prevention, and chronic illness care. you can argue whether the mandate is the only means to get there, but at least in the analyses that i have seen it was one of the best identified ways to get everyone covered. and so the american people, when you ask them about the different provisions of the law, are overwhelming majority really supports the provisions that we've been able to provide for them in the health care reform. . we need to make sure it is implemented, we are doing what the american people sent us here to do. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. >> i send to the desk a rule for filing under the rule. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 74, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 6079 to repeal the

patient protection and health care related provisions in the health care and education reconciliation act of 2010. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. gohmert: these can be the best of times and the worst of times. there's still so much potential this country has so much in the way of assets, but it is interesting to hear my friends across the aisle talk about the wonders of obamacare, but i know

this president has said before, if you make more than $250,000, you won't ever have your taxes raised. he said it a lot of different ways. and yet, when i read the -- his version of the american jobs act that he himself pushed forward, promulgated, demanded be passed, it actually raised taxes on everybody that made more than $125,000. so he broke a promise there. and obamacare, it's very clear that if you make just above the poverty line, and you can't afford the kind of cadillac insurance that's demanded that you purchase, you are going to get ham mered with a taxed and it will be 2.5% extra income

tax. he basically has pushed through a bill that makes war with those who can least afford to buy health insurance. adding a 2.5% tax to people who are the most vulnerable and hard-working folks, just trying to get by and they are going to have to pay extra 2.5% income tax? now, the enlightened chief justice explains through pages 11 through 15 of his opinion, that it's actually not a tax, but clearly a penalty, because if you don't buy the insurance at the high level the government will dictate, then it will be necessary for you to pay an extra hunk of income tax.

the hard-working, least-able-to-afford it. it's great, happy day for you. then if you go through the rest of his opinion, he says the commerce clause doesn't make the obamacare bill constitutional, but then he gets around to saying, regardless of what congress called it, they called it a penalty, we'll just say it's a penalty for purposes of jurisdiction that allows us to take up the case. but for purposes of whether or not it's constitutional, we'll call it what it is, a tax. one of the worst decisions this chief justice has ever made. one of the worst ever read, poorly written by a man who should have known better.

but this administration has broken so many promises. had negotiations with egyptian leader mubarak. were certainly ready to throw him under the bus, just as they have our allies in the northern alliance that successfully defeated the taliban within a matter of months with our assistance but with less than 500 military in country. and now, after the president added troops and we added over 100,000 troops, this administration is ready to turn the country over to president karzai and the taliban. the taliban have been on national television saying, obviously, by virtue of the obama administration, begging us to come to the table promising

they'll release some of our murdering thugs from confinement and buy us first-class offices in qatar, depending on where you are. well, gee, it's obvious to the world, they said, that the united states has lost the war in afghanistan. congratulations, president obama for making it clear to the taliban that you have lost the war for us. and now, we are advised the president has invited egypt's islamic leader to the united states. past administrations have recognized that the muslim brotherhood's end goal of a giant, worldwide caliphate, where we all full play under

sharia law and we have freedom only to worship allah and that justice is only under sharia, and this administration is embracing him wholeheartedly. this article, july 8, sunday, from "business and financial news" it headlines "obama injites egypt's leader to the u.s.." has invited the new leader to visit the united states in september. says washington is an alley -- ally, shifted formal contacts

with the muslim brotherhood. says he formerly resigned from the group after his victory, but no where is there an indication that egypt's new president has disavowed the effort to make the united states -- they have called the great satan subservient to sharia law. in fact, the egyptian muslim broothood's leader has posted yesterday, egypt's muslim brotherhood's chairman, also known as the supreme guide, the supreme guide over the newly legitimated egyptian leader, said last week that waging jihad

against israel is an imperative for every muslim. middle east watcher, who scours the arabic press and translated it and posted this on his blog. according to last thursday's edition, during his weekly sermon, muhammad, the muslim brotherhood supreme guide struggled for every muslim to get the hands from the rapists, israelis and cleanse palestine from the clutches of the occupation, deeming this an individual duty for all muslims. more specifically, he called on all muslims to wage jihad with their money and their selfs to free jerusalem, the same exact

language that one finds in al qaeda's tract. article goes on, earlier this year, the research media institute translated which he called for establishing a global caliphate leading to mastership of the world. and mastership of the world is what is in quotes. and it is interesting, because it hadn't been that long ago and that was posted from patrick poole. this was posted july 5, 2012. it says "rewind 2010, egypt's president calls for expulsion of u.s. ambassadors across the middle east." poole says while doing a bit of filing in the office yesterday i

came across a reuters' article of more recent interest. that was the time when jerry jones in florida was threatening to burn the koran on the 9/11 anniversary and had the muslim world in an uproar before he committed the act which happened several months later. in the mere contemplation of such an action, the muslim brotherhood was calling on all muslim countries to expel all u.s. ambassadors and who is making this call, according to reuters, the spokesman for the individual muslim brotherhood said the organization was calling for pressure on all muslim governments to expel u.s. ambassadors. yes, this is what we want to encourage, this type of leader. we want to tell the world by

this president's open arms at the white house, not with the ill treatment previously of prime minister netanyahu, but with open arms, a member of the muslim brotherhood, who has never disclaimed the desire to make us subser via ent to -- subserve yent to sha higha law, bringing him to the white house. as we speak to different people from around the world, those who are truly fighting for freedom and not the freedom of the -- the muslim brotherhood talks about, but freedom only to worship allah but freedom to worship or whether one wore ships at all, they say when the united states invites someone

and shows hospitality to people in the world, the rest of the world gets the message that the conduct of those individuals they are inviting and embracing and having smiling pictures with , that their conduct is a good thing. that when this country's leaders embrace leaders of other countries, it tells the world, this is what we think in america is the way to act, the way to be, the thing to do. and that it is very deflating, having talked to yarnian refugees in northern iraq, they just get devastated when they see an american leader being so chummy with people they know

embrace terrorism, have no problem with terrorist activities to promote islamic -- spreading around the world. this president should be far more careful about who he encourages and who he discourages, because the true friends of liberty around the world, who stood up to syria's leader, they were not embraced by this president. there was no statement from this president, gee, let's do for the protestors, the rebels in syria what i demanded we did in libya. there was nothing like that. we have sent secretary of state clinton over to the middle east. there have been statements, gee,

we don't like what you're doing, but nothing like what this white house did cutting the legs out from under mubarak who at least tried to keep the peace with israel to some extent and what he did in actually providing bombs, air cover, to take out gaddafi in libya. and we knew at the time, muslim brotherhood will probably take over egypt. they called us the great satan. we knew in libya that there were even al qaeda who want to bring about this nation's end violently. and yet, this president embraced those al qaeda rebels along with the other rebels in libya. got bombs, provided air cover. that's been done for syria. and it's a little bit strange,

because much of the world considers syria's leader to be a mere pup pet of the iranian terrorist leaders. and certainly russia, who has shown great hostility to some of the things we deem to be appropriate liberty, they embrace the actions of the syrian leader. so where was this president when there were true freedom seekers stepping up and being killed? giving a pretty speech. . well, another article that was in the blaze, july 8, says, "the jerusalem post" explains, washington long way of islamists and a former ally of ousted president mubarak shifted policy

last year to open formal contacts with the muslim brotherhood. the group behind mercy's win. mercy's success at the polls mirrors the rising influence of islamists in countries across the middle east and north africa in the wake of revolts and protests against autocratic rulers who have led the region for decades. but the obama administration has invited egypt's new islamist leader to visit the united states in september, according to an egyptian official. clearly reflecting washington's changing view of islamists and the muslim brotherhood. another article posted april 26 of this year from the blaze -- "the blace" -- "the blaze."

entitled, want to know how close the muslim brotherhood is to the obama administration? there was a powerful documentary, rumors of war iii, explaining how radicals i lamists, including the muslim brotherhood, are infiltrating american government at its highest levels. above is a video clip from the program outlining some of the key players involved. it goes on to talk about the former department of homeland security assistant secretary for policy development. now a distinguished visiting professor of d.h.s. and counterterrorism at the defense -- national defense university. he also served as deputy mayor for public safety of the city of los angeles. where he reportedly derailed the lapd's efforts to monitor the city's muslim community, particularly its radical mosques and madrassahs where certain 11

hijackers were said to have received support. he is affiliated with impact which has called the terrorist group hezbollah a liberation movement. and it goes on. it establishes some of the ties of this administration with members of the muslim brotherhood. it was intriguing to me when i asked our own secretary of homeland security, janet napolitano, how many members of the muslim brotherhood were on her countering violent terrorism -- or violent extremism, she can't use the word terrorism, she couldn't tell me whether 10 were muslim brotherhood or not. she didn't know. but some of these things for some of us bring back memories. memories of occurrences back

from the late 1970's when our own president, jimmy carter, who has to be encouraged by this president's administration, because people thought, many people have said they thought he had the worst presidency in history. did so much damage to international affairs. when you look at what this administration has done, i mean, to the extent that an african, west africa, elderly gentleman but full of wisdom wanted to meet me and visit when i was there a couple of years ago, we were very excited that you elected a black man as your president. but we have seen america appear to grow weaker and weaker in the eyes of most people. and he asked that i come back

and convey, and i have on more than bun owe -- one occasion, that you must not allow the united states to grow weak. those of us who are crastian in foreign countries re-- christian in foreign countries rely on the united states' strength to keep us somewhat safe. and if you let the world think that the united states is weak or become weak then many of us have no hope of being safe in this life. this country has to stand strong . we've seen it grow weaker and weaker in the eyes of the world. there's an article that's reprinted, july 9, today, in "human events" which was originally about robert spencer, back february 14 of this year. he said, last week the egyptian

government pronounced or announced it intends to put 19 americans on trial for foe meanting antigovernment protests -- foementing antigovernment protests. if you're of a certain age this should sound familiar. on november 4, 1979, iran an thugs stormed the u.s. embassy in tehran and took 52 americans hostage. jimmy carter's government wrung its hands in futility for the next 14 months until finally the islamic republic released the hostages, january 20, 1981, the day ronald reagan took office as president of the united states. the bitter irony in all that was that carter had betrayed the shah of iran, and thereby paved the way for the assent of power of the ayatollah could he manyy and the -- khomeini and the iranian molacracy that has ruled

iran ever since. rather than feel gratitude toward carter, however, khomeini viewed his abandonment of the shah as a sign of weakness and pressed forward with his jihad against the great satan. iran has been hostile toward the united states ever since -- since then, including gleeful predictions of our nation's imminent demise, just days ago iran's supreme leader declared to an enthusiastic tehran crowd that, quote, in light of the realization of the divine promise by all mighty god, the zionist and the great satan america will soon be defeated. allah's promises will be delivered and islam will be victorious. the original ayatollah khomeini was said by jimmy carter to be a man of -- a fellow man of faith.

well, he has a different kind of faith. and we have soldiers still dying today because the united states of america allowed some iranian thugs, terrorists, to commit an act of war by attacking an american embassy, taking americans hostage and did nothing to defend our territory. i was at fort benning at the time, we were put on alert, nobody wanted to go to iran, but everybody expected surely we will do something to show these islamic jihadists, these thugs, that you cannot commit an act of war against the united states and not pay a price. because as the united states government, we have a duty to provide for the common defense. we have a duty to protect american property.

and when american property is attacked and under everybody's interpretation of international law, an embassy is that country's own property, we let it go without anything but weak -kneed responses and we're paying the price today. but we see this president, who thinks a wonderful speech, and he's good at them, he reads them so well. and throwing in constant apologies to people who want to destroy us and see us wiped off the map. well, somehow -- will somehow engender love and devotion from people who want to destroy us. it doesn't work that way internationally. we have a duty to protect this constitution and we have -- we are not doing so in embracing enemies of this country who still have not disclaimed the

pledge, the effort to see this country overthrown. there was a time when presidents would view people who have made such claims and pledges or been part of terrorist organizations, we would not embrace such individuals. because we know the harm it does to our allies. one article from a guy named michael d d. evans says carter viewed khamenei as a religious holy man and a grassroots revolution rather than a founding father of modern terrorism who introduced thes i -- islamofascist ideology, we are fighting today in the world war on terrorism. as henry kissinger said, quote, carter has managed the extraordinary feat of having at one and the same time the worst relations with our allies, the

worst relations with our adversaries and the most serious upheavals in the developing world since the end of world war -- of the second world war. that was then and now we have another president doing the very same thing. there's an article from "the new york times" back in june of 2001 . prime minister sharon of israel will meet with president bush at the white house next week, the second time the two have held face to face discussions since mr. sharon's election. in contrast, yasser arafat, the palestinian leader, has not been invited to washington by the bush administration and officials made clear today that they had no plans to do so in the near future. so far the administration has kept mr. arafat at arm's length,

a stark difference from president clinton who brought the palestinian leader to the white house more than any other foreign leader. those messages are not missed by allies and enemies alike around the world. another article, this from "the new york times" posted today. in his first major speech last month, muhammad marcy, the new egyptian president, pledged to seek the release of a notorious egyptian terrorist from a north carolina prison. not long before that a member of a designated terrorist organization, who also happens to be a recently elected member of the egyptian parliament, was welcomed to washington as part of an official delegation sponsored by the state

department. obama administration officials made no public comment, -- about the promise and struggled to explain why the egyptian parliament member got a visa since after all he was a member of the designated terrorist organization. he got not only a visa, he got entrance into our most secure administration dwellings. the article says that the administration cited privacy rules, declining to say whether he had been granted a waiver from the ban on such terrorist visitors or whether his affiliations simply escaped notice. pressed by reporters after the visa quickly became a congressional controversy, a state department spokeswoman said he had been judged to pose

no threat to the united states. quote, it's a new day in egypt, unquote, she added. quote, it's a new day in a lot of countries across the middle east and north africa, unquote. and i might add, it was a new day in iran when the ayatollah khomeini took over and president carter welcomed him as a fellow man of faith. this article from "the times" says for the obama administration, as it navigates the tumultuous effects of the arab spring, it's a complicated day as well. long held assumptions about who is a friend of the united states and who is not have been upset leaving many americans confused. well, it's leaving not only americans confused, it's leaving our allies confused. we have people around the world who have fought with us, they

have fought for us and this administration has turned its back on them. . . you can go to the country of afghanistan, some terrible killings once again occurred. we know that pakistan, according to the people i have talked to traveling afghanistan, pakistan is basically the biggest source of supplies reinforcement or help to the taliban. and what do we do? we have our secretary of state apologize to the country who kept our country's biggest enemy, the mastermind behind the killing of more americans of any attack in our history on our soil, and they protected him. and they kept him protected.

and what he -- and we are supposed to apologize to pakistan? well, this administration did. and when our soldiers, our military, suffered attacks from a certain area, their ajoining pakistan and apparently in pakistan they finally responded to protect themselves. and we have to apologize for people dying who were in the area where attacks were eminating against our own soldiers? we have to apologize to a country who is supplying and funding the taliban that is killing american soldiers? yeah, it's confusing to americans and it's confusing to our allies. and that's why when a handful of

us were in afghanistan in april, we were a little surprised that this administration did not want us to meet with our northern alliance friends, and instead this administration proposed to address them as war criminals. yeah, they fight tough. they defeated the taliban. they fight like the taliban, and they have no interest in losing, because they know it means they lose their lives, they lose their homes, they lose their country. so they fight viciously. and we were able to take out the taliban initially with a few 100 soldiers. less than 500 americans.

we had intelligence. we had special ops. we provided air cover. provided some weapons. and the taliban was routed. we had 100 or so and we became occupiers and they don't do well in that part of the world. yet, this administration continually throws our allies under the bus thinking that if we just embrace our enemies, if we make a great speech, maybe if i read from the teleprompt ters effectively enough, they will see how wonderful i am and america is and they'll come fall and embrace us and want to provide us with nothing but love and affection. it's an unrealistic view of the world. and yes, i'm a christian, and i

believe everybody should be free to worship or not worship as they please. but that is not the case in egypt right now. it's not the case in libya right now. it's not the case in afghanistan right now. it's not the case anywhere in any country where sharia is the law. we want muslims. we want atheists to worship or not worship. but any group, whether atheists or any other religion that forces us to comply with their religious laws should not be tolerated. some say, you got a bunch of

islamaphobe. that term was generated by the council, o.i.c., that has 57 states and we've got 50 -- i get confused. someone said on cnn the only reason why the president said 57 states, maybe because he was tired. some people don't understand sarcasm. but the o.i.c. but they have given millions and millions of dollars to universities in america, including some ivy-league schools. they aren't islama phobes. they have sold their soul for

money. sure, if you'll give us millions, you bertscha, hundreds of thousands and, we'll teach a course on islamaphobia and denigrate the founders and denigrate those who would lay down their lives for this country's freedom and call them islamaphobes. i told the security detail at the american embassy in afghanistan's capital when i was told i was not going to be able to go meet our allies at the mas sud residence. our friend massud knows something about sacrifice. his brother possibly could have united afghanistan, but was

assassinated a day or so before 9/11, because the taliban knew that he might be able to unite the country. and if the united states figured out this is where the training emanated from, then they may come. then they assassinated my friend's brother. the general who led that gentlelady ant charge uphill against the taliban against r.p.g.'s and bullets flying, he offered me to take me on horseback to re-enact that famous battle against all odds, what courage on behalf of people who want freedom in afghanistan. and i was certainly willing. i grew up riding horses until the interpretter told me they don't have leather saddles,

they're all wood. but the general -- these great northern alliance leaders who fought for us who lost friends and family, have been thrown under the bus. as i told the head of the security detail there, i was going to meet our friends at the massud residence and when i was told we couldn't go, i let them know that i had talked to our friend, mr. massud, and they were sending secured vehicles to pick me and other members of congress who would go. and when i was told that would not be secure, we couldn't do that, i made clear that they would have to take me down before i got to the gate of the embassy compound, because i was

going and i would do that after our next meeting with our soldiers, american soldiers. after the meeting, i was told, we have arranged security for you to go to the meeting, so you don't have to ride with the massud security folks. we had a good meeting. it was great to see them. they have trouble understanding why this administration has foresaken them, our allies. i don't hear anybody calling this administration islamaphobes because they have thrown our muslim friends under the bus. but they are the enemy of our enemy, the taliban. and this administration, this president's made clear to this corrupt regime over there, look, we are going to be out there on this day certain and you will be on your own, the military.

and they are negotiating some kind of deal where we may provide some help. but karzai, all the things that he is, he is not a stupid man. and he knows if all our soldiers are gone and with all the support that pakistan has given the taliban, then the taliban is going to be there. they will be vicious as they have been in the past and he has to make peace with the taliban and that's why he has been allowed such freedom in the afghan capital, to the point that the taliban leader would tell and proclaim, yes, we all can see, because the u.s. -- the obama administration is begging them to come negotiate and will buy them. we'll buy them things. we'll release the thugs that have killed americans, killed innocents. we'll release them. do whatever. it's obvious to the world that

we have lost. this administration is sending dangerous signals to our allies that you cannot trust this country as an ally of this country. you better watch your back. so when this administration says we got your back, you better be wearing stopping that will stop a knife, because it could be forth coming as president mubarak found, as the northern alliance found. as freedom lovers in iran have found. as freedom desirers at the camp have found. as some of our allies in israel have found. this administration is the first american administration to vote with israel's enemies a couple of years ago when we voted with israel's enemies to require them

to disclose their weaponry. so it's confusing to people around the world, should we take a chance on being a friend to america, because a year or two later, they may embrace our enemy and throw us under the bus ? i do believe in the teesks of jesus. i do believe in the teachings and they say this is where jesus delivered the sermon on the mount and told us who it was that was blessed. so some say, well, shouldn't our government turn the other cheek? shouldn't we be blessed for those who mourn? shouldn't we be the peace makers? yes, we should be the peace makers, but as a government, we

have a different obligation. ours is to protect our people. we're to protect those who live in america, who have trusted us to be their public servants, so that they can live out the b eattitudes as they choose and follow the teachings of whatever religious leader they choose, but we can't do that unless we keep them safe. reading a book that i started yesterday called "the harbinger" and god withdrew his hand for protection on 9/11. interesting things in that book. it's time we look at the signs and we understand from world history, you don't turn on your allies and embrace your enemies

and expect to save your country. you convince others who might be tempted to be your allies not to be. you teach your enemies that you are weak in the same way individuals on a school playground do not convince a bully that they are strong when they start giving gifts to the bully and try to buy the bully's kindness and respect, because what it buys is not respect, it is contempt. and that is the way this country is now viewed around the world. . . if are you evil in the world, just as romans 13 points out, if you do evil, you should be

afraid. because this government does not have the sword in vein. we owe a duty -- vain. we owe a duty to free-loving people around the world not to become weak. but to protect freedom here so others can enjoy freedom other places, knowing that the united states of america does not embrace and fall in love with terrorists or terrorist organizations or leaders of terrorist groups. we fight them and we embrace those who love peace, not terrorism. and we make the world and this country safer in so doing. mr. speaker, i would ask unanimous consent to include in the record a letter -- if i can

find it among my papers here. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. gohmert: this is act for america, i brought this up before, but because we have rules that don't allow things that include too many pages, we had to revisit the issue because there are so many thousands and thousands of signatures that can be found at this website for actforamerica. but this is a petition and a letter sent to the honorable joseph lieberman, the honorable patrick leahy, the honorable dianne feinstein, the honorable peter king, the honorable lamar smith, the honorable mike rogers and it's signed on line by thousands and thousands -- online by thousands and thousands of verified signatures

and those can be found from actforamerica in pensacola, florida. so i would offer these three pages for the record, ask unanimous consent to do so. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. gohmert: and with that, mr. speaker, i would yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. gohmert: i move that we do now hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a

governor chris christie discusses his effort to balance the new jersey budget. after that, we hear from house minority whip steny hoyer on the democratic agenda. later, the nissan ceo talks about the economy in the european debt crisis. on monday, president obama urged congress to pass a one-year extension of tax cuts for

middle-class families, making under to hundred $50,000 a year. the president said it is time for tax cuts to the wealthiest americans to expire. house republicans are expected to push for an extension of all bush-era tax cut. >> ladies and gentleman, the president of united states. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. everybody have a seat. good afternoon, everybody. i am glad things have cooled off a little bit. i know folks were hot. we are here today to talk about taxes. something everybody obviously cares deeply about. i have often said our biggest challenge right now is not just to reclaim all of the jobs we

lost to the recession. it is to reclaim the security that so many middle-class americans have lost over the past decade. our core mission as an administration and as a country has to be yes, putting people back to work, but also rebuilding an economy where that work pays off. an economy in which everybody can have the confidence that if you work hard, you can get ahead. what is holding us back from meeting the challenges is not a lack of plans or ideas, it is a stalemate in this town between two very different views about which direction we should go in as a country. nowhere is that still make more pronounced than on the issue of taxes -- is that stalemate more pronounced than on the issue of taxes.

many think it be spent trillions more on tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, that will somehow unleashed jobs and economic growth. i disagree. i think they are wrong. i believe our prosperity has always come from an economy that is built on a strong and growing middle class. one that can afford to buy the products our businesses sell. a middle class that can own homes and send their kids to college and save enough to retire on. that is why i cut middle-class taxes every year that i had been president. by $3,600 for the typical middle-class family. let me repeat, since i have been in office, we have cut taxes for the typical middle-class family died $3,600. -- tax cut by $3600.

i wanted to repeat that because sometimes there is a little misinformation out there and a confused about it. [laughter] moreover, we have tried it their way. it did not work. at the beginning of the last decade, congress passed trillions of dollars in tax cuts that benefited the wealthiest americans more than anybody else. we were told that it would lead to more jobs and higher incomes for everybody and that prosperity would start at the top but then trickled down. what happened? the wealthy get wealthier but most americans struggled. instead of creating more jobs, we have the slowest job growth in half a century. instead of widespread prosperity, the typical family saul its income fall. -- saw its income fall. we went from record surpluses to

record deficits that we are now still struggling to pay off today. so we do not need more top-down economics. we tried that theory. we have seen what happens. we cannot afford to go back to it. we need policies that grow and strengthen the middle class. policies that help create jobs, that make education and training more affordable, that encourage businesses to start up and create jobs right here in the united states. so that is why i believe it is time to let the tax cuts for the wealthiest americans, folks like myself, to expire. [applause] and by the way, i might feel differently because it is not like i like to pay taxes. i might feel differently if we were still in surplus. now we have these huge deficits

and everybody agrees we need to do something about these deficits and debts. the money we are spending on these tax cuts for the wealthy is a major driver of our deficit, a major contributor. costing us $1 trillion over the next decade. by the way, these tax cuts for the wealthiest americans are also the tax cuts that are least likely to promote growth. so we cannot afford to keep that up. not right now. i'm not proposing anything radical here. i just believe that anybody making over $250,000 a year should go back to the income tax rates were paying under bill clinton. back when our economy traded nearly 23 million new jobs, the biggest budget surplus in history, and plenty of millionaires to boot. this is not just my opinion. the american people or with me on this. poll after poll shows that is

the case. there are plenty of patriotic and very successful, wealthy americans who also agree because they know that by making that kind of contribution, they are making the country as a whole stronger. at the same time, most people agree that we should not raise taxes on middle-class families or small businesses. not when so many folks are just trying to get by. not when so many folks are still digging themselves out of the hole that was created by this great recession that we had. and at a time when the recovery is still fragile. that is what i am calling on congress to expand the tax cuts for the 98% of americans who make less than $250,000 for another year. [applause]

if congress does not do this, millions of american families, including these good-looking people behind me, could see their taxes go up by $2,200 starting on january 1 of next year. that would be a big blow to working families. and it would be a drag on the entire economy. now, we can already anticipate, we know what those who are opposed to letting the high income tax cuts expire will say. they will say that we cannot tax dodd creators and they will -- we cannot tax job creatiors -- creators. i have cut taxes for small

business owners 18 times since i've been in office. [applause] i have also asked congress repeatedly to pass new tax cuts for entrepreneurs to hire new workers and raise their worker'' wages. but here is the thing you have to remember, the proposal i make today would extend these tax cuts for 97% of all small business owners in america. 97% of small-business this fall under the two to $50,000 threshold. -- the $250,000 threshold. this is not about taxing job creators. this is about helping job creators. i want to give them relief. i want to give those 97% a sense of permanence. i believe we should be able to come together and get this done.

while i disagree on expanding tax cuts for the wealthy because they cannot afford them, i recognize not everybody agrees with me on this. we all say we agreed that we should extend the tax cuts for 98% of the american people. everybody says that. the republicans say they do not want to raise taxes on the middle-class, i do not want to raise taxes on the middle class. so we should all agree to extend the tax cuts for the middle class. let's agree to do what we agree on. right? [applause] >> and that is what compromise is all about. majority hold the vast of americans hostage while we debate the merits of another tax cut for the wealthy.

we can have that debate. we can have that debate, but let's not hold of working on the thing that we already agree on. in many ways, the fate of the tax cut for the wealthiest americans will be divided -- and decided by the outcome of the next election. my opponent will fight to keep them in place, i will fight to end them. that argument shouldn't threaten you. it shouldn't threaten 98% of americans that just want to know how their taxes will go up. small-business owners deserve that guarantee. it will be good for the economy and it will be good for you. we should give you that certainty now. it will be good for you, it will be good for the economy as a whole.

my message to congress is this. pass a bill extending the tax cuts for the middle class. i will sign it tomorrow. if you pass it next week, i will sign it next week. if you get the idea. as soon as that gets done, we can continue to have the debate about whether it is a good idea to also extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest americans. i will have one position, the other side will have another, and we will have that debate in the american people can listen to that debate. and next year, things have calmed down a little bit. based on what the american people have said, we will be in

a good position on how to reform our entire tax code. in a simple way that lowers rates and brings down our deficit. that is something we're going to have to do for the long term. but right now, our priority has to be giving families and small businesses the help that they deserve. you are the ones driving this recovery forward. you're the ones that are driving this recovery forward. i think it is time to widen the circle of opportunity and help more americans at work hard to get ahead. it is time we learn the lessons of our past and lay the foundation for a better future. that is what i am focused on every day and i hope congress will join me in doing the right phaeton. thank you for being here.

>> of the house of representatives will begin debate tomorrow on repealing the health care law that the president's side two years ago. that begins at noon eastern. also tomorrow, we'll talk about the measure with two members of congress. also joining us the wall street journal health policy reporter to discuss the role hospitals,

health insurance companies, employers, and other industry groups are playing. live on c-span every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> we have great threats to our existence today, as a nation. and i would think, in my opinion, greater than any threat we have ever faced, whether it has been our civil war or revolutionary war, world war two, the depression. that threat comes to us because we spent fell last 30 years in this country spending money that we did not have hauntings we did not absolutely need. >> colorado christian university featured a conservative forum,

and watch it on live at seized in video library. new jersey gov. chris christie spoke about his fiscal agenda and efforts to reform the government in his state. he is mentioned as a possible running mate for presidential candidate governor romney. >> of good morning, i am vice- president of governing studies and director of the technology and innovation. we're pleased to welcome governor chris christie to the brookings institution. he was elected governor in november of 2009 and sworn in as new jersey's fifty fifth governor in january of 2010.

he graduated from the university of delaware and attended the university school of law. he joined a law firm and was named partner shortly thereafter. he started his political career as being elected as a freeholder and serving as director of the board in 1997. in 2001, president bush nominated him as u.s. attorney for the district of new jersey, a position he held through 2008. it was in that role that he drew national attention for his efforts in battling the political corruption, human trafficking, and the gang violence. he turned his attention to ethics and the spearhead of number of aggressive investigations against corrupt public government officials and was able to build a 130 convictions during this time.

like many true mergers the natives, he is a dedicated and bruce springsteen fan. today, he has attended 129 springsteen concert. the debates over 36 years that he told me in advance. that is a bipartisan issue on which everybody can agree. this morning, he will make opening comments and we will have a moderated discussion led by the brookings senior fellow. the code directly economic studies program. this is also being web cast and viewers can post comments and ask questions during the discussion. please join me in welcoming gov. christie to the brookings institution. >> thank you for the introduction and for welcoming

me here today. i appreciate the opportunity to speak to all of you about was going -- what has been going on in new yersey -- jersey. two weeks ago, i signed my third balanced budget in a row since becoming governor. it increases spending on k-12 education to record levels. this year, it increases aid for tuition assistance for children who need it to head the college. to support the most vulnerable including veterans, the working poor, and makes a significant down payment on our pension obligations. the largest single contribution that any governor has made in its history. when $0.1 billion this year. at the same time, i used my

line-item veto authority to veto $360 million in special- interest spending so that our budget in 2013 is still smaller than the fiscal year 2008 and 2009 budgets are signed by my predecessor. pretty good of budgetary success. we think we can do better, but there is one thing that did not happen and i think should have happened that we will continue to talk about. the tax cut for middle-class new jersey in. i hear this morning and that the president is not going to propose today extending a tax relief for middle-class americans. in new jersey, despite promises that we have had for tax cuts to happen, it was left on the table at the last minute.

my state of the state address in january of 2012, advocated for an across-the-board income-tax rate reduction. in new jersey has the third highest income tax rates, our top rate is just a shade under 9% and we believe reducing waste will be one of the best ways to make new jersey more competitive with neighbors. they are higher than the state of new york, connecticut, pennsylvania has 3%. when you're competing in the job market we are all competing in, two ways besides the normal type of services that states provide infrastructure and higher education, you are really competing on two levels. tax competitiveness, what

incentives are you willing to give? to either retain companies or attract new companies, and what is the environment once it is they're both for them and for their employees that little will be asking to relocate. that is the reason why tax reductions are so important in our state oppose the current environment. we are competing with other states that had a significantly lower rates like pennsylvania and delaware. and we are not competing well in that regard. i advocated for across-the-board income tax cuts. i have, by the way, a state with a great sense of humor. not just because of native sons like john stuart but because our voters a elected a conservative republican governor and retains a democratic legislature. i think they just wanted to see

what would happen. the state senate president came back with a counterproposal which is an income tax credit of 10% against whatever amount of property taxes up to $1,000 per taxpayer. there were certain limits the i won't get into the weeds about. in terms of income eligibility, etc.. as we move along through the spring, i began conversations about finding some way to compromise to be able to bring a tax cut package to the people of the states. we came to an agreement in the late spring of this past year on a 10% income-tax credit that would be capped at folks with incomes under foreign thousand dollars a year, and exempt business income that they made on the federal returns.

and would apply equally to all those people, and we would increase the earned income tax credit. it would go from 20% above the federal level to 25%. it means everybody $400,000 a year or under would be getting tax relief. the hit to the budget would not be significant. we have an agreement until normal politics set back again. and when the senate president went back to his caucus and went over to the assembly, they decided what was much more important was that i would not be able to go to the republican national convention and say that i got a tax cut for the people of our state that was to give

our state a tax cut. this is a reversal back to old politics that has been seen relatively infrequently over the last two and a half years in new jersey. we will have a fight about this over the summer and i am looking forward to it. they cut their leaving on june 28 ready for summer vacation, our constitution allows the governor to call the legislature back for a special session. and give a speech on july 2 about the importance of trying to reach a bipartisan compromise on this issue. making our state more competitive and giving taxpayers some relief was extraordinarily important. especially for a speech to have not yet been invited to give the convention i know i will attend, i have no knowledge him what i will even be speaking at the convention. but they are real concerned about that.

i offered my hand a compromise to democrats on the issue of taxes and it was slapped back. the question for executive leadership is, what do you do? there are two options. bill in the corner, hold your breath, say i am not working with these people because they are not nice to me that they don't want compromise and i will send our really nasty press releases about them and tell everybody how rotten they are. for you shrug your shoulders and say the job you're given is more important than your ego or the politics of the day. i continue to try to fight to get compromise reached. the evidence of the past two and a half years have showed you that i have consistently, along with leaders of the legislature which the latter rather than the former. it is important to review that with you so you can get some context for the current discussion.

where was new jersey in january of 2010? let's start with the fact that a weakened to the job, a chief of staff came to my office and told me that if we did not cut $2.2 billion from the current fiscal year budget, the 2010 budget, within six weeks, we would not make payroll for the second pay period of march. for new jersey, the second wealthiest state, was going to have to get out ious to state employees. i don't know how you define broke, but that look like a broker to me, from where i sat. we had two choices. we could negotiate with the legislature and they made clear at that moment that it would have to include tax increases, immediate and retroactive tax

increases, or because new jersey's constitution is the most powerful governorship constitutionally in america, he called new jersey's governor america's caesar. i really like that. a lot. i can act by executive order and and how the funds by executive order equal to the amount of cuts necessary. for those of you that have watched me the last two and a half years either closely or vaguely, if you believe i picked option number one, you need to leave. i select option #2 and sat down and went through 2400 lines of the state budget and found $2.2 billion in cuts and made those cuts by executive or, went to the state legislature and presented them in a joint session speech. after i was done with the speech, it was about 40 minutes

long. i will boil it down to about 15 seconds. he left me with this huge problem, i needed to fix it. you want me to raise taxes, i'm not going to, so i made cuts by executive order. i fixed your problem, you can think he later. have a good day. imagine the atmosphere after i was done. i was called all kinds of names. i was called napoleon bonaparte and caesar, the great leader's i admire so much. he is the senate president, and as such, the most powerful democrat in the state of new jersey and president of the iron workers local. so like me, a shy and retiring guy, i said, steve, i saw those

things you said about me in the newspaper. and when to go upstairs and vacate the executive were and you guys can fix it. something you need to know about new jersey politics, he looked at me and said, the governor, don't overreact. you didn't do all that bad. it is politics. but we inherited a huge problem. what caused the huge problem? 115 tax and fee increases at the state level in years before i became governor. that is every 25 days for eight years. if you want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg, look at the economy of new jersey in the '80s and '90s, one of the top in the country.

an unemployment rate, a small climate for business growth, a high number of government workers per square mile. and all those things were dropped in our lap when we came into office. when you confront the with the democratic legislature, where he would have to make some very specific and difficult choices. removed in the fiscal year 2011 with a projected deficit of 37%. the largest of any stake in the country. once again, there is a call for higher taxes. it seems to me, this call as well have gotten us get least in part in trouble in the first

place. we proposed a budget that cut every department of state government without exception. we had to make significant cuts, as you can imagine. but we did. folks in the legislature sent me what has become in vogue lately , the millionaires' tax surcharge. understand first before we go too far down the road, which already have a millionaire's tax. in new jersey, it is special because we have special new jersey math. in new jersey, the millionaire'' tax applies to all individuals or businesses which have over $400,000 in income. that is the millionaires' tax. it is a good name, but they couldn't get enough money out of millionaires. when you're trying to market

your stay around the country, if you have a millionaire's tax, how do you market your state? i would say, listen, come to new jersey. if you're not a millionaire, but you like to feel like one, come to new jersey because we will tax you like one. tell your friends you pay the millionaires' tax. we had a millionaire's tax that brought us up to 8.97%. the proposal was for a surcharge on top of that phrase to 10.75%. which would place us only blow ye at that point. in terms of top tax rates. i vetoed it because i thought it made us noncompetitive and the senate president came down with the bill to deliver it to me,

cameras following him and deliver the bill, he said, here it is. they always have a name for this. this is the fairness and justice for all act. maybe he won't read it. the sign read your governor, it will be fine. i sit down, i don't want you to waste your time. i handed it right back to him. he went ahead to push for the budget that they said would be dead on arrival, and we wound up passing it with democratic votes, 99.8% home items exactly as i presented them. the stories set up the idea of what executive leadership can do. if you set out your principles, and also show that you're willing to compromise where appropriate.

they were testing me. the new governor. i was a newcomer. legislatures will always test executives. they will see how much they can get away with, how far they can push you, are you willing to stand up for your principals, are you not? some people say when you stand up and fight that way, you are being obstructionist. that becomes true if you are unwilling to compromise were appropriate. the story of new jersey has really broken up into two parts. the first six months and the two years since then. the first six months, they were testing me. let me go through with you some of the really bipartisan accomplishments that have been put forward by this governor and democratic legislature within can be a model for what is

happening -- or for what should be happening across the country. i called them back into special session for a fourth of july weekend. we did pass a real cap on property taxes. after back and forth, we passed to the bipartisan can, a real cat. a hard cap with only three exceptions. property taxes rose and not wholly phased in. the lowest increase in property taxes and over 20 years. we then moved to reform the interest arbitration system that drove enormous increases in public sector salaries. 7% increases, which capped all interest arbitration and a greater than 2% and created a rocket docket, capping the amount of money arbitrators can be paid. there is no incentive to drag

these things on, get paid a fortune, costing a big deal of money. the had a brief time to get the case, make a decision. removed to deal with the biggest problem for the federal government. that is entitlement costs. it is represented by the pension system, and our public-sector health care program. when i became governor, the pension system was underfunded by $54 billion. our public-sector health care system was underfunded by $67 billion. hundred and $21 billion, four years of budgets, every nickel of a stake spent and underfunding of those two programs. the timber 2010, i put forward a

very straightforward program on how to deal with pension and benefit reform. raise the retirement age. increase contributions made by employees to the pension system. and until the funds are solvent, over the next 30 years, increase the penalties for early retirement. and insure the state would be making a payment into the system. secondly, when i became governor, most paid nothing for health insurance that republic employees. for full family, medical, and dental coverage. those programs ran anywhere from $15,000 to $19,000 a year. they got it until the day they die. we put forward a very simple test that everybody should pay one third.

that seems to be fair. and someone in line with what is going on in the private sector as well although many people would jump at a program like that at the moment. and with the guy out this plan? i went to the firefighters' convention. friday afternoon. lunch i suspect had been liquid, and they were booing like crazy. i got up and said, you can do better than that. they did. aside from the speech i was going to give them, i said, listen. i understand you are angry and you feel betrayed. the reason you should feel betrayed is because you're of been betrayed by governments of

both parties that have come behind the podium over the last 25 years and told you that they give you increasing benefits you don't have to pay for. they made those promises to get you to vote for them and you voted for them. i understand why you're angry and i understand why you feel betrayed. are you doing the first data tell you the truth? 10 years from now, if we do this program and your pension is there to be collected and have health insurance, and you're going to be on the and that looking for my home address to send you -- to send me a thank- you note because we did the right thing and we did it together. a third of the audience cheered after that, which was a monumental achievement so i got the hell out of there as quickly as possible. i went around the state for the next nine months in over 30 town hall meetings, i campaigned for

that plan. ultimately, with thousands of protesters on the front steps of the state house and the galleries of voting sessions, in a bill sponsored by the senate president and the speaker of the assembly, only eight of the 24 democratic members of the senate, 13 of the 47 democratic members voting yes, those reforms passed. they were signed into law by me and was saved over the next 30 years hundred and $32 billion for the taxpayers of new jersey and will return those funds to solvency. it took not just gubernatorial leadership but courage to post those bills. they did it because they knew it was the right thing to do and it was what we had to do.

that is the environment we have created in new jersey. it would not have happened if the executive didn't leave first. if i didn't put out the plan first, it would not have happened. legislatures don't lead. executives lead. legislatures can be persuaded if you are willing to sit down at the table. this year, we have been able to pass a number of important initiatives. i put forward in the state of the state address that the war on drugs, while well- intentioned, has been a failure. we are warehousing a big kid people, giving them no treatment, sending them back on the streets after their incarceration and wondering why recidivism rates go up. and why they don't get better and why they commit crimes again.

you can certainly make the argument that no one should try drugs in the first place. i certainly am in that camp. but tens of millions of people in our society do. and for some people, they can try it and walk away from it. for others, the first time they try, they become an addict and they are sick. i said, what we need to do is for all first-time drug offenders, we have to make a drug treatment mandatory. because if you are pro-life, as i am, you can't be pro-life just in the womb. every life is precious. and every one of god's creatures can be redeemed. but they won't be if we ignore them. i believe that this program that was passed overwhelmingly by the

legislature this year and will be phased in over the next five years, without every person that comes into the criminal justice system in new jersey to get a year of mandatory drug treatment in-house, i believe the results will show after this is fully implemented and will be startling. because people can be treated and miracles happen every day. all lives are restored. mothers and fathers are restored to the head of their families. brothers and sisters and sons and daughters are returned to their families, returning fabric of families by doing this. it costs us $49,000 a year to warehouse the prisoner. a full year of in-patient drug treatment costs $24,000 a year. that makes economic sense also. to me, that this is the

collateral advantage. the real reason to do is that we have an obligation to understand that addiction is a disease. and that we need to give people a chance to overcome the disease and restored dignity and demeaning to their lives. that is not a republican or democratic issue. it is a bipartisan issue that we accomplished. in a way that three previous governors tried and special interest be out every year, i said that we have a deadline july 1. i will never let it happen during my time as governor. it is like watching sausage being made. guess what, it got done by june 28. it would have gotten done earlier plan hadn't set a july 1 deadline.

that motivated the legislature and i think, to a large degree, intimidated the special interests that believed they could always defeat a legislature and divide and defeat and absolutely committed executive. for the first time in 100 years, we have reformed the teacher tenure laws. new jersey's teacher union collects $130 million in dues every year. they do not spend a nickel on teacher salaries or pensions or health care. all of that money is used to support their political operations. they spent for their first two years over $20 million in negative ads against me on the philadelphia television trying to say that my proposals were anti-teacher and anti-students. we continue to press on.

guess what happened in? the teachers union came to the table. we negotiated the tenure law which is over 100 years old, the oldest in the country, and has now been reported to say that teachers get to years of partially ineffective ratings then they lose tenure. we are putting accountability back into the system. test scores must be evaluated for. as well as peer review. now principals and superintendents will have the opportunity to manage their school systems in a way which allow them to put students first. there are not tolerating failure. imagine that. that was accomplished also in a bipartisan way. it took a two. five-year fight. we accomplished it two weeks

ago. i said that the obligation of a governor would find that space between compromising your principles and getting everything you want. there's always a boulevard between those. that is the boulevard a compromise. sometimes it is narrower. it is always there if you are willing to try to find them. i would not ask anyone to compromise their principles too much. i also have to give everyone an acknowledgement that you do not get everything you want. then you can find and enforce compromise as an executive. i can walk into gum at the same time. i can fight with democrats publicly and privately over

issues of principle where we cannot find a compromise and at the same time hold conversations with them on issues where we can enforce that. this illusion that you see in this town that somehow that cannot happen is just an excuse. it is an excuse a failed leadership. you have to be able to walk into them at the same time. you have to be able to find a compromise. people send us to the jobs to get these things done. are people in new jersey noticing that i say this. the last public poll before election day 2009 and ask that question do you think your state is moving in the right direction, 19% said they thought the state was getting in the right direction. in the last public poll, 63%

believe their states is moving in the right direction. in the same poll only 67%believe our country is moving in the right direction. they are discerning report two different approaches. what i outlined is the new jersey approach. it does not make every day a happy or easy day for sure. the state is getting better. 85,000 new jobs. the best year in home sales in 2012 is 2007. our best job growth year of last year since 2000, we had a decade of joblessness.

2009 we had zero net job growth. 2011 was our best year since 2000. 2012 is outpacing 2011 already. people are noticing. things are happening. in the end, leadership is the only thing that will make the difference. it is the only thing that'll make the difference. leadership is not about obstructionism. leadership is also not about keeping every time you get pushed. leadership is about new ones and communicating to people here is what i stand for. on these issues i will not be moved. on other issues, leaving room

for discussion and accomplishing principled compromise where it can be. that is why i have great respect for them. democrats do not agree on a lot of things. we have worked together. we put the business first and politics second. that is why it is disturbing to me what they have done with the idea of tax reduction. the closer we are getting to a presidential election in 2012 and a gubernatorial election in 2013, at the old politics may be creeping back again. that is when it is more important for the executives to fight to continue to find compromise. all too often the leadership positions across the country executives have decided to throw their hands up and say "they are bad. i cannot deal with them." then do not ask for the job. no one ever told you it was

going to be pleasant or easy. the job of an executive is to make sure they you get the job done and you find a way to get the compromise. not on every issue. some it'll be impossible. my experience is more times than not you will find it. i hope new jersey is setting an example. states are seeing more and more of this. hopefully this infection of compromise will eventually spread here. i am not nearly as hopeful about that as i am that it will spread to the other states. we need to continue to talk about it. i am coming to this place, washington d.c., because i want people to know that their government can work for them. they need leaders willing to take risks. risks with their own parties.

let's with the public to vote for them. in the end coming here is my philosophy. i have this reputation of being pretty blunt and direct. people wonder where that comes from. we all come from our parents. we are all part of our parents whether we like it or not, good or bad. i had an irish father who is 79 years old. if he were here he would be sitting up in the front. he would tell you all about his grandchildren. he would be hugging you at the end of the conversation. on the other hand, i had a sicilian mother. for those of you who have any sicilian relatives you know this is a different kettle of fish. in the automobile of life, my father was a passenger. my mother was the driver. she set the rules. she was the person who set the

tone in roles. she passed away and died of lung cancer. she was a lifetime smoker. at the end of her life my brother called and said she was back in the hospital in great condition. -- grave condition. i flew the red eye home that night from san diego and flew back to new jersey. she woke up. without saying hello to me she said "what day is it?" what time is it? she said to go to work. she said this is a workday. go to work.

i said i will make up the time. she reached over and she said go to work. it is where you belong. there's nothing left unsaid between us. she is giving me permission to let go. it was the last great gift she gave to me. that is more important not for the moment but for what it says about the way she raised us. my mother taught us that there should be nothing left unsaid between you and the people you trust. you should not wait for the deathbed moment to get everything out because you might not make it. you need to tell them when you're happy and angry. we need to tell them when you feel great when he felt terrible. you need to share everything with the people who trust you. i know of my mother were a live

issue of the same the same thing. she would say they trusted you to give them the most important job that they could give anyone in new jersey. tell them what you think. tell them how you feel. i think that is what leadership needs to be about. we should not be listening to political consultants. we should not be listening to the voices to say just use the party doctrine and do not stray. at the end of the day i love this job. i had plenty of great titles already. i was u.s. attorney. most importantly, husband, father, son. if it means that i lose if i choose to run for reelection, so be it.

at least i will be able to tell my children that i spent time trying to do something significant. i will say when you go into the voting booth if i am on the ballot, you will not be able to say who is this guy and what did he really think? i will not be a mystery. it cannot lead by being a mystery or an enigma or aloof. you cannot lead by being a program. when they trust you they will follow you. that is the experience of new jersey. i'm happy to take some questions. thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you up for coming today. we really appreciate your visit. i will set up one question. as everybody knows, the problems we face is with our fiscal on sustainability. any guidance you can offer is most pressing. you stated the first job is to set out your principles. i want to focus on taxes. i think that is where a lot of the disagreement comes from. we think the republican principles of our federal taxes. we have a compromise from the simpson-bowles commission. it was a spirit of principles and compromise. i am curious what republican principles are. are republicans willing to pay

for the marginal tax rates? through such things as increasing capital gains or other deductions? >> i do not think there is one republican position. i think that is a game that they tried to play. they do not want anything to happen. i would say this. i think simpson-bowles should have been pursued. i think it was an absolute mistake of leadership, lost opportunity, and not to push it.

you got republican and democratic votes. the lowering of marginal rates both in the elimination of loopholes in the testing of other deductions is absolutely acceptable in the current context. we also have to get the spending side as well. that is where you get democratic opposition. i do not think that you can just deal with the tax system. we have to deal with entitlements. if we do not do with entitlements in an honest way we will never get there. i agree with many of the general principles. i do believe that lowering the marginal rate makes sense but only in the context of eliminating loopholes and means testing other deductions in order to make sure you have a system there that operate in a

fair way. it has to be combined with entitlement restraints. but we do not have entitlement restraint we are lost. >> you talked about your budget. i am curious to know. we had a supreme court ruling on obamacare. everyone is talking about the mandate. the other component was on medicaid. this has a direct impact on the state. >> directly it is wait and see. i was glad the supreme court ruled that extortion is still illegal in america. first of all, i was glad that the supreme court ruled that extortionist illegal in america. that is a relief. that is a relief.

obamacare was extortion. you expand your program to where we tell you. if you do not, we're taking all of your money. that is extortion. it was in a whole bunch of nice words but it was extortion. i am glad it supports this. it is still illegal in the country even when done by the president of the united states. it seems to me that a place like new jersey we had the second most expensive medicaid program in the country behind new york. our question is going to be how much more do we really need to expand our programs? we have some of the most generous benefits already. that is the announcement we are going to make. we're also like to make it on the exchange issue as well. all of these things will be made in the context of two things. what makes it better for the people of our state? what is the most efficient way to do it? i have our folks working on it.

>> what is the timeline of this decision? >> probably by the beginning of 2013. i do not know what other deadlines are going to be put on us as well. i am sure it'll be a vigorous back and forth. >> let's take questions from the crowd. if you can please make it a question. >> i am not a resident of new jersey. although yesterday on the new jersey turnpike i thought i might become one. my question had to do with the federal state relationship. i wanted to see if i could get a few comments from you and views from the state's side. in washington we seem to see

things differently particularly in areas such as education and health care insurance. is the federal intrusion into areas that were more traditionally state responsibilities helpful or hurtful for new jersey? >> i think it is generally hurtful. i would say on issues like health, the idea that the federal government would give a one size fits all health care program and think it will work just as well in new jersey as montana, we know that makes no sense. it makes no sense just from a that perspective. the health challenges that i faced in the most densely populated state with that kind of urban population, i faced from health care challenges then montana.

why is it this is the arrogance of the federal government. they believe they can craft a program that will work for everyone. i think you have to leave more to the state. the way that i can the minister a medicare program is different than the way barbara was able to negotiate in mississippi or governor carey in texas. i am afraid you will take health care reform children. what makes you think i would do that? what in my record tells you i might do that? there is the suspicion that i exists that drives some of this intrusion. on the education site, a secretary duncan has tried some positive things to empower states to do more.

i think overall trying to manage broad education policy in washington, d.c. for school districts in jersey city and tyler, texas is quite a challenge. you have to have an ego to think you can do that effectively. >> he mentioned 85,000 private sector employees. there have been massive job losses in the public sectors among states and localities that has led to higher unemployment than would normally be the case. would you support a request by governors to the u.s. congress that would request additional federal funds so that states and localities can hire back some of these essential employees they have been forced to let go?

>> no. >> why? >> it is always a temporary band-aid. john corzine used $1 billion in funds to rehire teachers that he was supposed to use over a few years. i was left with a billion dollar hole afterwards. the fact is that unless we reduce federalized the states, you continue to give us this money. we hire people for a finite time and the localities are on the hook. where is that money coming from

that i have the highest property taxes in america to begin with. where is this money going to come from? i do not see it. we did it without any layoffs. we did it through attrition. while there are some ways off at the local level, i do not think that is a bad thing. i have more government employees per square mile than any state in america. do not send me any more money to hire public employees. i do not need any more. they are expensive and difficult to manage. the idea that we continue to have to deal with some of these issues i think if they want to spend money to create jobs, it then spend money on infrastructure. we will build private sector jobs. do not spend money on sending me money to hire more public employees.

do something that will have a multiplying effect. do not do this unless you're going to do other things that we talked about up here already. that is to deal with the fairness of the tax system and to deal with entitlement growth as well. >> thank you. by want to ask you about two sets of comments that you made that seem to frame a larger question about governance in the country. on the one hand you have demonstrated what can be done in new jersey with the right kind of executive leadership. you have said that there are certainly other examples around the country like john in colorado and elsewhere. you said you were not

necessarily helpful that the contagion will move in here anytime soon. given that, it raises the question of rethinking federalism itself and the partnership between the federal government and the states. the brooking's alice has written about that. they're talking about what steps might be taking. might it be possible that the fed showed government can concentrate on this. i'm wondering what your thinking to 20 youhat and, b, have specific thoughts, whether

you can share them with us. >> i think we have to have that type of examination. it gets to the point of the question i was answering over here which is do i think that this continued intrusion of the federal government into areas that have traditionally been state are helpful or harmful and i said it was harmful. i think we do have to have that kind of conversation and we have to lower the level of suspicion that sometimes states are going to want to do things that are injurious to their population. we all get elected, too. the fact of the matter is, we're going to want to do things that are generally good for the population in our state and will make people feel good about wanting to live there, work there, raise families there so, yeah, i do think we is should have that conversation. on the specifics, i haven't given it a lot of thought so i don't want to shoot from the hip on that but i think it's worthy

of a conversation and i hope it will grow out of a vigorous conversation of simpson bowles because that will force that conversation because in an era where you're trying to figure out, what are your priorities, because, really, the question you're asking is, what should the priorities of the federal government be and the priorities of the states be and then have them divide responsibilities based upon those priorities and right now we're saying everything's our priority, we're going to do everything. man, if you try to do everything, you'll probably do most of it lousy and it's certainly going to cost you a fortune so let's figure out what are the priorities. seems to me at the federal level you start with the national defense which only the federal government can provide in an effective way and you work from there. and so state responsibility should not continue to be encroached on by large federal programs which then blur those priorities even more and which

we don't have the money to pay for. >> we have time for one more quick question. tracy in the corner. >> hi, i'm tracy gordon with brookings. i also spent time in the other newark. so i think these are very essential and important questions we're talking about right now. i was going to ask a slightly different question but it gets back to this. i think you became governor at the worst time for someone to become governor, first six months of 2010. i wonder about that saying, crisis creating opportunity, and how do you sustain these changes going forward and in any important topic like federalism, how do you sustain that conversation and keep people focused on the problem. >> i feel like it was a much better time to become governor now than i did then. i feel like at the time it was

an incredible burden because when you sit down and you're cutting over 2400 lines in the state budget, every one of those reductions you know, i could see those people in my mind that were going to be affected by it. and that's a heavy burden to carry. and my wife could tell. when we were doing that over a three-week period, we had three meetings per week and they rab four hours per meeting which is about all we could take and my wife could tell without looking at my schedule when i had come home that night that i had had one of those meetings because it was a really difficult time to become governor but you are right, that type of crisis presents opportunities because everyone knows that we have limited choices now. all the gimmicks have been played. all the games have been played in new jersey. we have bonded our tobacco money. we had worried for ongoing spending.

every trick in the book that could be played -- extend the debt from 20 years to 30 years balloon payments to every game and you were left with no games left in the playbook to use so you had to actually make difficult choices. the sustainability of those is, i think, the possibility of the sustainability is embodied in that right direction number i told you. like what the special interests will attempt to do when you make those tough choices to say this is the end of the world as we know it, he's throwing grandma off the cliff, you know, your children are not going to be able to learn. you will not be able to get into a hospital. the roads will be caving in, the bridges will be collapsing and there's 30-second ads for all this stuff. what they've seen in new jersey now over the last 2 1/2 years is sun's still coming up every are still going to school, test scores are pretty

good in a lot of the school districts. the roads could be better but they're not awful, bridges are being repaired. we're doing the things government needs to do and we're doing it with less employees than we've done it with since 2001. we've amended the pension and benefit program and no one's visibly suffering from that. would people liking to have more money? sure they would. but i can't justify any longer to the union carpenter who's been out of work for two years that he's trying to keep his house, his property taxes continue to go up because i'm paying 5% raises for teachers. i can't justify it anymore and neither can the union carpenter so the divide you see in our country in one respect is the divide between the private sector union movement and the public sector union movement and the private sector union

movement which is dependent upon a vibrant private sector economy to put their people back to work during a down time like this is saying how can my people survive and how which when our pensions go down we have to put more money in but the public sector workers don't. how come when my healthcare costs go up, i have to put more money in but the public sector workers don't. this is an issue of fairness. you see the sustainability of these changes lie in their common sense and fairness. that doesn't mean they're not hard and it doesn't mean they're not painful because they are. but they're also fair and they make sense and so people are willing to accept that in the context of shared sacrifice and so new jersey we have an extraordinarily progressive income tax code where the top 1% pays 41% of the income tax so

it's not like people are saying someone's getting away with something. when the top 1% pays 40% of the tax, that's where you get sustainability. the last piece of getting is the last piece i talked about using the example of my mom. you have to talk honestly to people approximate it. you can't say to them don't worry, it's not going to hurt, it's going to be fine. you have to say, this is going to stink, it's going to hurt, we're all going to hurt, we're going to hurt together but in the end we'll have a better day at the end of it. i don't know how long it will take but it's going to get there. and i think that's the other thing that sustains it is the candor with people where you're not trying to protect your own rear end all the time in elected office. we have too many elected officials who are obsessed with re-election and they're willing

to do anything to keep their job. that's not the kind of person you want in the executive position or any position for that matter but certainly in an executive position right now given the challenges our country faces. beware of the person who will do anything to get re-elected because that means they'll do anything to get re-elect and it won't matter what the long term is. i had somebody tell me when i was talking about these pension changes, why do you want to do this? it was a friend. i said because the pension system will go bankrupt by 2018 and he said chris if you're elected two terms, you're out in 2017. let the next guy deal with it. that's the mentality that's crept into political consulting and the politics of it. if it's not going to blowup on my watch, let it go. only deal with the things that are going to blow up on my

watch. that's what's gotten us to this spot and the next explosion that's coming will be difficult to contain on the federal level if we don't deal with these issues. people say europe, look at europe. forget europe. europe will be a picnic compared to what will happen here because the entire world depends upon this economy. we start going in that direction, then the ramifications for the entire world are going to be graver than anything we're seeing in europe right now in my view so the sustainability is to say that to people and to say it from behind podiums like this. to look at people and say you know, guess what, social security, we're going to have to raise the retirement age. listen, like i said, i was at aei a year ago and i said listen, social security, have to raise retirement age and i haven't been vaporized into the still here.'m we need to be hon best these

things. we need to look at wealthy people and say some of these benefits need to be means tested. i know you paid into these benefits, guess what, we can't afford it, sorry, you got screwed, it happened. you have to say this stuff to people and if you're unwilling to say it in my view you're not having the position and you certainly can't call yourself a leader. leader is not just somebody who is whistling a happy tune at the front of the parade. sometimes that's part of your job but the grunt work is part of your job, too, and you have to sustain the reforms you're putting in place. you have to sell them to people in a way they can believe, it becomes a part of who they are. then they'll support you and they kick you out of office, they kick you out of office. seems to me it's not the end of the world.

for some people maybe it is but we should keep them out of office. that was a long answer. >> thanks for your honest and invigorating comments. this was a great start of the week for us. you for coming. [applause] [captions performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the house of representatives will begin debate tomorrow on repealing the healthcare law president obama signed two years ago. that begins in the house at noon eastern with live coverage on c-span. also tomorrow on "washington journal," we'll talk about the measure with two members of conditioning, republican tim murphy and democrat earl bloomenour. also joining us, louise radnowski to discuss the roles hospitals, health insurance companies, employers and other inups are playing implementing the law. "washington journal" is live on

c-span every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. politco hosts a conversation tuesday about the political party conventions. the mayor of tampa, florida, and charlotte, north carolina, give an update on what to expect. see it live starting at 8:15 a.m. on espn -- c-span3. shreveport in march, april in little rock. oklahoma city, may. wichita in june. and this past weekend in jefferson city. watch for the continuing travels of c-span's local content vehicles every month on book tv and american history tv and next month look for the history and literary culture of our next stop, louisville, kentucky, the weekend of august 4 and 5 on c-span 2 and 3. house minority whip steny hoyer

announced new proposals designed to help the manufacturing industry. the proposals are a continuation of the democrats make in america plan promoting policies to help u.s. manufacturers. this is 35 minutes from the center for american progress. >> good afternoon and welcome to the center for american progress. i am the president of the center for american progress. it's my pleasure to welcome democratic whip steny hoyer here to the center. congressman hoyer has been a tremendous friend of the center over the last several years and we are honored to have him here talking about manufacturing and economic growth. since cap's founding, we have

been focused on how to ensure a strong and stable middle class because we understand that a strong and stable middle class is central to a strong economy and it sounds like that is a basic fact, one that should not be in dispute but as we see in our national debate and discussion of how to forest growth, that issue, whether building a middle class is a central pillar of growth, is question. we've seen over the last year and we will see continually over the next several months that this question about how to build growth is central and there are two visions of that. on one side, there's a debate about lowering taxes and ensuring what i would call trickle-down economics, that is how we foster growth. and on the other side is a broader agenda, one based on

ensuring that middle class folks have the income and wages they need to build demand and as we look at an economy that isn't growing as fast as we'd all like, we see challenges with demand are central to challenges in the economy so we are excited to have congressman hoyer here, leading an effort in manufacturing for several years and has focused on how we rebuild manufacturing because manufacturing in the past has been central to our ability to create strong, stable middle class jobs and that's issue, that engine of growth where we have middle class jobs that create demand, that create demand for more products that american companies create that is really a big challenge in our economy right now so we are particularly excited to have congressman hoyer today. he will be laying out new ideas on this front and we look

forward to work with him in the months and years to come on these ideas. congressman hoyer? >> thank you very much, neera. i am always pleased to be here at the center for american progress which is doing such a wonderful job giving us good information, researching those which are critical to the american people and important to the american people in making decisions on where they want to go. so neera, congratulations to on your leadership, as well. give my best to john padesta out there in the netherworld doing something we all know. and winnie stackleberg, your vice president who does such a wonderful job and such a good friend. good morning. good afternoon, i guess i should say.

as he prepared to take office, president kennedy spoke to a nation troubled by anxiety over america's leadership in the world and uncertainty over whether future americans would inherit a strong and secure economy. he offered not soothing words but a rousing appeal and exhortation to action. he spoke to his generation of americans and urged them not to shrink from their responsibility, to advance across a new frontier of science and of commerce. today, i would suggest we confront a similar anxiety but much greater global competition. it is, i think, therefore, essential for us to seize the initiative in education, in innovation, in technology, in alternative energy and in advanced manufacturing. once again, our leaders must ensure that america's role in the world is secure, that our economy will remain the strongest on earth, and that americans will continue to find

good jobs and have confidence that they will make it in america. the key to success, i believe, is a renewed dedication to the kind of individual effort and personal responsibility and commitment that made this country the great country that it is. america's history has been one of inventing, innovating and developing better products, processes and services. it's been a history in which manufacturing goods has played a major role. americans overwhelmingly believe that making things in america must be an important part of our future if we are going to be successful. manufacturing has been a bright star in our current recovery. over the last three years, we've seen strong gains by manufacturers. we've witnessed 28 consecutive months of private sector job growth and manufacturing has added half a million jobs since

january 2010. productivity increased 5% and almost 6% in the first quarter of 2012. industrial production as measured by federal reserve's industrial production index for manufacturing has surged. factory orders were up .7% in may from the previous month, signaling new investment. manufacturing is also driving a rise in u.s. exports. in the first four months of this year, total u.s. goods and services exports were up 6% or 41.4 billion dollars from the same period last year. in that same time, manufacturing exports were up 9.1%. after having watched for years as american manufacturing jobs were shipped overseas, we are now bearing witness to some of those jobs returning.

companies are recognizing the rising costs of production in other countries and are looking once again to the talent and experience of american workers. last month, google announced a new home media device being manufactured only a few miles from its headquarters in california. asked why the company chose to make it here in america, google representatives cited, among several reasons, the benefit of its engineers being able to travel easily between the design lab and the production line. the synergy of co-location. airbus has just announced it will be in construction on its first u.s. manufacturing plant next year in alabama. that $600 million facility will support 1,000 new jobs. over the past two years, other businesses have chosen american workers to manufacture their products including caterpillar, n.c.r. and ford.

however, despite these recent gains, americans are still worried about our economy can, unsure whether our recovery will continue. uncertainty over consumer demand hangs like a dark cloud over manufacturing's bright horizon. americans are also looking with great concern to the financial crisis that continues to plague europe and hope that it does not spread here. now is not the time to hunker down. it is most definitely a time to go on offense. as president obama declared in his state-of-the-union address in january, and i quote, "we have a huge opportunity at this moment to bring manufacturing back but we have to seize it. it's time to stop rewarding business that is ship jobs overseas and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in america."

he's right. this is our moment to pursue policy that is capitalize on what we've achieved in manufacturing so far in order to make certain the positive trends in our recovery continue. we must make a strong and serious effort to create an environment that grows the manufacturing sector so companies can hire for jobs that will stay here. in the meantime, our overseas competitors are doubling down on investments in their own work forces, in innovation, and in providing the tools that nurture manufacturing growth. not only are other countries surging ahead in the number of engineers and scientists they graduate, but they're pouring into basic research and technology departments. the national science board reported earlier this year that and nine other countries have increased their research and development spending to match our own. and the wealthiest country in the world, we will allows only if we fail to invest in the

priorities of success. we've seen the manufacturing sector help our recovery gain momentum but we know that's not enough. congress must pass a comprehensive jobs plan that invests in the advanced manufacturing and innovation that's critical to our future. two years ago, democrats introduced such a plan. it's called, "make it in america." the premise is simple. if we can help manufacturers make it, manufacture it, grow it here in america, then it will help all of our people make it in america, succeed, seize opportunity, get jobs. make it in america combines business tax reforms that encourage manufacturers to bring jobs back with strategic investments in education, job training, innovation, green energy technology and infrastructure. under make it in america, businesses would be able to base

decisions not on the best tax outcome but, more importantly, on the best economic outcome. quite simply, business judgments, not tax judgments. our plan is also recognized that our current system of taxation is too complex and there's a growing consensus that we should lower rates, broaden the base, close loopholes and maintain, at minimum revenue levels. businesses will make things in america, in my opinion, only if it is profitable to make things in america. we must, of course, also, as the president has observed, address regulation. in his state-of-the-union address in january, president obama called for smarter regulations that will keep americans safe and help business grow. he said, and i quote, "most new jobs are created in start-ups and small businesses." so let's pass an agenda that helps them succeed, tear down regulation that is prevent aspiring entrepreneurs from

getting the financing to grow, and i would add, simply needed regulations to ensure protection of consumers and competitors without impeding growth and investment. that can and must be done. but addressing taxes and regulations alone won't do it. again and again, we've heard from manufacturers looking to invest here that they simply cannot find enough workers with the skills and training they need in engineering and advanced machine operations. we need to ensure that americans have the skills and knowledge to perform the jobs created by advanced manufacturing enterprises. furthermore, our economy will benefit from the enactment of a comprehensive immigration reform that helps us attract and retain talent here and invest in the strength of our immigrant entrepreneurs seeking, as so many of the previous generations have done to, make it in america.

rejecting the most skilled from our shores is neither consistent with our tradition of welcoming those who wish to help make america great nor rational in our efforts to compete in a global marketplace. make it in america is the comprehensive jobs plan our country needs. it draws on the best ideas from both parties and has won praise from both business and labor. and we've already had some success with 10 make it in america bills signed into law, including the america competes act to strengthen science and math education, the america invents act that achieved long overdo patent reform and the reauthorization of the small business innovation research and small business technology transfer programs. the two parties also worked together to pass the jump-start our businesses act, a bipartisan legislative package that included a number of proposals from our make it in america agenda supported by the

congress. last week, institute of supply management reported that june was the first month that the manufacturing sector contracted since july 2009. and today, u.s. manufacturers are expected to announce that growth in first-quarter earnings this year were the slowest since 2009. it is not time to hunker down. it's time to go on offense. we cannot let this become a trend. members of congress must set aside their political differences and take action. in his book "make it in america," dow chemical c.e.o. writes, "if we are going to make a national commitment to building things again, it's going to require a new approach to governing. we will not succeed without a comprehensive national economic strategy, one that extends across policy areas, across

cabinet departments and congressal committees." government at its best creates a climate in which companies with fulfill their potential. that's what american business needs, action, not inaction. dedicated attention, not indifference. this same sentiment was expressed in our meeting with the national association of manufacturing which has been a strong advocate for bringing government and the private sector into agreement when it comes to boosting competitiveness. that's what our competitors are doing and we should not shrink from that. two months ago we saw a glimpse of how things ought to be when 147 house republicans and every member of the democratic caucus joined together to reauthorize the export/import bank. this was a major component of our make it in america plan and will help us fulfill president obama's objective of doubling american exports by 2015.

that a piecefact of legislation that used to have nearly unanimous support took so much effort ought to concern us all. i hope those who came together in a spirit of bipartisanship that day will continue doing so to pass more make it in america bills in the days to come. that's why i am introducing additional steps congress can take right away. the democrats are putting forward several new proposals as part of our plan and are calling on the house leadership to work with us this summer to act on it. first is the bring jobs home act sponsored by bill that would eliminate this for companies shipping jobs overseas. it would keep it for those bringing jobs on shore.

it would further provide a new credit for companies moving jobs back home. congress should pass a miscellaneous term to eliminate duties on certain ones not produce in the united states, particularly raw materials and input i used by manufacturing to make it in america. -- that are used by manufacturing to make it in america. this will reduce their production costs and help make these manufacturers more competitive. the third and fourth in the items being added will help us close the skills gap and connect more out of work americans with will plant manufacturing jobs. one is a reauthorization and modernization of the work force investment act sponsored by john. thatther is kathy's bill grants $1,000 per student tax credit to employers that partner with colleges and trade schools to provide skills necessary. president obama proposed manufacturing innovation that will bring manufacturers, academia, and government together to create an

infrastructure that will accelerate the development of manufacturing technologies. in a couple of weeks we will be introducing legislation to implement this proposal. as much as the ought to be addressing this we also must -- investing in the innovation netowrk, we must also invest in improving the physical network of rails. we passed and of the structure bill before the july 4 break. it was the last day at the last minute. it was the right thing to do but it will not create the confidence of long-term planning that america need to make so that we can make it in america.

the act will lead to the development of a strategic transportation plan to assess the needs of our aging networks and create a national freight in for a stretch for grant program. -- infrastructure grant program. as ships are built larger, we need support and freight facilities that can accommodate them. we must make sure that other companies -- countries are playing fair. and abiding by the rules. the bill sponsored by linda sanchez and congressman billy long will establish new procedures for investigating claims against foreign manufacturers for countervailing orders. it'll help us better enforce rules and prevent illegal imports. in addition to these measures, the committee came together in a bipartisan vote last month to send to the house floor and make it in america bill sponsored by bill of illinois.

it is called the american manufacturing competitive act and calls for the development of a strategy. -- a national manufactruing strategy. you cannot win the game if you do not have a playbook. you cannot win the game if you do not have a strategy to do so. the strategy will bring together public and private sectors to create a comprehensive plan of action and require that it be updated at least at the four years. -- every four years. any business executive will tell you that you ought to have a carefully crafted strategy before undertaking a large project. i hope the full house will pass the bill and to so quickly. it passed on the committee overwhelmingly on a bipartisan vote. taken together with the other legislation with are introduced, these measures will help us invest in out educating, out innovating, and out-building our competitors.

they all agree that manufacturing is ready to take off and carry other sectors of our economy with it. it will push our manufacturing sector appeared it is a strategy all americans can agree on. this is what we need to do if we're going to remain competitive in this century ahead. as i have said many time, congress must work concurrently on achieving a big solution to the deficits and death that confront us. if we're going to a for the

investments contained in our plan, our competitiveness is dependent on congress and our country acting with courage and determination to address our fiscal challenge, namely this one blooming at the end of the year. that is why i have called on congress to go big with a balanced solution before the year is over. we will have to address deficits to the onset of sequestration. a number of items are scheduled to expire. as well as the estate tax in the alternative minimum tax. all of these we will confront. we need to confront them with courage and will. greece does not have the resources to solve its problem. america does have the resources.

all we need is the political will and courage to do so. we will have to put everything on the table to make strategic choices. if we do not address this it will not be this. we have always been a solution driven people. common sense carried as across this fast company. -- us across this vast continent. they drove us forward to achieve in science and medicine. they carried us to the moon and safely back to earth. we must embrace them once more. we must strive for solutions. we must substitute confrontation with operation. if we can achieve this, and the effects will not only be felt in our time. it is up to us to some of the challenges we face.

we must recommit ourself with solution driven politics, one that will enable us to achieve what americans deserve, solutions that will help more of our people make it in america. only working together, not as democrats or republicans, but as americans, can rise to meet our challenges. i know we can do it. i hope you know we can do it. we have done it in the past. we can do so again. thank you very much. >> thank you so much. if you will identify yourself and ask your question, that would be great.

>> what he mentioned about having a solution for america, made in america is very good. you need something concrete. you need a future for america. the wapa program reprsents -- represents a future for america.we need a future for america with 6 billion jobs immediately. we need a national banking system and this manufacturing process. will you commit yourself to signing on as a sponsor of legislation this week? >> kabul not commit to that today. let me say this. -- i will not commit to that

today. we passed a major reform of banking regulation in the last congress, as you know. that was absolutely essential to put in effect the referee on the field. we have had some major events happened since that passage. jpmorgan chase in particular, which i think will focus the congress and the american people on the necessity to ensure that the regulatory part of the banking world works and it works to the protection of the american people and the creation of solid competition. i think in that process you will see a lot of a preview of what was done previously with respect to that.

what is being done to the proposals in the financial reform at to see whether they are going to work to accomplish this. >> another question in the front row here. >> thank you. >> as the president -- gets support for extending the bush tax cuts, [unintelligible] do you support the level the president is supporting or those making a million dollars or more of? >> i believe that what ever you figure you choose, and i do support the president, but it will be a metaphor. our republican colleagues will not support increasing revenues on any persons in america matter how much the make.

clearly we want to make sure that the working americans continue to have the ability to purchase goods. we are a consumer driven economy. we need to grow good paying jobs to make an agenda. american just a 20 to serve more than other jobs in our economy -- 22% more than other jobs in our economy. he has a initially right at 250. i would be prepared to go lower sometime in the future than that. our economy is still struggling. going lower than that would have an adverse impact. i do nothing going higher will have an adverse impact on the economy. >> thank you very much. my name is jerry. i represent the eir magazine.

the question is this. i do not know if you are aware that a leading circle in britain connected to the financial world have publicly now called for a full glass-steagall. their argument was that a volcker rule or regulation, they will say it will not work. the system is so bankrupt cannot bail it out. these are guys involved in financing. they say it is a strict glass- steagall so that credit can be made available for the kind of fdr recovery program, which i think you're talking about. there will be in national manufacturer. you have to have the credit. they're trying to bail out a system. >> we have a question about glass-steagall.

>> without repeating too much to my answer before, be passed significant legislation. i understand the argument. it did not go far enough. it did not create a wall strong enough are high enough from the perspective. i think that will be subject to further discussion. i think it is a legitimate discussion. >> nicolas with the day the caller. -- the daily caller. i wonder if you think the health-care laws requirements and small-business is that there were 50 employees. could that affect their incentive to grow? >> i think this requires personal and corporate responsibility to provide for them.

i think to growth and our health care system has helped employer based insurance. but in small and larger businesses. we have seen that eroded because the rapid escalation of health- care costs. the bill as an effort to stanch that rapid escalation. stabilize them and give people help you need a getting insurance and spreading the risk so that everybody does have insurance. i think that is inappropriate -- is an appropriate step step for

us to have taken. we will look to see how that operates. i think we have to look at how it impacts small, medium, and large individuals to make sure it works as planned. doing nothing is not an option. there are substantial sums through the legislation that has been foes. -- that has been proposed. i think we will have to see whether it has adverse impacts. >> there are a number of ways. in action lowers health care costs by reforming the entire health-care system. -- it actually lowers health care costs by reforming the entire health-care system. this would actually help jump- start the hires.

>> aetna let me add to what he says. -- let me add to that. obviously -- let me add to what he said. obviously you can have a race to the bottom. and then you are going to have to pass that cost along to somebody. you know the taxpayer pays the purchase of health insurance paying about $1,000 per family for uncompensated care. we have tried to bring this down. i think this was one of the efforts. this is something they are undertaking. the 31st vote to repeal health care, after every vote over the last 31, not one alternative has been proposed. >> let me check on the initiatives.

republicans this week are going to stage a vote to read bill obamacare. -- to repeal obamacare. what are the prospects of passing this before the election? to see all the initiatives as being aimed at 32nd campaign ads? >> the probability of the latter is more probable than the former of dealing with the substantive issues. that is unfortunate. that was a hostile takeover of the corporation of which i am a member, a minority stockholder. he said weeks ago that he did nothing much was going to be

done between now and the election. i think that is unfortunate. people are out of jobs. people are anxious. we need to build confidence. in the long run, i think that doing a big, bold, balance a to fiscal policy, which will pace the united states on fiscally sustainable path is frankly the best thing that we could do for the economy. it is going to be essential if when we hit all of these things sometime between now and november 6, this congress needs to take responsible action to take us on a sound path. we will also pass substances legislation to grow the jobs bill.

i have urged him to bring it to the floor. i said if you do not agree with it, fine. a vote against it. mr. john boehner said the substantive issues will be put on the floor and the house would work its will. the president has offered a very substantive piece of legislation which could grow as many as 2 million jobs. we will have that on the floor. i urge him to put that on the floor. let us vote it up or down. the answer is he is saying he does not think we will do much. we will simply be offering legislation to create what newt gingrich wanted to create, wedge issues and confrontation and division.

that is unfortunate to the country. other than that i do not think much about it. >> i have a radical idea. i wonder if the time has come that both education and health care should be considered infrastructure. roads and ports are necessary for manufacturing. i think a healthy educated work force is equally important for capitalism. that may change the concept of how we should fund it. >> i have an alternative. you're raising a point. it ought to get funded. there are national security issues. education is a national security issue. infrastructure is a national security issue. as well as stabilizing our economy is a security issue. if we think of it in the context of our national security

as well as our national future and the future of our children, i think we ought to consider both of those issues as national security issues. >> i think that is a great ending. thank you so much. >> thank you all for being here. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the house of representatives will debate tomorrow on repealing the health care law president obama signed two years ago. that begins at noon eastern with live coverage on c-span. also tomorrow on washington

journal, the measure with two members of congress. tim murphy and democrat earl blumenauer. also joining us, louise will join vote -- discussed the role hospitals and employers and other industry groups are playing in implementing the law. live on c-span every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. republican presidential candidate mitt romney is in colorado on tuesday. he is hosting a town hall meeting in grand junction. live coverage starting at 12:35 eastern on c-span 3. >> we have great threats to our existence today as a nation. i would think in my opinion, greater than any threat we have ever faced, whether it has been our civil war or revolutionary war or world war ii, or the

depression. and that threat comes to us because we have spent the last 30 years in this country spend the money that we did not have on things we did not absolutely need and the bill is due. >> colorado christian university held the western conservatives issues summit, featuring speakers from this country and the netherlands. wash the forum online at the c- span video library -- watch the form online at the c-span video library. >> the eurozone's monetary union will stick together to the current tour moral but the next years will be tough economically for the region. carlos ghosn talks with alan murray at a wall street journal formed. this is just over an hour.

>> let me thank you all for coming back to the viewpoints breakfast. it is great to see so many distant this -- distinguished new yorkers. i want to thank carlos ghosn, one of the two icons of the business community, for being our guest. i also want to thank our wonderful sponsors for their continued support of these events. we will give the opening word to javier of bcg. >> good morning. i am the senior partner and managing director at bcg. i lead our detroit office and global practice. as you can hear from the way i speak, i am not from detroit.

welcome all of you. i am happy to welcome carlos ghosn from the nissan alliance -- renault-nissan alliance to be with us. bcg sponsored this series on the east and west coast since 2008. i would like to take the opportunity to thank iese, our cosponser for being with us in this series. i do not want to spend the next few minutes giving you a list of the accomplishments carlos ghosn which you are all very familiar with. but i would like to give you a few cheap -- traits of his personality. the first thing i would like to say is he is probably the most

american of the japanese business leaders. he succeeded to be nicknamed mr. 7-11 for the long hours he spent in office but he is the only foreigner who is the hero of a japanese manga which is the equivalent of our marvel comics. this i believe is the only real equivalent of "iron man" and " captain america." first first met in --w e met in 1997 and paris and he was about to make a speech at a conference where bill gates with the speaker. i'm sure that evening, he decided to become as famous as bill. in 2003, he was voted the man of the year after the stunning

turnaround at nissan. he they collected recognition all around the world and just last year, cnbc listed him as business leader of the year. he also thinks the big. if you take renault, nissan, -- one car out of -- one car out of 10 sold in the world are part of the renault-nissan alliance. nissan is above 8% of the u.s. market. for someone who travels across continents several times a month in his corporate jet, i think carlos has no anxiety. you probably know that the nissan is the first zero

emission volume car produced in the world. in investment of $4 billion which means he has no anxiety about the future of this technology. the last thing you probably all know, carlos is very smart. in 1990 when he was the ceo of another company, he required an integrated goodrich. it was a very successful and i think he decided never to do it again. he made sure he did not fully integrate so that he could be the ceo of three companies. renault, nissan and teh renault- nissan alliance./

without further ado, let me hand off to alan murray, deputy manager of the "wall street journal" who will facilitate today's discussion. >> thank you very much. [applause] javier mentioned electric cars. there is really no one in the world who has been a big proponent of electric cars. you have put your money where your mouth is and invested billions of dollars getting something like 11 factories in eight different countries. wired magazine said you are either a brilliant visionary or you are as crazy as a loon. which is it? what electric cars? >> every time you face a challenge, you are always considered a lunatic or somebody who is a visionary.

this kind of statements, i have had that throughout my career. the last time i had them is when we meet this alliance with renault and nissan. these kinds of statements we got like two muileles do not make a horse race, and if you throw billions of dollars in the ocean, that would be better than putting them into nissan. let me tell you -- our industry for many years has been considered as a bunch of conservative people not looking forward, addicted to oil. we have been called as an industry extremely conservative, sticking to our short-term interests and not looking into the future. there is an issue today which is

too much dependence on oil and we have a good solution. we have the zero emission car. the electric car is one of them. fuel cell is the second one. you cannot expect that people are going to be here waiting for electric cars. you have to sell the concept and have many people using it, trying to get accustomed to it and little by little, it is coming. it is not only driven by consumers but by the government. it is a very significant in the global world. the state council of china three weeks ago decided there will be 5 million electric cars in china by 2020. coming from europe, 5 million electric cars -- all car manufacturers are being called to say if you want to expand

your operation in china or building the plant, you better come with a new energy car. i think the future is for zero emission. i still stick by my 10% of the market at least where the car is offered in 2020. we will just have to be patient enough, steady enough, strategic enough to make ends meet. >> i want to come back to china in a minute but let's stick to the u.s. market, the one the people in this room know the best. last month the numbers were around 500. you have to be disappointed. at one point, you said we would sell and lease 20,000 electric cars in 2012. it looks pretty disappointing. >> you are coming to the monthly sale of one car in the west. i am looking at the global sale of many cars coming.

looked at the big picture. last year, we sold 25,000 nissan, the most electric -- the most electric cars sold in history. if you focus on one particular month and one particular market and say you only sold 400 or 600, it is disappointing. we cannot get all of our targets right every single month. it will not happen like this. but the trend is the trend for people getting accustomed to it and the infrastructure being built little by little. the anxiety be put into its own perspective. there are still a lot of people are hesitant about electric cars. all of the people buying this nissan vehicle are extremely happy. that is very important for us. we have a very innovative car

and innovative technology to read the amount of call -- probably had to face is very limited. >> you are talking about a fraction of their total global -- 1/20th of 1% to read you ever hear from shareholders? how about focusing on the 7 million cars terry >> shareholders to not say that. the media says that. -- shareholder do not say that. the media says that. [laughter] they are happy. the results of the company are good. we are hitting all of our targets and are growing a lot. for me, we are not growing because of the electric car but it is one engine of growth for the future. this is our responsibility but making sure that we have enough

fuel and and and for future growth. future growth is coming from this new kind of technology which will become a big engine of growth. in china, 5 million electric cars in 2020, that will be a tremendous -- >> let's talk about china. you have a joint venture with a chinese company. how much of that 5 million cars a do you think you can capture? >> if i can capture most of them, i will be very happy but obviously they will be competition. you cannot only say i have an electric car, come see it at the detroit motor show and the car disappears. you have to have them on the street. the only zero emission cars driven on the road in the united states -- [inaudible] a nissan leaf.

you are coming from zero to 5 million, a lot of investments will have to be made in factories and motors. people have a choice. >> general motors announced it was not going to take its electric technology to china because it was worried about intellectual property theft. does that concern you? >> the fact they are not going to china? >> no, intellectual property theft in china? which china is the largest market for the car manufacturers. 18 million cars sold the second- largest market in the united states with 13.5 million cars to read with the perspective of growth of the chinese market which is obviously significantly

higher than of any other country because they're building the infrastructure and a half below the number of cars per inhabitant. you can go into a country like this being afraid to share the technology but you will have to either go in or you do not. when you go in, you work with a partner you respect. thickly we have no complaints to make about bringing in of the technology and cars. >> you are not worried about intellectual property protection in china? >> i am not. i have no facts in justifying this year. i am talking about my own industry, my own business. >> he mentioned it range anxiety. -- you mentioned range

anxiety. how will that be solved? >> you know that a lot of investments are being poured into the battery, a piece of technology of the future. we know how to produce energy, all we do not know how to store it. the technology is how can you store energy in a sydney but it the way, particularly in a system where you need high variation of intensity. when using a computer, you do not need a big battery but when using a car, you are accelerating. you need these 250 kgs of dicks in order to move the car. a lot of investments are being made it into korea, japan, the united states. >> but we have not seen a breakthrough yet. >> it is coming. in terms of the chemistry and component being used, there are

a lot of breakthroughs. today our main objective is not -- is cutting the cost. that is the most important thing. we want to be able to continue to sell electric cars without any incentive given by the government to the citizen. we will increase the range. all the leafs being sold -- we know every single leaf, how many miles they do, when they charge the car and how much time is charging. in the united states, people drive the car on average 22 miles a day. the range of the car is 100 miles. even if you are in the worst condition -- driving up till, a 0 degree temperatures. you open the windows. in the worst condition, you will get 45 or 50 miles. people are driving 25 miles a day to day with the present

technology. so these people do not have ranged anxiety. we are not saying the electric car is for everybody in the market. we are looking at 10% of the market, many people using a short distance. what you think range anxiety is more psychological? >> is a problem for the people who will never by the electric car. i do not have to worry about people who will never by the electric car. i have to worry about the 10% of the people who want to buy out that the cars telling me, do this a little bit better. these are the people i need to worry about and make sure i am giving them more. people who are buying -- the love the concept. i can give you many names of people, very famous, using them in different ways to say we need to continue. somebody needs to break this glass and we need to get out of

this addiction to the old transportation system. >> to operate in two of the toughest economies in the world -- europe and japan. let's start with europe. tell us about what you think the picture is there. we in the headlines, a los very discouraging. -- reading the headlines, it looks very discouraging. >> will europe break? i do not think so. i think the euro will stay. i think the europeans will find the solutions in order to hold europe together. >> with some countries leaving? >> if the pence. for me if they have to leave, it will be to be on the side of the wild -- for a while and come back under certain conditions.

to make sure you do not take a particular risk and you except modification on the margin. i do not believe europe will break and i believe the euro will stay there. i have no doubt that the next three or four years in europe will be at best stagnation. we will all struggle and we are preparing for tough times on the european and economy. >> stagnation suggests no growth, no shrinkage. the growth. within 1 percent, you will be within this range. >> not worse than that? >> it can get the west. -- worse. this is my worst scenario. he meets always plan for the worst and hope for the best. for the moment, we are planning for the worst and the worst is now. the market is down more than 50% in france.

more than 9% in europe. >> because people are not spending? >> there is so much uncertainty. every day, you do not know of the euro will stay or not if you will -- or if you will have a financial crisis are not. every single government that went in front, lost the election. people are uncertain. they are looking for some basic things to re-start a normal life. >> when does that uncertainty and? >> hopefully within the next months, we will have some decisions to understand that this big armageddon in europe will not take place and we will have some sort of reasonable solution. it does not mean problems will be solved from one day to another. we might have for years of tough times of cutting deficits in

being cautious on resources. we may have to go through this. for companies, it is a challenge because you need to look better than your competitors. it is not about complaining about the situation but to say he will go three or four tough years and make sure you will be strong enough to make it through those years and what comes after. >> in japan, the currency is as strong as it has ever been. much stronger than you thought it would be. how do you operate an auto company and that kind of environment? >> i have been vocal on the level of the yen. companies usually -- japan has major corporations and a lot of them are very strong and

competitive. companies did not suffer as much as the country does. companies adapt. if the yen is strong, i will invest my new cars a that a china or thailand or mexico. a lot of major companies are doing that. what happens is you are training investments outside japan -- draining investment outside japan. you have the questions about energy. if he shuts down the nuclear power and replace it with what? this is a country living from people. the only thing japan has its technology, people. so energy is extremely important. so far there is no clear answer. i think the duty of people

economically responsible for computing -- is to say what we think. the level of the yen that is unbelievable. we still produce 25% of our cars in japan. we are probably one of the least -- the percentage is probably one of the smallest. >> toyota is not leaving. >> we are not saying we are leaving but we are making sure we are not being hurt too much by the level of the yen. when you sit down with people who are so-called experts in exchange rate and they tell you why the yen will be strong, when you put yourself as a common-

sense person -- the strength of the currency translates the vigor of an economy, the vision for the future. we have none of that. none of that in japan. we are stunned by the fact that the yen is that 78 to the dollar. that is an historical high. so the country is suffering but my duty is first to make sure nisei gets -- nissan gets unscathed. without forgetting the fact of we are a japanese company. we need to keep our roots in japan and make sure to fight. >> to talk about being a japanese company. you are the ultimate global businessmen. lebanese parents. born in brazil.

schooled in france. a good bit of time in the united states and then this remarkable turnaround at nissan. in part by going against the things that were essential to japanese culture. the system of cross ownership. you for all of that down. i remember people at the time saying this is the wave of the future. there will be more and more executives like this. there have not really been. in japan, there were just four. howard stringer who was on the stage not long ago has had mixed results. the fellow at olympus got chased out of the country. what did you do that no one else has been able to do? >> a think japan is famous red -- is being misread. i have been there since 1999. i still work there. i go there every month.

i have a lot of love and despair for the country. i have the weakness to think this is shared. i am not being chased out of the country. japan likes change if change gives results. it is very simple. when i abide there and announced the changes i was going to make -- when i arrived there and announced the changes that was going to make, what saved me was the sentence i made after announcing the changes. i am committing results. if in one year, this company is not profitable, i am out and with me, all the members of the executive committee. you have to categories of people. if people think i will hit the wall, i say okay, we wait until

that is gone. then the experience is finished. it people are favorable, they say let's wait and then we will see what happens. women got the results, a lot of people were against the changes -- but we got the results, a lot of people who were against the changes said let's wait a second year. but you cannot save yourself by cutting costs. became with new products. be expanded. -- but we came with new products. be expanded -- we expanded. if you produce results, you have a lot in front of you. i do not think the japanese people like the speeches were you promised the moon. we want to make change, show us the results on the short term and make sure your restate -- you stick to them. if you follow this, there is no

reason you are not going to stay or prosper. nissan has an amazing case. people told me everything was not feasible in japan and we have done everything and we continue to do it because we were capable of demonstrating every single year that this was for the better of the company. >> would you pass honda? which are the important metrics for you in measuring yourself against honda? >> we already passed honda. sales in the united states is different but in terms of revenue and numbers of cars, we are by far the second largest car manufacturer, japanese car manufacturer. we are number one in china and

number one with the japanese. we are trying to be number one in all of the emerging markets and are following that. in the united states, we are no. 3. we are moving ahead. hopefully one day you will see us above 10% market share which is the first goal of nissan in the united states. >> you were the only person to ever run into fortune 500 companies at the same time. how does that work. there must be some tug and pull between the two places, particularly the time like now where you have serious problems in europe. >> if i am doing this, it is because this was the best option for both companies taking conversation. shareholders can say i do not want to share my ceo was someone

else. every two years, i am being voted as ceo of nissan's and that any moment, shareholders can say we did not want it. but they do not. they like the effect of having someone maintaining the two companies and making the synergies work. in 13 years without one single conflict. in our industry, we have a lot of casualties when it comes to mergers and acquisitions and alliances. it does not work very well. for 13 years, people can criticize by saying you did not go far enough but we are still there and there is no other reference. so the system works. it will continue to work. based on good respect for some basic principles, not only as

the booklet but in terms of practice. it is theft. every month you are moving from one company to another -- it is tough. every monday are moving from one company to another. but it is also exciting. when you move from one company to another, there are completely different -- >> you have managed japanese, french. you ran the sun here in the u.s. and had managed americans. you are the most difficult to manage? >> it depends on what an ankle. -- on your angle. >> you can take whatever an gle you want. >> i think it depends for what.

i think being a ceo in a japanese company is absolutely remarkable. i feel so good because you have the impression you can do anything you want. people are so different to authority and the respect, usually ceos in japan are not very talkative. it people are extremely cautious about what they say. i'm coming from a latin environment. usually when you do something, people tell yes but they do something different. [laughter] you spend a lot of time trying to bring them back to your decision. in japan, know.

you say something will be done, it will be done. it is very refreshing when you are a ceo. when you notice you are being taken very seriously, you're being much more cautious about orientation. in a latin environment, you are less careful because you know they're not going to follow. they will follow half way, there will be interpretation, i will spend a lot of time explaining what i want, etc. [laughter] >> and france? >> if it is a latin environment. -- it is a latin environment. [laughter] >> will you be succeeded by one person or separate ceos? you have written about this and talk about it. succession is an important part of your thinking. >> it is. when the issue of succession

came, i asked my team to give me the eighth instance -- security of all the ceos in the current industry. i am the second most senior of the car industry. the number one is unbeatable. he has been there since probably i was born. i know -- >> i want to make clear it as an employee of news corp., i not asking this question because i think there is a natural -- >> let's take a look at that. so i am the most senior. maybe one day they say he will have to leave and someone else will come. then you look at aids. -- at age. it happens tat hat i am still oe of the youngest.

there are two people younger than me. i must be no. 17 in terms of aids. age. terms of it is not a question of that. it is if shareholders are happy with the or not. -- with your or not. >> you see if contact by contact -- contract by contract? >> yes. it is up to the shareholders. >> when the time comes, would you advocate a single ceo or two? >> i have been crucified as ceo of two companies.

i would not wish for anybody to go through what i have been in terms of personal life. anything going wrong anywhere, you are responsible for it. in a certain way, it is not normal for be -- to be one ceo to large companies. i would not recommend this >> i would not recommended. you may have to do with because you are in particular circumstances where this may be the best solution. we will go probably for mutual responsibilities. >> the u.s. automatic -- automotive industry has gone through difficulty in the past five years. people have approach to about getting involved. you have had conversations with bill ford.

was that something that attracted you? >do you think you could have helped the u.s. auto industry? >> nobody envisioned something like this to help the industry. you do it because you see in interest for your company. ucla win-win situation -- you see a win-win situation. we could have done a great job except the fact that i do not believe that you can do something like this if you do not have a neutral appetite for the move. if you do not have the neutral appetite, it does not work. if someone does not share your own region, you probably read it on the side and move forward.

every single operation we have done was based on a neutral belief that thing together is better than being alone. >> you talked about the difficulties of running two companies. do you think you could have ran 3? >> you just have a different organization to run it. the amount of synergies' you can squeeze out of two or three large players in the car amazing.is this is the key. we have 13 years of experience. we are making the japanese and french were together. nissan is a japanese company. now we have diaimer.

they are our last partner. we are neglecting a lot of products together. we have three teams that are meeting with leaders every two months. we have incorporating committee between them. they are sitting around the table. they are going very smoothly. you can multiplied this. that is the way of the future appears you are talking about globalization. how can you be global and local at the same time? you can only be global if you are stronger local. i can go over the world because i have my home somewhere. if i did not, i would not be able to get interest in the world. the roots are extremely important. you can look at the planet without fear. if you are afraid about the roots, you will consider globalization as a brisk. for companies, it is the same.

company should not be threatened in their identity. they will look for alliances and corporations. if he think the other guy will eat you up. and you will work for someone you do not know, it will not work. i looked very carefully to what was going on. at that moment between the companies, it was interesting. i was looking at it from the reaction of the people. they are neighbors. they are the cousins and the friend and the brothers of the people at nissan. they were telling the stories about the loss of identity. i knew that when people think that their identity is not being respected, no matter how rational you are, and no matter how much synergies' you will bring to the table. this is essential.

when you answer this, there is no limit to what you can do. >> how did you do that? >> i would not compare ourselves to anyone else. what we said is the principle of the alliance is a 1, 2, 3, and we stuck to the principles all the time. let me give you a sample. i said i would never make a decision where there is no win- win between the two companies. i never did it no matter how much pressure i received. they would say you should go this way. today, nissan winds. tomorrow, nissan luces. -- loses. people never remember when they win. they always remember when they lose. after a few years, you have people with a lot of grief that

this alliance has me in and handicap. not giving people any reason to remember the negative stuff has been one of the basic elements. you need to be strong. tell people know, how will not go this way. i will be there in five years down the road. if you will pressure me, we will fall. >> we have had a great debate in this country. we are in the middle of an election. did the government to make the right moves in billing of the u.s. auto industry? >> you can look at what happens before 2007. i do not think anybody was expecting that the united states government would become the shareholder of general myers and chrysler.

we thought about mergers, acquisitions, alliances, but i do not think anybody has claimed even after the fact that this was one of the possible scenarios. the only reason it has been accepted very well by the person who was in charge, he said the only reason why we did it was jobs. perspective of losing 1 million -- it is not the jobs for general motors and chrysler, you are losing these suppliers. people came to me and said your competitors are in trouble. when they are in trouble, i am scared to death because i have the same suppliers. if theywe were all scared. the fact the government bailed out the industry, not only do people understand the government is here to preserve jobs.

for the competitors, it was the right move because it saved the industry and allow all of us to continue. >> it was the right thing to do? >> i think so. after, it is obvious. companies are doing better today. i am not trying to be in politics. i am talking about the fact. this would have been a disaster in terms of employment and also for the industry. a lot of suppliers would not have made it. >> let's open it up to questions and comments. please identify yourself before asking the question. right here, please. >> you did not say what the concrete results are of your alliance in terms of synergies. as i look at it from the outside, they are two companies and have not done much together.

that is probably wrong. the second question is does the merger in the future follow the alliance? >> the two companies do a lot of things together. we have common platforms and engines. we produce for each other. we have common information systems, common purchasing. it is based on cooperation in projects. all of the engines on nissan cars in europe are from renault. nissan has been the most growing japanese carmaker the last three or four years in europe. one reason is the engine and technology is there. we did not have to wait for

technology. we went to russia. renault to 25%. we have a clear signal from the russian authorities you cannot move up from 25%. after three years, they like what they have seen. they said we want you to take control but have nissan join. they considered nissan a good addition. we announced we would be moving above 3% ownership. part of it is owned by renault. part of it is owned by nissan. the alliance has done a lot. it is not very visible. it is all the things the consumers do not care about. that is fine. the last thing we want to do is have two brands converging. the second question is if we

would go to a merger. i do not think i will see a merger, even after i retire. if there's anything, it will be in the long run. i think the odds will be difficult to seek a merger. renault is a french company. nissan is a japanese company in its roots. the other is a russian company in its roots. this you need to maintain. the organization by which to maintain that can change, but you should never eliminate this basic element for a company like ours. >> christie hefner. you have spoken eloquently about the balance between global and local with respect to the cultures and synergies. i am curious about your thoughts of the portfolio of brands and how you think about

them across countries. in a world where marketing is changing, whether those strategies become more multinational, more local, or the balance is consistent. >> i think you are going to have -- you are seeing today both. we are becoming more global. i can mention one or two campaigns we're doing on a global basis. we're becoming more local. we're using different tools. if you want to have a strong brand, we know one of the basics is to make sure your message is consistent globally. you need to use tools to project the image and promised to the customers. it needs to be the same no matter what country you are in. the culture and needs are

different. you need to develop the concept in a different way in china, the middle east, or brazil. i am seeing both developments taking place. more tools are going to central marketing. there's more empowerment for people on the local level using websites and specific tools to reach communities. >> other questions? >> i am with the environmental defense fund. you have talked publicly about transitioning fleets in developing countries to zero emissions. do you have a vision for how that will be financed? what role do you see the governments having in the

transition? >> i do not see them doing it without the help of the government. we would never try to make this investment if we did not feel from the beginning there was a tremendous amount of interest from different governments. a tremendous amount of interest comes from the fact that many countries today are paying to the consumer a significant amount of money. it is probably the equivalent of $9,000 in china. everybody is saying we want this experience to be successful. we are ready to support the consumer to get there. i think the duty of the industry is to think if we can

keep this for a few years, we're lucky. you need to increase the volume and scale of production to cut costs. when you cut costs -- >> it is 2 or 3 years enough? if you have subsidies for two or three years? >> if you can maintain it to 2015, we will be ok. we will be competitive. i am not one to make you an engineering speech. electric cars are more simple to make than a gasoline internal combustion engine. the industry started to make electric cars. this is the way the industry started. the battery was not at the level and you did not have the

elements, you moved to a very complicated technology which is the internal combustion engine. now technology allows us to make it more simple. there are less parts on an electric car. it is an innovative technology, but there is less technology in an electric car. we know objectively electric cars should be less expensive than internal combustion. 75 million internal combustion engines being produced and sold every year. 20,000 electric cars. >> you have talked about the battery problem. you have not talked much about the infrastructure problem. >> it is going to get there. as the batteries and motorists are evolving, the charging systems are evolving. you have slow charging it with your own plug. i have one in my garage in paris where i can charge for

three hours. it is not a problem. in the united states, a lot of people live in their own house and have their own garage. a plug is easy. it takes eight hours. if you want shorter time, you have the fast charger. that is starting to beat balky equipment, $15,000. now is becoming smaller and less expensive. we're talking about $5,000 on the latest innovation. with the fast charging, you charge in 25 minutes today. if you have a gasoline station and the government says they have to have a fast charger, it is a maximum of $10,000 investment. you are not adding a huge surcharge. you will get this consumer. now you have a network

established with one fast charger. the range anxiety will go down. little by little, you will have all of these things. the chargers will get less expensive and faster. you will charge in a shorter amount of time. the first generation of cellular phone, two kilograms. $10,000 for a telephone. eight hours to charge it. 20 minutes for speaking. people look at it and said it was never going to work. they were looking to the first stage performance of the technology which was revolutionary. we're looking at the electric car st. like the telephone, is bulky and big, but it will change. a lot of people are already getting investment going. we know we will have full

dependency. >> you mentioned the twidgy in your garage in paris. it is about the size of this table. do you drive it around paris? >> this is anxiety. [laughter] you do not have to worry about it. you can put it anywhere for a motorcycle. it is a great car. when i charge it, i would pay one euro. when you talk about reviewing the car, you are talking about 100 years. people will see the difference between the cost and convenience. it will become a fact of life. >> do people notice you driving around paris? >> nobody cares. [laughter]

>> i have a media question for you. you are covered intensively by the media in japan, france, and the u.s. what is the difference in the coverage? what bugs you about the "wall street journal"? [laughter] >> ok, next question. >> the media is very different from one country to another, obviously. but they all have something in common. when you have a positive article, a negative one is being prepared. you go up and down and up and down. with the media, a lot of attention in any country. in some countries, positive

articles are more frequently than in others. the positive articles are probably more frequent in the united states than other countries. they are important to deal with, but you need to get used to it. it is a very special instrument. you want to make sure you have low expectations. i am sorry to say that. you will not be disappointed about how objective the media will be. when you overcome this -- you overcome it with age. when i came to japan in 1999, i was lucky not to be able to understand japanese or read japanese, because there were plenty of negative articles

about what i was doing. people would come and say did you see this? i would say i did not want to read it. i am going my own way. as long as you keep yourself to your own objectives, listening to your own people, you are going to be fine. >> and did you want to say something nice about the "wall street journal"? >> look at where i am today. >> on the electric car, what investments are you making? where is the high-end engineering work being done? what other factors in deciding where you want to invest? >> most of the top level engineering for the development of batteries and electric cars and components in japan. some of it is being done in

france. we're now building facilities -- we started building facilities in japan. we have facilities coming on board in the united states in tennessee. we have a battery plant in tennessee. we have a car plant in tennessee. the leaf will be assembled in the united states. it will help with the cost. we have a base in france for renault. we have a base in japan for nissan. the most advanced technology is taking place in japan and france. the development to make new cars and a continuous improvement takes place in a different production centers, the united states, the u.k., france, and probably some in china. >> we have time for a couple more questions. one here and then across the table.

>> the car is the second-largest investment for a family after a home. you spend probably 20% daily of your time on your car. entertainment, communications, how will that impact the car industry going forward? >> a lot. there is a lot of competition with partners. life has been changed these companies. the telephone has become a box for applications and marginally telephone. the car is being seen as an object or the next big box of application will be centered around this. not a lot of people do not have a car. there are going to be a lot in the emerging markets, this is

the first thing people want to buy when they access acquisition power. they want to buy a car. the competition to be able to communicate, work in the car -- we now have systems allowing you to sit in the car and the car will drive by itself. the only problem i have to solve is liability. that is why you are asking the person to stay in the car. you can imagine a car of the future driven by itself. the person sitting in the car has nothing to do, just to make sure nothing wrong happens. you want to use this time. communication, the ability to do things from a distance is an essential element. there is another essential element. the population is getting older. one of the big handicaps of the older population is at a certain point time, people cannot drive.

if you can release people from the necessity of life and just ask them to stay in the car while it is driving by itself, a large segment of the population is still going to be interested in car buying. we have a lot of research going into how to make the car much more communicative and how to reduce the task you have to do in a car to get the job done. the job done is the transportation. >> [inaudible] >> yes. on top of this, the cost base goes down. when you are connected, you will be more efficient, even driving your car. >> the last question right here. >> can you talk about your partnership with new york city on a taxi?

is it unusual to work with a municipality to design a vehicle? how does that work strategically? >> we're very happy with the decision of the city. it has been a brutal competition. there was a competition on it. we're happy we prevailed in the competition. the city has all the data about how people use cars and what people want to see in taxis. this cooperation with the city to establish the specifications for a car has been extremely positive. we learned a lot. we will be benefiting from it. after the city announced all the taxis of new york are going to become nissans and part will be electric, we have many other cities in the world interested in the product itself. for us, is a huge market. it is not only about new york. it is about many others.

i think more and more for the car industry, the public- private cooperation can carry a lot of potential not only for the companies but also for the public. in 2013, you will see a new car in new york. you will see the difference is huge between the taxi you are using today. you will see the difference with the new tax will come. you will see how much of a good job the city has done with us in making the car it for what new yorkers want. >> the final word goes to our sponsors. mike rosenberg from isa. >> on behalf of our partners, i want to say thank you to kathy and her team for doing a great

job putting this together. alan, you asked great questions. to all of you for showing up. to carlos, for showing up today. i teach strategy and globalization. i do a lot of work on things. you do a lot of work on all of those things. nissan has had a clear strategy. you have always had clear ideas we do you have always had a clear ideas. it is what we teach in business school. you are making ground by looking ahead. you say it is not a bet on the lecture cars. it is the cold calculation about the future. carlos, thank you very much. thank you all for coming. have a great day. [applause] >> before you leave the room, we will be back here on october 31 with the ceo of ebay. please join us.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> coming up on c-span, the house rules committee sets the guidelines for debate on the repeal of the health care law. the debate starts at noon eastern time. then president obama urges the extension of the bush tax cuts. then, chris christie discusses his efforts to balance the new jersey budget. then we'll hear from representative steny hoyer of maryland on the democratic agenda. >> the house of representatives will begin debate on repealing the health care law president

obama signed two years ago. that begins in the house at noon eastern with live coverage on c- span. tomorrow, we will talk about the measures of two members of prop -- about the measure with two members of congress. also joining us will be the wall street journal health policy reporter. she would discuss the roles of various parties are having in the implementation of the law. >> live tuesday, president obama is in cedar rapids, iowa, speaking to campaign supporters. live coverage starting at 1:50 eastern. >> shreveport in march. april in little rock. oklahoma city, may. wichita in june. this past weekend in jefferson

city. the continuing troubles of c- span local content vehicles every month. next month, look for the history and literary culture of our next stop, the little, ky. >> republicans will move forward with debate tomorrow on the house floor to repeal president obama's health-care law. today, the rules committee said the guidelines for debate. this will be the 31st time the house has voted on whether to repeal all. this part of the meeting is one hour and 50 minutes.

>> the rules committee is in order. we are here for the repeal obamacare act, is what it is entitled. we are happy to welcome representatives of the energy and commerce committee, the ways and means committee, and the education and work force committee. why don't we begin in that order? mr. pitts is here on behalf of the chair of the energy and commerce committee. the chair of the subcommittee on health. we are awaiting mr. malone -- mr. pallone. here is mr. pallone. please join your colleagues at the table. let me say that, without

objection, any prepared statement that you have, it looks like you all have some beautifully-prepared remarks. without objection, i know they are all prepared but not in writing. anything you have in writing, unless any member objects, does anyone object to have their statements appear in the record? i hear no objection. your beautifully-prepared remarks will appear on the record in their entirety. i did say all of that to encourage some nation. we begin with the energy and commerce committee. welcome, mr. pitts. nice to see you. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. since the supreme court has decided to leave obamacare largely intact, it is now the job of congress to repeal this wall. since the law was enacted, the

american people have consistently told us one thing. they do not like obamacare. house republicans heard their voice. we pledge lowering health-care costs for families and employees across the country. this bill is a reaffirmation of the important promise we made two years ago. bill law will only serve to undermine and worsen an already anemic recovery. americans want reform that delivers lower health-care costs and president obama told the country that his reforms with lower family premiums by 2005 hundred dollars by the end of his first term. in 2011, the annual premium for employer-sponsored family plans soared past $15,000. that is a sharp 9% increase from 2010. premiums will skyrocket as the rest of the law is implemented

according to estimates from the cbo. americans worry that a 207-page bill from washington will damage the health coverage that have. the president told the country that they like their health care plan. they could keep it. yet surveys of the employers tell us that businesses would drop coverage for employees in advance of the massive new government exchange program beginning in 2014. the cbo estimated that americans will lose health care -- employer-provided health care coverage because of the law. americans realize that too much money is spent in washington and the president told us that this law would cost us $900 million. two years later, a massive medicaid expansion is estimated to cost $1.80 trillion over the next decade. back loadings federal bench -- buy back loading federal spending, it doubled down on

fiscal recklessness. americans want a medicare program that will be there for them and future generations. the president promised to strengthen the medicare program and reform entitlements that are going bankrupt. the medicare program faces 38.9 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities, medicare savings should have been used to strengthen a program with shaky finances. the health-care lot of $575 billion to help pay for new entitlement spending. i could go on about other promises the president made on the individual mandate. it was not a tax. the irs will impose new taxes on medical devices, prescription drugs, health coverage, and tanning services. the agency will impose new savings on health savings and flexible spending accounts.

they will face a tax for failing to provide government-approved health coverage and surtaxes on investment and in all, $800 billion in taxes will crush americans' poor, middle, and rich with higher tax and medical bills. we know about the religious and first amendment rights issue. archbishop timid the golan -- timothy dolan wrote that organizations must stop providing health coverage to call for exemptions. many promises were made to the american people. the only way to honor and fulfil those promises is to support the repeal of obamacare. i urge that you report the bill to the floor. >> mr. pallone. >> thank you, mr. chairman and members of the rules committee.

i am here to testify in strong opposition. i feel like this is an exercise in futility. i do not mean it disrespectfully. i do not know how many times i've been before here, this committee, the energy and commerce committee. it seems like almost every other day, we have an effort to repeal the same thing over and over again. in the words of one of your republican colleagues, these votes mean nothing because "we have already passed repeals 16 ways to sunday." it seems like more than 16 times before my committee. it is like groundhog day around here. i am tired of it and i am tired of it. -- and i think the american people are tired of it. not that many people mention the affordable care act other than to say they like it. it was not the topic of the day. they were talking about the

economy and want us to focus on the economy, creating jobs. not litigating these old political battles. what is happening is that republicans waited, convinced that the supreme court would overturn the aca. when that did not happen, they figure they have to go back and repealed it again. it makes no sense to me. we had the battle. the supreme court said it was constitutional. we should just move on. that is what my constituents are telling me. solving the problems must begin with repeal of the affordable care act. once you have done that, what do you have to replace it? i said to mr. pitts and other gop members of our committee, every time they have another hearing, i never hear any proposal to what you are going to replace it with. what are you going to say to all of the american children who get

insurance regardless of their illnesses? what would you say to the 3.1 million young adults who now have insurance over -- under their parents' plan? what would you say to the cancer patient who can continue their chemotherapy? if you repealed this bill, you are saying that these people are out of luck. republicans are more interested in protecting interests rather than patients' rights. only insurance companies gain from repeals. the repeal means that insurance companies would be put back in charge. they would be up allowed to deny health coverage to breast cancer patients who need to restart their chemo or put an annual cap on the amount of care for a lifetime limit on health coverage for people who are desperate. i do not understand this. i am not trying to be disrespectful, but it seems we have done that before. do not continue to do it.

do not waste our time. the critical issue is not whether we should go back to the health-care system. we cannot go back. the status quo was unsustainable. the issue before us should be to the accelerate economic growth. it is what all people have been talking to me about. they want the country to move forward. you have to stop looking backwards. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am honored to represent the ways and means committee in the presentation of this and i urge the reporting favorably out of this bill. i would agree with mr. pallone. the status quo is unacceptable. as a physician, it does not work for patients, doctors, employers. the president's law has made things worse. with the ruling that it is constitutional, does not mean it is good policy for the country.

the chief justice of the united states supreme court said, "the court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the affordable care act. under the constitution, that judgment is left to the people." as the people's representatives, it is important for us to act when people say they want something addressed. it removes $500 billion from medicare. it puts in place a 15-member board of non-elected bureaucrats to deny the payments of services for seniors. the president said over and over again, if you like what you had, you can keep it. they now will not be able to. many of them have lost the coverage they had before. it is more expensive than anybody imagined. it is that $1.76 trillion and

only going higher. as a physician, it is destructive of the physician- patient relationship. doctors and patients are learning that. the ability for us to innovate as a nation is a -- is compromised significantly by this bill. what has changed? the supreme court ruled it is being paid for by a tax that very few individuals in this chamber would have allowed to have been adopted had they known that it was going to be a tax. we believe there is a better way. we believe that folks back home are telling us the consequences of this bill. small businesses who have 40-45 employees and want to hire more say they cannot do that because if they go over 50 than they get into the matter a number where the government forces me to provide health coverage that they want.

home health just talk to me two weeks ago and said that if this comes to pass, they are going to have to lay off up to 15 people in order to comply with the cost of this law. the consequences of this are destructive not only to the health of you and me and every american, destructive to the health of our economy. this is about the economy and jobs. it will destroy 800,000 jobs if we allow this to go forward. the new issue is that the playing field has changed. the assessment of this law has changed. it has -- it is incumbent upon us to move forward and repeal the small. >> thank you. glad to be here again. let me just boil it down. "made it worse?"

if you vote to repeal, you send it back to the insurance companies. kids with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied coverage. 17 million made it worse. over 100 million americans no longer face lifetime limits. made it worse? in terms of rebates for insurance company charges, almost 13 million americans are going to get rebates because of this wall. -- of this law. made it worse? over 5 million americans will have saved $4 billion in prescription drugs. made it worse? by the way, you voted for a similar provision regarding

medicare payments twice. made it worse? four children, kids -- not kids anymore. i called my kid's kids when they are not kids. over 6.5 million will remain on their parents' plan until age 26. you talk about repealed and replaced. all we have heard is repealed. there is no plan to replace. none. let me close by saying a word about this notion of a mandate that was changed from republicans, in the first place. this wall -- this law, build on private insurance but reform, was modeled under the

massachusetts law proposed by mitt romney. i will sum it up this way. in so many respects, the mandate and otherwise, obamacare is romneycare. the penalty under the tax provisions is held out by the supreme court. it is estimated it will apply to 1.4% of americans. 1.4%. so let me just close it this way. i am on the ways and means committee. there have been bills proposed to help create more jobs in this country. instead of are coming forth, the ways and means committee, with proposals for jobs, we come for the 31st time -- we do not, you

do -- with a bill to up -- to repeal which is going nowhere. >> thank you very much, mr. levin. >> i appreciate the opportunity to be here. i served on the education workforce committee. i have been too a health care reform in the state of tennessee with a 10 care plan. in my district, three out of four people want this bill overturned and replace with common sense reforms. in the last two years, i had the privilege to serve with my good friend, rob andrews, on the health and pension subcommittee, and we held two hearings outside of washington. that is a novel idea, actually going where the people are. i have been to indiana and pennsylvania. let me tell you what is going on. we have a grocery store chain,

10,000 employees. i spoke to him on friday. he said, i have a lot of temporary employees that i higher because people get off work in the afternoon. i work them 32-33 hours per week. i will have to cut those back in the 20's because of what it will cost my business. i talked to a restaurant owner in my state that has five restaurants. he is going to close two of them. that is 300 jobs that goes away. in my local hospital, i have been there 35 years. for the first time in 35 years, they laid off 100 -- they laid off 168 people. as a practicing physician, i realize that i have read the 2007 hundred-page bill. already, we have 13,000 pages of rules and regulations.

does anybody in this room believe that those 13,000 pages are going to make it easier for me, as a physician, and easier for that patient to come in? there is a much simpler way to do it. all of my colleagues have said cost is a major issue. access and liability are major issues. two of those three things we did not even touch on. we did nothing to bend the cost curve and we did nothing for liability. i am here in support of this bill. >> mr. andrews. >> i wanted think the ladies and gentlemen of the rules committee for their hours and hours of service. we are debating the wrong bill here. what i heard time and time again from my constituents was, why don't you work together and why don't you work together to get

jobs created back in the u.s. congress. we could have a bill before us that cuts taxes for small businesses that create jobs but we do not. we could have a bill before us that builds on the work we did due 10 days ago and puts more americans to work building our roads, bridges, transit systems, and the modest progress that that represents. but we are not. we could have a bill before us that addresses the very real problem that while the private sector has gained 4.2 million jobs since the health care bill was enacted, the public sector has lost about 600,000. police officers, teachers, firefighters, public works employees. we could be addressing that problem but we are not. here we are again addressing the repeal of a law that was debated and passed by congress, signed by the president in 2010, whose

constitutionality was upheld by the supreme court about two weeks ago. it is the wrong bill. i do think we ought to have the right record in front of us. ask people on both sides to dispassionately respect the record and use facts. we have once again heard the rhetoric pulled out that this is a job-killing --thank you. they turn the microphone on. it is usually the other way around. we have heard the rhetoric that this is a job-killing health care bill. since the president signed the health care bill, companies have created 4.3 million private sector jobs. we have heard that the bill hurts medicare because it would withdraw $500 billion from medicare. here is how it does that.

it tells insurance companies that we are being paid 114% for the same services that are regularly medicare was paying 100% for. if this was such a bad thing, i would say to you that my republican friends have voted at least twice to do exactly the same reductions. we have heard that this is an enormous tax increase for the american people. the penalties for failure to have health insurance will affect 1.4% of the american people. that is the 1.4% who can afford health insurance but to opt not to buy it so that when they use an emergency room, they can pay their fill instead. the investment surtax that we heard from my friend from pennsylvania, small businesses are troubled. they are troubled by a lack of

customers and a lack of credit. as far as this is concerned, if you have 50 or fewer full-time employees, you are obligated to do nothing under the new health care law. finally, we have heard that this bill comes between doctors and patients. tell that to the breast cancer survivor who cannot afford a doctor when the insurance company tells her that because of for pre-existing condition, she cannot have insurance anymore. that is coming between a doctor and a doctor's patient. tele-tv medicare recipient who is receiving between $600-$800 per year in rebates for their prescription drugs and will no longer be able to afford their medicine. that is coming between a doctor and a patient. what is coming between doctors and patients is the poorly- considered destruction of these hard-earned rights of the

american consumer. this is a debate we should not be having. we should be having a cooperative effort to create jobs in our country. if we must have this debate, let's have it based on facts and not sale, this proven representations' of two years ago. >> let me briefly say that there are a number of items we have brought forward. you mentioned the issues of taxes on small businesses. we have had a number of measures focused on small businesses. the president signed those so every day we are proceeding with items that will address both of the issues that mr. pallone and mr. andrews mention it. the reason we are here is the court made its decision. as mr. price has pointed out, the chief justice made it very clear. they are not passing opinion on the legislation. they made a determination about constitutionality. that decision was made. it shows how important the

united states congress is. frankly, an issue that is important to raise is the taxes. if we had had the kind of straightforward approach on the tax issues, this would not have passed. repeatedly, we were told it is not a tax. on the issue of no alternative, i have consistently argued that there are five simple things that would have immediately played a role in diminishing the cost of health insurance and health care itself. some of the items, i do believe california has a structure in case to deal with pre-existing conditions. it is one that is worthy of consideration. i do not think that someone who is diagnosed with a massive tumor should be able to have millions of dollars in health- care the next day.

i do believe that there can be a structure to deal with the issue. second, the expansion of medical savings accounts is something that is proven to provide an opportunity for people to put dollars aside, to plan for their healthcare needs. association health plans. we passed, out of the house of representatives, when my party was in the majority, association health plans. it allows for small businesses to come together and get lower rates. that has been done. we consistently offered no alternative at all. it died in the democratic control of the united states senate. we also need to have real, meaningful lawsuit abuse reform. you have all mention that. the president of the united states stood in the house chamber and argued on behalf of meaningful lawsuit abuse reform.

yet, we know this measure does not do that. the fifth point, which the president said he supported, was for us to move in the direction that allows for the purchase of insurance across state lines. those five things that i consistently talked about for a number of years, which i believe play a role in immediately bringing costs down. i do not have any questions for you, but let me close by saying the following. we want to repeal this so that we can, in fact, replace it. there is a need. this is a need that has to be addressed. when we considered this, it was done under the most closed structure imaginable for an issue of this magnitude. without dredging up all of those old arguments, i will tell you that, for those who may have forgotten, there was a plan that was in place right up until we

consider this that would have allowed us to to self and that this measure. putting it out of this committee and taking it to the floor and simply passing a rule, which would have passed this measure. what we want to do is what we have done in this congress, very simple. what we want to do is have the kind of process that we have had in dealing with issues, and we want to do it in a bipartisan way. we want to make amendments that our minority colleagues will offer. so i think that the notion, i see your hand up, and i am not asking a question. i am simply stating a response to what i heard in your testimony. we will after we hear this, after we get this through, we will do this. some of the things i just mentioned, the five items. democrats have supported it.

and yet, this was not done with the kind of process that the american people deserve. mr. pallone has been asking, but will you let me yield before asking him? >> all of these actions of common ground, why did you not inactive them? >> if i could reclaim my time, i do not know if i can reclaim my time or not. thank you. we did. we did. and i just said that. i do not know if you were listening. association health plans. it enjoyed bipartisan support here in this chamber. we passed it, when our party was in the majority. we passed it when people said our party did nothing. i have to yield to my friend. >> children with pre-existing

conditions. >> if i can reclaim my time, if i could reclaim my time, i never said we did everything. what i said is i mentioned these five items that would play a role in immediately reducing the cost of direct health care costs. we were often told, it was just said in the testimony that we had no ideas. there was no proposal to replace. when the republicans were in the majority last, we passed the plan for association health plans that would have allowed the small men and businesswomen of the me regularly talked -- of whom we regularly talk, we passed and sent it and told the senate, and it died there, ok? so let me first recognize mr. pallone. i am not asking a question. i in getting ready to ask. >> i just want to say, some of

the things -- what have we done wrong? am i not allowed to question the witnesses? >> the way we normally do. >> i was just going to say briefly, some of the things he mentioned are good ideas. we addressed malpractice and some of those things, but i think that the difference between those five and the comprehensive health care reform is that with the aca, you are going to make sure that they have health insurance. in some ways, i support them. but i do not think they are going to make that kind of a dent. to help some people on the edge, but they are not going to

provide the type of coverage that they're going to get with the aca, and as far as the tax, i actually think that the aca results and a tax cut, because in new jersey, people are paying about 1000 to $1,500 per year of their premium to cover people who do not have insurance. if everybody is covered through this mandate, which i know you do not like this mandate, it is actually a tax cut for the people paying those premiums, because they should not have to pay for the people who are irresponsible, in my opinion. >> i am just saying what was ruled on by majority vote. making a great deal of time available on the house floor. that is the reason i am not asking any questions. everybody knows how we stand on this. this is something that i want to see. i was just responding to the

testimony that i heard and outlining some of the things i thought. so i would like to recognize mr. sessions. >> thank you. i want to thank each of our colleagues who have taken time to be here today, and and think we will do the same thing, which is just to address things the way i see them. i do realize we are talking past each other. to say this is going to be a tax cut for many people, i have never heard that argument before. what i will do is that the supreme court says it is a tax. it is a tax. we know this, whether we like one of the supreme court says or not. as i have heard at least once today, marborough vs. madison. will we cannot escape is the cost. the cost is times two, so i

would say to you if we do not repeal the bill, then we will have to figure out how we double the taxes, how we go and pay for the bill. we already know, and we heard at least one of the gentleman said, i wish we were here finding a way to cut taxes for small business. we are. we are going to repeal the bill. i wish we could do something about roads and bridges. we are. half of this real cost falls on the states. states are having to pay the cost, and they do not coin money, so they are laying off people, and they have gone from essentially looking at bridges and education that now that are going to get into the health- care business. we talked about the loss of jobs. oh, my gosh, i am sorry there have been public-sector job

losses. but we tried to say that there have been 4.3 million jobs added, yes, but those have lagged behind the tremendously. 4.3 million have been created. anemic. and everybody knows this is anemic, and i am disappointed that everybody was trying to say we have done so great. in fact, we have not done great. somebody tried to suggest we had the same bill as republicans with how we treated medicare. that is not true. they said 55 are over, they would not be impacted. rather, we would plan for the future, and so anybody 54 and below would be impacted by the republican bill. today, every person, particularly those who are seniors, 80 years old, 90 years old, immediately hit by $500

billion in cuts in medicare, that is not the same as republicans. it is not ok to say they would do it as republicans, because that is not true. the medical device tax. we spent time back in dallas, texas, during the break. granted, perhaps they are not as impacted necessarily by the bill. they are in the health-care industry. they are talking about chairs that they will have in their dental practice. they are talking about where bands that they will put in children's mouths. these are all going to be taxed with a medical device tax. also, dental care will rise very substantially. so i go back to this point. even at a cost of twice as much, would this be a good deal?

heck, no. because if we did not take care of repealing it, we would have to double the tax. we would have to take $1 trillion, not $500 billion. $1 trillion out of senior care. not the republican side, but people who are 80, 19 years old who are on it today. we would double the cost on states. they are already staggeringly high. we would double the tax on small business. we would double down virtually everything about this bill, and instead of huge budget losing 800 million more jobs, which is considered the government estimate, the private sector is over 1 million jobs are going to be lost between now and 2014, so i think when looked at, the alternatives are that we should repeal the bell -- repeal of the

bill. we should go back and look at the testimony. mr. sessions, we are going to create millions of jobs at this new bill. that is not the way it turned out. we have been looking back. we should go back and evaluate what we have done. we should find a way, the senate, the house, listen to the american people, and come up with a better bill. but this is a very complicated mess, and the last point i would make is, and i have heard insurance companies say many things we have been told will go back into the dark ages to retreat again, they of already agreed that they will stick with the status quo, some to argue these cases is, in my opinion,

not the right way. i think we need to understand. it is either repeal or double down on the taxes because the costs are twice that, and they will be very destructive if we are not smart enough to do something today. lastly, the american public will have something to do about it. everyone will be held accountable for their vote. thank god we have gotten to a point where our vote counts. i go back. >> thank you, gentlemen, for being here. it is nice to see you on this monday afternoon. you started by saying you feel like you voted on this about 16 times. tomorrow will be 31. this is going to end up just like the rest, nowhere. we do not have much work to do around here. but the jobs bill, i think we

need reminding, those folks on the side that voted for the bill probably do not, but theodore roosevelt when he tried to do this with something in line, the health care is approaching 18% of gdp. we cannot afford it. we could be heading towards where they say they want to bomb somebody. we had to do it. somebody threw a brick through my niagara falls district office window or threatening my children. that is not what i was here for. there has been more talk about this bill, abet them knowing nothing about what is in it. i am so sorry i have not had time to see this. but i would bet you that this is

about the same. the world coming to an end. for goodness' sake, we are the only industrial country on the face of the earth that puts the burden back on our employers. why can we not try to get to the point where we need to be where we have a single payer bill, which many of us wanted to do in the first place. we have watered it down. for the life of me, i do not know why it caused all of these lost jobs. they have fewer than 15 points, they are not even involved. if they had more than that, i think they get some deduction, some tax deduction. they simply cannot afford to do it. if this is a way to save money.

billions of dollars. and the cbo says we could save if this bill went into effect. remember, it has not. this is conjecture. we all know what changes would be made. we did note that it was going to be very costly to do away with it. am i right? it would be very difficult to do away with it. but more important, what is astonishing, i think before i finish, somebody has got to speak up for women in this country. you repeal this bill, and women will continue as they have from the beginning, single women particularly pay more money for the same insurance that a male pace. did you know that?

do you want to go back to that? women's health. one other thing as far as i am concerned, as everybody knows, this was at large. paying the tax or the mandate or the penalty, it is absolutely true. all of these years and yet been paying health insurance premiums, we are paying at least $1,000, i think more, because that is the figure we heard because the people who are not paying for compensated care. i would like my children's family to be able to save that money and pay for their own health care. i thought in a moment of madness that is all of the people

decided not to have health care, they would also say they would never go to the doctor, who are whatever happens to them, i am not going to the hospital, but we know they are not going to do that. that is not the way this country go is. but i would like to know, and i would like to ask, what is going to happen -- happened to the seniors who have already gotten what they get with no copayment. what is going to happen? 365 thousand, i think, you may have a better figure, who are on their parents' health care, but there are no jobs for them when they get out of college. what is going to happen? there are those that have pre- existing conditions, the way

that they were born, and they are not in shareable in the united states of america. if you have a critical head injury, you are going to use up your limit in almost no time, and you are uninsurable for the rest of your life in the united states of america. you go over your yearly limit, and you may not have insurance regardless of what happens to you until the following year. that is what we have got. up here.d's going let me try to get off of my high horse, but this is the second time i have gone through this. its american people do not want health care, what was said to me, gee, i want my health care. i hope you guys will never do anything about it. what we know already, people

opposing it. i think you are really biting off an awful lot to choose. -- to chew. i would like to save you from yourself. let's reconsider. let's see if we can find something else to do this week. what do you say? and what is going to happen with all of these people taking advantage? >> i certainly cannot speak for the authors of the bill. i read the bill. thank you. i am not an author of this repeal bill, that is for sure. one thing i find astonishing about this is the congressional budget office has not yet scorned this bill. so no one can say whether the repeal of this bill will add to

or subtract to the deficit. we do know that the first time of the 31 that there were an attempt to repeal the bill, they said it would add far in excess of $200 billion to the deficit. now, there have been changes since then, regarding the class act and other provisions. so i do not know whether a repeal of the bill adds to or subtracts from the deficit, but neither does anyone else. so on would say, madam ranking member, it would seem that we should at least put off this consideration of the repeal bill until they said what is going to cost. i cannot think of a major piece of legislation that has ever been brought to the house floor in my tenure here where the congressional budget office has not given us a score and said whether or not it has added to

the deficit. >> talking about replacing it, about what we would replace it with. it might be probably nothing that we would go back to what we had before, but we are not making what here. while we are doing is making political points. that is what we should expect for the rest of the session. yes. >> there will be a lot of rhetoric, and you know as you look back, the republican party has had decades to come up with a comprehensive -- decades. there has never been a comprehensive health plan sponsored by republicans, and

now the democrats have passed, so essentially, this is the answer. >> i will not take personal offense to the republicans not offering a comprehensive plan. hr 3000. i would be glad to go over it with you block's stock and barrel. actually, we have got 30 million to 50 million folks insured. we see the portability and pre- existing and ways that allows them to have coverage that they want, rather than what the government dictate to them -- dictates to them. you cannot have it both ways. you cannot say that the law has not taken effect or had any effect, but what are we going to do with all of those folks.

they are a significant portion. to address the pre-existing is incredibly important, it is you never hear about folks being -- the walmart, the coca-cola, these are not the folks who are challenged. you see the individual and small group market. that is about 18 million people. >> i know, and i know you have, women you have been diagnosed for breast cancer, but there is no treatment for it. that happens. >> exactly. if i made tangentially talk about breast cancer. you will recall what the task force did is to say that women under the age of 50 did not need a screening mammogram. it took an act of congress for us to say, oh, yes, they do, because that decision ought to be between a patient and a position, and what we need to do

is do it like this. >> let me point out, if i can claim my time, the congress of the united states, we said oh, no, you are not going to treat us. >> and under medicare and the opposition to it -- >> if i may? >> in terms of illnesses and injuries, the fact is there are about 80 million folks who are challenged with that, and it needs to be addressed, and the way to address it is to make certain that those individuals have access to the same kind of mechanisms as our folks in the self insured irina. they can let the insurance that they want, not that the government once for them. >> they have their choice. we are not going to debate the

bill. as i said, we have great affection for you. you know that. i just feel badly for you when you get home, and when you realize that they have to pay more, all of these other people that they have no access to health care because something happened to them. i just do not want you to have to face that. >> if i can just say one thing that you mentioned. i know that a lot of republicans give the impression that if this was repealed, all of the discriminatory practices, pre- existing conditions, all of those things are going to continue. the fact is they are not going to continue, and do not believe them when they say that they will, because the insurance companies bought into this in support of this bill knowing that everyone would be covered and that they have a lot more people paying into the system and therefore did not have to worry about pre-existing conditions and lifetime benefits and recisions and all

of that. once they get to where they have this because the. -- the bill is repealed, this will go back into place, because that is the way they make money, you see? no disrespect. the insurance companies are going to keep these protections in place. they may have said initially six months down the road, one year down the road, they will go back to them again, because that is the only way they can make money absent all of these people that would be in the insurance pool under the aca. >> i yield back the time. >> thank you very much. >> 6:00. we have gone for just a couple of members of the rules committee, and again, i am hoping that this committee will make an order, and then we will get a vote on this issue. i think this is an interesting issue brought forward, and

afford to having it. >> we want to go through. >> it is true, we have other witnesses, and i know we of folks coming in. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do want to associate myself very strongly with your comments and the comments of mr. sessions. i will not repeat those things, and i am not going to be asking any questions either, but i do think some comments that have been made me to be responded to. i say this off and on the floor and occasionally on the rules committee. anyone who has not read the book "1984," or who has not read it in a long time, i really urge people to read that book, because i think in many ways, we are living through the experience described in that book.

about things being rewritten. it is just sort of fascinating to hear the comments being made here. i think mr. pallone, in particular, gives a great example of some of the things talked about. in 1984, you say that only the insurance companies are going to gain from the epo, -- the appeal, but this is for insurance companies, from my perspective. you want to make us look like we are supporting the insurance companies, but it was you all who went hand in hand with the insurance companies. you set it up so they could not lose. you made them regulate utilities. they were guaranteed a profit every year as a result of the individual mandate, so it is the democrats that are helping the insurance companies, and that point has not been made.

and yet, you talk out of both sides of your mouth, and that is such a perfect example about what goes on in the book "1984," allowing them to do that, allowing them to create this regulated utility. it helps the insurance companies. and then to say the only big gain from the appeal, no, mr. pallone, the american people gain from the repeal. we gave our freedom again. the difference between the liberals in this country and the conservatives is the issue of freedom. you and your colleagues want the government to control every aspect of our lives. we do not believe in that. we want this to continue to be the greatest country in the world, and what makes this the greatest country in the world? the rule of law and the freedom that we have along with our judeo-christian beliefs and our

capitalistic system, and obamacare is an assault on all of those things. you know, the president said in 2008, this is the greatest country of the world. now, help me change it. i just thought that should have been played over and over. i think that is the attitude of many who side with the president on this field. i also want to say that you encourage this. i hope you will give that advice to your president, to president obama, because he continues to blame president bush for everything. the negatives in this country. so if you want us to start look backwards, i hope you will look at that. i will say to mr. andrews that i appreciate