behind a single individual and then they will call it a war on women. but since i don't play their game, we're just going to ignore i'm entitled to free birth control girl. [applause] but in short, what we've learned, we've learned their tactics. they thought we wouldn't see through the fog and distraction. they thought that they could

pass this bill and we would disappear. their names and faces would be etched into the history books and we would be so happy that our benevolent government blessed us with free things. [laughter] they were wrong. [applause] we decided that we would teach them a few of our lessons. so we taught an overbearing, overzealous big government that we, the people, still exist! [applause] and since they didn't -- since they don't want to read the constitution, we figured we kind of help them out and we peacefully assembled and we demanded that the government redress our grievances. [applause] but we didn't stop there. we reminded them there was this

thing called the 10th amendment and 26 states stood up and took their grievances to the supreme court and we will get a ruling on that very soon. [applause] we reminded nancy pelosi that she can skydive into our personal lives but we can pole vault her right back out. no more speaker of the house. [applause] we showed vice-president joe biden that this is a bigiven deal. -- big ifing deal but not because he said so, but because we said so. we care about our liberties, our freedom, our children, their futures, this country, and we will not sit down and shut up and take our place! [cheers and applause] we showed a big government our

tactics. we organized. we ignored the mainstream media and we occupied the voting booth. [applause] and 2010, we handed big government -- shall it call it schalacking? but we aren't finished yet. but neither are they. they want a single pair system. and if we do not repeal this bill, they will force every business out of health care until they get what they want. see, they don't mind the small steps of progress. so, we must introduce them to the roadblock of liberty and say not another step! [cheers and applause] we must introduce them to the

roadblock of sanity and say not another trillion dollars! [applause] we will introduce them to the roadblock of we, the people, and say do not tread on me. [applause] we must speak to our tactics and not play their game. that means that we're going to maintain the house. we're going to capture the senate. [applause] and we're going to put someone new into the white house. [applause] and how do they say it? repeal this bill. [applause] >> good job. thank you, thank you. >> she's awesome!

[cheers and applause] i'll stand next to her any day and say not another step. do not tread on me! [cheers and applause] for those of you who are here two years ago, we had a few people who handled ouring me phones and chanted and chanted and made sure to help you and support you and to be here leading the chants all day long on that saturday as they were preparing to vote, all day long on sunday until merely midnight until they voted. one of those people was mark herb from memphis, tennessee, and he is our next speaker. mark! [cheers and applause] >> we are andrew brightbar. [applause] you know, king george ignored

the british colonist, the voice of british columnist and it resulted in a self-governing society, a new form of government. and james madison captured it best when he said these political institutions that we established, the experiment in mankind's capacity for self-government. and that is the heart of our struggle. those who want to centralize power over there in the white house and here, the capital building, and over there at the supreme court. and those of us, we just want to governor ourselves and be left alone. [applause] so this government ruined health care, deformed, reformed, toilet paper of a bill. [applause] -- is the result of their desire

to centralize power and take away your ability to govern yourselves. so to the legislative branch in article one of the u.s. constitution we say repeal this bill! [applause] to the executive branch in article two, we will remember in november. [applause] to the judicial branch in article three, repeal against this bill! to the state in article four, stand up, exercise your power! [applause] your power in the 10th amendment to contact federal power in

article one, section 10, do it! [applause] and to we, the people, the whole constitution is yours. but here's the thing. you have to stand up. you have to tell your federal delegation from your state repeal this bill. now! [applause] but don't stop there. you need to tell them to give back all of the usurped power that they have taken out of your hands. [applause] you have to go back and tell the executive branch -- go home. replace him! [applause] go back to the judicial branch and tell them to opine against

this bill but tell them to stop legislating from this branch. stop assuming that you can overrule things and make your opinions and let us decide. and to the state, go back there and tell them to start exercising their power. get off the federal crack dollar. [applause] take back policy and give it to the citizens of the united states of america! [cheers and applause] and to your fellow citizens, it is a critical -- it is critical for you to learn what self-governors is in the spirit of james madison. and teach your fellow citizens to rediscover self-governance and to preserve self-governance. as for me, give me self-governance or give me guantanamo by a. -- bay. buzz -- [applause]

god bless a self-governing america. god bless, we, the people. thank you very much. [applause] >> awesome. you did great! >> mark hirsch's going to be here during the duration of the week so you guys can hear more from him in front of the supreme court monday, tuesday, and wednesday. and while we're in front of the supreme court, there are a few people in america -- quite a handful of people who had taken this law to the court and have been fighting for us. one of those people is attorney general from virginia, ken cuccinelli! [cheers and applause] whoo! >> good afternoon. [applause]

you know, that's exactly what it sounds like when i go in the "washington post." [laughter] all right, maybe not quite like that. not quite like that. you know, yesterday was the second anniversary of the president signing this bill. that's the bad news. the good news is yesterday was the 237th anniversary of patrick henry's give me liberty or give me death speech. [applause] and he gave that speech at st. john's church in richmond. that's in virginia, for some of you all -- [laughter] and then it was on broad street and richmond, and two years ago yesterday, 17 blocks west on the same street is where we filed

the first lawsuit by any state that got the individual mandate declared unconstitutional. [applause] now, many of you will remember reading about that earthquake we had in virginia last august. we don't have a lot of those in virginia. that was right near montepelier. so obviously what had happen is james madison was turning over in his grave. [laughter] well, hopefully the supreme court will put him back right. -- come june. and this is going to be a dramatic week and then we're going to wait three months to see if we still have a limited government of enumerated powers or not. that's what we're waiting on. but i will tell you here, today, that whatever the outcome of that, the battle for the principles that are at stake in

this case will go on in these elections this year. they will go on this year. and you know, we've all heard the hyperbole in elections, but i think i can make the case that you will never live through a more important election than this year. [applause] ever. and if you ever pick the year to leave it all on the field 2012 is the year. [applause] in 2010, this health care issue helped propel more constitutional conservatives into the house of representatives than ever before. [applause] ever before. so we've sent reinforcements for the right side. now we need to take out the other side and move them right out of the white house. [applause] move them right out of the white house. and get senator demitt and congressman king and all the good folks in capitol hill some

reinforcement and take our country back. [applause] and take our constitution back. [applause] it means what dr. seuss on the constitution, it means what it says and it says what it means. that's right. and in virginia, we've got a senate race where ground zero for the presidential race. we're going to be fighting this one all the way through and one thing i did with some of my colleague, attorneys generals that you all would appreciate and i would like you to spread it around. we catalogged 21 of the violations of the law or the constitution or court orders by this president and his administration and i said then and it's been completely unchallenged by the left, which is interesting, it's an admission by silence that he and this administration represents the greatest set of law breakers to ever run the federal government in our lifetime.

[applause] the rule of law itself is at stake. are we going to be a government of men or laws men of laws? we will find out in november. and i know who patrick henry and james madison are rooting. did i mention they're virginians? in case any of you had forgotten that small point. [laughter] but i am so glad to see you all here weathering the weather and what i want you to do is go home and i want you to push like you've never pushed before for seven-plus more months so we can take this country back. we can take congress back. and so we can get our constitution back. something the founders would be proud of. this constitution matters. god bless all of you. thank you very much. [cheers and applause]

>> constitution matters! constitution matters! constitution matters! whoo! [applause] next up is the host of the" dr. geno show" which can be heard in the south and the me. please put your hands together for dr. jeanna louden. [applause] >> we already knew this but i think today proves out that our god reigns and not only does he rain but i think he's raining on obama's parade. what do you think about that? [applause] you know, i was researching to talk to you guys just briefly today. you all have been so amazing, standing here, keeping your cheer on and i love it. and i was researching and i came across some great stuff on obama care that i didn't -- i just never thought all the way through when they say we've got to repeal the whole thing, these are some of the reasons why.

when you take it to its end, you know that our foundationle document were founded on the negative rights. the negative freedoms. meaning freedom from government, not freedom to have new car, freedom to have, you know, new outfit. freedom to have health care. that's not a right guaranteed to us imposed on us by the government. well, they don't seem to understand that. but if you think about our bill of rights for a moment, the alexandria tea party dot-com. anybody here from alexandria today? they've got a great piece on this. this is where i got it. so this is what you've got to think about now. if this government is going to tell you that you have to have the freedom of insurance of positive right, not as our frarmse -- framers intended at all, what happens to our bill

of rights? now, instead of the right to keep and bear arms, you suddenly have to keep and bear arms. now can you imagine the kind of guns this government is going to force all of us to buy? bb guns? water guns? it would be a disaster. secondly, think about the right of free assembly. the right to worship who you want to worship and to go to church. can you imagine if this government, if this administration decided to mandate. you not some have to go to church, but they're going to tell you where you have to go to church and i have a feeling that we're going to go to jeremiah right's church and calling him pastor. audience: boo! >> but this could get a little bit fun if we want to think about this for a moment. what if conservatives got in charge but we still had obama care? and so when you've got standard

-- you've got sandra fluke and she wants her $3,000 worth of birth control. well, how about this? how about if we decide that sandra fluke gets to try a different kind of birth control? and it's going to be mandated by you? how about a little abstinence, miss fluke? [applause] don't need a law degree to figure out this out, do we? so this week, how many of you, anybody out here, loves somebody with downs syndrome? congratulations to every one of you. you know what i'm talking about. this was national downs syndrome association awareness day this week and i happened to be a very blessed mama of a little guy adopted who has downs syndrome and he is what i think about every single time i think about the nerve of this government to come in and tell me how i get to

be mama and i'm going to tell you why. when i went to adopt him, they said you need to come fast. he's dying. he was 10 days old. he had 10 different diagnoses, including downs syndrome. i was trying to adopt a baby with downs syndrome. 90% of them are aborted. and so here i was to get my baby and they said he's got failure to thrive, he's on a feeding tube. he has heart problem, hip problem. they went on and on. i was overwhelmed. i was pregnant with what i thought was my fourth baby what ended up to be my fifth baby because i adopted samuel and they said these are all the interventions we want to take in a hospital, a huge hospital. no one had ever held this baby. and i said can i just hold him for a couple of days? well, let me tell you what happened when i held that baby with downs syndrome who had all of these problems. can i tell you every single one of those problems when that baby

was held for two days were gone? [applause] >> praised the lord for that. under obama-care, the same mandate that the child needed to be rocked and held by a machine. i have been forbidden to say let me hold him and see if that will solve the problem. we will not stand for the. we will not have more of it. there is a reason for that. we are the land of the free and the home of the brave. i want you to say. -- it is linda diesel funny when we leave. they think occupy will be here -- it will be so sunny when we leave. they will think i to tie would have them here. we are going to say it loud enough that they can hear ross and it will echo in the supreme

court building -- here are us in the supreme court building. we are the land of the free. the home of the brave. do not ever for get it. thank you. down bless you. -- and die unless you. [applause] -- god bless you. [applause] >> thank you, gina loudon. how many of you have seen the mike huckabee and eds on television -- repeal it not? we have the gentleman who is behind those of advertisements and the founder of restore america's voice foundation. [applause] >> thank you. before i talk about obama-care for just a moment, i want to

talk about you. you are out here in the rain. you know what, somebody else talked about people like you. it dates from 1776. it is the only thing i have written because i do not want to get his words wrong. "these are the times that try men's souls, the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in this crisis shrink from the service of their country, but he who stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman." thank you. thank you for coming out here. thomas paine, 1776. you are not coming to fight when the sunshine is out and the weather is fine. it is too important what will happen to our country. at the very heart of our grand experiment in liberty, is a

simple and noble idea that was unheard of in the history of the world. no law could be enacted without the permission of the people who will live under that law. if it is called a consent of the governed. [applause] >> it is the bedrock principle upon which our entire experiment in government is built, yet nancy pelosi and harry reid, and barack obama, knew the american people rejected a takeover of one-fifth of our economy with obama-care, and they did it anyway. when they did that, they crumpled up the very heart of our system of government, and that court over there is looking at the constitutional questions about obama-care.

i will tell you all right now that no matter what they decide, they are not looking broadly enough -- does the commerce clause of all mandatory participation in this bill? no it does not. whether they say it does or does not, will we allow our elected representatives to ignore and treat with contempt consent of the governed? no. now, the rest of the bill of rights -- the first amendment allows freedom of speech so we can decide what we want and we do not want in our laws. freedom of assembly, so we can get together and organize for or against the proposals that are before us. the second amendment, so we make sure we have a bulwark against the government remaking against our rights. all of that requires us to be the most active citizens the

country has seen in 100 years. this is the worst law, the most intrusive a lot to have test our congress since the income tax -- interests of law to have passed our congress since the income tax. it was promised to only tax the rich. ever since it has passed, the federal government has gained so much power they routinely sneer at the rights of states with the power of the purse. it does not only tax the rich. it was passed on lies, the same way this health-care legislation -- i will not call the patient protection and affordable care effort because it is the opposite. it was passed with the same kind of lies that we have heard. no democrat wants to stand up and defend it anymore, and that is why we must bring it up every campaign stop, every

appearance, every town hall meeting -- what about obama- care, and let's hear your justification. thank you. [applause] >> next up, ladies and gentlemen it is congressman and dr. dan benishek from michigan. [applause] >> hey. it is my great privilege to be with you all here today. i am a general surgeon. two years ago at this time i was taking care of patients back in michigan, and i was wondering what this new law was going to do my patients and fellow doctors. the american people never wanted this law. we fought that town hall meetings. we rank capitol hill phones off

the hook. we took to the streets in protest, but the administration pushed this bill through congress. my predecessor, cast the deciding vote. i was lucky enough to get the support of fellow citizens on a pledge to repeal the slot. i voted for full repeal. i will continue to fight the law as far -- -- miami heat -- as i am here. i thought it was a bad idea two years ago, and i know it is a bad idea today. the administration made a lot of prominent -- promises, and that there is evidence this is bad medicine is for america. the administration claim you would be able to keep your own health plan in your own doctor. you cannot. in administration claimed it would create jobs and did did not. the administration claimed it would lower costs, and it did not. to sum it up, the bill to all

americans taxpayers is rising. regulations are increasing. insurance premiums are skyrocketing. i am not sure which part of this bill is affordable, but i am not found it yet. in the house, we passed a full repeal of the president's health care law and we have voted to repeal or defund parts of 25 times. unfortunately, the senate keeps blocking these actions. this week, the house voted to repeal the health-care laws, one of the most onerous components, the independent payment of revisory board. president obama's hand-pick board of medicare rashers. this week in the supreme court, they will decide whether or not the individual mandate is constitutional. you know, the constitution which the supreme court does not

really decide what is constitution -- the supreme court does not really decide what is constitutional. if we decide what is constitutional. every elected official took an oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states. . this is a constitution. mr. president, and nancy pelosi, please read it, so you will know what is unit. [applause] >> our work is not done. in 2010, tea party patriots brought the country help conservatives get elected to the house of representatives. i think what would have happened if the democrats would have controlled the house for the last two years. think of the further progress of the socialist agenda mr. obama would have had. we need to work as hard in 2012 as we did in 2010.

why? i am putting my head against the wall fighting for the constitution. we need to fight the senate, and we need to get a change in the white house. let's get out there, and to our work and work hard to win in 2012. we kill this bill. -- repeals this bill. [applause] [chanting] illeal that bel . >> i will sing a song that i wrote and performed in 2009. number one, it does in three years, so i might not remember the words two, i have really bad rhythm, so if you could not clot with me, -- clap with me, i will

not be able to get back on track. here we go. obama won't buy me a mercedes- benz the rich drive a porsche you must make amends it is not fair i am broke obama won't you buy me a mercedes-benz me a digitalou buy tv i did not need a coupon -- i did not have a computer -- a teapot. obama won't you bring my mortgage rate down acorn is breaking padlocks around my home town

spread the wealth all around all, wants to bring my mortgage rate down everybody -- obama won't you buy me a mercedes-benz the rich drive a porsches you must make amends all, won't you buy me a mercedes-benz -- obama won't you buy me a mercedes-benz ♪ [applause] >> that was kelly parishes on herself -- our support team. -- that is kelly. elli was copying

kelly. she had the first protest. [inaudible] a huge thanks for being a trailblazer. [applause] >> >>, from heritage action, -- >>, from heritage action, we have nathaniel yellis. >> i am doing an art project. can you hold this for me? you do not mind, do you? it is an improvement to obama- care. >> all right. >> repeal obama-care. [applause] >> now i am going to tell you a story. 2010, obama-care is passed into law. republicans over here, conservatives over here, in

congress were like "what are we going to do? we have been vanquished. they have 60 votes in senate. the thing has been signed. what are we going to do/" we set everyone down and we said we need to repeal this entire bill. [applause] >> some of our friends were a little afraid, but thankfully representatives like michele bachmann from minnesota introduced bills to repeal obama-care, and then we said that is not enough. you need to sound -- signed a house discharge position to go around nancy pelosi and repeal obama-care. we had signature after signature. they were signing this thing. then, we said now, you blue dogs, you voted against obama- care, and you said that you opposed it. now we are going to hold your

feet to the pop -- fire. we in meld them. we said tell your member of congress, call them, tell them to sign this petition, especially as they said they opposed it, but have not signed this thing yet. this is where the story gets fun. when you send a phone call, and you send as a call report, i get to read it. late one night i was doing my job, reading call reports, and about 8:30 that night, one of our friends in low in wilmington, n.c., called up -- in wilmington, n.c., called up his congressman. dino was in the office? -- do you know who was in the office? mike mcintyre. congressman mcintyre, you oppose

the obama-care, right? he said yes, i voted against it. our friends and why are you not on the discharge position -- petition? click. call back. no answer. callback. the lancet. that is the accountability. calling these guys, holding their feet to the fire out. you guys are standing here getting rained down. in need to be plugged into heritage action, freedom works, because they can tell you now is the time to make a phone call. if we are not at these rallies, making those phone calls, they will not make the right choice unless we hold them accountable. you are here. you are doing the right thing can keep holding them accountable. do you know what we will do? we will repeal obama-care. [applause]

>> seniors are going to be very effected by this law, and everyone of us will eventually be a senior. next, from 60-plus, jim wharton. [applause] >> it is not ted. >> thank you. thank you to the tea party patrons for organizing this. my name is jim martin. i represent over 7 million senior citizens. [applause] >> seasoned citizens, as somebody said. for 20 years, we have been the conservative alternative to the liberal aarp, the group that

puts its arms around the president and gave him political coverage by endorsing obama-care. aarp likes to tout harry belafonte. he is so far to the left he makes president obama look conservative. pat boone likes to tout his friendship with ronald reagan. aarp -- the association against retired persons they say they are a listening tour, but did date -- did they listen to the voices of millions of lives? now, they did not care if they turned their hearing aids off. if they turn their backs on us. what their reward was was an obama-care waiver.

i am here to demand you give america's seniors, all americans, a life time waiver from obama-care. look, we know that is not going to happen, so we are taking matters into our own hands. the people are speaking loud and clear. thank you for your efforts. obama-care is on life support. it is our job to pull the plug. it is bad medicine. it is hazardous to our health. you know, it is the biggest threat to our house that has ever been enacted. i have been here for 50 years. i would like to remind many of the seniors, two years ago 60 + predicted there would be a senior citizen tsunami headed toward capitol hill carry a lot of pro-obama-care folks would have to be updating their resin

is. there was one person reaching .heir resins' -- their resumes nancy pelosi. >> well, let me tell you something. that is exactly what happened in 201060 members have to update their resumes -- 2010. 60 members had to update their resumes. 2012 will not be different. a second senior tsunami is on its way. dozens more are about to get a one-which ticket back home. [applause] , including one noteworthy person that will be headed back to chicago. [applause] >> fellow patriots, the 60

plus association so lose you on behalf of the fight for liberty of future generations. can we repeal obama-care? yes, we can. not only we can, but we will. keep up the fight. thank you. >> thank you, jim martin. next, we have a doctor who is from -- i do not know where she is from. cooke.r. marcy, compare >> and virginia. [laughter] >> thank you. is a thrill to speak to you. more than two years ago i was here on 9/12/09 and i marched with you in washington, d.c., and i stand with you here again facing one of the most crucial

moments in american history. i have read the affordable care act. i have read it three times. just to be sure. i can tell you the essence of this lot is about losing our freedom. as a citizen, it is an individual -- here is the individual mandate is deemed constitutional, there is no limit to what the government can tell us to give. as a doctor and as a patient, because we are all ultimately patients, many other freedoms are taken away. the cornerstone of great medicine in america is the doctor-patient relationship. your doctor, with his rigorous training, years of experience, guided by sound research, based on medical principles, blinded by that the credit oath to do no harm is led to do everything in

his power to diagnose and treat you to the best of his ability with only your medical welfare as his goal. your doctor brings all of this into the exam room, where you and he together determine the best course of action. this law threatens all of that. theresa's made by your doctor based on -- choices made by your doctor based on sound medical principles and choices made by you based on your doctors and vice and personal preferences will be replaced by a group of unelected bureaucrats handing down diagnostic and treatment protocols to your doctor based on consideration as to whether your life is worth the cost of those diagnostics or treatments. ber doctor's hands will tied. he will have to follow these protocols. if he does not, his very ability

to practice medicine will be threatened, and how will these bureaucrats know what happens in the privacy of your doctor's office? because it will no longer be private. electronic medical records will allow superhighway of your medical information directly to the government. if this lot is fully implemented, you're right to choose your medical care will be demolished. you're right to keep your medicare premedical care private will be demolished. -- your medical care will be demolished. do we want to lose our right to choose, our right to privacy? is this what we want for our country? >> no. >> why have we been working so hard since the passage of this

law? why are we all here today? we are here to make sure that the individual mandate to purchase a government-approved one-size-fits-all insurance is struck down from a lot, and with it, the entire law. [applause] >> a law that will take away our freedom to choose our medical care, decrease the quality of our care, and bankrupt this country. we are also here to make sure that beyond 2012, new leadership will work towards replacing this law with real solutions to their real problems of health care to carry -- to the real problems of health care. [applause] >> we, the people, guiding our government -- that is what makes

our country great. we are the physician and boots on the ground, fighting to protect the doctor-patient relationship. we are here to protect your freedom of choice. at docs 4 patient care we are here to protect your medical privacy. we will work together to make this happen and keep our country strong. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. now, from american's senior association in my hometown of atlanta, phil. [applause] >> it is good to see everybody out here. thank you for coming out. i am with the american seniors association. which are on the other

conservative alternative to the aarp. it was good to see my friend jim martin. we stand with them in opposing obama-care. we stand with you in opposing obama-care. we hold our members, 13 million strong, and 98% oppose obama- care. do you believe -- agree with them? i do not know what was wrong with the other 2%, but anyhow. why is it that under this social regime they gave out waivers to different left-wing labor bosses, their friends, the aarp? what was that about? if you have to give waivers out, it is a bad law. there are also 20 different taxes in the slot. it is an outrage. we have a tax on monday makers of medical device makers, -- attacks on the medical device

makers. the costs go up, they will pass that along to the consumer. there are many, many reasons, is you heard from previous speakers why we have to stop this expensive and tyrannical law. let's hope the supreme court justices do the right thing and realize it is unconstitutional to force anyone to have insurance or be fined if you do not do it. it is on american. how many of you would have fought over the last three years we saw our private enterprise system, before our very eyes, dismantle, which-by-week, month- by-month period is that we do what? >>no. >> let me tell you something about the left-wing aarp.

they have betrayed not just their membership and seniors, but everyone. they were shameless cheered bidders for obama. what was that about? -- cheerleaders for obama? what was that about? they stab you in the back, seniors. if you forget everything else i say, pair up your aarp cards. do not support them. we are not the aarp. we are the next aarp. we are the american seniors association. join us. check us out. keep up the fight, go back to your home towns. keep fighting. keep the faith. god bless. >> next up is a patriot that i have known since almost the beginning from the constitutional tea party and virginia. >> thank you, kelly. we love you. thank god for you.