you pull the microphone, it has wires, so grab the base, please. ok, so the suggested language, which ms. kennedy accept as a friendly amendment, would be, "and resulted in a further erosion of our constitution by requiring that all u.s. citizens purchase health insurance." >> yes, that is correct. >> ok, sir? >> i am sorry. a technical point. we won on that issue in the supreme court on the commerce clause, and i am wondering if it is enough to say a threat to our constitution rather than a further erosion, because the attorneys general actually won, and as people look at it, a further erosion gives the

impression that we lost on it, and we won on it, on that issue, so it is technical. >> ok, the gentle lady from nevada, would you accept that as a technical correction? >> madam chairman? >> sir? >> he is, of course, correct that one of the alternate grounds on striking the mandate, we won, but we lost on the other. they are required to purchase health insurance, so i think this is an accurate reflection of the decision of the court, which was to uphold that provision that we believe is a further erosion of our constitution. >> yes, thank you.

we agree with the gentleman's argument. >> which one? >> you are in agreement that you do not accept the technical amendment? >> yes, that was also my understanding of the supreme court decision. i have had discussions about obamacare, particularly friends who are democrats. >> all right, mr. barton? >> mr. barton, i am sorry. >> it is a friendly motion, and we need to take care of that motion. is a secondary in order now? >> yes. >> ok, i uld suggest instead of a passive approach, we take a proactive approach. it is an attack on our constitution. >> i would agree to that terminology, as well. >> ok.

and so, now, we are in the posture of "and resulted in an attack on our constitution," so we actually have, let's see, mr. parliamentarians, we would need to do this as an amendment? >> yes. >> and second-degree amendment, which would be," and resulted in an attack on our constitution by requiring that all u.s. citizens purchase health insurance." that would be the elimination of your original submission of "a further erosion of our constitution." >> yes, madame chairwoman. >> ok, let's go to the second- degree amendment. the language is offered by mr. barton. is there a second to his language? ok, all in favor of accepting mr. barton's language to amend saykennedy's amendment,

aye. opposed? is there further comment on the amended the amendment? >> madam chair? madam chair? david, from new hampshire. i am not troubled by the idea of the concept of the amendment, i am just concerned is it accurate to say it requires all citizens to purchase health insurance? is that an accurate statement? i guess someone could clarify that for me. >> general olens? >> ok, it does not require "all americans." it requires a vast majority of americans. there are some specifically excluded where the government gives a new entitlement. i did not work my first comment well, -- i did not word my first

comment well, but it is not "all citizens." >> ok. >> i really want to encourage people to please accept the wording, the amendment, the amendments to the amendments. i understand this is a grassroots document. i appreciate legalese, but sometimes, i think we have to stand by what the american people are telling us. we do not want to be forced into health care, and eventually, the way it is designed, it will force everybody, so please stand with this. we can play it to death. >> ms. kennedy, you are recognized on your amendment. >> yes, thank you. i understand that all people will not be able to afford to be required to pay for health insurance. people's economics changed throughout their lives, and if that is the case, most people in this country are u.s. citizens

will be required to purchase health insurance, so i would like to have my wording stay as it is. >> sir? >> i would like to get the wording right, because what happened here was there was an attack on our constitution. it was at the supreme court. the attack was successful. it resulted in the erosion of our rights, and it allowed them to require all citizens, even though they have not. it could. so i think there is a way to say this that is accurate and does exactly what she likes, but i think you probably have to take five minutes and somebody work order to get the language correct. >> ms. johnson? >> from alaska. i think if we took out the word "all," i do not think we want all citizens, and if we take out the word, it is still accurate, and it still makes a very

profound statement. >> ms. kennedy, would you accept that? >> in the effort to move along, i would. >> so on the amendment, an amendment to the amendment as presented by the woman, which would be striking the word "it all." all in favor of this amendment to strike the word "all," say aye. opposed? the word will be struck. sir, you are recognized. a question has been called on ms. kennedy' as amended amendment. all in favor of calling the question -- all opposed? the question has been called. we are now on health and then the no. 9, ms. kennedy of nevada, page 3, 8. all in favor, say aye. all opposed?

the amendment has been adopted. we now move to 18. mr. henderson of north dakota, you are recognized for 60 seconds on your amendment. >> ok, thank you, madam chair. i agree we can get rid of obamacare. on page three, line 18, after we read, "american people," i would like to strike "their representatives" and add the phrase "through the free market ," and i want to do that because people in my district, they want to let the free market works, and as we know, the free market is the best system we have going for us. >> ok, i thank the gentleman. is there a second to his amendment? the amendment has been read and seconded. we are now on discussion.

health, 18, page three, line 18. after the word "you would strike "their representatives, and the word is on the screen in front of you. is there a discussion on the amendment? yes, you are recognized. >> wyoming. i would like to back up that amendment. what i hear in my area is that they want the free market to govern health care. this is a good move, and i urge the body to favor this amendment. >> miss? >> thank you. from oklahoma. i believe the sentence was referring to legislative reform, and that is why we referred to the representatives of there. >> further discussion?

c&o further discussion, is there a call for the question? -- seeing there is no further discussion is there a call? all of those in favor of calling the question, say aye. opposed? the question has been called. if we are now on mr. henderson's amendment, page 3, 18. all in favor of the amendment, saying -- say aye. opposed? all in favor of the division, please raise your hands.

all of those opposed? >> the amendment is agreed to, 45 ayaes.

-- ayes. the amendment is adopted. we now go to 19 of page three. >> point of order? >> yes. >> i thought the person who was counting counted 44 on the nay side. can we have a review of the vote? pardon me. >> 35 on the nay side. we are now moving to line 19, page 3. that is the last line of the obamacare section. you are recognized for your amendment for 60 seconds. >> thank you, madame chairwoman. from illinois. i did not offer this particular language in committee. i had originally planned on offering it in another section of our platform but ultimately decided it is better here.

ladies and gentlemen, i am the mother of six daughters. i am sick and tired of being told that because i am an unapologetic woman that is pro- life and i am somehow excluded from being pro woman. our republican party is pro woman because we are pro-life. i have a pro woman stands as a matter of policy, and i urge you to support it. thank you. >> is there a second to the gentle lady's amendment? is there a discussion? >> madam chair woman, i support this amendment. we need to recognize that there are studies that abortion endangers the health and well- being of women, so i therefore support this amendment. >> mr. barton? >> i will support this amendment as well. there was a report about 127 medical studies from five different decades which indicate harm to women from abortions,

and with the technology changes, the results have been the same, so i'd think there is plenty of evidence for this statement. >> the language is on the screen in front of you. is there any further discussion? the question has been called. there is a second to the call of the question. all in favor of calling the question, say aye. opposed? there is agreement to call the question that we are on the gentle lady's amendment, page three, line 19. the language is on the screen in front of you. all of those in favor, say aye. opposed? the amendment is agreed to. i have no further amendments to the obamacare section. miss? >> madam chair, thank you. i am from arizona, and i just wanted to thanks so much, i served on the subcommittee, all of those who have served to

crafted and all of those who have helped to have very powerful and strong language in repealing obamacare. three years ago, i was paralyzed on the left side of my face and went in for an mri and a cat scan, and with in one hour, they diagnose me with a brain tumor, and i had had cancer 20 years ago, and they wondered if it was spreading from there, and anyway, i had surgery within 24 hours of being diagnosed, and i know it was because of the great quality health care that we have in the united states that it preserved my life. [applause] >> we thank the gentle lady for those comments, and i think we can let the record reflect that at 4:00 03 p.m. or 4 blago 4, it is telling me now, -- at 4:03 or

4:04, as it is telling me now, that we want to appeal obamacare. [applause] page three, building a health- care system of higher quality and lower cost. i have no amendments to this section. this goes to page four. is there any amendment to this section? the record will reflect back -- that at 4:04 p.m., we close to this section, and we now move to consumer choice in health care. page four. line 15 through 28 of page four. i have no amendment to this section. there are no amendments to this section. the record will reflect that at 4:05, we considered enclosed

this section. we go to federal research and development for health. page four, through the end of the line 38. i have three amendments to this section. mr. cochrane from vermont, you are recognized for amendment number 20. does everyone have health amendment no. 20? the language is on the screen. you are recognized, sir. >> madam chair, from vermont. i have spent 30 years and health care around delivery systems, on the board for our local hospital. i think one of the things that obamacare does is it really undercuts development, looking at better and more cost- effective delivery systems. i think this is one of the main changes. i applaud the committee on what they have done in terms of supporting some federal investment with other aspects,

but my recommendation is that we also begin that statement by supporting investment into the delivery systems, creating other solutions and means to provide access to high-quality health care and then continue by saying "we also." thank you so much. >> second. >> the amendment has been read and seconded. the language is being put on your screen. it will be highlighted. is there any discussion on the gentleman's comments? yes, sir, you are recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. delaware. i am general counsel for a company that provides the services, and i can tell you in the 20 years of representing that company, i have come to recognize that one of the weaknesses in our health-care system is in the delivery systems as they currently exist. i support this amendment. i think this is the right way to proceed and the right way for

americans to eventually have a health-care system that is both cost-effective, high-quality, and innovative, and i support mr. cochran's amendment. >> is there further discussion? the question has been called. all in favor of calling the question, please say aye. all opposed? there is no opposition. the question is called. we are on mr. cochran's amendment. you are looking at the language on the screen. it is in front of you. health-care systems and solutions, . innovative means for access to high-quality health care. and we also support investment, continuing through the paragraph as previously stated.

is that stated correctly, mr. cochran? >> it is stated correctly. >> all in favor will say aye, opposed will say no. the amendment is agreed to. north carolina, you are recognized for health amendment no. 1. health amendment no. 1, from north carolina, you are on page four, 38. >> madam chairman, in 2000, the fda approved an abortion pill in europe. this drug and drugs like and are used to terminate human life and should not receive fda approval. this amendment basically says we oppose approval of these drugs and similar drugs that terminate human life after conception. man is made in the likeness of god. because of that, there is the right to life, liberty, and to

pursue happiness. the belief in the inherent rights gave these rights to all people, the foundational principles, as the archbishop has called them, the soul of american freedom. if we want to remain free, we cannot stand idly by while our government aids and abets this assault on the most fundamental of human rights in the name of reproductive freedom. this party was born out of a belief that every human life is precious, and with this amendment, we state it once again by opposing the approval of drugs that terminate human life after conception. >> the gentle lady yells back. is there a set that 2 per amendment? -- the gentle lady yields back. is there a set it to her amendment -- a second to her amendment?

the lady is recognized. >> does this also include the morning-after pill, called plan b? >> it includes any drug that terminates life after conception. >> if we believe as a party that life begins -- >> i am sorry, madam chair. >> you are recognized for your follow-up. >> thank you. in light of the recent comments from congressman todd akin on the subject of rape, i do not believe we should support this for a method that has been proven effective in preventing pregnancy of rape victims. i wish we could narrow the wording to take that out. >> the gentle lady has been heard. is there further comment? you are recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. conn.

just for clarification, and i am familiar with this because we went through it in connecticut. the morning-after pill is not considered an abortion pill because it is only given when it has not occurred. >> serve? >> jim, pennsylvania. i would like to call the question. >> the question has been called. there is a second. all of those in favor of calling the question, say aye. all opposed? the question has been called. we are on the amendment. how amendment no. 1, page four, line 38. all in favor of the amendment will say aye. all of those opposed will say no. the ayes have it. let's see.

now, we have no further -- >> governor, were you going to get clarification? >> ok, governor, you are recognized. >> this language is identical to the wording in the constitution section. i do not know if there is a reason to have it here. it is the same language. >> i just did not go back and see it there. >> ok. thank you. >> are there any further additions to this section, development? yes, doctor, you are recognized. >> madam chair, from new mexico.

just a couple of clarifications, grammatical. online 32, parkinsons, and the staff can take care of this, it would be "parkinsons disease," and on 38, because it is duplicative, taking out "should be restored." we support restoring. and then up online 5, abortion is spelled incorrectly. just points of clarification. >> i thank the gentleman for the technical corrections. we will direct those to the staff. >> madam chair woman? >> yes. >> from alabama. i know this sounds very technical to a lot of people, but as the parent of a child, it is commonly discussed that autism is not a disease. it is a disorder. i know that sounds like that is splitting hairs for a lot of people in here, but for those of

us in the community, it is not, so i would like to have a technical amendment to address them on the issue of autism. i am sorry i did not sooner. i did not see it sooner. >> to move this section -- leave this open. that section will stay open. ok. now, we will move to page 5, 1. we have two amendments to this section. we are going to be lines one th rough 9, protecting individual conscience in health care. you will first have health amendment number two. ms. summa, from north carolina, you're recognized on your amendment. >> this incorporates a lot of the language in the current draft with two exceptions. with the rise of living wills and health-care powers of attorney, wheel of situations in

my state and others where a patient can request the withdrawal of food and water and antibiotics under certain terminal conditions. it varies from state to state in terms of the conditions under which food and water and antibiotics can be withdrawn. this poses the freedom of conscience about the freedom of abortion which has been longstanding in this country, but with the new health-care powers of attorney and living wills, there is a new ethical dilemma for the health-care professional. for many professionals, hastening death by withdrawing or withholding from patients a certain treatments, including food and water and antibiotics, it is in violations -- in violation with their conscience, and we have to stand by them and stand by them. this is with the hastening of death with a drawl of nutrition and hydration and others remain

treatments in the violation of conscience. a new phenomenon is occurring in madison, where doctors are refusing to provide desired, needed care for their patients because these doctors believe that the patient's is not worth -- >> please wrap-up your comments. >> this simply adds two things. we are going to allow doctors to refuse to withdraw with conscience, but this does not mean we should allow health-care professionals to withdraw treatment in the event because they believe that life is not worth living. >> ms. summa has read and explained her amendment. we are seeking to get it on the screen. is there a second? >> yes, a second. madam chair? >> yes. >> from oklahoma. i speak in favor of this. this is becoming an increasing problem, unfortunately, with the

medical literature increasingly reflecting the view that patients who, according to this objective view of some, have a poor quality of life, -- according to the subjective view of some, have a poor quality of life, and should not be provided care or even food and water. the attitude that some lives are not worthy to be lived is one that we need to oppose, and sometimes, it is in direct contravention of the expressed desire of the patient or the patient's family that life- sustaining here is discontinued, and even an institution or a professional to use conscience for causing the death of a patient should be opposed by this body. >> i thank the gentleman. miss, you are recognized.

>> i would like to stand in favor of this amendment. i have received many calls from family members that did not want their family member to lose the ability to have just basic needs, like food and water, and they were over written against their will by the medical group, so i think it is very important that we stand in favor of this amendment. >> further discussion? you are recognized. >> i just have a question. baker, from louisiana. i just wanted to know that the family, if you have, like, a grandfather who is terminally ill and is in extreme pain -- i just need to know. >> we are on the amendment. >> does it include families -- does it include families that

wish to have it withdrawn so that they cannot proceed? >> the author, would you respond to this? >> yes, it does. >> ok. >> ok, i could not hear what she was saying. to call the question. the question has been called. all in favor of calling the question -- >> ayes. >> all opposed? the question has been called, and we are on ms. summa's amendment. all right, we are going to scroll through it so you can see what has been deleted, and followed this on your paper as to where, so when you get into the first line, after the word "for," you are striking everything down through

"communities," and then you go to the word "with hold, or refer," and this is especially true of those who deliver a portion of american health care, is service rooted in the charity of faith communities. we do not believe, however, that health-care providers should be allowed to withhold services because the health-care provider believes the patient's life is not worth living. ms. summa, is this correct represented on the screen? >> yes, madam chair. i added a few words. >> well, we are not able to have a discussion at this point. we are on the vote. i am just making certain that what is in front of us is correct. >> it is correct. ok, the question has been

called. we are calling for the vote. all in favor of ms. summa's amendment, say aye. all opposed? we will have a division show of hands. all of those in favor, raise your hands. ok, it has passed. there are 57 aye votes.

we now move to line 5 of page 5. it is held amendment no. 3. ms. summa, you are recognized on your amendment. health amendment no. 3. >> i am sorry, madam chair woman. i am hurrying. this is simply a parental rights issue for me. parental rights are the bricks and mortar that protect the family from government intrusion. many state laws are now denying parents be right to consent to all sorts of medical treatment for their children, and this amendment says we oppose those sorts of laws, and a parent, not the government, knows what is best for the well-being of their children. and that is what the amendment says. >> ok, ms. summa explained her amendment. is there a second to the

amendment? the amendment has been seconded. is there a discussion on the amendment? yes, you are recognized. >> i am from hawaii, a practicing physician. i am in support of the rights of parents, but let me tell you how it is like in the trenches, when comear-old's, 17-year-olds into your office with a sexually-transmitted disease, and other states let them be treated. others would suffer difficult and desperate health-care issues if they were not treated in a timely fashion, would spread the disease to others, and in situations like this where teenagers have to have the privilege of confidentiality of positions in order to deal with these kinds of problems. i only have 60 seconds, so i cannot go into a whole litany, but it would be horrible for a position to not be able to treat

those kinds of patients. >> is there further discussion? >> yes, sir? >> from new mexico. i would like to also echo what dr. helllreich was saying in regard to those types of individuals. in a healthy environment, i agree with this, but there is a lot of unhealthy environments out there, such as abusive family situations, whether it is drug-related or alcohol or physical abuse. these individuals would not come into the emergency room or seek medical help, so as phil has said, there are sexually- transmitted diseases, unwanted pregnancy, incest. all of these happen. i have some concern about this particular -- >> i thank the gentleman for

comments. please remember to turn your microphone off after you have spoken. ms. johnson? >> from alaska. i am the mother of three daughters, and i would like to think that in this country, things are not so bad yet that healthy parents and families are the rule, not the exception, and i think we need to air on this side of trusting parents to know what is going on in their children's lives and give approval for it. >> further comment and discussion? you are recognized. >> thank you, madam chairman. i would like to speak in favor of this. we already have things where they can treat without consent of their parents. that is not what this amendment is about. this is in non-life-threatening situations, where we have children getting treatment without their parents' consent, and i find the notion that my daughter can go in and receive contraception and things like that without my ever knowing about it is appalling, and that

is why i am in favor of this amendment. >> further discussion? the gentle lady from idaho. >> from idaho. i am in support of this. parents are able to be in the driver's seat, not only in the health-care decisions of their children a also in education, and while i respect the opinion of the two doctors who served on the committee with me, i do support parents being able to make these decisions. >> we thank the gentle lady. from california. >> i call the question. >> the question has been called. all in favor of calling the question, say aye. opposed? all in favor, say aye. oppose say no. we would ask for a show of hands, those voting aye. raise your hands.

ok, 47 ayes. the nays --

the amendment is adopted. that is the last amendment we have for protecting individual conscience in health care. is there any further amendment to this amendment? we will let the record reflect back -- that at 4:28, closed consideration on this section of the platform. we will now return to page four, line 31, for the federal health- care research and development. this section that one had asked for clarity, and for opportunity to redefine and insert some language. sir, you are recognized on your amendment, and you are going to see this on the screen, it so, sir, clarification. >> thank you, madam chair. as i mentioned before, i want to recognize or those to deal with

autism spectrum that autism is not just another disease. it is actually classified as a disorder. that is critically important to the millions of families that are affected by this every day. an amendment to this. >> the amendment has now been read. displayed and seconded. is there further discussion? hearing no further discussion, is there a call for the question? the question has been called. all in favor will say aye. all opposed? the question has been called. we are on mr. ward's amendment. page 22, inserting the word "disorder appear all in favor will say -- inserting the word "disorder." all in favor will say aye.

opposed? the record will reflect that at 4:30, we have close the federal health-care research and development section. we now move to page five, line 10, reforming the fda. i have one amendment to this section. it is health amendment no. 19. it is mr. henderson from north dakota. you are recognized, sir, for 60 seconds. >> thank you, madam chair. after line 22, i want to put a new sentence in there stating that we oppose the fda -- and small farmers. i am an abuser of something produced on my farm. i buy it from my two sons. i am just tired of over regulation, and, again, i would like to ask that we let the free

market work in this situation. i yield back my time. thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. his amendment has been stated. is there a second to his amendment? his amendment has been seconded. from kentucky, congressman, you are recognized. >> thank you very much, madam chair. i certainly understand mr. henderson's sentiment about the government being overzealous in many areas, particularly in energy as well as in other areas. we actually had a discussion about this amendment when we took up the agriculture part of this platform. and i think all of us recognize that we are very fortunate to live in a country where we probably have the safest food supply in the world because of the fda, and i believe that this amendment is rather vague and the attempts to target raw milk

producers, it cheesemakers, and farmers. the fda is making sure that our food chain is healthy in all respects, and for that reason, i would respectfully opposed mr. henderson's amendment, because i think the-s -- the negatives of it will outweigh the benefits. >> i think mr. -- thank mr. whitfield. the gentleman from d.c. is recognized. >> i also stand in opposition, and i call the question. >> second. >> i thank the gentleman. from maine, you are recognized. miss, you are recognized. >> thank you, which your respect remarks.itfield's

i want to clarify the we are talking about the non-commercial field of raw milk,. >> point of order. there was a motion, and it was seconded. >> point of order, madam chair? >> ok, mr. baker? you were asking something? >> no, from d.c. -- madame chairwoman, as a point of order, i called the question, and it was seconded. >> i am sorry. i did not hear you call the question. >> no problem. >> i did not hear that. so the question has been called. seconded. the call for the question. all in favor of calling the question will send -- say aye. all opposed? [laughter]

when i have got the gavel, if you are for it, yes, and if you are against it, it is a note. all right. ok. the question has been called. we are now on the amendment. >> a point of order. madame chairwoman? >> yes. >> i believe that to call the question takes a two-thirds majority. is that correct? >> it does. i would say from the way it sounded, if everybody had their chocolate, we will do it by division, if that is the will. all of those in favor of calling the question, raise your hand.

there are 59 for calling the question. the question will be called. page five, 22. all of those in favor -- >> madam chairman? >> yes. >> that two-thirds majority may not be achieved with 59 votes. >> i think we all there, but put your hands up again. >> point of order, is that two- thirds of the body? >> two-thirds present. present, voting.

>> thank you. 59-18. two-thirds. we are on the amendment as presented. mr. henderson's amendment, no. 19, page five, 22. all of those in favor of the amendment will say aye. of those opposed will say -- all of those opposed will say no. we will do this by division. raise your hands.

there are 29 for hands. opposed, hands up. the amendment is not agreed to.

i have no further amendments to this section on reforming the fda. is there further discussion? if not, the record will reflect that at 4:38, enclosed that section for consideration. we are now on line 23, a tort reform. i have one amendment to that section. sir, you are recognized on your amendment, which is health amendment no. 5. does everybody have the health amendment no. 5? the amendment is already on the screen. sir, you're recognized for 60 seconds on your amendment. >> thank you, madame chairwoman, new mexico. the land of enchantment. the sentence has to do with rule america. shortages and access to care.

we are talking about higher-risk individuals in rural areas. have already been talking about obstetricians, surgeons, and i am talking about taking out "high risk" so it broadens the category, which could be positions of any type, a nurse practitioners and p.a.'s. >> the amendment has been read. is there any discussion could -- any discussion? >> it is the high-risk surgeons and others that are sued the most common who have to pay $80,000 per year plus malpractice insurance.

>> you are recognized. >> from illinois, thank you. >> in my area, we particularly have lost our neurologists. >> mr. damron, further on your amendment? >> this should be line 28, not mine 26. my apologies. line 28, not mine 26. -- not line 26. >> ok, so it would read "rural areas." they are moving to urban settings. i am reading that correctly?

it is on the screen in front of you. mr. barton? >> it was part of my question. there are two references to "high-risk." do we want to remove one? >> ok. >> call the question. >> the question has been called and seconded. all in favor will say aye. opposed? the question has been called. we are on the amendment of mr. damron, page five, 28. for clarification, and deleting the word "high-risk." all in favor will say say -- aye. opposed? it carries, and this amendment is adopted. there are no further amendments i have to the tort reform.

the record will reflect that this section is not closed at 4:42. we now go to line 32, education, for every child. this section goes through page 6, line 11. i have no amendments to this section. the record will reflect the section was considered an was closed for consideration at 4:42 p.m. we move to attain the academic excellence for all, line 12, and going through the end of page seven, line 39. i think it's see, have got two, three amendments to this section. the house amendments to this section. ok. -- six amendments to this

section. ok. from kansas, you are recognized for your amendment, which is health amendment no. 7. it will be on page 6, at line 23. >> ok, i believe to ensure a strong republic for generations to come, it is of vital importance to instill national pride in this great and free nation. students need to learn about the sacrifices and the character of the founding fathers threw a study of their own words in the original documents, -- through a study of their own words, and that is why i am supporting an accurate account of the history that celebrates the birth of this great nation. >> second. >> the amendment has been seconded, and the language is reflected on your screen. i think it is actually line 25.

where your amendment comes in, instead of line 23. it is shown on the screen. is there a discussion on the amendment? yes, mr. luna, are recognized. >> madam chair woman, we discussed a similar amendment in our committee, and it was not successful. i do believe that there is another amendment coming before us right after this one, and i think that if the submitter of this would look at it, it is an acceptable way to address her concerns, and that would be the amendment number 14. so our committee looked at similar language to this, and it did not get approved in our committee. however, in a moment, you will see an amendment that i think we

can support that addresses the same concern. >> madam chair woman? >> i still wish to go with my amendment and call it. >> ok, mr. barton, you are recognized. >> i would speak in favor of this version over the subsequent version. this does emphasize the united states constitution. i will point out in 2004, congress did pass a law requiring every public school on constitution day to spend the day studying the constitution, and many do not. they are now setting aside an entire week to study. i think this is consistent. >> i thank the gentleman. from american samoa. >> as a public schoolteacher, i have a problem with this. we are getting very specific. we already have history, as is mentioned in this, in this platform. when we get this specific, what i worry about is it says "an

accurate account of american history." we are assuming that our teachers are not teaching that, and at a time where public- school teachers feel that they are under attack from the republican party, i would not put this language in there because it assumes our teachers are not doing what they supposed which -- what they are supposed to be doing. >> this has been called and seconded. >> a point of order. this sentence is eight lines long, and it looks like a run on sentence, so i would just say -- >> yes, we are on the point -- we are on the calling the question at this point. all in favor of calling the question. >> aye. all opposed? >> no. >> the question will be called. amendment,s. caley's page 6, after "geography" and

the semicolon that is there, "an accurate account of american history which celebrates the birth of this great nation." all in favor of the amendment? they will say aye. all opposed, no. >> no. >> the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. we now are on page 6. yes, that was accepted. we are on 6, after line 36. that is the next one i have. it would be health 14. that is correct. we will go to amend the health 14. from utah.

ms. >> thank you, madam chair. history is the nair avet of our common heritage. i was anxious that we include something about that in our document. i actually would prefer this amendment to the one that we just passed but since we just passed one, i will withdraw mind appreciate the fact that we are focusing on our history. >> miss dayton withdraws her amendment. we will now move to line 38 at the bottom of the page. this will be health and i can't make out the number but it is by mr. walker of oregon. it is page six, line 38. mr. walker, you are recognized on your amendment. >> madam chair, i withdraw my amendment. >> this amendment has been withdrawn.

we now go to page seven. same section. attaining academic excellence for all. page seven, line -- no, let's see, line three. mr. bopp of oregon, you have an amendment? >> i haven't moved, madam chairman. i'm mr. bopp from indiana. >> i'm sorry. i need to get myself more chocolate. >> thank you, madam chairman for recognizing this eam. this sentence that i'm seeking to amend lists the oms options which we support for learning, and as we know, children are different. each child is different. each child can vary in the context in which they can be most successfully educated.

there are many of those options available through charter schools, open enrollment, virtual schools, etc. once we list those options, we then say "that they are "especially important for but not limited to families with children trapped in failing schools." i think the emphasis there is wrong. i think every child could benefit from having those options available and i recognize that we should note, especially though children in failing schools, so my amendment is to strike the words especially important for but not limited to changing emphasis to say "important for all children, especially for families in failing schools."

second. >> and it has been seconded. the language is highlighted and reflected on your screen. is there further discussion on this amendment? mr. page? you're recognized. >> randy page, south carolina. as someone who is working diligently to expand school choice options in south carolina on a daily basis, i'm pleased to support mr. bopp's amendment and would call the question. >> the question has been called and seconded. all those in favor will say aye. all opposed no. we will call the question. we are now on mr. bopp's amendment. mr. bopp of indiana. it is on page seven line three. all in favor of mr. bopp's amendment will say aye. all opposed, no. the amendment is adopted. the next one that i have is health number 10.

it is on line 11 of page seven. that is correct. ok. we are going to mr. barton of texas. health amendment number 10. does everyone have the amendment? everyone stating they have the amendment. mr. barton, you're recognized for 60 seconds. >> we know from every other form of education that we're educating kids with better results for less money. we know in our state of texas as in so many other states we try do a -- we want 65 cents out of over dollar spent in every classroom. there is one administrator to every teacher. it was a 50/50 ratio. less money, better results. the proposal i would make is to remove the equivocation, enormous amounts of money are being spent for k-12 public education with overall results that do not justify that

spending. >> second. >> ok. amendment has been read. explained and seconded. we're waiting for it to get on the screen. simpification of this as you are working through, we would strike the word which, which follows result, and strike seem to. results do not and it would change to overall results that do not justify the spending. so it is a rewrite of that first portion. we strike which, we strike seem to and we change it so that it would read overall results that do not justify the spending. am i stating that correctly, mr. barton? it is stated. is there further discussion? the question has been called.

all in favor of calling the question will say aye. all opposed say no. the question has been called. we are now on the amendment of mr. barton, health amendment number 10. mr. barton of 10 with the amendment on page seven, line 11. i would ask you, sir, if it is reflected appropriately on the screen? it is appropriate and proper as in front of you. all in favor of mr. barton's eam will say aye. -- amendment will say aye. opposed will say no. the amendment is agreed to. >> we need to leave the which in only because the results which seem do not justify that.

ok. thank you, sir. >> we knew move to health amendment number four. >> madam chairman? >> hold on just one minute, please. am i correct, the next one, health amendment number four, does everyone have that one? it is on page seven, line 25. >> madam chairman. this language just strengthens our commitment. session identical language that we had in the 2000, 2004 and 2008 platform and move its adoption. >> the amendment has been read, explained and moved. the language is going in on your screen at this point. is there discussion on the amendment?

the gentlelady from alabama? >> thank you, madam, chair. i disagree with this amendment. the reality is that a large majority of our teenagers and young adults have r-having sex before marriage. it is our responsibility to educate teenagers about contraception and s.t.d. prevention while placing a large e sis on abstinence. i encourage dwroverpb support dwroverpb support the current language of it. very there further discussion? miss kennedy? >> cynthia kennedy of nevada. i support the comment that was just made. >> thanks to gentlelady. any comment from the subcommittee? >> i will tell you that we had

discussions similar to this in our ke and it in the committee and it did not come out of the committee. that is the committee's work but there was extensive discussion. i'm speaking for the committee, not necessarily myself. i assume that's what you're asking. >> yes, that is what i was saying. asking. ok. >> i was also on that committee. i withdrew it. it did not actually fail. i withdrew its after extensive debate. i want to make sure that has been clarified. i do support the amendment. >> question has been called. all in favor will say aye? all opposed no. the question has been called. all of those, we're on the health amendment number four. page seven. line 25. the language is reflected on your screen. those in favor will say aye.

those opposed will say no. we will have a division show of hands. hands up for those that say aye.

>> those opposed. one hand at a time. >> 41-235rks amendment passes. -- 35, the amendment passes. we now move to line 30. health amendment number 13. health amendment 13. do you have that one? all right, mr. perkins you are recognized for page seven line 30, health amendment 13. >> tony perkins, louisiana.

this is language that was the platform 2004 and 2008 simply states this. we oppose school-based clinics that provide schools, councel selling for related services, abortion and contraception. it should be noted under obama care, $150 million has been earmarked for these controversial school-based clinics. a clinic set up shop in a los angeles high school. it is a plan under a cloud of suspicion under criminal and ethical activity. that we should restore this language back into the platform that was in the platform in 2004 and 2008. >> the amendment has been presented, explained and seconded. the language is on the screen in front of you. is there discussion on the amendment? you're recognized, ms. dayton. >> thank you.

you can call me mrs. , if you want to. i would like to speak on behalf of this amendment. i remind group that this opportunity for health clinic nix the schools was introduced even as far back as no child left behind. i think it is very important that we include this as part of our platform so i would be supportive of this. >> are there further comments and discussions? ms. sand strom? >> healther sandstrom. i support this whole heartedly. >> it has been called. seconded. all those in favor will say aye. all opposed will say no. the question has been called. we are now on the amendment. health amendment number 13, presented by mr. perkins of louisiana.

it is page seven, line 30, the insertion of the words that are reflected on your screen. all in favor will say aye. all opposed will say no. the amendment is adopted. i have no other teammates this section. attaining academic sbrens for all. -- excellence for all. we will allow the record to reflect that at 5:0 2:00 p.m. we completed and closed that section. wr now on page eight, line one. higher education going through line 11. i have no call for amendment. no call for amendments. we will have the record reflect that at 5:0 3:00 p.m. that we closed this section. we move to line 13. addressing rising college costs. no amendments on this section.

we will have the report reflect that at 5:4003 we considered and closed this section. we move the line 35 and began consideration of safe neighborhoods. you will see this this goes through the end of the section. this is last amendment we will have. we have two amendments that are proposed. health six and what is the second one? i don't have that one. health 15. ok. all right. that's -- i'll give you that one. we will begin on page nine, nine two, the gentlelady from new mexico is recognized for health amendment number six. >> thank you, madam chairman.

it is a wife of a retired new mexico state police officer and because our law enforcement officers, much like our soldiers are fighting wars on american soil, it is imperative that we support efforts to make sure they are well trained not only for our safety and well-being but for theirs as well. therefore i'm asking that on line two, page nine, we just add well-trained law enforcement officers. well-trained. >> is there a second? >> the amendment has been read, explained and seconded. you will see it reflected on your screen. it is highlighted. it is the insertion of the word well trained. question has been called. all in favor of calling the question will say aye. all opposed no. we are now on the amendment. it is page nine, line two, inserting the words well

trained. all in favor will say aye. all opposed will say no. the amendment is agreed to. we now go to line eight of page nine. does everybody have this? it's health amendment 15 by ms. newland. we have move forward with the amendment. you are recognized for your health amendment 15. it is page nine. line eight. you're recognized for 60 seconds. >> thank you, madam chairman. actually i made a mistake on this. i would like to change federal to national registry. i did this kind of quickly. the rationale for this is several years ago, my niece and nephew were murdered, 3 and 5 years old in indiana. the murderer is going to be released in september to a

neighborhood across the street from an elementary school. and he will be living with his mother. it has been verified, very close to the school. there is no national registry for child murderers. there is a national registry for sex offenders. but there is no national registry for child murderers and i ask that you please pass this so that the neighbors of this person would at least be advised that they will have -- there is no indication that this person has been rehabilitated, will have a child murderer of a 3-year-old and a 5-year-old as their neighbor. thank you. >> is there a second? >> the amendment has been seconded. it has been read and explained. the language is in front of you on the screen. is there discussion?

the question has been called. all of those in favor of calling the question say aye. all of those opposed will say no. the question is called. we are on the amendment. all in favor will say aye. all of those opposed will say no. the amendment has been agreed to. i have no further amendment to this section. any further amendments to this section? we will show that 5:07 p.m. we completed the section. mr. luna, i call on you for closing comments. >> madam chairman, thank you for the good work of this committee. we brought to you a document that i think is now better than the original and so we thank those who brought forth the amendments and the discussion. so i would move that we would accept the document that has been submitted as amended.

>> there is a motion on the floor to accept the movement as amended. >> second. >> all in favor say aye. all of those opposed no. the section is adopted at 5:08 p.m.. [applause] >> well, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations. you finished 45 minutes early. [applause] now we have a little more to do

as we wind this down. i want to tell you how much it has been an honor to serve as your chairman and i know the senators and congresswomen feel the same. it has been a terrific 48 hours serveing with you. i want to give you a couple of concluding thoughts on a few administrative things and then we'll conclude with a preamble and a benediction. this exercise that you have been through is one i hope you will remember for a while. this is grassroots democracy at its very best. people from 56 different jurisdictions coming together carrying the ideas and dreams and policies of their states and territories together. somehow over two days, crafting one unified document that you have now all approved. i think it represents the best of what we believe. we had some close votes, as you

saw, on some things. it just proves we are not a monolithic party. we bring different ideas. but it is what makes us, i think a great and vibrant party, is we find ways to unify around a common set of ideas and for that, i want to absolute you. when we start -- salute you. when we started this, gave you some remarks that said we want to have a document that had good ideas, that was concise, that would be a set of principles that our candidates could read and use and adopt in whole or in part in order to attract independent voters to consolidate and motivate our base and to reach out to undecided and unaligned voters and attract them to our side. i think that you have been able to accomplish that. i also ask you to leave here better friends than you came in. i hope that has also been accomplished. i think by your debate and civility and good cheer along

the way, you have accomplished that through your dinners and formal conversations here and through your side bars, eating ice cream or drinking juice, i hope that has also contributed to that spirit of good will. most of ull all, i want to thank each of you. some of you are going back and come back next week. some of you staying. you have dug into your party, spending extra time and money in order to be delegates. you spent quite a above it time here. many of you committee chairman and others came to washington and others. it has been an extraordinary commitment on your part to be a part of the platform committee. and so, on behalf of all the leaders up here, i want to sa lute you for your -- salute you for your patriotism and work ethics and your responsibility

and your civics minded virtue that you have displayed over the past 48 hours. thank you for that. i think the reason that we were able to get through this ahead of time in good order is that there was a tremendous amount of work done before we got here. i think you'll agree. you had a good conservative working draft that was in front of you that encapsulated ideas building on 2008 and the previous platforms updating it and adding to it the issues of our times with issues of our economy, taxes and spending, debt and deficit, agriculture, about reaffirming our traditional beliefs and support in the values that have made our country great. respect for life, liberty and marriage. i think all of those are loud and clear in this document and for that, i want to say how much i appreciate what you have been able to accomplish. now, can we go through a couple

of administrative things. we had an opportunity have a picture taken together. we're charging you for those pictures. you have the logistics on that? >> yes, sir. when you came in this morning, there should have been an order form on your seat. if you can't find one, our executive assistants will probably out another form to everybody. >> i also wanted to say that the final platform will be presented by the three of us. to the full committee on monday. there will be sometime in the afternoon for all three of us to address the entire assembly and make the presentation and that will be subject to one final vote, but we hope that will be a rousing affirmation of the work that you have done. i want to recognize one of our

delegates who has made a special contribution, not only this year, but for 16 separate r.n.c. conventions. that is the gentlelady from virginia. [applause] if you do the math that, means that she went to the first convention before most of you were born. phyllis, i want to say thank you. not only for your great representation of the show me state but for the conservative cause all of these years. you have been terrific. what you saw was 48 hours. what i saw was three months. and maybe longer. from the incredibly dedicated

staff of the r.n.c. and many others. i would like you to acknowledge them. they are the unsung heroes. [applause] hold on. hold on. we're going to do a lot better than that. that was a group applause, but i want to do a little better than that, starting with recognizing the tremendous work and great leadership of my two co-chairman, senator john hoeven and congresswoman marsha blackburn . didn't they do a great job? [applause] i would also like to recognize all of you. you have heard them speak, but the subcommittee chairs put in special effort and multiple phone conferences and trips to washington, their leadership, so if they would stand, please, and jonathan barnett, lynn fitch,

jim talent, tom luna, caroline measuring elkharty, congressman ed whitfield, rachel kemp. well done. thank you all very much. [applause] well done. i specifically want to thank ryan for asking me to be a chairman. elected 21 years ago into the legislature in virginia. i never in my wildest dreams thought i would have the same seat held by thomas jefferson and patrick henry. did i mention jefferson and henry?

i never thought i would have the opportunity to lead what is perhaps one of the most important things the republican national committee ever does. that is every four years to embody in a short order what we believe in. it is an extraordinary political privilege. the reason it has gone as it has is the incredible work done by staff. i'm going to call them out and ask that you thank them. starting with the executive director, ben key. great job, ben. [applause] our policy director. [applause] editing his eighth platform, bill griffin. [applause]

our executive assistant who has done work and so many tasks. [applause] our parliamenttarian now in his ninth platform, bob dove. the clerk of the committee, laura dove. [applause] the counsel to the committee, jeff rosen and tim flanagan. [applause] our two press secretaries, kristin and gary. [applause] they are out there telling them what you just did. they are doing good work.

and then two other counsel from the republican national committee. john andlessly. -- lesley. [applause] now as a group, i'm going to ask the policy staff if they were the ones that were able to give you the facts and figures that you needed in your skest. i'll have them all stand together. andrew, matt, neil, robert, ed, william, billy, george, jonathan , tony, mary, cynthia, mike, keith, and that's it. [applause] and finally, we had a lot of

folks that were truly behind the scenes but did a lot of work with all the logistics and coordinating everything from food, drinks, rooms, etc. that is the folks from the gordon james crew. lori. edgar, mallry, mallry, and there were a lot of noolings volunteered. local noolings just wanted to help us out from the tampa bay area that served as volunteers. they are scattered around the room. and of course to the folks from the audio-visual crew and our friends at c-span carrying it live. we appreciate them doing their good work as well. [applause]

just to reaffirm what the governor said, next monday when we convene at the tampa bay forum at 2:00, we will then go to a special committee meeting of the platform, the committee on resolutions. at that point, we will reaffirm the document. when you enter the hall, this document will be printed on every delegate's chair. you should be very proud of that. you have to go to your seat as a delegate first and then you'll be released. when you get to the forum go to your seat and then you'll go to your room. >> ladies and gentlemen, i'm now going to read to you the preamble that i have crafted with the help of our co-chairman. you will get a copy of it before you leave. there will be the destructry document to introductory document.

>> the 2012 republican splample a statement of who with are and what webb we believe as a party. the pursuit of opportunity is defined america from our very beginning. this is the land of opportunity. american dream is a dream of equal opportunity for all and the republican party is the party of opportunity. today that american dream is at risk. our nation faces unprecedented uncertainties with great fiscal and economic challenges, and under the current administration, has suffered through the longest economic downturn in history. our middle class has felt the burden most acutely. meanwhile the federal government has expanded its size and scope, its borrowing and spending, its debt and its deficits. federalism is threatened and

liberty retreats. for the world, this has been four years of lost american leadership. leadership that depends on economic vitality and peace through strength. so put simply, the times call for trustworthy leadership and honest talk about the challenges that we face. our nation and our people cannot afford the status quo. we must begin anew with profound changes in the way government operates, the way it budgets, the way it taxes, the way it regulates. jefferson's vision of a wise and frugal government must be restored. it has put us at this fork in the road and we must answer ronald reagan's question. if not us, who? if not now, when? so that is the choice that faces

the american people this november. every voter will be asked to choose between the chronic high unemployment and the unsustainable debt produced by a big government entitlement society or the choice of a positive, optimistic view of the opportunistic society. american people pess vast reserves of courage and -- and then chart the strong course. they are eager for the opportunity to take on life challenges and through faith and hard work, transform the future for the better. they are the most generous people on earth. giving sacrificially of their time, talent and treasure. this platform we have crafted affirms that america has always

been a place of grand dreams and even grander realities and so it must be again. if rereturn to government, its proper role, making it smaller and smarter. if rerestructure government's most important domestic programs to avoid their fiscal collapse. if we keep taxation and regulation and litigation to a minimum. if we celebrate success, entrepreneurship and innovation. if we lift up the middle class. if we hand over to the next generation a legacy of growth and prosperity rather than entitlements and indebtedness. that same commitment must be present both here at home and abroad. we are a party that knows the difference between international acclaim and world leadership. we will lift high torch of free -- freedom and democracy to all

those that seek freedom around the world. as president reagan issued the call of tear down this wall, so must we always stand against iran theny and oppression -- tyranny and oppression. we must cherish the men and women who defend our libertys with their very lives. to embark on this mission, we are not without guidance. we possess the oner's imagine. the united states constitution. -- the owner's man well. guarantee opportunity, not outcomes. adhere to the rule of law. reaffirm that our rights are from god, are protected by government and that only -- that the only just government is the one that truly governs with the consent of the government.

these principles and the constitutions are secured by the character of the american people. our first president, george washington says this in his first inaugural address. the smiles of heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which heaven itself is ordained. values matter and character does count. mitt romney and paul ryan understand these great truth and eternal principles. they share a positive vision for america. a vision of america renewed and strong. they know that america's best days do in fact lie ahead, but it will take honest result results oriented conservative leadership to enact the good policies for our people and they will provide it. we respectfully submit this floomple the american people. it is boast a vision of where we

are headed and an invitation to join us in that journey. it is about the great dreams and opportunities that we have always said represent america and always must remain the essence of america for general railingses to come. -- generations to come. may god continue to bless and shed his grace on the united states of america. thank you. [applause] >> mr. chairman, i move that we adopt the preamble by aclamation. >> i second that motion. >> i third that motion. [laughter]

>> hearing no objections, then the preamble will be adopted. for our final -- [applause] for our final action then, i would like to call on aubrey feinton from the great state of new jersey for the benediction. >> our god and our father, we thank you for the great achievements that you have blessed us to see and to witness and to be part of. we thank you for the collective wisdom that we have all witnessed in one another and the way your hands and your spirit has guided all that we have done. as we leave this place, we place ourselves into your care and into your providence and ask for safe travel everywhere we go as delegates and thank you in advance for the victories we will see next week and for the greater wisdom we will share there. we give you all the praise and glory for the wisdom that only you have as you continue to guide this great nation.

in your name we pray, and we all say amen. >> now there are copies of the preamble if you would like them, that we have just adopted that are available as you leave. god bless you. travel safely. have a great rest. see you sunday. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> vice president joe biden will be at a campaign rally in michigan today. he will be live from renaissance high school in detroit starting at 3:00 eastern here on c-span. >> from time to time i watch the proceedings of the house and the senate floor, interswruse people that are of interest interviews from people that are of interest. sometimes if the timing is just

right, particularly in my american government class, i can just get the live freed the floor of the house or the senate and have them watch that for five or 10 minutes and that invokes some conversation. burnie davis watches c-span. >> the republican national convention officially begins august 27. the platform committee met for two days to draft its position on topics such as foreign policy, health care and education. this part focuses on foreign policy. it is just over an hour.

>> we will open in prepare. mary? >> thank you, governor. heavenly father, we thank you for the opportunity to live in the freest nation on earth. we are sorry for the many times we have sinned against you and we beg your forgiveness. shower us with your blessings today and we ask your guidance as we form the issue that form the fundamental issues of freedom. help us today honor your view in our thoughts, words and actions. in jesus' name we pray, amen. >> now i would like to recognize heather from arizona for the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge alegion took place the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indwizzable, with liberty and justice for all.

>> ladies and gentlemen, just a quick recap. we are ahead of schedule. that is the good news. we have completed the sections -- the two sections that we were scheduled to complete yesterday and we have completed most of the section on the american reform policy, we have five amendments left on that. senator hoeven will take the gavel here in a minute to complete that section and then we will proceed to the constitution section and government reform and health care, crime and education and congresswoman blackburn will chair those remaining sections. at this point, i think we have received about 16 or so new amendments for the entire last three sections. i anticipate some more forthcoming.

there are some new form s that area lot more using friendly for you to use. we will also be using as we did yesterday, technology so that you will have those on the screen to make it easier to navigate. i imagine quite a few more amendments on the constitutional government reform section. i would like to ask as you present your comments or make further comments to be concise, keep your comments to a minute or so and that way everyone will have a chance to be heard. with that, thank you for your good work and spirit of team work and cooperation. i think it has been very good, especially the great work of the subcommittee that has allowed us to proceed and be where we are now ahead of schedule. with that, senator hoeven. >> thank you, governor. good morning to you and good morning to congresswoman blackburn . good morning to all of you. to all of you. as you recall, we left off yesterday on the foreign policy and defense section. we were on page 14.

the subsection, un quive kabul support for izz really a. -- un quive kabul support for israel. that is an amendment that would substitute a new section for the current section, support for rails. he is working with them on some language now on that particular amendment. >> oh, boy. so are we at the point where he will be here shortly or do we need to move to something else? >> you might want to move to something else. >> all right. out of deference for mr. page, we will move to -- let's see if we have another -- i think we were going to take fp 3 next.

which is also on page 14. so if you would go to amendment fp 3. >> senator if, i may just briefly. these next three all relate to the same section. >> oh, boy. >> may i suggest that we jump back to the beginning of the document? since we might be stepping on some amendments if we go back to fp 1 o 1. overtimes. if we go back to -- i'm sorry. if we go back to fp 15. >> fp 102. it was just handed out from jim bob. >> all right. so fp 102 is coming. those three relate to this section. we'll step over those. we'll go to fp 15, which takes us back to page number one, line 24.

all right? does everyone have fp 15? all right. that is submitted by pat kerr bi-- kerby of nevada. mr. kerby? >> thank you very much. the explanation for this amendment is that i have a list of things i believe are universal truths and one of them is that if you're going to grant the power for government, you must first imagine that power in the hands of your worst enemy. so this picks up on line 24. and i'll read it into the -- as history as sadly shown, fellow citizens may rarely become enemies of their country.

for this reason, the republican party must oppose the indefinite detention of american citizens as proposed by the national defense authorization act. the -- the obama administration has -- it is not beyond them to use other things like to i.r.s. to go after donors for conservatives. it is the idea of granting this power, the government, it is in defiance of the constitution. i guess i'll open it for discussion. >> all right. is there a second? >> i will second. >> there is a second.

mr. bopp? >> thank you, mr. chairman, jim bopp, indiana. i rise to oppose this amendment. amendment to the same subject was moved in our subcommittee. restoring the constitution, it was defeated. what this would do is change current law, including current constitutional law which permits enemy combatants who are captured on the battlefield to be held indefinitely without the right of habeyuss corpus. the supreme court has upheld that concept and it doesn't matter whether the enemy combatant is a u.s. citizen or not. if they are fighting for a foreign country or foreign interest, they can be so held. of course during world war tr, there are literally thousands of both germans, italian and

japanese enemy combatsants held in camps in the united states and they were dealt with by the military authorities. were not subject -- did not have the rights of habeyuss corps us. that included several -- habeas corpus. that included several german soldiers who are released after they got into the united states by submarine on the east coast. they were captured in the united states but because they were an enemy combatant, they were subject to military authorities and indefinite detention. i support the idea that -- that constitutional law that is currently existent be continued and i oppose treating enemy combatants as if they are peaceful united states citizens. so i oppose the amendment.

>> mr. kobach? kris kobach, kansas. we need maximum flexibility to deal with terrorists including the possibility of demention the places like get moe. terrorists -- like get mo. -- gitmo. a recent example, you may remember john walker lindh, among the al qaeda u.s. citizenship. they will have the right of habeas corpus as my colleague mentioned. they will have access to court review. i agree with the base sentiment of the sponsor, i think putting this statement, i would not recognize the flexibility we need in our war against terrorism. >> yes, sir?

>> mr. erickson from minnesota. get closer to the mic if you can. there you go. you're in on. [inaudible] with respect colleagues on the other side, the fact is that -- how the u.s. citizens by -- drone attacks would have -- our founders spinning in their graves. we do not believe in rule by king. the fact that we have a president -- an abomination for

our constitution. whether you are -- or not, the fact is -- absolute fewer corrupt absolutely. putting that kind of power into the hands of a single person or a small commission without the checks and balances is wrong. >> yes? >> the gentlewoman from nevada? >> cynthia kennedy from nevada. the gentleman who spoke talked about german submariners being captured and imprisoned. i think it was fairly obvious when they were captured who they were and what they were here for. it is not like they were in a fishing boat. the it was obvious that they were enemy combatants. i don't think anybody would disagree with them that they recollected bb captured and imprisoned until the war was

over. i would also direct people's attention to the japanese citizens who were put in concentration camps throughout the country and years later, i believe it was about 10 or 15 years ago, those japanese citizens received an official apology and renumeration from the united states government because they regretted imprisoning those people based on their ethnic heritage and not considering at all that they were u.s. citizens and held their own personal alegion took place this country and not japan. but there is another aspect of mdaa that i also find very alarming and a severe infringement of our first amendment rights. i also want to say that when osama bin laden and his -- >> ma'am, we're on a different amendment. >> well, no, i'm talking about the mdaa.

well, i'm just going to say there is also a part of this of the mdaa about your first amendment speech and not being allowed to protest within so many hundred feed of a person protected by secret service. there are so many people in the federal government who receive secret service protection, which i find unusual that that many people in government feel the need for that kind of protection and we're paying for it but the fact that you can't even protest around hem. i see obama with cheering people and i wonder where are the protesters? you can't see them because they can't be there and they are going to be arrested. you should be able to tell your elected people how you feel about them and not have to worry about getting put in jail just because you stood there with a sign and were too many feet too close. >> point of order? >> a couple of things. one, when i looked a the number of amendments today, if we don't

have limits on these individual amendment, folks are going to be short changed at the end of the day. i think we need to cap limits. >> i'm going to let the delegate from nevada. complete your point, ma'am. i want to make sure you can make your point. >> i thought you had -- [inaudible] >> i do not want my rights of free speech to be infringed. i want to be able to protest whenever i want. without fear of being put in jail for that. >> first of all, i direct the woman from nevada, those people were american citizens that were interned. not enemy combatants. excuse me, the gentleman has the floor. excuse me. this was a motion brought up at our state convention.

as chairman of the committee dealing with the foreign affairs, we -- none of us on the committee had read mdaa and the former commander of -- for security and intelligence of nato was a member of my committee and he volunteered to head up a review of the statute. they came back about 30 minutes later after specifically going through the statute and found that there are a number of very specific exemptions that applied to american citizens in this statute and they could not find a specific statute that met the purpose of this amendment. >> mr. bopp, a couple of points. >> first, historical record is that with we have treated enemy combatants in such a way that they are not afforded full constitutional rights. they are subject to indefinite detention if they are captured.

in fact, contrary to the lady's suggestion, one of those german submariners that came on to american soil to be a spy, who was dressed in civilian clothes, was in fact a united states citizen. my name is ron longo.

i have the pleasure of introducing our next speaker, who is barry anderson. barry is just a treat to hear. he previously was a senior budget official at the organization for economic cooperation and development in paris and at the international monetary fund. for over 30 years, he has been active in budgeting for the united states as the deputy dictor and acting director of the congressional budget office, as the senior career official at the white house offi of finance and budget. please welcome barry anderson. [applause] >> thank you very much. i have had the opportunity to speak at a variety of different conferences befo.

i just wanted to mention my good friend paul. i am looking up to see who will next speak so i can defer all the really tough questions to him or her. i look forward to your questions after this. this is a good time to be talking. i will be talking about the fiscal cliff. i did this speech a while ago, about a month or so ago, and that had a different view. i had a view at that time that we did not want to be in that blue '58 thunderbird. now i think our leaders are trying to get a seat in the car. i will explain that to you in a minute. in the past month, things have changed here. i want to get to that. the way i look at our current budget situation, we seem to be

following movie titles quite a bit. we have "the perfect storm." the fiscal cliff. what i fear is that we are going into the year of living dangerously. perhaps some of the statistics we have seen recently on growth and unemployment and on investment indicate we may already be in that because of the uncertainties because of the fiscal situation we have. what i'm going to talk about today is our fiscal future. i will try to talk about it from three different perspectives. the near-term, the perfect storm or the fiscal cliff, and what we are facing over the next couple of months. the median-term, the next year. but importantly, the long-term. our major fiscal problem is that the u.s. faces a problem of fiscal sustainability, not an immediate problem of

borrowing money. quite the contrary. right now, the treasury may be lending money at interest rates. people are wanting to lend us money and are willing to accept a very rigid very long returns -- [to accept] very low returns. i would like to begin with talking about quotes. the first one i want to do is paul simon. a song from 30 or 40 years ago. when i think back on all the stuff i learned in high school, my lack of education has not hurt me none. what i hope to do this morning is help you read the writing on the wall just a little bit.

if you found it confusing before in terms of budgeting in general, do not be surprised. that was my intent. i have traveled all around the world. i have been to paris. our system may be the most transparent system in the world. i believe it is al perhaps the most complex. complexity trumps transparency every time wh i try to do is help you read the writing on the wall. my next famous quote is, budgeting is the art of saying no. there is an art to it. it really takes some skill to determine why th governors decide what to say yes or no about. there is never enough of anything to satisfy all that want it.

the first lesson of budgeting. i confess i am an old-time budgeteer. i want to spend one more moment on my background. you have already been told i have been in paris for five years. i had 30 years doing the trifecta here in washington. the thing he did not mention is that i was a member who is not an accountant. i may be the only in the u.s. i think they learned quite a few things from me. paul mentioned some of them about the value of the balance sheet or what it can do and what it does not do.

it did give me a perspective. when i went to paris, we had a meeting of budget and accounting people. of the meetings we ran in paris, that was by far the biggest attended. i am very proud to say the budget pple and accounting people stopped physically attacking each other. mentally, they still did. they began to listen to each her a little bit. i hope we got some progrs. one more thing about me, i am not a republican. i am an s.o.b. i can criticize both sides. sometimes at the same time. as this picture indicates, it reflects my views, it seems to have become very lonely at the middle of the road now.

the people on the right have gone further on the right and the people on the left have gone further on the left. people on the left and right are so far off the middle road, i am not sure they can see us or care about us. there are some trends in the u.s. i hope will repopulate the middle road. i think most of us who are independent and take a look at both sides can hopefully produce a better situation than going to one sidor another. i am going to start at the back. i said i would do it short, medium, and long. let's start with the long-term situation. here are budget projections. they go out as you see until 2085. the reason i am doing this is because i believe doing these long-term projections is a very good thing.

i have found in my experience that if you make a forecast that goes out 18 months, you will be held to whatever that forecast is. if you do one for 75 years, nobody will know. [laughter] that is not a major reason. if you go out 75 years, it paints the picture of where you need to go, not exactly what amounts need to be, but where you need to go. this chart does it. it is not mine. it comes from presidenobama's omb. if you can see, the nature of the problem we face is primarily in that line. medicaid. the fact of the matter is, our long-term fiscal sustainability problems are because of social security, medicare, and medicaid. primarily, the health issues.

as you can see, as a percent of gdp on these projections, that is what is driving those deficits. the deficits are what is driving the debt. the debt is what is driving the interest costs. the bottom-line gives a debt as a percent of gdp and shows we are at a percent of 35% just 12 years ago. under the omb projections, there are other folks who might say these are optimistic, but under those projections will be the 77% in 2020. a fellow who was a chief economist and an economist at the university of maryland did a study a year or so ago. what they tried to do is take a look at debt as a percent of gdp.

and say, how big can it get or is there a relationship between the size of the debt as percent of gdp and our economic growth? they did over many decades and overany countries. a range. 60 or below is clearly good. countries who had debt at a percent of gdp at 60% or or below grew faster than others. 90% or above was clearly bad. 90% or greater clearly had a worse economic growth than others. between 60% and 90%, it s more muddl. this was a very good study. it gess some benchmarks. in the sense that, maybe we do

not want to go above 90%. maybe we want to get toward 60%. this chart here shows clearly what our direction is. it is what our problem is that we are facing, not borrowing money to finance the deficit today, but really the long-term fiscal sustainability. with that, i want to move on to say, ok, now that we know what the problem is, what are the solutions? i did this chart a few weeks ago before congressman ryan was named as vice-presidential candidate. here are somnumbers here from omb,ongressman ryan's proposal. i am focusing on the long-term. look at what the final right- hand column says in 2015. it emphasizes that the nation -- the nature of our problem i

medicaid. that dves up interest rates and pushes -- puts our debt at clearly sustainable levels. what does president obama and congressman ryan propose to do about it? what president obama proposes to do is to hold medicaid and medicare spending considerably below the 12% of gdp. can he do it? i am going to address that in a nute or two. let me leave that as a question mark. as you can see from congressman ryan's proposal, he is even lower than the president's budget. he does that through a premium support mechanism. i am trying to help you read the writing on the wall. that is a budget. it is the limited amount the federal government will contribute to medicaid and

medicare programs. it is clearly a budget. ryan's number there is accurate in the sense that this is what he will spend. what does that mean for the consumer and how much he or she will have to spend? that is another matter. there is something truly under listed about congressman ryan's budget. you can see two dozen 50 has 40% gdp. defense right now is nearly 40% gdp. what happens to the rest of government? that may be a step too far for congressman ryan. i do not know that number a realistic number. i am not trying to endorse the obama budget. i commented on the ryan budget being unrealistic numbers.

let me talk a little bit about the obama budget. let's take a look at the u.s. relative to the rest of the world. this chart indicates that we spend far more than anybody else in the world on health. but it also indicates that we do not necessarily get better results. the dot usa on the far right all by itself. you can see under one measure, life expectancy at birth, we are only at eight years. look at all the countries that spend considerably less and yet have higher life expectancies. life expectancy is not the only measure. it may not even be the best measure. but it is one legitimate measure.

her measures such as infant mortality would indicate similar problems. the viability of certain cancers after it has been detected, the united states would yield better results. the u.s. is not worse in every case. but it is very, very clear that we spend a whole heck of a lot more than anybody else. the next chart, and i apologize for being 2007, but they have not updated it yet, to me is one of the most significant i have seen in my years in doing budgeting. it shows how much more we spend. we are spending 16% in 2007, of gdp. the next highest country, france, in which i lived for five years, and i had french

health care while i was there, is at 11%. 5% difference. i got a lot with the french government when i was there. they are very concerned about the high level of spending they have. when looking at what we have, they cannot understand how we can possibly be spending so much this was the nature of the problem a few years ago. it is still there. now we move to what president obama has been doing. this chart, which is done by the centers for medicaid and medicare services, that is the obama administration just a few months ago, indicates what the health care situation for the u.s. will look like over the next eight years. we are going from about 18% of gdp to merely 20%. let me state that other way. they're all kinds of benefits

from the affordable care act. from the obama administration's own numbers and from the long- term sustainability issues it has made the problem worse. if you will notice, i only have one column with numbers on here. i could not find another column that said what would have been the growth and health expenditures in the absence of the affordable care act. might have been hired. it may be that thebama administration actually helped save us money. i do not know. i cannot say that. i can put these numbers out. with respect to long-term sustainability, it made the problem worse. should that be a surprise? thi so. we addllion people to health care. when i was in paris, all three of my kids lost their jobs. all three of them found new jobs.

during that time, you are looking at their health insurance. i was very happy to hear about where we are going here, personally with respect to our long-term sustainability problems, there is not any doubt with respect to health he is the major issue, and we have not addressed that issue through the affordable care act. we need to do much more. that is the situation we are in. now i will jump back to the long-term where i hope i have laid out some of t issues we are facing. now to the medium-term. i am frequently asked, what do you feel about continuing the tax cuts that came out of the sh administration? do you think we should continue them? i answer, it is the wrong question. i cannot answer the question because it is the wrong one. i can say this. i have heard concrete public

announcements from both the administration, from the republicans, from the democrats, from virtually evybody, that our tax system is broken. it is inefficient, complicated, and it does not produce the right results. president obama has been instructed. we need to have fundamental tax reform. that is the focus we have. lower the rates. if you take that as where we should be headed, this little charmight be worthwhile. with respect to tax reform, could we get agreement on this? one thg i like to point out is that, if you take a look at your taxes, you have income taxes and you have fica. your employer matches it.

how many people who pay taxes have higher fica taxes than income taxes? when the start was done a number of years ago, as you can see, four out of five households pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. four out of five. yet you hear no discussion of payroll taxes at all. the lower incomes pay more than the higher incomes. yet we do not hear anybody talking about that at all. i will go into that a little bit more. this is just a chart that indicates in 2009, any pay more

in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. i will go into this a little bit more. the top two levels are 33% and 35%. we go back to 36% and 39.6%. there have been a lot of criticisms. on whether we should go back to that. president obama has made that one of his signature moves and the congressional republicans are resisting that. the reason why has to do with the curve. laugher -- laffer is one who said there was a relationship between the tax rates you have

and the amount of money you collect. i believe that and i will show that right here. here is what theurve looks like. he says at a certain tax rate, you will maximize the economic production of the economy and therefore maximize government revenue. this is one of the major theories on the part of the republicans and i want to state my biases. i believe in the cve. specifically i believe in three points in the curve. you see that point on the bottom left where it says the zero tax rate. i believe in that point. you see that point on the right side? 100% tax rate. i believe in that point. and there is some point in between that i believe is there. i've tried to do some research to identify where it was because of the incredib difference is we have between the republicans and democrats about what tax rates are, i have

been able to find something saar with share. not just this theoretical presentation of the curve but what it looks like. it took a lot of research to find this but this will help simplify the political debate we have here. i'm going to go back a little bit. going back to not getting off the curve, taking a look at tax rates in shares. we should doing in there has been both sides been talking about we should be doing tax reform. what we're doing tax reform it is a good idea to take a look at what they tax rates and shares are. i put this together here. using cbo data. as you can see, how our system -- our income tax system is very progressive. the highest 20% pay 94% of the share of income. the top 4% pay almost 40% in two

dozen 9. i had some people think you made a mistake. you have some negative numbers there. you have the lowest people having an income rate of -9.2%. did you make a mistake? i did not. the reason that is-is because of their earned income tax is that good or bad? i am not trying to make the income but it is worthwhile knowing that the system is progressive. that is a-number for income, not for total. the difference between those numbers and why the total is positive is what i mentioned before, payroll taxes. payroll taxes are regressive and much of the progress of any

of the income tax. this is to give you an idea of what the current tax situation looks like. it was not to make a judgment about how it should look in the past. in terms of shares and with the incomes are. and with incomes are for that. and i get to social insurance tax rates, the regressivity. we are a progressive stem. the poor you are the more you pay. some of you might say that is because we cap social security tax and it changes every year. that is part of it. if we took the cap of social security tax it would still be regressive. many of the people in the highest incomes get their money from capital gains. things that are not covered by a payroll x. my reason for this is to highlight something i do not think a lot of people know and

to say this should be part of the debate. ok. we have covered that and the laffer curve. now to the near term and the fiscal cliff. i think there are nine different elements of it. they are rarely talked about. i will mention what they are. there is this, worker adjustment and prenotification, something like that. i need to know what it means. if you are laying off somebody or fire them we have to give 60 days' notice at least. some states is more. the question is what happens on january 2? the sequester is going to cut the funding that a lot of defense contractors and others are going to get. if you have to give 60 days' notice, 60 days before january 2

is november 2. that is a law right now. whether it applies not, the department of labor says u do not need to issue blanket notices as one defense contractor did. warn act notices are part of the fiscal cliff. they may be more visible before the election. we talked about the expiration of the taxuts. there's a series of this. it is not just the top rates. it is al the 10% bracket. if the tax cuts expire, every single one of you like -- will pay more taxes. it does not mean just those at the top of the income. we currently have the payroll tax holiday and extra unemployment benefits, 2% holiday we have had for two years running. that expires at the end of the year. the amt, the alternative mimum tax. i will talk about that.

that does not expire on december 31. that is already expired and i will talk to you a bit about what that means to you and to the public but that is another element of the fiscal cliff. we have something called the docca fix -- doc fix. the department of hhs determines the amount to pay for doctors. there is a law that says as of january 1, the amount paid for doctors and other providers will drop by 30% on january 1. we know these are going to happen. they are in long now. they cannot be changed unless there is fundamental laws to change them. there are some things we do not know the timing of. one is the continuing resolution and that applies to how long the funding for fiscal year 2013 is ing to be. that is the fiscal year that

begins october 1. the other one is temporary assistance for needy families. that is a welfare program that was was drastically reformed in the clinton administration. is authorization expires on some timber 30. on october 1 if it is not reauthorize, over 4 million people will not receive welfare benefits. it could be extended but right now it is one of the elements of the fiscal cliff. and finally, there is the debt limit. i think you know something about that. the current estimates are that the current debt limit which is $16 trillion $394 billion -- 16 trillion dollars, and -- they had certain abilities to extend that out. the reality is that the debt limit igoing to put -- be with

us in the car as we go off the fiscal cliff, too. all right. a month or so ago when i talked about this i was saying, this is unprecedented. things they're so bad -- things are so bad, cover such a wide variety of folks, nobody will want to go off the fiscal cliff. i put thisittle chart together. let's take a look at every one of the players here. does the president want to go off the fiscal cliff? no. he wants to continue the tax cuts. the affordable care act is a difficult law to implement. it may not be ready. he may be able to trade a delay of this for no sequester. he does not want the sequester. he does not want to cut

entitlements. he more than anybody else will want to increase the debt lit. republicans in congress? they do not want to have taxes go up, not just for those below 250. democrats like continuing backed supplemental unemployment assistance. everybody was to patch the amt and do some tax reform. my friends came out a few months ago and said, if we do go off the fiscal cliff, it will produce a recession. how the first half of next year, we will have negative real growth. this is unprecedented. we will have an explicit no fiscal congressional action push us into a recession. we may have done it before inadvertently, but here, we know it will happen. we have been told. they said if we postpone it, with some other kind of constraints to show we are serious to show long-term fiscal

sustainability, then we can have real growth. that is the situation. this set of circumstances is so bad, covers so many people, that we are definitely not going off the fiscal cliff. then congress did a couple of things and now i think we are all riding in that thunderbird together. [laughter] i started getting questions two weeks ago.

let's say we actually did the sequester on january 2. does it all have to be taken on that day? do you have to cut all 10% of the second of january? the answer is no. it can apportion the cuts later in the year. in other words, if you truly believe you can fix it later, you can go along spending at the full rate, not at 10% or less, and not have to take the cuts until the last six months or three months of the year. what about notices? the department of labor has said to ignore them. what about the expiration of the tax cuts? little known fact. the secretary of treasury has the ability to set your withholding rates. so let's just assume on january 1, the tax cuts expire.

every one of you owe more taxes. wi a minute. you may say. how does that rk? i owe more taxes, i set up withholding, but no more mey is coming. will that mean i will have to pay a much higher rate or have a much greater liability on the 15th of april the year after that? yes. that is what it mes. [laughter] can that happen? yes. it still can. it has been done before. it is a game of chicken. payroll tax holiday, i do not hear hear support for that anymore. the amt has already expired, but it can be retroactively extended. if they do that, it could give

them another year. we're going off the cliff. amt will not hit us right away. we can fix that letter. the continued resolution. have you heard about this? they are talking about six months to take us to april 1. in other words, we will pretend we can get through all these problems and come back and the new congress will fixt somehow. we will go off the cliff. the debt limit, if you let the payroll tax holiday expire, that produces $10 billion a month. that might help us a little bit. $10 billion a month is not much, but it may help a little bit. what i have heard in the last couple of weeks is an awful lot of people who say, let's fix it later. wow.

i hope they are not right. i hope once the election is over, and i expect nothing before it, that markets basically come up and say, there is a deal to be had. here is a deal we almost had last year. president obama and speaker boehner cut this deal. did you ever buy a car, sit down with the salesman, decide on a price, shake hands? you have been through that, right? he says, i have to go check with the manager. [laughter] obama shook hands with boehner last july. the deal fell apart. i am not trying to say why.

they had a deal. venues $800 billion. entitlements, health, $400 billion. remember my charts. that is where the major problem is. a good start. chained cpi, the way we index federal programs. $800 billion in entitlements. these are very approximate numbers. these are the deals they settled on. this sequester accomplishes that. the other stuff fell apart. why do i point this out? they had a deal. they shook hands. it is not impossible for us to get a deal. at lea to put the process down for a deal. let's not give up hope. so what would a deal look like.

kick the can down the road another year. they could use the budget resolution and reconciliation rules to put a restraint on a future congress of about a $3 trillion along the lines of the obama deal. lower rates and broaden the base will, could, maybe have an impact on the economy. could things we have heard help? yes. hopefully it is to put about some credibility so the markets

do not go bonkers and we see drops in equity markets like crazy. that is my situation on the medium-term, here. i will talk about the amt. if you do not know what that i let me say, right now, today, you owe it. but you do not know it. i am fairly sure i am speaking to everyone in this audice. you all will be subject to the amt. you start off with exemptions.

then you take your income. then you go to schedule a. then you come out after that. right? that is what you do at the a. you start all over. you start with your exemptions. then income. then schedule a. you come to that thing on taxes. that is the simple way to do it. then you calculate it. that is the simple way of doing it. it multiplied times 20%if you owe more without the reductions, then you pay more. what does this mean? the amt is going to hit "married with children" in states where they pay high amount of income sales and/or

property taxes. with those figures on this table. married with children wl be six times more likely to pay the empty than single fol. 45% with incomes between $75,000.100000 dollars will pay the empty. up from 0.4% last year. in addition, at&t does not hit the high earners because they're paying at a higher rate. they are already paying at the higher rate. the amt will hit 94% of those, but only 51% of millionaires. this is a theoretical view. can i fix it? s. up until about the first or

seco week of january. if they try to fix it after that, it will drive the system crazy. it is coming toward you very quickly. that is why i like the fiscal cliff analogy. i will quit their. i was going to get into the night in paris. i think i will stop here and take questions. i was going to do comparisons of why i do not want to end this talk as negatively as you might interpret. i spent the last five years in paris. i think i would still rather be here than anyplace else. i will take some questions, first.

a number of years ago my favorite budget director was leon panetta. we were supposed to go to japan to talk about long-term fiscal problems. this is almost 20 years ago now. leon could not go because by the time he made the commitment he got named chief of staff. so i went and i was there with my japanese hosts and japan has the longest [unintelligible] we're looking at our long term longevity and health problems ani said you know, the did not know my sense of humor. you have a problem in japan and we have a problem in the u.s. and put hours together, we can sell eacother's problems. he said, really? what is that. you have a problem with a

generous social security system and the longest lived people in the world. our problem is we have to much tobacco. he did not appreciate the joke and i have not been invited back. life expectancy is low because we do a good job of killing ourselves. we kill ourselves not only by shooting ourselves, by driving fast, but particularly by eating. i must say after five years in paris, i got used to sizes at restaurants that you did not have to bring a dog back or to adjust to to get home. was different way. ok. between the french health system and our system, quality versus care. i with -- i like to use anecdotes. think about the last time you went to a doctor.

here in the u.s. trade to go to the doctor's office and you make an appointment and open the door. what do you see? was just in a redness and shall list. finding out i have a freckle on my retina. i did not know such things existed. anyway, they looked at it and said it is not bad, you have to have it checked every year. i go in to the specialist and i open the door. i saw six people talk to and had service provided by six people before i saw a doctor. in france i have a problem. i go to make an appointment and they did it on line and i did it and my french was a lousy and my medical french was basically nonexistent. i made sure it had a doctor who spoke english ago to the doctor

and open up a door, there is a small waiting room. two or three people sitting there, obviously patients. there's nobody else there. i did not know what to do. i stood there and a door opens up and out comes a guy in a white coat. i have been waiting for you. come in. i have my procedure and he said there will be 25 euros. i knew this was coming. there is a copayment. you pay the doctor in cash. i said i am in budgeting. i am used to a system where there is assistance. you do this on yourself and he said, i have an assistant, she comes in twice a week. the single payer nature of the

french system. th are number two in the world but that makes a world of differen. noatter who your assurances or we'll get your service. it is so much easier. they're different malpractice things. my wife was there and my we speaks very good french but she, like i, was afraid of her medical french so she goes to a good friend of ours and says, can you recommend a doctor? can you recommend a doctor who speaks english and my friend who was a good friend looks at her and says, i am amazed to would say that. my wife says why? do you think i would recommend to you a french doctor who has not been trained in the u.s.? a lot of their better doctors are trained here, too. it is not that we have a bad system here. our fee-for-service aspect of

it are admistrative aspects of it coming our malpractice insurance product liability things, another thing i used to say when i compared my home in bethesda with my home in france which was near the eiffel tower, how do you compare the two? my neighbor is not bad in bethesda. there is only one thing wrong. there are too many lawyers tread the medical system is high because we keep a legal ofession on it. we're so much wse for ready of others. fee-for-service is the biggest aspect. administrative costs and malpractice insurance are there too. ok. freezing annual something of social security for a five-year period.

social security is an issue. it is going bankrupt from the accounting sense. let me explain social security very quickly. it is called the sisson charity -- social security trust fund. it is an intergenerational transfer. and a successful one. in the 1930's, wead some very poor old people. how to help them left out of poverty, the had not set aside money and how to prevent this in the future. it was easy. it had old people -- you have old people. if you taxed money from those working and give it to the old, you lift them out of poverty so you have these people working. the original rate was 1.2%.

it take 1.2%, a transfer from this generation working to this generation retired and what did it do? it worked. in the 1930's and 1940's, the number of old people in poverty significantly improved because of social security. ok. how do you continue to do this? it is the same deal. it is an intergenerational transfer so when these people who paid, you take a little bit out of the next generation and pay them. that seemed to be working, to but along came the and all they 65 million others who are card- carrying members of the baby boom. when they started looking at these relationships, they saw that as said like this or like this, it was like this. you had piles of people entering the work force paying far more than what was needed to keep the

basic level that was set up as social security. what did you do? increased the benefits to those retired. you increased the taxes. the taxes got up to 12.4%. 6.2 for the employee, 6.2% for the employer. did that work? it worked until the next generation came along and then this intergenerational transfer went from this to this. that is, you have this amount of old people paying taxes to this amount of retired. i said the problem with the gen and -- they did not like sex. i was corrected by a young person in the audience say that

was not the problem. we know how to control ourselves, that is all. in any case from an economic perspective, you are still facing this and it is going to get worse. i am fortunate. i live with my 9-year-old granddaughter and we have breakfast any -- every morning and i look at her and say, you got a job yet? i am about to retire and you -- we need the money. we're facing the situation here and it will be such that in order to keep the benefits for which i so justly deserve, those following me will have to pay either higher taxes or they're going to have to cut benefits. we're facing that situation now. how to do it? extending their retirement ages. in 1983 we did it to you and me.

my parents were able to retire at 65 with full benefits. i can i get full benefits until 66. countries are facing this and it may be one of the things. i mentioned the rate at which we used to increase benefits. we now increased benefits on the rate based on wages. not prices this is something not very well known. what is the difference between wages and prices? a lot of our recent history, our employees become more productive. that increase has resulted in not a perfect correlation, resulted in higher wages. those higher wages are used to increase theenefits of those who are retired. huh? why should better productivity

increase the wages of those retired? what if we went to maintaining purchasing power and went to as opposed to increasing it based on wages, we increase on prices. it sounds logical to me. that is what the chain cpi reference is. it has been imposed by the interest groups to try to protect the interests of the elderly. those kinds of interest can be done. it is better than a holiday with respec to increases in the cost of living for currently -- recipien because there is an awful lot of people who count on social security as their only retirement or a big part of it. ok. on the amt. this has to do with the relationship between the ante in

the bush tax cuts. you may know of forbes magazine. and the publisher. he was re big into the flat tax. to heck with this progressive tax rate or whatever it is. let's have one flat tax and some eastern european countries, russia, latvia, and a couple of others went to a flat tax. they went to a flat tax because they had tax evasion, excessive amounts and the flat tax hp them address that issue. my point is that the amt is flat tax. we do t do anything in terms of passing the empty. virtually everybody going to be paying 28%. and it might take 10 or 20 years, something like that but everybody will be paying.

there is clearly our relationship between the current tax system whether it is under the bush system or allowing the tax cut to expire and the empty. one of the reasons why the numbers are so great that i put up on this chart is because they assume the lower tax rates that are in effect now. the lower the tax rates, the more of the empty heads. if we let the tax tricks expire and fix the empty for one year, the tax -- normal tax rates -- the mts stays the same. it will hit fewer people. complicated, yes. it produces uncertainty, confusion, i do not see that theres any + to it at all. there may have been a reason for the empty when it was originally established in the 1960's. it has not really beein

effect except for relatively small number of people for any of the years after that. if we allow it to go into effect now it will be -- have a tremenus impact on a very large number ofasically a middle and upper middle income folks in relatively high tax rates that are married with children. is there a relationship betwe the two? yes. when we go -- but for tax reform issue, we ought to address it? absolutely. that set up a system that is logical, simple, take a look at those tax expenditures which are more than $1 trillion the year. see which ones are most appropriate and should be retained, but broaden the base and lower their rates. ok. i think that is my time here. thank you very much.

>> from time to time, i watched the proceedings of the house on the senate floor. interviews with people that are of interest. i have a c-span app , ipod so i can check your schedule. sometimes i can get a live feed from the floor of the house or senate and have my students watch that for 10 minutes and spark some conversation. >> he watches c-span on comcast. c-span, created by america's cable company in 1979, brought to you as a public service by your television provider.

>> treasury department officials spoke tuesday about efforts to improve financial reporting by the federal government. on the american institute of certified public accountants conference, this is just under an hour. >> of the like to welcome everybody to the session on the citizen's guide. my name is joel grover. we are fortunate to have two prominent members of the department of treasury speak today. mark reger is the deputy

assistant secretary and the office of financial -- the department of treasury. and scott bell is a senior staff accountant. with that, i would like to turn it over to them. they will take questions after their session. thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon, everybody. mark and i are honored to have been asked to speak to you this afternoon and hope you find this session informative. thank you to joel for the introduction. a colleague of mine sent me an article the other day from the wharton school online. it is called the usa 10k, why america needs an annual report.

i found the article intriguing given that myself and mark are all from treasury and work with the office of management budget and the government accountability office to produce the annual report that the u.s. government and related citizen's guide. that inen referred to other presentations i have made as a 10k for the taxpayer. before we get started, everyone should have a copy of the citizen's guide. did anyone not receive one? ok. so everybody has one. terrific. on the flip side of that, we noted that earlier this year, the financial report in the citizen's guide were featured prominently in a video that was posted on the aicpa web site and

narrated by president greg anton. with that, i will like to do a brief survey. i know this is a federal track session but i want to get a sense of who we are speaking to this afternoon. would you raise your hand if you are a federal employee? okay, that is most. in the state and local? private-sector? ok. one more quick survey. please raise your hand if you are familiar with or know of defense report of the u.s. government and or the citizens guide. i would say that is about a half to two thirds. that's good. we have a good mix here this afternoon. i will explain for those of you that are not aware that the financial report of the u.s. government and the citizen's guide is not the budget. the budget is a policy document

that focuses on the administration initiatives and plans for the coming years whereas the financial report of the u.s. government is a snapshot of the government's financial condition with an auditor's report in the management discussion and supplemental information. that is intended to be a complement to the budget. we hope it would inform the folks that produce it. ok. before it started, i would like to begin this presentation with a quote to show that federal financial reporting really is not a new concept. this is from president thomas jefferson to his then treasury of secretary more than 200 years

ago. "my hope is to the finances of the union as clear and intelligible as a merchant books so that every member of congress and every man in the union to comprehend them, to investigative uses and consequently to control them." so as the title of the session indicates, i will be talking about an overview of the financial report of the u.s. government, particularly as we articulate the key information in the citizen's guide which we have been producing for about five years now. what i take you through that material, i will turn it over to my boss, mark reger, who will talk about a number of things including the audit challenges we face with the financial report of the u.s. government and the innocent as we are pursuing in the treasury department with respect to the audit and federal financial

management in general. the guide that you have is intended to speak to the average reader. we try to target a high school, college, graduate student level to try to make this information accessible to the general public. it addresses some of the key issues that we talked about in the full report. the government's current financial position and condition, economic recovery efforts. biya information on that. comparatively less of them have it and to years past given that we have turned the corner and in terms of those types of issues we have been dealing with. and social insurance and sustainability which i will spend some time later on. it is important to know -- to note for those of you that are not as familiar, the report that

we will be talking about, the information comes from the fiscal year 2011 report. the fiscal year ends on to temper 30th. the individual agencies issued their financial reports on november 15. we typically released a financial report of the u.s. government after compiling information from dozens of agencies. typically in december. this year probably more like the middle of january based on some issues we anticipate having to adjust at the same time later this year. so. we like to think in terms of the financial report of the u.s. government that we take a holistic hybrid perspective on financial reporting. we utilize more traditional forms of financial reporting. such as looking at the balance

sheet, operating statement information. but we also spent a fair amount of time on what we would call non traditional financial reporting, looking at what terry -- budgetary and economic information. with that, we can get into the meat of -- and a walk-through of the citizen's guide you happy for you. you are more than welcome to follow along. i will basically what you through some of the major charts we have in your -- basically walk you through some of the major terms we have in here. compares the bottom that -- bought a net line -- bottom net inline operating costs.

the net operating cost is calculated on an accrual basis and the major defense usually year to year comes from costs associated with anticipated actuarial costs associated with federal employee and veterans and that matte -- benefit programs. that is the essence of the difference between the two. those anticipated costs impacting the accrual basis but not the cash based but it. these next charts are 2 and 3. in your guide. taking a look at revenues, what came in and what went out. chart three shows total government -- government revenues over the past five years. 2011, the total was $2.40 trillion. most of that what -- is comprised of income taxes as we but as soon.

dysarthria tears of costs -- there are thre tiers of cos ts. we deduct an amount for earned revenues associated with the delivery of programs like national park fees, medicare premiums. a comparatively small amount brings the net cost figure down to $3.7 trillion. it is that that figure that we're showing here in this next chart. this is showing the agencies that contribute the most significantly to the government's net cost for 2011. the department of health and human services which administers the medicare and medicaid programs, social security which is self-explanatory and the department of defense are almost

always the big three contributors to the government's net cost. there are some other smaller segment there. interest on treasury securities held by the public and amounts for the department of veterans affairs. and dozens of other agencies. that is a quick snapshot of how the cost figure breakdown in 2011. i mentioned there were three years. -- there were 3 tiers. you back out total government revenues and you come down to a bottom line net operating cost figure of $1.30 trillion which you may recall from the previous chart. a quick look at the government's balance sheet. what we owe and what we own.

as of september 30, 2011, the government held approximately $2.70 trillion in assets and most of that is comprised of property and equipment most of which is owned by the department of defense. also the other major piece of that is the loans receivable in investments. comparatively small asset figures to total liabilities. on the liabilities side, the largest ec there, securities held by the public of $10.20 trillion. even though this is the end of the fiscal year 2011, you may wonder what about -- what is the difference between that and the figure i hear in the news? as of september 30, 2011, the government accounted for $4.70 trillion of intergovernmental that. debt.

owed by one part of the government to another. take any federal agency that has receipts coming in and need to invest those receipts with the department of treasury. it invests in those amounts with zero public debt. it has a liability. those amounts at the agency level in their reports appear on their balance sheet but when you consolidate the information, the government -- those amounts offset. we want to account against -- you do not see it on the government-wide balance sheet. at $4.70 trillion to $10.2 trillion and you come to roughly $15 trillion.

debt subject to the limit. the other major liability component is for federal employee and veterans' benefits payable. and some other cats and dogs there of about $1.5 trillion. that was a very brief look at the traditional perspective of federal financial -- the financial part of the u.s. government. let's look now at the non- traditional social insurance and fiscal sustainability reporting. current federal accounting rules state that further -- that liabilities are limited to what we call do in payables.

the amount owed at the end of the year that are not paid out are carried forth as a liability for the next year. that is really the limitation of the liabilities that are recognized on the government's balance sheet for those programs. several years ago, the advisory board when it laid out requirements determine whether other potentially significant exposures to the federal government for these programs, that we should find some way to communicate to the public. they developed the statement of social insurance. the agencies that in a minute -- administer these programs are most predominantly social security administration and department of health and human services. the project over 75 year period the expenditures and

related receipts for these programs. there are a couple of other programs included. for example novo retirement -- railroad retirement. generally speaking, they project the expenditures and receipts for these programs over 75 year period than the that the net present value of those amounts. this is what we're looking at. a summary of the 2011 statement of social insurance. there are two key assumptions to keep it in mind looking at this. one of those is these are projections, not predictions. they are looking at the current trends at a certain date and time and projecting out based on

historical trends. the second piece to that is that it is based on current law and policy. it does not take into account future policy changes, future legislative changes. looking at the trans -- the trends. the table shows the net present value of of expenditures for the social insurance program in the federal government are submitted to exceed the present value of the receipts for those programs by $34 trillion. compared to $31 trillion projections in 2010. that is basically the bottom line. the important assumption to remember -- projections, not predictions, based on current law impalas. that is a baseline.

a couple years ago the federal accounting standards advisory board said that is a good start with a statement of social insurance providing interesting information. but what about the other pieces? there is more to the government then just the social insurance programs. what about the other revenues in spending? what about the impact on the debt and fiscal gap? extended issued a couple of years ago required that agencies and the government as a whole lot from that perspective of that wider lens. the interesting point of that is before the standard was issued, treasury and omb had been

discussing in contemplating these issues and that of the financial report. another important thing to keep in mind, the projections in the following charts are prepared by the office of budgets. the agencies responsible for the social import -- insurance programs and their actuaries prepare those projections for those programs and the office of management and budget prepares the projections and estimates he will see in the following slides based on the same rules and methodology employed former leading the budget to maintain some consistency in approach. let's get into these other issues. this is terse seven.

-- this is chart seven. the first of the fiscal sustainability slide. it shows the historical and projected receipts and non- interest spending by category for basically all of government spending. i think it shows back to about 1980 and board to 2080. another important point to make is that these are showing amounts as a percentage of gdp. like the projections we talked about in social insurance, these are projections, not predictions. all we're doing is taking current trends and extrapolating them forward. the important implication of the fact that these are it presents -- a percent of gdp is that these projections can change

from year to year. also changes in the economy could have an impact on these amounts as well. the point to take from this perch chart is that the projected receipts as a percent of gdp can pretty much consistently, in under the total amounts for government spending. according to these projections. that is the first of the slides. let's take that. this is non-interest spending. this does that include an interest component. which is an important note. the next slide at a peace to the puzzle. we now add interest to the equation. the non-interest spending in

total receipts line are basically those top lines from the previous slide and now we're adding interest into the mix. this is the first two of the three sustainability charts. we can see the gap between projected spending and receipts becomes more pronounced as we at interest. as discussed in the report, the key to analyzing fiscal sustainability as been defined in the financial report of the u.s. government is what is the impact on the government's debt? that is what this chart shows. chart eight in your guide.

you can see the trends here. as we discussed, a sustainable fiscal policy. the rate of debt to gdp is stable and in the long run. i think he probably draw a conclusion from this chart as a projection under these assumptions. there are two key messages to take away. it is important to note we make these messages pretty clear in the citizen's guide every -- financial report.

we said that in black and white. however, to couple with that, the second important message to take away from this is that the sooner policy changes are put in place, the smaller the increase in revenues will be necessary. the less dramatic changes will need to be to bring the nation's fiscal path back into a sustainable state. we make that fairly clear. it borders on the repetitive but it is important to note. the projections. not predictions. they are based only on current policy. they do not anticipate policy

are legal changes. they are there to send a message that these other trends that are possible and presented based on where we have come today. this is the baseline that folks need to be considering as they consider policy changes moving forward. this is the inside back cover of your citizens guide. it is more are less a one-stop shop for key information from the report. and the guy. you have a truncated operating statement or cost statement up top. the first third of this chart. the middle third is the balance sheet. as well as the unified budget

deficit. i really scratched the surface of the emperor mission we provide. in the financial report in citizen's guide. i hope it has been informative. all this information is available on-line. the website is on the citizens' guide. all the charts are there. also you can delve deeper into the report. you can go to the website and read more about the assumptions that go into the projections for sustainability. you can see all the false financial statements and the notes. beyond that, you can go to links for the other individual agency reports.

like the budget control act and the health care act. i hope you found this information informative. i will hope -- i hope you take a back with you and share with your colleagues and friends. we talk about this guy allot to the education community. we are trying to raise awareness of the permission we're putting out here. with that, i will leave you with one more quote. this from abraham lincoln. a couple of generations later but certainly the same team as we heard from thomas jefferson earlier. i am a firm believer in the people. given the truth, they can be depended upon any national crisis. the great point is to bring them the real facts. that is what we are trying to

do with the financial report incidents that. i thank you for your attention. i will now turn the podium over to mark. [applause] >> good afternoon. i know it is late in the day but a little bit of attention for the next 20 minutes would be appreciated and those of you who cannot bear it, i will pick on you. just be aware that it is coming your way. first i would like to thank scott. i cannot think people appreciate or understand how much effort goes into the financial report of the u.s. government. not just the effort of a small staff but the larger effort of accountants scattered throughout the whole agency.

and many auditors who participate in the reviews of the agency's statements to compile the intermission. that said, i would be remiss if it -- if i did not tahnk my b -- thank my boss for his leadership. scott got the easy part of the job. he got to tell you about the financial report -- report the only place you can find are in the financial report of the u.s. government. you cannot find this in other budget documents because these are the documents subject audited. we are reasonably accurate

representation for the community were producing the reports for. how many of you know the difference between an accountant and auditor? an accountant like to compile things like financial statements. an auditor like to take them apart. back to their basic elements. what were the pieces that added together to get to the audit. my part of today is to talk to you about the audit results. for the 15th consecutive year, the consolidated financial statements got a disclaimer of opinion. i an not sure i could think of another said the financial statements that got a disclaimer that also gets a much attention. why do people pay so much attention to assess the statements that get a disclaimer? it provides a budget unique information.

it is the only place to get that information. you can in your mind separate the process from the purpose of the disclaimer from the data and information the report does a reasonably accurately provide you as visitors than -- as a citizen. bear with me. the audit results -- we get a disclaimer. dhs got a qualified balance to unqualified status. basically 28 out a 30 by significant entities got a clean opinion. what are the three reasons we do not get a clean opinion? dod accounting and weaknesses in the compilation process.

we will say more about these. i promised the people they would get out of here in time. maybe even earlier. of the weaknesses. you can see the weaknesses of dod but if you have been paying attention to the press, there is a large unprecedented effort towards getting dod to all the ability. how many people have heard that? excellent. the comptroller of dod is leading this but his deputy has been helping tremendously with this. the secretary of defense himself has publicly endorsed the plan to get dod to audit readiness. they have a couple of big