things and have become far, far more productive as a result of the agonizing years we have all just into word -- endured. there was never a more important time for us to be competitive in the export market. and while you can say all you want about in theory subsidizing the financing of exports distorts the free market, as a practical matter, when you get on the field in competition, you either meet the competition or you get beat. ine never been big unilateral disarmament. i love mutual agreement. and i would love it if we would all get rid of our nuclear- weapons. i would love a lot of wonderful good things could happen by mutually verifiable agreement, the unilateral disarmament is not a very good recipe for success in athletic or economic competition.

so, i hope that in the end, this question of the bank reauthorization will not be a political football. even in the harshest times a partisan disagreement when i was president, it was the one thing i do not believe we ever had a fight over. no matter what else we were fighting about, i do not think there was ever any disagreement about it. and i think it is important. i also remember that we made an extraordinary effort, partly through fred's leadership, to harmonize the sba program with the ex-im bank program. by the mid 1997, we had a national export strategy that was focused on medium-sized and smaller companies, and ease the lending for them through the working capital guarantee program. we created an export assistance system that was nationwide, and between 1993-1997, more than

doubled the export sales that it facilitated. we had an exporter database, direct marketing, and by 2000, we had 127,000 companies which were used to sign up almost 30,000 new customers. we did a lot this kind of work, and i was thrilled when president obama nominated fred opera because he had been at the sba. so i knew that we would try to help the big companies and they would come to us with what the deal was said it would be

fairly straightforward. we did not have to do a lot of work. what we had to do was make sure that the medium and smaller companies that could and should be exporting would be involved in that. so yes, 80% of the banks financing by dollar volume goes to larger enterprises like boeing or caterpillar or jeep. -- ge. but the financing for smaller exporters has nearly doubled over the last three years. more than 85% of the transactions are done by the ex- im bank. and that is very important. one of the reasons this kind of work is not attractive to private banks is because of the transaction costs involved in smaller operations. this can make a huge difference. we of the three under% increase in the dollar value of exports by small -- 300% increase in the dollar value of exports by

small companies in the 1990's. we can do that again if we reauthorize the bank. so, i just want to emphasize, this is not just about big companies with well-known addresses. wichita and toledo have more than 15% of their annual gdp tied to exports. there are a lot of other towns doing so as well. increasingly, state economic development programs are trying to get into this. north carolina has a particularly aggressive effort through its department of commerce to organize and involve their small businessesbut therem through which what they do can be readily spread to other states and some said -- unless you have the infrastructure

working state after state after state trying to make sure everybody knows how to do this and what the consequences are. again, i would say, we live in a world where everybody is looking for an advantage and get everybody knows we need rules to keep the advances from running into excess. so, we of the world trade organization and then a heckuva lot of fights whether this or some of the practice violates the wto rules. this is the world we live in, a dynamic, vibrant world. all i know is that although successful countries around the world defined by growing economies, creating jobs, rising incomes, have different political systems and a variety of different economic and social systems -- every single country

has both a strong economy and effective government. and they work out some deal appropriate to the seconds -- circumstances that exist. to make themselves as competitive as they can possibly be. you cannot cite a single country on the planet that has both -- has a growing economy, rising incomes, and robust -- in the future that does not have both a vibrant private sector and effective government. they may have radically different tax structures, radically different social programs, but they don't save the government is intrinsically evil and be as weak as possible -- everything they do is wrong. they would always mess up -- let's get out of here. there is not a single example.

so, the president says we are going to double exports. i think collectively as a people we can help them meet the goal and do better. but it is hard for me to see without -- how it can be done without the xm bank with so many of our competitors use sups ago -- subsidized capital to finance exports. and subsidies on rates in terms that appear to be better than those allowed under international disciplines. what i want toly say. it is not eloquence, it is not philosophical, it is practical. we are in a world where what works best is to work needed competition because we live in an interdependent world.

we can't escape each other. i would not like, for example, if the water problems now be experienced in china, which are quite severe in a way, part of the yellow river is drying and they built these great canals and some chinese engineers -- not greenpeace but some chinese engineers fear that the solution to the problem will open a because both rivers to be dry with calamitous consequences in china and perhaps to the neighbors in southeast asia because it will press the chinese to consider taking out more of the mekong then it should given the needs of the vietnamese, and others in this system. you shouldn't want that to happen.

we need to live in a world where every year, step-by-step, there is more shared prosperity. and more shared responsibility for our common problems. but we cannot help to create this world if we continue to allow too much of america's human capital to stagnate because we do not have enough people in the sector, not enough growth, not shared because they are not working in areas with good wages and a growing income. this is a huge issue. so, and to me, reauthorize in the -- reauthorizing the ex-im bank will not only help to send -- will not only create a stronger american economy and help create a a clear signal that we are back in the future business, we will do things that will help our neighbors. i will give you one example of

that. our neighbors and the caribbean have the highest electric rates in the world. in the world. haiti, where i spend a lot of my life, and the dominican republic, where i have done a lot of work for more than a decade, have probably the highest rates. he has the highest electric -- he has the highest electric -- haiti has the highest electric rates and the caribbean, the poorest country. virtually every caribbean country could be completely energy dependent with solar, wind, geothermal and waste to energy facilities. they could run all their cars on biofuels made in the brazilian system where you get, with sugar cane, 9.3 gallons of fuel for every gallon of oil required to produce it. it would change the future of the caribbean and could be led -- our neighbors, our friends, and our partners -- and it could

be lead by american technology and american companies if we could work the financing now. one of the things i plan to spend a lot of time on the next 10 years. but it is just one example. if we were to do this, given their economic circumstances, even the american jurisdictions in puerto rico and the virgin islands, we have got to work the finances. i could give you 50 other examples. so, for those of you who are here from america, whether you're republicans, democrats or independents, i urge you to ask the congress to reauthorize this at a higher level. for those of you from other countries, i urge you to continue to work to build the kind of trading and investing relationships with us that will give us a chance to do things that every good market does, that benefit our people but also benefit yours, and help you

to build modern, diverse economies, where we share the prosperity and the responsibility of a 21st century world so full of opportunities and challenges. i do not think you should be pessimistic, but i do think we should say, let's just get off the dime. let's quit majoring in letters. let's quit fighting about things better self evident. -- that are self evident. let's decide our goal is to create opportunity societies for people and to take those steps which will do it and do it most quickly, most effectively, and the most volume. -- most broadly. there will still be plenty of room for earnest argument about how to do that, but a lot of very simple decisions will be resolved in a rapid way, beginning with 3 authorizing the -- reauthorizing the ex-im bank. thank you very much.

[applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> today on "washington journal ," so secure and medicare trustees on a new study air law will add $340 billion to the budget deficit in the next decade. michael kinsley from bloomberg view. after that, patricia hu from the bureau of trustees is statistics and andrew compart from "aviation week" on how u.s.

airlines are performing. "washington journal" at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> our specific mission is to work to see to it that human rights remain a central component of american foreign- policy. and that when we are evaluating our foreign policy moves globally, human-rights can never only be the consideration of the past the be part of the dialogue. >> the president and ceo of the lantos foundation for human rights and justice. >> when we abandon our deepest values -- whether with the talks about torture when it relates to the war on terror or the reset policy with russia and the upcoming issue of whether or not the u.s. congress should pass the income stability at -- you don't need to go into the details of the policy issue, but whether or not we will stay on record-setting human-rights

matter -- the matter in russia, the matter in china. >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. on c-span's "q&a." >> , house budget committee chairman paul ryan talked about the federal budget and the u.s. economy. the wisconsin republican spoke at the george w. bush interest -- institute this week. he is introduced by paul -- from "the wall street journal." >> >> please take your seats. before i introduce our next speaker, i just want to remind everyone, during the rest of the day, please make sure you see the books that are for sale by people like karl rove, john

taylor, as well as the 4% solution, the book that president bush alluded to earlier that crown books is publishing, that is really all about what we're talking about today. -- it has 21 chapters, forwarded by george bush and has five nobel prize winners. there is a terrific interactive map that travis brown has fought to put together where you can see where everyone is going when they leave california to go to low tax states. it is my pleasure to introduce our next speaker, who came to

the wall street journal in 1980 and is now emerged as probably the most powerful man in america. [laughter] the editor of the wall street journal editorial page. in 2010, he won the prestigious bradley award, which goes to someone who has made a major contribution to the promotion of liberal democracy. paul, take it away. [applause] >> thank you very much, jim, and thank you, ladies and gentlemen. it is so nice to be here with so many friends and contributors to the journal, and my dad, especially -- and might i add,

especially sources. we're really grateful to our sources. really a pleasure to be here in this important and timely conference and especially to into this and next speaker, congressman paul ryan. the congressman and i share a frustrated career ambition. had things worked out a little differently, had the almighty been a little more generous in his genetic endowment, both of us would rather have played for the green bay packers. this is what happens when you grow up in wisconsin. with all due respect to president bush, the dallas cowboys are not america's team. if you ever visit congressman ryan's private office on capitol hill, you will not find the usual photographs of him with various foreign dignities. you will find a couple of items of memorabilia. one is a photograph signed by --

one is a napkin autographed by arthur laughter. the other is a photograph signed by the famous running back of the green bay packers in the days of vince lombardi.ys of vi. days of . days of vince lombardi. days of vince lombardi. days of vithis is a man who hast role models. you also might have heard the paul ryan is a dangerous man. a very dangerous man. now, this must be true because rrent president ofrrent presidef t of course i'm there every night, and hear paul ryan discussed, i am not sure if i am listening to a news channel or america's most wanted. you may have read that one of america's supposedly leading

newspapers, in typically understated style, calls him a cult leader. a cartoon showed a look-alike throwing a grandmother in a wheelchair off a cliff. i have no ha ryan since he was an intern years ago. i have rarely seen him criticize anyone, much less throw anyone off a cliff, although it to agree with the critic on one point -- paul ryan is dangerous. he is dangerous for the status quo in washington. he is dangerous because he understands the united states cannot continue on its current path of a slow-growing economy but a fast-growing government and still remain prosperous country it has been for two hundred 25 years. -- 225 years. he is dangerous because he is willing to say this out loud and in public again and again. and he has proposed concrete and controversial solutions that would help the country

change direction. he has suffered the political consequences for doing so. now, this is not a partisan point. before he died, i was lucky enough to get to know on a personal basis the late democratic senator from new york daniel patrick moynihan. every so often, the great liberal intellectual that he was, would call me from the phone and offers some ideas. i should say as an aside that this is the secret to being the editorial editor of the "wall street journal," get people to call you with good ideas. one of his ideas late in life was that the big institutions of government had to be reformed. he was talking about the tax code, the education system. he had particular interest in the great middle-class entitlements of medicare and social security.

he said they were designed for an earlier era. they were becoming unaffordable as americans demographics changed and they were crowding out other good, liberal purposes for government spending, education, transportation, a safety net for the poor. he told me that the democratic party should reform these programs because they offered them. they had created them and they had an obligation to fix them so they could continue on and the is useful to american society in the 21st century as they had been in the 20th. but he said if the democrats were not prepared to do it, the republicans would have to leave. -- lead. here comes paul ryan who becomes ranking member in 2007. he decides to actually do something with the job. he writes what he calls the road map to america's future that includes entitlement reform, tax reform and other revolutionary ideas.

and he -- i remember he visited us at the journal around this time and i remember thinking to myself, all of this sounds really promising, that is peanuts? how long does he want to stay -- but is this nuts? how long does he want to stay in congress? he must want a short career in politics. the first year he introduced the road map, he had 8 co-sponsors, eight. at the journal, we call that the vast right-wing conspiracy. in 2010, he had 14. in 2011, he had a modified version that passed the house with 235 votes. even more amazing, it won the support of 40 republican senators.

think about that, senators voting for a house budget. the sea is parting. cats and dogs, living together. house republicans in 2010 were biased not to vote for the ryan budget. today those reforms are at the center of the presidential campaign. the various republican candidates have endorsed all or at least substantial parts of the proposal, and no less than president obama, i think it is fair to say, clearly views mr. ryan himself and his ideas as the central challenge to his alternative vision of the american economy and of a larger entitlement state. this is for dangerous ideas can lead you if you believe them. some republicans are saying they would like to see paul ryan debate joe biden as part of the republican ticket. i am not sure that is a fair

fight. [laughter] think about it. i think i would like to see paul ryan versus president obama, assuming the president would take the challenge. if you need a moderator, i would be happy to volunteer. so yes, paul ryan is dangerous. in my view, refreshingly so and at this point in our history, necessarily so. congressman paul ryan. [applause] >> thank you. we do share the same aspiration. to play for the green bay packers although we would not be on the team at the same time. [laughter]

mr. president, thank you. thank you for your leadership. thank you for doing this. thank you reporting of the -- pointing out in the obvious, which is that we have to come up with a growth strategy. i was looking at your web site. free-market capitalism is the engine of mobility and highway to the american dream. that pretty much says it right there. i could not have said it better myself. that is what we have to focus on. what we do to get back on prosperity, to get our train on the right tracks? and get away from austerity. prosperity is what the american dream is all about. limitless opportunities to make the most of your life. your opportunities come from god and nature, not from government, and you can do what you want to be happy, however you define happy for yourself. that in a nut shell is the idea.

my own family history is pretty and remarkable. the potatoes stopped growing in ireland. my family was in a class based society. they came over with the turn on their backs. -- shirt on their backs. they came to boston, worked the railroads until they had enough money scrape together to buy a farm. that ended up being in wisconsin. and they thought it looked just like ireland, so they bought the farm. then came winter, and they said oh, crap. and they had to make a go of it since then. the idea you could leave these class based societies and come to this country because of the idea of this country, we are the country that is formed not based on geography but based on an idea. and we always have to read- realize that idea. now more than ever, that idea is

being compromised. that idea is on the line. we have a choice in front of us. do we want to get back for growth and prosperity like the 4% solution you are talking about, or are we going to throw in with the rest of the world and go down this austerity path, which is what europe is going towards? austerity means current cuts to benefits for current retirees. it means cranking up your taxes to try to please the bond market vigilantes' which slows down your economy, makes it harder for younger people to get out and have a career and make a life for themselves, overburdening regulations were the central government is picking winners and losers in the marketplace, slow growth, pain and austerity. that is what europe is suffering. and get to this -- and guess who gets hurt the first in the worst? the people that need government though most.

the poor, the elderly, the sec sick. those of the ones who get hurt first and worst when you have a debt crisis. so, what we are experiencing -- because he kept kicking the can down the road. so, what we are experiencing right now is basically decades of politicians from both political parties making promises to voters that they could not keep, and in europe, those promises are up and now they're in austerity mode. hear, for lots of reasons, the world reserve currency and other reasons, we still have time. we still have a chance to get this under control, to get back to prosperity, to preempt the debt crisis that will bring us to austerity. but our time is not that much greater. our window is starting to close. the next president and the next congress will make this decision. the reason i say it in such a stark way is, i think we are basically reaching two tipping points in this country. we are reaching tipping point.

the sticking points will be difficult to come back from. the first one is a mathematical one, a debt, after which if the bond market's turn on us than we are in the austerity mode. are in the austerity mode. then we are in the cutting benefits for beneficiaries, at changing the social contract for those who have already retired around these programs. then we are managed decline mode. in our budget is whatever the bond markets tell us they have to be. the tougher tipping point is the moral tipping point. it is the one where we become more of a taker society versus a

maker society. where the vast majority of able-bodied americans do not see themselves as a provider, but the government. where we have taking our safety net and instead of working it, give it to people for a live of dependency. the numbers are pretty startling. read steve forbes magazines. listen to them. we are always getting close to the other tipping point. seven% of americans get more -- 70% of americans get more benefit from the american government than they pay back in taxes. you can already argue we are past that. i do not think we are. most americans believe and the american dream and a society of growth. we still have that window. we still have that window. what that means is we are at the

proverbial fourth in the road. we have the force of two futures in front of us. we owe you the the honor of making this choice. that is what this all is going to be about. on the one path, we have the president's back. -- path. there's a government centered society. there is the society of debt and decline. the other path is what we are proposing. it is a path of getting us back on the grill and pre-empting a debt crisis. this november what we're asking for is the affirmation of the country to get us the obligation to get this. the choice cannot be clear. you have an opportunity society which is reclaiming the idea. obama, a freudian slip. obama, a freudian slip. i would argue that he is

bringing us to this government centered society. he is putting our trust in government. i have a lot of problems with the president's budget. after all, he did follow the budget law -- he submitted a budget, unlike the senate to chose to ignore it by not offering in 2010, 2011 -- announcing a will that would for 2012. go figure. you are elected to represent the date. we have a debt crisis on the horizon. they decided for over a thousand days not to do anything about it. that is a firing offense. let me talk about the president's budget. there are a lot of problems i have with that. let's focus on growth. it makes our growth situation

worse. there are a number of reasons why. i will quote tim geithner. the secretary of treasury looking to the budget committee a month ago. he said two west -- we are not suggesting that we have a solution to long-term fiscal problems. we do not like years. yours.ust don't like i cannot have said the better. this is what the president is doing. rather than seeing this as very clear present danger, we're -- rather for -- then putting a solution out there, waiting for the republicans to offer their than attack it. this is not called the leadership. certainty, if the but the budget -- if you put a budget plan in place, this will give us an immediate boost of growth today. -- you can " john taylor or chairman bernanke -- that would give us immediate boost to growth today.

the future of the bond markets, they're looking to see of leadership is being placed to get this situation under control so they can take risks so they know that they have a certain feature that is one to be optimistic about. -- future to be optimistic about. it until you have a plan in place, you have another growth in dividends. -- you would not have a growth dividend. another reason why the president's plan is bad for growth -- cronyism. both parties have been subject to what i call crony capitalism or industrial parts. we got confused. we thought being pro-business was being pro-market. it ended up attracting barriers against would-be competitors. it is easier for us to go back to our core principles. it is harder for the left to do this. notion that they just know better in washington. we have a permanent class for those who can better micromanage society you can do a

better job of subsidizing and picking winners and losers whether it is the regulations come accreting too big to fail banks or solyndra and the regulatory state. they believe in the process which put it aside and replaces -- which ends up putting small business risk-taking capitalism aside and replacing it with connected capitalism, a crony capitalism. this replaces the rule of law with the role of bureaucrats. -- rule of bureaucrats and the connected. finally -- tax reform. this is where i think the president's budget is the most anti-growth. in january he is proposing the top effective marginal income tax rate goes up to 44.8%.

where paul and i come from, overseas -- which we mean, lake superior -- the canadians just dropped their business tax to 15%. nine out of 10 businesses in wisconsin file their taxes as individuals. eight out of 10 businesses in all of america aren't corporations, they are businesses that file their taxes as individuals -- subchapter s corporations. what we are basically saying is if you get successful, if you buy four acres out of the industrial park and alcorn, wisconsin, you start with five in nikkei-225, and then 250 employees -- we used to call it the american dream and now you are part of the evil rich. now you are going to be hit with effectively a 45% tax rate. it through the state income tax and you are up to 50%. how on earth can you compete with the canadians taxing themselves at 50% or the irish

at 12% or by the japanese or lower than that now with the japanese. if we tax the new businesses where more than half the americans work for today, if we tax them at such high rates than the foreign competitors are taxing their companies, we lose and they win. this is a system wrecked for austerity. the bottom line is, we have tried this approach. we have tried chasing higher spending with higher taxes and more debt. it has not worked. we tried the stimulus spending and we tried all of demand-side keynesian stimulus and all we got was a bad hangover and a cloud of more uncertainty hanging over economy. it has put us on slow growth.

look at the social pathologies that have failed. our poverty rates are highest in a generation. one out of six americans are in poverty now. the female unemployment rate is the highest censure -- since we measured it. so these policies are not working. the good news is, there is a better way. the of the blue -- to pau's point, a lot of the political pundits thought we were crazy. when we first started putting the budget ideas out there, but pollsters and political class said, would ever you do, don't do that. you will give up your seat and risk political death. i got to tell you, if you want to be good at these jobs, yet to be willing to lose these jobs. if all you do is worry about about getting reelected and worried about what the pundits and pollsters tell you the right thing of the moment based on the phone call that took place last night, you are going to go nowhere and chasing your tail

and running in circles. we know what works. freedom works. limited government works. free enterprise works. so, if you take a look at our budget, it is a huge contrast -- to be really quick, the contrast is this. we deal with the problem. we have to have the structural entitlement reforms -- and the sooner we act the better off we all are. our proposals for medicare do not change the benefits for anyone here or in retirement. what we are sitting is preempt austerity by putting us on the right hand -- my mom has been on medicare for 11 years. we have this will bring in wisconsin when you turn 65 yen to the to florida for the winter -- we do not pull the rug

out of the month of the people. -- rug out from under the people. we cut $5.30 trillion of spending on the president's budget. we get our debt under control, put our budget on the path of balance and that the debt completely paid off. the second difference is we propose an end of cronyism. it rid of all the corporate welfare. get rid of the notion we should be subsidizing this company and not that company. it rid of the idea regulators should be picking favorites among those who are connected. get back to the system of free markets and fair play and transparency and equal rules apply to everybody -- a quality under the law and not after the law. the other difference is tax

reform. we proposed fundamental tax reform. in this country to help people get back to work and back of the path of prosperity, you have to acknowledge that basically the income tax system blows up in -- where the. i was on the ways and means committee when president bush signed a two tax bills -- in 2001 and in 2003. all tax laws must originate in the house and then go to the senate. then came -- have you guys ever heard of tom-shall -- daschle? then came this role in the senate and filibuster, which is where his name comes in. in order to get it in place --

he had no choice but to -- now we are where we are. we have a cliff coming at the end of the year. what we are saying is that actually provides a great opportunity. the code is effectively blowing up so let's reform it. let's take a page from steve forbes's playbook and go back to a better system -- lower the rates and broaden the base. guess what? there are a lot of democrats who agree with us. i served on the fiscal commission with erskine bowles and alan simpson and i have tremendous respect for the gentleman. a lot of german who agree with this idea -- take away the tax shelters, limit the loopholes and lower tax rates for all so we can help those small businesses succeed and compete in the global economy. we proposed specifically a 10% bracket -- bringing the corporate rate down to 25% and get rid of the clumsy, outdated anti internationally competitive

tax system it is simply a system where we don't simply just keep pushing capital away from america and america the place where you want to keep your capital, make america a place where you want your headquarters to be located. 95% of the world's population and not in this country, they are in other countries. and if we want to be successful, if we want to have high living standards, which we have to make an export more things. we need to have tax laws that jive with the that did not because japan lowered its corporate tax rate in april, we now have the distinguished honor of having the highest in the world. if so, we think we should lower rates, let people keep more of their own money and improve the incentives to save, work come and invest and lowering marginal tax rates does that. we also remove distortions out of the tax code. you allow capital to be deployed where it can do the most good,

where it can create the most value, where it can create the most wealth. not where some bureaucrat thinks it ought to go but where free individuals and a free enterprise system, chasing opportunity, acting in their own interest and help the people of the community decide. the other thing i would simply say is, you got to keep your eye on competitiveness. if we don't mind the fact that this is a whole new story, the 21st century is not one where the united states is the undisputed economic superpower of the world -- we have to be lean, mean, and competitive -- if we keep going down this path where we divide each other and try and come up with this idea that we can tax ourselves at double the rates are competitors are taxing there's, we will have a welfare state on our hands. we will be slow growth. we will be economic stagnation. the other benefit of all of this is is it actually helps our budget quite a bit. the cbo acknowledges that these tax increases kick in january,

but went down to 1% growth. it could be lower than that. what we are showing with an alternative " scenario we created is if you actually get the kind of plan president bush is talking about, if you actually get a growth dividend, you will balance the budget so much faster. so the secret to success as economic growth along with spending discipline and entitlement reforms. and if we do those three things, we can quickly get america back on the path of prosperity. and the idea at the end of the day is this -- then we revise the system of upward mobility. and so, here and what it -- is what it all comes down to at the end of the day. we don't like the direction the president is taking the country. we think he is putting the country on a very dangerous path, when a path that is a government-centered society, with debts and decline. and believe if we follow this path that will not end well for anybody because then you have a debt crisis, and in a debt crisis, the people who need the

government the most at a very vulnerable time in their life are the ones who get hurt the post. we believe and prosperity. we believe the upward mobility. we believe in equality of opportunity and not equality of outcome. which means, we want to put these kinds of progress " policies in place. in order to do that, we have to ask the country for permission. and so, our commitment is this -- we can't simply win an election by default, by running against the guy and hopefully winning a negative war. we have to have and affirming election. that is why we are putting these ideas out there. and what we are telling people is we don't look at individuals and societies as if they are stuck in some station fixed in some clay -- glass and the government is helping them cope with it. when i was working the grill and mcdonald's, when i was also waiting tables paying back reston alone, i never thought of myself as fixed in some class. in other occurred to me there was some limit and the government had to help me cope

with it. i saw myself as my own journey in live on my ladder of opportunity to make my life whenever i wanted it to be. that's what we do in this country. so, this is the choice of two futures we have. do we want to get back to prosperity. we want to be honest with people about the challenges we have and then have and affirming the election where the country gives us the permission and moral authority and obligation to fix this problem before it gets out of our control, where we can keep the commitment to people who have already retired, and get back to growth. or are we going to succumb to the tactics designed to speak to us in divisive ways, to distort the truth about what is happening in this country in order to divide and therefore distract americans. and then put us on a path to decline. these are the choices -- i hate to be so start, but it is just that simple. and i want to thank the people here who have done so much to put us on the right path, only to see that the inertia of math

and economics and the status quo come at us. we can do this. we can turn this around. and if we do this, i have no doubt in my mind that we can get this country back on track just like our parents did for us. that's the entire legacy of america. we make the country vendor -- better off for our kids. the legacy it is at risk of being severed. if we get this right and turn it around i have no doubt of the next-generation the will look back at this as the time america regained its greatness. thank you very much. appreciate it. [applause] >> this year's studentcam competition asked students across the country what part of the constitution was important to them and why. today's third prize winner selected the 14th amendment. >> as husbands, fathers, and mothers of working women i believe we all recognize the

gross inequity of discrimination in pay based on gender. >> so, what is gender discrimination? gender discrimination is commonly known -- >> some examples might be a difference of pay between men and women and the differing rates of promotion. >> it is important that we equalize those disparities, a special when there are so many women working. >> the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment basically states that no citizen shall be stripped of any rights due process of the law but it can be interpreted as protection from discrimination in any form. >> senator mike enzi, senator harkin, senator isaacs and are working on passing the workforce investment act. >> it helps unemployed women find jobs -- wia helps women find jobs. hopefully there will be more legislation. >> how will the lives of

citizens be affected? >> discriminated against based on gender board and the congress has put two laws on the books to combat such discrimination. title 7 of the civil-rights act of 1964 and the equal pay act of 1963. >> although it is uncertain the future legislation regarding gender discrimination will be affected in the future, some find it comforting to have centers like the oed that solves discrimination cases. >> even though congress has put laws in action, the debate is whether or not the constitution, or rather, the equality clause the equal of the clause and the 14th amendment protect women from discrimination did >> supreme court justice antonin scalia does not believe women are protected by the constitution.

he shares his view point in an interview with a magazine. he quotes -- >> i want to be protected by the constitution because when i grow up i don't want to be discriminated against based on my agenda >> there are still other interpretations were the women are protected in the constitution from gender discrimination. >> the equal protection clause and basically setting every man and woman should be equally protected. >> there are over 20,000 gender discrimination cases filed each year. a few famous cases -- wal-mart lawsuit which focused on it. it started in 2001 when betty

dukes filed a complaint about gender discrimination. she claimed there was a violation of title 7 -- [inaudible] >> gender pay gap would be about the gap in pay that many men make in relation to what women wait -- make for the same work. >> the bureau of labor statistics itself says this not control for many factors that could be significant in explaining earning differences -- studies show if you factor in observable choices such as part- time work, seniority, and occupational choice, the pay gap stands between 5% to 7%. >> how much does the average full-time and part-time woman worker may? >> women earn 77 cents for every dollar by men. >> the weekly median earnings of full-time salaried working

women, six sons and $69, but the weekly needed earnings for full- time salaried working men totalled $821, making the women's wage an approximate 81% of men. what is the effect of the pay gap? >> i think that oftentimes when in are in staff roles -- which did not pay as well as a revenue generating opposition. that is just the fact of the matter. >> carol barts, and green roosevelt -- ceo's of yahoo, and pepsi -- kraft and pepsi did them only 2% of the fortune 500 ceo's are women. there are only about 10 of them who are in the senior executive ceo level of the fortune 500. so, there's got to be barriers

somewhere. i do believe, though, it is not nefarious ceo's or boards of directors or senior executives keeping when in doubt. i believe a lot of it has to do with -- some of it is stereotype. but i believe most of it is, is we as women are not putting ourselves in the positions we need to be in in order to move it to those levels. >> however, while the average earnings for women still lag behind those of men, in 2009, he knows ceo's received raises nearly 30 percent of white male ceo's took pay cuts. then one of the great things that happen over time is the ability of the government to make sure justice is done. i am proud to have supported the proposals that allow women a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. >> which will affect both women and men. >> there are still barriers that affect men and women. one of those barriers is the "

glass ceiling." the glass ceiling is the metaphorical term used to describe the unseen barriers that prevent women from reaching the top of the corporate ladder. and it can be used to describe the barriers for women in general. [inaudible] >> although it seems to be a thing of the past. >> the findings revealed that the glass ceiling exists. >> however, there are still contrasting viewpoints on the glass ceiling. >> what i have found is that it truly was just a metaphor. there is no glass ceiling. you look above you and you probably see a ceiling but it is not made of glass. there really is not a glass ceiling in reality. >> it is not the glass ceiling affecting women -- the real glass ceiling is the choices men and women are socialized to make. they mustn't the glass ceiling is just considered a metaphor -- >> since the glass ceiling is a

metaphor -- are there differences? >> even for white men there are some barriers to success. >> there are still existing barriers today -- how the baby prevented so few generations can enjoy equity? the debate on gender discrimination will still go on even though laws are enforced to protect women from gender discrimination. one thing is for sure -- no state shall make or enforce no law that shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, and property without due process of the law nor deny to any person within the jurisdiction equal protection of the law. >> go to studentcam.org to watch all the winning videos and continue our conversation about today's documentary in our facebook and twitter pages. >> this morning on our companion

network, c-span2, a conversation on race and politics in the 2012 elections. we will hear from "meet the press" moderator david gregory, april ryan, and johnston -- from "the washington post." live coverage begins at 9:30 a.m. eastern. >> i walked out after the iowa caucus victory and said game on. i know a lot of folks are going to write, maybe even though that the white house, on " game over." but this game is a long way from over. we will continue to go and fight to make sure we defeated president barack obama, that we when the house back, and that we take the united states senate and we stand for the values that make us americans, that make us the greatest country in the history of the world, that shining city on the hill, to be a beacon for everyone for freedom around the world. >> with that announcement, rick santorum ended his 2012

presidential bid, a process the senator began -- former senator began in 2009. recall the steps he took on line at the c-span video library. with every c-span program since 1987. >> coming up next, a look at today's news and an update on competitive u.s. senate races. plus, your calls, e-mails, and tweets on "washington journal." later, former secretary of state condoleezza rice with of -- will be at the heritage foundation talking about u.s. foreign policy. 11:00 a.m. eastern. this afternoon, presidential candidates mitt romney and newt gingrich will speak at the national rifle association conference in st. louis. live coverage at 2:00 p.m. eastern. and this hour, we are joined by charles blauhaus, republican trustee for medicare and social security -- he has a study about security -- he has a study about the new health-care