measures in parts per million pit when committed to is we will not leave any stone unturned. we will use every disciplined available, every four of study and discipline out there to get at this problem, and that is what we continue to do today. >> thanks very much -- >> the house or repair of a $3.50 trillion budget bill with no democratic votes. this is following the budget debate. in campaign news, george h. w. bush endorsed mitt romney today. we will have that honor schedule later. -- that one our schedule later.

>> they talk about south korean security. the assistant business and financial editor gretchen morgeson looks at the overview of fannie and freddie. they discuss the first relief of records and surveys from the 1940 u.s. census after the expiration of the confidentiality clause. on c-ington journal" live a span. >> and paul ryan defended his budget bill at an event hosted by the "national journal." he also spoke about defense spending in changes to the medicare program. the house passed the plan after these remarks, which are about

30 minutes. >> i want to be very brief so we can get to the questions. i will go through the lay of the land with respect to the process. the budget law says the president must propose a budget. the president has followed that proposing a budget. we take issue with his budget. it is not addressed the drive as of our debt. there was a vote last night and i got 414 to 0. it was an attempt to try to show that there's not a lot of support for putting a budget that does not attempt to fix the problem. we had a few budgets substitutes

yesterday. we have the black caucus. we had the same symbols budget. this morning we're going to have the starting budget. then the final passage of our budget. chris van hollen to get credit for proposing the budget. it is always tempting not to put it there. we can step up and make proposals. the senate's has announced for the third year i row that they're not going to bother doing a budget. budgeting is one of the rudimentary aspects of governing. if you're going to govern, you must budget. we have one of the most predictable crises coming. it is a debt driven crisis. we have an obligation to do

something about it to pre into this. this is our attempt to take these core principles and preempt a debt crisis. we think the key components are to get spending under control, reform our entitlement programs and promises can be kept to seniors, and economic growth. we need policy to grow the economy and get people back to worth. -- to work. i appreciated. why don't we get on it? >> thank you. we're going to be right into questions. i want to leave time for questions as well. how close is the united state? >> we bring a lot of people to be question. they tell us is about -- it is

about to to three years. they're going to focus on as quickly. you also have the question about the federal reserve. because we are the reserve currency, a gift this time and space. high in banking on about two years before this gets really ugly. it means the interest-rate spike. we can have real economic problems. the united states has not seen a decrease in demand. why do you think the markets are simply holding off on it? what do you know that the markets do not? >> what i get from people who are probably the markets, there are a lot of people who are the "bond vigilantes."

you americans are not a parliamentary system. you have divided government. they know where the safe haven. they are waiting for the election. i want to show that one half of our system is getting serious about this. they are putting specific ideas on the table on how to cut spending, not doing some back room deal. there are real ideas taking a and introducing legislation. what i get for this is america does not start buckling down, we

can fix this in 2013. this is the theory that is often given to me. i will leave it at that. >> we can spend a lot of time about the better bet for america. >> we will get it right. we will fix this problem. we are the safe haven. we have a better labor market and economy and resources. we have everything wired to get back to prosperity and economic freedom. and because of our reserve currency status and because they actill get our together, it is after they exhausted the possibilities. i think we are the safest bets. i think we will fix this thing. >> your plan relies on eliminating tax expenditures. you have been unwilling to talk about which ones.

break that mold here. >> we want to have open hearings about which ones are worth keeping and which ones are not. we should, in addition to talking about what tax expenditures are there, we should talk about who gets them. that is where we should focus on, who gets them. the top ones arm of tax rate payers -- 1% of taxpayers get [inaudible] soh the what is important that the who is important. who should be getting the benefit or not. there is fiscal space left with the construct we're talking about. these are things we have consensus on. we will get into the consensus. they have a series .

it to be premature to say what the conclusion of the process will be. to me it is the who. a person in the higher tax bracket can shoulder a lot of their money from taxation through the polls. for every dollar, it is taxed at zero. then they will be taxed at 25%. you get more of their income subject to you lower tax rates. where i come from in wisconsin, at 9 of the 10 businesses bothers taxes as individuals. eight out of him businesses file as individuals. did lake superior, the canadians it

is lower their tax rate to 15%. we're going to raise the tax rate on are successful small businesses tax we are manufacturers. you compete globally. -- on at our successful small businesses? you compete globally. it is economically inefficient. it means higher tax rates. that's clear this stuff out and lower the tax rates. it is more competitive. >> you do not want to talk about specific items. the loopholes that are generated, it was lost to the federal government. your budget requires more money than that to pay for the reduction of in tax increases. >> i am going to raise the

numbers. we raise about $1 trillion. we do not spend it in the first place. this is really inefficient. we raise about the same amount of money. it is extremely inefficient. most other industrial nations have a different type of tax system than we do. i'm not just talking about corporations. businesses are taxed the same. there are more tax on the individual side of the code rather than the individual. we have to get our minds around it and understand that this system is really uncompetitive. you have to lower the rate. defense.talk about

your increase eliminates the sequester. this is contrary to the guidance from the pentagon. why did the committee choose to go against the advice of the general? >> we do not think they're giving us the truth advice. we do not believe their budget is the right budget. i believe the president's budget, the number was announced at the same time. we take $300 billion out of the space. if we are using apples to apples, he says we're cutting $400 billion out of the defense but we are cutting $300 billion. we believe money can be taken. any agency that gets 700 billion

-- $700 billion a year will have an efficiency. let's not forget we are out where care -- we are where we are. we have a dangerous planet and world. we do not want to have a budget driven strategy. we keep the defense spending level above for the president's budget is. we have point to five% real growth after that. it is flat funding. >> this is not an obama defense budget.

we saw all of the combat commanders stand up and say this is what we need. this will not be the first time. >> what i believe is that this does hollow out a defense. a goes beyond or react to the do have a strong national defense to keep people safe. there pushing this out to another five-year window. it means it costs more per copy. they are putting their drawdown funds in the supplemental bill. there is a lot of supplemental smoke and mirrors. it is not an accurate budget. when you confront military experts, if they can see these things. we have an honest pentagon budget.

this is the first response ability of the federal government. we have a more dangerous world. if we had this new strategy, you have to have a navy and an air force that can extend this to reach. this budget does not do this. strategy does not match. this is a budget driven strategy not a budget driven strategy. >> the strategy came out before the budget did. what kind of knowledge to you have about the need to counter the future threat? >> they're not going to come anywhere close to that with this budget. the replacement they are pushed out another five years. what was said before this budget was released before and what

was said after are two different things. >> let's talk about gdp growth. your plan assumes economic growth. >> we just use the cbo baseline. >> you need economic growth. your argument is that reducing the tax rate will yield economic growth. what economic growth would you anticipate? >> we use the cbo baseline. our budget is based on the cbo baseline. the official cbo baseline assumes a $4.40 trillion tax increase in january. all the tax cuts go away. a massive tax increase happened in january. cbo think it'll slow down the economy to a 1.1% growth. we have to use that to measure our budget and even though we be killed or do we repealed -- even

though we repealed that growth. since we're not putting the policies in the budget that cbo says will hurt the economy, what with the budget look like if we reflected a better economy because we do not have this tax increases? we consulted experts from all around as to a good role of of what growth would be achieved if we had a fundamental tax reform and in debt reduction which takes pressure off of interest rates. we ran an alternative growth scenario of different versions between 0.5 and others a year. it is a thought exercise. what it shows you is you dramatically balance the budget a lot faster than what the conventional cbo baseline says. it is soon slow growth because of tax increases.

there is an explosion of debt. we paid the debt off. we use a measurement that assumes those things. what we're trying to show is you get past the economic growth. with faster economic growth, you get more revenues. the point i'm trying to make is we need a combination of economic growth policies and spending cuts and entitlement reforms to get this country back on track. we can get the balance. we can pay off the debt faster if we grow the economy and get our spending and debt under control. >> what do you say about the range? >> there are economists that a rule of thumb is 0.5% and one's arm of additional growth. -- 1% of additional growth. there are a range of different cities that show you the additional growth can be

achieved if congress enacts the right kind of policies. >> to romney advisers? >> which ones? >> let's go to the audience. >> we have some in the front, please. >> good morning. watching the house floor yesterday, you heard the buzz word about ending medicare as we know it. how do we educate the public that the real drivers of the debt are not foreign aid but big screen entitlement? >> i have this chart that cbo put up that shows how three programs, medicare, medicaid, social security eventually consume 100% of revenues. uther interest on top ridgy you a thrill interest on top, at -- you throw interest on top, and

it goes up. but parties made a lot of promises that the government cannot keep. promises are being made to today's americans and the government is shy of covering. the sooner we acknowledge that, the better off we will be. this is what we are proposing. the two words you hear are open good balance -- are "balance" and "end medicare as we know if.. t." for people who are younger, 54 and below, convert to a system of support much like the commission recommended, which is you get a list of guaranteed

jobs that are guaranteed. he cannot be denied. there's a competitive bidding system that makes sure your but it keeps up with the price of the insurance. -- benefit keeps up with the price of the insurance. medicare subsidizes your premium based on who you are. as you get sick or, more subsidy. a wealthier person gets more subsidy. doing it this way using choice and competition, having support with competitive bidding, gives us competitiveness. we think it's a smart and important to do this. it is gradual. you do not end up with a debt crisis where you have disruptions in people's life. if you solve the medicare puzzle, you dramatically improve your chances of averting a debt

crisis. people say you need a balanced approach. here's the problem. spending is the problem. our government spending is about 24% right now. it is going to 40% and 80s term or the course of the century. the size of our government goes from 20% to 40% of the economy. the revenues will crash the economy. the spending is the problem. if we try to chase this higher spending line with higher revenues, you will shutdown the american dream and economy and a sign the next generation tod and an inferior -- to an inferior standard of living. if we lower the base the ball hard drive creatures and small businesses in the economy which will suffer -- we will herurt te

economy, the small businesses, and the economy will suffer. to the best way to get out of the mess is economic growth and spending cuts. if we define balance as just keep raising tax rates and do not deal with the drivers of the entitlements, we will never balance the budget. we will ruin the economy in the meantime. >> another one? somewhere up front here. >> a good morning. i am with the coalition on human needs. chairmen ryan, your budget at an additional $265,000 annually in tax cuts for the very wealthiest while at the same time cutting domestic human needs programs

and entitlements. and how is this not a huge redistribution of wealth up word -- upwards? >> i've not heard that number before. what i'm trying to say is clear up the tax shelters. they are disproportionately used by higher income taxpayers. so we can lower rates for economic growth. i do not see the tax code as a tool that ought to be used of social engineering and picking winners and losers based on what special interest has the most clout. i see it as being progressive. in maximizes economic growth and gets a businesses primed to hire people. the best welfare program is a drop at the end of the day. grows under this budget.

the kinds of criticisms you heard then are the same kind we are hearing now. we believe that the well form -- welfare reform was successful. it help people get back on the line of self-sufficiency. our approach to these issues is to give back to life of upward mobility and opportunity. it is to have a safety net for people who cannot help themselves and to help people get back on their feet. all the other welfare programs that have not been reformed in 1996. we are proposing another round of well for -- welfare reform. let's customize some of these benefits to the unique needs of

the population. we did a great job in wisconsin. we think we should reform the other welfare programs. there to ways of looking at this. -- there are two ways of looking at this. one is to treat the symptoms of poverty to cope with or is our objective to look at the root causes of poverty to try to eradicate it? we're trying to end a cycle of poverty by going to the root causes. this is not actions 60 to getting people on the lives of up for mobility. we want to reform the programs of people get on their feet and on the liza self-sufficiency. he cannot do that if you do not have a growing economy offering jobs for them to get into. >> we have time for one more.

>> good morning. how is your budget treat the issue of infrastructure in america? what do you see as the end game? >> in about three hours, we will have a vote on a partial extension. i want to get to a longer-term bill. the problem we have is the law, and the actual highway trust fund goes insolvent in 2013. i want to make sure the budget projects a new consensus. this has not been reached yet. our budget reflects the law. nobody wants to see that happen. no one wants to see a massive drop off in funds. we did two things.

we have a new form of revenue stream coming into the highway trust fund from oil and gas exploration. that issue revenue takes awhile to kick in. once a kicks in, it'll be far more than the estimates show. it will show a new stream of revenues coming in. we created a reserve in budget which allows us to change the aggregates once a bipartisan infrastructure bill is agreed to. our budget can adjust to that new agreement. the key is this. the way the highway bill was written, it based the limits on production of gas tax revenues. gas tax revenues came in under the projections. if you have a trust fund, it works like this. revenues come in and you can spend up to the revenues. that is how we think trust funds should work. over the last number of years, $35 billion was rated out of the general funds to go to the

highway trust fund. we cannot keep doing that. if you want a real trust fund, you have to operate it like the real trust funds. if we want to not have this cliff of dropping obligations of contract authority, you have to come up with offsets to pay for smoothing that line out. that is what the reserve fund is therefore, to accommodate a compromise that comes with a pay for to keep the highway trust fund whole insolvent and not have a cliff of obligation limits which could really disrupt our infrastructure. >> i am told that there is time for just one more. >> hi. going after the question, they ran the numbers on your income tax cut. even accounting for removing all

the shelters, itemized deductions, the health-care exclusion for employers, and removing the minimum tax, your rate reduction still provide millionaires with an average tax cut of about $187,000 a year. on top of that, it was the cbpp concluded that 62% of your spending cuts come from support programs for the pork. you are not only balancing the budget on the backs of the poor, you're cutting the programs to pay for tax cuts for the rich. how do you justify it? >> i've always taken issue with their analysis. i will put it to you this way. when we think of millionaires and the tax code, we think of aaron rogers or a movie star. i will go back to the issue. it is mostly small businesses, a

successful small businesses. 65% of our net new jobs in not come from big corporations. they come from successful small businesses. half of the people in the country work for these businesses. it is the business in the in-a park on the side of your time that has 50- -- in the industrial park on a sighted your town that has 50 to 200 workers. it can go up in january. most of our national competitors, china, india, in india, canada, are lowering the tax rates on their businesses. we are looking at raising our tax rate on these businesses to as high as 45% when the international average is 25%. it is not a payer system. no to businesses are the same with respect to the taxes.

had a lot of income but no tax liability legally. ups paid i think it 34% tax rate while their competitor paid 44%. but make sure everybody pays the same tax rate based upon the amount of money and income they make whether they are a business or an individual. we think that is fair and better for jobs. with respect to these programs, they are growing at unsustainable rate. poussin's have quadrupled over the last 10 years. -- food stamps have quadrupled over the last 10 years. if we keep the programs on an unsustainable path, they will crash and we will have a debt crisis and not be able to service these people. under a debt crisis, you are

cutting indiscriminately across the board in of leeway. you have to cut current people on these programs. as it headed these problems. let's get these programs -- let's get ahead of these problems. let's get these problems. our states have a better idea on how to help people. subsidiaries, and the idea that the government close the government governs best. i believe we need to get more power to the states. i live in wisconsin. it is different than york city. why should they have the same rule that tells people in my state how to fix these programs and help people like they are in new york city? they are different problems. let's replicate these excesses

of the 1996 welfare reform. let's empower local communities to help people. at the end of the day, if we keep growing debt so much you end of crowding out of those social intermediary institutions, you crowd out civil society. you displace those key common bonds at communities working for the common good like civic organizations. if you're taxing people so much, if your debt is getting so high, you will make it harder for civil society to help people who need it. those are the principles we use in applying this. if we think we can tax people at higher rates, it is at much higher rates than our competitors. we're going to wind up in a debt crisis. these are people who need government the most common the

poor, the elderly, and the sick. -- the most, the port, and the elderly, and the sick. >> thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> now we will hear from chris van hollen who also spoke at this event. his remarks are about 45 minutes into place before the house passed the $3.50 trillion budget bill. >> thank you. our next guest is the ranking member of the house budget committee. in just a reminder, we will offer a few brief remarks and sit down for an interview and take questions from the audience. he was elected to congress in 2002 to become one of the youngest members in 2008.

he was elected to service the top democrat on the house budget committee. in 2011, he was elected to the bipartisan committee on deficit- reduction. welcome. >> thank you very much. i thank everybody for joining us today. i want to thank the national journal for bringing us together. he picked the right time for us to talk about this issue since we debated the budget on the floor yesterday. we have the votes today. i would like to take a moment to thank paul ryan. as chairman, i think he has conducted the proceedings in committee and on the fall with civility predict on the floor with civility and professionalism-- i think he has conducted the proceedings in

committee and on the floor with civility and professionalism. on our committee, we have accomplished that objective. let me begin by talking about some of the reasons we have the deep differences over the republican budget and then talk about the democratic alternative. we are here at a very important time in country. we all know that. because of the extraordinary actions that were taken over the last four years as well as the tenacity of the american people and small businesses, we have gone from an economy that was in total collapse to one that is slowly recovering, is still fragile, but headed in right direction. we certainly do not want to do anything now to mess that up. we certainly do not want to return to some of the economic

policies that got us into the mess to begin with. we are concerned that the republican budget does that, that it disrupts the gradual recovery, and undercut investments that are going to be important for the long-term economic strength for the united states of america. to give you a couple of examples, and in area of transportation, an area we are debating on the hill right now in addition to the budget, the republican budget proposes to cut transportation funding by 46% next year. that is what is in their budget right now. we have 17% unemployment in the construction industry. we have lots of roads and bridges and transit ways that to be modernized. it seems to be a no-brainer --

that needs to be modernized. it seems to be a no-brainer to have a long-term transportation plan. that is proposed in the democratic budget. it is not part of the republican budget. that is just one example of the kind of investments that we should be making. as a result of some of the cuts that the republican budget proposes in area of transportation, many independent analysts, including some you will hear from on your next panel, have estimated that the republican proposal will lose up to 2 million jobs over the next two years if you combine the kind of cut and investment i'm talking about with the elimination of some of the enhanced tax credits, that would be less spending power from many

people on the lower end of the income scale. that is important during a time of economic recovery. they would cut that. that is why you find the analysts have made those projections. rather than taking measures that could slow down and jeopardize this fragile recovery, we believe we need to focus on jobs and getting the economy moving as we put into place a long-term deficit plan. they are clearly linked. did the congressional budget office estimates that 1/3 of the current deficit for fiscal year 2012 is due to the fact that the economy is at underemployment. this is why it is so important

to focus on that component. for our long-term growth and economic soundness, we need to put into place today credible plan to reduce the deficit and the debt. the question is not whether we need to do that. there is agreement on that. the question is how and what choices we make in that process. there are very big differences. if you look at the approach taken by every bipartisan group that has explore this challenge, you will find that they took a balanced approach, meaning they recognized that we need to reduce our deficit 3 combination of cat and spending and revenue -- through a combination of cuts in spending and revenue.

the republican plan does not. there are no new revenues in the republican plan. maybe that is not surprising given the fact that the overwhelming majority, 98% of house republicans have signed this pledged saying they will not close a one single tax loophole, won't eliminate a single tax subsidy for the purpose of deficit reduction. you hear a lot of talk about tax reform. the difference is the bipartisan groups said let's do tax reform in a way that could run and reduce the rate. let's do revenue generating to reduce the deficit. when you take depositions, --

that position, it means you have to do with the deficit at the expense of everyone and everything else. that is what the republican budget does. that is why it end up slashing medicaid so that by the year 2022 it is cut by a third. medicaid, at 2/3 of that money helps support nursing homes and disabled andindividuals. the approach cut the medicare guaranteed. we can have a discussion about exactly how that works, but the reality is that seniors on medicare would be getting the equivalent of a voucher and that voucher would decline and in value relative to the rising cost of health care. at their purchasing power

decline significantly. all the cost is put on seniors under that plan. they also dramatically cut our investment in higher education. they cut deeply into the food and nutrition programs. a whole set of cuts that we believe it will make it harder for us to accomplish our goals for the united states of america for about educating and out competing the rest of the world which we have to do in this economy. that is why we take a balanced approach. we make some tough cuts. we adopt all because that were made as part of the budget control act. we propose additional cuts in area of mandatory spending. we also propose additional revenue. we propose additional revenue from having the tax rates on the

very high income earners go back to where they were during the clinton administration. we have revenue from closing a lot of the corporate tax preferences. all told, like the president's budget, we have about $1.50 trillion in revenue. our budget adopts the framework. it shows the free-market president said in his budget. because we have a revenue component, it means we do not have to decimate important investments in future and education, investment in infrastructure and transportation, investments in scientific research, things that have powered our economy in the

past and future. because we have a balanced approach, we do not have to cut the social safety nets as the republican budget does. i will close again by saying the issue here is not whether we reduce the deficit and whether we reduce the debt, we have to do that. the question is what choices we make in the process. we believe the right approach is the approach taken by various bipartisan groups that bring a balance to the equation, of looking at the spending side and also the revenue side of the equation. with that, i thank you for the invitation. i look forward to any questions you got. [applause] >> we are going to start by fast

forwarding a little bit. i want you to bring up the november/december timeframe and tell us how it plays out. >> we have a convergence of three major events. one is the sequester, one is the expiration of the 2001-2003 tax cuts, and then we also have the looming issue of the debt ceiling where we are currently scheduled to hit the debt ceiling probably sometime at the end of next year. we may be able to manage it into the early months of the following year. did the convergence of those events show possibilities. one is that it is an action forcing event that produces a positive result where you could agreement that deals with the question of taxes.

the sequester is about $1.20 trillion in deficit reduction. our democratic alternative budget, like the president's budget, eliminate the sequestered and replaces it with $1.20 trillion on could deficit reduction by taking this approach. at the end of this year, under current law, all the tax cut expire. that is about $5 trillion compared to current policy. you have the ingredients for a deal that could take a balanced approach along the lines of various bipartisan commissions. the question is whether or not during that short time after the election congress would be able to deal with that or whether you would really have to have that spillover into the first couple of months of the new administration.

i think if you do not get a longer-term agreement during that period of time, which would be difficult if tax reform will be part of the equation, then you are talking more likely having to address this in the early months of the next administration. just to be clear. we would all like to do this sooner rather than later. that ability to get the balanced approach has so far escaped us. >> but to wind and talk about the budget center on the floor today -- let's rewind and talk about the budget centered on the floor today. the right plan has been criticized as a not serious approach because of the tax policy that it promotes. the democratic plan has seen a serious approach because it at $6 trillion to the deficit. why did you not take the

opportunity to go far enough in addressing the structural problems of the social programs that are really driving the problem? >> it takes us down from a deficit which is over eight% of gdp today to under 3% by 2015 and keeps the deficit of under3% of gdp for the remainder and stabilizes the debt. we stop the rapid increase in the deficit and stabilize that during the end of the. period.he the issue of medicare has been an important part of the debate. i did not bring in a chart. it was a chart that was offered

by the chairmen of the committee, paul ryan. what it shows with respect to medicare, which is a driver of future costs, that the plan he laid out and the plan that the president has proposed in the one that is adopted in the alternative have the same costard directory on medicare. those lines are the same. the question is how you get that cost trajectory compared to the projected health-care costs. how do you deal with that the gap? the republican proposals have said a gives you a voucher and put it on the seniors. we're trying to change the incentives in the medicare program to put more focus on rewarding people who deliver value and quality of care rather than quantity of care. you do not pay the hospital

every time someone gets remitted. -- readmitted on the same condition. we have already begun to implement some of those things. but there are backstop provisions to also bring down those costs. we have very different approaches. interestingly, at the chart showsted by the chairmean the costs trajectory was actually the same under both plans. we do address those issues. we're going to need to do more. these are 10-year budget windows. as we get projections in the future. we are going to have to take this one step at a time. the first up was to stabilize the debt. >> than the budgets we have seen have adequately addressed social security. why is everyone avoiding social

security? >> the best approach to social security that we discussed in super committee and in disappointed we did not address some of these issues in that context, you need to take the approach that ronald reagan and tip o'neill did which is a bipartisan approach. i think the model for how you get this done is out there. you are right. that issue is not specifically addressed. i would point out that the social security trust fund is 100% solvent if congress takes no action between now and 2037. beneficiaries would take about 25% reduction in but if it. it did a significant issue that should be addressed. the sooner we address it the better. i do want to make it clear that

the social security trust fund the trusteesby 100% until then. >> why should anyone look at any but is that our in plan right now as anything more than political document? >> for the purposes of this year, i think the part of the budget that are going to be potentially acted upon by the portions that deal with discretionary spending. the budget control act that we passed last year which has a trillion dollars in discretionary savings established these budget levels including for this current fiscal year 1 trillion 47

billion. unfortunately, in the republican budget by late that agreement. they came in at a lower number. that could create complications down the road. the senate is going to stick with the agreed upon levels. we had hoped that by getting this agreement we would have some stability in the process. as for the other big pieces of the budget, taxes, a tax reform, how you are going to move forward on some of the programs that medicare and medicaid, those are issues there to be dealt with in campaign. these are issues for the presidential election. they are major differences of opinion. after that election is over, are

we going to be able to reach a compromise? there are some that say these elections will send such a huge and powerful signal that the public will point the way in one direction or another. it'll be crystal clear. the election, while the issues will be debated, at the end of the day, you are not going to have one answer from the public. he will have to compromise. at the end of the day, what people have strong feelings about what they believe is the best way forward, you are not going to get a solution without a genuine compromise. people cannot get things 100% their way. that is what we believe the approach we have taken is a step in that direction. >> we will come back to the post election in a minute. but stick with one area of commonality among all the budgets.

that is this frenzied popularity of closing loopholes. you do not get a lot of money out of closing loopholes. mr. ryan would not answer the question about what the polls he has in mind that the ways and means can deal with. would you hav? >> there are a couple of areas we believe on the corporate tax side that we need to address. there are some instances in the tax code we think provide some incentives for people to move capital and jobs overseas. the fact that you can deduct your interest on investments overseas in real time, even though you're not taxed on the proceeds of those investments. there in the president's budget. we adopted them in our budget that we would do right away.

in terms a comprehensive tax reform that lowers rates and broadens the base, that is right. the issue is how you do it. people should not race to declare that they will get these tax rate down to a certain level. we have to see which of the tax expenditures and preferences can be eliminated and in what way. one of the things i proposed early on is that you begin with higher income individuals and you begin to lower some of their tax preferences. you can use that to lower the rating little bit and take some of that revenue for the purpose of deficit reduction. did you have raised eight really important point. one of the criticisms we made of

the republicans is they said they will drop the top tax rate to 25%.% 225 we have asked them to shows how you do that without increasing the burden on middle america. he cannot do that without raising the tax burden on middle income tax payers. when you drop, according to the tax policy center and the joint tax committee attracted this, that is $4.60 trillion in lost revenue. if you say you're going to make up $4.60 trillion in lost revenue through getting rid of tax preferences, you would wipe out the whole mortgage interest deduction and you still did not get close to $4.60 trillion. you can get rid of all the

health exclusions. you add that any still not get close. our viewthey are in essentially prescribing an increase in the tax burden for middle-income americans. maybe you can get the tax rate down a little bit. today, it depends on your baseline. under current law, the tax rate goes from 35 to 39. if you do tax reform, you end up getting it to 36 depending on how you do it. talking about getting it down to 25%, not only are you going to increase the burden on middle income americans, but you are not going to have any of that money available for the purpose of deficit reduction. every bipartisan group has taken

a sizable portion of that revenue in tax reform for the purpose of deficit reduction. >> 4.6% -- $4.60 trillion is correct. altogether, these requirements would require at $10 billion. we should be talking about who, not what we are affecting when we eliminate tax expenditures. the five biggest individual tax expenditures are the employer health insurance, the inclusion of employer pensions, then interest deduction, then medicare at the exclusion, then the capital gains rate. where you stand of the capital gains rate? are these things you are prepared to negotiate on? >> as part of a comprehensive tax reform plan, i would be willing to look at all those things. the issue is after you deal with

the interactions, what is the consequence? one of the principles i would insist on is that we adhere to at least the current tax code. as we deal with these different preferences, my view is we should not raise the burden on middle income taxpayers relative to high and taxpayers, which is why when our republican colleagues to take capital gains off the table, which mitt romney and the house republicans have, you are taking off the table the -- one of the major tax preferences that definitely benefits the wealthiest taxpayers. you are been looking at mortgage-interest deductions and help exclusions. those are tax preferences that help middle income taxpayers, which is why, again, we have made the point that by

dropping the top rate from 25% to 35%, you are going to squeeze middle income taxpayers. again, i support the notion of looking at ways to get rid of some of the preferences in the tax code. you have to do it carefully. you cannot do everything all at once because that would be a shock to parts of the economy. you do it in phases. the essential principle is also you do not do it in a way that just increases the relevant burden on middle income taxpayers. >> mortgage interest deduction is one of the most popular parts of the tax code. is that fair game? is it something you are willing to say -- we are talking about tax reform over all and this is on the table? >> two things.

number one, you do not want to do any of these things abruptly in a way that would hurt the economy. with respect to the mortgage- interest reduction, if you do anything in this area, you have to make sure you do not shocked the very fragile housing industry because a lot of houses -- prices built into houses right now take into account the fact that a buyer can get the home owner interest deduction. my view on tax reform is we should look at all these things. i am not saying we do not -- we should look at all of these issues and see if we can do it in a way that the burden on middle income taxpayers is not increased. that is the underlying principle that i bring to it. whatever we do with respect to tax reform, let's maintain at least the current progressivity of the tax code.

the problem i have with their proposal that just says let's drop it 25% is we know, based on everything i have seen, that will do the opposite. the tax policy center also concluded that in addition to an average tax break for millionaires of about $130,000 -- you would get another $25 0,000 average tax break from this dropped if you are making over $1 million. that would be a big tax break and we think it is totally unjustified. >> one more question before we go to the audience. i want to turn to defense. the democratic alternative to ryan has more savings for

afghanistan than the obama budget does, but it is savings that would not be there anyway because the spending will not be there at that time. white rely on everything -- white rely on something that is an accounting gimmick? >> if you look at what is happening right now with overseas contingency fund money, they are already being used today are things that are not directly related to the current operations overseas. those monies are already being poached, so to speak, to add to the baseline defense budget. >> beyond the overseas contingency fund. quite a beggar pardon? >> the savings we are talking about are far beyond the obama plan. >> the reason we decided to take additional savings is at we support the idea of the president put forward that all u.s. troops should be out of

afghanistan by the end of 2014. we have the full funding for all of the overseas contingency accounts through the year 2014. at the end of 2014, we say our troops are going to be out of afghanistan, we are not going to need those moneys anymore. some people are saying you have to keep those funds there because we may still be engaged in combat operations overseas. that is very different from saying those are not real savings. what we are saying is if you still have combat operations going on beyond 2014, you have got to find a way to deal with this in your baseline budget. you do not get this extra what would then become an extra fond to dip into. -- fund to dip into. to say those are not real

savings when there are people talking right now about using that money beyond 2014, i do not thinking it is right. "let's go to the audience. i cannot really see. i will rely on the microphone people. >> i have a question about the employee exclusion. i heard what you had to say about not increasing the burden on the middle income taxpayers. do you also see a role -- to also see the value or a roll bar employees -- i am sorry -- do you see the value of providing health care to employees? >> linear the last part? >> do you see a value of serving a role for employers? >> yes, i do see a contingent roll bar employers are providing health care to employees. you probably remember as part of

the affordable care act we actually did address a piece of this issue with what were called the so-called "cadillac" plans -- health plans that were considered to have extra benefits -- above average benefits. they are all provisions of the affordable care act that in about four-five years will begin to attach a portion of the employer-provided health benefits. this is an area that you have to be really careful as part of tax reform because i do not think it should be used as a way to increase the burden on middle- income taxpayers relative to higher-income taxpayers. the exclusion disproportionately benefits the middle income taxpayers. you may want to look at this piece that they part of future

health reform in savings, but you have to be very careful about it. finally, on the affordable care act, there is a role for employers to continue to provide coverage, but we also create the exchange's four people whose employers do not provide health coverage. that is a very important piece. it is honestly the subject of a debate going on for the last three days in the supreme court. i hope they will uphold the law because if they do not, they undo the individual mandate. that would undermine the exchanges. >> next one? do we have a question back here? >> sunshine press.

we have seen the greek model does not work. greece is largely ruled by financial dictates from above telling them how to run their country. the u.s. model with its congress financed by campaign contributions, largely by the wealthy, approaches a system that does not work given that the wealthy do not want to be taxed. to what extent does our present system of democracy as interpreted by the spring -- supreme court make it impossible to govern? >> i do not think it makes it impossible to govern. i do believe that if you look at the congress today, clearly there is a high degree of dysfunction. i would point out that just a

few years ago many people were complaining that congress was doing too much, not too little. you love what we did or hated what we did. the affordable care at, the wall street reform bill -- those four major actions taken by congress. it was one of the most productive legislative periods in decade. now these sessions are linked to the budget. we have a lot of gridlock. we talked about how, i hope after the elections, there is some action-forcing events that could help us resolve some of those issues. with respect to the role of money in campaigns, i do believe significant reform. i am sponsoring many bills to reform a series -- to reform the process. a series of supreme court decisions have made the proper -- have made the problem worse. we are seeing that every day, not through just super pacs,

but the continuation of secret money. one of the think the supreme court has said we can still do is find it -- shine a little sunshine on some of the expenditures being made. that is why i introduced the thelose act because much of money being funneled into these organizations is secret money. it does not have to be disclosed. our view is that voters have a right to know. it is an important part of the political process that we have transparency, that the transparency helps bring more accountability to the process. we passed the disclose act two years ago in the house. we got 59 votes in the senate. we could not break the filibuster. if senator kennedy had not passed away, the disclosed act would be the law of the land.

that would not solve the problem of the huge volume of additional funding flowing into campaigns, but it would address the issue of secret money going into campaigns. i would hope that everybody would support that. republicans used to say they do not like some of the campaign finance reform laws, but they support disclosure. well, this is an opportunity to support disclosure. it is as simple as that. it is a voter-right-to-no bill. >> no more questions? >> just curious. you're talking about certain ways in which we could find a middle ground. do you see any inroads we could take toward maybe bring these two plants together and steps that would help us form a sort

of a middle ground? >> well, if you are going to address the revenue part through tax reform, that is the direction you have to have. you have to head in the direction where you try to either reduce and reign in some of the preferences as part of reducing the rate. then the question is what the income-if that -- the traditional effect -- and the revenue generated as part of a balanced approach. one of the challenges you face is that when you see these lists of how much revenue -- let me rephrase this -- how much is being accounted for through different tax expenditures, those numbers do not translate

dollar for dollar and two revenue. this is going to be one of the big challenges of tax reform. we encountered it this year in the super committee. for example -- let the capital gains -- on a static basis, you can say that every year because of the capital gains preference there is so much and, not being taxed. capital gains is an example of something people can choose. if you change rates, it changes behavior. that is true on all of these tax expenditures. taking into account the interrelationships of all of them is essential if you are going to figure out how much revenue you are going to generate. you cannot just add up the different tax expenditures and say "we got that account of money, and dollar for dollar we can produce these rates per "it does not take into account the

behavior of challenges of individuals. that is why the joint tax committee spent an awful lot of time modeling and has a lot of work to do in this area, but it is why people need to be very careful not to say arbitrarily "we are going to cut the rate to 25%." every model i have seen indicates that doing that would be financing tax breaks for the top by increasing the tax burden on middle income americans. let's keep doing the analysis and, as i say, a very good analysis was done on all of this. let's see -- let's approach this in a fact-based way, no. >> last one from me. we talked a lot in washington about the election -- when we

get past the election next year, it will be different. it is -- there is almost no one that sees the election generating eight single-party government. in addition to that, we talk about a market that is not putting a lot of pressure on congress to take any real serious action on the debt and the deficit on the spending model. why should anyone be optimistic at all that 2013, legislatively, will look any different than 2011? >> that is a good question. it is a point i was trying to make earlier. anyone who thinks the outcome of this election will somehow deliver a message to the american people as do the right answer is, i think, deluding themselves. at the end of the day, we will have to reach compromise. now -- why might this be

different? the reason it could be different is we have these action forcing events. we have the and of all the tax cuts scheduled. $5 trillion in the mix. you have the sequester, which everybody agrees is the wrong way to reduce spending. then you have the debt-ceiling. it is a very combustible cocktail, but it also has the potential to force people to make the difficult compromises. let's take the revenue peace. -- revenue piece. i do not know how the election will turn out, but i believe the president has done a good job. let's assume he wins reelection. he has been very clear that we can no longer afford the tax breaks for the folks at the very top brigid when we accounted --

encountered this challenge, not this past december, but one year ago this past december, our republican colleagues said "we are not going to allow you to let the rate on top income earners go from 35% to 39%. they held all the middle income taxes hostage to that. after this election, they may take the same position, but the president, i think, will have a lot of everett -- a lot of leverage in this negotiation. you can imagine a scenario where you deal with capturing some of that revenue, whether it is through tax reform or other means dealing with the rates, and as part of that, you get a new discussion about these long- term issues we've talked about -- the kind of conversation going on between the president and the speaker of the house

this past summer. again, there is a clash of fiscal forces that could produce a good result. it does not necessarily happen in a lame duck session. i am not saying that. tax reform is part of the equation here -- i think it is hard to get that done right then, but you could begin to set up parameters and outlines of an agreement. that would be the best case scenario and it is pop -- it is certainly a possible scenario. frankly, if we are going to address the long-term deficit, that provides an opportunity to get the job done. it is an opportunity. >> mr. optimist. thank you very much. >> thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2012] >> house republicans passed budget chairman paul ryan's budget plan. it cuts tax rates and slows the growth of federal debt. it won house approval on a party-line votes of 228-191. here is part of the house debate. the measure now goes to the senate. recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, let me start by thanking all the staff and the minority and their staff for the hard work--i want to congratulate mr. van hollen for bringing a subs tute to the floor. the minority does not need to do that. it's good for the process that they do that. in particular i want to thank our budget committee staff. connor, david, dennis, eric, garrett, jean, dennis, jim, john, hoe day, justin, march sha, nicole, self any, steve,

ted, tim flynn. i also want to thank our personal office staff and the people who are over there at the ford building that not everybody sees but that work work for the c.b.o. i had the privilege to meet with them last december while they were putting the payroll tax numbers together. this year the president's budget came late. easter came early. everyone was crunched. we worked on overtime. very hard. now we don't always like the estimates they give us, but i want to thank them for their dedication and their pro fegsalism in making this process work. and i'd like to include in the record with unanimous consent the names of those who we wish to thank at c.b.o. in additional personal office staff. the chair: the gentleman's request is covered under general leave. mr. ryeian: with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the chair wreck again requests that members cease audible conversation.

the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to start by thanking all the members of the budget committee. our republicans and democrats a like. we had a very good debate in the budget committee. we had a good debate here on the floor. i want to thank all our colleagues. we obviously have deep denches differences, but i think everybody's conducted this -- difference -- deep differences, but i think everybody's con ducted this debate in a civil manner. i want to thank the chairman for the way he conducted the committee and all the staff, republican and democratic staff, i want to thank our team headed by tom, many of them here on the floor as i think everybody knows they spent many, many, late nights working on this budget. so i salute all of them as well as the folks over at the c.b.o. c.b.o. -- congressional budget office. we obviously think that this budget proposed by our republican colleagues is the wrong choice for america. and i now yield three minutes to

the distinguished democratic whip, my friend, our colleague from the state of maryland, mr. hoyer. the chair: minority whip is recognized for three minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. ryan, who is an outstanding member of this body, and my friend, an and who is one of the most able among us, mr. van hollen, who has been my close friend for many years and one of the most able among us. i have just spent time thanking -- they have just spent time thanking our staffs for the work they have done. and i share their view that our staffs have worked mightily and indeed there has been much debate. tradgeically the product we will produce today is far less -- tragically the product we will produce today is far less than the sum of the parts of this body. it is, i suggest to you, a

product unworthy of the intel lect that has been aplied to it. it is--intel lenth that has been aplied to it. it is a product that will hurt america not help america. it is a product that is too much politics and too little policy. it is a product of which i think this house cannot be proud. it is a product that relys on subsanctionly undermining the security of seniors. and i say that as one who has said repeatedly that in reaching a physical cali sustainable path we must deal with entitlements. we need to do so together. and we need to do so in a balanced way. but there is no balance in this proposal. seniors, middle class, vulnerable, working americans are asked to pay the price of this agreement.

and indeed not only are they asked to pay the price, but the best off among us is asked to do the least. that's not the america of which we are all proud that has worked together, sacrificed together at times, to come together to make a joint contribution to the welfare of this country. this product is less than the sum of its parts. this product would undermine the garne tea of medicare. dare i say we need to deal with entitlements but not in a way, i tell my friends, in this house, that undermines the guarantee of senior security. and i would say to you, family security. so their children will know their parents are secure. ladies and gentlemen of this house, we had an agreement.

i think that the gentleman from wisconsin is an honorable man. he is my friend. i like paul ryan. but i am sorely disappointed, i tell my friend. we came to having a difference of opinion on what the number ought to be on this year's budget. you are a lower number. we had a lie higher number. we almost took the nation to the brink, matter of fact we took it to the brink of default before we agreed -- may i have an additional minute? mr. van hollen: i yield another minute. mr. hoyer: we came to the brink of default in this great nation, the most considered as ready worthy nation on the face of this earth that was downgradeed of a result to get to an a agreement. we got to an agreement. it was an agreement. and if we are able to rely on one another's word, we ought to keep our agreements. and simply said the 02-a which

simpli means for the public that dollars we already spent on discretionary spending this fiscal year coming would be $1.4 trillion. that's a lot of money. no doubt about it. your side didn't like it. my side didn't like it. but we agreed upon it. this, that agreement is not carried out in this budget. how can we rely on the future on such an agreement? seniors pay the bill, vullnerble to pay the bill, but not the wealthiest in america. puts medicare at risk and does not get us to where we want. in fact, it adds $10 trillion and some magical formula--30 additional seconds. mr. van hollen: another 30 seconds. mr. hoyer: some magical formula somewhere out there like waste, fraud, and abuse we are going to find the money to pay for the $10 trillion in tax cuts. that's by the extension of the

bush tax cuts and the 35 to 25. some magical way we are going to eliminate, doesn't say which ones, doesn't say who is going to pay the bill. ladies and gentlemen, we can do better. the parts in this body are very good on both sides of the aisle. could good intel lect, good instincts, and a love for this contry. we can do better. let's reject this budget. let's do some real work. let's come together and put this country on a face cali sustainable path without harming our people. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. . the chair: i two minutes to mr. mccarthy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. mccarthy: we watched a lot of debate. this floor is supposed to be able to have the ideal to win.

mr. chairman, we watched the president's budget come here and unfortunately unite us and nobody thought that was the direction to go. we watched history be made on this floor for many years. it's always said that history repeats itself. in my short life span, if i'm really looking at where america stands, it stands much where we stood in 1980. the choice between two futures. have you ever thought for a moment the similarities to 1980 to today? in 1980, america was afraid that japan was going to surpass us in our economy. today we have fear of china and india being larger. in 1980, iran was holding americans hostage. today they want to close the strait. they want to develop missiles that hold the world hostage. we had an energy crisis. today the price of gasoline is the highest it's ever been. every generation in america has been able to improve on the generation before it, but do you realize in 1980, it was the

first time that a majority of americans believe the best days were behind them? 50.4%. today it's at 76%. we had a challenge in our foreign policy. we had a president to put a sweater on and tell us to turn the heater on. the challenge is the debt that faces us. today we have a choice, a choice of two futures. just as we did in 1980. so the choice today is, do you want that european model or do you want something that faces our challenge, honest to the american people and rises to the occasion? when ronald reagan was sworn in, in his inaugural he said, a willingness to believe in ourselves and capacity to perform great deeds, to believe that together with god's help we can and will resolve the problems that now confront us. after all, why shouldn't we believe that? we are americans. you know, winston churchill said of america, you can always

count on them to do what's right after they exhausted every other option. we've exhausted every other option. this is an opportunity for a new path, for a new future. i yield back. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin. ryan raburn mr. chairman, at this time i'd like to yield one -- mr. ryan: mr. chairman, at this time i'd like to yield to a majority leader of the house, mr. cantor. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. cantor: mr. chairman, i rise today in support of the house republican budget resolution offered by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from wisconsin, chairman paul ryan. mr. chairman, people in this country are looking. they are desperate to see a strong signal from washington that we are prepared to make the tough decisions necessary to address our nation's fiscal

crisis. today we will pass our budget that proposes real honest solutions to create a stronger economy and a more certain future for our country. our budget takes bold steps that will get the fiscal house in order and will manage down the debt and deficit. it also strengthens the entitlement programs which are the biggest drivers of our debt. it reforms the tax code and prevents devastating defense cuts from taking place, all without raising taxes. mr. chairman, we are seizing the opportunity to address what even the minority has admitted is the most predictable economic crisis in our nation's history. unfortunately, mr. chairman, those on the other side of the aisle seem to refuse to be able to deal with this crisis and

actually propose a solution. the democratic controlled senate has failed to pass a budget in over 1,000 days. and the president has refused to put forth any serious solution to pay down the historic debt and deficit that he helped create. in fact, the president's budget will actually aggravate the nation's problems. president obama's budget saddles the american people with massive tax increases, puts more burden on job creators, weakens our military and fails to provide a plan to save our entitlement programs. i believe these policies will fundamentally change our nation for the worse. in contrast, mr. chairman, our

budget restores a system of free enterprise that has made america the greatest nation in the world. we propose a simpler, fairer and more competitive tax code that will actually foster economic growth and job creation. instead of picking winners and losers, our plan levels the playing field. our budget lowers tax rates for all taxpayers, broadens the base and gets rid of loopholes and preferences so we can grow the economy and see more jobs created. mr. chairman, our budget seeks to save our entitlement programs because we actually produce a plan to solve the disproportionate cause of our deficits, the health care sbimets. this commitment to lead -- health care entitlements. this commitment to lead, this commitment to find solutions and to actually put a plan in

place is what has been missing from the debate in this town and we ask our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us in that commitment to actually adopt a plan so that we can begin to make progress and send a signal to the american people that we get it, that we are here to help solve the problem. mr. chairman, house republicans are offering the american people a choice in terms of the direction this country will take. and i thank chairman ryan and the members of his budget committee for their hard work to produce this pro-growth, solutions-oriented budget. this document does begin to address the serious fiscal challenges we face and grow the economy so that our children have the same hope, opportunity and ability to achieve success that our parents gave to us and their parents to them. with that i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. chairman. if i could ask how much time remains. the chair: the gentleman from maryland has 4 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from wisconsin has 5 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. van hollen: all right, thank you. is the gentleman going to close? i thank you, mr. chairman. again, i thank our colleagues for a vigorous debate, and i would remind everybody that just a few years ago when the president was sworn in, our economy was in a total free fall. the bottom was falling out. we had negative 8% g.d.p. over 800,000 jobs being lost every month. and as a result of extraordinary actions that were taken, along with the tenacity of the american people, we have climbed out of that hole that we inherited. we have now had 24 months of

consecutive private sector job growth. let's keep that growth going. the budget that the president proposed, the budget the democrats proposed did that. it expanded investments in jobs. the republican budget, the republican budget will cut our investment in transportation next year by 46% when we have 17% unemployment in the construction industry. independent analysts have said that their budget will cost us a million jobs this year and cost us two million jobs next year. that's not what we need. the congressional budget office have said that over 1/3 of our current deficit is because of underemployment. why do we want to add to underemployment as the republican does? now, in the long long term we have to get our -- now, in the long term we have to get our deficits under control. the question is the choice. our republican colleagues

overwhelmingly have signed this pledge saying they are not willing to close one tax loophole. not one penny for the purpose of reducing the deficit. and when you say to folks making over $1 million a year, you don't have to share any more responsibility in reducing the deficit, when you say to big oil companies, we're going to keep going with the taxpayer subsidies, you know what, you got to take out the budget on everybody else at the expense of seniors, at the expense of middle income taxpayers and the expense of important investments in our economy. that's what their budget does. that's why it ends the medicare guarantee. they're proposing to give seniors a deal that's a lot worse than we have for members of congress. worse than the one for members of congress. seniors on medicare. they cut medicaid by $800 billion. more than a third of the program by 022, putting seniors

and -- 2022, putting seniors and disabled americans at risk. they cut education investments and would allow interest rates on student loans to double this july. those are not decisions that we make if we want a strong economy and a robust future for our children and grandchildren. so this is all about choices, and we don't think that it's bold to provide tax breaks to millionaires while you're ending the medicare guarantee for seniors. we don't think it's courageous to protect big taxpayer giveaways to companies that ship american jobs overseas while we're cutting education in research and infrastructure right here at home. we don't think it's fair to provide another round of tax cuts to folks at the very top. tax policy center says it's going to be close to $400,000 on average for people making

over $1 million. we don't think it's fair to do that. financing those tax cuts by increasing taxes on middle-income americans, and i would challenge our colleagues, show us, show us how you make up for $4.3 trillion in loss revenue from dropping that tax rate without socking it to middle-income taxpayers. so far our republican colleagues have been incapable to show us that they are not shifting the burden to middle-income taxpayers. so mr. chairman, it is all about choices. unfortunately we didn't pass the alternative democratic budget. let's not make the mistake of passing this republican budget plan. we can do better. we can do what bipartisan groups have done. take a balanced approach, cut spending, also cut the loopholes for special interests. let's do it in a way that the american people would say, that brings us together rather than

apart, and so i would urge adoption of -- i would urge rejection of this budget. it makes the wrong choice for america, and i thank the chairman and i thank my colleagues. the chair: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, i will yield myself the remainder of the time and address myself from the well. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ryan: mr. chairman, we are bearing witness to history this week. across the street we are witnessing what could be the end of bureaucrat-controlled health care. what we are on the verge of witnessing is a powerful reaffirmation of the america idea, and we are finally having the debate we need to have. our rights come to us naturally.

they come from god and nature, not from government. this health care law is the latest and perfect example of the notion that government is now needed to grant us new rights. and if that is the case, then government has authority to ration, to regulate and to redistribute exactly how we exercise these new rights like health care. and if these new government-granted rights conflict with our constitutional rights and liberties, well, then such is the sacrifice needed in the name of progress or so the thinking goes. across the street we are witnessing what could be a rejection of this line of thinking. the new health care law, which asserts unlimited power to the federal government to decide for americans how they should go about getting their health care simply is not compatible

with the constitution. but the justices who are considering this case, they've raised a very good point. if this isn't the end of bureaucratic controlled health care, what comes next? and if you listen to them, you may hear a pretty dim view of congress' ability to solve this problem. with respect i would suggest that they take a look at what we are accomplishing here in this body today. here in this chamber, we are witnessing the growing momentum of a new approach, one that maintains a critical role for government but ultimately puts the american people in charge where they belong. for the second year in a row we are passing a budget that outlines a new approach to medicare. we keep the protections that made medicare a guaranteed promise for seniors throughout the years. but this is what we say to the bureaucrats who have mismanaged this program into bankruptcy. enough.

your approach doesn't work. government has never come up with the magic formula to micromanage america, let alone lower costs and improve quality. it's time to put 50 million seniors, not 15 bureaucrats, in charge of their own health care decisions. forcing insurance companies to compete, that's the only way to guarantee quality, affordable health care for seniors that lasts for generations. that's the answer to what comes next. let's keep building on the growing bipartisan consensus on how to improve patient-centered health care reform. but putting our trust in americans, it goes beyond health care. it is it is what this entire budget is all about. we get government bureaucrats out of the business of picking winners and losers in the economy. because americans should make their own decisions about what

kind of car they drive or what kind of light bulb they use and we give power over the safety net programs to the states because we believe that governments that are closest to the people are in the best position to design programs for their unique communities, to get people on to lives of self-sufficiency and upward mobility. when we lower tax rates by closing special interest loopholes, we're saying we in washington don't need to micromanage people's decisions through the tax code. let people keep more of their own harr-earned dollars, let them decide how to spend it. economic growth, jobs, upward mobility, opportunity, these are what we're striving for, just like our parents did the same for us. mr. chairman, it is so rare in american politics to arrive at a moment in which the debate revolves around the fundamental nature of american democracy and the social contract. but that is exactly where we

are today. one approach gives more power to unelected bureaucrats, takes more from hardworking tax payers to fuel the expansion of government and commit ours nation to a future of debt and decline. this approach is proving unworkable, in congress and in our communities. this contrast with our budget could not become clearer. we put our trust in citizens, not in the government. our budget returns powers to individuals, to families, to communities. as these choices become clear, today's budget is a vote of confidence for the american experiment. we think that putting our trust in the american people will renew their trust in us. we think americans should control their destinies and we trust them to make the right choices about the future of our country. mr. chairman, we think america is on the wrong track.

we believe the president is bringing us toward a debt crisis and a welfare state in decline. we are offering the nation a choice. we are offering the nation a better way forward and we are offering the nation a plan to renew america and the american idea. mr. chairman, let's have that vote. i yield back my time. c-span.org next on a road to the right house, former president george h. w. bush formally endorses mitt romney's bid for the republican nomination of the president. rick santorum gives a foreign- policy speech in california. later, new gingrich campaigns at georgetown university and ron paul meets with students at the university of maryland. tomorrow on "washington journal," michael green talked

about south korean security and a possible satellite launched by north korea. new york times assistant business and financial editor gretchen morgenson looks at fannie mae and freddie mac. thomas mesenbourg and connie potter discussed the first ever release of records and surveys from the 1940 u.s. census after the expedition -- after the expiration the, the dallas -- confidentiality clause. washington journal why friday at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> in march 1979, c-span began televising the u.s. house of representatives to households nationwide. today, our content of politics and public affairs, nonfiction books and history is available on tv, radio, and online. >> i asked admiral poindexter

directly -- as the precedent know? he told me he did not. on november 25, the day i was re-signed back to the united states marine corps or 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 did not know. those are the facts as i know them. i was glad that when you introduced this, you said you wanted to hear the truth. i came here to tell you the truth -- the good, the back, the ugly. i am here to tell at all -- pleasant and unpleasant. i am here to accept responsibility for what i did. i will not accept responsibility for that which i did not do. >> c-span created by american's

cable companies as a public service. republican provincial candidate, mitt romney, has received the endorsement of former president george h. w. bush. the two men met last year in houston. florida governor jeb bush also endorsed mr. romney. >> thank you very much for coming. barbara and i are very proud to fully and enthusiastically endorse and support our friend, mitt romney. he is a good man. he will make a great president. we wish him well. we are delighted he is here. do you want to add anything, barbara? >> [unintelligible] >> i do think it is time for the party to get behind governor romney.

it reminds me of kenny rogers -- there is a time to hold them and a time to fold them. it is a time for people to get behind this good man. we are so convinced. he is the man to do this job. that is about it. with no further ado, here is the man. >> thank you, mr. president but it is an honor to be here in your office. -- mr. president. it is an honor to be here in your office. [unintelligible] >> how about you?

>> in terms of a beloved first ladies, i. you are at the top of the list. -- i think you are at the top of the list. >> i am very hopeful. it is the most important election in recent years. i think that is the most important thing to elect you president. >> thank you. coming from the president and first lady, i am honored to have your endorsement and your support the president indicated we have been friends for some time. my friends were also friends with the president and the first lady. having your support and a great deal to me on a personal basis, a family basis, and also on a national basis. i agree with the first lady that this is a critical election. i think we are on a very

dangerous path and i think it is important for us to elect eight nominees and to get on with a campaign which will focus on two very different decisions are america. the one presented by president obama and others that will be presented by me if i become the nominee. the american people can have a very clear understanding of the path -- of where the path will lead depending on who they elect as president. i look forward to being successful in honoring that endorsement by winning. i have a big day coming up next tuesday with elections in wisconsin, md., and the district of columbia. i hope to get a good number of delegates in those three contests and be on my way to securing the nomination and taking on the president. with your endorsement, i get a

good boost for those contests and also here in texas. i am told they know you guys pretty well here. [laughter] >> you will do well here. i am convinced of that. >> i look forward to this process. i appreciate your help. we will see the rest of you on the trail. >> governor, have you met with george w. bush? >> i have not met with for the george w. bush. we speak from time to time >> thank you. -- time to time. >> thank you. >> i love that picture over there of the two presidents.

quite a legacy. >> is that right? >> next, a speech from republican provincial candidate rick santorum. he is in california, which holds its gop president primary on june 5. the former pennsylvania senator spoke at the jelly belly at the candy company in fairfield. >> how about that? thank you very much, jim. i appreciate the introduction and all the work that you did. let me thank you very much. [applause] the jelly belly president -- thank you. thank you so much.

we took a little door of a jelly belly. i know their production is shut down for a little while for the easter break, i guess, but they were kind enough to show us a little bit of their production and got to take a sample or thank you so much for your hospitality today. give them a big round of applause. [applause] >> it is great to be in the conservative heartland of northern california. [applause] probably never thought you would hear those words strung together. it really is great to be here. thank you so much. i love the great crowd and the enthusiasm. thank you so much for being here. we wanted to come here to jelly belly -- it is hard to say that in a political speech -- jelly

belly. i do not know what it is. it is great to be here in a place that became famous because of one of my political heroes and someone you ever heard me talk about a lot on the stocks as this campaign has gone on. that, of course, is ronald wilson reagan. [applause] i talked always about how you here as you travel or around this country, particularly when you are faced with running against a democratic incumbent president whose policies are destructive -- destructive for our economy, destructive for our reputation around the world and our national security, destructive and for our military. we see this week the fight against sequestration and the

draconian cuts in our defense budget. we see the economy lagging and confidence in america not what it should be. a president who wants to talk about how our better days are behind us and americans cannot do things for themselves anymore. for you to be able to hand until this world. you need him and the elite in our society to be able to make these degrees for you. this harkens back to another time. we had a president who had a similar idea that america's best days were behind us and we needed government to come in and do more and more things for our lives. we would no longer be a force for good or a force at all around the world and that we needed to pull back within our shores. that's america that ronald

reagan confronted in the late 1970's when he decided to come and run for president again. and yet the entire establishment was against him. everyone said his time had passed as a result of the 1960's and 1970's. well, america had changed and they were not ready for someone from a by gone era with bygone beliefs. beliefs as reagan refered to the three-legged stool of conservatives. we believed in the founding principles of our country. a country that was founded on limited government constitutional government. limited government of the unlimited potential of the american people. it was a hopeful speaker. somebody who believed in the institutions that three-legged stool talked about. a strong economy.

strong economy based upon smaller government. used to say government is the problem, not the solution. in fact, ronald reagan went in and very clearly was a strong message of limited government. didn't -- the 10th amendment. having a track record in california. shrinking the size and scale of government. that was his message on that one-legged stool was to shrink the government and of course dramatically cut taxes and he went out and talked about cutting taxes for everyone. not just those at the upper end, but cutting taxes for everyone. creating an opportunity for everyone. that is the message i've been taking around this country. i've been taking the message around this country that we need limited government, a balanced budget amendment to the constitution, that we need to have a spending program that while it is a great problem, i

hardly endorse it, it is 5 trillion of cuts every 10 years. we need that every five years if we're going balance the budget and we need to balance the budget. [applause] and we put farther dramatic tax plan. the "wall street journal" refers to it as supply-side economics. reagan onlyics as some refer to it. cutting taxes for everybody and focusing on places like jelly belly, places that have to compete. he was telling me about all the problems he has in competeing with other candy companies around the globe because of the cost of labor. yes, but more importantly, the cost of sugar in the case here at jelly belly because sugar is higher priced near america than anywhere else in the world. also the regulatory. obviously he has to deal with

regulations from the federal government and then of course you a whole new layer of regulations in the state of california that makes it very, very hard to compete and stay in this state. that's why i put forward a very bold plan that that we will cut the corporate tax for manufacturers and processors from the highest in the world 35rks% to the lowest in the world, zero. [applause] we will take -- we will create jobs for the people out there on the floor. not just at jelly belly but other places to expand and grow their businesses. this is a reagan type of model which is cut taxes, reduce regulation. i'm the only candidate in this race that said on day one of my administration i will take every high cost regulation. about 500 of them, close to 500, we suspect by the end of the obama administration. regulations that cost over $100

million a year. i will eliminate every single one of those regulations on day one. [applause] i'm someone who has stood up for limited government. you saw in the supreme court committee these last few days, obamacare. and the solicitor general of this country referring to another program that was passed. it was the model for obamacare. actually mentioned it in the legal arguments debated before the supreme court on tuesday. and that other program, of course, was romneycare. that was the template for obama sw care. the mandates. something that ronald reagan would never approve of. could never approve of the government taking over the health care sector of our economy. i've never approved of or supported any kind of mandates.

i've supported the reagan idea of limited government and giving everybody in north korea opportunity to pro-- in america to provide for themselves. the control would be in the hands of the american people. that's a reagan vision for our economy. it is a reagan vision of our economy that is a stark contrast, which is what we needed in 1980. we needed a stark contrast between a republican vision and a conservative vision. one that was hopeful and believed in free people and limited government opposed to one that believes in just a little less government or government at the state level doing these things instead of the federal level. that is disninks the minds of -- distinction in the minds of those people without a difference. saying we agree with all of what president obama wants to do. just do it at the state level, not federal level, is not

something that resonates and excites, at least conservatives and republicans. so we're sf we're looking for the reagan conservative in that this race on the economy, there is one clear choice. if we're looking for the reagan conservative in this race on one of the other legs of the school, on social conservative issues. i find it remarkable that governor ramny is outrunning ads in wisconsin saying basically i'm not pro life. the unborn victim s of violence act. the author of the born alive protection act. i led the fight on the floor with most of those acts and took care of every single pro life fight. i was out there leading the charge when governor romney was out there contributing his -- [applause]

while governor romney was contributing money out of his own checkbook to planned parenthood while i was fighting those fights and ran consistently up until this election and the republican primary for president as a strong pro choice candidate. to suggest i am not pro life again is a disingenuous game played by politicians who seek power instead of trying to be true the american public. i've been a consistency with the reagan vision. he stood for life and the integrity of the family. he understood the importance of family in our country. i have been a leader on that front too. standing up. as the people of california did for traditional marriage. with prop 8. [applause]

and governor romney, just the opposite. ushered in one of the first gay marriage laws in the country. so there you have a sharp contrast between someone who stands solidly with ronald reagan, someone who stansd solidly on economic issues, someone who stands solidly -- but folks, i'm from pittsburgh. we don't pay any attention to protesters. [applause] the question is who is going to try pull thogget reagan coalition? who is going pull us together? who is going to get those folks

from the swing states that are vitally important for us to win if we're going to win this election? is it someone who in 1994, when he was running for the united states senate, the same year, i might add that i was running for united states senate in pennsylvania, a tough state. a state that had not elected a conservative to the united states senate for decades. [applause] but i stood up -- but i stood up in that same year in 1949 and ran as a conservative -- 1994 and ran as a conservative right down the line on the reagan principles. i was elected over the man who was the author of clinton care in the united states senate and his campaign was run by none other than james carville. we took on the best. mitt romney ran that same year and ran by saying i'm not trying to return to the days of reagan-bush.

i'm not. i was an independent during that time. ladies and gentlemen, he ran to the left and lost. just like what happens all the time when republicans run to left. we need someone who isn't going to be the etch a sketch candidate. someone who is going to stand by their principles. ronald reagan didn't say one thing in front of one group and something else in front of another. he had core convictions. it is the reason that the establishment of republicans never were foreign. they always tried to run a moderate against him. they always supported that moderate. because they didn't believe. they didn't have the core set of values that reagan had. those sense of values that are shared by the vast majority of americans. the vast majority of americans are trying to be convinced now to do things that are insquint those values. sell those values short because we have to win. we need someone who can pull

that coalition together. someone who has -- whose values not as one of romney's staffers said his policies are written on an etch a sketch but someone whose policy is written on his heart. [applause] governor romney said after the etch a sketch -- he was going to run as a conservative in the fall. i'm not going to run as a conservative in the fall. i am a conservative. period. [applause] but the run leg of the reagan stool that has not gotten much amention the this election is of course national security. we see it come to light a little bit again in such a chilling way in my opinion. with the president of the united states whispering off camera to

the president of russia. [booing] whispering about what issue? interestingly enough, national missile defense. star wars. reagan's legacy of protecting our country. from missile attacks. still, a threat and one of the most serious threats that faces the united states of america. thank goodness that successor presidents to one degree or another have continued to support. but for the president of the united states, to do a series of actions first and again, the irony of this given reagan and his legacy, the missile defense system. the polls. what group of people were -- if you think of europe, what group do you think of when you think of ronald reagan?

you think of what he did in poland along with john paul ii. just an amazing, amazing transformation. [applause] amazing transformation of that country. he stood by the people of poland. he stood by their wants and desires for freedom. and unfortunately president obama quickly, without even telling the polish people, sold them down the river. all because he wanted to appease an enemy or a potential enemy. one that he was afraid that we were setting up something to protect against their missiles coming into eastern europe, which of course was not the reason for them to be there. president obama knew that wasn't the reason they were there. concerns about threats from the middle east. and from the radical islamic world.

so we wanted to help position those missile defense systems there to bring them squarely as they deserve to be solid and secure allies of the united states and president obama said no. and then here we have him whispering to the president of russia, a country now that is increasingly going back to their old ways of phony elections and long-term presidencies which are no more than the previous leaders of russia. here is the president of the united states, the leader of the free world saying give me a little space, buddy. give me a little space. a little flexibility. because i got an election coming up and then i'll deal. then i'll throw some other of our allies under the bus in order to get -- in order to get

his dream, his dream. and what that is dream? his dream in this case is a nuclear-free world and he stands here claiming that we need to reduce weapons between the united states and russia. russia, as i said not an enemy but a potential foe if they continue down the road that they are heading, but still not an enemy, not one that i'm necessarily greatly concerned about at the present time and yet that seems to be the president's preoccupation is to reduce those weapons of mass destruction, those nuclear arms and he has taken his eye off the real threat today, which is the dwovement a nuclear weapon in iran. -- development of a nuclear weapon in iran. what has tchone on that fronts? the same thing he did jouf camera with the president of

russia. give me a little time. that's exactly what he has goiven iran. time. he is negotiate b with iran again. he said when he was running for president he would negotiate with iran without precondition. he has done it again. even though u.n. resolutions say you cannot negotiate with iranians until they cease development, president obama has set that aside and engages with iran, doing what? giving them a little time. so they can continue on their enrichment without causing a head confrontation, a head-to-head confrontation between the united states and iran prior to his election. so just like the russians and the iranians, it is all public policy aimed at pushing out the

window of potential problems past his election. risking our national security with a nuclear iran and risking our development in the deployment of a missile defense system to protect the allies of this country. and it is even worse is buying time in afghanistan. he's buying time in this case in very deliberate public policies saying i'm going to be out. we'll be out. put a time fline place. why? why would you put a timeline in place and give the enemy one thing they need to survive? hope. you have now told the enemy, if you hold on to 2014, we're going to be gone. you told all our alleys in the

region, we're leaving. there will be a time the united states will not be there. if the taliban threats is eliminated, fine. if it is not, fine, too, we're leaving. what are our allies naturally doing? they are planning for a time without america. they are hedging their bets. why? politics. ronald reagan didn't whisper to gorbachev give me some flexibility. he walked out of iceland and said you'll either do this or we will have no deal. [applause] ronald range came into office as president -- range came into office as president, solidly firmly planted. his ideas were planted on all three lovings that stool. he had core convictions as i talked about before. don't undersmiment the core convictions on national

security. yes, he was goover, but unlike many governors, he had a deep -- deep convictions and spoke and wrote, all over the country for decades about the threats of communism. no one doubted where ronald reagan was on the issue of communism. no one doubted where he was. there was no sense that there might be an etch a sketch policy when it came to our national security. reagan was solid. for years i've been out leading the charge on the issue of radical islam, authoring bills against syria called the syrian accountability act, the first program, first sanctions program put in place on the iranian new mexico program back in -- nuclear program back in 2006. even though george bush

originally opposed it as did joe biden and barack obama. but i fought because i understood, just like reagan in his time understood that the threat to western civilize saying now radical islam. and i'm not afraid to call it what it is. [applause] ronald reagan had the courage to stand up and counter to all of his advisors and call the evil empire the evil empire. we need to call radical islam in iran exactly what it is. evil and that evil regime must be replaced by the iranian people with a government that reflects the values of the persian people. [applause]

there is one candidate in this race who has just like reagan, dedicated a tremendous amount of their time and energy -- when i left the united states senate, i spent five years in a think tank traveling all over the country and some places around the world, lecturing on this issue, as reagan did, giving speeches about the threat of communism. i was giving speeches even in an election when it was unpopular to do about the threats of radical islam. their growth, not just in the islamic world in the middle east but here in this hemisphere in central and south america. these are not popular things to say. as reagan was called a warmonger around doom and gloom. we can negotiate and work with these people and figure it out. reagan knew that was impossible. you cannot negotiate with evil.

you to defeat evil. [applause] i'm the only person in this race that brings that legacy. on strong principled convictions on this issue, a depth of understanding, experience. we have seen what it is when you a president with on the job training with national security. we need someone who understands and is principled about the approach he is going to take and that every foreign leader, friend and foe alike, knows that with rick santorum as president of the united states if, you are a friend of the united states, unlike this president, we will be the best ally you have in the world and if you are a foe of the united states, and you do not respect the united states and our security interests, you will learn to fear the united

states. [applause] of all of the failings of this administration, of all of the failings, perhaps the greatest is on national security. and folks, that is saying something. this president as alienated ally after ally, isolated them, particularly the state of israel. has encouraged our foes, the arab spring, which is now turning into an icy winter, if you're someone who wants democracy and freedom in egypt or libya or syria now, and of course iran. when the opportunity for an arab spring or at least a persian spring first joined the scene in 2009 before the arab spring, president obama turned his back on the protesters who were

pleading for help against the radicals. they were crushed and they continued to be crushed. as iran marches toward nuclear weapons endangering not just the state of israel but each and every one of us around the world as they proliferate with a nuclear shield terror to every hamlet in america. this is the future that barack obama is giving us. this is the lack of moral certainty. this is the lack of vision. this is the lack of understanding. the greatness of our country. america's values are not just great values and a beacon of hope that reagan talked about, that shining city on the hill that provided opportunities for all of you, but we projected those values around the world. we infired is people to live up no those -- inspired people to live up to those values and for

them america would always be there one way or another. you knew with ronald reagan or george bush, you had someone that would stand with freedom-loving people and encourage them and help them in any way possible. that was consistent with our security interests, but not this president. it is a very, very different world. lech walesa came to chicago, who was close, obviously to ronald reagan. he came to chicago about two years ago and he said this. united states is the only super power. today they lead the world. nobody has doubts about it militarily. they also lead economically, but they are getting weak. but they don't lead morally and politically. the world has -- leadership. the united states was always the last resort and hope for all

other nations. there was the hope whenever something was going wrong, one could count on the united states. today we have lost that hope. can you imagine any freedom fighter anywhere in the world during the time of the reagan years uttering these words. that's why this election on so many fronts is the most important election in your lifetime. we have won one race, republicans have in the last 100-plus years. one time. one time. we have defeated a democratic incumbent running for re-election. only one time. shocking as that may be. and we were always listening to the experts. always putting up the candidate who was the moderate, the tom

deweys. the bob doles. we were always putting up the moderate candidates who could appeal to the center. that's how we win. we have to win. and the voices would come to those of you who are conservatives and say compromise on your values because we have to win. how many of you just in the last few years, how many tea partyiers here? [applause] there you go. who said they were tired of electing people who go down to washington, d.c. saying when they campaign in the republican primaries and maybe the election, they are going to be conservatives and go to washington, d.c. and compromise. why? well, so they can win. so they can get something passed. we find out that these victories are indeed hollow victories. and lead us further down the wrong path. so i say to you, you condemn them for doing it.

in my opinion, rightly so. so i will challenge each and every one of you and everyone listening. now they are asking you to do the same thing. they are asking you, people of principle to compromise your principles, to be for someone who is less convicted than let's say a ronald reagan. because we need to win. my question is win what? every time we have run someone that the moderate establishment of the republican party said we need to win, we lose. why? because americans don't have a clear choice. they don't have a vision of someone who actually believes and can dramatically and decisively lay out a vision for the american public to inspire and lift up and get people like reagan did to believe in

themselves and in our country again. ladies and gentlemen, that's why i'm here and asking for your support. california doesn't get a chancee chance to play very much in presidential politics of late, but you will in this presidential primary. [applause] i'm asking all of you to do whatever you can to help, go on our website, signed up, make a contribution if you can. but there is also for you -- and opportunity for you to sign up for the call from home program. i would recommend that you call wisconsin over the next few days. and let them know that conservatives all across this country have not given up the fight. we are not going to concede to

the modernist of losman who wants to convince our body that is over. it is time just to go away. we have now down to in $100 million. we have beaten the other candidates into a pole, and it is time to take who we want, even though he is not winning any victories based on what he believes in, but tearing someone else down. we as conservatives need to stand up and fight for a candidate who can win this general election, the stands solidly, firmly, on the three legs of this tool that brought the reagan coalition together. -- of the stool that brought the reagan coalition together. if you can do that for me, help this great organization here in california, we will win this election and make this country that shining city on the hill again. god bless you. thank you.

[cheers and applause) [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] ♪

♪ ["made in america" by toby keith] ♪ ♪

♪

♪ >> rode to the white house political coverage of the presidential primaries continues on tuesday.

in the district of columbia, md., and wisconsin. later that month, voting in connecticut, delaware, new york, pa., and ryland. and then in this on to indiana, north carolina, and west virginia. nebraska and oregon in the middle of the month, and then arkansas and kentucky. for more information, go to c- span.org/campaign2012. >> next, republican presidential candidates newt gingrich speaks at georgetown university. the former house speaker was criticized at this event over his proposal to have inner-city children work as janitors. he also talked about the need to restrain the power of the judiciary. >> thank you for that introduction. and kevin, thank you for developing nationwide our project, which any of you interested ken joined by going to newt.org/students which is an

effort to pull students across the country together for a choice for a social security account. i will talk about that in a moment. there are two principles the lead me to decide to run for president, and it has been an interesting process to try to communicate them, and frankly, onmuch more difficult than i imagined. what is values and the other is economics. i was drawn back in to run partially by the 2002 ninth circuit court decision about one nation under god and the plant -- in the pledge of allegiance as unconstitutional. that was so irrational lake anti- american that required someone seriously injure ashburn -- intellectually trying to take on the courts.

the fact is, this country was founded by the belief that our rights come from our creator. this is the central political document on which the country is built. the declaration of independence, which you students here in washington can actually see down the street. think about this for a minute. literally, the people who founded the country, this is the baseball american exceptional as impaired -- the base of all american exceptional as impure we are not exceptional because of us. we are exceptional because we have inherited from the founding fathers and explanation of our rights unlike any other country in the world. we are the only society in history that says power comes from god to each one of you personally. you are personally sovereign. you loan power to the state. the state does not loan power to you.

this is very fundamental to the nature of being an american. it is a large part of the debate in the supreme court right now. and it was stated that way by justice kennedy in one of his questions. he basically said, this idea that the government can mandate everything you do, in fact, is a dramatic shift in the relative power between the citizen and the government. the people who founded this country had a very clear vision. they founded it in response to what they saw as tyranny. the number one example, which we have all learn about, is no taxation without representation. but the number to argument of founding fathers was over judges, because they saw the british judges as in posers of dictatorship on behalf of the king. that is why they took a number of steps to limit the power of judges. that is why alexander hamilton in the federalist papers writes that the traditional branch is the weakest of the three

branches. it could never take on the legislative and executive branch, because it would be inherently defeated by them. this is totally alien to modern law schools. modern law schools exist to the glorification of the legal profession and have a very lawyer-centric view of reality. but the founding fathers would have thought they were absurd. jefferson when asked if the supreme court was, in fact, supreme, wrote that it would be an absurdity for nine people to decide the constitution. it would be for us to lose our liberty and we would be in an oligarchy. abraham lincoln, who in part was drawn back into politics by the dread scott decision, by which the supreme court extended power over slavery in all country. in his inaugural address, he takes the court had on. he says, the court may issue the law of the case, but they cannot issue the law of the land. because if they could, the american people's freedom would be gone.

and in fact, lincoln refused to enforce the dread scott decision as president. there is a 54 page paper at newt.org that sally and i worked on for a number of years. vince did an extraordinary job. the fight we are in on the values level is much deeper than the courts and goes to the very heart of what kind of country we are. historically, we are a country that believes deeply in the work ethic. there is a reason, as john smith said in the summer of 1607, that if you do not work, you do not eat. you can go back and read the top bill's description of america in the 1830's. -- alexis de tocqueville pose a description of america in the 1830's. i will contrast that with the

current version of nasa, which has spent $181 billion in the last 10 years, and has no rocket capable of putting people in space. which would make one wonder what exactly they do other than sit around and think spaced dots all day. [laughter] i am trying to describe something very fundamental to the nature of america. the wright brothers decide they want to learn to fly. they are bicycle mechanics. they do not say they have to get a ph.d. in aeronautics, which did not exist at the time. they write to -- they do not write to the government for a grant. they sit up their personal money and they build their own wind tunnel. the only thing to go to the government for is for the national weather service to tell them where the best of draft is, at kitty hawk. which they needed, because the plane needs lived. they are very smart. these are very clever people. historically, in america, you

got to be smart because you were smart, not because you had a degree. and historically, in america, you proved you were smart by doing something, not by getting tender. it is a fundamentally different model. the wright brothers, every year, go down to kittyhawk, and back and from dayton, ohio, you had to go by train. and every year, they took a lot of extra wouldn't for a very profound reason, which we forgot. they knew something really important. they did not know how to fly. they were doing all of this on their own money. it was their major hobby. it would get up in the morning and have a cup of coffee and start flying. it would not work. the plan would crash, something would break, they would fix it. they would try to apply for five times a day.

at the war go right museum, in mystified -- at the orville wright museum, and mystified reporter actually ask why i would go there. i like learning about people who made historic breakthroughs, would change the world. is a good thing to do for political leaders, and a good thing for reporters to do. and the head of the wright brothers' family home said to me, they made 500 experiments over several summers. finally, on december 7, 1903, they went out and crashed four times. the fifth time they flew for 53 seconds. shorter than the wing span of a 747. slowly enough that one right brother ran next to the plane, making sure it did not tip over and killed his brother. three years later, they had improved the airplane so much that they flew are around the island of manhattan and 1.5

million people saw an airplane for the first time. let me give you the parallel. i'm trying to describe both the culture of an active america in which citizens got up every day and said, you know, i think i will go do something, as opposed to who is going to take care of me this morning? secondly, i want to give you a parallel that happens to be true, but almost unimaginably parallel. the for those of you are conservative, you will find it delicious. [laughter] the smithsonian arguably the center of knowledge at that time, bought a $50,000 grant from the progress. the wright brothers did all of their experiments for about $500, according to the curator of their museum. that would be $250,000 or so today. the smithsonian gets $50,000. and they are really smart. and they go out and find the

best german metallurgist and they build a really powerful engine. there is a fundamental flaw with a really powerful engine. it is heavy. the wright brothers had invented and patented a really flight engine. they make all sorts of characters in engine technology because they need a really like engine. they want to build a really light plane. if any of you have ever flown a gah lighter or a paper airplane, lytal -- flown a glider or a paper airplane, light things fly easier. this is a law of physics, but also common sense. the smithsonian knows what they're doing. they are smart and have all of this money. they build a heavy engine, which means you have to have a heavy airplane. the engine itself requires a lot more support. and they do not want to go all the way to kitty hawk because it is inconvenient. they are in washington d.c..

but they are really important. they invent something we are still using today. they put a catapult on a boat, just like a nuclear power plant. a couple of things wrong with this scene. remember, the wright brothers knew something really important. they did not know how to fly. the smithsonian people thought they knew how to fly. because they had theoretically created a model they believed in. they now take their plane out and put it on a boat. furthermore, they invite the news media to cover it. the wright brothers are crashing 500 times. could you imagine if the news media covered it? idiot brothers from dayton try once again in a frustrating example. [laughter] there is a very short article by the associated press the day that they fly. he has been out watching them for a long time and he has not written about it because he

understood what they were doing. it is called an experiment. meanwhile, the smithsonian in rights fees for reporters to come out to alexandria. -- invites reporters to come out to alexandria. here is the boat, the engine, the airplane. they did not know how to fly. the plan goes straight off of the boat into the potomac. it gives them terrible articles the next day. and in the process cannot -- process, they end up looking like fools. and more importantly, if you land your airplane in a river, the impact tears up the airplane, and then the river tears up the airplane, and then it sinks to the bottom because it is heavy. then you have to try to recover it, and then you break it some more. by the time you have the airplane back on land, you have no idea what did not work. the smithsonian then learned, to their great chagrin while they

are making -- being made fun of, that the wright brothers have already learned how to fly. they react so badly that for 37 years, the wright brothers will not give them their airplane. it is now in the aerospace museum. but for 37 years they would not give it to them because they were so mad at the smithsonian. the earlier america, the america that was the most inventive, extraordinary society in history, started with the idea that it is okay to fail. can you imagine a government agency that failed 500 * going into a congressional hearing? can you imagine the contemptuous ignorance of the congressman who would have great fun making fun of these guys? it would look terrific back home. can you imagine the current news media? i have always said if the current news media had existed

when thomas edison had invented electric light, the news media would have said, "the candle making industry was threatened today." and the whole report would be negative. [laughter] this is a country that believes, first of all, you are in doubt by your creator. you have the right. that is why -- you are endowed by your creator. you have their rights. in the american model, we have power and they are public servants. a fundamental difference, which is part of what the power struggle in this country is about right now. second, we are a country that only makes sense if we are religious. i will give you a simple test, since you are here in washington. go down to the lincoln memorial and read the gettysburg address out loud, slowly, which is how lincoln delivered it. that is the address that has "one nation, under god" which he

had wrote in a while looking at the military cemetery at gettysburg. then turn to the other side of the memorial and read slowly lincoln's second inaugural, march, 1865, four years of war, 620,000 dead americans, more than in all of our other wars combined. the war has steered his soul. he is reading the bible every afternoon. he has taken personal responsibility for willing the war. because any time he let the south secede, the killing would end. he gives an inaugural address that is only 702 words. 14 references to god. two quotes from the bible. and i bet almost none of you have been in a course in college or in high school where your teacher took the time to introduce you to abraham lincoln

seriously, because you cannot without dealing with religion. and we now live in a secular academic world and secular news media were this would be horrifying. i challenge you, go down and read it. get some sense of what america was like. and then go to the fdr memorial, which of course, has been secularized. and relies on the sixth of june, 1944, we landed at normandy. franklin delano roosevelt, the greatest president of the 20th century, went on the radio and lead the nation in six and a half minutes of prayer. you can go to the fdr library and pull up a prayer and listen to it. you cannot imagine how ridiculous he would be today, and how reviled. and this is a man, by the way, who said that world war ii is a war between "our christian

syllabus elation -- "our christian civilization" -- that is what he said, "our christian civilization and pagan beliefs. i believe in american exceptional as impure and i believe in the right to come from our creator. my belief that no government can come frobetween man and god. there are two documentaries about this. one is called nine days in america and the other -- the pope had a nine-day pilgrimage. do you know that in poland, they would not allow children to pray in school? can you imagine a government that anti religious? do you know in poland they tore down across? can you imagine a government that dedicated to secours --

secularism and forcing it by law? that would be a government that would impose on the catholic church anti-catholic values. can you imagine that happening in america? this administration, which has been eager to apologize to radical islam thus overburdening that have karan's been desecrated by muslims who are political prisoners. issued a statement that we will sigrid babbidge and others hold sacred. it's perfectly good statement, right? does that mean that we have to put up all of the things that have been taken down? does that mean that kids are allowed to pray at graduation? i berber we happy to honor other people's religious beliefs -- i am perfectly happy to honor other people's religious beliefs, but i think america

needs to honor its own. and that is values. how do we apply those? the second big part of this, innovation. i would say the biggest frustration i had to sleep -- leaving the speakership is the denseness of washington in a resisting new ideas. you are inheriting from your parents and grandparents a bureaucratic mess which is stunningly incompetent following policies that do not work based on facts that are no longer true, and surrounded by lobbyists eager to protect the future. how do you fundamentally revise politics as citizen leadership? if you go to albany or springfield, ill., you will see capitals where democracy no longer functions. they're basically wholly-owned subsidiaries of the government

there and nothing works. they're gradually decaying. show me a couple of examples of innovation. we are living in an age of enormous change. in north dakota, they had such an explosion of oil production that they are down to 3.5% unemployment. and that overstates it because they have 16,000 jobs in the oil field that they cannot fill. one of my proposals is simple. we should modernize and unemployment compensation so that every person who gets unemployment compensation has to sign up for a business training program, so that while we are giving them money, they're learning something. this would modernize the system. 99 weeks of unemployment is enough to get an associate degree. but today we give them money for doing nothing. a second example, if we had a serious problem -- program in brain science, we would --

program in brain size, we would make breakthroughs in alzheimer's, parkinson's, mental health. if you can postpone alzheimer's for five years, not cure it, but slow it down by five years, you save millions of families pain, and you save between $6 trillion and $8 trillion in expenses. just in that one area. but it would take innovative thinking to organize how we do research to have an all-out program on brain science. i would argue, brain science will yield more helped breakthroughs than any other aspect of biology today. -- health breakthroughs than any other aspect of biology today. third example, you are inheriting a 130-year-old civil service system that does not work. nobody believes it is launching today. we know in modern management -- those of you in the business school have probably looked at this. there is a program that

dramatically accelerates quality and productivity. you will see a proposed estimate that we will literally save $500 billion a year if we simply were to go to this kind of model of management. just by the efficiencies in ball. i think you would actually change the economy by about $2 trillion per year because your have much less inefficiencies. if you took the fda and said, we want the fda to be in the laboratory, understanding the science, and then we want to accelerate in the new knowledge to the patient, that is the exact opposite of its current model. you would save millions of lives, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and make america the center of productivity and health, which would be the largest single market of the 21st century.

but it is a totally different fda done what we currently have. you are living through the argument over gasoline that i have been having with the president it is based on preservation. we have a new method of developing oil and gas. there is 0 doubt that it is working. we went for 17 years in supply of natural gas in 2000 to 125- year supply. the production of gas has driven down the price of gas. it turns out it works. natural gas has dropped from $7.97 per unit down to about $2 per unit. if you did the same with gasoline, it would cost about $1.31. this is just a fact. i wrote my weekly column this week on the whole notion that the natural gas break through is so big that you will see every company using natural gasit is .

this is an enormous amount of money. these things are all happening. it north dakota, the new technology has increased oil there from 150 million barrels to 24 billion. it if we get another generation of break there is you have around 500 billion barrels. >> 127 will be out of natural gas. we had 30 billion barrels of oil in reserve in 1980. we have since produce 75 billion barrels. today we have more reserves than

in in 1980. people worry about peak oil. there is 0 evidence today. maybe your great-grandchildren will worry about it. your great grandchildren could have a lighter cars that work. i am trying to give you a flavor for how dramatically different it is. we can create an american energy program for american energy independence which means that no future president would ever again bowed to a saudi team. this is a very different world then the world from the last 40 years. i would argue that the iranian to practice closing the street.

-- iranians want to practice closing the streaits. we should have adopted a policy that makes this so independent that we are capable of saying to the europeans and japanese "you have a problem, we do not. you figure out how to solve it." that is a very different world. we tried to open up and what are -- anwair. it is close to where we have oil in alaska. president clinton said there's no point in doing this because the oil would not come on line for least 10 years. he said that in 1996.

it means this year would be the sixth year you're getting oil. what are you trying to accomplish over time? in 1983, we had a traditional answer to social security. everyone talks about what we're going to do. the city of thousand of adopted a personal social security. the only place in america that has a social security savings account because galveston because congress made it illegal for anyone else to adopted because it is so attractive. they want to keep people trapped. what have we learned in the last 30 years that this is not a theory.

we have 30 years of shelling in experience. it turns out the official actuary for social security is the model. peter ferrara has done more work than any other. he will do more for your generation's income than anyone else i know. [applause] you will notice i gave you facts about north dakota from 150 million barrels. let me give you some facts. adopted in 1983 a personal social security model, we would have over $16 trillion in savings account. that means we will probably on all of our own bonds.

your generation has a terrific opportunity. you will not get this unless you forced the uopposition. they will not give you a choice. what happened in chilly? the savings pool today is 72% of the economy. it is so vague the chileans are now allowed to invest outside chilly is they do not have a big enough economy to resort the savings. chileans retire with two or three times more money than the old system. the system guarantees that if you have less money than the minimum social security payments, the government will make up the difference. in 30 years, they have written zero checks. they have never had a single

person fall below. peter calculated that if you look at what happened to the spot market in 2008, a person you have been part of the system would still have had dramatically more money than they would have got out of the traditional system. the start building up two or three times the scale of resources. will never seen a fall big enough to change that scale of investment. over your lifetime, to other side effects, by building that you increase the size of the economy. you allow far more investment. by the end of your lifetime, it is seven or $8 trillion bigger than it is with the current system. you are earning a higher salary.

you have a bigger savings account. it is a win/win cycle. you reduce income equality by 50%. engage theto editorial board. it is a very simple model. every young person if they choose, the first time they go to work, and of putting money into a savings account would build up interest. you have the power of compound interest. how many and you got a check that involved in social security tax by the time you're 16? at 16, you get this. say you're going to work until you are 70. you have 54 years of compound interest. it may be small.

they build up. you get it every year. none has able to test the hypothesis. when you get people to learn the power of compound interest, and you increase their savings rate? do you move them away from credit cards because they realize this really works? the estimated that if he simply made a voluntary, 95%-97% of young people would pick it. the economic return is so massively greater. you have to work hard not to decide to do it. this is an example of innovation. it increases your freedom. it increases your freedom by giving more control over your money. the money you save becomes your estate. the taxes you pay, you lose all

of it. degusted government. under a personal savings account, that money goes to your account. nobody tells you when to retire. he never had a politician saying what should we set the retirement age at? it is your choice. if you want to do well and retire early, that is your choice. there is no obligation. let's say you never to get out and just kept growing and any passed away at 95 with a pretty big savings account, that is your family's estate. that is your choice. why would you want the government to control people's choices? and means that of my blaster when president obama tries said i may not be able to send your social security check, no politician would be between you and social security.

it would be your money coming to you. there have to be some levels of requirements. cannot pay your money in your brother-in-law's newest idea. over time that does not work. there are ways to design these accounts. look at galveston. this is managed by furman en des moines. they help design is in a positive way. i think the two greatest choices of your generation are who are we as a people? are we still exceptional? still think our rights come from god or are we

dependent on the state in the state is in charge? can we take all the things that work and put them into the system? how many of you have ever gone on line to follow a package at ups or fed ex? this is not a fairy. it is a fact that we have technology today that allows you to ship a package and at no extra cost will let up on our computer or iphone forever your particular device is. that means in the world of innovation ups and that each move 25 million packages a day while tracking them.

here's the federal government. it currently cannot find 11 million people who are here illegally even if they're sitting down. imagine that e-mail the package to every person who was here and when it arrived he knew everyone and it would not cost extra. for nine or $2 a person, you change the whole world. that is hyperbole but designed to suggest the difference and relative capability. let me take this difference. we write a book 34 years ago called stop paying the crux. -- the crooks. a got nowhere. stop paying the crooks was based on this system. how many have you been called by credit company and as with your

charging something at that moment because they want to make sure you will really you? -- you were really you? these have such power analytical systems that a track in virtually real-time and they find out whether or not your fitting your own profile. .03 of 1%xpress pays to crooks. it is competing with creeks. new york state medicaid pays a dentisto crooks, about 980 procedures a day and no one noticed it. in the russian mafia, and medical equipment in los angeles. former convicted cocaine dealers

in florida who imprisoned decided that selling from the federal government was safer and more profitable than cocaine. here is the amount of money involved. i spent several years trying to get the bush administration to understand this. credit card, as to the payments system. credit card, as to the payment system. -- really stupid payment system. what does it have to do with washington? if we were to you them to pay medicare and medicaid, we would say between 60% and 100 and rejects-- $60 billion and $110 billion a year. you ought to ask your congressman, how about just not paying crooks? this is not count food stamps

are unemployment compensation. it does not count dozens of other places. justin these two programs we believe it is between $60 and $110 billionundred a year. take that times your entire tax thing lifetime. you will begin to see how much money is sitting there. this system will never voluntarily change. that is why i decided to run. i look forward to your questions. [applause]

>> he has graciously offered to answer questions. please line up at the center microphone here. we have asked that everyone asked only one question. please do not make statements. as your question in a concise manner as possible. >> hello. i graduated from georgetown. my question is in regard to pork kids as janitors. the kids will do work. did they will have cash. in high school, i was a janitor in a private school. for me, it was embarrassing to be a to enter.

i was poor. -- to be a dancer. i was poor. i did not feel empowered by classmates. why not get these kids to work for law firms that >> i am all for doing that. did you find it useful financially to get the money? is there a reason you're doing it that's what i needed to help my single mom. it was a struggle. i only lasted one year and i had to move somewhere else. george town saved my butt to the financial aid. without this opportunity, i would not get anything. all my friends are pregnant and in gangs and jail.

we all did the same job working in to editorial appeared >> both of my daughter's work as janitors at the local baptist church. they did not think it was demeaning. the white that they earn their own money. they kept their on money. -- the light that they earned their own money. they kept their money. >> they came from a wealthy family. >> that is not the point he. >> i was not wealthy. >> you and i just disagree. i believe in poor neighborhoods if you could find a way to help people have a job and maybe keep them in the school, i would be a place to look at it. you can only apply to the college of the ozarks if you need financial aid. if you are accepted there, you

work 15 hours a week during the school year plus two 40 hour weeks and that pays tuition and books. 92% of the students graduate boeing 0 -- oweing zero. the 8% that goes something owe an average of $5,000 because their senior year they buy a car. i think that is better than having huge debts. >> is an honor to see you in person after seen onstage for the past year. why are politicians more like you? politicians like

you? reagan said we're too great of a nation to limit ourselves? you are the only one seems to offer a bold vision and big idea for how we can continue to grow as a nation. why is it that most politicians are focusing on small things that you cannot do instead of the exhibition's? >> you are going at the heart is something profound. i talked about having colonies on the moon and the importance of space. i got ridiculed, a special about my two opponents.

she said to is fascinated because she remembers john f. kennedy st. "we will get to the moon in this decade. we will do it not because it is easy but because it is hard." she said back then we action thought it was possible to be american. we thought it was ok to have big dreams. what has happened to this country that we have such cynicism and defeatism that to propose a bold new venture into space is ridiculed. we are surrounded by a news media that is cynical and by consultants who are cynical and lobbyists who are cynical. you are in an imperial capital where they want to know how you are going to get the money. they think it is a waste of

time. that was true in 1980. at the end of a time when you left office, this was disappearing. they were promptly erasing. they said there's nothing to learn for ronald reagan. we set the all-time record. we had 9 million additional votes. it is the biggest one party increase in history. you ask a fundamental problem. it is so difficult to organize fix solutions.

this transcends republicans, democrats and obama's personality. the your generation is inheriting a dysfunctional country that cannot communicate with itself. i have no idea how to answer your question. >> thank you. >> good afternoon. you as a member of the catholic church, what you think that the u.s. spends three times what the rest of nato spent in defense but there are 14 million people uninsured? >> what about a country that has over 20% unemployment? >> it is terrible. >> that is right. i'm not trying to pick a fight. let's be clear. the number one reason why we

spend so much of national defence is because you do not. to show me the nato forces that want to take over? they are available this evening. you want to show the nato forces that want to build a defense system? you want to show is a willingness of germany to cut off iran that it would be thrilling. we took a burden after world war ii that we will not be able to sustain much longer. we are going to have to confront the reality that we are not capable of standing beside the plan appeared we have to decide whether we want to play a real role. europe has been consistently weakening its defenses for a generation and relying on us. why do you spend so much that

i'm happy to work out a deal. he doubled the investment by europe and we will find a way to have less forces. my dad surge in germany in the infantry when i was a kid. they are gone. we should be gone, too. >> thank you for joining us. you did your ph.d. dissertation on education. you were one of the main people with the house. what are your big ideas on u.s. role and development? >> there are two primary

decisions. this is a good pop process for somebody. it if you look to all the foreign aid and said it that had been an investment so that american companies that created jobs were permanent with both the u.s. in that country be better off that i would love to have somebody do a case study on haiti. it is intolerable that we have a country that close to our inshore that we have been involved with a sense 1923. we have built to help the people of haiti. nobody is prepared to come to grips with how hard it is. i think we adopted this bureaucracy gives another bureaucracy money that some of the wrong signals. we sent all the signals the said

go into politics and become a bureaucrat. create a real job. become an entrepreneur. look at the difference in countries. south korea have the same per- capita as gonnhana. nobody wants to deal with this step. it is too frightening. it breaks of all of the insider deals. indeed you really briefing. but get the disasters of refugee camps. nobody has any private property or savings. they're taking care of by international groups. no wonder they hate people. they have no vision of a better future. we ought to have the courage to rethink from the ground up.

i am told that you were the last question. it is not a good one, yield to the person behind you. >> where we get the money to fund the retirees if there was an option for social security ta? >> we would do three things. if you get back to 4.2% unemployment, which is where we were when i left office, i help create jobs with reagan and once with clinton, 11 million new jobs, apple employment the trust fund is healthier than its is that the worst level of unemployment. half of your tax money still goes in there. your personal half goes into your account. the employers have as into the

fund to keep it up. there are 185 federal programs for low-income americans. 185 different your accuracies and different sets of regulations. we put them in a one block grants. everyone on it is currently safe in the model we just designed. peter would be grateful to talk to you agree link. thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> wednesday, ron paul held a town hall meeting at the university of maryland in college park. maryland's republican presidential primary will be held this tuesday april 3. he was introduced by the university's ron paul for youth

chapter president. [cheering "president paul"]

>> good evening, a fellow visitors. before i start, amid light to take a moment for us to think the petitioners to make it possible for dr. paul to visit our campus. secondly, i would like for you to put your hands together for the youth for paul chapter members. without this, this event would be impossible. [applause]

his message has been widely popular on our campus. they took note of the unwillingness to cover his universally appealing platform as it upon themselves to spread the message. they took time out of their daily schedules to put ron paul's name on every town across campus. we had everybody talking about ron paul in our artwork.

early into the semester, i jokingly challenged once of the obamacare painters to a contest. they count the total number of from paul voters they turn into a obama supporters and we will tell the democrats, republicans, liberals and independent we turn to ron paul supporters. we are living in the time were testing the government is considered patriotic. he says that patriotism is the willing to stand up to the government when the government is wrong. after some research, i found out that the founding fathers felt

the same way about government and that the principles on which this great nation was founded upon were planted in this reality. not good 2008, i looked to a promising candidates to put an end to this trend, to break the sequence of events that would lead to the erosion of our democracy. i was promised change. i was supposed to have hope. i was sold a mirage. it just a few months ago we witness the passage of the national defense authorization act. >> [booo] >> giving the government the power to detained americans without charge or trial. this follows the paycheck at

expansion, the taxpayer bailout of wall street and new military entanglements. news of government activity at this stature and the people sirens is similar to an alarm clock that goes off and is constantly put on snooze. you become desensitized to the sound and sleep through the alarm. later waking up to realize the you have been asleep too long. it is time that the people wake up. no more hitting snooze. it is time to bring real change to the oval office. ladies and gentlemen, tonight i

give you hope. tonight i bring you a man that will create this change, and man that has not been bought out by wall street, the corporate t it, or anyone on capitol hill. a man who has predicted the financial crisis of 2008 and has a row plan to balance the budget and cut $1 trillion. ladies and gentlemen, tonight and bring you the man that will restore america. tonight i bring you dr. ron paul, ladies and gentlemen. [cheers and applause]

>> thank you, thank you. thank you. [cheers and applause] thank you.

thank you. >> [cheering "president paul"] >> it sounds to me like freedom as popular in maryland. i want to thank you for that nice introduction. the support here was obvious. other campuses compete and they tried to get names, but your campus got a very large and not the largest number of signatures. -- if not the largest number of signatures. not only is freedom is popular, but it sounds like the revolution has arrived to campus, too.

there are changes coming out of necessity. the changes were available to this country for a long time. we had one revolution a long time ago. on happened today i was at the office on a hill. some young people came in. there were six of them. i handed them a copy of the constitution. i signed it. i said you might as well read it. and nobody reads it over here on the hill. of course, everybody is supposed to be reading it now. they're trying to sort it out at the supreme court. they will come up to a constitutional answer for how far they can go with mandates. the mandate is horrible. it's the problem stepped across

the line. what is government other than a big mandate? all the government does is band- aid everything we do. they have gone a little bit too far. annoyed that it would decrease the quality of care. what can you do under the interstate commerce clause? according to the last hundred years, republicans and democrats say you can do anything you want under the interstate commerce clause. that is not what it said. it was written to mandate trade between the state. what they should be talking about if anything is why can we use the interstate commerce to allow insurance is to be across state lines.

there has been a lot demand is that i have complained about. every law has a threat. he was either going to get find a lot of money are put in prison. what about the old met mandate? it is still on the books. you have to sign up for selective service. they believe that they on new and they can use you. this is one mandate that we should look at carefully and get rid of. he cannot live in a free society it yet a mandate that can strip people to fight on winnable wars. -- we cannot live in a free

society and yet mandate that they can make people fight unwinnable wars. we now have accepted a principal with the last administration. they invented this term. they said it is ok to have pre- emptive war. preemptive warrant means you can go to war and you have become the aggressor. we have become an aggressor nation and the goodness of our heart. we will spread our goodness around the world. there has been something exceptional about america. we have a great economy and the

largest middle-class ever. metal class is shrinking. we are involved in debt. the exceptional is and we once had is no longer with us. the idea that he can spread this through force is wrong. what can we do? we say we have good values so we go to other countries and say this is what we want you to do. we will send you a lot of money. if you do not do what you do will kill embalming. why should we have a third option? why shouldn't we just save mind our own business tax -- justm , say, mind our own business?

that simply means that we do not go into nation-building. we do not become the policeman of the world but we do not become isolationists. guess who the isolationists are? the ones who are looking for war. i have argued the case that at the height of the cold war, i was drafted in 1962 in cuba. that was a tough time. what did they do? kennedy actually talked to crews and said maybe we should back down.

they backed down but they talked to each other. we refuse to talk to the arabian. there is this idea that we have to bomb and declare war. it does not make any sense at all. if jeopardize is our economy. i used to mention a lot about this choice. in pakistan, there is a third option may look debt. we give the pakistani is it billions of dollars. we do both to them. we look for this other option,

getting along with people and different ways. think how much better things are with vietnam. in the '60s, we have the vietnam war. what a tragedy. the 60,000 americans killed. weaver there another 10 years. we lose the war. we want to stop the domino effect of communism.

the great debate goes on in washington as it is in the medical care. this is a big debate going on. they do not change policy. they say which country should we invade next? they endorse this whole concept of interventionism. the whole idea of trying to write us off as being isolationists, i think it is time we started trading with cuba and traveling back and forth to q. but? in the past 10 years there were $4 trillion of additional debt because of the wars.

not only is it a moral issue, it is an economic issue. the soviet collapse because they had a field economic system. just think what the difference would be in this country as far as prosperity and the wealth of the middle-class and the ability to take care of sick people. what if we only have people in washington, d.c. who read and follow the constitution? article one section 8 is not too difficult to read and understand. it is very precise on how we go to war and who makes the decision. did you go to war when it is declared and not at the whim of the president or an

administration. the war is declared by the people going through their representatives. when panetta was asked the other day where you get this authority, would you give this authority, he said you get it from an international government. you get it from the united nations or nato. that is the giving up of national sovereignty and referring to even bigger government. we have enough problems worrying about federal government. we do not need another level of government on the imf.

one of my meager proposals for the budget is to cut $1 trillion. you know that. that makes a lot of people nervous. they say what if all these troops come home? want that increase the unemployment? i said if you cut a trillion dollars, guess what? that money gets spent there. one example to look at statistically is what happened after world war ii. there were 10 million in the military. they wanted out. it is expected that the men and women would come how to get out of the military. they said this would be terrible. we have to have jobs programs. they did not have time to

organize another jobs program. guess what happened? the spending was cut by 60%. .axes went down 30's appear one of the mess we heard so long is that if you have a recession and you foolishly turn it into a depression that the ultimate way you get out of it is that you have a war. their argument is that everybody is employed. sure, but they're getting shot at and killed. that is a heck of a way to cut down on your unemployment rate. what you need is to get the government's out of our lives

and let the market run. they want the people who spend the money. they say the lower half does not pay any taxes. they are complaining. everyone should have to pay taxes. we are halfway there. it is not fair to write the port of and say they do not pay taxes, a display of taxpayers. they pay the inflation tax. some people suffer a lot more

from inflation than others. you do not go on welfare and you tried to work and take care of yourself. the government tells you your standard of living is not going down. they say you are paying the tax that comes through the money for financing these debts. that will be one of the first things on my agenda. we have a ways to go.

there have been some pretty good achievement. we have had the people thinking and talking about an understanding about the federal reserve system. now the fed is being exposed. we know how hard they fought against the audit. we have a partial i did. we know more about the fed now the we ever had before. to some degree is i was shocked when i found out. i know a little bit about the fed. when i found out about the degree they were involved, the issue of $15 trillion worth of credit in bailing out big banks.

this would have been better. the federal reserve is a facility that facilitates the growth of big government. we are the lender of last resort. we are to maintain the value of the currency and to maintain low unemployment. they're not doing too great a job. the unemployment rate is much higher than they tell us. inflation rates are higher than they tell us. it is much higher. they destroyed 97% of the value of the 1913 dollars.

fory we give them an "f" that. they fail. [applause] there is a lot of reasons to oppose the federal reserve. in moral sense, it is immoral to counterfeit money. the law makes a very good point. if you and i can do it, the government should never be allowed to do it either. the federal reserve does duplicate monetary units and does not increase well. it increases some people's wealth. if you had all things even, with

the destruction of the value of the money, there is a transfer of wealth. it is from the middle class to the wealthy. it is the people that get to use the money first. they benefit the most. the people who get to use at last are the people in the middle class because they get the highest prices. it is an unfair system. economically it is a disaster because they are responsible for the business cycle. did they create artificially low interest rates. they pump money into this. they build to many houses. we must give loans to people who do not qualify. and looks like it is a golden dream. they get people houses that would not have qualified otherwise. then the value of the house goes

up. in looks like a cash cow. it leads to a bubble. bubbles don't last. they burst. then you suffer the consequences. this demonstrates the fallacy of the entitlement system. entitlements are motivated by well-meaning people. people need help. they do need a house. we will help them get a house. they get into the speculative derivative business.

when the predictable bubble bursts, guess what? who got the bailout? the people we were claiming we were helping? they were the first ones to lose their job and they lost their houses. the people who have been making the money all along. it was coordinated through the federal reserve system. we have to take a quick look at the federal reserve. if your defender of liberty, you want to support small government. if there is a lender of last resort and we do not tax for all that we spend and we do not borrow enough, that means if you

are spending too much money for war and the fed monetizes the debt, this facilitates entitlement systems, the welfare system, and it is the war. it will not happen without the federal reserve. this is why the founders ran adamant about the monetary system. they say do "and do not print money. we cannot use it." [applause] >> i believe our goal should be in all political action and our personal lives as well -- our goal should be to enhance liberty. that is what we are all about. [applause] but the tragedy is that is not what is happening. today it has been turned over to the lobbyists. they are in the business of

redistributing the wealth, but the wealth is shrinking. the pie is kidding smaller and smaller and every group is getting more aggressive. how are we going to get this money? at the same time, we are producing less. we have less jobs. we have a 30 million new people in this country in the last 10 years. we have had no significant new jobs. manufacturing -- 56,000 business jobs went overseas. this cannot be maintained. we are reaching a point where something has to give. financial, monetary, inflationary -- the american people sick and tired of the attack on our personal liberties and the invasion of privacy. this will and because it cannot continue. if the world can keep taking our dollars and financing as they are currently doing, theoretically, none of us would ever have to work again because we just print the money.

everybody knows that will not work, but so far, we are doing it. there are some years or the federal reserve buys a small amount of debt. last year, because foreigners were not by as much, the federal reserve bought 61% of our debt. they have kept the interest rates artificially low thinking they can get these bubbles forming again, but they cannot. it is going to be something that your generation, this generation has to meet up with. i have often said, but i do not say it anymore, that we cannot run up these debts because we are passing them on to the next generation. that is not true. we have passed it on to this degeneration and we have to face the fact this debt is overwhelming and we have to shrink the size of government and cut the spending. [applause]

from my viewpoint, the easiest place to cut spending is foreign welfare. all of the spending and foreign aid and wars -- we should be able to come together. [applause] i cannot give you too much encouragement to say that the typical it -- typical conservative republican is going to do the job, because they like that oversees spending. it has to be a coalition of those on the right to believe in limited spending and are willing to cut the military spending as well as people from the left. bring people together, get together, and change this for policy and spending overseas. if we do not do that, these conditions are going to get much much worse. we have got to look at the policies over all. the policy of non-intervention -- minding our own business --

is so much better than trying to domineer the world. [applause] but coming together should not be that difficult when you think about what freedom is all about. i am and that this is the right track to take. freedom should bring us together. people have a diverse lifestyles and they spend the money differently. if you understand freedom and where this comes from, it comes in a god-given way -- not from our governments. [applause] but then what we want to honor and respect is the individual. that is your life. you own your own life and therefore you should own it what you earn.

if you have a right to your life and liberty, you ought to have the right to keep the fruits of your labor. [applause] but what has happened approximately 100 years ago, this idea of liberty was not unified. it was chopped into pieces. some people to a degree defended economically. others said economic liberty does not work. there will be poverty, we have to regulate, we have to manipulate the monetary system, we have to plan the economy and all these things. the evidence is that does not work. they do not like economic liberty. there is another group that says we like economic liberty, but if you have your choice of doing anything you want with your own life, you might do some things i do not like. guess what? if you want to live, as i do --

in a free society -- you have to accept tolerance on how people spend their money and run their own lives. [applause] but there is another little thing you have to accept if this is true. we have a right to our lives and run our life as we see fit, but if we make mistakes, guess what -- you have to assume responsibility for your mistakes. [applause] the main reason why it does not work to turn these responsibilities over to government is the government is politicians and bureaucrats. they do not know what is best for you. they think they do, but they do not know what is best for you. [applause] this would be equivalent to adding a state religion. religion is pretty important for most people in this country

spiritual life is important, but we never for a minute assume that government knows what is best for us, so they should tell us what to do with our spiritual life and religious lives. we do not accept that. [applause] but there are too many who want to control the way you spend your money and how to control your lifestyle. this is the reason it should bring us all together, not on how we use our freedoms, but we should all come together because we want our freedoms and we want to use them as we so choose. [applause] big government, obviously, represents an intrusion into our personal lives. that is something that is becoming a very very serious crisis in this country today.

it has been bad. it has been gradual over many years. the financial privacy was invaded a long time ago. essentially, you do not have much privacy left if any at all. but, you know, it's to get to the point where you wonder what you can do about it -- i think about what we all have done. i am sure many of you participated in the stop online privacy act. -- stop online piracy act. [applause] when the people get the message to washington, they have to be aroused enough to do it. like auditing the fed. we've gotten the people to respond. the politicians are there not because they have a strong belief in anything, to tell the truth. [laughter] [applause] what they need to know is what

you want from them in order for them to stay in office. if not, they need to leave that office and get out of the way. [applause] but conditions in many ways have deteriorated since 9/11. 9/11 was a horrible, horrible day. i do believe it was wrongly assessed and that there is poor understanding exactly why that came about because the official explanation -- [applause] -- the official explanation is that foreigners came here for -- because they were religious radicals and they attacked us because we were free and prosperous. i do not buy into that. since 9/11, it was used as an opportunity.

before 9/11, it was written by many conservatives that when the opportunity presents itself, you never let an opportunity past to promote what they believe in. believe me, with the first thing they did? immediately afterwards it was invading a country that had nothing to do with it. invading iraq. [applause] there was supposed to be weapons of mass destruction, al qaeda there. none of that was true. think of the loss of life, the money pot. guess what -- al qaeda is there now. it was a failed policy. but when you look at the country -- now we hear stories that 15 of the 19 came from there and they have a radical government there. it is saudi arabia. we prop it up. they are protected at the same

time because somebody in iraq decides that they might want to use something other than the dollar and they will not do our bidding. they have to be disposed of. [applause] 9/11 was just used as the excuse. the other thing that happened after that -- within days, there was a bill that was brought back up. it was called -- it was misnamed, of course -- it was called "the patriot at." -- act." so along with the federal reserve, we will be repealing the patriot act as well. [applause]

i remember the day we were voting on this. when i went over to vote, i knew there would not be very many "no" votes. i was sitting next to another member who is voting for it. i said why are we voting for it? we do not even know what is in it. you know the will be a lot of bad stuff. he said, it is called "the patriot act." how am i going to go home and explain to my people that after 9/11 i did not vote for the paycheck act. i said that is your job. go home and explain it to them. [applause] you can be assured if you hear the name of a bill in congress, the bill will do the opposite of what it said. think of the advantage we would have had if they would put the

name of the bill and called it "repeal the fourth amendment act per "but there are a few that would not have voted for it. we introduced legislation to get rid of the patriot act. we will call it the "restore the fourth amendment act." [applause] but, today, we have with the national defense authorization act, we have the military now able to arrest american citizens. it goes on and on. who gets to write the search warrants? the people marching into our houses -- the fbi, cia, and military will be writing our search warrants. i think the founders of this country got a pretty annoyed with that when the british army did it, so i do not know.

[applause] we have gone a long way from the principles we have held dear. we note now that our nation is probably still torturing. we assassinate american citizens with no trial. this is not what america is supposed to be about. when we recover and restore the republic, there will be a precedent that will not assassinate american citizens. [applause] will not start pre-empted war, will not go to war without a declaration. [applause] will respect the principle that the voters -- the writ of habeas

corpus. right now, we are undermining that. [applause] personal liberty in a very important way is with us every day. today, if you want to go out and buy a light bulb, you do not have a choice. there is a mandate we ought to talk about as well. there are limits on what we can and cannot do. they have a long time to decide who pays for birth control pills and whether they can put a mandate we are getting away off on tangents on what we should be talking about. [applause] but today, if you want to buy

raw milk, you might not be able to prin. that is the nanny-state we do not need. we do not need any more nanny- state. [applause] i mentioned about the interstate commerce clause, how it is being abused with medical care, but it has been around as early as 1942. that is when the courts ruled it would be perfectly all right to prohibit if you lived on a farm to raise wheat to make your own bread. and if you did, you could be fined a lot of money and if you did not pay the fine, you could go to prison for raising wheat on your own form. the incrementalism is what we

have failed to recognize. i think these and comets have been so great and they have been expanding so rapidly, a lot of people are waking up. i think the younger generation is certainly waking up. [applause] of course, there was a court case in 2005 that dealt with the interstate commerce clause. but some states believe that american citizens should have the right by their state law if they wanted, for medical reasons, to grow their own marijuana and use it, they thought that would be reasonable -- [cheers and applause] -- but the courts said that was not reasonable.

interstate commerce prohibit you from doing this and we have the right to regulate this. in a free society, as much as i detest the use of drugs, especially prescription drugs -- they are so dangerous -- [applause] -- but if you have the right to decide your spiritual matters and the right to read it sinister plot like communism and socialism, i think you ought to have a right to put into your own body what ever you want. [applause]

now, i might add as a parent, grandparent, and physician -- do it with a great deal of caution. [applause] in a free society, you have to take care of yourself. this notion that the government can protect us against ourselves is the principle that has to be challenged because they cannot do it because they do not know how and they do not have a right to do it. [applause] the big thing is if you make a mistake, you suffer the consequences, but if a politician makes a mistake, everybody suffers. that is where the real problem comes. quite frankly, the people i have met and the people i know who passed most of these lots are not smart enough to tell you how you should spend your money. they should not be doing that.

[applause] one thing i have suggested to try to get their attention and get the attention of the american people about this mess and all this spending -- first we tax, then we borrow, the reprint the money -- if people are determined they want to move along into a welfare state and a warfare state, it would be nice if they would call on the constitution. since they do not, one of the ways we can get the -- get their attention is repealed the withholding tax. note withholding tax at all -- no withholding tax at all. as employers, we should not be forced to testify against ourselves. if you did not change anything else except this and say, ok, everyone of us need to send a check to the government to pay

all the bills do every single month -- believe me, this thing would come crashing down real fast. people would not put up with that. [applause] the wonderful thing is is that we lived in the at project in a great country, the largest most populous middle-class. the bad news is if we do not do something about it, it is. to say "goodbye per "the good news is the revolutionary spirit, the spirit of liberty is alive and well. it is growing exponentially. [applause] frequently they will tell us when you talk in these terms of -- they accuse me of wanting to go back to the dark ages. you want to go back to the gold standard. what would we want to do that? back to the old days.

guess what -- those who oppose us want us to go back to the old days of tyranny. tierney is a lot older than freedom. tyranny is a lot older than freedom. [applause] it should not be difficult. when the bankruptcy comes -- and we are in the midst of that now -- to make a while it's -- wise choice. do we want to accept this whole idea that we need more government? yet today we had a committee hearing on the federal reserve. how can you solve the problem of debt with more debt? they believed they can. when you are in trouble like this, -- we are in trouble because they do not spend money. what if they do not have a job? did we spend the money.

if you do not have that, you print the money. they believe that as sincerely as i believe in the free market and sound money. it is not working. the failure is right on their doorstep. that is why our option of resuming our efforts to preserve liberty is so important. we've never had a perfect society. we never had a perfect gold standard. what we ought to do is pick up the pieces. it will take about 100 years to pick up the pieces. there have been things eroded -- eroding over time -- the destruction of our currency, the income tax, the welfare state. we need to go back and pick up what we were given. if we got into so much trouble by having so many people totally ignoring the constitution, we did not do anything else except make the people that represent us at least read the constitution and forced them to obey the constitution. -- force of them to obey the

constitution. [applause] it has been said -- benjamin franklin said that those expect to reap the liberty need to support it. i do not believe you have to sacrifice. there could be some tough times for some people, but if you would not have bailed out the banks, they would have went to the people. [applause] if we can get the government to get out of our way, off our backs, out of our law, and out of our personal lives, why should we call that a sacrifice? we can work hard and keep what we earn. this would be an immediate effort to bring back growth again. it should be a wonderful time. world war ii was not the

disaster they thought. we got the government out of the business of trying to get out of the depression. we came back and the depression ended. freedom is in many ways miraculously on what it does. [applause] to me, the real miracle is bringing people together because, like i mentioned, freedom should bring us all together. one thing we did wrong in this country, and to some degree still exist -- some people are mistreated because they belong to a group. i can understand that. in the drug law, there are people mistreated under the drug laws because they are punished in a certain way. [applause] but in the same breath, people should not get special privileges because they belong to a group either. [applause] we have to see ourselves as

individuals -- individuals who are born with a right to life and liberty and we have the right of ownership and we should all come together for the same reasons. that should bring us together when we need to cut back on our spending. we should agree that we do not need to be policeman of the world. we should agree that the entitlement system does not work pri. [applause] but these views have been well received on the campuses around the whole country. i am certainly very happy and pleased with the reception here. there is still a campaign going on. pay attention because they have not counted all the delegates yet. [applause]

[crowd chanting] let me now close by saying an idea whose time has come cannot be stopped. we will watch on. ideas are different. that is what is happening. that is what i see. i am seeing it across the

country. be encouraged and have fun doing this because to be despondent is being negative about freedom. freedom is popular. get out there and spread the message. thank you very much. [cheers and applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> thank you for being here.

i appreciate you coming out. thank you. good to see you. thank you very much. good to see you. >> can i get a picture with you, sir? >> thank you. >> thank you so much. >> the house and senate passed a 90-state extension for transportation funding today. here is some of the house debate next on c-span. the house also passed the republican budget plan today. we will hear from budget committee chairman paul ryan and then the top democrat on the

committee, congressman chris van hollen. >> tomorrow on "washington journal," michael green, former member of the national security council, talk about south korean security and a possible satellite launched by north korea. gretchen morgenson looks at the oversight of fannie mae and freddie mac. thomas mesenbourg and connie potter discuss the first ever release of records and surveys from the 1940 u.s. census after the expiration of 872-year confidentiality clause. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c- span. >> the house passed a 90-day extension of the transportation program, which was approved by a voice vote in the senate. house republican leaders will

look at a long-term measure after the two-week recess. here is part of that debate. . speaker and my colleagues, we know why we are here. we are here to pass a responsible extension so that people acros america can go to work, that we can finish a long-term transportation bill and that we can be responsible stewards of the trust which the taxpayers and the citizens of america sent us here for. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves his time. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia is recognized. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, the pending legislation before this body today at the 11th hour as a result of a torturous process -- excuse me -- it's not been a process at all, but rather a

series of stalled starts, retreats and the failure by the republican leadership to seize upon a reasonable solution to re-authorizing our nation's transportation surface programs. at first, the speaker stated this was a jobs bill. almost as seen soon as the words were out of his mouth he countered himself saying it has nothing to do with jobs at all. what came about then was a scheme to produce a five-year re-authorization bill coupled with that universal house republic answer to all ills which is to open up anwr to drilling, drill, baby, drill, and then attempt to y for some of the proposal on the backs of working class americans. the surface transportation portion, h.r. 7, proposed to slash $15.8 billion in highway funding to the states, destroying 550,000 american family wage jobs over the

coming years. investment in roads, highways and bridges would retrench in all but five states. the republican leadership also proposed to ship public transit revenue to highways and then bail out transit with a one-time transfer of $40 billion from the general fund whe robbing middle-class americans to pay for this shuffle. this is an idea that would make even the most hardened con artists green with envy. it is a shell game. it's a shell game but it has no place in the hallowed halls of congress. it is a shell game and it is a sham. but it was not democrats who took this ill-advised proposal down. it was republicans. over the course of six weeks, they caucused, they corraled and they contorted themselves in trying to obtain 218 votes to pass h.r. 7 and they could

not which brings us to this week when the republican leadership decided to bring up a 90-day extension bill in the form of h.r. 4239. but when this legislation was called up on tuesday, it was done so as a 60-day extension. the house debated this measure. i asked for a vote and the vote was postponed. as far as i know, that request for a vote is still pending, even as we debate a different bill now. then another curious thing happened. according to the publication transportation weekly yesterday, and i quote, after more discussion among themselves, republican leaders ordered mica to reintroduce the 60-day versi of his extension as a stand-alone bill which can thene considered by the rules committee, end quote. that bill is h.r. 4276.

the transportation weekly article yesterday then noted, and i quoted again, after still more discussion among themselves, republican leaders ordered mica to reintroduce the 90-day version as a stand-alone version which can be considered by the rules committee as well, end quote. confused? anybody confused? that bill is now h.r. 4281 which we are currently de bating. who knows what we'll be debating next hour. the republican leadership could have scheduled the bipartisan noncontroversial senate-passed bill for considerati by this body. could have been brought up at any time by the speaker, passed by this body in a bipartisan fashion, signed into law. i make these points to illustrate the fast and loose means by which the republican leadership has been dealing

with an extremely serious matter. instead of spinning their wheels in pursuit of ill-conceived h.r. 7, which slashes investments in federal aid to highways by $15.8 billion from current levels at a time when more spending is needed to address structurally deficient bridges and maintain our highway system, reduces highway funding to all but five states, h.r. 7 guts america's commitment to transit with sleight of hand move, instead proposes to fund transit with general revenue fund which is offset on the backs of workers. h.r. 7 contains a bogus pay-for by linking up opening an and changes oil and gas leasing which -- and h.r. 7 has an inclusion of a buy america light requirement. it does not include amtrak and

the federal railroad loan program while ting to crack down on d.o.t.'s waiver authority. it places a road block by elimiting and in some cases outright waiving nepa. and h.r. 7 eliminates osha protections for hazmat workers and allows bad actors to continue to receive hazmat compliant exemptions. so this body could have considered and passed the other body's bipartisan bill which passed that body by a vote of 74-22. that's half of the republican members in the other body, and we know how difficult it is to get that other body to get 60 votes to cut off debate on any resolution or any bill, even one saying i love mother would be hard to pass in that body. yet, for a transportation bill, they came up with 72 votes.

that bill continues current funding levels, sustaining approximately 1.9 million jobs. the states will receive $3.8 billion more in highway construction funding than h.r. 7 over the course of two years. the senate bipartisan bill eliminates many of the gaping loopholes in current law buy american requirements, and the senate bipartisan bill does not contain poison pills like h.r. 7 such as provisions to strip osha requirements for hazmat workers and efforts to finance highy cstructions on the back of middle cla workers. i would note, mr. speaker, that we have tried, we have tried by every means available to us on this side of the aisle to have the senate-passed bill brought up for consideration in the house and not just through procedural motions. yesterday, representatives defazio, corrine brown, tip bishop and myself submitted that measure to the rules

committee asking them to make it in order as an amendment to the pending measure so we could vote on it today. we were denied, instead, we are on the floor today with the republican leadership proposal to kick the can down the road for another 90 days so they can convince their conference to support something they have not been able to do over the last six weeks. the fact of the matter is we need to be investing more. we need to be investing more, not less. if we are to keep pace with china, india and our other international competitors. today, china spends 9% of its g.d.p. per year on infrastructure. india spends 5%. the u.s. only vests 1.9%. -- invests only 1.9%. the inability of the republican leadership to reach across party lines, the house democrats to address this bill is leaving america stuck in a

ditch. putting american businesses at a disadvantagwith companies around the world. in 2008, a blue ribbon commission established as a result of the last multiyear surface transportation bill reported that the federal government must invest a minimum of $62 billion a year just to maintain our nation's roads and bridges in their present, inadequate condition. this bill comes nhere close to that. instead, it leaves america down the opposite path. president lyndon b. johnson once said, in large measure, america's history is a history of her transportation. i say, let us seize the moment to move forwa without procedural gimmicks, without partisan brinksmanship and do what is right formerica, for the american worker, for america's families and for america's values. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia reserves his time. the gentleman from florida.

mr. mica: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 second and then two minutes i'd like to yield to the chair of the highway subcommittee. mr. speaker, my colleagues, let's just deal with the facts, and i'd ask unanimous consent that this chart or the information therein be included in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. mica: the fact is that the democrats had six amendments, one month, 2.5 months, nine months, two months, when they controlled the house of representatives, the senate, by huge majority and the white house. they couldn't even get it to committee. they could not get it to committee. these are the facts. i yield now to -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mr. duncan: i thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. let me just say this, chairman mica has perfmed great leadership of the transportation and infrastructure committee and tried in every way possible to work with everybody he possibly could. his path has been made much

more difficult by the rule prohibiting earmarks. as he just mentioned, the other side couldn't bring a bill out of committee and to this floor, a highway bill in the last congress when they controlled the house, the senate and the white house and still allowed earmarks. so we are in a very difficult situation at this point, and that's why we are here today asking for this 90-day extension. h.r. 4281 extends the surface transportation programs through ne 30 at funding levels consistent with the fiscal year 012 transportatn appropriations bill passed in november. this extension is clean and does not add any policy provisions. without this extension the highway transit and highway safety programs are set to expire this saturday. this legislation will allow these programs to continue to operate as the spring construction season kicks off. if congress fails to pass this extension byaturday, it will cost the highway trust fund about $1 billion a week in lost

revenue and put the brakes on 134,000 highway projects and 5,70transit projects across the nation. states that seek to be reimbursed for their federal-aid highway and tnsit programs will not receive fund for the work they completed. it would furlough 3,500 of their employs and work on environmental permits and project approvals for new construction projects would come to a stretching halt. over 280,000 construction workers, mr. speaker, working on highway and bridge projects today could lose their jobs if congress cannot pass this -- cannot pass this extension. is country simply cannot afford a loss of such magnitude during our tenous road to economic recovery. "time" has an article this week saying this recovery is a wimpy recovery and it's based on pint up demand. we need to pass this extension so we can work towards completing and finalizing h.r.

7, our long-term authorization reform bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee's time has expired. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i yield at this time four minutes to the gentleman from oregon, a distinguished ranking member on our subcommittee on highways and transit, mr. dazio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for four minutes. mr. defazio: this could or should be the most important job creating bill in america, investing in our nion's infrastructure, making our nation more competitive in the international economy, more efficiently moving goods and people. the current system, a legacy of the 1950's, is falling apart. now, the republicans are telling us that this 90-day extension will be good for america. it will not be good for america because we have a better option before us, a bill passed the united states senate, bipartisan bill with 22 republican senators, half the republican senators supporting that bill which would give us

more funding without creating deficit and create more jobs than their pie in the sky bill, h.r. 7, which they can't even get out of their own caucus here because their own caucus is split. there are a number of republicans who do not believe we should have a national transportation system. . think want to go back to pre-1950's. the speaker was forced to say to his caucus, we are not making the claim that spending taxpayer money on transportation projects creates jobs. we won't make that claim. what makes this a jobs bill is it removes government barriers getting in the way of economic growth. that's not what all people engaged in rebuilding the nation's infrastructure think. theyhink investment equals jobs. if we do this 90-day extension the association of general contractors says that states will cut back to 50% to 40% of their planned projects because

of the uncertainty created by this 90-day extension. we are going to lose half of the proposed projects this construction season, around america, tens of thousands of jobs, needeinvestment, because they got a bunch of bozos in their caucus who don't believe we should have a national transportation system. they are fighting among themselves. give us a vote. let us vote on the senate bill. it doesn't create deficit. it does create jobs. it does give us the invement we need. the gentleman who spoke just before me, the gentleman from tennessee, who is a good friend, under the bill they are trying to pry out of their caucus, which the secretary of transportation called the worst transportation bill in history, by the way the secrety is a republican that served in this house for more than a decade. he says it's the worst bill ever in terms o policy and lack of investment. in the case of the geleman from tennessee, their h.r. 7, if they could get it out of caucus, they can't, would cost his state

$4 million over five years. lo investment. $444 million. that's more than 10,000 jobs lost. we have an opportity today to take up a two-year bill, provide the certainty. not only for construction jobs, for engineering jobs, where people who manufacture construction equipment, for people with made in america requirements who construction transportation equipment. our buses, our light rail, our streetcars all the things that need building and replacing just for the existing system, let alon beginning to have a sion of building on a 21st century system. oucompetitor nations around the world are doing it and they are so dispentic on their side they are arguing over whether or not the federal government should be involved in transportation. that's nuts. we settled that debate 60 years ago when dwight david eisenhower said this doesn't work. we have states building turn pikes that end in farmer's fields because the adjoining states couldn't afford to build

their section of the turnpike. he said we need a coordinated national transportation policy. we have an opportunity to improve on the one we have today by passing the senate bill that does do some streamlining. it does do things that will help us spend the money more efficiently. and it maintains current levels of spending instead of reductions and it does not have the uncertainty of a 90-day bill that will cost us half, half of the proposed projects this construction season. give us that chance. let us have that vote. what are you afraid of? you afraid it might pass? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: mr. speaker, i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. mica: first of all, mr. speaker, i don't think it's appropriate that members of my conference be referred to as bozos. i think that we have dedicated americans, ladies and gentlemen, who serve this country in the congress well. the gentleman who just spoke, on

september 23, 2009, said don't play politics with investments in our infrastructure. don't pay politics with the economy. don't play politics with people's jobs. don't bring america to a screeching halt. on october 1 and walk away from our obligation to extend this program. also, mr. speaker, yielding myself 15 additional seconds that this was an attempt by the other side when they controlled the house in huge numrs, they could not pass that extension nor could they pass, i'm told, any extension freestanding. i yield back the balance -- i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves his time of the the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from oregon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: i still agree with that quote. we shouldn't play politics. it's never been a partisan issue. you have made it into a partisan issue. that quote was when you were opposing a 90 dash day

extension. i was saying don't play politics by opposing a 90 dash day extension at that point inime. we are too far down the road and we didn't have an alternative then. we have an alternative now. pass the senate bill. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will remind members to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve his time. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: mr. speaker, i'm honored to yield two minutes to the distinguished ranking member on the house education and work force committee, the gentleman from california, mr. miller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. miller: mr. speaker, americans all over the country know that our economy is improving, that the unemployed number is coming down, people are finding jobs. small bunesses are doing better, but it's a very fragile recovery, this infrastructure bill that is waiting in the senate, that was passed 74-22, is key to continuing the economic growth going in this country for businesses, for

families, for people seeking jobs that have been laid off for a very long time. but now what we see here today is the conscious decision, because rather than give the oba administration and president obama any help with the continuing growth in the economy, which these jobs would mean if we had a long-term ex tensn of the highway bill, for all across america they have decided that they'll do a short-term extension. this is a party that's complained about uncertainty in the economy, uncertainty in the business community. with a 90 dash day extension, cities, counties, and state governments are going to have to rethink what they contract for. with a 90 dash day extension -- 90-day extension, then we'll need another 90 days. this construction season will be gone for equipment manufacturers, for engineers, for construction workers, all across the country. in our lal communities that are in desperate need of infrastructure improvement.

but they have made a decision that they are going to fight president obama with the jobs that belong to middle class americans all across the country. jobs that people need today to feed their famies. they have made a decision, inject uncertainty. those contracts, those jobs won't be let. and that will somehow be a victory for the republicans in the house, but it will be a disaster for american families, for american workers, and for american businesses. this kind of cold-blooded political calculation to use the jobs of american working people as political cannon fodder for your agenda to defeat the obama administration is outrageous. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman from california has expired. mr. miller: when you -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. miller: and their family income and economic growth in our community -- the spear pro tempore: the time of the gentleman from california -- the time of the

gentleman from california has expired. mr. miller: this is a critical issue. for the american people. their families, their livelihood. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman fromalifornia is no longer recognized. the chair recognizes the gentleman from frida. mr. rahall: i yield another 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. mica: -- mr. rahall: mr. speaker. the speaker pro mpore: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. mica: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield at this time to the chair of the rail subcommittee, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. speaker. i wish the gentleman from california would have showed that kind of passion when the stimulus bill was passed two years ago and come to the floor and said that stimulus bill

should be a infrastructure bill. and there's only a very, very small portion, i think about $68 billion of that $800 billion stimulus package, that went to the infrastructure of this country. where was the gentleman when that outrage was happening? if you want a real stimulation, which we believe this stimulates the economy, this helps put concrete on the roads and repairs our bridges and puts people to work, this bill will do that. an 18-month bill is not going to put any kind of certainty out there. i correct myself, it will create certainty, the certainty is that it will bankrupt the trust fund. in less than two years. our bill that we have been trying to pass here, a five-year bill, that's what the people back in the states want. the gentleman from oregon, i'm surprised who's been a long-time member of the committee knows that a long-term ansportation

bill is better for the states. it's better for the folks that build roads and employ people and that's what we need here. that's whawe are trying to get a. -- get at. i will not yield. i not the gentleman has plenty of time. he can respond on his time. this is a clean extension. it gives us the time to work a five-year bill which as i said members on the transportation infrastructure committee know that a five-year bill is something that would put certainty out there to the folks in the states,he folks that are going to buy trucks, they are gointo hire people, expand their businesses to build and rebuild these bridges and roads throughout the country. it doesn't make any sense to do an 18-month extension is basically what the senate does and along thway bankrupting the trust fund. our bill, five-year bill has significant reforms in it. would the gentleman yield 30 seconds? mr. mica: 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. shuster: has sigficant reforms in it that will shorten

the time frame to build a highway. we all sit around here and talk about streamlining government. that's what this bill does. eliminating the departments, consolidating departments in the transportation and shortening the time line from 14 to 15 years to seven to eight years. it's tough to quantify the savings we all know time is money. all of us have seen these projects go on year after year. they balloon, cost overruns. this bill is going to solve a lot of those problems. we need to pass the 90 dash day extension to be able to continue work on a real solution to our infrastructure. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: i would remind the gentman from pennsylvania the bill he is promoting h.r. 7, his home ste of pennsylvania, a cut of $948 million. it destroys some 32,983 good-paying jobs. for fiscal year 2016, for the state of pennsylvania, the level of funding will be less than that for fiscal year 2004. that's what h.r. 7 would mean to

the gentleman's home state of pennsylvania. heould not yield to me i will not yield to you. i'm proud to yield three minutes to the gentleman from missouri, a valued member of our committee, mr. carnahan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for three minutes. mr. carnahan: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong opposition to yet another lame, shortsighted extension of our surface transportation system. and thank nick rahall and peter defazio for their staunch support of a real transportation jobs bill. this kick the can down the road extension fails, it fails to make progress rebuilding america just at the time when our construction season is starting off this year. our states, our local governments need certainty to invest, to plan, to build america's infrastructure. and this night, yes ninth short-term extension only extends uncertainty this

congress has repeatedly created. in a bipartisan fashion, by a vote of 74-22, rare in the senate these days, they passed a responsible two-year, two million jobs bill that is a better path for the american people and the economy. this includes an estimated 36,500 jobs in my home state of missouri. the construction sector, especially our building trades, have been particularly hard hit by this recession with 1.9 million jobs lost at the depth of the recession. currently there are 1.4 million unemployed construction workers. let's put them back to work. i sit on the transportation committee where six weeks ago the republican majority passed out a completely partisan transportation bill for the first time in history. their bill would kill over half a millionobs and cut investment in 45 states and the

district of columbia and was dead on arrival in this house. so it's no surprise that here six weeks later we have not seen any action on the floor because there's no support for their jokilling proposal. and now we are delaying again with yet another extension instead of taking up a true commow mize -- compromise passed by our colleagues in the senate. i'm proud to be an original co-sponsor when the senate bill was introduced in the house, h.r. 14. it's time the house take up that bill, that bipartisan bill. let's pass it. let's send it to the president. infrastructure is a national and urgent priority. and this body needs to start treating it that way. infrastructure is one of the few areas where virtually everyone except the isolated and out-of-touch republican majority agrees on what we need to do. from the chamber of commerce to the afl-cio to everyone's transportation leaders back home , let's pass this