>> people are saying this is the romney-ryan budget. they are happy to run on this in november. is this going to be a detriment to mitt romney? >> we are going to give the country a choice. people deserve to be spoken to like adults. they deserve solutions. they deserve specifics. they deserve leaders who are going to tell them not platitudes, but what i am going to do to fix this country. we all of the country specific solution so they can select leaders who can implement those

solutions that can save us from a debt crisis/ -- from a debt crisis. >> >> i have a deadline i have to hit. i will leave it to him. >> japan is supposed to raise its corporate tax rate this weekend. at >> right. >> the impact of that, obviously, but what to do to

sort of help with that, the higher tax rate? >> the path to prosperity budget will bring down the corporate rate to 25%, which is essentially the median. it will do within a way that will help clear out but tax code, a lot of the special interest deductions, to a territorial system. it is pro-growth, and it will make us more competitive. i have heard the president on occasion talk about moving in such a direction. i have not seen any action. i am constantly reminded that i agree with 80% of what he says, but disagree with 80% of what he does. we want a tax that is fair, flatter, simpler, more competitive. when i worked on the joint select committee, i have never

worked so hard to achieve so little, but having said that, i thought there was a growing consensus between reasonable democrats and republicans, and i think progress was made. i would hope that regardless of the outcome of the election, perhaps there are those who are tired of seeing the 37 months of 8%-plus unemployment, half of america either a low income or below the poverty level want to do something to actually ignite jobs and economic growth. >> the rate of what this is, the opportunity? >> i don't think it is a secret. yes, i view it as an opportunity. >> is this the end of squabbling within your party on this? >> i think it is very healthy that we debate the issues. if you look at the fundamentals of the squabbling, you have the

president to propose to the budget and not one democrat voted for it. that is a big difference. the thing that you will find, we've led the debate, we think this should win, and that is the way we will continue forward. >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> now reaction from democrats on the house passage of the $3.5 trillion bill that just passed, which no democrats voted for. but they spoke about the bill. >> all right, listen, thank you for sticking around after a long two days of debate on the budget. i'm very pleased to be joined by two colleagues on the budget

committee, who have been on the forefront of this debate, and we may be joined in a man hit by another person. we just thought that we would get together to talk about what we think the consequences of the vote are and the republican budget. i think the good news is this budget is going nowhere fast. this budget will be rejected in the united states senate, and the president has made it clear he does not share this very cramped vision of america. this debate will be one that we will take to the election, but i think it is very important that the american people understand what is at stake here. we know one of the leading presidential candidates, but romney, has fully endorsed the republican plan, and people need to understand the consequences of that plan. as we discussed through this debate, the question is not

whether or not we need to reduce the deficit, the question is how we do it, what choices we make in the process, and the republican budget makes the wrong choice for a couple of reasons. first of all, we're finally coming out of a very deep hole with respect to the economy. we have seen 24 straight months of job growth, almost 4 million jobs created. the democratic proposal, the president's plan would have helped nurture that recovery, building on the payroll tax cut with a major investment in transportation and infrastructure, something we have been very focused on. of the republican plan, if you look at it, it would cut transportation spending next year by 46%, at a time when you have 17% unemployment and the construction industry. independent groups have estimated that because of the

cuts in their plan, a variety of areas, we would lose over a million jobs in the country next year and over 2 million the year after, and at that is no way to nurture an economic recovery. the second. " we want to focus on is the choice they made -- the second area that we want to focus on is the choice they made the credit because every republican side this pledge saying it would not take one penny from closing the tax will poll -- the tax loophole for asking one penny from millionaires to help to to reducing the deficit, that means they have to deal with the deficit issue at the expense of everyone and everything else. among those things is the medicare guaranteed. i just want to make the point, some of these issues in the back-and-forth get lost.

at no time in the last 48 hours did our republican colleagues ever refute this chart. let me just take a second to explain why their plan would and the medicare guaranteed. the top blue line that shows the support that seniors on medicare would get from the medicare program over time. in other words, they'd pay premiums right now, medicare premiums, through their payroll taxes. because of that, essentially, 90% of their costs, of the premium, are covered by medicare. that is what medicare provides correctly. the green line is what members of congress get under the federal employee health benefit plan, that members of congress have. they get a fixed share of support from the plan. it is called the fair share

formula. at 72% of the premium for members from congress are covered by it the plan. that is constant. as the price of health care goes up and premiums go up, the support they get from the plan remain steady at 72%. that is very different from what they're asking from seniors. this is the key issue. the way they save money is by riskng all of the resisk -- and burden on the senior citizens in medicare. over time, the amount of support that they get in the medicare program to clients -- it declines. they're getting a much better deal as members of congress than they are providing to seniors and medicare, and we think that violates the medicare guarantee. they have not contested this

fact, they cannot contest this fact. that is the reality of their plan. now i would like to turn it over to my friend, who has worked on a lot of issues, but really focused on the issue of transportation. thank you for your extraordinary effort guiding our party in this undertaking. this is a lost opportunity. there was a chance that we could actually come together in some areas that have been bipartisan, to be able to do something other than a political document that mr. romney is going to run on. we did not. we have referenced the transportation and it has been a bad week for transportation in this country. we just had the house of representatives passed an extension which kills the

opportunity to take advantage of this construction cycle. there are people right now who have delayed the larger projects going forward because they want to know that their money would be available. these are projects that take place into the fall, before weather makes it impossible in much of the country. by merely extending its 90 days, they deny that certainty. i hope they will come to their senses and allowed a vote under the guidance of this extension, may be over the course of the next couple of weeks they can rationalize their way around being able to allow the senate bill, 74 votes, a bipartisan, that gives certainty for this construction cycle and the next one as well and be able to get past the election and deal with the big issues. they failed in that regard.

the budget that our republican friends are approved is the largest cut we have seen in transportation funding. we have not seen any budget from a major party in the house of representatives ever slash almost 50%. this is a level that will not sustain contracts and projects that have already been entered into. $6.50 billion less is authorized and contacted over the course of this fiscal year for roads, bridges, transit systems. the deals are struck in we are moving forward. the federal partnership, if this budget were to be approved, would not be met. it is also a missed opportunity to start moving forward in the

areas of tax reform. decision by the $46 billion and have another tax break embedded in the code. presumably, temporarily. these are efforts to make them permanent. at the same time, we are told they will have $10 trillion in tax cuts with closing loopholes after they just approved $46 billion of additional loopholes. throughout this debate, there was not a single explanation of where it is going to come from, what are they going to do. we have provided the list of tax expenditures that makes it clear he cannot come anywhere close to that without dealing with things that impact middle america, like

to be home interest tax deduction, the home deduction. this is bread and butter stuff, where the money is. they steadfastly refused to make adjustments to what most americans would think would be a loophole in terms of subsidies to big oil, carried interest, things that would make a difference. it is a significant retreat in the area of health care. we are going to be making fundamental changes in the next 10 years in the health care in the united states. we cannot continue on this path. we have proposed a responsible approach building on the health reform act that incorporates every bipartisan reform. they take the savings, as our cheer and committee pointed out, and would use them to pay for the true cost of their tax

cuts and the other areas they have and doing things that are bizarre. at the same time, they were discussing their plan coming forward. many of us were meeting with constituents from home who are apoplectic at the prospect of what they would do for medicaid. health care for america's poorest, disabled, most vulnerable patients, which would decimate that program. the people who provide the services know it and they reject it and this is one of the cornerstones of the republican budget. these are reasons it will never be enacted into law. it is terrified that this is their banner. this is what their presidential candidate is going to run on. it is a serious distortion of what we should be discussing in america's budget debate. the longer we delay, the longer

we are going to put off doing the things we are committed to doing in terms of goals and what the democratic budget would move us toward. thank you. >> i am proud to bring up a terrific member of our budget committee. betty has been fighting these battles. she is on the budget committee and the appropriations committee and she knows the consequences of this budget. >> thank you. the tea party republican budget that passed today will prevent students from going to college. seniors will decide between food and medicine. it will increase on a plan in the construction sector. the tea party republican colleagues that we sit with are arguing that these painful sacrifices are fair and they are necessary to reduce the deficit. they are not asking every american to sacrifice.

this budget should be called the millionaires manifesto. it will borrow billions of dollars from communist china to guarantee million your tax cuts at nearly $400,000 and it is all added to the bottom line of our national debt. the grand old party's budget reflects the core values of the tea party republicans, we -- protecting the rich, cut of the poor, and walk away from the middle class. every american deserves to know that the republicans are choosing a tax subsidies over deficit-reduction. do not forget. this republican budget runs deficits for over 30 years. 30 years of deficits under the republican budget plan. this budget does not reflect my values our priorities or those of the minnesota people who sent

me here to washington, d.c. to represent them. it is time to leave the stale values and dangerous ideas behind. the democratic budget prioritizes deficit-reduction and chooses to invest in the middle class rather than subsidize the altar wealthy and big oil. it is time to return -- the ultra-wealthy and big oil. their budget fails to meet those values. for the reason that chris said, it is going to be rejected by the senate. we need to be moving forward working on issues that are bipartisan in nature. we know transportation is. if they would have brought that transportation up, democrats would have helped pass the senate bill. instead, we had a band-aid. this budget that they passed today is not even a band-aid.

it is a masquerade for what they say it is going to do to help the economy moves forward. it is going to set this economy backwards. >> thank you, betty. next we will hear from john, who effectively reminds us that when the middle class gets squeezed, small business and middle sized businesses all get hurt. >> thank you for all of your work here. we are having a battle of nicknames for the budget. i have chosen to call it be all for one budget. it is all for the 1%. -- call it the all for one budget. 93% of all the -- 2009 and 2010, all of the income gain went to the 1%.

the republicans did not want that 99% going to the others. they are it is a rating a lot of the programs that the american people need desperately. -- eviscerating a lot of the programs that the american people need desperately. their argument was, and you have heard this a number of times, that you can take all the money from the wealthiest people and it would not eliminate the deficit. my response was, you could take all the pell grant funding, all of the transportation funding and none of those things would eliminate the deficit either, but you are cutting all of those.

it cannot come up with a good enough argument or any kind of rational argument for not making the wealthiest people in country share in the effort to reduce the deficit. one other thing i would like to mention that relates to their tax proposal. they propose to make the tax code sample with two tax rates, 25% and 10%. they do not tell us where the break point is going to be. they are going to eliminate a lot of deductions, which they do not tell us. the majority of the united pay an tax rate of less than 10%. filers of 5 percent tax or less. this is potentially a huge tax increase for many millions of americans that they are going to

charge 10% tax rate without any exclusions. the tax code is sample is one thing. a simple 10% rate on americans at the lower income level will be a substantial tax increase to them. once again, i will repeat what my colleagues have said. this is about values and choices. the republicans have chosen to approve a budget that is all for the 1%. our budget is one budget for all of the people, asking everyone to contribute, making sure everyone has a benefit of the budget and sacrifices in order to get our deficit in line. this is a clear choice. as chris said, it is going to be an enormous campaign issue. we are anxious to take this argument on the road and let our case before the american people. thank you. >> before we take any questions

you may have, i want to emphasize one point my colleagues have made. a lot of numbers get thrown around in these budget debates, especially with respect to tax reform. the bipartisan groups that have talked about tax reform have all said that when you do tax reform, you should take a portion of the revenues that could be generated from that process for the purpose of deficit reduction. our republican colleagues have signed a play to say not one penny from closing a tax loophole can go to reducing the deficit. here is what my colleagues have been talking about. in terms of the average tax cut for individuals making over $1 million a year. this is an analysis by the nonpartisan independent tax policy center. locking in the part of the bush

tax cuts that benefit the highest income earners will provide the average billionaire $129,000 in tax cuts. that is for locking in the rates that republicans do in their budget at the current policy levels. then, as my colleagues have said, they are proposing to reduce the top rate from 35% to 25%. when you do that, you lose $4.60 trillion in revenue. that step loses $4.60 trillion in revenue. my colleague say they are going to do that in a revenue neutral manner. that? they say they are going to coles -- close loopholes and tax

preferences in the code. we have challenged them to show us how you reduce taxes for the folks at the very top by this amount of money without financing that by increasing taxes on middle income americans? they have not done it and they cannot do it. many of us have looked at the projections. the reality is, you cannot get there in our view. just the mortgage interest deductions, if you cut that entirely, would not begin to get it to the $4.60 trillion. the mortgage interest deduction is not something that benefits folks at the top. it benefits middle income taxpayers. their proposal will -- will finance another round of tax cuts or pokes at the top at the

expense of middle income taxpayers, who will be stuck paying that bill. we will try to answer any questions. >> last year, after the super committee, the rating on treasury debt was kept at the highest level. everyone wants to replace the bill that called for a sequestered. are you saying you missed just their seriousness about the budget and you are going to take action? >> i will take a quick try at that. my colleagues might as well. all of the budgets eliminate the sequestered and replace it with a different kind of deficit reduction. the republican budget only last the sequestered for one year and

put it in place through this fund they call allowances, where they do not tell anybody where they are making almost $1 chilly in cuts over the next 10 years. -- $1 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years. our budget and the president also budget all deal with that. we hope we can resolve that in a balanced way. that is the issue we face in the super committee. we need to resolve that issue. we hope it will be done before the election. if not, after the election, all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cut to expire. we hope our republican colleagues will at least say that folks at the top should contribute to sharing the responsibility for deficit- reduction. that can help relieve be

sequestered. "newsmakers -- >> it should be noted that the democrats had all been supporting a balanced approach. people who were willing to be serious about reductions in defense, looking at opportunities to we find entitlement, looking at raising taxes. the dynamic that is going to be in place late this year is that there is a fail-safe. the president has the tools to enforce a little budget discipline. we have an effort going forward or we have indicated a willingness to have a balanced approach in which the american people have supported. most of the independent groups and organizations and most businesses support.

i think that should not give pause in terms of where we are coming from, what the president is empowered to do, the direction we have selected, and our willingness to work on something that is balanced. if anything, there is a greater likelihood of a grand bargain over the course of the next year. we are not backing down from a balanced approach. it is something that is imminently feasible. [unintelligible] what is the competitiveness assertion here in the united states? what does that mean to the economy going forward? >> i will take a crack at it.

the top corporate tax rate in the united states is high compared to our competitors. there is general agreement that we should work to reduce that corporate tax rate, bring it down, make it more competitive internationally. the key is to figure out how you want to go you broaden the base. the number of proposals being put forward and ultimately, i know some of my colleagues may want to talk about it, but you have to decide what preferences in the code you want to eliminate, because we also know the effective tax rate of u.s. corporations is actually very low compared to their competitors, which is why you have a situation like a company like ge is paying no income tax.

the key is to do that in a way that does not hurt the competitiveness of other u.s. companies. for example, one proposal has been to get rid of accelerated depreciation. especially at a time like now, when the economy is soft, accelerated depreciation provides an incentive to invest now. we need to have that debate. republicans have not put their proposal on the table. this is why announcing in advance that you are going to drop to 25% without knowing the consequences is i think it's very risky proposition, because it could end up hurting a lot of other companies. >> i am going to speak to the tax part of it. i find it interesting that we find the republicans talking about what you just mentioned,

the tax rate in japan. let's look at the investment also that our competition is making. let's look at the investments the japanese are putting into ag education and technology and product support, that the germans are doing, chinese are doing, and what is in the republican budget? it is a step backwards from research. it is a step backwards from supporting public education and higher education. it is a step backwards from all those things that other countries that are our competitors, that are at our heels, that is what they're doing. we're moving away from that. what has made america be able to develop the internet, be as successful as we have been in space, to be where we are in medical technology? it is a public-private partnership, and our institutions of higher education, and i represent but a

lot of them in the twin cities, but to have that public-private partnership in research, development, and technology. the republican budget moves away from that. we can talk about arba competitive on taxes, but we also need to talk about our be competitive in putting america's children and america's engineers, with their ideas, first, by giving them the tools they need to be successful. instead, the republican budget walks away from it. >> one thing that chris said, the rate is not critical. there are a lot of factors that go into what the effective tax rate is around the world. corporations actually pay a lot of taxes, but in the process of whatever their business is, a lot of countries do not have the same deductions and

preferences that we provide corporations here. it is tricky to take a published rate and say we are losing our competitors' session without considering those factors. >> that is a critical point. all those countries that have a territorial system and have lower nominal tax rates also pay a value-added tax, a national sales tax. we have $5.20 trillion of budget had room -- head room. some of that could be used to help facilitate an adjustment, but as my colleague said, very few corporations pay that full statutory amount. the ones that do tend to be the people who are manufacturing in our country. they are retail, ups,

manufacturing companies. everybody else pays much, much less on average, and some pain none because they are good at engineering the tax code. i would hope we can take a step back, that we can look at ways to harmonize this, in best some of the savings, may be strategically, to be able to make an adjustment that is more fair to more corporations. but it is laughable to think that the only thing that is in play here is the statutory rate, and we need to be prepared to undertake other systematic changes so we are not chasing our tail and at the ditch -- disadvantage of other countries. when a piece about the health care, that is a 17% tax on our economy if that none of our competitors face, and japan, in

germany, and in france, in canada. those companies do not pay 70% as a result of health care. there are lots of these pieces that are in play here, and our budget helps move in that direction or sustainably and in more directions. >> what do you think of the reconciliation instructions, authorizing committees to find savings and cuts in mandatory programs? do you think democrats could find that level of cuts? is there a possibility that the parties could agree? >> we would have to look at what they're proposing. we do not know the answer to that yet. if you look at some of their budget proposals, they do not necessarily seem realistic at this point. for example, medicaid. we do not think we should be hitting medicaid, which affects lots and lots of horrible

seniors and others. it depends on how they would achieve those cuts. everyone knows also that reconciliation is only meaningful if you pass a final budget resolution, so it is not clear what they are intending to accomplish through this particular exercise at this point. i would just add one point on the international tax. as we do this, if you are going to do corporate tax reform, you have to make sure you do not create even more incentives for the offshoreing of american jobs, and that is a real danger. if you were to go immediately to a pure territorial system, according to the joint tax committee, you would provide incentive for more u.s. corporations to move their investments and jobs overseas,

simply for tax purposes. that is not something we want to do. the president's budget and incorporated into the democratic alternative closed the current tax incentives for country -- companies to ship jobs overseas, which we talked about closing down some of those loopholes. >> some things in there that were -- [unintelligible] >> we will take one more. >> could you point to any kernel you thought about? >> i have been working with paul four years on agricultural reform, and i discussed that in our committee, that this would be a nice thing we could build on in terms of crop insurance reform, direct payments, but actually a majority of people on both sides of the aisle on that

committee and very likely in congress could come together and we have an expiring farm bill this year. i would like and we have offered to our friends to focus on some areas of agreement, rather than putting out a highly partisan piece of legislation that is moving many of us think in the directions that are really unsettling. focus on a few areas where we agree, and that is an area we agree. we could produce significant savings, do it this year. it might be flat platform -- it might be a platform. there has been interest expressed from college on a proposal i had to implement the superfund tax. we still have a superfund program. we have given the petrochemical industry a pass under a circular, but the tax expired in 1995. i think this -- these are areas

that if we are willing to actually sit down, look at how it affects our districts, the economy, i think we could build on some of these kernels and move forward. i'm sorry there has not been an interest in zeroing in on areas like that, and those are two that are real. >> those are two good ones. you wish there were more. medicare -- >> tax reform. , on tax reform, there is room for conversation if your goal is not to just provide a windfall tax break for people at the very top. we have challenged them to show us how they would do that, and i would urge all of you to challenge them to do that, because as we were demonstrating, the reality is when you drop the top rate to 25%, you lose $4.60 trillion in

revenue, and making up that amount of money through things like the mortgage interest deduction, even if he took at all, which we oppose, would not begin to get you to that point. especially when you take things like capital gains off the table. the one tax preference that does disproportionately benefit folks at the very high end of the income scale, they did not want to touch that, even when you talk about 1986 tax reform, capital gains rate is the same. they had a uniform rate at 20%. they do not want to go back to the right price to the ronald reagan model. -- to the ronald reagan model. >> they came in here and said democrats have their heads in the sand. i know you do not want to be

sound biting, but what is the simple answer to that? >> the simple answer -- simple answer is no. listen, and this was a recurring theme in the debate, we have made it clear that the question is not whether or not we should implement a plan, a credible plan to reduce the deficit and the debt. the issue is how you do it. we agreed we need to do it. the question is how you do it. and that involves big choices, and because they choose to exempt folks at the very high end of the income share -- a scale from sharing responsibility, they lack every one else and everything else. cuts we take a balanced approach like the framework offered by

bipartisan groups, we also achieved deficit reduction, significant deficit reduction. we got the deficit down to under 3% of gdp by the year of 2015, and hold it there as we stabilize the debt. we do that without any medicare guarantee and without socking it to the middle-class. it is a question of what choices we make in order to accomplish that goal. >> i would like add one thing, talking about -because- i could offer some opinions on that. they certainly are not based in the real world. their budget is a fake-based budget. they rely on certain pathologies that they continue to believe in, and that is that you can continue to cut revenant, cut taxes, and that when you automatically cut taxes that results in growth, and you can cut spending without hurting the

economy. my district, 25% of the economy is health care related. he cannot/medicaid by 33% and slash medicare without affecting job growth in my district. yet they continue to believe in these economic theories that did not have any basis in fact. i would call it a fait-based -- fake-based budget and the project substantial growth in the economies that allows them to come up with the deficit reduction they are claiming without any real basis for -- to believe those numbers are credible. certainly when you cut taxes 2001 cannot to peasantry, it did not result in sustained growth and job development. they continue to believe that is the truth. i will not say where their heads are, but i do not believe they

are in the real economic world. >> we have a real-world test in their theater, of the trickle- down economics theory. it was 2001 to 2008, they cut taxes that disproportionately benefited folks at the very top. at the end of that period, we lost private sector jobs, on the net, lost private sector jobs. when was the last time we had a balanced budget? back in 2000, before those tax cuts at the end of the clinton. . that is the last time we had one. by the way, when the head slightly higher tax rates on the wealthiest individuals in this country, from 1993 to 2001, the economy was booming, and over 20 million jobs were created. the point is, and john has made this point repeatedly, small differences in the top marginal

tax rate are not the major drivers of economic growth. there are all these other factors in the economy. some are related directly to what betty was saying. what kind of investments we are making as a country. those kinds of investments have power our economy for a very long time in the post world war ii. . so successfully that a lot of our competitors copying that. the last thing we should do is reverse ourselves on what had been a successful strategy. i want to thank you all and thank my colleagues. >> earlier today, the house passed a republican budget plan. the senate is not expected to take up the major.

parts will go into effect any become a good the air karmic that committees begin looking for budget cuts to avoid automatic cuts in defense and social programs trade today congress sent to the president a 90-day extension in highway programs. the president is expected to sign the bill. it continues projects on a temporary basis while negotiators work on a long-term solution. the house is now on a two-week break. carneyy's briefing, jay talked about today possible vote on a comte press on the transportation bill. he talked about subsidies to oil companies. the briefing from the white house, 45 minutes. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> all right. good afternoon, everyone.

welcome to the white house for your daily briefing. it's my pleasure to see you. i don't have any opening statements. i'll just note that you should have a paper statement that i put out from me on the surface transportation bill, the need to ensure that we take -- we make sure that folks working on these construction jobs around the country don't get thrown out of work, but that we need to -- the house needs to do what the senate has already done, which is pass a bipartisan bill for a longer-term funding of our infrastructure projects. secondly, i would note that the senate just voted on the bill that would have eliminated billions of dollars of subsidies to major oil and gas companies, and unfortunately, senate republicans overwhelmingly chose to side with oil and gas companies instead of the american people, who overwhelmingly support the notion that the president talked about this morning in the rose garden, which is that at a time of record profits, at a time

when a company like exxon-mobil is pulling down -- was it $4.7 million an hour in profits -- that the american taxpayer should not be subsidizing oil and gas companies. and so that was an unfortunate vote. with that, i will take your questions. ben. >> thanks, jay. two topics. to follow up on that one, given the action in the senate, is it fair to say now that the president made his pitch, congress has acted once again on the tax subsidies, and he's going to move on to other elements, or is he going to continue to call for these even though congress has already weighed in? >> well, you can be sure he won't stop calling for this, because we simply cannot afford and it makes zero sense to have american taxpayers subsidize oil and gas companies that are enjoying record profits.

oil and gas company executives themselves have said that at a time of record-high profits and high prices for oil that they don't need the incentives that the subsidies were meant to create. we've been subsidizing oil and gas companies for a century. we need to invest in the energy industries of the future. that's part of the president's all-of-the-above approach to our energy challenges, and he will continue to make the case that we should not be subsidizing these companies. the taxpayers should not be, and it's not wise policy. >> but he's, at this point forward, if he hasn't already, he's just making a case politically to the american people, right? he's not actually trying to change congress's mind. i mean, they've acted. >> well, i mean, i think that's misunderstanding a bit of the question -- it represents a misunderstanding a little bit about how politics can work.

what has become clear is that senate republicans -- or republicans in general on capitol hill have decided to ally themselves with oil and gas companies over the interests of the american taxpayer in this case, despite the president's best efforts to persuade them otherwise. those same republicans in the house and senate are going to have to answer to their own constituents. and you all read the polls. you know how the american people feel about this. so the president will continue to look for opportunities both to make his case and for any sign that republicans have changed their mind. >> so he genuinely thinks there's still an opportunity this year to change their mind? >> i think you have to keep pressing on the issues like this. obviously there are a number of

other things, many other things that he'll be working on and focusing on. but you simply can't say that because at this point in time republicans continue to side with oil and gas companies who are enjoying record profits, that that's okay. we can't afford that and we need a change. >> just one on health care. i know your colleague got a lot of questions about this yesterday, but i'm wondering now that the arguments are done, can you enlighten us at all about how the president thinks the arguments went? >> the president is pleased with the presentation made by don verrilli, the solicitor general, and his team. the president believes that the affordable care act is constitutional. he agrees with the opinions of conservative judges who have said the same thing about the affordable care act, that it's constitutional. and he focused on, and his whole administration is focused on implementing the important

provisions of the affordable care act that has -- that act has already provided benefits to 2.5 million young adult americans who have insurance -- have health insurance on their parent's plan because of the affordable care act; 5.1 million seniors with medicare who have saved $3.2 billion on their prescription drugs because of the affordable care act; 54 million americans with private insurance who can now receive many preventive services without paying co-payments or deductibles. we're going to keep implementing this law. and the president was pleased with the presentation and remains convinced that the affordable care act is constitutional. yes, reuters. >> jay, on the oil and gas tax breaks, republicans are citing a 2011 congressional research service report that says that repealing these tax breaks might actually result in a small increase for consumers at the pump.

they do say in the report that this is probably because the tax breaks artificially lowered the prices. and i was wondering what your response is to that. and also, what specifically would repealing these tax breaks do for consumers? >> two things. one, last year, the ex-shell ceo, john hofmeister, said, "in the face of sustained high oil prices it was not an issue for large companies of needing the subsidies to entice us into looking for and producing more oil." the subsidies exist for that reason. there is no need to incentivize oil and gas companies to look for and produce oil when the incentive exists in the high price right now in the market. it's just -- it's wrong-headed policy. there is no reason for -- there would be no reason if we removed these subsidies for oil and gas companies to raise their prices, given the high price globally.

that would be their choice if they had to do it. there would be no reason to do that. the american people would benefit by not having to subsidize these oil and gas companies. that money would be used to either reduce the deficit or invest in the kind of alternative energy sources that we need to develop in this country to increase our energy independence in the 21st century. i would also note that in the last three years since president obama took office, we have increased domestic oil and gas production substantially, and we have decreased substantially our reliance on foreign oil. so the correlation between greater production and the price is simply not there, because as we've discussed many times, the price of oil is set on the global market; it's dependent on many factors. and if simply drilling more and producing more in the united states would reduce the price at the pump we would have seen

that already. unfortunately, it doesn't. so that's why you need to pursue an all-of-the-above approach that the president has to our energy challenges that ensures that we are increasing domestic oil and gas production, that we are investing in alternative sources of energy like biofuels and wind and solar, and that we're making wise policy decisions like the president made to dramatically improve the fuel efficiency of automobiles. that alone will save 12 billion barrels of oil, and will save american taxpayers $1.7 trillion. that's the only approach that makes sense for the long term, because in a world where emerging economies like china and india are growing rapidly, where millions and millions and millions of new cars are hitting the road in china and india, and therefore the demand, globally, for oil will just increase, we need to make smart investments and smart choices about the way that we can insulate ourselves from the kind

of price shocks that we've seen almost annually lately in the oil global market -- in the global oil market. so that's why the president has the approach that he has. that's why he thinks that it is nonsensical to continue a policy of subsidizing oil and gas companies that are doing quite well. >> but would a repeal do anything to alleviate the pain at the pump now? >> i think that the president has made clear that there are no silver bullets here in terms of prices at the pump. you need a sustained, comprehensive policy to insulate ourselves from these kinds of fluctuations in the oil market in the future. there are options that do exist that he'll continue to examine. but anyone who suggests that there's a single action that you can take as a politician and candidate or a member of congress that will suddenly

reduce the price of oil, and therefore the price of gas at the pump, is blowing hot air. and i think the american people understand that. they've seen this before, and they've seen the empty promises that are made -- often in election years -- and seen those promises not be fulfilled. let me move around. cheryl. >> thanks, jay. the senate is about to leave for a short recess, and there is of course a huge backlog of nominations. is the president considering making additional recess appointments? >> we remain very concerned about the backlog of nominations. we've gotten to a situation where nominees that are reported out of committee unanimously get held up for no good reason at all. we continue to work with the senate on this issue. i have no announcements to make about any presidential actions in that regard.

dan. >> thank you. on health care, you and others here at the white house continue to insist that the law is constitutional. but what happens if the court rules otherwise? what kind of plans are underway behind the scenes to -- in reaction to that possibility? >> i think, as josh said yesterday and others have said, we're focused on implementing a law. it is the law of the land. it passed both the house and the senate, and was signed into law by the president. a number of courts and a number of conservative judges on the appeals courts have ruled that the affordable care act is constitutional, which is obviously an opinion that we share. we remain confident that the affordable care act is constitutional. now, when the supreme court makes a decision we'll be ready for that.

but we're confident that the affordable care act is constitutional. >> on the tax breaks for oil companies, you're making the argument that they don't need these incentives. but one analyst, industry analyst told us, "there would be less drilling. one of our companies said that they would drill 2,800 to 3,000 less wells in this country." why do you believe that it would not be a disincentive for them? >> well, i think you can always find an analyst or somebody to say -- to make a point -- a political point, essentially. i think that i'll rely on what the former ceo of shell said just last year: "in the face of sustained high oil prices, it was not an issue for large companies of needing the subsidies to entice us into looking for and producing more oil." i mean, what more enticement do you need than the price of oil that pertains today? what more enticement do you need

than the record profits you're making today? the suggestion that you seem to be making, or at least the person you're quoting seems to be making, is that those profits depend on the subsidies of the american taxpayer. well, i think every analyst would disagree with that notion. so any effect -- upward effect on prices that ending these subsidies might have would be a matter of choice by oil companies. and i think that that decision, if it were made, would not be met with applause by any means by the american consumers. >> a follow-on? >> sure. >> thank you. >> dan, were you done? sorry. >> yes. >> okay, ann. >> the republican leaders do say that they would consider some kind of changes in these subsidies as part of a broader change -- closing loopholes and really looking at the tax code. for 2012, is the idea of broader tax reform dead? >> well, look, that's a -- the

president has put forward his broad budget proposals. we would welcome a decision by republicans in the leadership to take up a balanced approach to our long-term deficit and debt challenges, a balanced approach to our budget issues that would include, as the president has called for, tax reform. but it would have to include tax reform that made sure that we ask the wealthiest americans to bear some of the burden of getting our deficits and debt under control, rather than the ryan republican budget plan -- new and not improved -- that is likely to pass the house again with overwhelming republican support. and that plan, remarkably, in the face of what is obviously the sentiment of the american people, says that the answer we need today to our budget challenges is to give more tax

breaks to millionaires and billionaires, folks who have enjoyed quite a bit out of our tax code in recent years, and ends welfare as we know it, asks seniors to pay more, dramatically cuts education, research and development, and other programs that are essential, and holds harmless -- not only holds harmless millionaires and billionaires, but says, here's another $150,000 per year, annually. that's not a solution that i think the american people want. >> speaker boehner has -- >> jay, you said welfare as we know it. >> i'm sorry, thank you for correcting me. i was sitting in that chair when we ended welfare as we know it, that knoller occupies. ends medicare as we know it. let's be clear. the new ryan republican budget creates a segmented replacement for medicare that would burden seniors and end the program as we know it.

>> speaker boehner has written a letter to the president i think about his comments to president medvedev. has the president responded to that, or could you respond to that? >> i don't have anything on the president responding to it. why don't you -- if you want to ask me about it. >> the speaker expressed concern that the president wanted space, wanted to be flexible on missile defense. is the president going to get passed the election year and then feel he can change position on this? >> the president addressed this quite clearly, as you know, in south korea, in seoul. what he said to president medvedev is what he has said publicly, and said again when he addressed this, which is it is a reality that this is an election year, both in russia and in the united states, and that the kind of painstaking work that requires -- that is required when you are dealing with negotiations over nuclear weapons levels, as we saw with

the new start treaty, takes a sustained engagement with congress. and it absolutely requires bipartisan effort. that's what we saw when the president was able to work with the senate to achieve ratification of the new start treaty at the end of 2010. and that would certainly be required for any efforts to further address this issue in the years forward. on missile defense, let's be clear, as the president has. we are building a missile defense system in eastern europe with our allies that is aimed at protecting the united states and our allies in europe from rogue nations like iran. it is not directed at russia. that is a point that we have made to the russians. they have not been persuaded, but we will work with them and continue to have discussions with them to demonstrate that. and as president medvedev said and president obama said, we should not step away from those consultations simply because

there's disagreement on this issue. there's an opportunity this year to have this discussed at a technical level. this is highly complex stuff, as you know, ann. you've been covering these issues for a long time. so those conversations will continue. that's what president obama was referring to. bill. >> is there any evidence that anything the president wants to do or is trying to do, whether it's drilling in the atlantic or the failed attempt to get the repeal of the subsidies, would actually lower gas prices? >> i think we've addressed this many times, and that is, there is no silver bullet, there's not a magic wand that is in a box somewhere in the oval office, or in a campaign van out on the trail, that somehow allows you to reduce the price at the pump. it's a global oil market. there are things that we can potentially do. the president is constantly asking for and reviewing those options, and we've taken no option off the table.

but he has been extremely candid and honest with the american people about the challenge that high prices present to them and present to the country. he is keenly aware of the burden that it's placing on -- these prices are placing on american families. and he will continue to work not only on the short term but on the long term in terms of our energy policy. but any -- >> so does that only an election year show? >> no, just the opposite. it is the -- an election year show is to go out and promise that if only you are elected or only your plan was passed, that suddenly the price of gas would drop, which is malarkey -- and you know it, i know it, everybody in this rooms knows it. everybody who utters those words knows it. what is the unpolitical approach is to level with the american people about our long- term energy challenges and why we need to take an all-of-the- above approach to dealing with them -- why we need to not just

invest in alternative energies, which we absolutely must do, but we also have to license the first -- the construction of the first nuclear power plant in this country in 30 years. it's why we have to continue to open up spaces for oil and gas exploration domestically. we have to do it all. and we have to do it in a way that's responsible and safe, and that continues to enhance the energy security of this country. ed henry. >> jay, on the tax breaks, in the context of the ryan budget, where you're saying everyone needs to pay their fair share, the oil industry says they make a lot of money obviously, as you pointed out, and they pay an effective tax rate of about 41 percent. we've all read the stories about some american companies that pay no taxes, or pay 10, 20 percent. they pay 41 percent, they claim. so what's wrong with companies making big money but then paying their share, as the president says? >> well, again this is -- first of all, i haven't analyzed their tax returns and i don't anticipate that i will.

this is not an issue of -- i can barely handle mine -- >> but you're calling for a fair share -- >> but they're also -- regardless of what their effective tax rate is -- and i don't know and i think it probably varies per company -- they are being subsidized at a substantial rate by you and me and every american who pays taxes. and there was a time when that made sense. it does not make sense anymore, with our budget challenges and at a time when these same companies are making huge profits -- huge profits; at a time when there is every incentive in the world to drill and explore, to invest in the -- upfront in doing that, which obviously requires investment by these companies and cost.

the price is high; it's worth it; they can do it. they certainly don't need the american taxpayers' dollars to find the incentive to further explore and develop domestic energy or international energy. so that's the argument the president is making, not -- it has not nothing to do with whether they're paying their taxes or not. what they don't need is the taxes of you and me and every other american for the incentive they need to continue to do business. >> so if it's non-sensible, and you said earlier, why did the president vote for the energy bill in 2005 as a senator if it had over $2 billion in tax breaks for the oil industry? they were making a lot of money then, too. >> well, what i can tell you, ed, is that the oil and gas companies in this country are making record profits now in 2012. the price at the pump is very high, and that is plenty of incentive for these companies to continue to drill, to continue to explore, and continue to develop energy

sources here in the united states and abroad. there is no reason for the american taxpayer to subsidize that activity. >> so why did he vote for them? >> look, i haven't examined the vote or what the prices were at the time or the whole bill that it was attached to. what i know and what the president knows is that this year, in 2012, when we are seeing high prices at the pump, high prices on the international oil market, and record profits from the oil and gas companies, there is no reason to continue these kinds of subsidies. it's just -- take that argument out to the people. i don't think they'll go along with it. margaret. >> thanks. can you help us to understand what, if anything, the president needs to do tomorrow or between now and the weekend as related to the iranian oil sanctions taking effect on june 28? i'm trying to understand the issue myself. it sounds like the question is whether he thinks there is a -- whether there's enough non-

iranian oil available to go forward with those sanctions, and if he doesn't, that he needs to do some intermediate steps by an april 1 deadline. can you tell us, is he preparing to do something? and what can you tell us about that process? >> i can only tell you that there is a deadline related to the legislation, and obviously we're mindful of that. but i have no updates for you on it. >> can we get the updates in like a 5 o'clock deadline -- >> well, i think that we'll -- we're prepared to meet the deadline. >> okay, but nothing that you will discuss between now and then? >> i don't have anything for you on it. >> okay. and can you tell us a little bit more about the trips tomorrow? are they purely fundraising trips? is there any public element to them? and why is -- what's the statement that he's trying to make in going to vermont and maine? >> i believe those are campaign events -- is that right? i think those are campaign events. >> no public component? >> no official events. just campaign events. yes, kristen. >> thanks, jay. officials in france are, today, saying that an actual deal is near to tap the spr between the united states and other allies. can you confirm that that's the case, that a deal is actually near?

>> i cannot confirm that. and i will say, as we have said repeatedly, that this option is on the table, it remains on the table, but no decisions have been made and no specific actions have been proposed. we obviously consult, as we have said repeatedly both this year and last, with our partners around the world and with energy-producing states. but again, there are no decisions that have been made, and no specific actions proposed. >> well, can you say if you're currently consulting with those other countries? >> by currently you mean at this minute, in this hour? we have conversations with various countries all the time. i can't possibly monitor them all, so i don't know if that's the case at this hour of this day. >> given that gas prices are approaching $4 a gallon, isn't it important to update the american people on this component? >> as i just said, and the

president has said, this is -- regarding the reserves and the spr, this is an option that remains on the table. a variety of other options remain on the table, something that the president looks at. and i really don't have any other update on it for you. >> on syria, jay, president bashar al-assad has said that he is going to work to make the mission of the u.n.-arab league a success. do you believe him? >> our approach to this is to look at the actions of the assad regime, not the rhetoric, not the words. it is a welcome development, certainly, the indication that assad supports the annan mission, but it is meaningless unless they act on it. it is meaningless unless there is a cessation of violence.

it is meaningless unless all of the provisions that are required here are followed. we've seen a lot of empty rhetoric from assad and his government in the past, a lot of promises that were never fulfilled and never meant to be fulfilled. so actions are what matter here, not words. april. a jay, i'm going to ask you question about the sudan, particularly after -- weeks after george clooney met with president obama on the sudan. andrew natsios, the former special envoy to the sudan, has written a book and he's also talking about there needs to be more pressure on the sudan, world community pressure. he says this is the window to strike, particularly as the military is getting weaker in the sudan, and he says that it doesn't necessarily need to be boots on the ground there, but the strike should be strikes on their import. what do you say about that? >> well, i'm not aware of the

book or those recommendations. and i'm certainly not aware of any decision along those lines that's under consideration. this is an issue that's of importance to the president; it's an issue that's of importance to the administration and we continue to work hard on it. to again, it's hard for me respond to that not having seen it. i know that's not our policy right now. >> and also, what are the conversations right now, the precursor conversations to the bigger conversation with this president and chinese leaders about putting pressure on the sudan, particularly when it comes to their oil? >> well, the situation in the sudan is definitely a problem and one of the contributing factors to the escalating price of oil globally. i would refer you to the state department for more details about conversations we're having with other countries.

interestedbviously in reducing tensions there, and certainly in trying to mitigate the factors that are having an impact on high oil prices. >> how much would you say that the tensions in the sudan are causing on our oil prices? how much of a percentage? >> you know, i haven't -- i would not hazard a guess because i just don't know. i'm sure there are oil market analysts who can give that to you. i've certainly seen some suggestion that the kind of uncertainty created globally in various areas -- the middle east, principally, but also sudan and other places -- have contributed significantly to the current rise in prices. but more sophisticated analysts than i will have that information for you. jon christopher. >> jay, has the president expressed his thoughts or his feelings regarding the very strong statement made yesterday by chicago congressman bobby rush on the house floor?

>> i haven't discussed that with him. i mean, the president made some comments about that case last week, and i haven't had that conversation with him. alexis. >> jay, what does the president believe motivated the senators who voted against cloture? because some senators suggested that their motivation was the amount of money that goes into their campaign coffers. does the president agree? >> i'm not going to address motivations. we simply believe they're wrong; that the right choice here is to support the american taxpayer, to acknowledge and recognize that while these subsidies may have been appropriate in a different time, they're not appropriate now. we can't afford them. they're not necessary. oil companies have all the incentive in the world without

these subsidies to continue to drill and explore, and that we need to end these subsidies, because we can't afford them, and the american taxpayer can't afford them. and we need to make the appropriate investments in alternative energies. i mean, what is perplexing is a resistance by those who voted against ending these subsidies to investing in the energy technologies of the future, the energy technologies that everybody recognizes who examines this market and examines what's happening globally, everyone recognizes that we have to have -- that these will be the markets of the future, that alternative energies will be a major factor in the global economy in the 21st century. so there's a great resistance to investing in that sector of the energy economy and insistence on investing in the past, at a time when we don't need to, when

oil and gas companies are doing very well on their own without help from the american taxpayer. >> is it possible that that resistance is motivated by the influence of the industry itself? >> i'm not -- you'd have to ask individual senators. i don't know. who's next? >> me. >> okay. mike. >> you asked. thank you. going back to oil -- i'm shameless, i'm sorry. big oil isn't what it used to be. it was announced today that exxon mobil has been replaced as the largest publicly traded producer of oil by a chinese company in china. and i wanted to see the administration's reaction to that. is there any concern -- as china aggressively tries to lock up fossil fuel resources in places like canada, iraq, the caribbean basin, is there any concern that the united states

may end up on the short end of the dipstick? >> sounds like a radio piece in the making. i don't have a specific reaction to this. it is a global market. there are obviously -- because of the attraction that the high price creates, i'm sure a lot of companies are eagerly participating in the market. that's another reason why we don't need to subsidize it, why you do not need to contribute some of your tax dollars to exxon mobil. it just doesn't make sense. i think that this administration's policy is to take all the necessary actions that are responsible and safe to expand domestic oil and gas production as part of an all- of-the-above energy strategy that includes investments in alternative sources of energy like wind, solar and biofuels;

that includes administration actions like the dramatic fuel- efficiency standards the president put in place, with all the major automobile companies agreeing with him to do it. that action alone will have a dramatic effect on the amount of oil that we need to import and the amount of money that the american people can save at the pump. so i think exxon mobil, other major oil companies are doing very well. i don't even think they would argue with that statement. and they certainly don't need these subsidies from us. >> but the administration has often talked about the way the chinese have been investing in things like windmills and solar. they're also investing very much in fossil fuels. in fact, about 86 percent of the shares of this company are held by the chinese government, so isn't the chinese government doing that? >> well, i'm sure they are.

but this is not about -- there is not a market reason for us to subsidize oil and gas companies. major oil and gas companies in this country are doing extremely well, making record or near-record profits. they do not need, as an incentive to drill and explore, billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. so i think that's a principle that a vast majority of the american people can agree with. unfortunately, even though a majority of the senate agreed with it, because of the rules in place, you need a super majority. and unfortunately, the vast majority of republicans voted against cloture today. all the way in the back. >> yes, i wanted to ask you about anwr. when the president was a senator, he helped filibuster it seven years ago. now we have

a new, novel approach from both alaska senators that would basically allow you to drink anwr's milkshake from adjacent state lands. i'm wondering -- >> i'm not sure i follow that, but okay. >> they say you can drill horizontally under anwr, up to eight miles -- potentially get at a lot of that oil. and they also say, hey, if the president hadn't helped block it a number of years ago, it could have been producing a million barrels a day, which would have maybe not have -- maybe it wouldn't be a silver bullet, but would have been a bullet in dealing with high gas prices, potentially keeping tens of billions of dollars here. does the president still want -- still say that anwr is off the table? and is there -- would he be willing to look at something like that, that gets you some additional oil? >> well, i haven't had a discussion with him about the milkshake principle.

but i can tell you that the department of interior recently approved shell's beaufort sea oil spill response plan for potential activities off the coast of alaska that could lead to greater development there. and this president is committed to expanding domestic oil and gas production in a safe and responsible way. and any suggestion that that's not the case -- i think it's worth noting that in 2011, we held a lease sale in the western gulf of mexico that made available more than 21 million acres, equal to an area the size of south carolina. and yet, just over 1 million acres was leased by industry. twenty million acres went un- leased. so there are -- we are making available substantial areas for oil and gas production. we will continue to do that, whether it's alaska or the announcement -- the step forward that secretary salazar announced yesterday that interior is taking to assess

the conventional and renewable energy resource potential in the mid and south atlantic. we're approaching this holistically and examining every opportunity to further develop oil and gas in this country in a safe and responsible way. i don't have any specifics for you beyond what i just said about alaska. but the president is committed to the safe and responsible principle, as well as increasing oil and gas production. andrei sitov. pajalsta. >> thank you, jay. a follow-up to ann's question. do you regard the backlash from the republicans to this episode with medvedev as directed primarily against the president or against russia, per se? >> that's a great question. i don't know. you'll have to ask them. what i do know is that i'm pretty sure the cold war ended when some of the folks in this room were still in elementary school. and any suggestion that russia is america's number-one geopolitical foe represents a

profound -- or unique understanding of recent history. >> are you required to respond to letters such as the boehner letter? >> is the president? i don't think we're required to, and i don't have a response from the president at this time. but i can tell you that -- look, as you know, andrei -- you cover this for the russian press -- we obviously have our differences with russia; we have a relationship with russia that allows us to discuss those differences candidly and openly. we also have a number of very important areas of agreement. because of the policy that this president put in place when he came into office, the so-called reset policy, our relations with russia improved, and that allowed for greater cooperation between the united states and russia on iran.

it allowed for significant assistance and cooperation from russia for the trans-shipment of materiel and other goods to our troops in afghanistan. there are a number of areas, very important areas, where the united states and russia cooperate. and that cooperation is not a good unto itself; it directly benefits the national security interest of the united states. and obviously russia cooperates because they believe -- the leadership there believes that it's in their interest. differences. syria. we have had our differences over missile defense. but as we saw in the meeting between president medvedev and president obama in seoul, we're able to discuss those differences and try to work them out constructively, which is more evidence of the fact that russia is not our number- one geopolitical foe.

>> if the republicans choose to make this into a subject before the elections, of a dispute, would the president welcome a chance to defend his reset policy? >> well, setting aside -- i mean, the president welcomes an opportunity to discuss and explain his policy towards russia and why it has produced tangible benefits to america's national security interest at any time. and whether that happens within the context of the election or in a foreign policy forum somewhere, or in answer to questions from you, i'm sure he'll welcome that opportunity. president tempted to buy one? >> no, but i'm going to run out and buy one. thanks, guys.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> in march, 1979, c-span began televising the u.s. house of representatives to households nationwide and today our mon fiction books and american history is available on tv, radio and onloan. >> on or about friday, november 21, i asked admiral poindexter directly, does the president know? he told me he did not. and on november 25, the day i was re-assigned back to the united states marine corps for service, the president of the united states called me. in the course of that call the

president said to me words to the effect that, "i just didn't know." those are the facts as i know them. i was glad that when you introduced this you said that you wanted to hear the truth. i came here to tell you the truth, the good, the bad and the ugly. i'm here to tell it all, pleasant and unpleasant. and i'm here to accept responsibility for that which i did. i will not accept responsibility for that which i did not do. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies as a public service. s starting sunday, see the winners in this year's documentary competition, on the theme the constitution and you, as middle and high school students from across the country showed which part of the constitution was important to them and why. we'll air the top 27 videos each morning at 6:50 eastern on

c-span and you'll meet the students who created them during "washington journal" each day. for a preview check studentcam.org. >> house republicans passed paul ryan's budget plan. congressman ryan's blueprint which cuts tax rates and slows the growth of federal date won house approval on a party line vote of 228-191. here's some of the debate on the democrats alternative plan. committee for a job well done. this is a tough process. making real decisions about our path for the future. and the interesting thing i found about this debate that's gone on the last two days is that our team actually went and made the tough choices. made the tough choices to preserve freedom in america and to deal with our fiscal nightmare.

you look at all the proposals we have seen in this debate, it's all more of the same. two things that are troubling. let's raise taxes on the american people once again. and secondly, let's kick the can down the road as if no one noes that social security, medicare, and medicaid are going broke. oh, yeah. all these proposals we have seen continue to kick the can down the road. and i think that the path to prosperity, that chairman rye-and-and his committee has put together, is a blueprint for america's future. we all know that we've got some $16 trillion worth of debt already. $13st trillion in a budget deficit this year alone. the american people know this they have to live within their means. they have to do a budget. they also know that you can't continue to spend money that you don't have. so i applaud my colleagues for

the tough decisions they have made. to try to do the right thing for their country. to lay out a real vision of what we were to do if we give more control here in this town. this is still a democrat-run town. and the saddest thing i have seen, though, when it comes to our budget, is while we did a budget last year, we'll do another budget this year, we are making tough decisions to help preserve social security and preserve medicare, the united states senate has spent 1,065 days since they passed a budget. 1,065 days. almost three years since they have had the courage to show the american people what their solutions are. i think it's high time that if we are serious about solving america's fiscal problems, the first step is actually doing a budget. so on behalf of my republican colleagues i would suggest let's

support the ryan budget. it's a real pathway to prosperity. it makes the tough decisions. and puts us on a course that's sustainable not just for our generation but for our kids and grandkids. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i have great respect for the speaker. i would just suggest that he may call it a tough choice to provide and lock in another round of tax cuts for the wealthiest americans while cutting medicaid by $800 billion. by a full 1/3 by the year 2022. 2/3 of that money goes to seniors in nursing homes, disabled individuals. i don't know if it's a tough choice, it's certainly the wrong choice. and that's what this debate is

all about. not whether we reduce our deficits but how. with that i yield two minutes to the distinguished chairman of the democratic caucus, mr. larsen. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. larsen: thank you, mr. speaker. -- mr. larson: thank you, mr. speaker. let me rise and thank mr. van hollen and the budget committee and rise in full support of their balanced and fair document that emphasizes shared sacrifice. let me say to my republican colleagues that this appears to us much like that great philosopher, said, deja vu all over again. franklin delano roosevelt in another difficult period of our history said that we need to prevail upon this country to come together and find the warm courage of national unity that

comes from shared sacrifice. that would again demonstrate to the american people, especially the most frail amongst us, and those in the middle class and are impacted the most, that we have national unity because we have garne -- guaranteed that no longer will they be in a position where they have to suffer while others who would use government in a way to prosper and grow at the expense of the middle class. there isn't a member of this chamber who doesn't have friends or family who aren't affected by the authoring of medicare, social security, or medicaid. these are the tough decisions that are made every single day across the dinner table. this fragile recovery impacts

the most fragile amongst us and also is tearing asunder the very middle class that we seek to provide with a guarantee. the guarantee of a social security safety net that provides them with social security, medicare, and, yes, health care as well. that's why the democrats have offered an alternative plan that underscores our convictions and our belief in social security, medicare, and affordable health care. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. graves. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. graves: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the chairman of the budget committee, he's done a fantastic job. and to the gentleman from maryland, i know it's been difficult this week. you stood in a difficult position and now you're presenting your position.

you have been in opposition to many of the budgets put forward, including the president's last night. i know it's tough. what we -- what we are addressing here right now, mr. chairman, i think are a lot of numbers, charts, rhetoric. we hear that. but what we know is that washington has not been forthright with the american people. for far too long the top has been getting the bailout. the bottom the handout. now who will get stuck with the bill? our kids. that's who is going to get stuck with the bill. why can't we for once instead of looking at charts, numbers, just look through the lens of how will this budget impact our children? and their future, opportunity and prosperity? is this a budget that presents equal outcomes? or is it going to be one that presents equal opportunities? can we not look there that lens for united states, mr. chairman, i would say the budget the gentleman has put forward is one about equal outcomes. it's more taxes, it's more government, it's more government solutions. you know what? why don't we provide more

opportunities and more prosperity for the children of the next generation? that's the lens i believe we should be looking for. looking through. this is why, because whether we believe it or not, whether we are willing to recognize it, we are describes -- scribes of time right now. history is being written based on the discussions, outcome, debate we have. we are the ones who are determining what history will reflect on and say we did at this time and what the future exists like later. what will we choose? what will we write? will this be the chapter that concludes with the words, the end? or will we write a chapter that we can turn the page and hand the pen off to the next generation? mr. chairman, it is my hope that we take our pen and we pass it to the next generation that we can turn the page, we can move forward, and we can provide a new chapter, a new beginning, one that is a beginning that leads to another future of opportunity and prosperity. i believe that only happens if we pass the republican budget that we have before us today.

mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i do think the focus should be on our children and on the future. that's why our budget does not do some of the things the republican budget does do. which is, for example, say that kids who have pre-existing conditions, whether it's diabetes or asthma, get insurance. we make sure that those kids can't be excluded because of pre-existing conditions. they don't. we make sure that the interest rates on student loans don't double this july. as their budget would allow, because we think it's important that those students have an opportunity to get the education, to get ahead, and succeed. i hope we will continue to focus on that question as we debate the choices being made in this budget. i now yield two minutes to the

gentleman from kentucky, a member of the budget committee, mr. yarmuth. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for two minutes. mr. yarmuth: i thank my friend from maryland. recently analysis of american tax returns showed that in 2010 the top 1% of earners in the united states earned $288 billion more than they had in 2009. $288 billion, the top 1%. in fact, that was 93% of all the additional income earned in the entire united states from year to year, 2009 to 2010. . apparently my friends on the republican side were outraged that 7% of the additional income could slip away to the other 99% of american families because they came up with a budget that tried to rectify that immediately. i call it the republican 1% budget. it's a gift basket for billionaires and millionaires. it contains a permanent extension of the bush tax cuts

which have created an income gap in this country on par with in addition to the number one budget, this is the all-for-one budget. it's a budget that's all for the 1%. s by contrast, the resolution we are offering now is really the one-for-all budget. one budget that provides benefits for all americans. and it makes the critical investments that we need to

make sure all americans have equal opportunity and equal tools to realize the american dream. and it makes sure that alcontribute to the deficit reduction that we all are committed to. everybody plays a part, everybody does their shear. i support the democratic budget and urge my colleagues to do likewise. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from wisconsin. >> i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman, mr. guinta, of new hampshire. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. guinta: thank you, mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this substitute amendment. i find what's going on in this country with the level of spending in america outrageous. people in this country have sent us here to do a job, to be leaders, to solve problems. we have current deficit of roughly $1.3 trillion, something that's so high that so many people can't even

comprehend that number. we have a long-term deficit approaching $16 trillion. this substitute today continues that path. of spending money that we simply don't have. i do thank the gentleman for at least offering a proposal, something that has not been done in the senate. so we can debate in i think a reasonable way what the path is that his budget would propose, versus the path to prosperity. this proposal, the substitute proposal, does three things. number one, it spends $3.7 trillion. roughly $1 trillion ongoing deficit. secondly, over the 10-year window, it spends $44.7 trillion. continuing the long-term debt that we have found ourselves in currently. and finally, it doesn't solve the significant drivers of our debt and it doesn't allow for an opportunity to preserve and

protect medicare, medicaid, and social security. the country wants us to be honest. the country wants leadership. we continue to provide that in the house budget committee with the path to prosperity. i remind people that budget proposes stability and predixability by cutting $5.3 trillion in spending. by reducing the tax on both individual and corporate. to give us a fair, level playing field and predixability for the long-term. and it reduce our short-term deficit to about $700 billion next year and continues to ensure we get on a path to balance. a balanced budget is the dream of every american and we offer that opportunity in the path to prosperity. so with that, i urge a no vote on this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: at this point, i reserve.

the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. black, a member of the budget committee. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. black: thank you, mr. speaker. in light of this week's supreme court arguments on the health care law i'd like to take a moment to talk about the contrast between our path to prosperity budget and the broken promises of that law. as we've heard from so many of my colleagues in the last couple of days, we are on the verge of a debt crisis, i don't think any of us can argument that, and this health care law with a total price tag of $1.76 trillion would surely drive us over that cliff faster. that is why in the path to prosperity budget we repeal the entire health care law, including the very dangerous u.a.b. which would slash -- ipab which would slash physician payments. of the 15 member unelected board that makes senior care even harder to access puts

bureaucrats between their patients and their doctors. our plan for medicare offers a choice for seniors and they deserve a choice. we increase the competition between a guaranteed coverage option, and i want to repeat this, that it's a guaranteed coverage option and a traditional medicare and it allows seniors to choose and all of this would lower costs to the program while increasing the quality of care. this is the choice of two futures, both for our health care system and also the prosperity of our nation. now, we can continue to go down the path of obamacare where we see 1.76 trillion dollars in spending over the next 10 years and see billions of dollars in new taxes, fees, penalties on families and small businesses. or we can repeal this law and put in place policies that increase competition, decrease costs and assure that our health care system is patient

focused. we can continue to explode the size and scope of the federal government as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like. and if democrats have it right, their budget would tax more, borrow more, spend more and waste more of the hardworking americans tax dollars. mr. ryan: 30 seconds. mrs. black: i find it interesting that this chamber unanimously rejected the president's 2013 budget that would be an absolute fiscal disaster. and yet this budget before us today again doubles down on those failed policies of the past. the american people are sick and tired of washington's culture of spend, spend, spend because they know there are consequences of living out of budget and spending more than we take in. what we're doing here today is being honest with the american people. we are here to cut spending, reform programs in order to save them and we make government smaller and less

intrusive. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the chair: the time of the gentlelady has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin has 7 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from maryland has six minutes remaining. mr. van hollen: thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. i'm glad the gentlelady brought up the issue of health care and how these budgets impact health care. she described their proposals giving seniors a choice. it's interesting that they would give seniors on medicare a choice that they don't want themselves to have, that they give members of congress a much better deal in health care than they would give to seniors on medicare. and here's what their budget would do in ending the medicare guarantee. this blue line shows the current level of support medicare beneficiaries get from the medicare program. up around 90%. that green line right there, that's the level of support

members of congress get from the federal employee health benefit plan. you can see it's steady. as costs go up, support goes up proportionately. the republican plan, that red line is the one for seniors. that takes support steadily down relative to rising health care costs. so that seniors would have to eat those rising health care costs. they bear the risk. that is a bad plan for american seniors. it's a bad plan for america, and i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts who has focused a lot on these issues as a member of the ways and means committee, mr. neal. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. neal: what's striking about the debate we're having today and this discussion is essentially our republican friends and colleagues are asking us to go back to the policies that got us here in the first place.

the six years when they controlled the presidency, when they controlled the senate and when they controlled the house of representatives. so let me reacquaint all with their number forecast. they offered $1.3 trillion worth of tax cuts in 2001. and then came back in 2003 and said that wasn't enough. let's cut taxes by another $1 trillion. the underlying argument that they offered at the time was that this would jump-start growth despite the fact as we came off the clinton years with the greatest spurt of economic growth in the history of the world, a budget that was balanced for four successive years and 22 million jobs, their argument was we can outdo that growth if we simply cut taxes by $2.3 trillion. incidentally not for the middle

class. these tax cuts overwhelmingly went to people in the one percentile. remember the theory that tax cuts pay for themselves. so let's contrast january 19 of 2001 with the end of the bush years. $15 trillion worth of debt. deficits as far as the eye can see all under the guise of economic growth. so let me give you a number, not an opinion but a fact. those eight years offered the most anemic economic growth at any time since herbert hoover was president of the united states. and what they ask for today in this budget is to have bigger tax cuts for wealthy people and eviscerate the guarantee of medicare. to eviscerate the guarantee of medicare. mr. van hollen: i yield the gentleman an additional 30

seconds. mr. neal: this is the party on the republican side that tried to privatize social security during those years and all they want to do is shoehorn these legislative proposals into tax cuts for wealthy people. and their argument today, despite these record deficits, is with revenue at 14.7% of g.d.p. headed by hoover, by the way, rather in the eisenhower years, when the town argued for years of revenue being between 19% and 21%. they are going to cut medicare to give tax cuts to wealthy people. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i'd like to yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from south carolina, a member of the budget committee, mr. mulvaney. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. mulvaney: before we got a chance to vote on the president's budget, i received a copy of a press release from the white house and it

encouraged that the house democratic leadership to vote for this amendment. it encouraged the democrats in the house to vote for the van hollen amendment which i thought was worthy getting up and talking about very briefly. it makes me wonder why the president didn't send a press release asking the democrats to vote for his budget. it makes me wonder what the president is thinking. does he like the van hollen budget better than his own budget? i mean, i guess there's some things to likes. the president raises taxes by $1.9 trillion. the van hollen only raises taxes by $1.7 trillion. the president's budget increases spending by $1.3 trillion. it makes me wonder where the president is. does the president think that his budget that he offered us a month ago raises taxes too much? raises spending too much? is it too big of a tax and spend document and now he wants less of a tax and spend document? i guess the reason he likes the van hollen budget is it raises taxes, it raises spending and

it never balances. i guess those are the consistencies between the van hollen budget and the president budget we unanimously defeated last night 414-0. i guess the president likes budgets that raises taxes, raises spending and never balances. i suggest to you, mr. chairman, as i have throughout this entire debate that any balanced approach that does not end up in a balanced budget is no balance and is no budget. and for that reason i encourage us to defeat this amendment. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i thank you, mr. chairman. i thought we were back to reality today instead of in the land of make believe. mr. mulvaney offered an amendment yesterday that was not the president's budget. we debated that last night. don't know why we're continuing that charade. i yield a minute to the gentleman from massachusetts,

mr. keating. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. keating: there is talk about kick the can down the road. kick the can down the road. i want to know what road that is. the american dream is a road to an education that is being undercut. it's a road to security that our -- my grandparents worked to give to me. that's the road we are talking about. the question i have, what can are we talking about? the budget offered by the republicans kicks the can down the road all right, but that can is the middle class ameri-can. . the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield a minute to the gentleman from florida. mr. southerland. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. southerland: we have a lot -- mr. speaker, we have a lot of folks in the gallery today that have worked hard and saved money

that they have earned to make their trip and to come here and listen to this debate. they understand that santa claus and fairy tale is not going to pay for their transportation back. they get that. they know when they get back home they are going to have to earn and work and find earned success if they want to bring their family back again. they get it. they get it. the american people get it. at no point in time has the american people had to do more with less and the federal government has done less with more. you know, we hear a lot about fairness. true fairness does not come from wealth distribution. true fairness means rewarding merit, creating opportunity, and letting people rise. that has been a bedrock of the american system. the free enterprise system. it is that free enterprise system that is given opportunity and rewarded people and america has been benevolent with the gifts of being rewarded by hard work and honest dealings much

the democratic budget does not support that. yet the ryan budget or the path to prosperity, the republican budget does. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair also reminds all members not to refer to occupants of the gallery in their comments. the gentleman from maryland has 1 3/4 minutes remaining. the gentleman from wisconsin has five minutes remaining. mr. van hollen: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from idaho. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. labrador: thank you, mr. speaker. if i listen to the other side speak about their budget, it takes me back to growing up in puerto rico as a young man.

and i'm very privileged to represent the people of idaho right now, but i grew up in a very poor neighborhood. i grew up in a very poor environment in puerto rico. and i remember my mother taking me to the wealthier neighborhoods. i remember her taking me to different places to the nicer stores, the nicer places in puerto rico and telling me that i had a choice. that i could work hard, i could play by the rules, i could do all the things i needed to do and one day i could live in one of those homes. one day i could actually have those opportunities. but if my mother would have had the same mentality that the other side has, i would have never been able to amount to anything in my life because what they believe is that the only way you can actually amount to something is if you take from the ones who have. if you are a have not. and my mother never believed in that. she never said someday she will

own a beautiful home, you will own a beautiful car, you will own a beautiful house if you take away from the rich. she always said that it was up to you to become somebody in your life. that's the mentality the other side has. i have this chart here to show what really happened under the democrats and the republicans. if you see this, when the democrats took control of congress, we were at just under 5% unemployment. as soon as they took over congress and barack obama was elected, the unemployment rate went higher. and as soon as the republicans were elected the unemployment rate started going down. that's the path that we can have between the two parties. thank you very much. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: at this time i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from kansas, a member of the budget committee, mr. huelskamp. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. huelskamp: i rise in opposition to the budget offered

by my colleague mr. van hollen. then senator obama, when campaigning for president, called president bush unpatriotic for raising our national debt by $4 trillion in eight years. a big he had surpassed in less than four years. when then senator obama voted against a debt limit increase he said, leadership means the buck stops here. instead washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today on to the backs of our children and grandchildren. america has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. americans deserve better. i agree. with senator obama. if he believes this type of leadership was a failure and unpatriotic, then certainly so, too, should he think that about his budget and this budget here. for this budget would leave the u.s. with nearly $25 trillion of debt by the end of 2022 despite a massive tax increase of $1.7 trillion. despite the increase, this budget does not balance within the next 10 years, next 20 years, not even in 75 years.

we can't wait. we can't wait, mr. speaker. we can't wait to balance the budget for 75 years. now more than ever america needs leadership. as senator obama said, we cannot put the failures of today on the backs of the next generation. i agree, senator obama. so i reject this budget for the sake of our children and grandchildren. i thank you. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i would just remind my colleagues that at the end of the eight years of the bush administration, after the tax cuts which helped create the deficits, we ended up losing over 600,000 private sector jobs. that's the result of trickle-down economics. the last thing we want to do is go back to those policies. the republican budget takes us back to our policies. we invest in jobs. with that i'd like to yield a minute to the distinguished democratic leader who has been focused on jobs, ms. pelosi.

the chair: the minority leader is recognized. ms. pelosi: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to rise to sing the raises of our democratic members on the house budget committee led by the gentleman from maryland, mr. van hollen. thank you for bringing us a balanced budget to the fore, a balanced option on how we go forward to the floor. yes, we know we have to make cuts. that we have to increase revenue, but most of all we have to increase jobs. growth is what is important. and the difference between these two budgets, the budget that mr. van hollen is proposing and the ryan republican budget is that the ryan republican budget loses jobs, the van hollen budget, the democratic budget, is a job creator. it's a job creator, it also invests in education. think of it. if you are a student and have a student loan, on july 1 your

interest rate will double from 3.4% to 6.8%. ryan republican budget says that's just fine. the house democratic budget prevents that from happening. if you are a senior, the ryan budget takes you down a path where the medicare guarantee is cut, you may have to spend $6,000 or more for less in terms of benefits, all the while while not protecting our students, while not creating jobs, while not protecting our seniors and their medicare, the ryan budget gives over $300,000 tax breaks to people making over $1 million a year. how can that be? how can that be? the more people know about that budget, the more they know that it hurts them and their lives. the budget put forth by the house democrats is a positive one for economic growth, for

investment in our small businesses, for honoring the entrepreneurial shirt of america, for strengthening the middle class, for building ladders of opportunity, for people who want to work hard, play by the rules, take responsibility for them to succeed as we reignite the american dream. so i thank you, mr. van hollen, for your leadership in putting a budget forth that is responsible, that honors our commitment to future generations, that reduces the deficit in a positive way, as opposed to mr. ryan's republican budget doesn't even get to -- doesn't get to reduction until close to 2040. i mean the contrast could not be greater. the impact on america's families could not be greater. just think, seniors pay $6,000 more for fewer benefits in medicare while it gives $300,000 tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country. you be the judge.

is that a budget that is a statement of your values? vote yes on the van hollen budget. vote no on the ryan republican budget. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from maryland has 15 seconds remaining. the gentleman from wisconsin has two minutes remaining. the gentleman from maryland wish to use his remaining 15 seconds? mr. van hollen: i reserve. i'm sorry. yes, i would. thank you, mr. chairman. again, our democratic alternative invests in the president's job proposal, a proposal that's been sitting here in the house of representatives since september. we reduce the deficit in a balanced, fair way. we make choices not to provide mother tax break to the wealthiest, but to say we need a combination of cuts and revenue just like bipartisan commissions have done. i urge adoption of the

amendment. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. ryan: i yield myself the balance of the time. mr. chairman, let me just try to give in a nutshell the economic vision the minority leader just gave us. it kind of works like this. take more money from communities, from families, from small businesses and send it to washington, switch it around to bureaucracy, make the decisions here, and through trickle-down government try to create jobs from government. borrow more money if that's not enough, and then print more money if that's not enough over at the federal reserve. and we can make jobs in government. it doesn't work. we have been trying this. look at where we are today. our debt is bigger than our economy. look at the common theme we have seen before us. this budget, the house democratic budget, $1.7 trillion

tax increase. the president's budget, $2 trillion tax increase. the c.b.c. budget, a $6 trillion tax increase. and least but not last, the progressive budget a $6.7 trillion tax increase. is that for deficit reduction? no. it's for more spending. the house democratic budget, $4.6 trillion spending increase. the c.b.c. budget, $5.2 trillion spending increase. the president's budget, $5.2 trillion spending increase. and the progressive caucus budget, $6.6 trillion spending increase. it is clear they want to tax more so they can spend more and they never, ever balance their budget. they sent us off -- send us off a debt cliff. this debt crisis is the most predictable crisis we have ever had in the history of this country. and we've got to stop this notion that we can just keep

taking more and more and more from families and businesses to spend us deeper into debt. it doesn't wor to find a ricottas and problems and f-22 fighter jets.

recommendations from the investigation directed the air force to modify part of the emergency it system and its entire fleet of jets. from the pentagon, this is about 50 minutes. >> their comment -- commander director of operations. the gentleman on this panel represent extraordinary depth of experience to discuss the f-22 study in the way of a head. they are here to provide an update on the scientific advisory board study. they are here to discuss f-22 operations since flight resumed in september of 2011. >> good afternoon. thank you for joining us here. --ay's update is of a great

the study on have 22 oxygen generation system. we understand your interest. sessionthat today's will answer your questions. our aircraft and the people who fly and maintain them are a national treasure. no other aircraft can match the combination of speed, stealth, and maneuverability. it's innovative allows it to survive. there is no other fighter in the world that can do what it does. this error. 's capability is crucial to our national security. last year we determine pilots were having unexplained in flight physiological events and we took action. the secretary of the air force asked the scientific advisory

board to conduct a study of the oxygen generation system. some of the best minds and our nation were assigned to this task including scientists, engineers, and medical professionals. they were led by greg martin, who we are fortunate to have with us today. this team worked together for seven months investigating the incidents in the aircraft. general martin recently briefed them on their findings and offered a list of recommendations for the air force to consider as we move forward. these findings and recommendations are found in your packet. and general martin will explain them to you in detail today. >> thank you for being here and giving us the opportunity to share some of the insights that lessons we learned as we went through this event. i was the chair of the study that the advisory board did known as the study on aircraft,

oxygen generation systems. i think you have a complete listing of recommendations. i will not go through each of those with the. with respect to the formation of the scientific advisory board, from 2008 -- april of 2008 until may of 2009, the air force experienced 14 physiological experience with the fleet of the f-22 is. each of those incidents were thoroughly investigated through the normal air force safety processes. of those incidents, 10 as a

result of the investigation is done did not reveal a root cause. the point that general jones mentioned was what concerned the air force. in terms of numbers, at the time of that last incident last may, the air force had flown about 100,000 hours in the f-22 fleet. that equates to one unexplained incident about every 10,000 hours. or about every 9000 -- that gives you an appreciation for how often any event might occur. although those are relatively low numbers, it was the unexplained nature of those incidents that caused the air force some concern and to establish a broad area review that the scientific advisory board took on. leading up to that charter for

the air force scientific advisory board, in january of 2010 as a result of the incidents that had occurred up to that point, a special class e safety investigation board was commissioned by the air combat command. a major general at that time ran the team. he put together what i would consider to be the nucleus of the team that we worked with him throughout our seven months to try to get to the bottom of the root causes for those incidents. and the may timeframe as the general was presenting his update to the chief and the secretary and the commander of the air combat command, the air force experienced 3 physiological incidents in the f-22 between the last couple of

days in april and the first three days of may. at that. he chose to ground the third fleet. very significant protocols of ground tests for the entire system of the aircraft. it was his recommendation to the chief and secretary they establish a broad area review team to look at things besides just the f-22 system as it is, but rather how it was developed, what decisions were made that led to the incidence that had occurred. also to ensure that we better understood not just the f-22 on board oxygen generation system and life-support system but also to take a look at the other aircraft that use the on board oxygen generation systems to

determine if there were some lessons learned from the f-22 that would apply to those aircraft as well as a result, the chief and secretary charter the scientific advisory board to take that study on. the study was listed as the aircraft on board generation system. the charter was developed and in june of 2010 the team formed. at that time i was asked to chair it. i formed a team. we had nine numbers on the team. we can go into details later. i will not read the charter, but i will tell you there were three main thrusts in it. there were several tasks. one was to determine the cause and how to safely return the f- 22 to normal operations. as a result of the three incidents that happen, the f-22 fleet was grounded. understand the circumstances

that may have led the f-22 to experience an unusually high rate of unexplained physiological incidence and make appropriate recommendations to preclude incidents in the future. this to determine if there are lessons that they could benefit from. at that point as i mentioned, we had nine members that join the team. we work hand in hand with the ongoing board which is a formal air force process for investigation. the scientific advisory board does not normally get involved with ongoing activities. they usually take a longer-term perspective. the also have residents on the board as well as access to the greatest minds in this nation to work problems. we were asked to do not only a longer-term perspective in terms of policies and organizations

and procedures but determining a root cause. we were able to work not only with the scientific advisory board but with the system program office, the air combat command which we will hear more about in a few moments, the air staff, the major commands in the air force, as well as the navy who uses on board oxygen generation systems in several of its aircraft. and what i would consider to be a collaborative relationship with the primary equipment manufacturers. in this case lockheed martin and honeywell, all of whom in my view or totally focused on providing the key people we needed an assets we needed to get to the bottom of the problem. we also took the results of a ground test that they had run. his recommendations for dynamic

airborne tests because some of the things that were occurring in the aircraft in the incidents happened in the air could not be repeated on the ground. during what i would say is very extensive challenge tests to the life-support system and particularly the on board generation system, they believe that they needed to instrument and f-22 and get it into the air to determine whether we could find repeats of some of the incidents that had occurred and help us get the root cause. we took their basic results and their recommendations for the flight tests, worked for those and established a flight test series of not only profiles' but protocols for measuring a system. if you receive the picture,

over 40 censer installations on that airplane to try to understand the process of producing oxygen for the pilot. as a result of general hope's work in our look at the data as well as the testing, i would say two things were important here. we developed a series of hypotheses and they could be broken down into two major hypotheses. for one reason, the on board oxygen generation system is not producing enough oxygen for the circumstance the pilot finds himself in at that moment. for some reason, the on board oxygen generation system and the environmental control system that feeds it, the air that produces the oxygen from, maybe in putting some contaminant that is getting through the on board oxygen generation system and denying the pilot normal function or the ability to

absorb oxygen at a normal rate. those were the two basic hypotheses. each of them had five or in one case six that help the structure the testing and the procedures we would use to return the aircraft to fly. we also knew from the statisticians at that time that given the history of physiological instance in the aircraft that a flight test profile of 14 including all of the sensors and all of the testing that went on on the ground post flight, we would be unlikely, according to the statistics, to have a physiological incident presented itself. or the conditions that might result. we were unlikely to have that. nonetheless, we knew as a result of the sensors we were going to understand the system better and

some of its vulnerabilities. that would lay the groundwork for some of the things we could do to the entire fleet. provisions we could provide to the pilots that would be flying the aircraft that would make it safe for them to return to fly while we continue to gather data and better understand what the root cause might be. at the end of the flight test as we determined we were unable to find the root cause. we were able to put in place the proper safety measures and techniques that would allow the fleet to return to fly at a much greater rate while we were continuing to collect data from the systems we put on the pilot and the protocols we put in place to ensure the integrity of the life-support system. we went from ground tests to flight test to what we call

return to fly phase and the fleet is still in the return to fly phase. we are moving into a transition phase. despite those efforts, we do not have this day the root cause in hand. we have some pretty good ideas. we have a series of tests that the scientific advisory board believes is necessary to continue to explore the envelops of the system and to understand it completely. the stand up of that activity, or the continuation of that activity as being managed by the general and his task force that was recommended by the scientific advisory board to stand up in september and begin the process of collecting the data, analyzing the data and determining other mitigation activities as appropriate for the fleet. those are on going today.

now when we get to the findings and recommendations of the scientific advisory board, i will not read them to you. i will break them down into three areas. one deals with policies and procedures, usually a higher level than at the tactical level in terms of our acquisition processes, our acquisition policies. they are also in organizational and the structure of our organization. at last, our equipment recommendation set up to not only protect the pilots and crew members today, but also give us the kind of information we will need as we get to the root cause, which i am sure we will find eventually. also as we go through that process, some of the equipment recommendations will probably remain. the f-22 is a very unusual

airplane in terms of its capabilities. there is nothing else like it. it is operating environments we do not typically operate our aircraft in, in that kind of an environment. some of the things we have recommended give us a much better understanding of the pilots performance in those environments we have not operated in before. it is a good thing for not only the pilot to know but for us to know because it will further our understanding of the aviation physiology aspects of operating in that environment, which we frankly are not aware of as we should have been and our recommendations put in place, a bomb mechanism we will become more conversant in that area. with that, i will turn it over. he can talk about the task force efforts he is leading. >> thank you general martin.

i am the general of operations of air combat command. our role is to provide forces to conduct operations, in this specific case f-22 is flying superiority missions. last summer i return from a tour of duty as commander of air force forces in afghanistan as we are in the midst of the standout. i was asked as the summer ended to get involved to become a part of the effort by general martin and others to prepare to return the -- return to fly the f-22 fleet. i am happy to report we have flown over 22,000. that is a large amount in a short period of time. the f-22 provides unrivaled, unmatched capabilities to protect our friendly forces on the ground and at sea and to reassure our allies around the globe our task force.

our task force consists of members from inside the government across different commands, different disciplines, and also with members of industry. data is shared from every investigation board, every advisory board, every source is sharing data to get to the root cause. we are implementing the recommendations given to us by general martin's group and others. we continue aggressively to pursue the root cause of these unexplained incidences'. -- incidents. safety is paramount to the men and women who operated in the commanders to operate them and senior officers. what we wear the uniform there is risk. we have a motto at air combat command. people first, mission always. as we return to fly, i was in

continue to be confident in the safety of this aircraft. it is the people, the sons and daughters of americans bonds and fathers, that we put in this aircraft everyday to operate them. to conduct the mission is the nation asks us to. we are well into the implementation phase, well over 10,000. the affirmationwe have a 99.9% g right. we will not rest, we will not stop until we end this journey until we carry that 99 to the farthest right decimal point we can. that concludes my opening remarks. >> we will go ahead and take questions. michael? >> i wanted to pass a question

for general lyon. with the future use of the f-22, is there a feeling in terms of altitude for flying the plane, and is it flying alert missions for now, or are they sitting in alaska? >> the f-22 as an operating offload that exceeds that of any fighter. we're operating in an envelope that exceeds anything in our inventory. in terms of sitting alert, they have sat at aerospace control board for a homeland defense missions. they are sitting in the continental 48 states. we also use other aircraft. we use as many aircraft as required to me the northern command needs. it is not uncommon c.s. used a

variety of aircraft -- to see us use a variety of aircraft. >> it is sitting alert missions right now? >> it is, today. >> there is no restriction in terms of altitude? >> i am not going to get into detail of operational capabilities, but i can tell you is operating in an envelope that goes beyond that of any other fighter aircraft we have today. >> i would like to follow up. without getting into classified information, can you help us understand what is so different about the pilot, and the environment the pilot is in in an effort catch-22 that is essentially, particularly in the case of the oxygen generator, contributes to the increased risk of that pilot? >> if i could, let me talk about

that. as i came on active duty in 1970, i, along with other pilots, go through a physiological training course that is required every three years, and we try to understand the effect of altitude and day and night and nourishment and all that on the body's ability to operate, and we do everything we can to make that aircraft as close to the atmosphere they are used to on the ground. as we go up in altitude, the fact is, for combat aircraft, we maintain a pressure differential between the outside air and the cockpit air of an amount that should there be combat damage the cockpit does not explode. an airline, you stay at 8000.

all those years, we drew a line in the sky that said at 50,000 feet, we will not fly above that altitude without a pressure suit on, because a rapid decompression could cause the evacuation of air from your lungs and the cockpit at a rate that you could not survive without having a pressure suit. this airplane flies retain the above 50,000 feet. we have a partial pressure suit. so we have in our life support and life-sustaining system a capability for that pilot to survive a rapid decompression. our service ceiling is classified, but it is above 50,000 feet, and our aircraft to they are operating above 50,000 feet. but it is not so much the in front of the cockpit as the potential should the pressure --

should rapid decompression occurred that causes our restrictions. at 50 doesn't the your cabin pressure is around 22,000 feet, so you must use supplement oxygen for -- just as you would if you were mountain climbing. >> has that environment contributed to the flaws or malfunctions of the oxygen generation system? is that what you have not been able to determine? >> if we look at the incidents, we actually had a series of physiological incidents below the altitude at which we would expect to see them, and that is 25,000 feet or below. we have seen those in an area where you would not expect them, but we do not have the root cause for why that is. we have pretty good assessments

and tests that are worked right now. it is not a bad attitude. these incidents -- have had some at how the kids where you would not expect them. just as we have with other aircraft. >> can you describe what you mean by physiological incidents? also, how many of these have left crashes of after-22's and how many people on the ground have been killed? >> first of all, physiological incident is usually identified by a crew member. usually recognized by the crew member as a result of the training where we actually train someone to see what would happen if they began to not get the oxygen they need it. if we trained to that on the ground. we have out to do it chambers we take people up and we take their

masks off and see their color at ud goes down, they begin to get light headed, they begin to feel woozy, they all understand what their symptoms are, and a physiological incident is a condition where the pilot recognizes that something is not working exactly right with respect to his ability to understand the environment, control the aircraft, or his senses of normalcy. that is an incident, and they can manifest themselves in many different ways. so because of our concern about the presentation of oxygen and the right pressure to the pilot at the right time, we have tried our best to make sure they understand there may be a condition that they should be aware of. we have given them indicators to help them understand the performance of their body. if they feel different or see some reading that does not make sense, they will declare an emergency, use the emergency

oxygen, come in and land, and that is a physiological incident. [unintelligible] there have been none. with respect to an oxygen failure system, there have been no crashes and no loss of life due to loss of oxygen to the pilot. >> is that not being reviewed in the case of a captain? >> no, i would say the accident investigation board has completed its work and their findings indicate it was not a lack of oxygen. that has been reviewed. [unintelligible] i understand that is true. >> i would like to be clear on that. the loss of captain nahehaney is

a tragedy loss. the board looked into the conditions surrounding that evening in 2010. they looked at it in great detail. we waited until the summer came in alaska to be able to recover additional equipment which gave the board more insight. when faced with a complex emergency procedure at night, the captain was unable to maintain control and impacted. that incident, that accident, and other things which have been reported, because we have a culture of safety in the united states air force of reporting when things do not go as they should be, and we train to these symptoms on the ground. before i set foot in a simulator, which went to the chamber and learned about the physiology, what happens to your body.

so we have this culture in our air force were be expect our pilots will let us know if something is not quite right, and then we convene these investigative boards, and that is what the is diver -- advisory board has really helped us with. to look at this in a very detailed manner over a significant amount of time. >> the investigating board that found that the cause of that crash that killed captain haney was due to pilot error? are you convinced of that? >> the board found that he was unable to maintain control at night when faced with a complex situation. [unintelligible] yes. >> about the crash, the report said haney did not likely to experience hypoxia.

how were you able to determine that's to after -- to determine that at two weeks after that? >> i will attempt to answer that for you. after the summer when more of the aircraft equipment was recovered, the board was able to reproduce the final minutes of the accidents, and in that reconstruction, there is every indication to the board's believe that captain haney not incapacitated, that he was focusing on the complex emergency that general lyon described, and match analyzed at tension led to his disorientation and failure to recognize that's prior to impacting the terrain. the reconstruction of what the aircraft was doing, the inputs

aircraft controls, made the board's belief he was not incapacitated and ultimately it was disorientation. >> so for 29 seconds, he did not make any inputs? for an experienced pilot, he does not do anything? >> that we use a personal example, with over two dozen hours of flying the f-60. you're focused on that emergency, and there are times when we are susceptible and vulnerable to overchannelizing our efforts. every pilot's training is to analyze the situation, but to maintain aircraft control is a difficult thing to do, particularly when you introduce

environments he was faced with, such as night. and so i can fully understand being channellized in trying to understand everything that happens in a complex emergency. >> [unintelligible] in case the program needs to be resurrected, it could happen quickly. how are you implementing the findings of the stabudy? >> i do not understand the concept of reverse ability. could you explain that. >> according to both dod -- want to make sure that they could reproduce -- as quickly as possible, in case it is necessary. [unintelligible]

hal argued implementing -- >> you are talking about that strategy that was implemented in january? their question is what the recommendations are? they are not related. >> how would you implement the recommendations? >> i will answer from an air staff perspective. we are not engaging in any dialogue about restarting the f f-22 production line. the last aircraft has come off the production line. as the air combat command and the air force studies the recommendations of the group, we will examine any changes that are made to the aircraft as changes to those that are already procured, not restarting the production line, if that is what your question was. >> are you taking additional

steps to mitigate some of these -- [unintelligible] there is another one at a couple of days ago. they seem to be continuing. is there anything more you guys could do? >> thank you for your question. when we made the decision to return to flying in september, after looking at all the information brought forward from odies, gated by there were a set of recommendations that give us the confidence that this aircraft is safer than in the past, and it has a tremendous track record. we have implemented those recommendations. we quickly took commercial off- the-shelf technology. one of the hypotheses -- is, is

there a lack of quality of oxygen getting to the pilot? this is broadly used commercially. long distance runners were heart rate monitors. -- wear heartbreak monitors. if there is any indication of an abnormal oxygen rate, which terminate the flight. all eyes are focused on the safe recovery of that pilot at that time. another measure which put in place, the second hypothesis is, is there an issue with the quality of their getting to the pilot? this is a filter. like many of you may have on your furnaces in your home, where you may have other things. this filters out any particular that may be getting to a pilot. -- any particulate that may

be getting to a pilot. we analyze these to see what is it here. we have not found anything of a significant level that has come through this. initially we got to the emergency oxygen system. there was a small rain that was in there. we replaced it. $47 apiece, government workers produced this panel which is in every aircraft in alaska. these are some of the measures we have put in place, and i am glad you asked about the instant the other day. we have taken a 911 call approach. that is how seriously we take this break we have instructed and talk to the members in the field. whenever you get any indication that something may not be right, called 91. terminate the flight. all eyes are on you and the

secretary of that aircraft. we meet the pilots when they get back on the ground with a medical team that goes into an immediate response to care for the pilot, check is oxygen level, given oxygen, we take additional tests, and send them off to the lab. we've received nothing remarkable in the lab results. the incident you are referring to the other day, what we found was there was invalid data here. when it comes to safety, nobody second guesses the pilot. let's get it on the ground, analyze the data, continue to learn to get to the recalls. >> is it possible this is just a physiological phenomenon, because of the characteristics of this aircraft and there is nothing wrong with the oxygen system, that it is strictly related to the g forces that this plane is capable of generating? >> if i could, but we start off

by some of the discussions we had in the advisory board about that issue. this aircraft was the first aircraft designed after goldwater-nichols, and its initial design, the first aircraft that was designed with the knowledge that it is likely to be flying in a chemical- biological warfare and prepared the aircraft crier not designed the same way. in this airplane, we intended to have integrated into the aircraft a protection mechanism that would keep them safe while flying through a chemical- biological warfare environment.

that meant unlike other aircraft which were going to take oxygen from the on board oxygen generation system and deliver it directly to the pilots, and its solution -- dilution would be metered by an algorithm the system. all other aircraft took that oxygen in the cockpit where the regulator mixed it with cockpit air to the representative oxygen. if you are going to flight through a chemical environment, it is likely to cut pick error could be contaminated. the onboard generation system delivers oxygen to the pilot under pressure, said that if there is a problem in the cockpit, it is always pushing out and never been brought into the lungs. we had not flown aircraft where the pilots is continually under

pressurized oxygen. when you lay on youg's, you get -- on more g's, the pressure suit begins to inflate. the facts are not as well-known, and additionally, it must be said, because the report will say that, during the same period of time we reduced the emphasis and the numbers of people associated with aviation physiology research and science. so at the time we were entering a new environment for flying, we also took down those kinds of people, we went from 600,000 people down to 330,000 people, and during that period of time, those types of people went away. that needs to be reestablished. the center of excellence for aviation physiology, and those

sorts of things need to be reinstalled dished -- we established. -- reestablished. we are not aware of some of the as yet, and we did not have the research to it. those are the organizational types of recommendations and observations that general martin's board of to the cheap and secretary that go beyond just findings about equipment itself. i will bring you back to the fact that this aircraft is the world's most advanced aircraft and does air superiority, unlike any other aircraft in the world. this is the leading edge of technology, and if our nation needs a capability to enter contested airspace to deal with air forces that are trying to deny our forces the ability to maneuver without prejudice on the ground, it will be the f-22

that takes on that mission. it is supreme the cable at what it does, and we are confident in its abilities. that is why we are flying that. it is able to do that without hesitation. >> i want to follow up, the question about the rich cause. i'm convinced there is a rich t cause, and weuse will not rest until we find that reaoot cause. >> our pilots at risk if you cannot find that? >> pilots are at risk whenever we put a pilot and struck the man. what we do is critical to our nation, and we are in full believed that the steps that are in place by your combat command, the recommendations that the board came up with, have given us a safe airplane while we

work to a ultimately determine what the root cause is. this airplane is safe and cable of flying. >> we entered a period of time where we had a significant number of fatalities with the f- 16. we did not know why. we continued to fly the aircraft. it was through a series of centrifuge tests, trainees come out inspections, that we've learned that the f-16 at such a capability that it could exceed the human in some parts of the envelope. we fixed that. the continued to fly and train and be ready for missions. >> is a couple other things. first of all, the on board oxygen generation system as originally designed and installed did not require any routine maintenance or schedule. it was a fly-to-fail system.

we averaging inspectors -- we have inspectors street we did tests for the entire system, so maintenance actions in place to they were not there before and can uncover leaks in the system and that sort of thing. then you put on a device that will be integrated into the mask, into the headset, you put in the oxygen measuring system which we do not have today. they're giving the pilot indications they did not have before about their physiology and the performance. there's a whole bunch of things that mitigate the risks, but we are still deadly serious about finding the real cause so engineering wise we eliminates that. will those other things stay on board? in some cases, yes, that will be an operational decision. let me restate the question.

are these pilots put at unnecessary risk since you have not determined the cause? >> no, absolutely. >> he spent time talking about out the did -- altitude. want to get to what you found regarding that g forces. why did this correlation between these incidents and g forces -- the second part of that is, you mentioned the navy has been in this discussion. had they experienced some of the same physiological incidents with their high-performance aircraft? >> first of all, with respect to

the navy, yes, they have, and they have shared that information with us. in their at-18 fleet -- their f- 18 fleet as a variety of oxygen- generation systems, and they have had incidents on both types of aircraft. you can check with them and you will find the numbers are fairly significant, and they worry a lot about it and have put in place mitigation strategies which were very helpful for us to understand. g's, it was to the my experience as we did our study that we had -- we observed that under high g's on board oxygen generation system might

not produce as much oxygen as it would when it was not under g, but it was never below what we would call warning of band pick it was never an area of concern, but it was a phenomenon that we notice, and that is one of the tests going on to determine why it occurs. it was unexplainable. it did not do that on the ground, but does it in the air. with respect to the incidents, have had a similar number of them, and some of them that have .ccurred happened with no g's in other cases they may have occurred after the onset of g's, we have seen that across the board. he did not have a correlation to g's and incidents. >> it is like walking down a fair way and you see a ball sitting in the rough. how did it get there? you have to trace it back to the

swing of the golfer, and every bit of flight in the way that gets it there. it is easy to say here is where the symptoms occur and focus on that moment, but to the go all the way back to where the golf swing begins, is where the pilot walked out to the aircraft hit the has something measuring is oxygen quantity levels. every one of these is analyzed. we found that oxygen levels are staying high. this device, we're back to the periodic table. we're down to looking at parts per billion. that is the greenwich laird of the analysis that we're getting to come parts per billion, whereas oshas