getting very squeezed. we have a different sense about a division for a america. republicans will argue government regulations are bad for the economy. public investments harm free enterprise. democrats have a more optimistic vision. we believe the economy works best when the government establishes the rules of the road. adopting sensible standards, protecting the middle class, promoting competition and preventing corporate abuses. we believe public investments in our country's future will pay off. we believe educating tamara's workers, supporting on trooper newer -- entrepreneurs. we believe history has proved our side of the case. house republicans want to return to an america that predated the new deal, the fair deal, the

great society, a time when the robber barons ran this country. the legislation the republican controlled house has passed would bring back a world where there are no restraints on wall street banks and others, enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else. we tried that. in the 1930's the absence of government regulation and fair rules for competition broad as the great depression. in 2008 the same theory of government brought us the great recession. it is not government regulation that caused our economic woes. i chaired hearings in 2008 when i was chairman of the oversight committee on the collapse of wall street. what we found was the absence of cops on the beat, the heartbreak in unemployment hurting families stems from a philosophy that wall street banks should be allowed to operate free from

regulation. even if that means jeopardize in our economic future for their profits. americans cherish clean air. clean water, safe food, protections of the environment and their health. republicans in the house have voted again and again with the oil companies and corporate polluters. this is the most anti environment house in the history of this country. last year i asked my staff to start tracking anti environmental votes on the house floor. today the republican controlled house has voted to hundred times to weaken and eliminate protections from -- human health and the environment. the house voted to repeal standards that are at the heart of the clean air act with no hearings and 10 minutes of debate. when it comes to health issues the house is stunningly anti health. not only do we see proposals to

cut back on preventive care, the republican budget adopted by the house slash's medicaid by over one trillion dollars. it ends the guarantee for medicare benefits for seniors and individuals with disabilities. instead they give them a voucher and tells them to go shop and a broken health insurance market. the priorities reflected in the house budget are wrong. that would make seniors pay more for their medicare. it would preserve tax loopholes for oil companies and at the same time lower taxes for millionaires and billionaires. corporate subsidies are not just government expenditures, they are expenditures through the tax code as well. we see a lot of that going on. i find myself in common ground with some of what mr. edwards had to say.

98% of the republican members of the congress have pledged to oppose any increase in tax rate and a reduction of tax loopholes to reduce the deficit. no wonder the wealthiest continue to grow wealthier as the middle-class troubles just to get by. no wonder we are facing a fiscal crisis. one especially clear embodiment of the misplaced priorities of house republicans is their hostility to clean energy. the international energy agency says trillions of dollars will be invested in new energy infrastructure over the next 20 years. our economic growth and our national security will be determined on whether we succeed in building these new clean energy industries for the future. house republicans want to be fund investments in the wind, solar, and other forms of clean

energy. there budget attacks billions of dollars in subsidies that the oil industry receives, a well established very profitable industry that will crush competition if the government does not stand up to allow new enterprises to take their place. the house republican position is based on science the nile. if you deny the existence of climate change, an overwhelming republican majorities the -- denies it, the urge for clean energy may not be apparent. if you live in reality you know the world cannot continue its dependence on fossil fuels. you know without government involvement we are in danger of losing the booming clean energy industry and millions of jobs to competitors such as china and germany. we can grow a stronger and better america with jobs and

opportunities for everyone who work hard and play by their roles. to do so we have to reject the defeatist anti science, and i progress, and tied jobs view of those who impose -- oppose investments and clean energy who want to preserve tax rates at the expense of the middle-class, who want to slash the safety net and and medicare guaranteed. this is an important hearing. democrats and republicans hold starkly different views about the role of government. i welcome the opportunity to discuss the differences with you today. thank you. >> thank you. so much for bipartisan comity i guess. >> are we not allowed to talk about our -- >> it is perfectly fine. >> is that class warfare? >> we just got the number is a while ago. only 65,000 jobs added last

month, about half of what the markets were expecting. the last two months, we are down 45,000 jobs. the unemployment rate has gone up to 8.2%. people who are looking for jobs that did not find one, people who stop looking for a job or people let won a full-time job went up to 14 1/8%. it is not working. the economic policies we have on the working. i always try not to say what it is my political adversary is in favor of -- i will let him speak for himself -- but i think what we are trying to establish here is both parties messed this up. mr. edwards did a good job going over how with good intentions, republicans and democrats, had believed that if they could put some kind of preference in law for a selected

industry, a selective bowl, a selected company, that good things would result from that. at picking winners and losers in the marketplace than the market itself is. what we have learned from this bipartisan approach is that corruption does occur. cronyism does occur. what ends up happening is those who are connected, those who have established connections, those who know the ways of washington end up usually getting the benefits, and those who are out there were around america working hard, slaving away, creating ideas -- they are not on the winning side of this -- those who are out there in america working hard. it makes it harder for people to rise and create new ideas and businesses, which, as we have learned through the economy, through economic evidence, is the greatest chance of giving people prosperity, of decentralizing wells in this country, allowing people to rise and have social mobility --

of decentralizing wealth. what we're trying to do is recognize that both parties messed this up. pointnot sit around and fingers at each other. let's go back to what works -- and entrepreneurship, small business growth, risk-taking, and, yes, regulations that are fair for all. regulations that do put guard rails up so that we have transparency, so that we have on his plate, so that we have rules of the road that apply equally to everybody. that is what we are trying to reestablish your. no one is suggesting we have some kind of dog eat dog society where the powerful and connected survive at the expense of

everybody else. we are seeing the same rules apply to everybody so that you, based on your own merit and god- given talent -- that determines success so that our goal in america is to establish a starting line so we can promote equal opportunity so people can make the most of their lives instead of having people pick and choose winners in washington. what ends up happening, whether a republican is in the white house for a democrat is in the white house or whoever is running congress, is interest groups get involved and decide how it is done at the end of the day. that does not work. we have seen our friends in europe try this, and we look at the results of that now. governor bush and mr. edwards, you have seen this work. you have great experience in government. has this worked that the state level? state government does not do this the lot. the stimulus, for example, sent a lot of money to the states. did that work? did these job programs, which

were created with good intentions -- does that work to actually giving people the tools they need to go into getting skills so they can get onto a career path that they were in an obsolete industry that is gone? you know, where i live, we lost four of factories since 2008 -- four auto factories. the guys i grew up with and went to high school with do not have a sector to work in and people are trying to go back to school to get back on their feet again. does this approach work? did the stimulus program work? mr. edwards, give me more examples of that the canadian system. i think that is intriguing. you are right about how canada went after a lot of this corporate welfare, this cronyism. give me more anecdotes on that. i think there is something we can learn from the canadians on this front. governor bush. >> we had a mini-stimulus package when i was governor, and for some states it works

because they had chronic deficits, and they filled the gap, and they consider that stimulate rather than changing how they do things. in the case of florida, we took that money and used it on a onetime basis to try to help create -- to invest in basic research, which i think is the proper role of government. this is where my cato institute friend and i might disagree. i think there's a role for government in building capacity, building infrastructure, and that is what we use the money for. it was not stimulative in terms of an economic recovery, but we already handled our budget because we have a balanced budget requirement. as almost every other state, we had to make decisions and challenge how we do things, and we got through the crisis quite

well. similarly, i think many states did the same thing this last year. florida did not raise taxes the last couple of years. florida has not raised taxes. in fact, florida has cut taxes. the challenge became an opportunity, which happens in the private sector as well. when you do not have the pressure of a balanced budget requirement, as you all do not have here, then it does not really matter, but every other jurisdiction -- local and state governments -- have that challenge, and they adjust. i would say, to use the clean energy example, a better approach would be to spend less money, but spend it on basic research that creates the disrupted technologies that are market-based -- disruptive technologies that are market- based instead of picking and winners -- instead of picking winners and losers that ends up protecting companies that did not have the best ideas.

the market than punish them, and the united states government was out of pocket. a better approach would be for the government to do what it does best, which is to fund basic research, applied research, to be able to create the next generation of industries, but let the market solutions be the means by which we achieve the desired result. >> i believe in the 50 states as the laboratories of democracy. i believe in federalism. i believe we ought to get a lot of these programs out of washington and let the states figure out whether they want to do them. we have had job-training programs since john f. kennedy's administration. they have never worked very well. let states fund it and do it, and then the states can learn from each other to see what

works. the problem is we have over 1000 federal aid to state programs now. they are massively bureaucratic. there are rules and regulations with each of these programs. they put state governments in a straitjacket, which does not make any sense, and we see that now with no child left behind -- states have rebelled against that. we have sort of a marble cake with american federalism, and we should have a layer cake with each level of government doing their own programs and the states looking to see what works. to transition over to canada -- this is one of the things canada did. two decades ago, canada was in a horrible budget situation -- massive deficits, overspending, wall street downgrading its debt. they did a series of five years of really big spending cuts. they cut their total federal budget 10% in two, which would

be like us cutting $400 billion out of the budget -- in two years. they cut aid to foreign governments. they cut defense. they cut all kinds of stuff, and it has worked extremely well. the canadian economy did not go into recession. the canadian economy boomed for 15 years. even as these spending cuts dramatically dropped the size of their government. but a couple of numbers on that, go back a couple of decades. federal governments in canada and the united states were both around 23%, 24% of gdp. the canadian federal government is around 15% of gdp. ours is up around 23%, 24%. they cut government and decentralized federalization, and it worked very well. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do believe this is a lot of agreement, but let me just start with what got me going here. the chairman, in his opening

remarks, talk about the obama's administration and crony capitalism and continued to refer to the auto rescue. not as an example a government package that created millions of jobs -- that rescued millions of jobs, but as an example of cronyism. i believe you supported the efforts that president bush took to rescue the financial sector, which, in part, precipitated the crisis. many of us believe it was also appropriate to take the actions that president obama did to help rescue the auto industry and a billion jobs. did you support that effort? no? ok. i understand. do you agree with governor romney's position that we should have let them go

bankrupt? >> they did go bankrupt, but it was in a way -- it was a government-induced bankruptcy that allowed for general motors now not to pay taxes, based on profits that otherwise they would have to be paying taxes on. that is the form of capitalism when the government intervenes in a very muscular kind of way, and i do not believe that is appropriate. and then maybe i made an assumption. maybe i was wrong. did you support the rescue of wall street banks? >> i have never been asked that either. now you are asking. i think given the circumstances of the potential for a meltdown that would have been hard to recover, some support was appropriate. was the next step adding regulations on top of

regulations? the congressman in his remarks made an interesting point -- assuming there was no regulation on the banks or financial services industry prior to the passage of dodd- frank -- in fact, there was massive regulation. i would are that enforcement was the problem. in short term solution to a problem that had global implications -- i think that was probably the right thing to do -- as a short-term solution to a problem that had global implications. to add on to the challenge that we face massive rules that will take years to implement that create more uncertainty and the probability of more unintended consequences that will create a weakening economy rather than a strengthening one, i think it was the wrong approach. >> ben bernanke's remarks will

focus on the economic outlook. 10:00 eastern thursday on c- span 3 and c-span.org. >> writing is a transnational process. it assumes reading. it goes back to the question about a tree falling in the forested there is nobody there to hear it. one of the parts of the process is you want to readers to be enlarged and enriched by it. you have to pull on everything at your disposal to do that. >>anna quindlen will talk about her perspectives on writing and life. live sunday. her latest rendition is plenty of candles and cake. -- "lots of candles, plenty of kate."

>> members started work on 2016 spending for federal water projects. the bill provides $32 billion while increasing funding for nuclear-weapons stockpiles. the house returns tuesday for more work on the bill. house leaders eric cantor and steny hoyer talk about next's agenda. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, for yealeding to me. mr. speaker, on monday the house is not in session. on tuesd the house will meet at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on wednesday and thursday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business.

on friday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. last votes of the week are expected no later than 3:00 p.m. mr. speaker, the house will consider a number of bills under suspension of the rules, a complete list of which will be announced by the close of business today. i expect the majority of these bills to come from the natural resources committee and i want to thank chairman doc hastings and his staff for their teless work in assisting members on both side of the aisle with their bill to responsibly remove federal retape that stands in the way of local economic development. members are also advised that the house will resume consideration of h.r. 55, the energy and water development appropriations act on tuesday, our first day back next week. those wishing to offer amendments to the bill should be prepared to do so as soon as they return to washington. the house may also consider two additional appropriations bills next week. h.r. 5855, the department of

homeland security appropriations act, sponsored by representative robert aderholt, and h.r. 5882, the legislative branch appropriations act sponsoredy representative andrew crenshaw. chairman al rogers and the entire appropriations committee on both sides of the aisle should be congratulated for helping to restore the open process of allocating and prioritizing the nation's spending. finally, mr. speaker, the house will consider h.r. 436, the protect medical innovation act, a very important bill for jo and innovation in the medical device industry and that representative erik paulsen has sponsored. the paulsen bill will be combined with h.r. 5842, the restoring access to medication act sponsored by representative lynn jenkins, and h.r. 1004, the medical f.a. improvement act

sponsored by representative charles boustany. and with that i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information, and i want to make a comment that the gentleman correctly congratulated the appropriatns leadership on his side of the aisle, but i also want to observe on our side of the aisle, there has been cooperation and there has not been an effort to either delay or disassemble. that's how this should work. it has not always worked that way. i am pleased it is working. i think that is best for our institution. i think it's best for the country. so i'm pleased at that as well. i tell my friend, and he knows this, accordg to the schedule, the house is scheduled to be in session a total of 28 days until the

august break and 41 days from now until november. in addition of those days available, of the 41, 10 e 6:30 days in which we come for an abbreviated evening session which takes half an hour to an hour to conclude afterno debate on suspension bills. i express that concern, mr. speaker -- mr. speaker, the gallery is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will be in order. mr. hoyer: with the limited time we have available, mr. leader, i am very concerned, as the gentleman knows of the extraordinarily large number of very big fiscal questions that will be coming to roost at the end of this year. my view is that we need to

address those. hopefully we need to address them in a bipartisan way because if we do not address them, we will put the economy at connuing risk. the bush tax cuts, as you know, expire as of the 30th of december, 31st of december. the payroll tax cut expires the 31st of december. the sustainable growth rate which we affectionately refer to as the doc fix, the alternative minimum tax, the debt limit, all come to bear at the end of the year. in addition to that, the sequester, which i think all of us believe is not the approprie way to go, but is the way we set up to force us to take action on a comprehensive big, bold, balanced plan. unfortunately, the supercommittee was not able to reach agreement on that. i want to say to my friend, the

majority leader, i would hope that you would be urging all of us -- i will join with you in that effort urging all of us to be ready to make some tough decisions, but decisions which need to be made in order to stabilize our economy and stabilize the fiscal posturef the united states. i am hopeful that we can reach a credible, sustainable fiscal path for our country. the only way we are going to do that is if we work together in a bipartisan fashion. the gentleman and i were very successful in working on the export-import bank legislation in a bipartisan fashionn which we got over 300 votes on the floor of the house floor. the gentleman was unable to make the signing but it was signed this week. i think a very positive step forward. i appreciated the gentleman's work on that piece of legislation, but i would like

to urge the gentleman because of the extraordinarily short number of days that we have left to meet to focus on what i think some people call it a fiscal train wreck, some people call it a fiscal perfect storm, some people call it a fiscal cliff, whatever it is is will have a great impact, not only on the confidence that we can work and to makeffective plans for meeting that challenge but also for getting our countron a fiscally sustainable path. i don't know if the gentleman has any comments on that but i'd be glad to yield to him. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman and agree with him that all of us should be very focused on the month ahead as we approach the day

which this country will by operation of law experience the largest tax increase in its history, that the seqster will be imposed, that we perhaps will face another debt ceiling vote as well as many items that the gentleman mentioned. i think all of us understand the gravity of those issues. i think, mr. speaker, we've also seen in operation around here, together with the white house, the difficulties that the two sides have had in coming together on two very important issues that run throughout all of the matters that the gentleman mentioned and those two issues ar health care and taxes. and as the gentleman knows, we have put forward a solution to the health care entitlement issue which is the disproportionate cause of the unfunded liabilities of the federal budget and the gentleman and the president and

his party have rejected our solution that has been validated by the congressional budget office as an actual fix to the deficit. but to date we've not seen any nd of proposal with the gentleman, his par, or the president coming to the table saying, this is how we could fix it. all we're hearing, mr. speaker, is we need to raise taxes and we need to raise taxes on people who have been successful. and the gentleman knows that those are the two issues, the taxes and the health care fix, that we've just had real difficulty in trying to come together. and so what i would say to the gentleman, we rein ready to work with him and his colleagues on the other side of the aisle to try and produce results to the american people so we can reinject some certainty back in the minds of the american people that the economy is going to get better.

and, again, weried to focus on issues having to do with combrothe in the private sector -- growth in the private sector. how do we spk to that small business man or woman who's having difficulty now assessing what his or her taxes are going to be? how do wspeak to that working mother there when she questions whether her health care will still be available given the up certainty around the obamacare -- given the uncertainty around the obamacare bill? these are things we have been trying to work together. the gulf is so wide and fill -- d philosophically dealing with health care. we share the concern aut what lies ahead. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentlema i was not trying to make political points or rhetoric in raising the issues i did. i frankly think that this doesn't get us very r, i suggest to the majority leader, and we need to get someplace. america expects us to get

someplace. many of you have indicated that revenues need to be on the table. the gentleman knows that every bipartisan commission that's dealt with this says revenues need to be on the table. they say entitlements need to be on the table. neither are easy to deal with, but they must be dealt with if we are going to be responsible stewards of this nation's finances and this nation's future. and political rhetoric's not going to get us there. frankly points we all want to help small business. we believe we've helped small business very substantially and very frankly you get into the analysis, small businesses did very well during the clinton administration under policies that were in place at that point in time. but th aside, we need to deal with thi and i think a number of members on your side have indicated that they understand that everything needs to be on the table. and that is what i think as

well. i think both sides have things they don't want to deal with but americans expect us to deal with tough things and make tough decisions on behalf of them and behalf of their children, behalf of their families which leads me on small business and economic growth the highway bill. we continue to be very concerned, mr. majority leader, that we have not reached agreement on the highway bill. the senate was able to reach an overwhelmingly bipartisan agreement on the highway bill, which is a jobs bill. i was disappointed. i hope the gentleman was disappointed that the jobs numbers that came out today, 82,000 in the private sector, lost 13,000 in the public sector, net 69,000 jobs, that does not get us to where we want to be after losing millions and millions of jobs in the previous administration and losing a substantial number of jobs in this administration

befo over the last 26 months we've grown four million jobs, but the hole was very deep and we're not out of it. if you don't have a job you know we're not out of it, but i would hope that we could at least, certainly our side believing, that the highway bill is a jobs bill. ray lahood, as i pointed out in the past, your former leader in your party, chairman of a subcommittee in the appropriations committee says that it's a jobs bill, but unfortunately concludes that unfortunately that bill is not passing he believes for largely political reasons. i hope that's not the case. do you have any idea of how -- of what kind of progress we're making on the highway bill so that that bill can come to the floor before the june 30

expiration of the highway bill? authorization. i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i say to the gentleman, as he knows the house has passed its bill, the senate has passed its. conference has been appointed, and obviously we're very mindful of the expiration of the current authorizing language at law and we are prepared to make sure there is no stoppage of transportation programming and funding all the way desiring a much longer term solution to the problem. i think the problem remains, as the gentleman knows, just not enough money to address all the things that the country is experiencing in terms of the needs for roads and infrastructure repair as well as t need for expansion. as the gentleman knows, we all are mindful of the limited

resources that are available to address these needs and just trying to prioritize, and i'm hopeful that the conference committee can come to a solution prior to the expiration of the authorizing language in place right now, but, again, very mindful we don't want to allow for any shutdown of any program at the end of this month. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman and i appreciate his observation. clearly we don't want to have the authority for the highway bill to expire without action, but i will reiterate my offer to my friend, the majority leader, and say given the bipartisan, the overwhelming bipartisan support of the bill that was -- came fr the other party that if we brought that bill to the floor, i will tell the gentleman that i think we will have the overwhelming,

perhaps unanimous support which would be 190 votes on our side of the aisle for that bill because we believe it is a jobs bill. we believe it will grow the economy. it will put people back to work, and it will give confidence to the american people, as we did with the export-import bank, in my view, give confidence to the american people that we can come together and move forward through reaching agreement. obviously the senate was able to do that, and they did it overwhelmingly with over half of the republican conference -- caucus voting for it. in the senate and 3/4 of the senate voting for it. i would say to my friend, i think that would be a real shot in the arm for the economy, and i agree with the gentleman. certainty is important. confence building is important, and if we did that, in my view, and if you could bring half of your caucus to

that vote, we would pass that bill overwhelmingly and i think it would be a very positive step for the economy, very positive step for the confidence of the american people and our economy and put people back to work. i don't know whether the gentleman wants to comment on that further, but if he does i'll yield him. mr. cantor: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd say to the gentleman i have no further comment. mr. hoyer: lastly, if i might, the student loan interest rate, as you know, will go up at the end of the this month from 3.4% to 6.8%. . that would add additional cost to nearly a million students, some $1,000 additional cost to most students. at a time where we want to make higher education so necessary for success in our country available to as many team people as we possibly can so we can be competitive worldwide.

and from our perspective further a make it in america agenda. growing our economy angetting jobs for our people. i know that there was opposition to that reduction when it was originally on the floor in 2007. and i know there was some opposition to it earlier this year, but i also know that i think both you and the speaker have indicated now that they support that. we passed legislation on this floor which brought that down. and there's obviously very substantial disagreement and controversy with referce to the funding source given the preventive health fund used to fund the student aid. can the gentleman tell me whether or not he believes there is a possibility for us to reach agreement on how to do this? i know the speaker said this was a, quote, phony fight. but it is a real fight and it

will have real consequence it is we don't resolve our differences. can the gentleman comment on what he believes to be the possibility of reaching agreement with the senate on the student loan bill? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman, mr. speaker. i would say to the gentleman that the speaker and i together with the republican leader whip in the senate have sent a letter to the president. perhaps the gentleman has seen it, suggesting a way forward on the issue of student loans so that there will not be an expiration of the subsidy provided to students. we suggested two options to allow for a continuation of a lower rate for students to be paid for by provisions which the president has suggested that he would agree to. the two options are to limit the length of in-school interest

subsidy, and the other is to revise the medicare provider tax threshold and to phase it down so that we can actually achieve savings so that we can allow for the continuation of the subsidized rates for students who are struggling under tuition bills. these are two options that we suggest. they are bipartisan in nature. there shouldn't be any reason why we couldn't get this done prior to the expiration of the current law. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. just for his information i would be a very strong opponent of your first option which continues to want to reduce the take-home pay of federal employees. federal employees under the plans that you have passed through this house will have already been asked to pay $105 billion in reduction in pay and benefits, $105 billion over 10 years.

$10 billion per year. your suggestion that our employees have pay reduced, effectively t take-home pay reduced. in addition, the additional proposal in your reconciliation bill which would add another $78 billion to that. $183 billion in total, or $18.3 billion per year reduction in pay and benefits for federal employees. the gentleman in his state has a lot of those federal employees. they happen to be civilian employees. i know the gentleman supported the pay raise r the military personnel, which i supported as well. the gentleman's awarehat largely through my tenure in the congress we have treated our civilian employees and our military employees with parity. i would hope that the gentleman would not think that continuing to go to the federal employee as

we go to no other employees -- the gentleman is not interested in asking anybody else to participate more in paying for this in terms of revenues, but your side has been continuing to propose reducing the pay and benefits of the federal employees. my view is, and i have said this publicly, that if we can reach a big bold balance deal, it's balanced, but just going to one pocket, one group of people, who , studies show, depending upon what level you are working at, many are not paid comparable to their private sector. some others are. it's not a fair, balanced way to proceed. i would hope that that option would beot on the table. i know the administration put it on the table for a larger deal, but i'm going to urge that not

be an option. i know that i talked to some of your side from your state who believe that's not an option that ought to be pursued. as a matter of fact wanted to vote against the milcon bill yesterday because of a provision dealing with further reducing the pay of federal employees, the net take-home pay of federal employees. i would hope that would not be an option. i would hope we could in fact reach an option so we could contain the cost of college for young people because that's not only good for them, it's good for the competitive statute of the united states of america. with respect to the reconciliation bill that you mentioned and the -- you mentioned the fact that you were dealing with the deficit, in fact as the gentleman knows, in terms of your health care provisions, they do not within the next 20 years get the federal budget to balance in the

ryan budget, so that although you are dealing with that in some respects, it goes to balance, and therefore does not, in my opinion, give the confidence and certainty that the american economy needs and that the american citizens need. i want to ask the gentleman lastly if he expects all 12 appropriation bills -- i know we are going to do the energy and water, we have already done two of our bills, whether or not he expects all 12 appropriation bills to be on the floor, considered, and completed prior to the august break? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. if i could, mr. speaker, point the gentleman's attention back to the student loan issue. i specifically did not offer up e option of the federal employee pay for because i do know that we have a difference on that. so the gentleman went and

explained the differences, we understand that. that's why we are trying to avoid differences and come together where we can agree, which is why i discussed the two other provisions which are bipartisan in nature and the president said he supports which could in a responsible fashion allow us to continue the lower rate. mr. hoyer: i don't want to interrupt other tn to clarify. as i understand the two options, one was the option of making additional -- in the letter i read, maybe i'm incorrect -- you can correct me. i yield back. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, there are two options. one was the federal employee pay for in and of itself would take care of -- the reduction in the size of the federal government would have taken care of the pay-for if you will for the student loan issue. the other option was composed of two different provisions. both of which are bipartisan in nature, the president says he supports. one of those is to limit the length of in-school interest

subsidies. the other was to revise the medicaid provider tax threshold. it was those two components that comprise option two. that is my point. so there is -- mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his clarification. mr. cantor: to the point -- i'm not quite sure about the note he made about our budget not balancing within the budget window, and i would say to the gentleman, we understand that, but it is a pl that we could adopt that would provide a blueprint for getting us back on track as far as managing down the debt and deficit. and my point originally was, mr. speaker, there's been no such plan, there's been no such proffer from the president or the gentleman's side of the aisle. so in order for us to move forward, we need participation from both sides. we can't just have one side providing a solution without the ability to get that solution put

into place becausehe gentleman's party is in control in the other body and the white house. so how do we go about trying to find commonality there is no prop solution? that was my point, mr. speaker. there has been no solution. balanced or not, provided by the other side. i would say lastly to the gentleman inquiry about the appropriations process, we certainly maintain the position we would like to see all of our bills brought to the floor, through regular order, consistent with the speaker's policy of an open debate that we have seen thus far in the appropriations bills. we had a successful completion yesterday and we are continuing in the energy and water appropriations measure today. and as we come back next week. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information. i wa to say to the gentleman i would disagree that there's no plan. mr. van hoen, the ranking member of the budget committee, did in fact have a plan.

presented that plan. and was voted on on this floor of the house. it did not prevail, by that is a plan which frankly was a more balanced plan from our perspective, obviously the house did not agree with that, balanced plan that in fact would have reached balance, in fact, more quickly, i believe than the ryan plan. so we do have a plan. we presented that plan. we offered it on the house floor. i voted for that plan. the overwhelming majority of party on this side of the aisle voted for that plan. so there is plan. i think the gentleman's not correct in saying we haven't offered a plan. we have. the plan has not passed. the gentleman is absolutely correct on that. senate and house have not agreed on a plan. i'm not sure they are going to be able to agree on a plan. i think that's unfortunate, but perhaps we can agree on the appropriation bills.

we are hopeful that the appropriation bills will be agreed upon consistent with the agreement that we felt we had at the funding levels of $1.047 trillion for discretionary spending. the bills that have been offered are clos to that number than i think we will find as later bills come. we don't knowthat, but that's speculation, the senate has agreed that we ought to mark up that figure, but we haven't marked up to that figure in the appropriation bill. but if we do -- if we complete the appropriation bills, as the gentleman says he wants to do, i think would be good to do. it's the gentleman's perspective and we'll mark to 1.027 and 1.028. that's a substantial difference, the senate, republicans and democrats, have agreed to mark to the higher number. can the gentleman comment on

whether or not at the end of the day we'll be able to get agreement on what the agreement we thought we had in the budget control act? i yield to my friend. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i just say to the gentleman, i have discussed this before in the colloquy, and i would suggest turning attention to the senate that hasn't even begun considering appropriations bills to even -- to suggest that we would come to an agreement with the senate. i think the senate's got to really start to do quarks saturday on washington journal, chief economics

correspondent for the washington times. she joins us to discuss the job numbers released on friday. the economy added 69,000 jobs while the unemployment rate rose. michael greene berger joins us. the discussion about an fda bill that passed through the house this week that provides the agency with funding for new drugs. our guests will join us at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> i think the problem is that people see him only as the friendly man. there is another side to him that wanted to be the best.

he is probably the purest this competitor. his desire tobout be the best. this panel analyzes key domestic policy issues about the 2012 election. this is 40 minutes. >> good morning. we appreciate your being here.

for those of you i haven't met my name is victoria munroe. it is my pleasure to welcome you here tonight. we hope we can take a long hard look at how the presidential nominee's sharply diverge on key policy issues such as the economy, foreign policy and more. it appears that they will provide the starkest contrasts since 1984 it's not 1964. they will take a look at the clashes of national policy. we will also have live events

like this one looking at each candidate's position. we invite you to join us if you are down in the city. we are able to gather this morning due to the generous support of the society of human resource management. when we broached the idea of a series carefully, and the leadership saw the value in it. joining me is the chief communications officer. he is the former executive director of the national bar association. welcome.

>> good morning, as most of you know, washington is a city of many intersections. what we have learned is that without victoria, we would not be able to navigate those intersections. we are the largest organization of human-resources professionals. the of 260,000 members around the globe. this is a great opportunity for us to partner again, especially on this series of public policy panel discussions. the first inam is

a series of important discussions. if the polls are correct, the electorate will remain divided on how to address the many challenges facing our country. we must agree that the economy is the most important issue to the american people. jobs, health care, retirement, and skill gaps are just a few of the many issues we wrestle with. our most immediate concern is

the skills gap which we believe is a barrier that keeps america from full employment. the washington post did a story yesterday that reflected upon the people between the ages of 25 and 54 are not working. most of our members are telling us they are having difficulty recruiting the kinds of people with the right skills and the right talent that they need in order to remain competitive. in terms of dealing with the skills gap issue, people leave that it is a critical part of the economic aspirations of this country. in conclusion, we hope that you enjoy today's discussion and encourage you to join us later this summer for the other

sessions in this three part series. we look forward to seeing many of you in the upcoming national conferences. >> thank you bob. i want to give you some information about the offense. we are grateful to all participants for joining us. par-3 panels are moderated by the national journal.

jim is an award winning journalist and has covered economic issues for various newspapers. our second panel will be led by adam commissioner who is the deputy. our final panel will be moderated by ron brownstein, and editorial director at the washington journal. he also contributes to our sister publication. >> i have a great panel this morning.

thank you all for coming. let's dive right in. if governor romney wins this election, what can we realistically expect from him right away in terms of the immediate job creation. >> we need job reform. his plays tax reform at the top of his agenda.

his history of being governor and having to work with a legislature will have been a real asset for him. it is a reliance on private sector incentives to produce not just jobs. seen any growth in real disposal income. it is having quality of life improvements. that will be the top issue for them. >> so much of the issue has been about the middle class. we have a high unemployment rate. how will his policies be different to bring that rate down? >> there is a big difference between the president and the former governor.

the areas of reform without going into details of the act are all good for the economy. they will all be distant from actual job creation. the president believes that we can target job creation much more specifically. he has done that with reductions in the payroll tax. if you want business to create more jobs in a period of slow job creation. we need to reduce the cost of business of creating those jobs.

not just the cost but the job- creating costs. echoes to the employer side of the payroll tax. that also goes to the particular incentives that the president has proposed. ultimately, job creation depends on strong growth. in a period in which they appear to be structural issues that are slowing job creation, he chooses a much more targeted approach then governor romney. >> you all talked about the two part problem that faces our economy.

the short-term problem of meeting more growth. you proposed a stimulate now plan. to think we embrace the kind of vision. we do have two problems. we have this longer-term structural deficit which pre existed before that. the two issues often get confused. you have to be able to do both at the same time. to talk about the point of view

of the deficit. as long as you have a credible plan which is the more important of the two. i think it is much more important to do something on a long-term structural deficit because that is unsustainable. and not suggesting that the government should do nothing as a policy, but i think it is really important. if we don't get that under control you can grow your way out of it.

we have a big up-front stimulus package that was not just a payroll tax cut. it was very substantial. we wanted to emphasize that you could be accommodating in the short term so long as you have a longer-term stability plan. >> i think this is a big point of contrast. temporary targeted policy-making approach is not one that governor romney supports. the fundamental problems are not ones that will be treated as obstacles.

we need to have permanent reforms for structural problems. >> what this ignores is the miserable job creation record of the last administration. it will look at the period from the end of the recession to be current. and compared to a comparable period we have created 4 million private-sector jobs in this. let's keep focused on the election because richard >> this suggests there are new structural issues with job

creation. that the economy's capacity to create jobs in the private sector in response to growth has changed. we know that the rate of job creation relative to growth fell by half in the last decade compared to the 1980's and 1990's. that is not because we may policy mistakes. it is because of the way the economy balks. is it simply enough to increase the efficiency of the corporate tax code? or is it and not to reduce regulation? do we have to figure out why is that happening and address that directly. the president has said this is a separate problem from the overall issue of the economy and that is why we need over alternative measures.

health care costs are inhibiting job creation by business as well. this was a major focus of the affordable care act. >> we clearly have two different visions of health care. governor romney has promised to appeal the affordable care act. about the supreme court. how will this decision to change how either candidate is going to have to govern on health care? >> it turns out to be pretty simple.

if you get the courts is standing you, you will see the president stopped talking about it. you will see governor brown they continued to argue for a better post dealing with our health care problems. you will see governor romney in a position of having to advocate for an alternative to be affordable care act. >> how important is it that we hear from the candidates now they would constrain health care costs with or without the affordable care act?

social security is a modest increase or for the next 20 years or so sending out a lot of hypothetical and alternatives would be confusing to people. it is important that there are different visions. part this solution should be competition.

there is more government involvement and cost control that way. that is a fundamental debate to have. there are preferred ways of controlling health-care costs. about the deficit in general. costs are extraordinarily low. we are not facing a crisis that europe is.

at what point does the defense of have to put for a more detailed plan for a reduction? he is quite detailed of the plan. it is already enacted by congress and of discretionary caps. he is laid out $800 billion in medicare reductions over 10 years. he has laid out one trillion dollars in revenue increases. he has laid out defense cuts which are really the savings from resolving the wars and i iraq and afghanistan. so he has a four trillion dollar program. i think there will be a very

clear debate on this because the governor has proposed a five trillion dollars in additional tax cuts. that creates a different context for the debate over the deficit. i think the president's to tell is certainly much greater than we have seen from other candidates. i would certainly welcome a debate which forced both candidates to go beyond their current positions with even more detail.

governor brown is part running on the idea that we have to control the deficit. can those things be reconciled? no one confused it with massive irresponsible policy that characterization mrs. the facts. you can do the tax reforms as proposed. that is exactly the plan we need to have. it is imperative to move quickly. we already have debt ratios that are over 100%. we are already paying the price of the enormous debt run up. if you want to get jobs and get the economy going, we must deal with it quickly.

we'll all the characteristics of countries that get in trouble. liabilities keep popping up including student loan portfolios. the governor and has created structural reforms on entitlements to deal with that problem and the near-term benefits. >> i will ask you this same question. when do we need to see details? everyone is for tax reform until you get to be hard cuts. when do we see those? >> as the campaign's progress, we get more detail. people do not focus until june july or august. we have no idea what the president's policies will be in the second term.

the governor has talked about medicare reform and tax reform. his talk about what he would do on international trade. the president has been silent. >> the fact of the matter is governor brahmi's position is nothing like the other. revenue increases are called for over 1.5 trillion dollars. the governor had specified no revenue increases, instead specifying five trillion dollars of additional revenue losses on top of the current levels.

they will instead addressed the tax preferences of high-income people. enough taxy aren't preferences for high income people. the governor's position is contrary to that of his two most senior advisers. the only way we can finally resolve the deficit issue is by providing substantial tax cuts on spending. >> you have personal experience on this. >> i want to bring bob here on this. we are seeing so many from independent groups trying to solve this deficit problem. whoever is the next president

will have to adopt that. >> that would certainly be the wisest course politically. the problem is that you look at simpson-bowles and we came out with the same approach. on tax reform we had to do what they were suggesting. that was the key in our commission to getting agreement. how low could you go on the rate that would attract republicans to you. i could bring that to my people and say that we were improving the tax code. as long as we were doing a tax entitlement reform as well to

bring down the long-term spending. the key is filling in those details. when you raise the top rate to 28% at a 16% rates, we have specific proposals as to how to do that. we did broaden the base low rates amongst deficit reductions and increases. that is something that has to happen. when you look at had to say that romney is looking at the rye and budget as a model, she has to rates at 25. in order to do that you have to take tax expenditures out of the functioning entitlements.

it is easy to say that we should close loopholes for the rich. once you start to do with it will be very difficult. we finally figured out that you will have to have a mix of things to get where you want to go. >> emigration, what can we expect? >> nothing quickly. the president will try again for brought immigration control plans. >> question 2. governor brown has a very interesting kind of education plan. is that something you expect to see moved? >> there are underperforming in

the economy and part of a structural problem. >> i think the president will focus on expanding access to college education and higher education. the housing market. is there any chance that we see a change in policy on housing? >> the president has been trying to move step by step towards a series of supports for people in danger of losing their homes. i think this is a critically important policy and very difficult politically. i hope that the outcome will give him the basis to go further than he has, but it is certainly

a sharp contrast for the governor. i do not expect a large federal housing policy because the reality is a very different scenario. those that actually harmed the housing market recovery so far. i do not see it as either a top priority or something that is politically crossing a line. it is direct policies that we want to push. i think it is actually a sleeper issue. the epa is on a regulatory schedule. but the regulations required significant restrictions on

greenhouse gas emissions and i think that will create a new debate on what the alternatives to epa emissions are. >> one last question. what is the most important domestic issue that you do not hear the candidates talking about enough? >> social security. my thing is that is the most important issue and the one that we hear no discussion about. >> let's open it up to the audience. we have time for a couple. >> you have all talked at length about the constraints on job creation and growth. this question brings up the

skills gap mentioned earlier. many people are seeing their jobs permanently leaving america. about half a point above that rate is due to the skills gap. which candidate offers the best solution for this kind of thing. >> it is clear that this recession has harmed the careers of young workers dramatically. it has spent an enormous economic hit. there was not a strategy of getting them back into what we needed to see.

it is a very serious issue and as a senator the president supported an initiative to provide grants to community colleges to keep their computer labs open and staff in the evenings and weekends. he has not pushed that as president but i would love to see it. i think this is an increasingly important issue and whoever is president will see a real discussion of it. it is important to talk about deficit reduction and economic growth. >> there has to be something positive as well. it cannot all be cuts and raising taxes.

>> we of time for one more question. >> i am with the hispanic link news service in washington d.c.. the presidential race includes an incumbent who is black and possibly the presidential race who might have a vice-president who is hispanic. it includes a comment by the cover story on time magazine that has balance will elect the next president of the united states. certainly the key issue deals with the war on women as it is described. 12have on the panel's people, all of whom are white and male.

can we conclude that national journal does not value the views and expertise -- >> the last battle i did was all women. i think you bring up an important question, -- i would be curious to hear from our panel these issues that have been so important on the war on women over the last few months. >> i do not know how many of

your audience were at the last panel. why didn't the national journal give us more of a forum to talk over the knowledge other than 12 white males? >> we appreciate your question. thank you very much. can we answer the question of how the candidates will govern on social issues, particularly the issues of abortion and contraception that have dominated headlines over the last few months? >> i think what you see through governor romney is an emphasis on living as we actually share in terms of aspirations and economic success. women have been harmed in this recession with religious freedoms -- in this recession. i do think there was overstep by

the president. he would avoid that. >> i think the president would continue to govern based on the principle that respect religious organizations but we also respect the rights of women to have access to contraception and their insurance policies. and that employers do not have the right to tell women that they cannot get that through their insurance policies. i think it's a very clear distinction between the governor and the president. one that i suspect both sides seemed quite comfortable with. >> one of the things about the of sustainability of the current situation and the dynamic of the budget is that the programs that get squeezed are the domestic discretionary programs.

you can just look at what is happening now. that is what the fight is about. if you look at the projections, that part of the budget gets squeezed to nothing. to the extent that the federal government makes investments in the world force and children and basic science and research, things that will help grow the economy, that as the part of the budget that is under the gun right now. the deficit reduction is the way to help. >> this is another area of contrast. the president has proposed increases in these areas. the rime budget would cut education 20%. would cut job worker training by 20 percent in research and development by 20%. the governor has not committed himself to those details. but that is the position of the congressional republicans. >> that is a non sequitur. the key here is -- >>that is the ryan budget.

>> unless we get some serious but house leadership, that is what it takes to get social security, medicare and medicaid under control. those programs will be squeezed, it does not matter who was president. >> thank you so much for your time. let's turn it over to the deputy editor. [applause] >> coming up on c-span, a debate between the pit -- the candidate in the wisconsin governor recall election. john boehner and not to pelosi reacting to the may jobs numbers and the unemployment rate. that is followed by remarks from president obama in minnesota on jobs and the economy. >> the candidates running in

the june 50 accounts and governors recall election held their final debate thursday. republican governor scott walker and mayor tom barrett discussed the state economy, campaign ads and on raising as well as investigations into the governor's staff. the hour-long debate is courtesy of wisn tv and took place at the marquette university law school. it is moderated by news anger mike gousha. scott walker defeated tom barrett 42%, and statistics%. >> the following is a patrol special election. in partnership with marquette university law school. >> good evening. we are just five days away from wisconsin also historic gubernatorial recall election. >> tonight we are proud to present the final joint campaign

appearance by republican governor scott walker and his democratic opponent, milwaukee mayor tom barrett. >> this conversation will be moderated. 12 news of fronts -- up front's mike gousha. >> we are conscious of the historic nature of this recall election. it is only the third time in our nation's history when citizens of this date have tried to recall a governor. the event that brought us to this election will be reviewed by historians. >> the decision about how this chapter and belongs to you on election day, june 5. >> the go to the home of marquette law school for an extraordinary hour of debate and discussion about the issues that brought us here and those that will define our state's future. here is our colleague, mike gousha. [applause] >> hello everyone and welcome to our conversation.

we are joined by the republican incumbent, wisconsin governor scott walker and his democratic challenger milwaukee mayor tom barrett. we are here in the courtroom at marquette law school. i work here as a journalist. i'm the host of the statewide public affairs program. the rules for the discussion are simple. we have asked the candidates to join us for a conversation about where we have been and where we are headed in wisconsin. we ask them to answer questions as concisely and directly as possible and to stay on point. candidates can talk to one another but i will be managing the time we spend on the particular topic. each candidate will have a one minute closing statement but there are no opening statements. we flipped a coin to see you got the first question and will begin tonight with governor walker. thank you for being with us tonight. i began with the question that needs to be asked. it is about what this contest

really means. i do not want to overstate the importance of a single election in wisconsin but what is at stake next tuesday? >> it is ultimately about whether or not we want politicians to act on tough decisions. i have heard for years from democrats and republicans that politicians are getting off and not taking on the tough issues. that is exactly what we did. we do not hear a lot about that anymore. our reforms are working. we have documented more than $1 billion worth of savings for taxpayers. we have some nerve -- seen a budget surplus. in spite of what my opponent has talked about, the federal government confirmed and adjusted upwards the numbers we documented in terms of jobs created in 2011. we created more than 30,000 new jobs since we have taken office.

those are important factors and a satellite to talk about tonight because i think this is what the recall election is about. >> i think it is the feature at state that is at stake. scott has troubled run this country becoming the rock star to the far right, raising millions of dollars. those people have an agenda that is not wisconsin's. it is not about people and in milwaukee or green bay. it is about the tea party movement. and what he can do to make this the tea party capital of this country. i want us to get back to wisconsin values. i do not think the reforms are working. you ask a 75-year-old woman on a fixed income. that was cut. those reforms are not working for her. neither for the middle class. families are struggling to get their kids through college. we see rising tuition costs. and look at our schools. we have the largest average

class size since 1995. those reforms are not working. they are working for the wealthiest people but not the middle-class. >> we can continue on with the discussion that that is all right. >> we will work through the areas both of you have laid out tonight but i do want to go back to the beginning of all this. one of the things he often same year in your public speeches is you refer to him at the divide and conquer candidate. i want to go back to that conversation. most of us are now familiar with the video taped conversation where he spoke with a private donor and he used the expression will could be done -- you use the expression divide and conquer when asked what could be done about unions. >> i was talking about the fact that someone is to stand up and take on the powerful special interests. i have seen it all across the

state. a handful a special interest dictated what would happen. instead, we drew a line and said we are going to put the power back into the hands of the taxpayers. the mayor said repeatedly throughout the primary he wants to go back to restore collective bargaining. that means undoing $1 billion worth of savings, high property taxes on working families and seniors out there. the first time in a dozen years the property tax has gone down. >> when you use those words, what do you mean? >> the special interests. it is about having someone willing to stand up with a hard- working taxpayers in the state. for years -- school is a good example. they had to buy their health insurance from one company that drove up the cost of health insurance. we changed that and now they are

sitting tens of millions of dollars across the state. the mayor was to go back to that system. what do you have any regrets using that -- those words? >> it was a year and a half ago. i do not even remember using those words. but i did not have vinaigrettes -- any regrets for standing up for hard-working taxpayers. they knew we drew the line in the stand and we stood on the side of the tax payer. >> he says he really did not talk that much about collective bargaining anymore. you talk about jobs but not so much about collective bargaining because he argues it worked. >> of what to address your initial question. >> i want to address your initial question. how to make this a right to work state? your response was the first

step is we will go after the public unions and use dividing caulker. and use the budget adjustment bill to do it. three things came out of that. it was clear never going to pit people against each other. and he did intend to divide and conquer. because that is the way you operate. you wanted to use the crisis to do that. when i think of our country a great leaders like franklin roosevelt and the depression and era, he tried to bring the country together during crisis. and he wanted to use a crisis to divide and conquer our state. it was not the first time you have made a statement like that. the city were going to drop the bomb. -- you said you were going to drop the bomb.

and you talk to the public, everybody is nice to me get along with each other. >> i said i am willing to take on the power of special interest. he selectively took pieces of that conversation. i said we have to take on collective bargaining. there is no way you can balance the budget without raising taxes, without massive layoffs, without cuts in things like medicare. you cannot do all those things unless to make long-term structural reforms. the state used to save millions of dollars in milwaukee. could not have been done before had not been for reforms. i do not mind this exchange. i believe the power should be in the heart -- hands of the hard- working taxpayers. we need to keep it firmly in the

hands of the taxpayer. >> i did not view the middle class as special interest. that is the issue here. going back to the conversation with the woman who owns a convert -- she is a billionaire. her company paid no corporate income taxes. she makes a $500,000 contribution to you. barges contribution ever in the state history. -- the largest contribution ever in the state history. things are working for her. i am saying it is not working for the middle class. >> that is a good example. you bring that up as if we had something to do with that. that was 2010. i want to lower taxes. that is exactly what we did. middle-class taxpayers for years have disproportionately pay for the expansion of government. i reduced the taxpayer in this state. that is why unemployment has

gone down. that is why in contrast in milwaukee, property taxes have gone up 25% while the mayor has been in place. that is why unemployment has gone up by more than 26%. there is a fundamental difference. the middle class place for the expansion of government. that is not moving forward. we are standing up for them to read >> ticket couple of seconds to respond than i want to ask a -- take a couple of seconds to respond than i want to ask a final question. >> people forget he ever represented milwaukee but for eight years, you were the county executive and under your leadership, we saw 34% increase in unemployment. we saw you increase property taxes, $40 million. and borrowing went up 85%. now at the state, you are doing the same thing.

you'll are pushing that on the credit card and kicking it down the road. >> which -- which collective bargaining provisions would be restored and would you expand this uncover police officers and firefighters? >> i would restore the right to collective lead bargain and to organize. those are fundamental rights. this is where there is a disagreement. the discussion over payment towards health care and pension, those employees agreed to that. they agreed to that but scott would not accept that agreement because it was not about that. it was about going after your political enemies and permanently ending their ability to be involved in this process. my view -- i was not the candidate for the public unions he is targeting about.

i parted with them. the difference is i will allow them to be at the table. i will not let them set the table. he does not want to have a conversation with them. >> if it is one of the fundamental differences. you said throughout the primary, you want to restore collective bargaining. that is the trade-off. they have been involved in attacking recent laughed -- since last february. i believe fundamentally the only way milwaukee got the savings -- you were only able to get savings because of our reforms. this is someone that is just about fairness. when you have hard-working taxpayers across the state paying 25% or more for their health insurance and you have --

they do not view this as out of whack when you say you have to get power back to the local level. >> i think the response can be fairly brief here. he raised the issue of whether or not right to work legislation is coming next for wisconsin. he said you had no intention of pushing back and do not think there is support for that. but when people ask you with the veto a right to work piece of legislation that came to your desk, what is your response? >> i was said -- i said it is not going to get there. the reason i said that is because the bottom line is i saw what happened the last year and a half. i do not want to repeat that same debate. i think most people in the state wants to move on and move forward. the difference between myself and the mayor, the mayor said the only thing that will call a special session is on collective bargaining, restoring that to the unions. i said that will play the same

debate all over again. i will move on. the mayor does not want to. >> of love to answer this question. here is how it works. he has traveled all over the country making speeches and raising millions of dollars. one of the 10 commandments of the far right is you have to be against unions. you have to be in favor a right to work. he would have a fall from grace with the far right if he said he was going to veto that. so he cannot. he cannot say it. then he would know lockerbie the poster boy -- then he would no longer be the poster boy of the tea party. that is why he cannot answer the question. >> the private sector unions have been my partner over the last year and a half in economic development. i made investments in structure that put more union workers back to work. i have tried to do it when it

comes to binding legislation. >> if that bill hits his desk, he would sign it. that is what mitch daniels said. it would never hit his desk in indiana. but he made indian a right to work state. >> let's talk more about jobs. mayor, you said after your primary victory that this would be a referendum on the governor's job as a record. a fair amount changed over the last couple of weeks in terms of other numbers being presented. do you think this conversation has changed? is this still a referendum or a different issue? >> i think trust comes into play. it permits -- it permeates this conversation. it started the uprising in madison. scott never said he would go after public employees.

trust was an issue recently with the john doe investigation. trust is certainly an issue. i think it will continue to be an issue. let me talk about this. there are no tom barrett numbers. i use the same numbers, labor statistics. he loved the number last year when they made him look good. then the numbers came out that under scott walker, was caught a lot more jobs than any other state in the country. so the context people and says we have to come up with a different set of numbers. >> you're saying people intentionally misled us? >> i am saying he came up with a new set of numbers based on numbers used but not commonly used. labor statistics numbers are the good housing numbers.

he realizes he has a political problem. this is where you have the common-sense test. 20 days before an election, they bring up these numbers. four hours later, there are commercials supporting the numbers. >> used and by the numbers that claim was often lost jobs in -- >> i will go a step farther. let's use this new numbers. his new numbers would have wisconsin dead last in the midwest. he wants to brag about these numbers that have as the left in the midwest. those are scott walker numbers. it is not a common practice to present numbers early. he is sticking by this argument that we have not been performing. that is ignoring what the law

requires. >> in the monthly numbers and quarterly estimates. what happened here was a monthly sample done 3 and 1/2% of all the employers. that is a sample from each month. and that the comparison, the numbers here that the wisconsin are required to have been submitted by may 16 of this year. this survey almost 160,000 employers from across the state. every economist acknowledges is the best measure of jobs in the state. yesterday the u.s. bureau of labor statistics, the mayor -- what the mayor talked about, yesterday they sent an e-mail to the state department of workforce velopment saying they have reviewed and verify the numbers. instead of being 23,000, it was

23,000, 608. the e-mail said they verify the numbers. >> what did they say today? did not say those of the final numbers. that is what they said today. >> the state verify the they verify the numbers. i realize this undermines the whole focal point of your ads but facts are facts. wisconsin gained jobs in 2012 and 2011. there have been more than 30,000 new jobs. the unemployment rate is 6.7%. it is over 10% in milwaukee. because of your policies raising taxes 43% and your policies that your home town paper pointed out

-- you have a risk averse and did not have a plan for economic development. we have a plan that is working and moving the state forward. that is the choice people have to make. >> using your numbers, we're dead last in the midwest. if that is what you're proud of -- they are dead last. >> i am glad to see that the mayor is excepting those are the numbers. that is what they are. >> are you disappointed where you are? >> when jim boyle was governor three years before i took office, lost more than 100,000 jobs. unemployment was over 9%. the unemployment rate is down and we have gained more than 30,000 jobs. if people say they're disappointed, the last thing they want is a mere -- a mere where unemployment is going up.

>> this has nothing to do with the city. my answer for the past year has been to put together a plan to invest $100 million in the most impoverished quarters of the city versus year plan which is to spend $100 million on the trolley that goes barely 2 miles. one plan was as bad or, the other moves us forward. >> mayor, what would you do differently if you were governor and terms of economic development? can you name something specific? >> you have to tied job creation and tax credits together. when governor walker came in, the first thing he did was passed legislation -- $2.3 billion. it benefited corporations and people who are wealthy. the middle class, you are on your own. but it benefited corporations and primarily wealthy people. then he said we have a budget

crisis and we have to cut education $1.6 billion. the largest cut the state has ever seen in education. this city got the largest cut it ever received from state government. i would not have had those priorities. i would not have started out by having an untested tax system that did not create the jobs. going back to what we just talked about, he -- if you want to use his numbers, the worst economic performance in the midwest. >> you're saying they're not time tax incentives now to jobs that are created? price to book come to me all the time they want developers and looking for financial assistance. i have two questions -- how many jobs it creating and are these family supporting jobs? then we will look away to work with you. but he never asked that question. this is why you have the

situation were corp. that cannot pay any taxes love the guy. they love him. but what about the struggling small-business people and in this state that are paying taxes? they do not see this. >> the very first thing we did was repealed the state's tax. the biggest benefit trees of that are small business owners and family farmers. that is the very first thing i signed into law. that was fundamentally about helping small business owners. i traveled the state of visiting small and mid-size employers and manufacturing. our budget was the manufacturing and agricultural tax credit. during the primary, you were talking about repealing that. >> that could mean certain wealthy individuals would pay no state income tax whatsoever. >> it is not about individuals. it is specifically tied into

manufacturing and agriculture based industries. i was a company yesterday and had been at the all over the state. if you are a manufacturer of a small business, one of the biggest expenses you have as investments in capital. if we're going to bring jobs back from places like india, you have to have the capacity to do that. for the past year and a half, i had been out on the rose talking to manufacturers and small business owners and farmers about what they need to put more people back to work. did like the changes we made two years ago -- they like the changes we made two years ago. today, 94% believe we are headed in the right direction. the number one day -- the number

one concern they have is that we continue to move forward because they know the policies the mayor hasn't acted in milwaukee have been-. >> i will give a chance to respond. >> id is clear that people who make a lot of money do very well -- it is clear that people who make a lot of money do very well the scott walker. we have to be concerned about people who are middle class and what to be middle-class jury the strength of this country has always been a middle-class people can support their families and where their kids can go to college. the actions he has taken has made it more expensive for kids to go to college. that is a fact. you have class sizes that are larger. if we are not going to be investing in the future of the state, we are making a huge mistake. i disagree with the notion that we had to have the largest cut ever in state history. >> we are sliding into a different conversation. about cuts in education in

wisconsin. there is an argument that goes something like this -- for a state to be prosperous, they really do need highly skilled workers. people who go to technical colleges. people who have more college degrees. that is necessary for a robust economy. you know you have those needs to have a healthier economy. >> you looked at the school districts all across the state. my kids both go to public schools. the school district benefited from our reform. yes school district that balance their budgets and hired more teachers and the were classroom sizes. what we did was not as balancing a budget but allowing us to make decisions at the school district level about hiring based on

merit, payne based on performance. -- paying based on performance. for eight years, i was a local official. i saw the difference. the tools were not given. there were no reforms put in place to allstate that -- offset that. the reason we were able to fare better than those states and why we have done a survey, this is the best reaction in that survey in the past 10 years. the mayor wants to go to a system under collective bargaining where they could not make those changes and or handcuffed in terms of what they had to do. that is a system where -- some of the best teachers were the first one laid-off because they were not given reforms in the future.

milwaukee, kenosha, the handful of districts will see the same benefits other school districts have seen. >> 7% of school districts have cut teachers jury that means -- 70% of school districts have cut teachers. that means larger class sizes. i do not think we want to have larger class is. any parent in this audience is not thrilled about the fact that their kid will be in a larger class. the new look at the technical schools. people who stayed until the state. he cut it 30%. the very people obtaining skills. then you look at the university. $315 million cut. to top it off, he goes back to the dividing crocker strategy and tries to pick madison against other campuses which would result in higher tuition

and more kids from of the state getting into the school. >> this is a budget question. this essentially is the decision you have to make. if you have a $3.6 billion deficit, you will have to make hard decisions. >one might be education. you have to make hard decisions. where would you have looked for that money? >> everywhere. this is the difference between our style. he picked his political opponents and when by we do went after them one by one. no notion of shared sacrifice. it was these people are against me, i'm going after them. we did have a crisis. i will go back to those great leaders in a time of crisis. that is when you bring people together. ecb have to have shared sacrifice. we did you say we have to have shared sacrifice.

i will ask the local garment and school district to do something. i will also not give cuts to corporations. >> would this have been less pain for for schools if you said i will not be tax incentives now for business? we're broke as the state. apparently there was enough money to give tax -- >> we said we have an economic and fiscal crisis. i went across the state for about a year and a half and i heard that you need to fix the economic and fiscal crisis. everything we did was tied in to help create more jobs. the other parts were in terms of balancing the budget. we did. unlike the state in the past. we gave those schools the reforms. when the mayor talked about the difference is out there in terms of some schools that have not done well. it is literally a handful that

did not take advantage of our reforms which proves why they were so desperately needed in the first place. you want to put more money in the classroom, use our reforms. district have done that have faired well. today is the 50th day since the mayor was asked in a primary what his plan was. i think the mayor has a moral obligation to tell people what exactly would he have done differently. we have not heard that and i think we will not. all we can guess is he will do what he did in milwaukee. >> as mayor of the city, balanced budget eight years in a row. i have public safety as my party. we were able to accomplish that. the taxes were very comparable to those in the county. the difference was he would not lead. -- lead.

i am a leader. i take responsibility for what i do. he would not do that. you would think he had nothing to do with it. $1 billion higher in spending. this budget, he spent that much more than the last budget. that sounds like an increase in spending to me. >> so everybody is clear, the mayor does not have a plan and all he has is attacking me. that is where you just heard loud and clear. the mayor did not answer the question. >> i would not have started by giving a $2.3 billion cut to corporations and cuts that would benefit the wealthiest people in the state at the time of an economic crisis. i would the brought people together a round table and said to the schools, you will be part of this. i would say the public

employers, let's go back to the taxpayers. they know i am not a pushover. the differences i respect them and their ability to be at the table. >> $3.6 billion budget deficit. in this budget we are talking about. about 200 million out of a $3.6 billion budget deficit were tax incentives connected to jobs from the biggest portions of which were eliminating the state tax and health savings accounts which is beneficial to small businesses and family farmers. you can talk about what will be 10 years down the road but that does not allow you to balance the budget. there is no plan when it comes to budget or economic development. i am the only one with the plan. >> i want to talk about the john doe investigation. you have been pushing answers

for questions you say people of the state have. let's spend a few minutes on this. what have you seen -- what are you saying? he is a negation in criminal behavior -- he is invested in criminal behavior? >> this is all about trust. today another one of his key personnel was granted immunity. the 13th person. she was granted immunity because she refused to answer questions on the grants -- grounds that they may incriminate her. others attend to his office have been charged with crimes and also runs a secret illegal computer system that was 25 feet from your office. i have asked you some easy questions. release the e-mails. release the e-mails you have

that are tied to this secret illegal computer system. i have asked you to tell us who is paying your criminal defense. you are the only governor in this country that has a criminal defense line and you owe it to the people of this state to tell them who is paying a year criminal defense fees. the mayor does not have a plan on everything else. i will answer this question. f. -- as we have talked about many times before, my office when i was county executive asked for this investigation because at the time we were not able to get information from the volunteers of all with the veterans' organization. we asked the d.a. to help out and they continued to be just as frustrated. that is what this process begins with. i said time again i am not a target of this. we have been in a process to

help with that. mayor, you are a lawyer. i have taken an oath of office to uphold the constitution and the lost their within and abide by the rules. the rules the district attorney asked to be involved as -- with is to go forward and, when they ask us to comment. but i think the record is clear. when the time was told to us in our office that someone violated our strict policy against using public resources for political purposes, i took action. we took swift action. the a week later, the couple of days later. -- not a week later, not a couple of days later. by the end of that day, that person was blogger working there. the reason the mayor was to talk about this is because he is not

winning on jobs, not winning on the budget, not winning on the reforms and was to keep coming back desperately hoping that somehow something will click. even though there is the basis for it. >> i am raising this issue because it goes right to your trust. you have something you can reveal. the city of milwaukee is withholding for data from the police department that the mill journal sent out.rne even the said last year in the primary campaign that violent crime have gone down in the city, the journal sentinel found out that was not the case. it is actually gone up. they have an open records request for hundreds of more cases. i think the voters deserve to know that as well. >> briefly.

i want to get back to the other topic. he is running a commercial right now that shows a dead baby. he shows a picture of a dead baby. that baby died. the person who killed the baby was arrested by the milwaukee police, prosecuted by the district attorney. they did their job. but you know what they did wrong? after the baby died, they did not change the code. it was a bureaucratic mistake. and we said we would fix that. you are running a commercial attacking my integrity claiming that i did something to do with this and you know that as false. you know that is false. you tell me whether you think i had anything to do with that. i will tell you right now, i had nothing to do with that writ you should be ashamed of that commercial.

>> the reason we are pointing that out is all out the primary campaign, you told the people one of the key reasons they should vote for you is because your leadership in milwaukee brought about a drop the that the violent crime. by crime has not gone down. the investigative team has a pointed that out. saying people should go free because by the crime has gone down is not fair. -- should vote for you because myelin crime has gone down is not fair. voters deserve to know. >> if you look at the people who represent the police department, they are frustrated. >> i want to go back to the john doe for a moment. >> 122 average down to 80. when it comes to homicide. i have a police apartment that

arrest felons. he has a practice of hiring them. let me go back to a couple of points you made. >> use it or not in a position where you can, but today there was an article written saying if you have not testified in front of them, you're not down by the secrecy orders. you could release e-mails conceivably. so why haven't you done that? >> because throughout this process of corporate and with the office, he has asked us not to comment on the particulars. all those things he mentioned are asked -- accurate. we abided by that. we are going to do that we did continue to do that. the reality is we complied with everything we have been asked to do. and you look at the record.

even in terms of the other day, the sentinel will restore a where they talked about e-mails. -- wrote a story where they talked about e-mails. it looked at the statement of facts mentioned in that story, the reality is nobody won the bet. the only people that one where the taxpayers because my administration consolidated space. time and again when the facts come out, they clearly showed that the facts are there. >> i want to give you a chance to respond. he says he cannot talk about that because the the hague -- the da has asked him not to. but since you brought it up, with easter e-mails with john dillard. he was the head of your transition team, your treasurer. just clear this up.

>> i do have to ask about something that came out tonight. i think your campaign is the letter with it. it was published shortly after 7:00 tonight and it addresses this is you. you said earlier that you brought the suspicions that you had about behavior around the veterans bonds. he brought that to the attention of the dea. this article says, "milwaukee county prosecutors opened the secret john doe criminal investigation more than two years ago after being stonewalled by governor scott walker's office when he was county executive. the document appears to cast doubts about his claims in cooperating. " what is your response? >> there is no direct quote from anybody involved. what it says the that they are either unwilling or unable to

read when he first asked me, i mentioned our office was unable to get in permission from individual outside of our office was a volunteer for the veterans' organization. that led to our frustration. my chief of staff took that to the district attorney and we continue to remain in a position where we are unable to get this information. if you look at -- why would john chisholm has said months ago when he brought up these issues? this is not political. the county executive at the time i asked us to look into them. by making it like that if that is not accurate on my part? of course it is. it is another example of the hype and other issues involved in this. every time the facts come out, they prove what we say. >> i have been in public life for 28 years and no one on my staff has ever been charged with a crime and i have never had a criminal defense fund.

the city's talk about of milwaukee. mayor, you have spoken about the fact that you do not like the tone of the campaign commercials the governor is running. statements to the fact that we do not wisconsin to be like milwaukee. is your record not fair game in this? milwaukee has many attributes and some serious issues. why is that not fair game? >> i think it is fair game just as his record is fair game. it is true that this city like many others has been hit by this economic downturn. it is true that this city is the place in the state where most low-income and people of color reside. it is easy to attack the city.

but this is a great city. you bet i'm going to stand up for this city. but he tried to convince people do not go to summer fest. do not come to milwaukee. he is afraid of milwaukee. i'm here to tell you you do not have to be afraid of milwaukee. this is a great city. did not let our governor make you afraid to come here. he is trying to do it for political gain. that is wrong. >> you talk about crime and poverty and things like that in your ads. but milwaukee also generates a lot of wealth. there are a number of fortune 500 companies. isn't there a danger during collateral damage to the city and its reputation and tourism industry? >> i do not think so at all. i love this city. my wife was born here. she went to school here.

>> but you do not want wisconsin to be like it. >> this is a classic example of the major sticking part of what i say and not the rest. i said i did not want wisconsin to face the same kind of challenges milwaukee has faced under his leadership. i want that for a city. i want to have more positive reforms out there. for years, i traveled the state talking about the tourism and people coming to summer fest and the state fair. talking about people coming to the park. i have a clear record. let's just look at this. last april, i started out with my administration and key members of my cabinet putting together a transform milwaukee plan to help. i did not see that happening. that is a data stark contrast to the mayor put in $100 million in this trolly that goes a mere 2

miles. i think voters around the state, even here in milwaukee deserve to see the difference between the two of us. i want to focus on rebuilding our industrial corridors so that manufacturers can grow here and everywhere across the state. >> would you did to support that was when there was a mortgage foreclosure sediment -- settlement, he took the discretion portions and did not give it to people who were victims of bait and switch in the crisis in used to plug his budget hole. the second day in switch. i just received a massive layoff notice for one of the mass of companies in the central city of the milwaukee. because it terminated a contract with them. he said we are going to have dozens of people lose their jobs. that is not a governor try to work with the city but score political points at the expense of the city. >> there is a difference there.

35 jobs versus the dolphins of jobs i'm talking about with transform milwaukee. -- versus the thousands of jobs i'm talking about what transform milwaukee. all the way from the north and all the way to the south side of the airport. >> you welcome the state's efforts? >> absolutely. he was county executive for eight years. i cannot think of it central -- single company help. then he announces this initiative before the election. what a remarkable coincidence. >> that is how you roll up your sleeves and bring people together to get things done. >> i want to talk about the spending that has occurred in this election. we have some folks in the northern part of the state to cannot believe how much money is being spent.

they do not feel like they are part of the discussion. they feel like out of state interests are controlling the discussion or union organizations are. they do not feel like this is affecting them in much of a way. do we need to do something about it? do we learn lessons from this recall and say after we deal with campaign finance reform or do we not need to deal with it? >> if you go back to citizens united and what that has done, let's focus on wisconsin. this is one of the reasons this is still a close race. people fundamentally know there's something wrong when you have a sitting governor who raises 70% of his money from out-of-state. a lot of this money is coming from billionaires' to deny care at all about this state. they view this governor as the rock star of the far right who will do their bidding to bring

his conservative ideas here and make this an experimental dish. they love that. they found the place where they can push through the tea party agenda. that is what he is willing to do for them. >> but he would argue there is money coming from the left, different organizations that are -- >> i will love to be in a position but the fact is he is out spending me 821. -- 8 to 1. i go around the state and people say i recognize the from tv. i say that is probably a commercial that is ripping my face off. >> would you support a special session on campaign finance reform? >> i would. i would absolutely support a special session. economic initiatives as well. >> i think the best thing is to change the recall laws. i think after this recall election on tuesday, you will

see democrats and republican lawmakers alike and the populace as whole wanting to change this. i do not think we want to go back and have -- >> to you will find -- so you will sign legislation if someone put it on your desk? >> that requires two consecutive sessions. you have to act on that before the end of this year. i think that is -- what will happen after tuesday is all the special interests that have come from the entire spectrum. with the millions of dollars came from out of state -- 70% of my contributions are people giving me $50 or less. >> but there were some enormous contributions from out-of-state.

you would agree with that? >> absolutely. but the person who gave me $25 just yesterday, it is people who care about the fact that there is finally someone who can take on the special interests. long after, we can move on and move forward. the only way we do not do that is if the mayor is elected. at that point, i think you start recall pingpong. you will see this all over again. the only way this will end is this -- is if i am able to fill out this term then judges on what we have done. if we have a new person, in the middle of this term, i did not think anybody will want that. >> scott walker came to the county executive following a recall. we talked about this last week. he says he does not recall whether he signed the recall petitions.

i will tell you right now, any member of the state legislature decides it recall petition against the city united states senator remembers that. he remembers it. >> do you have evidence that he signed it? once he was very active during the first movement. he has never denied it. all this has now is i do not have any memory of that. he is obviously a sharp guy. you remember what you signed a recall petition. it is not the kind of thing you forget. >> and decided? >> i cannot believe i did but i do not recall. it was 15 years ago. i think anybody here from milwaukee county remembers a decade -- a decade ago that that was misconduct. there was a pension scandal

today still cost the taxpayers of milwaukee millions of dollars. i was the only elected official during that year blinged to stand up and take him on. the mayor -- who decided to stand u0p and take him on. nobody else had the courage to stand up. he resigned shortly thereafter. it was a special collection. i think that was legitimate. that kind of misconduct in office warrants a recall election. >> let me take a back to the campaign finance stuff. when i talk to people around the state and say i want to thank the person who wrote with a check for $500,000, they laugh because it does not happen. you could probably take his top

dozen donors and they have matched the amount of money i raised in the primary. >> people are sick of this. they see the $16 million alone that this is projected. people are sick of it, we just want to move on. >> and i agree with that. scott walker started this civil war. you know and i note that if you had accepted, back in february 2011, to allow employees to pay towards health care and towards pensions, we did not be sitting here tonight. their 1700 municipalities --

there are 1700 municipalities. there is no way that someone can do that. actions speak louder than words. unions at the local level running after contracts that had no additional contributions. it was an absolute -- >> you did not believe when the union said to you they would have accepted -- >> it is local bargaining. if we had done that on a patchwork basis -- >> you could have very easily have it apply to the state and local government. >> he did not even try. let me bring this to a close. it has been a quick hour. take your minutes.

>> i want to make one thing clear. i have no intention to be the rock star of the far right. i have no intention to be the rock star of the far left. what i want to be is rock-solid as the governor of this state, work to create jobs. to increase investments in education and make sure that our children and grandchildren can have a chance to be here. this is an important election. it is an election about trust. i am asking you to trust me. i am asking you to do everything you can to make sure we restore wisconsin values. and we have a governor that backing consistently with those of values. that is why i am asking for your vote. thank you very much. >> governor walker. >> thank you for the opportunity to serve. i ask for your vote again on june 5.

a woman came up and told me she was the democrats and proceeded to tell me that she was voting for me. she said, it is not what you say, it is what you have been willing to do. he let been willing to take on the tough challenges. -- you have been able to take on the tough challenges. the reason why we took on that may be unique in politics, but it is not unique to the moms and dads across the state. every day, they work hard all across the state. my sons, for every other kid and grand kids like them in the state, i want to make sure they inherit the wisconsin that is as -- at least as great as the wisconsin we inherited. i ask for your vote so we can

help move this state forward. >> that brings our conversation to an end. we want to thank the candidates. we appreciate your time. we want to thank our audience. a special thanks to our co- sponsors. thank you very much for being with us. election day is june 5. goodnight. [applause] >> the wisconsin recall election is next tuesday. you can watch the c-span

networks for results. saturday on "washington journal, the chief economic correspondent for the washington times. she joins us to discuss the may jobs numbers released on friday. the economy added 69,000 jobs. michael greene burger at the university of maryland on fema's preparation going into hurricane season. our guest is the medical programs director. "washington journal" airs every morning at 7:00 eastern on c- span. >> the u.s. economy added 69,000 new jobs in may, pushing the unemployment rate up to 8.2%.

the labor department released the new numbers friday morning. house republicans held a news conference on the report. this is 10 minutes. >> another month of disappointing job gains. the american people are hurting. small businesses continue to avert hiring any additional people. it is clear that the policies we have seen are not working. i would hope that the president would look at heartland -- are planned.

-- our plan. we can help the american people of the senate would just look at the bills before us. our focus is the focus of the american people. we promised we would listen to the american people. our focus is on this economy and jobs. that has continued to be our focus each and every day and double remain that because the american people are in a desperate spot -- and it will remain that because the american people are in a desperate spot. they're looking for work and it is time for us to change course and put americans back to work. >> good morning. these jobs numbers are apathetic. the american people really deserve better. under the right leadership, we can do better. we remain committed to removing

the uncertainty that is plaguing working families and the small business people of this country. that is why you will see us continue to focus on the fact that we are not going to allow taxes to go up on anybody. we will put a bill on the floor this summer to make sure that signal is sent to working families and small businesses. we also believe strongly that the uncertainty provided by the president's health-care bill is weighing down job creation, weighing down the innovation and investment in this country, and that is why we are going to seek to repeal in total the obamacare bill. we will also look to bring bills to the floor this summer that will say stop the regulations coming out of washington because they're proving to be an obstacle to job creation. stop everything that is providing disincentives to our

job creators. >> i guess the only news this morning is that 3.5 years later, the president's policies are still failing. 3.5 years later, millions of americans still remain unemployed. 3.5 years later, millions of americans are underemployed. the president's policies continue to fail. this should not be a surprise. if you threaten the finkel largest -- the single largest tax increase in history, you are not going to get robust economic growth. if you have an avalanche of new regulations, you are not going to have robust economic growth and job growth. if you go about vilifying free

enterprise, you are not to going to have robust economic growth. if you engage in serial trillion dollar deficits, you are not going to get robust economic growth. unfortunately, for our constituents, who have seen their gas prices double under this administration, know that their real disposable income -- to look around and still see their friends, neighbors unemployed under this administration. the news today is 3.5 years later, the president's policies are still failing the american people. >> as i look at these numbers, you cannot help but think about the merit -- the millions of americans who are continuing to look for work and not able to find jobs. i also think about the fact that

when president obama was elected, he said if he had not turned the economy round in three years, he would not be in office in his fourth year. after he was inaugurated, the cornerstone of his economic plan for america was a stimulus package, and $800 billion stimulus package. a record amount of spending, and he told congress at that time that if you pass the stimulus package, unemployment will not go above 8%. by this time this year, unemployment would be below 6%. it is clear that it has not happened. i cannot help but think it did not have to be this way. we could have taken an approach that focused on unleashing the private sector. the reason the house republicans opposed the stimulus package, we believe there was a better way. there was a way that focused more on the private sector. president obama could have

taken a lesson from president reagan back in the early 1980's. reagan inherited a much more difficult economy, inflation was higher, interest rates were off the charts. reagan, at this time, he had an economy that was booming. we need a course correction, we need an approach coming out of this administration that is more focused on the private sector, more focused on what is going to take to unleash the entrepreneurial spirit in this country again. >> [inaudible] today, the president is going to minnesota. [inaudible] i am wondering if you plan to move on any of these. >> the president might want to engage in democrats and

republicans. to handle the big policies affecting our economy. whether it is the tax rates, whether it is our 16 trillion dollars national debt, up $1.30 trillion budget deficit. maybe the president ought to get into the rugged became that is right in front of him. -- rugby game that is right in front of him. >> [inaudible] you are saying, vote for us, that is what you are saying. >> we believe the policies we have advocated over the past 3.5

years would help our economy -- would have our economy in a much better place than it is today. >> [inaudible] many of them appreciate compromise over confrontation. what are you highlighting such a different group of candidates? >> we did not use them for their demographics or their style. page is to happen to be good candidates in districts that are winnable to -- they just happen to be good candidate in districts that are winnable to us. >> [inaudible] >> talking about the american job creators? 30 bills in the united states senate.

help the american people instead of playing politics. >> [inaudible] [laughter] word do you think the jobless rate would be? -- where do you think the jobless rate would be? >> i am not an economist. if they would have taken on revised and worked with us, the economy would be better. more americans would have better jobs. more americans would have better incomes. >> the president has his to do list. you have your to do list. did they overlap in many places at all? >> we have worked together to pass the free-trade agreement. we work together to pass the veterans of jobless bill. i can go down a long list.

we were together on the import- export bank. there are a lot of places we have found common ground. it is a constant push. the president's is always out campaigning every day. >> [inaudible] >> the one area where we lost jobs misconstruction. why won't the congress provide some certainty to the construction industry by passing the highway bill? >> the highway bill is very important. i know the conferees are working diligently trying to come to an agreement. included in their our energy provisions like the keystone pipeline, which would create

20,000 jobs immediately. up to over 100,000 jobs indirectly. this will help put americans back to work. i hope we get an agreement. >> [inaudible] >> they went their own way in 2009-2010. on virtually every bill. they have created quite a mess. our job is to stay focused on what the american people are most concerned about. that is what we have done. >> do you have any scheduled appearances, fund-raisers, with mr. romney? can i get a comment on the new york sugary drink band? >> i like mayor bloomberg, but are you kidding me?

don't we have bigger issues to deal with the nets size of some soft drink? -- than the size of some soft drink? >> i will pass it along. >> democratic leadership also held a news conference on the latest jobs numbers and urged john boehner to bring the senate transportation bill to the floor. nancy pelosi and danny a lawyer spoke to reporters for about 20 minutes. -- steny hoyer spoke to reporters for about 20 minutes. >> nice to receive your comments the crowds of visitors to the capital. -- nice to see you here amidst the crowds of visitors to the capital. it is clear we have work to do. this is the 27 month of increased and continued job

increases in our economy, it is certainly not enough. it is clear from that jobs number that we have work to do. we know it, and the american people know it, and american families know it. it is clear that one way we can help this to pass the transportation bill. i think it was instructed to read the jobless numbers this morning. the job loss in the construction sector was the largest of the mall. -- of them all. we have an answer to this and that is to pass the transportation bill. the bipartisan transportation bill. the republicans will say they sent 30 bills over to the senate. we do not need a 30 message bills, we need one good bill. one good bipartisan bill, and

that is the transportation bill. it was passed in a bipartisan way in the senate a while ago. we are calling upon the speaker of the house to bring the speaker -- transportation bill to the floor. this has been bipartisan for 35 years. it has been bipartisan. the senate bill is a good bill that will create 2 million jobs. let's get on with it. let's get our work done. in addition, we we're calling upon the saker to bring in no income-tax cut to the floor. it builds confidence in the economy, grow our economy, and will create jobs. we need to get this done and the time is long overdue. i want to yield to my distinguished colleague. >> thank you. there cannot be an american who

was not disappointed with the jobs numbers. the private sector gained 82,000 jobs and the public sector lost 13,000 jobs. the good news is we have 27 months strait of job growth, 11 quarters of economic growth. progress is slow. it is too slow because of the gridlock in the congress of the united states. gridlock in terms of a highway bill that was passed with 74 votes. half of the republican caucus in the united states senate. three-quarters of the senate passed the highway bill. that highway bill was sponsored by one of the most liberal members and co-sponsored by the

most conservative members. they came together because they knew we needed to invest in infrastructure to create and grow jobs and to invest in making our country [inaudible] that bill could not get to the house of representatives. that bill has -- the republican leadership will not put it on the floor. we find ourselves 30 days from a highway bill expiring, which would create jobs, make us more competitive -- >> and make it in america. our maket is part of it in america -- >> that is part of our make it in america agenda. we need to invest in our people and invest in creating jobs.

unfortunately, in the bush administration, we lost 8 million jobs. 787,000 jobs lost in the last month of the bush administration, the month that barack obama became president of the united states. we're growing the economy, the session has ended, but we are not current fast enough. if you do not have a job, this is a depression for you. if your home is under water, this is a depression for you. we need to give confidence to the market. one way we can give confidence to the market is not put at risk the credit worthiness of the united states. not pretend that we will play another political game with the debt limit of this country and undermine economic growth. i am hopeful that we will move ahead cooperatively to create

incentives, create jobs, pass the highway bill, invest in our economy, and grow our jobs. thank you. >> [inaudible] >> the approval be in the pudding. that is when they are -- the approved is in the pudding. -- the proof is in the pudding. she is optimistic because they have bipartisan support in the senate. from right to left, you would almost have to be a contortionist >> yet they have

come together in a bipartisan way. this is so important to our country. this is about the infrastructure of america. this is about how our people are traveled, how commerce is moved, how water is supplied. it is about our infrastructure and our transportation. they have neglected it. it is time for the republicans to stop stalling, to stop stalling on transportation stop stalling on middle income tax cuts, and stop implying that there is any thought that we would not honor the full faith and credit of the united states of america. this is about confidence, this is about to ground the economy, this is about creating jobs. -- this is about growing the economy, this is about creating

jobs. >> [inaudible] >> i would not support that. it is really important for us to take the matter at hand and deal with it. we know there should be an end to the height and tax cuts -- high-end tax cuts. they are deepening the deficit, they are not creating jobs. they have to go. we have the moral imperative as a nation to create jobs, to educate our children, and to reduce the deficit. these tax cuts increase the deficit and to not create jobs. i would not be supportive of that.

>> punting should not be the -- an option. it will undermine confidence even further. one of the reasons why i think the major corporations and banks are not participating in growing the economy is because they lack confidence. the lack confidence because of gridlock here in washington. they're not solving problems. punting will continue to undermine the confidence that the congress can work. it comes together, creates a compromise, not confrontation. unfortunately, we have not been able to do that in the house of

representatives. the american economy sees that. punting will be another indication that there they go again, they cannot reach an agreement, they are slowing us down further. i believe the single biggest thing we can do for the economy is to show the american people on the highway bill, a student loan bill, and on a bold plan for putting our country on a fiscally sustainable path. those are some of the biggest things we can do. in the clinton administration, we grow the economy at 22

million jobs. >> is there a concern that this could drag things down? >> there is no question that we are part of a global economy. what has happened in europe has had an impact on our economy in terms of confidence, markets we are in charge of our own house. we cannot have a policy or practice -- that is not an agenda for making progress, growing their economy, restoring confidence, sending a message to the world that whatever is happening elsewhere, at our house is in order. i fear that this obstruction is not just about trying to make

the obama administration look bad, which is what some people say, i described the fact that doing nothing is the republican agenda. their jobs built is a job -- the jobs bill is a bill that says tax cuts for the rich. we do not say amen to that. what we say is we have an obligation to give incentive to the private sector to create jobs. confidence is essential to do that. while we must be concerned about what is happening there because you're part of the global economy, -- because we are part of the global economy, we have a responsibility to be strong ourselves. that requires decision, not punting.

stop the stalling. stop the obstruction. pass the transportation bill. remove all doubt that we will honor our full faith and credit and we will do our budget in a way that is responsible. >> i want to say one additional thing. i am convinced if the europeans see stability, consensus, and movement in the united states, it will help the europeans do with their problems. a strong, secure, thoughtful program in the united states of america will put our country on a fiscally sustainable path. that will have a positive effect in europe. the european economy is the second-largest, but we are the leaders.

>> [inaudible] one of the final issues is the keystone pipeline language. [inaudible] is that something you are willing to compromise on? >> we're waiting to see the bill they put forward. >> [inaudible] >> i thought you said it was the only thing holding up the bill. i am anxious to see the bill. i have not been on the record one way or the other on keystone. this bill has, over the years, been bipartisan. i do not think this is about keystone, i think it is about obstruction. >> i think the leader is absolutely right on that.

i am for keystone, but i think he's done -- keystone need proper consideration. to make sure it is environmentally safe. having said that, the senate has performed views on keystone as well. it did not hold them up. the highway bill has always been bipartisan. it is undermining the growth of jobs. >> we're calling upon the republicans to stop stalling on the transportation bill. create jobs now. bring it to the floor. we hope they will do that soon. we are concerned that we do not see it coming now. the construction trade was the

biggest source of job loss that we are talking about. that is shameful. it is urgent for our country to build infrastructure. it is part of who we are. the people in these halls, there were part of public improvement. all of the things the transcontinental railroad -- we celebrated the 75th anniversary of the golden gate bridge. it is also the 75th anniversary of the bay bridge. that was in a depression. the public have the confidence, knew the urgency of building infrastructure. we need to do it. we need to do it now. thank you.

>> president obama was in minneapolis to speak about jobs in the economy. the president is pushing congress to create jobs and help the middle class. while in minneapolis, the president also intended a campaign fund-raiser. this is 35 minutes. -- attended a campaign fund- raiser. this is 35 minutes. on the way over we were talking

about making sure the vikings were staying. now, that's a hard thing for a bears fan to do. but i was rooting for the vikings sticking around here -- and the governor did a great job. you were praying, too, huh? absolutely. prayer never hurts. it helps. you got two outstanding senators, amy klobuchar and al franken. your mayor, shep harris is here. outstanding congressional delegation in the house. give them a big round of applause. [applause] and i thought ryan was really good, so give him a big round of applause. [applause] he's a natural.

now, one of the last times i was here was last august. we took a bus tour around the state. i needed a little "minnesota nice." i stopped for some pie in zumbrota. i held a town hall in cannon falls. amy and al were there. i think al ate my pie, in fact. [laughter] and i spent a lot of time talking with folks who'd spent the past couple years making their way through a tough economy. and today, we're still fighting our way back from the worst economic crisis since the great depression. the economy is growing again, but it's not growing as fast as we want it to grow.

our businesses have created almost 4.3 million new jobs over the last 27 months, but as we learned in today's jobs report, we're still not creating them as fast as we want. and just like this time last year, our economy is still facing some serious headwinds. we had high gas prices a month, two months ago, and they're starting to come down, and they were spiking, but they're still hitting people's wallets pretty hard. that has an impact. and then, most prominently, most recently, we've had a crisis in europe's economy that is having an impact worldwide, and it's starting to cast a shadow on our own as well. so we've got a lot of work to do before we get to where we need to be. and all these factors have made it even more challenging to not just fully recover, but also lay the foundation for an economy that's built to last over the long term.

but that's our job. from the moment we first took action to prevent another depression, we knew the road to recovery would not be easy. we knew it would take time. we knew there would be ups and downs along the way. but we also knew if we were willing to act wisely, and boldly, and if we were acting together, as americans; if we were willing to keep at it; if we were willing to roll up our sleeves and never quit -- then we wouldn't just come back, we'd come back stronger than ever. that was our belief. [applause] and that continues to be my belief. we will come back stronger, we do have better days ahead, and that is because of all of you. that's because of all of you. i'd place my bets on american

workers and american businesses any day of the week. you've been fighting through this tough economy with resilience and grit and innovation. honeywell is a great example of a company that's doing outstanding work, and i want to acknowledge dave cote here who has been serving on my jobs council and doing a lot of great work. that's why our auto industry has come roaring back. it's why manufacturing is consistently adding jobs for the first time since the 1990s. all that is happening because of you. everybody here plays by the rules. you work hard. you meet your responsibilities.

and you deserve leaders who do the same -- leaders who will stand shoulder to shoulder with you and do everything possible to strengthen the middle class and move this economy forward. that's what you deserve. [applause] look, we can't fully control everything that happens in other parts of the world -- disturbances in the middle east, what's going on in europe. but there are plenty of things we can control here at home. there are plenty of steps we can take right now to help create jobs and grow this economy. now, let me give you a couple examples. i sent congress a jobs bill last september full of the kinds of bipartisan ideas that would have put our fellow americans back to work and helped reinforce our economy against some of these outside shocks. i sent them a plan that would have reduced the deficit by $4

trillion in a way that is balanced -- that pays for the job-creating investments we need by cutting unnecessary spending, but also by asking the wealthiest americans to pay a little more in taxes. [applause] and i'll give them a little bit of credit: congress has passed a few parts of that jobs bill, like a tax cut that's allowing working americans to keep more of your paychecks every week. that was important. i appreciated it. but congress has not acted on enough of the other ideas in that bill that would make a difference and help create jobs right now. and there's no excuse for it. not when there are so many people out there still looking for work. not when there are still folks out there struggling to pay their bills. it's not lost on anybody that it's an election year.

i understand that; i've noticed. [applause] but we've got responsibilities that are bigger than an election. we've got responsibilities to you. so my message to congress is: now is not the time to play politics. now is not the time to sit on your hands. the american people expect their leaders to work hard no matter what year it is. it economy still isn't where needs to be. there are steps that could make a difference right now -- steps that can also serve as a buffer in case the situation in europe gets any worse. so, right now, congress should pass a bill to help states prevent more layoffs, so we can put thousands of teachers and firefighters and police officers back on the job.

layoffs at the state and local levels have been a chronic problem for our recovery, but it's a problem we can fix. congress should have passed a bill a long time ago to put thousands of construction workers back on the job rebuilding our roads and our bridges and our runways. since the housing bubble burst, no sector has been hit harder than the construction industry, and we've got all this stuff that needs fixed. remember that bridge here in minnesota? so this is a problem we can fix. let's do it right away. instead of just talking about job creators, congress should give small business owners a tax break for hiring more workers and paying them higher wages. we can get that done. we can get it done right now. let's not wait.

right now, congress should give every responsible homeowner the opportunity to save an average of $3,000 a year by refinancing their mortgage. we've got historically low rates right now. i was with a family in reno, nevada, a couple weeks ago. they got a chance to refinance -- even though their home was underwater -- put that money back in their pockets because we had taken some steps as an administration to make that available for those who have mortgages held by government agencies like the fha or a government guarantee. but not everybody has those kinds of mortgages. i want everybody to have those same opportunities. i assume there are some folks here who could use $3,000 a year. let's get that done right now. that means there are going to be -- if you have $3,000 a year extra, that helps you pay down your credit cards. that helps you go out and buy

some things that your family needs, which is good for business. maybe somebody will be replacing some thingamajig for their furnace. they've been putting that off. extra they've got that money, they might just go out there and buy that thing. right? right now, congress needs to extend the tax credits for clean energy manufacturers that are set to expire at the end of this year. i was talking to dave cote. the issue of energy efficiency and everything we need to do to shift away from dependence on foreign oil, we're making huge

progress. we're actually importing less oil than any time in the last eight years. we're down under 50 percent, but we can do more. and these clean energy companies, they're hiring folks. they're helping us break dependence on foreign oil. it's part of a package of stuff that honeywell is doing a lot of work on. but almost 40,000 jobs are on the line if these tax credits expire. why would anyone in congress walk away from those jobs? we need to pass those tax credits right now. we need to pass them right now. startedg past time we encouraging what a lot of companies have been doing lately, which is bringing jobs back to this country. and some of them are coming to minnesota. the governor and i were talking in the car about some companies coming back -- red bull, right, coming back.

but let's give more incentive. it's time for congress to end tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. let's use that money to cover moving expenses for companies that are bringing jobs back to america. that would make a difference right now. so those are all steps that we could be taking to strengthen the economy, to provide us some insurance if the situation overseas starts getting worse so we can control our own destiny, keep this recovery moving forward. which brings me to the last thing congress should do to help businesses create jobs -- that's why i'm here at honeywell today. i believe that no one who fights for this country should ever have to fight for a job when they come home.

[applause] and for congress, that means creating a veterans job corps so we can put our returning heroes back to work as cops and firefighters, on projects that protect our public lands and resources. and they should do it right now. they should do it right now. but if we're going to serve our veterans as well as they've served us, we've got to do even more. we just observed memorial day, which makes us think about the extraordinary sacrifices so many make. but we've got to make sure we translate words into action. we can't just be in a parade, can't just march. we also have to deliver for our veterans.

over the past three decades -- over the past decades, rather, more than 3 million service members have transitioned back to civilian life. and now that the war in iraq is over and we're starting to wind down the warn afghanistan -- over a million more of those outstanding heroes, they're going to be joining this process of transition back into civilian life over the next few years. now, just think about the skills these veterans have acquired at an incredibly young age. think about the leadership they've learned -- 25-year-olds, 26-year-olds leading platoons into unbelievably dangerous situations, life-or-death situations.

think about the cutting-edge technologies they've mastered; their ability to adapt to changing and unpredictable situations -- you can't get that stuff from a classroom. i mean, these kids, these men, these women, they've done incredible work, and that's exactly the kind of leadership and responsibility that every business in america should be wanting to attract, should be competing to attract. that's the kind of talent we need to compete for the jobs and the industries of the future. these are the kinds of americans that every company should want to hire. [applause] and that's why, here at honeywell, you've made it a mission to hire more veterans. and let me say, dave is

incredibly patriotic, loves his veterans, but this -- honeywell is doing this not just because it feels good. they're doing it because it's good for business, because veterans make outstanding workers. so today, i'm taking executive action that will make it easier for a lot of companies to do the same thing. i've told the story before of a soldier in the 82nd airborne who served as a combat medic in afghanistan, saved lives over there, earned a bronze star for his actions. but he came home, here to minnesota -- met him on our way to cannon falls. when he first came home, he couldn't even get a job as a first responder. think about it -- this guy is

out there taking care of troops who are wounded in action, couldn't initially get a job. so then he took classes through the post-9/11 gi bill -- classes that he could have taught just so he could qualify for the same duties at home that he had performed every day at war. let me tell you something -- if you can save a life on the battlefield, you can save a life in an ambulance. [applause] if you can oversee a convoy or millions of dollars of assets in iraq, you can help manage a supply chain or balance its books here at home. if you can maintain the most advanced weapons in the world, if you're an electrician on a

navy ship, well, you can manufacture the next generation of advanced technology in our factories like this one. if you're working on complex machinery, you should be able to take those skills and find a manufacturing job right here -- right here at home. but, unfortunately, a lot of returning heroes with advanced skills like these, they don't get hired simply because they don't have the civilian licenses or certifications that a lot of companies require. at the same time, i hear from business leaders all the time who say they can't find enough workers with the skills necessary to fill open positions. eighty percent of manufacturers say this, according to one survey. so think about it -- we got all these openings and all these skilled veterans looking for work, and somehow they're

missing each other. that doesn't make any sense. so that's where executive action comes in. that's where we're going to fix it. today, i'm proud to announce new partnerships between the military and manufacturing groups that will make it easier for companies to hire returning servicemembers who prove they've earned the skills our country needs. soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, coast guardsmen -- if they've got skills in machining or welding or weapons maintenance, for example, you'll have a faster track to good-paying manufacturing jobs. servicemembers with experience in logistics or maintenance on the front lines, they'll have a faster track to jobs in those fields here at home.

i've also directed the department of defense to establish a new task force charged with finding new opportunities for servicemembers to use the skills they've learned in the military to gain the relevant industry credentials -- the civilian certifications and licenses -- so that it doesn't cost them and they don't necessarily have to go back to school for three years and take out a whole bunch of student loans when, potentially, they could do it quicker, more inexpensively, and get on the job faster. we're talking about jobs in manufacturing, in health care, in it, in logistics, for first responders -- so that returning combat medic that i spoke about, he doesn't have to prove himself over and over again. so this task force's first action is going to create opportunities for up to 126,000 servicemembers to gain the industry-recognized certifications for high-demand manufacturing jobs like the jobs right here at this plant at honeywell.

this builds on the skills for america's future partnership that we launched last year with the national association of manufacturers to provide 500,000 community college students with industry- recognized credentials that will help them secure good manufacturing jobs. and all of this builds on the steps we've already taken to make sure our returning heroes come home able to share in the opportunities that they have defended. because when our men and women sign up to become a soldier, a sailor, an airman, marine, coast guardsman, they don't stop being a citizen. when they take off that uniform, their service to this nation doesn't stop. think about previous generations. well, today's veterans are the same.

when they come home, they're looking to continue serving america however they can. and at a time when america needs all hands on deck, they've got the skills and the strength to help lead the way. our government needs their patriotism and their sense of duty. that's why i ordered the hiring of more veterans by the federal government; we've hired more than 200,000 so far. our economy needs their outstanding talent. that's why i pushed hard last year for tax breaks for businesses that hire unemployed veterans and wounded warriors. and i'm proud to say that both parties in congress came together to get that part done. that's why we launched free personalized job services -- job search services through the veterans gold card program and an online veterans job bank to help veterans find jobs that meet their talents. and, by the way, if there are any veterans here who need

those services, you can find that at whitehouse.gov/vets. and then, later this month, the va will hold a jobs fair in detroit where 12,000 more opportunities will be available to veterans. and that's also why i challenged business leaders to hire 100,000 post-9/11 veterans and their spouses by the end of next year -- because don't forget our military families. our're serving alongside veterans. michelle and jill biden -- that's michelle obama and jill biden -- just in case you were curious. you might not know which michelle i was talking about. they're leading this effort with respect to military families, nationally. it's called joining forces -- to mobilize all of us to support today's military families and their veterans. and so far, the good news is

participating businesses have hired more than 70,000 veterans. and they've pledged to hire 175,000 more in the coming years. and i want to thank honeywell not only for being an active partner in this initiative, but, right here, honeywell has hired 900 veterans over the past year, and for employing 65 veterans here just here at golden valley. so give them a big round of applause. [applause] proud of you. [applause] standing up for our veterans, this is not a democratic responsibility, it's not a republican responsibility -- it's an american responsibility. it's an obligation of every citizen who enjoys the freedom that these heroes defended. so we've got to meet our obligations today just like

folks here at honeywell are doing. and as commander-in-chief, i want all of our servicemembers and veterans to know we are forever grateful for your service and your sacrifice. just like you fought for us, we'll keep fighting for you, for more jobs, more security, for the opportunity to keep your families strong -- because you'll help us keep america on top in the 21st century. we're going to keep fighting, just as you did, to show just why it is that the united state of america is the greatest nation on earth. god bless you. god bless america. ♪

♪ ♪

♪

♪

♪

>> the house budget committee hears from former -- former gov. bush. that is followed by john boehner and nancy pelosi on the unemployment rate. later, president obama in minnesota talking about jobs and the economy.

jeb bush said he supported the government's efforts to rescue the financial industry in 2008, but was not in favor of the aide to u.s. auto companies. he testified before the house budget committee. this 2 hour and 45 minutes during examines the role of government. -- hearing examines the role of government.

both parties have pursue deficit driven spending aimed at favored companies, tax credits for the well-connected, and barriers that stack the deck against the average citizen. success is too often determined not by the quality of service that a business provides but by the relationship with those in power in washington. both parties share in the blame. both must work together to advance solutions to get us back on track. we passed a budget in the house that strengthens the safety net for those that needed and eliminates corporate welfare for those who do not need it. it insures a level playing field for all to prosper. the president's policy takes us in the wrong direction. he calls for greater complexity and the tax code. he insists on regulatory monstrosities that protect the entrenched at the expense of the entrepreneur were.

we have seen the results of this in europe. massive spending, high taxes, and corporate favoritism has burdened the continent with the economy is unable to grow. today's hearing is an effort to explore how we can get reforms consistent with our principles and match the magnitude of today pose a challenge. we must restore america's exceptional promise insuring all americans can chase their dreams. i want to thank our witnesses for joining us. we have a former governor jeb bush of florida. thank you for traveling with us today. he had been an outspoken

advocate to make sure the least of us have the opportunity to rise. we also have chris edwards. chris has been a long time advocate for a simpler tax code and his insightful criticism of the favoritism that now pervades washington spending and the tax code. then we will be joined by henry waxman. he knows we're starting at 9:00. he will show up hopefully by the time our opening statements and the two witnesses are done. henry is the ranking member of the energy and commerce committee. he is the minority's witness today. when the two gentlemen are done, hopefully he will be there by then. i would like to go to the ranking member. >> let me start from a place we all agree.

we all love america. we all believe america is a unique and special place. we all believe in american exceptional is done. the question is, how do we keep america strong, dynamic, and exceptional? on that we have different views and would make different choices. we believe our strength comes not only from the undisputed benefits of a free people pursuing their dreams but also from sometimes harnessing those talents for important national purposes. we believe america's rate as results from not only a collection of individuals acting alone for private profit but from our capacity to work together as americans for the common good. we believe on expanding opportunities so all-american have the chance to prosper. i must confess i am a little surprised to decided to be here today to criticize the efforts made over the last three years to lift the economy out of the mess that president obama inherited.

president bush pursued failed policies of trickle-down theory that would boost our economy. it lifted the yachts, but the rest of the boats ran aground. the financial crisis hit and jobs went into free-fall. by the end of those eight years america experienced a net loss of private-sector jobs. when he left office we were losing 830,000 jobs a month. american retirement savings collapsed between 2007 and the day president bush left office. our nation's fiscal health saw the greatest reversal in american history from large

projected surpluses to large projected deficits. i have searched the record and as far as i can tell during the eight-year. you did not challenge the bush administration's handling of the economy, criticized the excess of spending or the rising deficits. just looking at your testimony, i am looking forward to hearing it in full. you are here to tell us government actions have prevented us from the kind of "snack back economic recovery" we have seen and other post world war ii recoveries. two distinguished economists who are often cited by chairman ryan have demonstrated the economy's hit by a system that crises do not snapback within a year or two but take significantly longer to recover.

after all, none of the other post world war ii recessions require the extraordinary actions taken by their federal reserve as well as the huge wall street bailout called for by president bush to stabilize the financial system and prevent another depression. called for president bush supported by john boehner and chairman ryan and president obama and many of us on a bipartisan basis as a necessary action to prevent a total financial meltdown with devastating consequences for the economy. even with the rescue of the financial industry mainstream america was feeling the economic pain as millions of americans were losing their jobs. we all know what the figures were.

839,000 jobs lost per month as i say, the economy was heading down at a very rapidly collapsing rate of 8.9% negative gdp. when the president was sworn in, he was determined to take action to help those americans being heart by the economic tsunami. surely we should be willing to take action to help millions of americans don't out of work through no help of their own. the nonpartisan experts at the congressional office said created or saved up to 3 million jobs in 2010 alone. the president also believe if we rescue the banks, surely we should prevent the auto industry from being wiped out.

an action that saved millions of jobs. this was not about crony capitalism as the chairman has suggested. it was not about doing special favors for well-connected friends. it was about making sure a critical industry had a reasonable opportunity to survive given the financial crisis going on around it. gov. romney has suggested we should have led detroit go bankrupt. the crisis should have been handled through the normal bankruptcy process. former general motors vice chairman who also happens to be the republican took umbrage with this and said "it is once again the fiction that we did not need the government. this could have been a privately run bankruptcy with the normal chapter 11. what these people always deliberately for get is there was no money. nobody had money."

when they refer to this as chronic capitalism, i think many of us take great offense. we also passed the wall street reform bill to make sure that never again would reckless gambling on wall street wreak havoc on main street and the taxpayers holding the bill. i will wrap up in a minute, mr. chairman. i would like to point out that during that period of time, we were not getting very much help from our republican colleagues. not a single republican house member voted for the recovery bill. at a single one voted for the wall street reform bill. senator mcconnell, the leader in the senate in a moment of candor said, and i quote, "the single most important thing we need to achieve this for mr. obama to be a one-term president."

we have made progress on improving the economy and jobs. are we where we want to be? absolutely not. today's job numbers shows we need to make further progress. lessonsarn the right from what happened in the past. if we diagnose the problem wrongly then we have the wrong prescription. i do worry greatly about those who say the way for word is to adopt a souped up version of many of the policies that got us into the miss to begin with. i will close where i began on a point of agreement. if there is a government program that is not achieving its intended purpose, let's amended and get rid of it. if there is a regulation

outliving its usefulness, get rid of it. i hope we would adopt the same approach with special interest tax breaks. let's again remember that we have made some progress and we need to make more. let's not misdiagnose the problem. that's not learn the wrong results. >> i now know why the opening statement was so long. mr. waxman just arrived. i get it now. congressman waxman, please take your seat. we preannounced you already. mr. van holland was just announcing how excited he is gov. bush is with us today. we see things a little differently i guess. >> do you want to say how excited you are that i am here?

>> why do we not go with gov. bush, then mr. edwards, then congressman waxman. the floor is yours. >> it is a joy to be here. i did not come here to criticize anybody for the record. i came to share my views. i am not use to the 9:00 food fight that starts bright and early in washington. i am from florida where we do not start that way. it is great to be here. i am here to talk a little bit about what i think is an important subject as we try to recover the may jobs numbers were anemic at best. we do have an l shape recovery. is the first since world war ii where we have not had a robust recovery.

there is a cloud over our country that relates to the pessimism that we cannot restore the vitality of our economy in a way that creates opportunities. more and more people are becoming dependent at of the government at every level. it is important for this committee and policy makers to reflect on that. to figure out how to get their republicans and democrats, we can restore the right to rise in our country and restore a sense of optimism to rebuild our country. i do not question the intentions of people at all. i think there is a shared belief we need to do better. the question is how. what do we need to do in this chamber and state capitals to improve the outlook for job creation and overall prosperity should be the dominant question across our country. i would urge you to look to your primary rponsibility which is to manage the budgetary

affairs of the government. that is a good place to start. at 8.2 trillion dollars the u.s. budget is a powerful force in the economy. its size means entire industries operate in constant awareness of what you all do here. when you combine the budgetary power with the separate powers of taxation and regulation, you yield significant influence over the economy. it is not an overstatement to say that right now, the united states economy operates at the direction of the united states government and not the other way around. the growing size and influence was made possible by good intentions and hopeful policy ideas. behind every spending program, a tax incentive, and regulation there is an idea. it might be a good idea. those good ideas and the not so good ones add up. the cost of everything you do here, every rule, every car out,

earmarked drains activity investment and creative effort out of the private sector of the economy. that is why my best advice is for you to perform a fundamental cost/benefit reconsideration of many programs of the federal government. consider the unintended consequences of your actions. here is one example. there are 49 federal training programs in our country today. i wonder about that number. what do we as taxpayers get from 49 job-training programs that 29, 39, 6 could accomplish? how do we know people are choosing the right job training programs? how do we know the right people are running those programs? should all be packaged and sent down to the states to allow the laboratories to work more effectively so you can benchmark success and develop a 21st century strategy as it

relates to job training? do they operate with any sense that they could or should be closed if they fail? this is the daily worthy of american businesses and our country. these programs do not worry about being put out of business. i wonder whether they keep somebody in the private sector from building a business around providing skills training and whether that person might do a better job. in short when he tried to solve one problem you may not only failed you may create several others. if you multiply that example across the economy in multiple industries in multiple ways it is not hard to see what will happen, and it has happened. not only does the government grow bigger, it also displays is the private economy, the innovators, the people who risk their own savings, the establishment businesses that could grow by do not. we see this and taxing programs

as well. tax policies that advantage certain activities are just another form in my opinion of government spending and subsidy. while the grant to some companies and industries benefits, they also tend to disadvantage other companies and industries. this is a matter of fairness. why should a company pay taxes to support government subsidies that goes to one of their competitors? i understand there may be political support for companies and industries, but we know from recent experience the government is not good at picking winners and losers of the economy. it is not their job. i recognize why the government tries to control the marketplace. i have become clear about this

because i see it in the private sector as well. there are countless examples of companies that fail to move with the market simply because a smaller and more nimbler competitor arrives first with the solution. when a big company is beaten to the punch it either goes lean fast or it goes out of business. when government tries to intervene to eliminate the possibilities of failure they end up creating more of it rather than to allow the more innovative approach to work. the problem with government involvement is it does not go through the same process of innovation and sometimes fail year the exists. none of us will allow government to fail. what would occur in most private institutions, failure followed by defunding does not happen here. i was delighted to hear the approach that maybe it should begin.

that is a place i think there is a huge common ground. programs do not work, we fund them and allow for others to come in their place are not exist at all. i want to return to the rationale behind such a process. this is not about making government more efficient. it is about making government a smaller part of the economy. we have to raise freeze the impulse to solve all problems frondizi this only makes government bigger and the problems still remain. we have to ask whether the status quo is the best way to solve problems congress set itself up to solve the. i think there are better approaches to that. i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you. mr. edwards. >> thank you for inviting me to testify today. i will discuss for reasons why corporate welfare is bad and i will talk about the real

solutions the u.s. economic growth is unleashing an entrepreneurship. we have trillion dollar deficits. right now we cannot afford corporate welfare or business subsidies. i estimate subsidies are about $100 billion a year. that is a small part of the total budget but a good place to start cutting. corporate welfare is unfair. the largest corporate welfare program is a farm subsidies. in my view they are like a reverse robin hud program. they take from average taxpayers and give to high income farm households. 25% above the u.s. average. farm subsidies and other business subsidies are unfair. they take from average people and give to higher income people. corporate welfare does not work. well meeting policymakers want to support businesses because they believe it will make them more competitive. i think they backfire. on energy subsidies we have been

subsidizing energy for four decades and it has been boondoggle after boondoggle. go back to the 1970's. you had a big project that was a republican boondoggle and ended up being a total failure and wasted billions of dollars. they had a democratic boondoggle under jimmy carter that wasted billions of dollars of taxpayer money that was a huge boondoggle. this is a bipartisan problem. why does corporate welfare not work? political pressure is often undermined sound economic decision making. we saw that with solyndra. it changes the behavior of businesses. businesses become more spendthrift when they get subsidies. you see that with solyndra. they built a big fancy factory in california.

a lean and competitive company would have done that. these companies invest in risky projects that often blow up. that is the story of enron. enron received reports $7 billion in subsidies during the 1990's from opec and many other federal programs. and ron would not have done on the risky foreign investing without the federal subsidies. all of those foreign projects that they took part of came crashing down and helped pull down the companies. subsidies induce bad decision making by businesses. corporate welfare generates corruption in my view. i have always generated corruption. go on the way back to the first

transcontinental railroad in the united states. that generated a huge scandal in the 1870's. the to ronald reagan's department of housing and urban development. it overflowed with corruption. the to the 1990's, i believe president clinton's commerce department also overflowed with corruption. he handed out business subsidies in return for campaign contributions to the democratic party. this is a bipartisan problem. corporate subsidies do not work. what can we do to spur growth? we should unleash entrepreneurs. it has come from new businesses creating new industries. you can go back as i have and look at american economic history. automobiles, aircraft,

electronics, cell phones, personal computers, biotechnology -- those are all new industries created by upstart entrepreneurs. getting out of the way of entrepreneurs is the most important thing we can do for the economy. modern telecommunications revolution in large part is the result of mci's battling in the 1970's to compete against the at&t monopoly. federal express created a resolution the -- revolution of battling against regulation in the 1970's. my policy recommendation, remove subsidies, tear down barriers,

and i think we will unleash more economic growth. i think repealing farm subsidies would spur innovation and the agriculture industry like new zealand. we need to go in that direction. privatizing amtrack, the air- traffic control system, those sorts of reforms i think would spur innovation and give an entrepreneurs new areas to work in. last week we saw the space station, that is the idea the good job they can do if we give them some space. tax reform is in portland. i know the chairman supports lowering tax rates and eliminating loopholes. we do need to lower the corporate tax rate and capital gains tax rate. it is very important for venture capital and angel investment. i support the approach to tax reform. that is about all my comments.

we have all kinds of other proposal ofcato's website. >> thank you. >> i am honored to be among you to discuss this very important issue which goes to the question of what is the role of government and what is the appropriate way for a capitalist economy to succeed. all three of us believe in the capital economist -- the capitalist economy. how do we get that to function best and how do we deal with the market failures and inequities that have left us with a very stark contrast between the people who have a lot and the many who have very little as well as the middle class that is getting very squeezed. we have a different sense about a division for a america. republicans will argue

government regulations are bad for the economy. public investments harm free enterprise. democrats have a more optimistic vision. we believe the economy works best when the government establishes the rules of the road. adopting sensible standards, protecting the middle class, promoting competition and preventing corporate abuses. we believe public investments in our country's future will pay off. we believe educating tamara's workers, supporting entrepreneurs. we believe history has proved our side of the case. house republicans want to return to an america that predated the new deal, the fair deal, the great society, a time when the robber barons ran this country. the legislation the republican controlled house has passed would bring back a world where there are no restraints on wall street banks and others,

enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else. we tried that. in the 1930's the absence of government regulation and fair rules for competition broad as the great depression. in 2008 the same theory of government brought us the great recession. it is not government regulation that caused our economic woes. i chaired hearings in 2008 when i was chairman of the oversight committee on the collapse of wall street. what we found was the absence of cops on the beat, the heartbreak in unemployment hurting families stems from a philosophy that wall street banks should be allowed to operate free from regulation. even if that means jeopardize in our economic future for their profits. americans cherish clean air.

clean water, safe food, protections of the environment and their health. republicans in the house have voted again and again with the oil companies and corporate polluters. this is the most anti environment house in the history of this country. last year i asked my staff to start tracking anti environmental votes on the house floor. today the republican controlled house havoted 200 times to weaken and eliminate protections from human health and the environment. the house voted to repeal standards that are at the heart of the clean air act with no hearings and 10 minutes of debate. when it comes to health issues the house is stunningly anti health. not only do we see proposals to cut back on preventive care, the republican budget adopted by the house slashes medicaid by over one trillion dollars. it ends the guarantee for

medicare benefits for seniors and individuals with disabilities. instead they give them a voucher and tells them to go shop and a broken health insurance market. the priorities reflected in the house budget are wrong. that would make seniors pay more for their medicare. it would preserve tax loopholes for oil companies and at the same time lower taxes for millionaires and billionaires. corporate subsidies are not just government expenditures, they are expenditures through the tax code as well. we see a lot of that going on. i find myself in common ground with some of what mr. edwards had to say. 98% of the republican members of the congress have pledged to oppose any increase in tax rate and a reduction of tax

loopholes to reduce the deficit. no wonder the wealthiest continue to grow wealthier as the middle-class troubles just to get by. no wonder we are facing a fiscal crisis. one especially clear embodiment of the misplaced priorities of house republicans is their hostility to clean energy. the international energy agency says trillions of dollars will be invested in new energy infrastructure over the next 20 years. our economic growth and our national security will be determined on whether we succeed in building these new clean energy industries for the future. house republicans want to be fund investments in the wind, solar, and other forms of clean energy. there budget attacks billions of dollars in subsidies that the oil industry receives, a well established very profitable industry that will crush

competition if the government does not stand up to allow new enterprises to take their place. the house republican position is based on science the nile. if you deny the existence of climate change, an overwhelming republican majorities denies it, the urge for clean energy may not be apparent. if you live in reality you know the world cannot continue its dependence on fossil fuels. you know without government involvement we are in danger of losing the booming clean energy industry and millions of jobs to competitors such as china and germany. we can grow a stronger and better america with jobs and opportunities for everyone who work hard and play by their roles. to do so we have to reject the defeatist anti science, and i

progress, and tied jobs view of those who oppose investments and clean energy who want to preserve tax rates at the expense of the middle-class, who want to slash the safety net and and medicare guaranteed. this is an important hearing. democrats and republicans hold starkly different views about the role of government. i welcome the opportunity to discuss the differences with you today. thank you. >> thank you. so much for bipartisan comity i guess. >> are we not allowed to talk about our -- >> it is perfectly fine. >> is that class warfare? >> we just got the number is a while ago. only 65,000 jobs added last month, about half of what the markets were expecting.

the last two months, we are down 45,000 jobs. the unemployment rate has gone up to 8.2%. people who are looking for jobs that did not find one, people who stop looking for a job or people let won a full-time job went up to 14 1/8%. it is not working. the economic policies we have on the working. i always try not to say what it is my political adversary is in favor of -- i will let him speak for himself -- but i think what we are trying to establish here is both parties messed this up. mr. edwards did a good job going over how with good intentions, republicans and democrats, had believed that if they could put some kind of preference in law

for a selected industry, a selective bowl, a selected company, that good things would result from that. it is helpful to us to go back and look at the track record of this bipartisan idea that government is smarter and better at picking winners and losers in the marketplace than the market itself is. what we have learned from this bipartisan approach is that corruption does occur. cronyism does occur. what ends up happening is those who are connected, those who have established connections, those who know the ways of washington end up usually getting the benefits, and those who are out there were around america working hard. it makes it harder for people to rise and create new ideas and businesses, which, as we have learned through the economy, through economic evidence, is the greatest chance of giving people prosperity, of decentralizing wealth in this country, allowing people to rise and have social mobility. what we're trying to do is recognize that both parties messed this up.

let's not sit around and point fingers at each other. let's go back to what works -- entrepreneurship, small business growth, risk-taking, and, yes, regulations that are fair for all. regulations that do put guard rails up so that we have transparency, so that we have on his plate, so that we have rules of the road that apply equally to everybody. that is what we are trying to reestablish your. no one is suggesting we have some kind of dog eat dog society where the powerful and connected survive at the expense of everybody else.

we are seeing the same rules apply to everybody so that you, based on your own merit and god-given talent -- that determines success so that our goal in america is to establish a starting line so we can promote equal opportunity so people can make the most of their lives instead of having people pick and choose winners in washington. what ends up happening, whether a republican is in the white house for a democrat is in the white house or whoever is running congress, is interest groups get involved and decide how it is done at the end of the day. that does not work. we have seen our friends in europe try this, and we look at the results of that now. governor bush and mr. edwards, you have seen this work. you have great experience in government. has this worked that the state level? state government does not do this the lot.

the stimulus, for example, sent a lot of money to the states. did that work? did these job programs, which were created with good intentions -- does that work to actually giving people the tools they need to go into getting skills so they can get onto a career path that they were in an obsolete industry that is gone? you know, where i live, we lost four of factories since 2008 -- four auto factories. the guys i grew up with and went to high school with do not have a sector to work in and people are trying to go back to school to get back on their feet again. does this approach work? did the stimulus program work? mr. edwards, give me more examples of that the canadian system. i think that is intriguing. you are right about how canada went after a lot of this corporate welfare, this cronyism. give me more anecdotes on that.

i think there is something we can learn from the canadians on this front. governor bush. >> we had a mini-stimulus package when i was governor, and for some states it works because they had chronic deficits, and they filled the gap, and they consider that stimulate rather than changing how they do things. in the case of florida, we took that money and used it on a onetime basis to try to help create -- to invest in basic research, which i think is the proper role of government. this is where my cato institute friend and i might disagree. i think there's a role for government in building capacity, building infrastructure, and that is what we use the money for. it was not stimulative in terms of an economic recovery, but we already handled our budget because we have a balanced budget requirement. as almost every other state, we had to make decisions and challenge how we do things, and

we got through the crisis quite well. similarly, i think many states did the same thing this last year. florida did not raise taxes the last couple of years. florida has not raised taxes. in fact, florida has cut taxes. the challenge became an opportunity, which happens in the private sector as well. when you do not have the pressure of a balanced budget requirement, as you all do not have here, then it does not really matter, but every other jurisdiction -- local and state governments -- have that challenge, and they adjust. i would say, to use the clean energy example, a better approach would be to spend less money, but spend it on basic research that creates the disruptive technologies that are market-based instead of picking and winners -- instead of picking winners and losers that ends up protecting companies that did not have the best ideas.

the market than punish them, and the united states government was out of pocket. a better approach would be for the government to do what it does best, which is to fund basic research, applied research, to be able to create the next generation of industries, but let the market solutions be the means by which we achieve the desired result. >> i believe in the 50 states as the laboratories of democracy. i believe in federalism. i believe we ought to get a lot of these programs out of washington and let the states figure out whether they want to do them. we have had job-training programs since john f. kennedy's administration. they have never worked very well. let states fund it and do it, and then the states can learn from each other to see what works.

the problem is we have over 1000 federal aid to state programs now. they are massively bureaucratic. there are rules and regulations with each of these programs. they put state governments in a straitjacket, which does not make any sense, and we see that now with no child left behind -- states have rebelled against that. we have sort of a marble cake with american federalism, and we should have a layer cake with each level of government doing their own programs and the states looking to see what works. to transition over to canada -- this is one of the things canada did. two decades ago, canada was in a horrible budget situation -- massive deficits, overspending, wall street downgrading its debt. they did a series of five years of really big spending cuts. they cut their total federal budget 10% in two years, which

would be like us cutting $400 billion out of the budget. they cut aid to foreign governments. they cut defense. they cut all kinds of stuff, and it has worked extremely well. the canadian economy did not go into recession. the canadian economy boomed for 15 years. even as these spending cuts dramatically dropped the size of their government. but a couple of numbers on that, go back a couple of decades. federal governments in canada and the united states were both around 23%, 24% of gdp. the canadian federal government is around 15% of gdp. ours is up around 23%, 24%. they cut government and decentralized federalization, and it worked very well. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do believe this is a lot of

agreement, but let me just start with what got me going here. the chairman, in his opening remarks, talk about the obama's administration and crony capitalism and continued to refer to the auto rescue. not as an example a government package that created millions of jobs -- that rescued millions of jobs, but as an example of cronyism. i believe you supported the efforts that president bush took to rescue the financial sector, which, in part, precipitated the crisis. many of us believe it was also appropriate to take the actions that president obama did to help rescue the auto industry and a billion jobs. did you support that effort? no? ok. i understand.

do you agree with governor romney's position that we should have let them go bankrupt? >> they did go bankrupt, but it was in a government-induced bankruptcy that allowed for general motors now not to pay taxes, based on profits that otherwise they would have to be paying taxes on. that is the form of capitalism when the government intervenes in a very muscular kind of way, and i do not believe that is appropriate. and then maybe i made an assumption. maybe i was wrong. did you support the rescue of wall street banks? >> i have never been asked that either. now you are asking. i think given the circumstances of the potential for a meltdown that would have been hard to recover, some support was

appropriate. was the next step adding regulations on top of regulations? the congressman in his remarks made an interesting point -- assuming there was no regulation on the banks or financial services industry prior to the passage of dodd- frank -- in fact, there was massive regulation. i would argue that enforcement was the problem. as a short-term solution to a problem that had global implications. to add on to the challenge that we face massive rules that will take years to implement that create more uncertainty and the probability of more unintended consequences that will create a weakening economy rather than a strengthening one, i think it was the wrong approach.

>> let me talk about the budget issues and some of the government expenditures. the figure of government spending is about $3.60 trillion. a big part of that is social security. that came about after the great depression as a way to provide retirement security for americans. i am assuming you do not think that is an inappropriate government interference? another major part of that $3.60 trillion is the medicare. we realized in the 1960's, the private health insurance market did not see a lot of profits to be made in ensuring older

people. that is a major job. putting aside the issue of reform, you think that is inappropriate intervention? -- that is an appropriate intervention? the idea that there should be some government role in providing help security to seniors. >> in a dramatically different way, i can see it happening. accepting medicare as it was created in 1968 in 2012, that is the problem. we have this attitude that if you start something in the mid- 20th century, it is appropriate to keep doing it the same way 50 years later. >> there is a difference of opinion as to what kind of reforms will need to take in medicare. that is a longer discussion. i think everybody around this table recognizes that we need to address those issues. we have different models and they are efforts to modernize

programs. the part of the budget that most of this conversation is circled around, is the discretionary budget. it represents about 16% of our overall budget. it is a shrinking part of the budget. it is the result of a trillion dollars in cuts that we made last august. it will be reduced to the lowest percentage of the economy since the eisenhower administration. the shrinking part of the budget -- it helps the fbi, homeland security. you mentioned basic research. nih dozen credible amount of import and research. there are lots -- does an incredible amount of important research. they do not -- i hope he will agree with the logic that just because some of those investments and research project

-- projects do not pan out, the solution is to get rid of investment in nih.