let's pass this bill and send it to the president's desk before it expires. our building trades are yearning for this, are yearning to go back to work. i call on my colagues to reject another short-term extension, pass h.r. 13, to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expire. mr. mica: i yield two mines -- minutes to mr. shuster. mr. shuster: are we going to spend ls? yes. but i believe by streamlining we'll create more jobs. >> what are you waiting for? bring it up then. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemafrom florida.

the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from n york, a valued member of our committee and the upon sor of h.r. 14, the every other body's nonpartisan, bipartisan transportation bill, which is twice as good as h r. 7. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. our republican colleagues are telling us we should forget about the 15 months since they crafted the highway bill. mr. bishop: they're telling us to forget about the last 16 weeks during which time their bill imploded and the bipartisan map 21 bill passed the senate with overwhelming bipartisan support. now they're telling the american people they need three additional months toind the money an shape a policy, an effort that thus far has elieu them, that can garner the votes in the house and be signed by

the president of the united states. it gets better. on the very same day that they make this outrageous argument, they will vote for a republican budget that slashes investment in transportation infrastructu by 46%. 46%. 46% reduction in transportation and infrastructure. if ty're serious about this vote, if they're serious about seing this destructive level of funding enacted into law, how can we take them seriously when they talk about a five-year bill. they talk about certainty, how can we give the american people or the construction industry or the construction workers certainty when they say, give us 90 more days an we'll craft a five-year bill, but in the meantime we'll cut spend big 40%. no reasonable person can take that seriously. to make that worse, at the end of today, we'll adjourn the

house for two weeks. we're asking for a 90-day extension, and then for two weeks we're going to go home. this while construction workers are wondering where their next paycheck is coming from and how they're going to feed the families. if republicans want 09 more days, we should stay here and work through the bipartisan senate bill as the basis for these discussions. we know we can get it through the senate. i'm confident if republicans are released by their leadership to vote for it, they'll vote for it here in the house. let's pass h.r. 14. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire. mr. mica: continuing to rerve. the speaker pro mpore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: may i have a time check, pase, madam speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia has nine minutes. the gentleman from florida has 23 minutes.

mr. rahall: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes at this time to the distinguished gentlelady from the district of columbia, the ranking member on our economic development and public buildings subcommittee on our -- eleanor holmes norton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady veck niced for two minutes. ms. norton: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the american people will be puzzled by why we can't get out of this house what has traditionally been the most popular bill, the transportation bill, an they wi hope we're not on the road to the 30-plus f.a.a. extensions that we had before. you know it won't do to say, like two kids you did it too, we did it, you can do it, therefore we can do it. none of us should have done it. but in any caswe know don't have to do it this time. the senate has passed a bill that we could pass as well. so we know the compmise can

happen because they passed a bill with more than 2/3 of their own house, including many republicans signing on, compromise is possible. if you believe in compromise. and i'm afraid this bill shows that we have a majority that does not. they are on record saying that they must have 218 votes from their caucus alone. that will say to the american people if we need to pass a bi that will have only people from our party voting for it, while the sene has passed a bill with both parties compromising, which is the party that does not believe in compromise? you always have to compromise. there's not a lot of difference in the amount of money in these bills. $52 billion per year for the house, $54 billion per year for the senate.

the problem is, poison pills, the problem is not treating the transportation bill as it has always been treated, as a bipartisan bill. the problem is not caring that you are having an effect on the recovery if you pass a series of 90-day bills. western be speeding the recovery instead of hanging, clinging to a bill that would kill half a million jobs. it's time to compromise. this city -- this side is holding out its hand for compromise, we need somebody on the other side to hold out theirs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: i'm going to continue to reserve and i will close at the appropriate time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: madam speaker, i

yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. defazio: i want to reiterate the point i made earlier. outside of a minority of their caucus, i believa majority of the united states house of representatives believe that federal investment using taxpayer dollars without creating deficit that federal investment in rebuilding our national infrastructure, the 150,000 bridges in the national highway system that need substantial repair or replacement, the steel that goes into those bridges that's made in america, the workers are american workers, the engineers are american engineers. the $60 billion back log in our existing transit systems, let alone giving americans more fuel efficient transit options, $60 billion.

buses made in america. light rail cars, made in america. these are manufacturing jobs. engineering jobs. high tech jobs. these are not just construction job. the construction industry itself is devastated with double digit unemployment. and passing this 90-day extension, according to the association of general contractors a very republican-leaning organization, 80% of their political contributions go to the republicans, so theare not partisan, they say it is going to mean the states will go to 40% or 50% reductions in their project this is summer because they are not assured beyond that 90 tais that they're going to get their federal reimbursements, and many states, unlike this body and unlike the federal government, have constitutional balanced budget requirements. something we should have nationally. that's a debate for another day. but the point is that this temporary extensionust cost us jobs and the bill we'll vote

on later today, the ryan budget, would reduce transportation investments by 56% from current levels, which aren't even dealing with the already deteriorated infrastructure and not putting people back to work. so there's kind of a mixed message on their side. they say do 90 days and then we'll doe h.r. 7. h.r. 7 will reduce spending and cost half a million jobs. mr. hay ray hall: i yield the gentleman another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: it rill reduce spend big 56% on transportation. that is mind-boggling in the face of what confronts our nation, the challenges around the world, the need for jobs. there are people on the other side of the jobs that say the government can't create jobs. they're hung up on the semantic thing. the government isn't creating the job the government is investing taxpayer dollars, without por rowing, to let out

private contracts to lowest and best bidders to build these projects with all products made in america, the strongest made in america requirement. so you can't tell those things don't create jobs. those are investments, they create squobs. consumption, tax cuts, doesn't create jobs. they want more tax cuts instead of investment in america that is so wrong. let us vote on the bipartisan senate bill. 22 republican senators can support ha thill -- -- support that bill which would give us two years of stability, we ought to have a chance to vote on it in this house. the speaker pro tempore: who yields time. mr. mica: continuing to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: i yield one minute to the gentleman fro virginia, mr. connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. connolly: i thank my friend from west virginia. madam speaker, america's commuters an businesses want us to speed up transportation improvemts.

however the house republicans have offered only a speed bump. we face a transportation crisis with bridges and roadways crumbling, millions of americans struck in gridlock and transit improvements languishing. we've known the transportation lapses on march p 1, severely jeopardizing projects and jobs in every one of our states. this is nothing more than a three-month band-aid. the republican plawas rejected on a bipartisan basis because it disinvests in america, cutting $361 million in my state of virginia alone. america needs a real transportation plan alan that ep sures its states an localities don't shut project this is sunday, a plan that creates jobs, putting the hard-hit construction strbak to work. thankfully, there is such a plan, it's bipartisan. this month the senate passed it. a two-year transportation plan on a vote of 74-22. including half of the republicans present. i urge republican leadership to

bring forward the bipartisan senate bill. it's time to get america moving again. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from -- mr. mica: continuing to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from west virginia is recognized. mr. rahall: i'm honored to yield the cust mir one minute to the democratic leader of the house of representatives, the gentlelady from california, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the minority leader is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank him for his tireless efforts on behalf of america's workers. for his attempts to bring to the floor a bipartisan transportation bill as has been the custom in our hou. d as we do have the opportunity to do by taking up the senate bill. the bill in the senate has bipartisan support, 74 plus one who was absent, but supporting the bill, 75 members of the

senate support that legislation, it is bipartisan, it creates jobs, and it should be -- it is worthy of our support. it has the co-sponsorship of the chair and ranking member of the committee from chairwoman barbara boxer to ranking member senator inhe, a wide array of philosophical thinking, all of it coming together around a bipartisan initiative. the american people have a right to know why the republicans the senate, the democrats in the senate, the president of t united states, the house democrats, all support this bipartisan bill, why the republicans in the house are odd man out. it calls to mind when they were odd person out on the payroll tax cut in december, when all the other parties had come together in a bipartisan way.

but what is dangerous about what is ppening here today is that this initiative, this kick the can down the road, this my way or no highway bill attitude is costing jobs, and i'm sure they have been reviewed, 41,000 in north carolina, 4,500 in illinois, 4,000 in maryland, the list goes on and on. just because of the delay an the uncertainty that is injected into the system. this costs the taxpayer more. small businesses suffer because they cannot proceed with contracts to go -- to go forward. and it is a job loser as i menaced. this has nothing t recommend it except to be explained by the fact that the republicans can't even bring their own transportation bill to the floor and pass it. their own transportation bill is not a good bill. but at least it would take us to

conference. they can't vote for their own bill. i don't know how that happens they have a bill they can't support. in addition to not being able to support their own bill, and it's intereing that the budget and trsportation are on the floor at the same time, they have this bill and in the budget that they are going to be voting on today, they have cut transportation funding in half. from $90 billion to $46 billion. that's $44 billion worth of jobs, promotion of commerce, improving the quality of life of the american people, building the infrastructure of america, and that means roads, mass transit, all of the rest of that. cut that in half. oh, by the way, give a tax break ofver $300,000 to the

wealthiest people in america. wealthy people get off fine. middle class people pay. small businesses pay. the taxpayer pays. b seekers and workers pay the price. so i think it's really important to understand what the bipartan -- national governor's association has said, a string of short-term extensions will only increase uncertainty for state and local governments and the private sector. and so, again, i call the house back to its bipartisanship on this legislation. the distinguished chairman, mr. mica, has been part of that bipartisanship in the past. now they come up with a bill that the republican secretary of transportation says is a job loser and is dangerous to public safety. the worst bill he'seen in 35 years of public service. his public service has been in this field.

again, departing from bipartisanship. i urge my colleagues to not aid and abet the republicans that are going down this path. it is not a good one. but to urge them to bring up the senate bill. it can go to the president's desk today. putting people back to work immediately. i urge my colleagues to vote no and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. mica: continuing to reserve, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: time check please, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia has two minutes. and the gentleman from florida has 23 minutes. mr. rahall: 23? i guess it's not very popular on his side of the sle. he doesn't seem to have many speakers coming over. i haven't noticed many members of his committee to speak in favor of this extension today.

then i am prepared to close. i would take some time from the distinguished chairman if he would be willing to yield me somef his time. mr. mica: i yield him 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman would yield you 30 seconds. mr. rahall: that's about all we are getting out of h.r. 7, too. madam speaker, if the other side were serious about creating jobs, they would have worked in a bipartisan fashion in this body as the other body did to build a bill that could pass both bodies of the congress and be signed into law. as the distinguished democratic leader has just said, everybody's onboard. except the leadership of the house of representatives on the republic side. just as this congress has done so many times before, i have been in this body over three decades,involved in every transportation bill we have done over that time. and every transportation bill we

have done has been in a bipartisan fashion, passing this body by overwhelming margins. instead, today's leadership in this house has nowed -- plowed full speed ahead, writing a partisan proposal that is aimed at appealing to ideological spectrums of their party. last month the teamster general president wrote in a letter, i quote, how to eliminating osha protections for hazmat workers improve this nation's crumbling roads and bridge. how do loopholes put hundreds of thounds of construction workers back on the job? last month in a letter addressed to the speaker of this bod i why, the predent of labors international union wrote, and i quote, the house must return to the principles of sound governance and bipartisanship that h historically characterized consideration of the surface transportation act. he further noted the offsets used to pay for this bill are also irresponsible.

slashing the pay and retirement security of hardworking federal and postal employees is neither human nor fair. it is an unacceptable attack on the hardworking people who provide essential services for veterans, native americans, our parks clean, and help protect us from threats both foreign and domestic. and has already been noted, one of our key business groups in this country has found that the -- that being the associated general contractors has stated the following, the majority of the work is supposed to go out in spring and get done by the fall. instead of spending 60% or 70% of their budgets, our small businesses are going to cut back to 50% or 40% to make sure they have some cash in the fall, end quote. that comes from one of the major business groups in this untry. responsible for putting people to work, responsible for getting our economy moving again. i urge that we take up the --

the bipartisan senate bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: i yield myself the balance of the time to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mica: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker and my colleagues, i think it might be time right now, madam speaker, that we call the capitol physician to come to the house floor. i think we should call the capitol physician because there appears to be on the other side a mass case of loss of memory. i think we need to clear up just a few facts in what has been said here. we had the gentlelady from california who happened to be the speaker of the house, as i recall the other side controlled the house by a huge margin, the senate by a significant margin, at one point most of the time i think it was 60 votes where you could do anything, they

controlled the white house for those two years. they could have done anything they wanted to do. president obama in fact sent secretary lahood to mr. oberstar and myself, i was the ranking repuican, he was the chair, and cut the knees right out from the democrats and said, he wasn't doing any long-term bill. he was doing an 18-month bill which really sent a death signal to transportation infrastructure projects. in fact,he other side would be in the majority probably, and i would be the ranking member if they had just done what they could have done. and then they tell you that we can't pass a bill. well, let's deal with the facts. they six timesad to do extensions. not one extension was freestanding. in fact, one time they could not

even pass the extension with the house, senate, and white house, in march of 2010 they had to -- they actually closed down programs. madam speaker, we may need the house physician because there is a case -- there are multiple cases of nesia an we need to remind folks about the facts and what they forgotten. again, we are here to responsibly pass and even in the extensions i offered first a 90 sh day extension -- 90-day extension, and i know speaker boehner talked to e senate and other leaders. no, we want to do a 60-day extension. some of the democrats felt like they were thrown under the bus. the 60-day extension that they asked us to do, they couldn't get the votes. they came down and spoke against yesterday.

madam speaker, there's something wrong here. i think we really need to get the capitol physician involved because the amnesia is very, very serious on the other side. they had earmarks. the last bill was passed with 6,300 earmarks. they had earmarks. they had control. they couldn't even pass a freestanding bill and get it to committee, the full committee. so again i think the amnesia is pretty rampant on the other side. madam speaker, i'd like to inquire as to the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 17 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. mica: mr. speaker, i yield myself one half minute to close. because i don't want this to be delayed any further because i want americans to go back to work, i will yield back the 17

seconds. 30 seconds first, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. mica: we offer here today a long-term bill that will puts people who want jobs in this country back to work. without earmarks, without tax increases. the end of an era of the biggest gorilla of walking off with the most bananas is over. we will pass responsible legislation and we will get it done. as the cable guy says, ladie leaders say they hope to do to a long-term measure. for more information gucould to- span.org. >> tomorrow, michael greene talks about some of caribbean

security and the possible salep lunch. the financial editor looks at the oversight of fannie mae and freddie mac by the financing agency. thomas and connie potter discuss the first ever release of records and surveys from the 1940 u.s. census after the expiration of a 72 year confidentiality clause. >> in march 1979, at c-span 7 televising the house of representatives. today, are content of politics and public affairs is available on television, radio and online. >> i asked admiral poindexter, it does the president know?

he told me that he did not. on november 25, the day i was reassigned back to the united states marine corps, the president called me. in the course of that call, he said worse is the effect that i just did not know. that i know. bacfacts he said he wanted to hear the truth. i came near to tell you the truth. i am here to tell it all, pleasant and unpleasant. i'm here to take responsibility. i wanted responsibility for that which i did not do. >> c-span as a public service.

>> house budget committee chairman paul ryan defended his budget bill. yes a talked about defense spending. they passed the budget 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. forsenate's has announced the third year in a 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 votes 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 we will get our act 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 about [inaudible] 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.

the top rate will go to 48% in january. that is economic suicide. where i come from overseas, 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.

>> let's talk about defense. 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 it." 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 to 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 hurt the 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. taniff 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. ge 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. overin's have quadrupled 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. like churches and charities and civic organizations. if you're taxing people so much, if your deck is getting so high you'll make it harder for civil society to operate and help people who need it and that is why those are the principles for use in applying this.

we think we can keep taxing people at higher rates. much higher rate than our competitors and keep spending like we are, we will wind up with a debt crisis and the people who get hurt the first in the worst are people who need government most. the poor, the elderly, the sec - sick. we ought to prevent that from happening. >> now we will hear from chris van hollen who will -- also spoke at this national journal event. his remarks are 45 minutes and took place before the house passed the republicans threw $0.50 trillion budget bill. -- $3.50 trillion budget bill. >> thank you. our next guest is the ranking member of the house committee.

a reminder that he will sit down for an of year and take questions. he was elected to congress in 2002 rising to become one of the youngest members of the democratic leadership in 2008. in addition, he was elected by his colleagues in 2010 to serve as a top democrat on the house budget committee. he was also appointed to the 12 member bipartisan committee on deficit reduction. please welcome representative ben hollen. >> thank you. thank everyone for joining us today and want to thank the national journal for bringing us all together. you picked the right time to be talking about this issue since we debated budgets on the floor yesterday and we have the votes today. i want to take a moment to thank

paul ryanne because as chairman of the budget committee, i think he has conducted the proceedings in the committee and on the floor with civility and with professionalism. i am grateful to him for that because we do have very deep differences in approach but i think is important we make those differences known in the subway. we have accomplished that objective. and let me began by talking about some of the reasons we have deep differences over the republican budget and talk about the democratic alternative. we're here at an important time in our country. we all know that. because of the extraordinary actions that we're taking 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 hist. still fragile but had it in the right direction. we certainly do not want to do anything now to mess that up. we do not want to return to some of the economic policies that got us into the mess to begin with. and we're concerned that the republican budget does that, that it disrupts the gradual recovery and undercuts investments that are going to be important for the long-term economic strength of the united states of america. i just -- to give you a couple of examples in the area of transportation which is 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. we have bridges and transit ways that needs to be modernized. it seems to be -- 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 individuals. 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 get an 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. -- the period. 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. thee trying to change 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 presented by the chairman shows 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 is softened by the trustees 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? >> 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 from 35% to 25%. 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.

makeu say you're going to 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 view is that if this insane that they will drop it to 25%. there prescribing an increase in tax burden for middle income americans. pants on what your baseline is. maybe under tax reform in getting 36. depending on how you do it, 35.

talking about getting it down to 25%, not only do you -- are you going to increase the burden on middle income americans but you're not having any of that money available to go for the purpose of deficit reduction. and everybody -- every bi- partisan group has taken a sizable portion of that revenue from tax reform for the purpose of deficit reduction, to get a balanced point. >> if 4.6% is correct, the budget would require $10 billion. we should be talking about who, not what we are affecting when we are eliminating tax expenditures. the five biggest individual tax expenditures are the exclusion of employer health pensions and the mortgage interest deduction and the medicare exclusion and

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 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 shock the very fragile housing industry because a lot of 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 $250,000 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. why 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 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 the value -- i am sorry -- do you see the value of providing health care to employees?

>> repeat 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 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 act, the wall street reform bill -- those are 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 the process. a series of supreme court decisions 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 things the supreme court has said we can still do is shine a little sunshine on some of the expenditures being made. that is why i introduced the disclose act because much of the 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-effect -- 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 into 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 -- the capital gains -- on a static basis, you can income 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." 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 approach this in a fact- based way. >> last one from me. we talk a lot in washington about the election -- when we get past the election next year, it will be different. 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 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. when we 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 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 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] quex house republicans passed the budget plan. wonressman ryan's blueprint house approval. hear some of the house for debate. the measure goes to the senate. wreck niesings the -- 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.

. >> 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 tit, 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 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. -- mandate evrything that we do.

they have gone a little bit too far. people got 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. 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, we will kill embalming. you.ll you and bomb why should we have a third option? why shouldn't we just 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. [applause] 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. [applause]

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? -- cuba. 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. [applause] 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. > > [boo] 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. [applause] 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%. taxes went down 30's. one of the mess we heard so long

-- myths we have 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. [applause]

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. [applause] 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. [applause] 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 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. half of it went to european 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. i say we give them an "f" for 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. [applause] 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 you are defender of liberty, you want to support small government. if there is a lender of last resort and we print the money, that means you are spending too much money for war. this facilitates the welfare system as well as the welfare/or their state. this is why the founders were

absolutely adamant about the monetary system "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 are 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 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 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 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 patriot 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. 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 prohibits 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, then 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 their attention is repeal the withholding tax. no withholding tax at all. [applause] 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. why 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. 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 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 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 force them to obey the constitution. [applause] it has been said -- benjamin franklin said that those who 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 exists -- 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. [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. -- march 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. >> your questions for senior editor. his books include america's top dynasty. and his latest on the james madison. he will take your phone calls and tweets on c-span to book tv. >> today:"washington journal" -- michael green talks about social security. the york times assistant business and financial editor gretchen morgensson. and 915 m -- thomas and connie.

"washington journal" live. -- approved by voice vote in the senate. house republican voters hope to learn -- moved to a long-term measure after the two week recess. here is part of that the date. >> mr. speaker and my colleagues, we know why we are here. we are here to pass the responsible extension so that people across america can go to work, and that we can finish and a long term transportation bill and we can be responsible of the trust which taxpayers and the citizens of america sent us here for. i reserve the balance of my time.

>> gentlemen from florida researchers as time. tubman from west virginia. >> mr. speaker, the pending legislation before this body at the 11th hour, as a result of a torturous process, excuse me, it has not been in process at all. but rather a series of stalled starts and retreats and the failure of the republican leadership to seize upon a reasonable solution. at first, it was stated that this was a jobs bill. by investing in america's and the structure has nothing to do with jobs at all. nothing to do with jobs at all. couple it with universal house

republican answer to all bills. and then attempt to pay for some of the proposal on the backs of working class americans. the transportation propose to cut -- to strength american family wage jobs in the coming years. the proposed to shift public transit revenue to highways and bailout transit with a onetime transfer of $40 billion in the federal fund, while robbing middle-class americans to pay for the shuffle. this is an idea that would make even the most hardened, artists green with envy. it is a shell game. but it