are unrealistic totally. outside of medicare and medica medicaid, mr. ryan would slash the government, including defense, to 3.75% of g.d.p. by 2050. defense alone is 4.6% today. according to c.b.o., the total has never been below 8% since world war ii and defense has never been below 3%. so mr. ryan would either have to make massive defense cuts, the very same defense cuts he decried on the campaign trail yesterday, or he would need to virtually eliminate the rest of the government. transportation, security, f.b.i., education, scientific research, food testing. we know we know that's not going to happen. the larger point is this. in terms of deficit reduction, the ryan plan -- there's no other way to state it -- a fraud. this should come as no surprise. after all, congressman ryan

supported the bush policies that got us into this deep fiscal hole in the first place. from the bush tax cut to two unfunded wars to the paid-for creation of medicare part-d, congressman ryan's fingerprints are all easer th over the big-sg bush policies. ryan voted against the simpson-bowles framework. when paul ryan had a chance to walk the walk on deficit reduction, he joined all the other house republicans on the commission in voting down the report. he urged speaker boehner to abandon the grand bargain talks with president obama. "the new york times" reported in 2011, "ryan appealed to representative cantor to cut off negotiations between the speaker and the white house because he didn't feel the terms of the emerging agreement adhered strictly enough to his conservative principles and the deal might politically benefit

president obama." so, it is not a secret that the ryan budget both hurts the middle class and does nothing for deficit reduction. the only people who would benefit are the very wealthy, and god bless them. they're doing well in america, but as recent statistics just showed, they're the only people gaining income. and one other thing i'd like to add about mr. ryan here: he seems like a nice man, nice family, but his recent speeches have just been so revealing, and he did the same thing yesterday once again showing he has learned nothing from the mistakes he's made in the last few weeks. when it comes to the big debates facing our country, paul ryan either has an extremely poor memory or has a tendency to play fast and loose with the facts. i falsely blamed president obama for shuttering the g.m. plant that announced it was closing

during presiden president bush'. for $the medicare savings that congressman ryan included in his own budget. now, that's just a sampling. that's just a sampling. and just yesterday he did it again. there you go again, paul ryan. he was back at a speech in wisconsin. he blamed the president -- solely the president -- for the year-end trigger, the sequestration that was part of the budget control act. never mind that congressman ryan voted for the very same sequestration himself. never mind it was his side's idea, in fact, to hold our credit rating hostage in the first place and insist on thighn these dollar-for-dollar cuts that yo he now derise. if he had opposed the

sequestration proposal, it certainly would have failed. now he goes to wisconsin and says the president is to blame for sequestration. it is the same thing he did with simpson-bowles. it is not fair. it is not right. all we could do -- all one can do is shake their head at this kind of "whoas good for me is not good for you." this kind of double standard. so i'd say to paul ryan, you haven't learned much from your mistakes of the past few weeks. there you go again p. your budget proves it and you're even up to your speeches yesterday prove it again. madam president, i yield the this monday on

washington journal, thibob woodd will discuss his vote, the price of politics. he will be live at 8:30 a.m. here on c-span. >> people like to see how these politicians of false. -- evolve. there is an element where this is an incredibly interesting >> i am trying to figure out why it is difficult to come down on one side of an issue.

he calms down on both sides. >> there was blagojevich, and you are barack obama -- >> the best way to discuss it is the beating heart of the internet. >> sunday night at 8:00 on q&a. federal reserve chairman ben bernanke announce more action to stimulate the economy. he spoke with reporters for about an hour at the two-day meeting.

a few moments. that motivated the committee's decision to take additional actions. monetary policy to promote employment and price stability. stability until the 1990's and the employment situation remains a grave concern. it is not growing fast enough to make significant progressfewer than half of the 8 million jobs have been restored. is nearly unchanged since the beginning of the year. concern every american. ship and entails a tremendous talents. unemployed for more than six left the labour force. have not been able to findas

skills atrophy, they find it increasingly difficult to get good jobs. and also to the detriment of our nation's productive potential. levels of policy accommodation in recent years. rate near the effect of lower bound, we have tools to carry out monetary policy, balance how we anticipate exceptionalwhile providing this support, we costs and recognizing the circumstances cannot cure all there are several actions taken this year. guidance, anticipating the rate will remain near current levels until 2014. in june, the committee decided to continue the program to

establish the average maturity by buying longer-term securities and selling an equivalent amount of shorter- term securities. the modest pace of growth continues to be inadequate to generate much progress. with inflation anticipated at or below objectives, the committee is convinced that further policy is warranted to strengthen the recovery in support the games we have begun to see in housing and other sectors. we have decided on new actions related to securities and extend the for guidance regarding the federal funds rate.

the committee decides to purchase additional mortgage- backed securities at a pace of $40 billion a month. the existing maturity extension program and the continued reinvestment already on the balance sheet have about $85 remainder of the year. the program of purchases should increase the long-term interest rates more generally and also mortgage rates that will provide sector. steps to underscore the the recovery. closely monitor information on economic and financial

developments in coming months. if we don't see substantial the purchase program, undertake additional asset purchases and appropriate. we will be looking for the broad based growth in economic unemployment. and composition, we will take appropriate account of the inflation outlook for the efficacy of costs. stance of monetary policy after the economic recovery strengthens. the policy of accommodation will remain even as the economy picksthe federal funds rate, it anticipates the low level for the federal funds rate is

likely to be warranted through 2015. economic projections and policy assessment for the years 2012-2015 and over the longer run projections for the unemployment rate have a central tendency of a 0.0-8.2%, declining to 6.0-620% in 2015. it remains somewhat above the normal rate of unemployment. there is a central tendency for 1.7%-1.8% for this year. while the economy appears to be advancing at a moderate pace with some improvements, participants in economic outlook remains uncertain.

the economy continues to face economic headwind including the situation in europe, tight credit, and fiscal contraction levels. pose downside risk. like to talk about the accommodative monetary policy. the first is the notion that spending. the second is that rates hurt savers. the third is policy risk and inflation down the road. on the first concern, i want to emphasize they are not comparable to government spending. the federal reserve buys financial assets. ultimately, it will normalise the balance sheet by selling back into the market.

are remitted to the treasury. the odds are strong that the strengthening rather than reduce the debt. on the second concern, my aware of assets like receiving very low returns. is difficult to say without thethe interest rates imposed some costs. from a healthy and growing economy, and finally caught on inflation. drought and a geopolitical tensions. however, overall inflation is averaged a very close. the federal reserve is fully committed to both sides of the mandate, price stability, and a maximum employment. it has the tools and the will for price stability.

i would happily respond to your >> your forecast doesn't get years. can you give us a better idea of if you will have specifics in mind? >> we will be looking for signs that the economy is strong enough for labor marketwe will

not be able -- to help the economy began to grow quickly enough and reduce the unemployment rate. that is the criteria we are looking at. >> the indicated -- and there are not any specific economic conditions that are described. can you describe what those can be? or is the fed reluctant to have done that so far? >> we have been talking about communications and trying to think about how to indicate to the public what the policywe haven't come to a set of numbers

or data that we can put out. that we are not going to be premature. even after the economy starts to recover and the unemployment rate moves down, we're not going to rush. we will give it some time to make sure the recovery is well established. >> i want to talk about the same line in the statement. the that mean that your tolerance for inflation will be higher in the middle of the recovery? and what good is that language? it doesn't tell people that the reaction to inflation has changed. stock prices are up today, so our oil prices and gold. wire those part of the same reaction to the fed's acts?

>> our policy approach doesn't involve intentionally trying to raise inflation. it will want to provide enough support to that the economy will grow fast enough to bringwe have seen unemployment the same place where it was in january. not enough jobs growth to bring what we need to see is more progress. that is what we will be looking at. we think, by that point, the economy will be recovering and it needs. it doesn't involve any inflation and we believe it will

be close to the 2% target. >> to follow up, you say that it does not include a greater tolerance for inflation. you will reverse course if inflation is above target level? >> if it goes above target level, we take a balanced approach. we do it in a way that takes into account the deviations of both of the objectives from the targets. >> earlier this year, the fed took policy action for the economy. but there hasn't been any improvement in the market since the beginning of the year. will make a difference? there is possibly a point for reduction in unemployment. is that the limit to what the

policies can do going forward? >> i talked about this, the assessment is that the research literature says that the policies we have undertaken have had benefits for the economy and they have provided some support. they have eased financial conditions and help reduce unemployment. monetary policy is not a panacea. it's not able to -- we will do unemployment moves in the right direction. we can't solve this problem ourselves. >> what happens will depend on the 0.4% you're referring to, remember that people make projections assuming that policy is appropriate. not all are assuming these policies in this projection. it is probably a little bit of an understatement of what we can get. i want to be clear that while we can make a meaningful and significant contribution, we can't solve it. we don't have tools strong enough to solve the unemployment problem.

>> an adequate explanation over the past couple of weeks of the fed's ability to lower interest what is missing from any economist is how the transmission mechanism is going most people think this will havedo you know how much it will push rates down? and how few basis points might change demand which seems to be a problem in the economy. >> it will depend on how much we end up doing and what the economy does. we will be providing accommodation according to how the economy of balls. -- evolves. the virtue of putting it this way is we will provide more support. if the economy strengthens on its own, it will require less support.

the amount of support we provide will depend on how the economy evolves. we think that these policies can bring interest rates down. not just treasury rates but mortgage rates and the rates of corporate bonds and other types of important interest rates. it also affects stock prices andlooking at all of the different channels, we think it does have impact on the economy. it will have an impact on the labour market. the way i described it, significant defects. -- effects. not a panacea. we don't want to stagnate at high levels of unemployment, we want to make progress. >> mr. chairman, is this the limit of what the fed can do? you refer to policy tools. will doesn't improve, what there be available?

and we continue to look at different options. the tools i discussed our balance sheet actions and we can change those in various ways. tools. we continue to work on how best to communicate with the public and assure the public that the fed will remain accommodative long enough to restore a recovery. working with communications tools, and economic conditions can further provide accommodations. transmission recognition -- mechanims. that seems to be the concernthey could not see how that help the economy.

i think there is a fear that the policy is helping wall street but not doing much for main street. can you describe how it is really different for trickle- down economics where you pump money into the banks and hope that they land? -- they lend? jobs going, trying to get more employment. that is the objective. the tools that we have involved and the tools of monetary policy. a number of different channels, corporate bond rates. extent that home prices began to rise, consumers will feel

wealthier and feel more disposed to spend. buy homes because they will make purchase. stock prices, many people own stocks directly or indirectly. improving asset prices will makeone of the main concerns is thatpeople feel that their financial situation is better because there 401k looks better or their house is worth more and they are willing to go out and spend. there will be willing to hire and to invest. says we have come back from this a couple of times. if the outlook does not improve substantially, they will have additional asset purchases.

it can you define and describe more specifically what improved substantially? and what is the committee referring to when it says additional asset purchases? >> we are looking for ongoing sustained improvement in the labour market. this is not a specific number that we have in mind, but we have seen the last six months is not in it. involves unemployment coming i don't know our tools are that strong. that is strong enough that it will support the improving labor market conditions. that is essentially what we are

looking for. in terms of the tools that we have, the mortgage-backed continue to expand or change, we can purchase forced treasurys. in terms of other policies, there are a number of possibilities. that is our communications policy, to better explain our rate policy that will engender more accommodative financial conditions. >> it is clear that there is a good deal of confusion about how assets. why did you choose not to adopt a specific target? did the committee consider specific targets? why did you choose not to do that?

purpose, what we're looking for is a general improvement for labor market conditions. rate come down, but that is not the only indicator of labor market conditions. the unemployment rate fell because participation fell and that is not necessarily a sign of improvement. we want to see a stronger economy that can cause the they're not going to be looking radically shift to the policies. qualitatively. color in terms of what we have been looking for. it gives signs of continuedit allows labor markets to be

stronger. and that will be the qualitativeagain, we don't have a singlewe anticipate that we have to do>> hi, mr. chairman. someone told me less than 1% of mortgages went to borrowers with impaired credit history. when we talk about main street policy, it seems that you are struggling like many central banks because the challenge is to get them to people that really need them. companies with somewhat fragile balance sheets. given that is the case, you guys got involved in markets when they were dysfunctional. what is your appetite for doing more targeted credit programs? you had a treasury secretary in the congress that is willing to override some of the credit risk.

>> you're talking about congressional programs and i don't advocate specific programs. it is up to them to make those decisions. we are seeing a modest improvement and one thing that is helping is the stronger housing market. lenders are worried about further housing constraints that will make the collateral worth less than the load. -- the loan. as house prices rise, lending standards have eased a bit. there are other changes that are useful. i know that the fhfa has changed their policy on foot backs so that -- putbacks. banks will have more certainty under which a mortgage will be put back to them, if it

defaults. there are things that will make the market more open. that is one factor that could make the policy more effective at not less effective overtime. more people can take advantage of the low rates that we are finding. >> mr. chairman, one of the innovations is that you have predicated york action on the achievement for explicit economic goals and the labour market. can you give us some explanation as to how that conditioning will make your policy more effective than you have previously? had a technical question. when operation twist and, do you anticipate adjusting the size of your asset purchases to maintain the monthly flow of long-term asset purchases? >> we will be looking at the

whole set of asset purchases in order to make decisions. in particular, what is the state of the labour market and the outlook for economic growth? our policies have always been conditional in that we have always been clear that the asset purchases or reviewed periodically to see if they were still necessary. we did extend the maturity program. our policies have an element of conditionality. the idea is to make that more transparent to the public and make it more obvious that the fed will do what is needed to provide support for the economy. we hope that when it will do is try to get more assurance or convents that the fed will be there to do what it can. we are not promising a cure,

but what we can do is provide some support. by assuring the public that we will be prepared to take action if the economy falters, we are hopeful it will give confidence to spend. >> , just to follow up on the question about getting back to full employment -- it looks like there is a lot more work to do here. i want to ask about your plans as fed chairman. your term expires in january of 2014. governor romney's comments notwithstanding. what are your plans? do you plan to leave at that time? would you consider an appointment to a third term at

the fed at all? on election year politics, if you have any concern, or was there any discussion in the committee, about whether your actions today might be perceived as helping president obama, helping the economy, and thus helping president obama get reelected, and her acting governor romney's chances in the presidential contest? >> on the former, i am very focused on my work. i do not have any decision or information to give you on my personal plans. on the politics, we have tried very hard, and i think we have been successful at the federal reserve, to be non-partisan, to make our decisions based entirely on the state of the economy and the needs of the economy for policy of accommodation. we just do not take those factors into account. we think that is the best way to maintain our independence and maintain the trust of the public.

>> chairman, i am with "american banker." community bankers, as you know, have been worried about the impact of these rules on their banks, especially given industry consolidation. some have questioned whether or not the fed has looked at the impact the rules would have on smaller-sized institutions. the question is, will there be relief for smaller institutions? can you provide assurances will not be a one-size-fits-all regulation? >> certainly. we are very interested and focus on community banks at the fed. we believe they play an important role in our economy, in our communities. we have a number of ways of communicating with community banks. that includes our advisory council, made up of community

bankers. it includes a special set of programs we have to reach out to talk to community bankers. we are very interested in their views. i talked to various groups regularly. in terms of [indiscernible] it is not one size fits all. many of the most difficult, complex regulations apply only to the largest and most complex institutions. the capital surcharge the largest banks have to hold. the complex rules applying to trading books in derivatives. the extra supervision under section 165. the liquidation authority. the liquidity rules. the whole range of things that apply only to the largest and most complex banks. for the smaller banks, what our proposed rule does is try to strengthen their capital. many small banks will already

meet those capote requirements. small banks tend to be very well capitalized. that is important for small banks as well as large banks. there is a leverage requirement. most of the rules, particularly the most complex rules, will not apply to smaller banks. banks under $500 million of special exemptions from these rules. having said all of that, i will remind you that we have a proposed rule. we have a division of the committee a community bank supervisor who are particularly interested in making sure the rules are not excessively onerous. who will be looking at the cummins and trying to make sure we take into account the needs of community banks when we put out the final rules.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. yesterday, the former fed governor, larry myers, at a conference in washington, said he had never seen such a divided fed. we have seen it. in the speeches to the run-up to today's decision, some people said it was dubious whether qe three could work. can you comment? do you wish that some of the fed officials that do not support qe would keep their fears to themselves? thank you. >> as you know, we are living in a very complex time. we are dealing with a complex economic situation, and a variety of novel and different issues, including new policies that have not been used in the same way in the past. we have a range of views, a range of opinions. i think, on the whole, that is

probably a good thing. it is good to hear different points of view. it is good to make sure the points of view outside the fed are reflected around the table inside the fed. we have a very collaborative and collegial discussion process that spans a range of views. we were, however, able to come to a pretty good consensus. as you know, the vote on this was 11-1. that is a sign that the broad center of the committee does support these actions, and will continue to support them, going forward. >> as the negative commentary hercules? -- hurt qe, if people in the market do not think it can work? >> there is going to be negative commentary, whether it comes from fed officials are not. because there is a range of

views, some people say it is more affected than others. i discuss some of the evidence in my speech at jackson hole. different researchers have gotten different estimates of the impact. virtually all of them find some beneficial impact. they disagree on how much. there is going to be disagreement. i personally do not think it is a panacea. i do not think it is going to solve the problem. i do think it has enough force to help nudge the economy in the right direction. >> you said you cannot cure all ills, but you have strong tools to deal with the unemployment problem. i was curious what the policy actions you would like to see outside the fed to address this. how concerned are you about spending cuts and tax increases?

what do you have to do with this problem? >> a range of areas where actions can be taken. i cannot really describe all the possible responses. they would focus on the fiscal side. there is going to be a substantial increase in taxes and a cut in spending on january 1 of the coming year. the cbo has suggested if that is allowed to take place, it would cause unemployment again to rise, and it might throw the economy back into recession. a basic thing that could be done to help address the recovery, the weakness of the recovery and the need for more employment, would be to address the fiscal cliff, while simultaneously addressing longer-term sustainability issues, which remains serious. that is an area where there is a lot of potential benefit.

if the fiscal cliff is not addressed, as i said, i do not think our tools are strong enough to offset a major fiscal shock. we would have to think about what to do in a contingency. i think it is really important for fiscal policy makers to work together to try to find a solution for that. >> i am with a german newspaper. in the economic inflation projections, you for see a low inflation rate below 2% for 2015. if you look at the growth rates, we have growth rates of about 3.4% in 2014 and 2015. how long do think it might work that you how no inflation?

the second question is, a lot of economists do not see too much effect of of a further round of qe three. -- you read -- qe3. aren't you worried, as this goes so long, to come down on that side of the policy action? >> on inflation, we anticipate, at some point, what is normal in a recovery. given that the economy fell very quickly and there is a lot of unused capacity, it would be normal to go through a time when the economy would grow faster than trend to make up some of the slack that was created. we do not anticipate the economy is going to overheat any time soon. as long as we pay close attention to inflation

expectations, as well as the trajectory of the economy, we think inflation will remain close to our 2% target. on your second question, certainly, there is our range of views on how effective these tools are. i have spent a lot of time, as my colleagues have come out looking at the evidence. the staff have done a great deal of work on the question. the bottom line for most of the research is that while these tools are not so powerful they can solve the problem, the ark at least able to provide meaningful support to the economy. our job is to use the tools we have to meet our mandate, which is a maximum employment and price stability. if we have tools we think can provide some assistance, and we are not meeting our mandate, i think our obligation is to do what we can.

of course, we would like to see policies across the board to help address these issues. but that is not our province. we are the monetary policy authority. our job is to use monetary policy as quickly as we can. >> steve of mni, mr. chairman. there have been questions raised by a columbia professor michael wilford and others about the credibility of your forward guidance on the future path of the federal funds rate. the idea being that to an extent it is conditional. it is not really convincing, and does not provide the kind of confidence you referred to. in the slit the statement, you have removed some of that conditionality -- in this latest

statement, you have removed some of that conditionality. it says it will remain appropriate for a considerable time after the economic recovery strengthens. i assume that was done to make forward guidance more credible. if the question remains, as the economy picks up steam, whether the fomc will follow through and keep rates low, or whether you will do as the fed has always done and began to raise the funds rate. >> i know his work quite well. i think the thrust of his research is that forward guidance, communication about future policy, is the most powerful tools central banks how when the interest rate is close to zero. he advocates policies like

nominal gdp targeting that would essentially require credibility lasting many years. the implication being that the fed would target the nominal level of gdp and promised to do that for many years in the future, even if inflation grows as part of that policy. his own perspective is that credibility is the key tool that central banks have in order to get traction at the zero lower bound. whether we have the credibility to persuade markets that we will follow through is an empirical question. the evidence, which i discussed in my remarks recently, is that when we have announced extended guidance, financial markets have responded to that. private-sector forecasters have changed their estimates of what unemployment and inflation will be when the fed begins to remove accommodation. the empirical evidence is that

our announcements do have considerable credibility. i think there is good reason for that, which is that we have talked a lot, both publicly and privately, about the rationale for maintaining rates low even if the economy strengthens. i think the basic ideas are broadly espoused within the committee. there is a consensus that even as personnel change and so on, going forward, that this is the appropriate approach. if i follow it through, we will have created a reserve of credibility that we can use in any subsequent episodes that occur. >> i am with "the l.a. times." with mortgage rates already at historical lows, how much further do you think your actions would drive down the rates? related to that, i am assuming

that you expect to purchase mortgage backed securities to have a meaningful effect on refinancings. what would that look like? what would a meaningful effect be? >> as i mentioned before, it is true that our mortgage backed securities purchases of to drive down mortgage rates and create more demand for homes and more refinancing. it will depend, ultimately, on several things. one would be on the amount we do, the amount of purchase. that is going to be a function of how the economy evolves. if the economy is weaker, we will do more. probably rates will be low in any case, because the economy is looking weak. if the economy is stronger, strong enough to create improving labor market conditions, we will not have to

do as much. the amount we do depends on how the economy evolves. i do not know how much we will end up doing. it is hard to give you an exact estimate. in terms of how many homes, and those kinds of questions, i think the markets are looking a little better. i think house prices are beginning to rise in some markets, which will encourage people to look at homes, will encourage lenders to make mortgage loans. i am hopeful we will see continuing progress in the housing market. that has been a missing piston in the engine. housing husband a big part of our recovery process. to the extent that we can support housing, i think that would be a very useful outcome. >> there does not seem to be that many people who could qualify for refinancing.

can we expect a meaningful effect on increasing that refinancing activity? >> i think there will be some. you get more benefit when people buy homes. sales of homes are down, but they have been rising steadily. we are trying to provide more support for people who want to go out and buy homes, construct homes, and also those who want to refinance. it is the purchase of new homes that generate construction activity, the furnishing, all of the things that of the economy grow. >> i am with cnn money. earlier this year, at a news conference in this room, you said you were already hearing anecdotal information from colleagues at regional fed banks about firms, companies, making decisions on hiring next year, because they were afraid

of the fiscal cliff, or whatever the federal government was going to do in terms of cutbacks. it has been a few months since you made that statement. i am sure your staff are working hard on it. how much of a head wind to the economy is the fear of the federal government's cutting way back, falling across the fiscal cliff beck's even if they take a few steps back from the cliff, it is still there. how much is a contributing to lack of growth, or lack of a behemoth -- lack of adequate gdp growth? >> it is hard to give a number, but i can confirm, as the reserve bank presidents and governors made their reports today and yesterday around the table, there was considerable discussion of uncertainty, including policy uncertainty,

fiscal policy uncertainty, and the implications for hiring and investment decisions. a lot of firms are waiting to see whether that problem will be resolved. if so, how? i think it is a concern. it is something that is affecting behavior now. i do not have a number. i do not know how big the effect is. the sooner that can be resolved, the sooner that can be clarified, that would be good. not just because we avoid the cliff itself, but because we clarify for firms, employers, and investors, how that is going to be involved. it will be an issue of some consequence, yes. >> national journal.

how much was the fiscal cliff a factor in your decision to do an open ended to leave? for fiscal in some-- open ended qe? for fiscal uncertainty in general? >> a lot of headwinds are affecting the economy. there are international factors, including the situation in europe. there are factors are rising from still-impaired credit markets, and so on. we looked at that. we looked at the economy from the perspective of how quickly it has been growing over the last six months to a year. as i talked about in a speech in march, in order for employment gains to be sustained, for unemployment to fall, the economy needs to grow at or above current levels. lately, it has not been at trend. we have been responding to that

problem, trying to take steps that will insure somewhat stronger growth, which we hope will help bring unemployment down over time. again, the fiscal cliff, the uncertainty about the fiscal cliff, is one of the head winds, but i am sure there are many others. we do not try to differentiate among them. if the fiscal cliff does occur -- i hope it won't, and suspect it won't, but if it does here, and gives the kind of impact the congressional budget office is talking about, i do not think the federal reserve has the tools to offset that. we would have to rethink at that point. we have taken the steps we have taken now because we would like to see the economy does a more momentum. the better momentum it has, the better place we are in to deal with any shocks that might come down the road. >> marcy gordon, associated

press. and one of the aspects we have seen in recent reports on unemployment is the shrinking labor force. is that something of specific concern to you? what does it tell us about the labor market and the economy? >> you are absolutely right. as i mentioned earlier, the unemployment decline last month was more than 100% accounted for by declines in participation. some decline in participation is anticipated, is expected. we are an aging society. we have more people retiring. the no participation has flattened out. it has not continued to climb, as it did for several decades. we are seeing less participation among younger people, who are in college. part of this decline in participation was something we anticipated quite a long time ago. part of it is cyclical.

part of it reflects the fact that some people, because they have essentially given up, or are very discouraged, have decided to leave the labor force. the anticipation is that if the economy will work to strengthen, i least some of those people would come back into the labor force. they might temporarily raise the unemployment rate, because they are now looking again. the participation rate, over and above the downward trend, is just another indicator of a generally weak labor market. it is what i said earlier that we want to look at a range of indicators, not just the unemployment rate. not just payrolls, although that is a leading indicator of participation, hours, part-time work, and a variety of measures which suggest our labor market

is still in weak condition. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> >> in three weeks, the first of the presidential debates. watch and engage. coming up here on c-span, secretary of state hillary clinton talks about the violence in the middle east. then a forum on the conditions of libya. later, the u.s. how -- u.s. house debate on a measure. the family research council hosts a values voter summit tomorrow. speakers includes paul ryan, as well as house majority leader and a south carolina senator. we will be live starting at 8:40

a.m. eastern on c-span 2. >> have you visited the new c- span campaign 2012 web site? once there, you can watch videos from the campaign trail with mitt romney and president obama and others. you can see what can the the it's our saying on major issues like national security and immigration. watch and engage on c-span. >> let's look at what the emancipation proclamation ashley says. the proclamation freeze enslaved people in those states or parts of states still in rebellion. on january 1, 1863. just those states or parts of states still in rebellion. there are several parishes in louisiana where slavery still exists because the union army

still has control. there are parts of virginia where the union army has a foothold. slavery still exists in those areas. >> president lincoln issued an early version of the emancipation proclamation. this weekend on american history tv, authors and historians take your questions on the battle of antietam and reproductions of the most -- repercussions. secretary reject >> secretary of state clinton says the u.s. government had nothing to do with the video. she condemned the violent demonstrations and the attack in libya that led to the death of four americans. her remarks were about 10

minutes. >> this is a very important first session of the u.s.- morocco strategic dialogue. before i begin to address the significance of the strategic dialogue and the next step in our long relations with morocco, i want to say a few words about the events unfolding in the world today. we are closely watching what is happening in yemen and elsewhere. we are hoping there'll be steps taken to avoid violence and prevent the escalation of

protests into violence. i also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the internet that has led to the protests in a number of countries. let me state very clearly, and i hope it is obvious that the united states government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. we absolutely reject its content and message. america's commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. as you know, we are a place that is home to people of all religions. many come to this country seeking the right to exercise their own religion, including of course millions of muslims. we have the greatest respect for people of faith. to us and to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. as i said yesterday, there is no justification, none at all, for responding to this video with violence. we condemn the violence that has resulted in the strongest terms.

we greatly appreciate that many muslims in the united states and around the world have spoken out on this issue. violence has no place in religion and is no way to honor religion. islam respects the fundamental dignity of human beings. it is a violation of that fundamental dignity to wage attacks on innocents. as long as there are those who are willing to shed blood and take innocent life in the name

of religion, in the name of god, the world will never know a true and lasting peace. it is especially wrong for violence to be directed against diplomatic missions. these are places whose very purpose is peaceful. to promote better understanding across countries and cultures, all governments have a responsibility to protect those spaces and people because to attack an embassy is to attack the idea that we can work together to build an understanding and work toward a better future. i know it is hard for some

people to understand why the united states cannot or does not just prevent these kinds of of reprehensible videos from ever seeing the light of day. i would note that in today's world, with today's technologies, that is impossible. but even if it were possible, our country does have a long tradition of free expression, which is enshrined in our constitution and our law. we do not stop individual

citizens from expressing their views, no matter how distasteful they may be. there are different views around the world about the outer limits of free speech and free expression. but there should be no debate about the simple proposition that violence in response to speech is not acceptable. we all, whether we are leaders in government, leaders in civil society or religious leaders, must draw the line at violence. any responsible leader should be standing up now and drawing that line. i wanted to begin with this statement because, as all of you know, this has been a difficult week at the state department. i very much appreciate the condolences your government expressed to our embassy. even though that tragedy happened far away, we found a

reminder of the deep bonds that connect morocco to the united states. it was in the height-atlas mountains of morocco that one of the americans we lost this week, ambassador chris stevens, fell in love with the region when he served as a peace corps volunteer there. that experience set him on a decade-long career of service. in the memory of fallen friends and colleagues, let us remind ourselves of the many ways in which not just our government but the people of our two nations have worked together to build a better future. >> now, a discussion on the state of libya. following the form, the libyan ambassador to the u.s. paid

tribute to ambassador chris stevens, one of the four americans who were killed on tuesday. this event in washington is 90 minutes. welcome. karim mezran. event. director and longtime expert ofhe has many accomplishments and has written many books. his biggest achievement has been mentoring me.

i am humbled. dr. mark swayne sends his apologies because he will not be able to attend this conference because of the fact that there was a tragic event a few days ago. he cannot come, but sends his displeasement. we had intended as a moment to inform about this situation. discussion of the possible solutions of what is going on on the ground, the security situation. i invited all of you here to be able to express your opinions and change them. this changes the nature of the governing, creating an urgent -- some of the situation underground -- on the ground.

-- enough to call him a friend.

at a professional level, he loved libya. many libyans had met him and many libyans had friendship with him. he believed it deeply in democracy and in -- and the quality. that freedom is a universal value. we should be aware this is chris' legacy. i would ask for a moment of silence for chris and his family members and friends. thank you very much.

because of the change, we will you to express your points of view or -- and criticized what

why libya had this -- we are levels. there is a democratic election institution, the economy is moving forward. 17 or 18 officers killed. ever would think it existed, now there are hundreds, if not

from, and we have allowed them proceed up to a point that the president himself has come out

until we get to what happens on tuesday. he went on for hours. deeper. i think there are two things we have committed. the first one is that history should have told us something. when i talk about history, i went back in the 1950's. a phrase remains in my mind. do not exchange arrogance for pride or vice versa. to not think that because the compromise will not be accepted [indiscernible] i think this is something that

happened, not recognizing the libyans needed foreign help or nations. not even refuse it. not even go out to ask for it. god only knows how much that was needed. the second comes from [indiscernible] of all, and many of you were, too, last year. when the pitcher was presented of the libyan revolution and everything was supposed to be done nicely and perfectly and banalities we all accepted. a revolt. and conquests comes defeat. and take power and therefore here it is.

i thought at the time and i think now that is not true. without the help of the europeans or americans, it would not have been possible. by facing gadhafi, but there were other libyans who sympathize with the regime. minority, maybe, but they were there. [indiscernible] who never had, after the civil

war, a moment of thinking what is the history, what has happened? not recognizing it was a silly war. it let us not to think about what to do or how to incorporate a lot of this. the people were sympathizing with the regime. now and saying there are -- all leads us to think we need to have the courage to diminish the threat. it is needed. that is the only way to have the institution to proceed.

otherwise, there is no way you could go. [indiscernible] we have reports of southern european countries denouncing -- [indiscernible] we are just beginning to see [indiscernible] it is an urgent undertaken. thank you very much. >> good afternoon everybody. thank you for your presentation. banca to the council. -- thank you to the council. i want to join you like the doctor did in reflecting on a legacy of the late ambassador stevens. his tragic death and the killing extremely hard on not only the american people but the libyan people, as well. the libyan american community being the nexus between the two this morning, as well. we pray for families -- for his family and his friends.

ambassadors stevens is to democratic, ruled by law, respectful of human rights and human dignity. i think that would be the best tribute we could give to the great man chris stevens was. i have had the pleasure of ago appeared i was in libya. sure enough, our discussion centered mainly around the issue of security, because of its importance. we were there when the demolition of the shrines was

taking place. before that, it was otherhe was concerned and we wanted place. today, we mourn his loss but, as i said, we will remain resolved to continue his good work, both from libya and from the united states. i think when we wrote -- when we address the security

challenge, and i think they were very possessive -- perceptive in assessing this as one of the major issues if not the major issue of the time in libya today, even as i met with officials at the libyan congress, i felt a sense of pride that truly a democratic process is being developed in libya. make no mistake about it, the looming access -- abscess of bill security -- a real security endanger of inaction in the face of these repeated events that were taking place with a government that, although has tried very hard to manage

the post revolution transition, have in fact failed in some ways to be proactive and to address these issues in the difficult circumstances that they were in. to top it all was the fact that some of the demolitions of these shrines was condoned by these elements, the very security forces that were being developed by the government, not that the fault of the government, necessarily, but the stooges -- but just to show you the seriousness of the problem we are dealing with. complex and interconnected. until and unless we are able to reduce it and identify its components, and develop the necessary strategy is to mitigate the threat or the

danger that comes from any of those elements, we will always remain dilute and unable to address the very roots and the very components of this very serious problem. the second thing i think -- i want to preface my comments with the fact that the situation has development -- developing over the revolution but we have yet to have very accurate assessment and data and information about the components that are parts of this very major problem. how many of the security forces, what are these actions? how many militias do we have? who are the leaders of these militias? what is the real structure that

is in effect when we look at the western side, we have to hire security committee. in the east, we have the shield of libya. then, in between, there are all these different forces. i have met some scholars on the ground there who are doing very good research that i think we should connect with and we should use their expertise, their local expertise to be able to get -- export that data to be able to assess as we move toward. these two things are paramount for us to do a real assessment. to take back the first point,

which is how do we break down this problem and how do we start to lay a good handle of this problem, i think we look at the components of this threat, and it is high time to start defining it in real terms than to just put it under the umbrella of security. there is a growth of violent extremism that needs to be addressed in the mists of this revolution in libya. there is a real threat that the khaddafi loyalists harbor --

present to the country. whether by having people who are bent on undermining the revolution, or there are people who have grievances that are building day after day and week after week and then we will eventually create the critical mass necessary to take them into the circle of violence and they certainly have weapons and they certainly have the vacuums of forces that can undermine the very country we are in. there is the threat, the ever existing threat, of the borders, of the immigration, the legal struggling -- smuggling, the drugs, and all this month that comes from it. but that is a basic state problem. that is not necessarily particular to libya. libya happens to have longit is

becoming a problem. what is happening in the south is practically under nobody potsies control. there are vast regions in the south that are at a state where they could go either way because of these real problems. then, there is the problem of the weapons, the problems of the uncontrolled militias, the problems of the aftermath of the revolution, and those are not to simple after fact for a revolution. these are young men who are in the hundreds of thousands who significant weapons. they can be very dangerous. there has to be very serious

plans put in place to mitigate the potential troubles that come from this problem. once you identify the threats, you are able to set better strategies to deal with it. each one of them requires a very sophisticated strategy that deals with the intricacies and the local flavor of these conflicts. the violent extremism, unfortunately, is supported by a degree of rigid intellectual movements that are present in the country. those we need to rally the scholars of the country, we need to rally the advocates of moderate ideologies and we need to engage in daily -- in very robust debate and be respectful of the conservative nature of the society and belongings of people who advocate this.

but we cannot leave any space for violence. the khaddafi loyalists, there has to be a very robust natural -- national reconciliation process. we need to address their concerns, but once again, this has to be not a tailor-made, develop process. it has to be raised from within. the tribal leaders have to have a role. the local councils have to have

a role. the folks who have been affected, there are ways to solve these problems. and to give opportunity and to develop the area as that have the greatest needs so we can overcome some of these challenges. i think that goes to the third point i want to make, which is, once we have taken active stance -- steps such as active reconciliation, we must have strategically set our eyes on the development of the country, the reconstruction and rebuilding of libya, which may be secondary to security at this point because of the threat of it, but the minute we are able to get a handle over this, we must kick in the economic opportunities and the developments, and absorbed -- the youth will absorb the

components, the educational opportunities, an economic upturn of the libyan community. if we understand the nature of the threats, reduce them, start addressing them with very effective strategies, and at the same time, effectively put a reconciliation process and allow for opportunity to develop, i we can take it back on the right track and do the best we can do as we remember the late ambassador stevens. thank you very much. [applause] >> i have been promoted to the above promoted to a discussion -- to discuss -- i have been promoted or demoted from announcer to participate in the discussion. we are faced with a sharpness and fuzziness. we are shaped with sharpness

because we have events in front of us. we are faced with fuzziness because the answers to these events often involves, necessarily, contradictions and uncertainties that we have to use in order to face the sharp things that have happened. i just want to make a few remarks that may add to the fuzziness but also point out the situation in which we find

ourselves. we have to continually remind ourselves to avoid generalizations. we need generalizations. the word libya is a generalization just like the word revolution and just like the word muslim and islamic. these generalizations cover a multitude of divisions, distinctions, -- i have been turned off?

i want to make a good point. divisions, distinctions, and that one has to focus on in order to not drag down an understanding of the situation with broad generalizations. it is easy to say libya is or the muslims did that or the islamists and so on, and we owe it to ourselves our own clear thinking and a world that listens to us to avoid the semantic traps that the use of language poses to us in dealing with events of this kind.

second of all, it has been mentioned by the speakers we are faced with a situation where we have to counteracting goals to take into account. security is the hard answer. reconciliation is the soft and long-term answer. you do not affect reconciliation in the short term term. it takes a lot -- a long time. security requires a sharper response and also -- often runs up against -- am i still coming across, here? something happening? against those people who are trying to reconcile. there are situations that are beyond reconciliation, so if we are talking to extremist groups

who want to say it -- and we want to say, we share common humanity, which will -- we were to all the same god, and so on, that falls on absolutely deaf ears. there are times when, much as we reconcile lawyers, conflict managers would like to put all of our eggs into the basket of reconciliation, there are signs -- there are times when chart security is necessary. somehow, we have to keep those two types of goals active and

make sure that they do not get in other kobes ways. ever since -- others' ways. it is also important to emphasize that we are not facing a war of islam against us. we are facing a security problem of some specific groups that need to be targeted and we need to reach out to other groups, other people, reconciliation, who identify themselves in different ways than we do. third, as a general statement, i think american people, in general, are used to the attitude toward fallen -- foreign affairs that we roll up

our sleeves and get in there and put it in order and go home. we did this most recently in iraq. the idea comes up out of world war room and one. half -- world war ii 1. -- world war i. to help libyans in such a way that we are helping their responsibility, their ability to deal with their own affairs. this means backing them up without taking the lead, it means providing the possibilities, the capabilities, of doing both the reconciliation and the security that is needed in the situation of this kind. we rejoice at what has happened in libya with the elections. they went off a very well. the extremists were beaten. extremists are usually beaten in elections. so we clap our hands and we say, there it goes. we have an element of the arab spring where democracy has come forth. we should know from our own history, and it is shocking if you go back and read it sometimes, in our early years, learn from our own history that democracy comes slowly. the road is bumpy.

it is up and down. we should not simply be taken that the ideas of elections, how often do we repeat this to our own education, elections are not the end of the process. but we have to continue to work with what the elections have set up to move forward. finally, it is important for the government, we are talking about responsibilities. that includes security for the people who are working with us the government itself needs to be strengthened. there is often the comment that, early position, and it is in a weak position, and, therefore, one cannot expect it to live up to its responsibilities as needed.

we know from the olympic training that taking action, practicing strengthens rather than weakens. if we have a government that is starting, we cannot allow excuses for not taking action. egypt. it needs to take actions to assert the kind of value for security of a reconciliation. thank you. [applause] >> let's -- now it is your turn. let's get it going. yes. please, i forgot. >> daniel, a professor at johns hopkins. i am not sure exactly what you propose to be done. if you were in power, what would you do tomorrow for reconciliation? >> you do not want me in power. that is a scary thought. let's take another couple of questions. the example i will take is that

of the possibility to incorporate by a committee and start with the position of of the regime. and distinguish those who are not guilty of ordering the assassination or exacerbating themselves. members of an ideological group of the regime. the government was not directly involved.

then, entire areas -- just people who would be incorporated into the national society. the example [indiscernible] the reconciliation of 1999, someone like that. then you have a judgment to identify those who have committed crimes. reconciliation and justice of the same time.

libya has the means. it is a small society. everybody knows what is there in general. >> can i add a short comment? one of the particulars. the road a few papers about rallying the internationalthat was an important point. very helpful in the events in this process. more to that point is we need to make sure we also incorporate some of the strengths of the basic society in libya in order to allow ourselves a reconciliation process.

one of the things we have seen is the role of elders and tribal leaders in addressing some of these issues and i think making address many difficult problems that we are able -- unable to intellectually or on the basis of ideas, but rather based out of respect, tradition, and some of these things, we can resolve some of these problems. effective legal system that will deliver justice in areas where reconciliation is not really an option but rather resorting to a legal system. >> i am happy about the election of the prime minister. he had the courage to speak that he would have done it

differently. i do not know if you remember it. it should have been done another way. that there is something from the bottom and then build up at the national assembly. elections were designed. that was important. an important statement. i am sure he will work for that kind of enterprise. i am optimistic on this individual doing that. yes.

i am with the u.s. libya business association. as we saw yesterday with the election, what is, in your opinion, his mandate and his international cooperation as libya solves these problems? we saw over the past several

months, we have gotten very -- various international groups have gotten to a certain point and hit a wall with the national transitional council as far as implementing cooperative embedding advisers into the some sort of internationaldo you think, are they going to give him that mandate? are they ready to move to the next step now in excepting international operation? thank you.

is exactly what you mentioned at the end. this is the first governments different even from its predecessor, although it is a continuation in some ways of the previous government in action. it's limitation will be the fact that it is short, a year in a half -- a year and a half. and all of the unfortunate buildup of problems from the previous governments in having discussions, and i have those very frank discussions,

recently, and their discussion is, we need to become more of an emergency government, if you make, for the first few months be able to address the major issues of security and things along those lines. unto what i was very hopeful to say, which is to start joining part of the stuff that happened with the previous government was that we're very cautious and reserved, and also, with the idea that we are in transition and we are with the mandate of keeping everything on track until something happens. i hope they come with a different mentality, marbles, more looking forward. we have done this in the past

nine months and 10 months and we did not move any forward. i think he has some of that within him, but i think he will be limited with some of the problems from earlier. >> i think the government has been put with their shoulders against the world. they have been alluding themselves it will go, it will go it will go. nothing has been done. now they are against the world. there is no future because, i am sure from what i know from history, that they do not stopto be continued. this government has to be sure that this kind of behavior will

they will go to the american ambassador and who knows what other targets they may have. i think it is something dramatic that has changed on tuesday. then, is the but the highest level, have to change it. they have to change it. it is imperative the initiatives be taken now. there is no time. yes, sir. >> thank you. i am from the foreign services institute. one of the challenges given the situation with the apparent -- well, with what happened, it seems to me that one possible danger, and this is something that terrorists are overlooking -- always looking for, is overreaction. one of the inherent problems is then, if the response is too

matter how necessary a firmer and more robust security response is, that it leads to fatigue problems down the line potentially, with an increasing reliance on security as a solution to the problem. this is, given the history and regional problem, must be on libya, of reliance on security, on the intelligence services and on those solutions on the problems to these countries. they are within their problems, but relying on those solutions has been historically done. seems to me that one of the problems then for all of you

helping with the move forward is how do you provide solutions that still hold back that kind of institutional outcome that leads to increasing reliance on security, as the first solution rather than the second. you talk about reconciliation and so on. is this not the real -- one of the real dangers a moment like this poses for libya where now particular, the response is one

increasing turn towards, perhaps, security as a solution? how do you think you prevent that at this point? >> there has to be a short-term and a long-term answer. it was said that the only way to defeat them is to take away the water from the lake where the water -- or the terrorists -- you have to reach a consensus. opening a system which is inclusive. for the rest, you need to have a strong reaction. intelligence forces. he always says you cannot afford to meet tolerance a taller -- to meet intolerance with tolerance.

the most important thing now is to identify this phenomenon. let me tell you one thing. libya is different in some aspects from the rest of thewe do not suffer from thisthat is not me who says that. it has been said by the state ambassador many times when we went to the country. has been said by libyan officials. it has been proved by the only poll taken a few months ago, a few weeks ago, that shows exactly what i am saying. whether it is because of behind the revolution.

the country has been abandoned. more involvement should havei am confident we are different in this from other parts where there are other reasons. it is not anymore that i am trying to make a vision of what is the islamic world. then being able to get out from the cold war mentality of friends and enemies. an example of this. in certain issues, you need to have a different kind of strategy. they have to be treated the way they have to be treated. i do not think there can be an overreaction. >> to add to that, just a soft answer and then i leave the implementation. i think you create the impression that you are not living in a security atmosphere. that you are living in an open and reconciliation atmosphere. security is definitely there, but it does its job quietly. it is easy for security to do that job quietly and over efficiently. that is one of the intentions. but i think you set the balance and the kind of atmosphere in which you operate, and then, if you call the because the that

kind of atmosphere, then you are not letting the security the situation in which we findi can throw in because i am not the speaker, i am a little perplexed. maybe somebody can tell me what it does not seem to be anit does seem to me a response that race is exactly the kinds of problems you are suggesting. >> anyone else? chris. >> i am from the congressional research service. specifically how the response to broader questions we find question, how might they respond>> i will try to take a stab at answer. what you need is you need to political will to take a course

of action that will bring forth results. i think back also to the question before. the concern about a lack of a clear, surgical, effective response to the terrorist attack that has taken place on libyan rampant in the issue of security address even attacks of such magnitude. to me, it becomes very important for that to happen within the next base -- a few days, with a new prime minister, with a government with a mandate for the people, and an atmosphere which is very ready for a reassurance for the government to take action. the nature of that action is to be calibrated because it is very quickly looked upon by all parties involved. will become the rallying cry ofif it is not, it may not be very can be viewed or how this a security and non-military ways, i think it will be very dynamics but it has to be part of a greater vision on how we will proceed on the other issues, as well. i would say we need to address>>

where the debate will be will b.

e gentleman is recognized. mr. garrett: thank you. mr. speaker, you know, under current law there will be a $110 billion across-the-board cuts known as sequester that will be imposed on this country on january 2, 2013, resulting in a 10% reduction in the department of defense programs and an 8% reduction in certain domestic programs as well. in may of this year the house passed a bill to deal with this, that was the sequester replacement reconciliation act. and what this legislation would do, it would replace that sequester for 2013 with commonsense spending cuts and reforms. unfortunately we have seen a lack of leadership both over in the senate and at the white house.

the senate failed to act on this legislation. the senate, where all good bills go to die, so too with this, or in any sequester replacement bill. so today the house will once again try to responsibly fix the sequester. the national security and job protection act would ensure our national security but at the same time we do that it will cut spending. the national security and job protection act would do two things. it would turn off the sequester of congress, or similar legislation that achieves equal levels of deficit reduction. secondly, the national security and job protection bill would require that the president of the united states submit to congress a legislative proposal to replace the sequester with an alternative no no later than october 15 of this year. up until this point we have seen absolutely no leadership, no plan to fix this sequester problem. but yet there's strong bipartisan agreement that the sequester, as it is right now, is bad policy and should be

reprioritized. once again, the president has failed to lead in this area, failed to put forward a credible response, failed to put together a legislative proposal and the senate has failed asell. the result is that less than 100 days we will see reductions that our very own secretary netta will hallow out our armed forces and make arbitrary, totally arbitrary reductions in other spending programs. not only has the president failed to lead in this area, he's failed to put forward a plan, but the president has also failed -- and this is important -- to submit to congress a report as law quires him to do so detailing specifically how this administration would implement the sequester. now, mr. speaker, after months, literally months of stonewalling congress on how this administration would implement the sequester, congress now comes to the floor because we are forced to pass legislation requiring the president to submit a detailed sequester implementation

progm. and when that legislation became law, as we said, the president's response has been no response. rather than him doing his home work, the president has simply taken a pass on this matter. instead, has provided congres with nothing and not meeting the requirements of the law. it is an example, i think to use the president's own words, of an incomplete by this president on his report card. the president lacks leadership. it's simply stunning to this member and to the american people as well. as i say, the senate is no better for failing to respond in this matter as well. the senate refuses to take up any bill or replace the sequester whatsoever. so today, mr. speaker,e again come here, passing legislation to try to solve this problem, to fix the sequester, to make sure that these draconian cuts does not go in place now. we are not saying it's not the house-passed bill to pass, we are not saying that the president put forward his legislation, but the senate to act. with that i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker prtempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. speaker. this is really quite a charade we're engaged in here today on the house of representatives' floor. let's just flash back a year to how we got to this spot. at that time our republican colleagues threatened that the united states would default on its full faith and credit, that we wouldn't pay the bills that we already incurred, that this congress had already voted for and threatened to tank the economy unless we passed their version of the budget, the ryan budget, the budget that came out of the house budget committee. so in order to prevent the united states from defaulting, everybody got together, the house, the senate, the president, and they passed the

budget control act. to hear our republican colleagues today, you think they'd have nothing to do with the budget control act. we heard the chairman of the budget committee, mr. ryan, on television today saying, well, i don't really, you know, i didn't want to associate myself with that and the reality is he voted for it, the speaker of the house said he got 98% of what he wanted. here's the speaker of the house after we passed the budget control act, i got 98% of what i wanted. i'm pretty happy. so now we face the consequences of the budget control act. what did it do? it did two things. it cut discretionary spending over 10 years by over $1 trillion and it created a sequester process. now, there's agreement in this house that allowing the sequester cuts to take place would be a really stupid thing

to do. there's agreement on that. the issue is, how do we replace that? how do we achieve a similar amount of deficit reduction to replace that sequester? we hear our republican collgues say there's no leadership from the president. they haven't heard any alternatives. that's just not true. there are lots of alternatives that have been put on the table. they just don't like the alternatives. and you know why? because the democratic alternatives to the sequester and the one put forward by the president takes the same balanced approach that's been recommended by bipartisan coissions. they say that in order to tackle our defit we should make additional cuts, but we should also eliminate a lot of special interest tax breaks for big oil companies, that we should ask the very wealthy to go back to paying a little bit more in taxes about what they were paying when president clinton was president. last time we balanced our

budget. so the president has submitted that. in fact a year ago the president sent down a plan right here on how we could take a balanced approach to deficit reduction. just yesterday in the rules committee on behalf of my democrat ig colleagues, we pro-- democratic colleagues, we proposed a substitute that would replace the sequester with a mix of cuts. cutting some of the agriculture subsidies. but also raising revenue by cutting some of the big breaks for big oil companies and asking the wealthiest to chip in a little bit more. so our republican colleagues, who say they want a big open debate on the floor here, they denied us even a vote on that amendment. we're not going to vote today on that amendment. instead we're voting on this resolution that, even if we pass it and the senate passes it and the president were to sign it, it would do nothing about the sequester. nothing. that's why i say this is a charade. so we had an option to bring to the floor to this house a real

substitute proposal. that if we passed it would have removed the sequester, make sure there's no cuts to defense and nondefense on the sequester. we don't get to voten that today. instead we're voting on something that's totally meaningless. they say they're going to ask the president to submit a report to congress. he's already done it. he did it a year ago. they just don't like it. because it takes a balanced approach, because it does ask big oil companies to give up some of their big taxpayer subsidies. so, mr. speaker, let's end the charade. the moment our republican colleagues come to the conclusion that it's more important to protect defense spending than it is to protect special interest tax breaks for big oil companies, we can move on and deal with this in a balanced way, the same way bipartisan commissions have recommended. and i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair would remind all members that it is inappropriate to traffic the well while a member is speaking the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: and i thank you. and at this time i'd like to yield five minutes to the sponsor of the legislation before us, the gentleman from florida who recognizes while the president may have presented a plan to this congress, that bill went down 414-0 and to the senate 97-0, the gentleman from florida. mr. van hollen: if the gentleman will yield? mr. garrett: i yield to the gentleman from florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. west: i thank you, mr. speaker. this is not a charade. i was part of the military for 22 years. i know the type of cuts will do to the military. i know what this typef cuts will do to nondefense discretionary. it is all we've accomplished in

education and weaken programs to help families that send young people and adults to possible. secretary of education, arne duncan. this will force defense cuts that in my view would do catastrophic damage to our military and the ability to be able to protect our country. i think right now, mr. spker, it's very sple. one had a quote back in the 1920's that said those who failed to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. at the end of world war i we cut our military. there came world war ii. at the end of world war ii and th came the korean war. after that we had to chase communism, vietnam. i participated in the riff after desert shield/desert storm. it takes the army and marine corps down to 1940's level. it puts 200,000 of our men and women in uniform on the streets. it makes our united states navy

go to 1915 levels. currently we have a naval force of 283 war ships. it goes down to 230. it takes our air force down to the smallest air force we have had in modern history when we created the united states air force. it cuts nontactical fire squadrons. if you talk to any of our service chiefs, if you listen to the chairman of the joint chiefs, he talks about halling out this force. we should not be doing this at a time when w see what is happening in the world right now, when the united states of americhas had a sovereign piece of its territory attack, we have had an ambassador who has lost his life and the message we are sending is we are t going to do nothing. this bill says we have passed a plan out of the house. the senate, if you don't like our plan, come up with your own plan. mr. president, you are our commander in chief, come up with a plan. you know, one of the things you learn as a young officer, if you ever get in a firefight, if you get in an ambush, to do

nothing means losing a life. those are my friends still in uniform. those are my relatives still in uniform. now, i did not have the ability to be selected to be on the supersubcommittee maybe because i've only been here as a freshman. but that does not mean i will not be an adult and present a solution that says very simply, if you don't like what we passed in the house, then do something. come up with a plan. we just heard the debate about the continuing resolution, a continuing resolution we've been forced into because we have a senate that has not passed a budget in close to three years. we have a senate that has not taken up any appropriations bills. ll, i will tell you and i will reach out to my colleagues on the other side, at least here in the house we have done something. we have been forced into a position with this sequestration to say we need to come up with a solution. the supercommittee did not meet its enacted mandate. does that mean we're going to stop? does that mean we are going to

look at the men and women in uniform and say we will allow this to happen? does that mean we are going to look at other people who are affected by these nondefense discretionary cuts? those who have not come up with a plan, tell us what you want so that we do not have this occur. and think about the second and third order effects thatwill come to this. we talk d mr. van hollen: if the gentleman will yield? mr. west: i will not yield. we are talking about the department of defense civilian positions that will be lost. we are talking about defense industrial base, the technology that's going to develop the next generation of weapons systems for our men and women that will be lost. we are talking about a critical decision for the way ahead for the united states of america. and i understand what's been said about this balanced approach that the president sent over in his fiscal year 2013 budget. $1.9 trillion in new taxes but yet it never balances at any time. and if it was such a good plan, such a good budget, no one here

took it up. that's my concern. this is a last chance for us to be the adults, to do something, to stave off this sequestration. the house voted, the house sent a piece of legislation out in may. the house voted on a sequestration transparency act. we still have not gotten anything. the director of the o.m.b. testifd before the armed services committee. he has no plan. all he did was sit there and say, if you guys would stop with these tax cuts not being brought up on the rich then this would not happen. what is the fair share? when t top 1% pays close to 31% of taxes, that's not the debate, mr. speaker. the debate is what we're going to do about the sequestration and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i thank you, mr. speaker. we heard before that there was this vote on the prident's plan and got no votes. we had a vote on a fake president's plan. when we had a democratic

alternative which the white house said was closer to their plan than the one that was put up for a fake vote it got a huge vote from our democratic colleagues. i would just ask mr. west to read his own amendment because if you read the bill, it's pretty clear. if we're to pass it and the senate was to pass it and the president would sign it, it doesn't make the sequester go away. no, it doesn't make the sequester go away. it calls for action. in fact, it says the president should submit a plan within a certain period of time. it says in your bill. presidential submission not later than october 15, 2012. the president shall transmit to the congress a legislative proposal. mr. west: if the gentleman will yield. it says it will be replaced. if you come up with a plan -- mr. van hollen: exactly. and reclaiming my time. that's exactly right. that's exactly what it says. but you know what, you tell the president what his plan has to do. you tell the president that his plan cannot include one penny of revenue for the purpose of

reducing the deficit. in other words, you say the president's plan got to look like your plan. so mr. speaker, the issue here is not whether or not the president has a plan or not. he does have a plan. our republican colleagues don't like it because it says that it's more important to protect defense spending and protect domestic spending like n.i.h. than it is to protect special interest tax loopholes. i see the chairman of the armed services committee on the floor and i respect him greatly. that's what he talked about last october. here's what he said when he was asked. quote, if it came that i had only two choices. one was a tax increase and one was a cut in defense over and above where we already are, i would go to strengthen defense. that's the president's position. that's the president's position, mr. west. heays we need to take a balanced approach to recusing the deficit. we need to combine cuts but we also should end special interest

tax breaks for the big oil companies. george bush himself said that when you got oil above $50 a barrel, you don't need these ridiculous incentives to keep them drilling. and we should ask very wealthy individuals to pay the same tax rate as the people who pay for them do. and we should eliminate some of these ag subsidies. you asked about otr proposalless. i have a propos in my hand. i took it to the house rules committee yesterday. it would have totally replaced the sequester. if we actually voted on this, it would replace the sequester for defense and nondefense. you know how we do it? we do it through cuts to big ag subsidies, we do it by eliminating subsidies for the billing oil companies and we ask people making more than $1 million to pay a little bit more because we think it's more important to do that than to allow these cuts to defense to take place and all the consequences you talk about, and we think it's important to protect investments in places like n.i.h. people who are fighting to try to find curious and diseases. so, mr. speaker, madam speaker,

the issue is not whether we replace the sequester. the president has a proposal, i got a proposal. it's how we do it. and again our republican colleagues have doubled down on this idea that you're going to protect every tax break that's out there before you protect spending on our national defense. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland refreshes -- reserves his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: i thank the speaker. before we hear from our leader we have 15 seconds for the gentleman from florida. thspeaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. west: thank you, madam speaker. we voted to cut defense spending by $487 billion. we're talking about additional. when you talk about raising these taxes, earnston young had an independent report that talked about the adverse ramifications that were covered about raising taxes. one thing we fail to understand, small business operators at the subchapel ter, l.l.c.'s, you're going to ruin this economy and more job losses by raising those taxes. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i'd yield for an answer, whether paying -- capital is a small business. mr. west: i'm notalking about bankapital. i'm talking -- you say raise taxes on individuals. mr. van hollen: i take my time back. reclaiming my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: mr. west, when you're -- when mr. romney and mr. ryan and all our republican colleaguesite those figures about pass-throughs, that includes companies like bain capital. it also includes some fortune 100ompanies. the president has put forward a proposal that says, let's act right now. to extend tax relief to 98% of the american people and 97% of all pass-through businesses. it's true, we don't think that bain capital needs a big additional tax break when we've got a big deficit that we should deal with in what we think should be a balanced way. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves his time. all members are advised that they will direct their comments

to the chair. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. garrett: now at this time i'd leak like to yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, our leader. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank the gentleman from new jersey and commend the gentleman from florida on bringing this bill forward. madam speaker, the bill before us is not about tax rates. because i think that that issue will be resolved one way or another here shortly in this election. because we know that there's a difference between the two sides. unfortunately our counterparts on the other side of the aisle think it's very important in this tough economy to raise taxes. we don't believe that, madam speaker. but the bill before us simply asks the president to give us his plan for replacing the first year of cuts in the sequester. it h been 126 days since we passedur plan to responsibly replace the sequester with cuts that maintain our fiscal discipline.

our plan controls unchecked government spending and reduces wasteful and duplicative programs. but stl there has been no action and no proposal coming from the other side of the capitol, coming from the other side of the aisle. it has been 126 days since the president said he would veto our plan. but he has failed to put forward an alternative. in a letter that some of us republican leaders wrote on july 14, asking the president to engage with us, to come and find a bipartisan soluon to the sequestration, that letter has gone unanswered. madam speaker, inaction carries a very high risk. instability, unprecedented political transformation throughout the middle east. a civil war in syria. iran's dogged pursuit of nuclear weapons and support for terrorism, as well as challenges

proposed by rising china and geostrategic shifts in the asia-pacific make maintaining american military preeminent as important as ever. and the deadly and tragic attacks on ambassador chris receiveness, foreign service information management officer sean smith, and two other americans at our consulate in benghazi, libya, make clear that islamic extremist terrorism remains a tremendous threat to the middle east, the united states and the international community. if the cuts in the sequester go forward, they will fundamentally weaken our current and long-term national security and our ability to meet challenges with these challenges we are facing. implementing these cuts will remain -- will mean reductions in ship building, aircraft and missiles, shrinking our current force to levels not seen since before world war ii. and that means fewer defense-related jobs. according to a study conducted by the aerospace industries

association, the job losses will reach two million. let me put that in perspective. the economy added less than 100,000 jobs last month. worse, more people dropped out of the labor force than were added to it. under the sequester, unemployment would soar from its current level up to 9%, setting back any progress the economy has made. according to the same stu the jobs of more than 200,000 virginians, my own state, are on the line. a small business in my district, which provides fresh food to trps at miliry bases, said the sequester threatens the jobs of their 200 employees. another small company in virginia, high test landtories, could could be ford to reduce their staff by as much as 40%. removing these jobs from the community will shrink the local economy and set back an already

underutilid business zone. that same predicament faces hundreds of hardworking men and women in town from here to california -- town interests here to california. madam speaker, we are here today asking the president simply to come forward with a plan. we are here today because the minority has failed to work with us to find aolution, to prevent these cuts that would hollow out our military and result in massive layoffs. madam speaker, the house will act. now we need leadership, mr. president, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the majority leader, the gentleman from virginia, yields back his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam speaker. it's hard to know where to begin. because i hope everyone was listening very carefully. that if we allow these spending cuts to take place, we will lose hundreds of thousands of jobs in virginia alone. thousands of jobs aroun the

country. you know, i've heard a lot of complaints from our republican colleagues about the recovery bill. and the fact that we had to do some emergency spending to prevent the loss of millions of jobs. you know what? that worked. and here our republican colleagues here today are saying, we have to make sure the spending cuts don't take ace because if we do, it will result in a lot of lost jobs. you know what? it takes jobs to build an aircraft carrier, absolutely. it also creates jobs when you invest in trying to repair and modernize our roads and our bridges, our infrastructure. the president submitted a jobs bill more than a year ago to this house. to do exactly that. let's invest more in modernizing our infrastructure. we haven't had a single vote on the president's jobs bill. so i'm really glad to hear our republican colleagues say that if we make these kind of cuts it's going to result in lost

jobs. because you know what? you are right about that. and the debate today is not about whether we should prevent the is he quester from taking place, as i said, we should. it's how, how we do that. and i heard again from the republican leader, the president doesn't have a plan. he has a plan. theyust don't like his plan. they don't like his plan because it takes a balanced approach. it says, in addition to cuts we should also ask people who make more than $1 million a year to contribute a little more to reducing our national deficit and preventing the sequester. we should ask big oil companies to give up their taxpayer subsidies. so, the question, madam speaker, is not whether we replace the sequter. ere's lots of plans, can't get a vote on today. the issue is not whether, it's how. we should take a balanced approach and i yield now three minutes to the gentlelady from pennsylvania, ms. schwartz.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from pennsylvania is recognized for three minutes. ms. schwartz: thank you very much. and i am pleased to participate in this debate. in some ways. although i do have to say that this is not really the kind of honest debate that we need to be having. we should be having a conversation, we should have been having a conversation well before now about how we would avoid sequester and do it in a bipartisan way, to do it in a balanced way. that is not what is happening right now. it is -- what we're see something the republican plan without that kind of conversation, without that kind of willingness to find common ground or balanced approach. the federal gugget is about choices -- budget is about choices and the choices we make matter. do we chse to protect our seniors, to grow the middle class, to make sma investments for our economy, to be able to reach agreement on deficit reduction in a way that is fair to the american people? or not? republicans have made their choices. their priorities and their values very clear. once again they are wasting america's time playing politics.

instead of working to find that common ground. sequestration was put in place to push us, to force us in congress to work together on a bipartisan, balanced approach to deficit reduction. we knew it would be tough. we didn't -- we all knew we would not want to implement sequester, that that would be difficult. but we put on the table what needed to get done if we couldn't have that kind of conversation a we have not yet seen the republican leadership in the house be willing to engage that kind of serious deficit reduction conversation that takes a balanced approach, respects our obligation to americans, and our future. today's legislation does not move us any closer to achieving the goal of deficit reduction done in a balanced way. in a fair way. in a real way. we know we must reduce the nation's deficit in a balanced and fiscally responsible manner. we've seen every bipartisan, independent commission tell us that. it means that -- and ty've

told us and we know that we have to take some hard hits in spending cuts, that we have to requirereater efficiency and greater effectiveness from all sectors of government. that we must do this with a balanced, with increased rev knew. it cannot be done without it. in order to build economic growth in our nation, we need to do all of this, deficit reduction means spending cuts, means increased revenue, it means a balanced approach if we're going to grow the economy for now in the future. republican congresses have rejected this balanced approach and in doing so they have made it clear that they're not serious about dicit reduction. they are in fact willing to add $800 billion to our deficit with tax breaks for the wealthiest. that's what this does -- this legislation does today. they are adding $2 trillion more in defense spending, more than the pentagon has said it needs to keep us safe and defend our nation. and they are willing to do this at the expense of our middle class, our seniors and our

economic recovery. the republican approach to replacing the sequester means that we will be less prepared to compete in the 21st century economy. now is not the time to make drastic cuts in transportation, in infrastructure, in innovation and clean energy, or in education and health care. and at's what this would do. the republican plan creates false and unfair choices for the american people, let's get rious, let's move forward. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: thank you, madam speaker. i would now like to yield five minutes to the gentleman from california who recognizes that it is really not a balanced plan to say that we want to raise $3 on every american in taxes and only $1 in spending reductions. and it is not a balanced plan to say that we want to pick and choose winners and losers when it comes to the tax code reform. the gentleman from california for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from california for five minutes. mr. mckeon: i thank the gentleman for his leadership in bringing this important bill forward at this time. my mind, madam eaker that we are standing re ready to wipe out our national defense at a time when we turn on the tv in the morning and see the middle east erupting, when we see iran moving forward on their plans to achieve a nuclear weapon, when we see china increasing their defense spending when we're cutting ours. people need to understand we have cut $487 billion, starting october 1, over the next 10 years, out of our defense. on top of that, we have added this problem of sequestration, which adds another $500 billion to $600 billion other the next

five years starting scran 2. the first $487 billion some thought was put into and plans. even though we had to adjust our strategy that we've had since world war ii, we had to cut back, we know we won't be able to carry out the meigs we will be called on to do in the future but we will be able to survive, according to our military leaders. but the sequestration, we held five hearings last september with all of our formerilitary leaders, our current military leaders, former chairmen and secretaries of these committees and to a man, every single one said that the sequestration would hollow out and wipe out our national defense. we would take the navy back to the size it was in world war i. the armed forces, the ground forces back to the size they were in 1940. and the air force back to the smallest it's been since it was cread. how does anybody think that

given these times that is not a stupid thing to be doing? and the way the sequestration would take effect is you just pull out the budget and take a percentage, the administration hasn't tolus what percent but probably 15% or 20% off every single line item. mowing the line at fort dix will have the same priority as ammunition for the troops in afghanistan. how can anybody think that that is a smart idea? you know, we have a constitution of the united states and it tells us how we should operate here in the congress. it says one body passes a bill this other body passes the bill, a conference is formed, you work out you're difference you take it back for final passage and send it to the president to be signed into law. the house has acted. we took tough votes. we prished our -- accomplished our objective of paying for the first year of sequestration, not just the defense cuts, but

all the cuts, across the board, to move it back, pay for the first year, move it back into a time where we're less stress wfl the -- with the election upon us, where we could do it in a less political environment , and the senate hasn't acted in 126 days, they haven't acted. we're used to that becae, excuse me, the other body hasn't acted. but you know, mam speaker, all they have to do, they don't like our birbling i understand that. all they have to do is pass another bill, get toyota conference and then we'll wor out the differences. we accomplished ours through cuts. they can accomplish theirs through increasing taxes and then we can work out a difference. but there's -- the gentleman on the other side says they presented a plan and we don't like their pla well a plan ising in in. -- is nothing.

what they have to do is show us, get the votes, pass a bill and go to the conference. it's in the constitution, that's how we operate. it's important enough that we should all act like adults and follow the constitution and get it done. our nation, our security, depends on it. and we don't have much time left to do it. madam speaker, i think it's very important that we pass this bill. i encourage my colleagues to vote for i let's act like adults, let's earn our salaries here. let's get this job done. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the quelt from california yields back his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hlen -- mr. van hollen: thank you, madam speaker. i agree with the chairman of the armed services committee, we should act like adults. we agree the sequester cuts are done in a stupid, meat ax way. we also agree with what the chairman said last october when he said if it came to choosing

between allowing all the terrible consequences he rightly spoke about and taking a balanced approach to deficit reduction which included some additional revenue, he would accept the balanced approach. now we heard our colleague say that -- mr. chairman, not right now. i'll yield for a quick question. mr. mckeon: you presented what i said i would do given two bad choice. but you don't have anything on the floor yet, you haven't passed a bill, so i don't even have the opportunity to vote for increased taxes because you haven't passed a bill yet. mr. van hollen: we wanted to give you that opportunity yesterday. that's why i went to the house rules committee with this substitute that said you can replace the sequester right away if you're willing to cut some big ag subsidies, which i

thought we were all agreed we could do, but also get rid of some subs disfor the big oil companies, not the smaller producers but the big five and ask the people over $5 million pay thsame effective rate as the peep who work for them pay. i agree with what you said last october, it's more important to prevent the kind of cuts we're talking at here today than it is to protect tax breaks for big oil companies. mr. chairman, i wanted a vote. we wanted a vet. the rules committee -- the thing i have in thinkmy hand would replace the sequester. the resolution on the floor doesn't replace the sequester. even if it goes to the president. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: i have now been here

30 years. 26 on the ways and means committee. so why are we at this point of serious impasse? i think a major reason is that that the radical right has taken over house republicans. balance is considered surrender. compromise is considered retreat. indeed, since the passage of the budget control act in august of 2011, the republicans have made sequestration even more likely. before august of last year, the republican decision was no new revenues. the bush tax cuts for the very wealthy were untouchable. but in their budget passed this march, the republicans not only said the bush tax cuts for the wealthy must continue, but also

they should be expanded. they are doubling down on a policy of tax cuts for the wealthiest while annual income stagnation continues for the middle class and we have the worst income inequality in generations. so in a word, they went from bad to worse. furthering the likelihood of sequestration. under the ryan budget and the so-called tax reform fast track bill they passed last month, a recent analysis concluded that the average millionaire would lock in an average tax cut of $330,000. while the average person making less than $200,000 would see their taxes rise by $4,500. i support tax reform. but so far, republicans have refused to say which policies they would eliminate to pay

for. it's been dodge and deception. half of the money in individual income tax expenditures is in the lowest rates for capital gains and dividends. and they propose to cut those rates even further. mr. ryan down to zero on capital gains. and most of those benefits go to those making over $1 million. but most of the other major tax expenditures, rtgage interest, health insurance, education benefits that would have to be decimated are mainly middle class benefits. this bill ignores the fact that the president put forward a balanced deficit reduction package over a year ago that would have cut the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years. and i close by emphasizing the word balanced. balanced. essentially the republican

party that i've known over the years has become very deeply imbalanced. in terms of the mainstream of america. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: at this time i'd like to yield to another gentleman from california for two minutes who understands that we are presenting a balanced approach as we pass the option to pass the legislation or an alternative, the gentleman from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognid for two minutes. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i had some notes i was going to say but i'm going off script as the gentleman from maryland who i genuinely like and respect, made some comments to which i feel i must respond. the gentleman referred to, as the president does often, to additional taxes on domestic energy for wich they used the pejorative big oil and taxes on job creators, for which they

are creating a pejorative, the rich. mr. campbell: and these two things will solve all ills. by my count when we did the budget this year in the budget committee, the democrats used those two taxes to pay for seven, by my count, different items of spending. now let me explain what that's like. here's a dollar. this is $1. a single dollar. if i go into a store and spend it and buy these breath mints, the dollar will be gone and i wi have the breath mints. i cannot then take this dollar into six more stores and buy six more breath mints because the dollar is gone. you cannot use the same tax increases to pay for everything that are multiple times what those tax increases were. i understand this is a political talking point. i get it. look, we all do those. i git. but this is not a game. we saw this week with the reprehensible assassination of

ambassador stevens that our national defense is not a game. and it is definitely not a game now. and our economy is not a game as millions of people who are out of work can attest. this is a real proposal, we're asking the president far al proposal and not a political talking point and we need to solve this problem. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank my friend from california for those comments. i would just say this, i have in my hand a proposal a substitute amendment. if we passed it, it would prevent the sequester from taking place on defense and nondefense in a balanced way. you spend these things one time, they get rid of the sequester. and as the chairman of the armed services committee said, he wished he had an opportunity to vote on something like this. i said i wish the rules committee had given us all that opportunity. with that, i yield three minutes to the distinguished democratic whip, mr. hoyer.

mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i tell my friend from california, the gentleman from california whose dollar was at issue here. the gentleman from california, i will tell you with all due respect and affection, your party over the last 10years took that doar and they bought those mints. and they went to the sixth subs -- the six subsequent stores and gave them a credit card for the next mints they bought. it's time to pay the bill. >> wou the gentleman yield? mr. hoyer: i have a very short time. i want to make the point, you kept buying mints you just didn't keep paying. madam speaker, this bill is another instance of this republicans caucus walking away from its responbility. the budget sequester was never intended to be a solution in and of itself. it was meant to be the blunt instrument to force compromise. unfortunately, compromise is a dirty word around here in some

quarters. to lay out conditions as this bill does requiring one side to concede before negotiations even begin while solving only part of the problem disregards sequestration's fundamental purpose, to be equay acceptable to both sides that it forces compromise. this bill which i strongly oppose essentially says, let's pretend. let's pretend we don't have a deficithallenge. it says, let's prete we can solve our problems by cutting domestic spending alone. no rational human being believes that's the case. no cuts to republicans' favorite progra. no elimination of tax loopholes for oil companies or anybody else. no increases in revenue by asking the wealthiest to contribute a little more to setting our country on a sound pa. we're collecting the lowest amount of revenues we have collected in 70 years in this country. and we haven cut spending. and we increase spending in the last administration very

substantially. by the way a greater percentage than this administtion increased the deficits, 86% very 41%, check the figures. what we need a pragmatism, principle and serious governing. we need toe honest with the american people, both bipartisan commissions that explored this issue concluded that the best solution is a balanced approach that addresses revenues, entitlements, and targeted cuts to domestic and defense spending. we need something that is sorely lacking in this house. coure and a willingness to compromise to. come together to. reason together. -- to come together. to reason together ando make tough decisions together. sequester is the direct result of republican policies. d is a part of the republican strategy to cut spending. you keep saying, well, this is

not a democratic policy. it's an irrational policy. but it's in your bills and in your rules. now, instead of working with democrats to turn off the sequester, republicans are trying to paint the sequester as a democratic initiative. that is false. untrue. the republican cut, cap and balance -- i ask for one additional minute, mr. chairman. mr. van hollen: i yield the gentleman another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: the republican cut, cap and balance bill enforces its cuts and caps how? through sequestration. that's what you voted r. after the agreement was reached on the budget control act that put the sequester in place, speaker boehner said, i got 98% of what i wanted. now our repblican colleagues e attempting to undo the sequester in a way that lets them off the hook politically but puts america at risk fincially. democrats have an alternative.

mr. van hollen just spoke of it. it would repeal the sequester for a year by asking that the wealthiest in our country -- why, because they can help a little more. not because they're bad. god bless them. and by the way, we're most of those as well, folks. i hope my friends on the other side of the aisle, who i know are as deeply concerned about our deficits and debt as i am, will join democrats in defeating this bill and sending a message that only by working together can we find the solutions we need. america expects that of us. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: mad speaker, at this time i would like to yield to the gentleman from oklahoma three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you, madam speaker. mr. lankford: let's review. we have -- $16 trillion in debt. and it's climbing every single day.

we have no budget from the senate for the last three years. the president's budget got exactly zero votes in the house and in the senate. and the federal government has dramatically increased spending which has led to this spending-driven crisis. let me show you what i mean by that. five years ago in 2007, federal treasury received $2.5 trillion in revenue. the same amount that's estimated to come in this year in revenue. $2.5 trillion. five years ago, $2.5 trillion now. five years ago, totalpent by the federal government, $2.7 trillion. now, $3.7 trillion. that almost looks like $1 trillion difference in spending. which equals the same amount as our deficit. it's amazing to me. when we process through this, the problem is crystal clear. it's just the solution that seems to evade us in this press. now, some would say, we've

increased spending $1 trillion, let's just increase taxes as well. and that will solve the issue. i would say, why are we spending money we don't have? last summer we agreed that we would cut some spending. and put a group of people together in a room and let them work out a plan to find $1 trillion in cuts. the backup, the emergency backup plan, was that we would cut across the board if a solution wasn't found. 10% for security, 8% for everything else. now, no one wants across-the-board cuts that are that huge. a 1% cut in agencies would be no big deal. i can't imagine any agency couldn't handle 1%. 2%, no big deal. maybe even 3%. but you start to climb up and it really begins to cut into some agencies that are actually very efficient. other agencies you can do a 50% cut and it would be fine. the problem is an across-the-board cut becomes a very big issue for us. treating every line item the same is a mistake. every part is not the same in

our budget. let me give you an example. at my house on a saturday afternoon, i'll open up a dr. pepper can at my house and my very cute red-headed 12-year-old daughter will walk up and say, daddy, can we split that? i will almost always smile at her and say, sure. i'll take the liquid and you take the can. to which she says to me, that's not really fair. but it again comes back to the same point. not all parts are the same. if we do across-the-board cuts in every area, that is not the best way to do it. now i guaraee you you allow this house to go item by item through this budget, we will find $100 billion in cuts next year. i guarantee you. but doing it across the board, cuts into f.b.i., it cuts into our defense, it cuts into border patrol, it cuts into the basics and the heart of what we're doing and we cannot do that. the house passed a very specific plan for dealing with this last may.

it is complete for us. now it's time for the senate to actually do their job and it's time for the president to send that out over to us. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore:he gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: madam speaker, at this time i yield to a third gentleman from california, over here, the gentleman from california, four mines. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california four four -- for four minutes. >> thank you. thought i'd fool you. go tthe left. it fools a lot of people. mr. speaker, i rise in support obviously of h.r. 6365, the national security and job protection act. do we need any more evidence that recent events in egypt and libya, than to oppose these devastating cuts that would do unto our national security? i don't think so. mr. calvert: if sequestration occurs it would cut the military to its smaest size since before world war ii. all the while we're still a nation at war in afghanistan, facing unrest and aggression in

th middle east, increased threats from iran, china and north korea. in addition to the 10% cut to defense, our domestic programs would have, such as health, science, research, education, border security, that will face an additional 8% cut. in may this house passed the only plan that's been presented thus far to prevent and replace sequestration. last may, by providing and making commonsense reforms to our st-growing government that's on auto pilot spending programs, and to avert the spending-driven economic crisis that's before us. while we've seen no signs of leadership from the white house or the senate, but the hous will act again today. with h.r. 6365, the national security and job protection act. the house will lead where others have not. this legislation senleds as clear statement thathe house

is ready to carry out our budgetary responsilities. we just need willing partners. the president, the senate, house republicans and democrat we all agree on a common goal. replace the sequester to replace important domestic programs, our fragileconomy, our national security and our troops. this bill is a fact of that solution. make no mistake, if sequestration goes into effect, america will compromise a legy of superiority on the land, on the sea and in the air to send and to potentially send our economy spiraling back into a recession. i urge my colleagu to vote in favor of this bill and i would hope that we could pass this with a large number and get on with it. with that i'll yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i now yield one

minute to the distinguished democratic leader, the gentlelady from california, ms. pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the minority leader is recognized for one minute. ms. pelosi: thank you, madam speaker. as we come to the floor this afternn to talk abou this sequester issue, the clock is ticking and every moment we delay in dealing with the budget issue is a moment of time that does not increase confidence in our economy, does not bring more certainty to our economic situation and does not reduce the deficit. i heard the previous speaker say that this legislation that is on the floor would end sequestration. it does not.

and that is one of the major differences between it and the democratic proposal put rth by mr. van hollen. unfortunately, afraid of debate on the floor, the rules committee did not allow the republicans to allow mr. van hollen to propose -- mr. van hollen's proposal to come to the floor today so that we could have a vote on it. but even with that we can have a debate on it. and the debate is about fairness, it's about balance, it's about living up to our responsibilities, it's about saying yes, we all have to compromise, there will be cuts, we need revenue, we want growth. that's what mr. van hollen's proposal does. it does indeed replace the sequestration. it is a bett plan. it actually does end

sequestration through a mix of cuts and revenues as i mentioned. the reason we have a problem here is because our republican colleagues have refused to have one red cent from the wealthiest people in our country contribute to resolving this fiscal crisis. this budget crisis. not one red cent. if they cared as much about defense as they say, one year ago they would have agreed to a balanced and plan with fairness d balance. where we would have growth on the table and make decisions about revenue and about cuts to produce growth and not go to a situation that called for across-the-board cuts in defense and in our domestic budget. this is really silly. it's really silly.

it's not serious. it's a charade this bill that they have on the floor today. it just keeps making matters worse, as the clock keeps ticking. so i urge my colleagues to ject this mirage of a bill that poses as a suggestion and support instead ideas that are being advanced by mr. van hollen. i don't like everything about it. i think we have cut over $1 trillion. that's how we got through last year. all cuts. no revenue. but if you need only to see how we differ, just look at the ryan-romney republican budget. their blueprint says, we're going to endedicare, we're going to make seniors pay $6,000 more as we end medicare, and

we're going to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in our country. that's not fair. that's not balanced. but that is what would happen if the republican bill were to become law. it would enact the ryan bill. i urge my colleagues to think very seriously about this because people sent us here to find solutions. we must resolve this. when the speaker of the house says i'm not confident we can do this, we are confident we can do anything we set our minds to. and we certainly have to be confident that we can honor our responsibilities to the american people. so we all have to go to the table willing to yield, willing to compromise, we've had to do it with president bush sr., with president bush, his recovery package for our country, democrats cooperated with both those presidents when we were in

the majority. why is it that the republicans in the house see no reason to compromise even at the risk of the full fai and credit of the united states of america? even at the expense of the health of our economy, even at the expense of jobs for the american people? vote no on this mirage. support what mr. van hollen putting forth. let's get moving because the clock is ticking. thank you, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: the gentleman from north carolina is recnized for four minutes. south carolina, for four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. >> i thank the secret from new york for that. i'm sorry, the gentleman from new jersey. thank you, madam chairwoman. i saw the gentleman from

maryland, now i'm losing track of where everybody is from. i saw mr. van hollen on television this morning, it was the first i'd heard of his proposal so i had toance -- i had a chance to go and look at it today and also had a chance to look at the c.b.o. report that was performed on it. and saw some interesting things. i don't know if we've discussed fully here today, it raises taxes by $85 billion other the 10-year window. according to the c.b.o., it raises spending by almost $80 billion. this is a refrain i used to hear a lot whe i was younger, taxes and spend, taxes and spending, raise tes, increase spending. mr. duncan: i thought it was gone from today's party across the aisle burr here it is alive and well in mr. van hollen's substitute, raising taxes and raising spending, a deficit re

ducks of $5 billion, it increases the deficit by $5 billion in the first year. it does that, part and parcel but offering what they call the buffett rule. the last time i came to this well, i believe the gentleman from maryland and i had an exchange about whether my amendment was a gimmick, the gimmick about the president's budget. mr. mulvaney: in my research, i found it was the president of the united states who tchailed buffett rule a gimmick. i'm wondering now if the president believes that part of mr. -- the gentleman from maryland's offering is in fact a gimmick. it encompasses the buffett rule in its entirety. i compare all of this, madam speaker, to the offering we have before you with our bill. that bill reduces the deficit by at least $237 billion.

over the same 10 years. theirs redeuces it by $5 billion, raising taxes. ours reduces the deficit by $237 billion at least according to the c.b.o. that's the smallest number the c.b.o. gives us. it also gives us four times as much deficit reduction in the first year than what they seek to replace. theirs increases the deficit by $55 billion in the first year, ours decreases it by more than the b.c.a. it steeks replace. our offering does that, madam speaker, without asking anybody, anybody, pay more money to the government. people pay enough money to the government. we spend their money improperly. it's not that we don't take enough from. the we take enough money from our citizens. we spend it improperly. when i finished looking at this, madam speaker, i thought to myself, i think it would be great to have this come up far vote. i'm disappointed the rules

committee didn't give them the chance to bring it to the floor. it's happened to me before, i'm sympathetic. at the same time, i know he has the chance to do that still. we'll fini t debate and before the vote, there's going to be a motion to recommit. the gentleman from maryland cod offer his amendment as the motion to recommit. in fact, i would welcome the opportunity to see that debate. i would welcome the opportunity here, 60 days before an election to have my colleagues across the aisle ce over and say, would you -- we want to raise your taxes, would you please re-elect us? i want that on the floor. i'm disappointed the rules committee didn't bring it. i want to see if that's really what our colleagues stand for. i heard it described by the gentlelady from california as a better plan. i think we're doing a disservice by not allowing a vote on this particul bill. it is not a better plan. i think the vote here would bear that out, not just on our side of the aisle. it would be curious to see if

that's what our colleagues stand for, madam speaker. more taxes, more spending here 60 days before an election. i encourage folks to support our bill. our bill cuts spend, let's people keetheir money and still allows taos end the sequester. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i wish mr. mulvaney was more persuasive with his colleagues. we want a vote on this we heard a lot from our colleagues about the devastating impact of these cuts on defense and other things. we agree. which is why we think it's appropriate to ask people who earn more than $1 million a year to help contribute more to our deficit so we don't have to see these consequences. now yield one and a half minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is advised from the speaker that there are four and a half minutes remaining on his side and five minutes remaining on the other side. the gentleman is recognized for

one and a half minutes. mr. nadler: madam speaker, addressing our debt is a critical long-term goal. but it's not our immediate problem. right now our immediate proble is high unemployment and our economy needs efforts to spur job growth. the expiration of the bush era tax cuts, particularly those targeted toward the middle class and the tart of unparalleled spending cuts mandated by the sequestration provision threaten further job growth. looking at sequestration, there's rare agreement. not anyone, not the president, not congress, expected the sequester to take effect. republicans argue that the steep cut would risk fense-related jobs. and they're right. according to the economic policy institute, these cuts would kill 1.3 million defense jobs in the first three years. the republicans completely ignore the defense, i'm sorry, the domestic spending cuts will

also kill an estimated 1.3 million jobs in the same time frame. sequestration will kill ppt 6 million americ jobs in three years. we must stop the sequestration mandated spendg cuts disaster. this bill won't do that. this bill mandates training tens of billions of dollars of federal spending next yearing reducing the already draconian spending caps and doing all this without adding a single dollar of additional revenue. the outcome is virtually the same. it will still kill a couple million americ jobs. base -- basic economics tell us in good times with low unemployment we should reduce the national debt but to create job growth we must not reduce spending. the proposed spending cuts, particularly of the magnitude the republicans are proposing, would be disastrous. when we get to 5% unemployment, then worry about spending cuts. right now, jobs are the issue.

madam speaker, i urge a no vote on h.r. 6365. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the ntleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: may i ask how much time remains on each side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has three minutes remain, the gentleman from new jersey has five minutes remaining. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i reserve. are you the last speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i yield a minute and half to the distinguished gentlelady from texas, ms. sheila jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is rcognized for one and a half minutes. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much to the ranking member of the budget committee and thank you to madam speaker. we rise today to try to bring

some logic and sense because as americans debate sequestration they throw their hands up and say, what is that? what is that in the minds of children and the elderly? what does that mean in a real, rational way of coming together and saying there are some cutsened there are some revenues enhancers and increases to be able to invest in the american public. in order to create jobs you expend dollars, you invest you create, research and development you help to create opportunities for small businesses. you help to promote manufacturing. that's how you create jobs. but let me tell you what the underlying bill says this bill will only take effect one year later. is has no opportunity, no desire new york rationale to raise revenue. every thinking economist says we must raise revenue in order to reduce the deficitnd continue to expend and spend dollars that invest in the american public. do you want your military families to be on food stamps?

do you want 50 million americans to suffer food insecurity? or do you want these americans to suffer? that is seniors or meals on wheels, home care, adult protechive services. millions of children. one third of them depending on the social service block grant, child protective services, one million disabled, respite care or transportation. or do you want to continue the food insecurity for 16 million children. all i can say is that this bill not only kicks the can down the road, it quicks -- kicks the mountain down the road. let's vote against this bill, silt down at the table, boost revenue and invest in the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: i yield 45 second to the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. welch: we have a serious debt problem in is country. we have a serious jobs problem

in this country. both of those serious problems are solveable. the impediment is political. this is exhibit a of a dysfunctional congress. the supercommitt failed, this congress with the leadership on the republican side, implemented these sequester cuts, we all know they make no sense from an ecomic standpoint. but it puts the burden back on us to come up with a balanced approach that every american know sthess only way forward. a balance of revenues a balance of entitlement reforms an a pentagon making a contribution to solve our problems. that is what is going to create jobs and that is what is going to create fiscal stability. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. continues to reserve. the gentleman from maryland for the remaining 45 seconds. mr. van hollen: i yield myself the time remaining. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam speaker. the issue all afternoon has not

been whether we should replace the sequester. yes, we should. the issue has been how we do that. we've heard our republican colleagues talk about the devastating impact of the sequester on defense and noefense. we agree that's why we put forward a plan to replace the sequester in the banced way that's been recommended by bipartisan groups through a combination of cut bus also revenues generated by things like closing the tax loopholes for big oil companies. our repuican colleagues have just doubled down on the position that it's more important to protect tax breaks for bill oil companies and very wealthy individuals than it is to protect our investment in spending, in defense, or other important national priorities. that what this debate is all about. i hope we will reject this proposal and adopt a more balanced one. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: i yield myself the

balance of my time. the speaker pro teore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. garrett: i began this day being interviewed by a grup of southern college students in the pry -- and the primary question they asked was, why can't congress seem to work in a more bipartisan man her work across the aisle and work with the her chamber? i had to explain to them what was about to occur here in the floor that when it comes to one of the most seminal issues we have to deal with in this country, our fiscal matters and defense matters this that this hoe, led by republicans, have done everything we possibly could to make sure that this country stands strong fiscally and stands strong in a defense posture as well. and they have reach aid crs the aisle and reached across to the senate in a bipartisan manner to eeffectuate that. we have passed a budget out of this house to the senate, where they say all good bills go to die. it has not come back. we saw the president -- told the president we want to work on a budget. we saw his budget come to the

house and fail 414-0, not get anything democrat or republican support for that bill. we have reached across the aisle, tried to work on the fiscal matter and defense matters when it comes to the sequester. we recognizehe devastating impact this will have on our defense posture in this country. other members have come to the floor in light of all e past circumstances that have come across this country in the last decade, in the light of the memorial services we just held, all of us in a bipartisan manner, out on those steps just days ago on september 11, in light of what has just been in the newspaper in the last several days, our embassies being attacked and americans killed on american soil, we realize the important significance of making sure that we have a strong defense at this point in dime. -- in time. i ask anyone to consider this legislation to vote yes in favor of this legislation and anyone who would stand and vote no against trying to make sure that we're strong fiscally and trying to make sure that we are

strong in a defense posture as well, anyone who would vote no, i would ask them, how do they, when they go through the airport leaving here or coming to washington look anyone in uniform in the eye and say they voted against a bill to make sure there would not be defense cuts here. the other side of the aisle has no answer for that. their only hans today and as it's been ever since i've been here in congress is to say the solution to all problems is, what? raising taxes. they want to raise taxes for every $1 in spending cuts. we do not have a revenue problem in this country. we have a spending problem in this country. now there's an old saying that goes if there's a dime left on the table in washington, someone, primarily from the other side of the aisle, i would suggest, will find a dollar's worth of use for spending it. and i think that's the case here. if they raise the taxes three to one, they'll find $30 worth of spending to increase and the gentleman from california pointed out that was the exple every single time in

the budget committee, every single time we have suggested for spending cuts they were opposed and would always use the same spending cuts to further increases in spending elseer as the gentleman from california makes the reference to spending a dollar every time for what was it, for breath mints i think it was. candidly, after listening to this debate and after listening to debate continually in budget committee over the years, i always leave there as i will leave here tonight with a sour taste in my mouth. if the other side of the aisle does not agree to begin to work with us in a bipartisan manner to make sure that this country is strong fiscally, to make sure that this country is strong in a defense posture as well. i encourage all my colleagues from both sides of the aisle >> congresswoman michelle

bachman and house majority leader eric cantor along with paul ryan. you can watch it live beginning at 8:40 eastern on c-span 2 and c-span.org. >> have you visited the due 2012 website? once there you can watch events from the campaign trail with mitt romney, president obama, and others. you can read with the candidates are sitting on major issues like the economy, the deficit, and immigration. watch and engage at c- span.org/campaign2012. >> for a piece of history that we know so much about, columbus kept numerous journals, wrote lots of letters, trips to the americas. starting with the second trip

there were lots of officials scribes and people doing lots of writing. we know what happened. 30 people -- 30,000 people had their hands chopped off. for this is part of human nature. no human being wants to be judged by their darkest days. no nation wants to be judged by their darkest days. when nations have dark days, we have to acknowledge that. >> anton treur talks about his book. "book tv" and saturday at 10:00 eastern and on sunday it 9:00. >> tom coburn predicted a

downgrade in the credit rating because of an action in washington. he also said he is not worried about the so-called fiscal cliff. he focused on the financial health of medicare saying the only way to save the program is to change it. his remarks came at an event hosted by the ripon society. this is 35 minutes. [applause] >> good morning. the ripon society in oklahoma, we call it the "rip on" society. i think i have had this pleasure before. i want to spend some time -- i had a discussion at my table is about the fiscal cliff. i hope somebody will ask some questions about that as we get into it. i wanted to remind you what mike

mullen said about six months before he left as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. he said the greatest threat to our country is no outside force. it is not china. it is not russia. it is our debt. at face value, that does not seem like much. here is the leader of the strongest military force the world has ever known telling america that the number one threat to its existence is its debt. that is profound for a military leader to say that. the president did not say that. the head of the joint chiefs of staff said that. to me that makes it all the more powerful coming from the source of our defense posture. history has shown time and again

that that can bring down republics. as a matter of fact, all republics by. name one that has not. -- all republics die. the question is, can america achieved history? can we cheat history and not fall? let me give you some reminders of what john adams warned. he said democracy never last long. it soon wastes, exhaust, and murders itself. there has never been a democracy that has not committed suicide. we are on the cusp of being the first generation of americans to break a moral bond that has continued in our country since its founding. that moral bond is to create a situation and leave a situation for those that follow us that

enhances their opportunity, enhances their liberty, and enhances their freedom so that they combined for some responsibility and hard work, those opportunities can bloom into a flower of abundance for them and their generation that follows. this is the first time in history we have ever been where we are. a couple of points. the size of the federal government is twice the size it was 11 years ago. clinton was the last budget was one trillion $637 billion. we were at $3 trillion 850 billion in this last year. our deficit last year was better than the government was in totaled 15 years ago.

consider linkedin's warning before becoming president -- consider lincoln's warning. he said this. at what point should we expect the approach of danger? at what point should we fortified against that? should we expect a trans- atlantic military giant to crush us at a blow? never. all the armies of europe, asia, and africa combined with their military chest could not by force take a drink from the ohio or make a track on the blue ridge mountains. and 1000 years this could not occur. at what point is the approach of danger to be expected? answer that if it is ever to reach us, it must spring up amongst us. it cannot come from abroad. if destruction be our lot, we

must be its author and finisher. as a nation of free men, we must live through the time or die by suicide. that is a long winded way of saying exactly the same thing john adams said. the question for us as a nation is, what are we going to do about it? are we going to cheat history? are we going to play the political game? are we going to think short term? are we going to make the difficult choices that will set our country back on its feet and create the opportunities and freedom and a potential that was given to us. before you get too depressed and pulled the prozac out of your purse or pocket, we do not have a problem in front of us that is not solvable. that is what nobody is focusing on. next week we will release $70 billion worth of savings from

the pentagon that come out of the pentagon that have nothing to do with defending this country. think about that for a minute. i can find $70 billion in the pentagon and has nothing to do with the offending the country that can be taken out of the pentagon and you will not say one chip plus, one trooper was, when the airplane was, you will not see flying hours reduced, you will not see anything reduced. i can find $70 billion. if somebody los -- if somebody else looks the can find another $50 billion. our problems are made more difficult by our politics. our problems are not unsolvable. some predictions. we are going to see further downgrades on our debt. i remember a phone call i got

from the treasury department after a predicted seven days before it was going to happen that we were going to get a debt downgrade. i was told "quit saying that." i said, the truth does not hurt us. the truth is the thing that will set us free. the fact is, we do not act responsibly and in washington as long as we are not addressing the long-term problems facing our country. as long as it is about the best -- the next election and not the next generation, we are irresponsible. it is already happening if you think about it, what is going on in our country. i brought with me a zimbabwe $100 trillion note. this is worth about 3 cents.

that is a real zimbabwe note. think about that for a minute. what is happening right now? what is happening that will impact our kids? it is the way most governments handle the problems? it is called financial repression. it is occurring right now. every retired couple up there with a home and a 401k, the purchasing value of the last four years in a row has gone down, not counting the recession. the net to they can earn versus inflation, they have a real negative net. net negative earnings on their 401k. what comes from that? the debasement of the currency. the federal reserve's balance sheet is in excess of $3 trillion. how will we sterilize that debt? what is going to happen?

what happens when the bond holders of the world lose confidence that we can in fact repay our debt? our historical interest rates on our debt are about 5.58%. we're paying 1.8% now. 4% times $16 trillion is $640 billion a year in additional interest cost. the time is short for us to fix our problems. the point i would make is to the solutions are not difficult in terms of figuring out what to do. what is lacking in washington is leadership. leadership that is willing to confront honestly the american people and tell them what the real problems are and to come forward with a positive solution and an attitude that says, we in fact can solve these problems.

we can protect those that need to be protected, and we can in fact keep that moral bond for our kids and grandkids and cheat history. i think we can do it. we are just waiting for the right leaders to stand up and say, let's do it. let's think about the future, not about now. i will not give you any more of the negative. i have plenty of it. you do not need that this morning. what i will tell you is that i see great hope. i had my seventh grandchild over the break. it was the first one that had my last name in their name. really proud moment for me. i sat and saw that little boy,

now four and a half weeks old. what is his future? who is going to shape in washington? who is going to take the risk? who will take the political risk to do what is necessary to fulfill the great promises that were created when people sacrifice their honor, their lives, and their fortunes to create this great country? who will do it? will you? will you be a part of the solution rather than part of the problem? i cannot but hope that the message of this next election cycle is, quick thinking about yourself and start thinking about our country. do what is necessary. you do not have to give -- you do not have to get all your way, but fix it. if we fix it combined with the

resources this country has, we will be back on top of the world for three or four more generations just by doing the simple things. it is of fixable. there is a solution. it requires leadership, and it requires risk taking. when the political career of individuals in washington is more important than the teacher of the country, perhaps john adams and abraham lincoln were right. i think we are bigger than that. i think we are stronger than that. i think our children are worth more than that. thank you. i will take any questions that you have. [applause] >> you mentioned the fiscal cliff that is living. i think everybody is interested in you addressing that.

>> i think the fiscal cliff is one of the smartest political strategies i have ever heard. i really do not think there is one. let me explain what i mean to that. is there a fiscal cliff? is there a date in january where things change? yes. in comparison, if nothing happens between now and then, the predictions are we might slip into a recession. the real fiscal cliff is, we are already bankrupt. the real fiscal cliff is that nobody is thinking -- nobody is offering from the white house a solution to medicare. our biggest problem in front of our country is this demographic shift of which i am part, and the fact that the average couple puts $110,000 into medicare antics $350,000 out. you solve that problem tomorrow,

and we do not need the federal reserve keeping interest rates artificially low. it will be low because we will be dynamically and fiscally healthy. there is the real fiscal cliff. what we have done is we have taken the focus and say, here is the short-term again. the real problems are all long term. their manifestations come in the short term. they will be much greater two years from now if we do not fix it. if we do not send the signal that we are going to take care of the long-term problems, we can fix the fiscal cliff. it will not matter one year from now. the bond vigilante's will have already driven down the price of our bonds and our interest rates will be 6%. it is a perfect political strategy to take our eye off what the real ball is. social security is not hard to fix. medicare is very difficult to fix. it can be fixed.

the health-care decision is a whole other discussion. you could have a five ripon breakfasts and not cover it. i want to remind you, that is all short-term thinking. that is all 17, 18 months or less thinking. we need to be thinking three, four, five years and fix those. the short-term will take care of itself. if you think there is any problem with us -- if we had a solution for medicare tomorrow, the you think this economy would not bop? there is $3.80 trillion sitting on the sideline in this country. normally there is about $800 billion in business banking accounts. paul krugman thinks we ought to borrow another $1 trillion and create another stimulus. i think the stimulus we ought to have is recreate confidence and

certainty and enter our country so some of that $3.80 trillion gets invested in real embarrassment that creates real wealth and creates real jobs. -- creates a real investment and real wealth and creates jobs. you have to do that by creating confidence in the long term. i am not worried about the fiscal cliff. if we are fortunate enough to win, we will fix that. we will reform the tax code. we will create certainty. people will be able to see through the long cores and that it is once again safe to put money to work in this country. we will have a tax system that says you can bring your money home. we penalize at 28%. you can bring it home. that is one of the craziest things we are doing to.

the head of eli lily. they have hundreds of millions of dollars sitting in europe. to bring it home as 28%. why would they do that? they invest the money where they are rather than invested in this country. -- invest it in this country. >> i understand your point. i think taxes pay a blond -- a large role. regulations play a large role in the willingness of businesses to invest. i will cite my favorite statistic. it takes two and a half times more money per mile to lay a pipeline on top of the ground than it does 7,500 feet of water only because of regulatory rigid regulatory costs. do you see any path for the

congress and senate taking back control of some of the regulatory overburden? >> my hope would be -- one of my frustrations as a senator, we write the bills. every bill we right, we leave the hard work to the bureaucracies. we do not write what we really intend, because we really do not know what we are doing. we do not really write what we intend, because we do not have enough information. we have not studied the issue well enough to be writing the law in the first place. we give it to administrations that change. what we ought to do is we ought to write specifically what we expect into the laws. here is what you will do, here is how you will do it. that is instead of writing a

general thing and say, let the bureaucracy figure it out. they do not follow congressional intent. they follow political intent of whatever the administration's directive whether it be a conservative or liberal. i think one of the reasons we are in trouble is because of the lazy congress that wants to see short-term political expediency, was to be seen as doing something right, but does not of the issue well enough to do it completely. to do it in the correct way. i will never forget -- i will not tell you the situation. i had a conversation about productivity and how they tried to get more with less every year. there was a certain senator in the room who never heard of the concept.

look around at t, who the elected leaders are and ask yourself what their real world experience is outside of politics. it is very easy to figure out how we got where we are today. when the goal is the next election instead of securing the future of the country, we have the results that we have today. that is both a republican and democrat problem. what america needs to wake up to is -- what the americans to have benefited from this country need to wake up to is time for you to serve it. if you have the broad levels of experience, come and use it in washington and give something back to the country. we have so many people that have so much potential that have real knowledge and real judgment who refuse to serve.

i think that is part of a spiritual breakdown in our country in terms of an obligation to be a great citizen by actually sacrificing some of your time and your reputation -- this is not a position that gives you a great reputation. the negatives always outweigh the positives. come and actually served. 70% of the senate has never had a job outside of politics. is it any wonder we lack judgment and discernment and real experience to apply to critical issues of our day? how did we get there? our founders were not that. the first 100 years were not career politicians. the average length of service was markedly less than two terms in the senate. we have created our own problems because we have an elite political class in both parties.

we come from a team of the exact same people. until we get people and office that have real world experience -- there is nothing wrong with serving. as i criticism of those individuals. i have great hearts, minds, and compassion. they have no real-world experience to make critical judgments. >> as a supporter of simpson bowles, wherat do you think of e criticism of paul ryan of simpson bowles. >> i do nothing much at all. they said from the start, unless you address the biggest problem in front of us which was mandated not to be addressed, which was medicare, that no

matter what happened, they could not support that as a solution to the problem. that is not a solution. it is a short-term solution. i voted for it to get it on the floor. the fact is, if you do not addressed it -- they said they would take the tax changes we put in that bill. it would agree to that. but you have to put medicare reform in. the only way to save medicare is to change it. it is a statistical, financial, numerical and possibility. i will tell you that i believe in less than four years from today, the trust fund will be out of money. medicare part a. the worst case scenario is 2022. i do nothing there are anywhere close. this large group of baby boomers of which i am a part -- they are holding off surgery's, holding

off getting things done until they get into medicare. the consumption is going to explode. i do not think it will be there. again, i would say, some of it needs to be criticized -- if somebody wants to be criticized, it needs to be the president who appointed the commission who got a good result and refuse to embrace it. >> i can understand how you might look at what everybody calls the fiscal cliff and see it not necessarily as the emergency that others do. what do you think will be the scenario with regard to the sequester itself? is this something that lawmakers have chosen to do as a last resort for their inability to

make decisions about where to cut? or is it the recognition that the sequestered so big and that it might add a full point to unemployment, is that big enough for the congress and senate to revisit what happened? >> i think they ought to revisit it. a sequester is a chicken politician's way to solve a problem. just cut everything the same amount. that you are not responsible for the good things getting cut. you are not responsible for continuing to fund lousy things. no discernment, no knowledge. we just issued a report -- there are 47 job training programs. we spend $19 trillion on these a year. why in the world do we have 47 job-training programs? we just issued a report and look at every federal job-training program and how it impacts oklahoma. here is what we found.

there is not one successful federally run job-training program in oklahoma. there is highly successful state job training programs. we have a city a center oklahoma that has 16,000 people and has a 4.7% unemployment rate and 17 different job training offices in the city. what our job training programs are is a way to employ people a in job training. i guess the point i am making is, it is not hard to fix this if you actually know. in our office nobody comes close to digging all of the issues in every branch of government on all the waste. the problem is, nobody reads it. my colleagues do not even know it. they do not even look at it. i mail it to everyone of them, and they have a staffer read it. nobody wants to say no, because

there is a constituency for every program out there and there is election time. as soon as this election is over, there is another election coming. i cannot dare offend anybody. i decided i will offend everybody. our children are worth it. my new grandson is worth it. for me to not be liked, but to actually call the truth would it is. at least one-third of what the federal government does -- at least one trillion dollars of what it does has no positive affect on the society whatsoever. it could go a way, and you would see growth like crazy in this country. that is the truth. i can show it to you. nobody wants to look. nobody that cast a vote once to look. hear no evil, see no evil, speak

no evil as long as i get reelected. >> [unintelligible] >> those are all estimates. let's talk honestly. the defense department is the republican's -- it is to the republicans as the same thing medicare is to the democrats. first of all, the cut in the pentagon is a cut from the expected growth. it is $468 billion and expected growth. so you cut us $500 billion. does not cut a penny. if you look at the budget control act, pentagon spending goes up. republicans speak about the pentagon -- i guarantee you we can have a better defense with less money.

that is if we hold the pentagon accountable. nobody wants to hold the pentagon accountable because there are jobs in their districts that depend on the pentagon not being accountable. ask yourself a question. of the $350 billion a denture weapons procurement under contract right now in development, why is $150 billion of a going to be wasted? where are the adults in the room? why is it at the pentagon when they are going to spend $24 billion on i.t. this year and $12 billion of it will go down the drain? the federal government will spend $46,000,000,000.19 $3 billion of it will go down the drain. where are the adults? where of the people that are taking -- who got fired because somebody -- something did not work? nobody. there is no accountability.

this is not the president's fall. this is congress's responsibility. congress has failed both under republican and democrat control. >> you said there are solutions and they are available. all it needs our leaders. you cannot wish leaders in. in the room you have now, where the leaders? >>chambliss, tomey, dick durbin will be a leader. he actually knows we ar ein trouble. that is a real revelation. dick is working hard to come to a bipartisan solution, as is mark warner.

michael bennett. there are real leaders. the question is, will they take the political risk to get out there when a -- will they lead to get us to a bipartisan solution? i think they will. there has to be leadership from the president as says, we need to do this. the american people are grown ups. this country has done hard things lots of times. this country never does hard things unless they are called to do it. we have never had anybody call us to do it. nobody has explained the predicate of what is at risk. the american people need to be talked to like adults. tell them the truth. instead of saying -- there is nothing wrong with losing an election. that is heresy in washington. if you are standing on principle and you lose, you advance the

debate. the positive things that come out from losing an election by advancing the debate, that is why i offer amendments. i know i will not win. i offer them to advance the debate and to increase the knowledge across the country on specific issues. i think people will step up. the reagan tax reforms and you look at what happened economically to our country, i will never forget i was a my medical office and i got my tax bill in 1986. i was really mad at ronald

reagan. a lot of my deductions went away. what happened the next four years? we averaged 4.6% in real gdp growth with major tax reform. we change the incentive for investment capital. we create the confidence and uncertainty in the tax code. all of a sudden capital flowed. that is what needs to happen. my personal belief is we ought to some said the present code. . sunset the present code. the reason is because we can get rid of the lobbying pressure of special interests in the tax code. if you sunset the tax code and say here are all the rates. if you want to add something back, here is how much the rates have to go up. lobbying to increase the rates is a lot harder than keeping a well heeled thing for a special

interest group. take mortgages for example. they use $200,000 as a cut off on the mortgage deduction. that shows that the majority -- $200,000 and come cut off is below $200,000. would you do it at $100,000, you find 75% of the tax deductions for those making over $100,000 a year. look at canada. canada has no mortgage interest deduction. their home ownership rate is 8% higher than ours. was our incentive to create home ownership? did it work? we ought to be asking fundamental questions. i am not say yes or die to a mortgage deduction, i am saying if you want to add a backing, --

yes or no to a mortgage deduction, if you want to add it back in, if the one state sales tax, who gets the benefits? what does it do to rates? let's make an informed decision about how to reform the tax code. let's create certainty and confidence in the future. let's quit having the highest corporate tax rate in the world. let's get rid of double taxing corporations. what we are doing is cutting our own legs off as we do that. we are not going to do what i want to do, which is a deadline t. i just for a moment, $300 billion a year is what we spend to pay people to figure out what our taxes are. the economic multiplier on that is about 1.2.

if he took the same $300 billion and put it into the economy you would get the 1.6 multiplier of fact. he would gain $120 billion of gdp a year just by reforming the tax code if you had no change in investment decisions whatsoever. that is one%. that is 1 million jobs. the financial repression we are under right now with 90% -- actually we are at 103.4% as of yesterday debt to gdp ratio is suppressing our gdp by 40% right now. instead of growing at 1.8%, we would be growing at 1.3%. if we did not have that level of debt. you can talk energy. we are sending $300 billion to the middle east and venezuela a year.

$300 billion of our energy -- we will burn in any way for at least 20 years. why do we not burn hours instead of theirs and invested here instead of over there. that is a no-brainer. regardless of your position on climate, we will still burn at. why do we not use ours? it makes no sense. right there you have $600 billion that you could put right back into the economy tomorrow. talk about stimulus? that is what -- that is without even changing rates. our problems are not hard to figure out. the problem is the politics are getting in the way. it has been great to be with you. thank you very much. [applause] >> we will see you all on the 20th. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> the family research council begins its values summit this morning. several members of congress will be participating. you can watch it live beginning at 8:40 eastern on c-span 2 and c-span.org. >> have you visited the campaign 2012 website? you can read what the candidates are saying a major issues like national security and immigration. watch and engage at c- span.org/campaign2012. >> i have been astounded -- for a piece of history that we know

so much about, columbus kept numerous journals, wrote lots of letters, took trips to the americas. starting with the second trip, there were lots of official scribes and army officials and people doing lots of writing. missionaries, we know what happened. 30,000 people had their hands chopped off. within 30 years, two million by spanish estimates had been killed. this is part of human nature. no human being wants to be judged by their darkest days. no nation wants to be judged by their darkest days. when the nations have dark days, we have to acknowledge that. >> anton treuer talks with jacqueline pata about his book. saturday at 10:00 eastern and sunday at 9:00 and midnight.

>> before a college crowd in wisconsin, a vice president joe biden talk about education and college debt. he began by paying tribute to the four americans killed at the u.s. consulate in libya. this is just under one hour. [applause] >> hello. hello, wisconsin. [cheers and applause] it is good to be back on campus. it is a fading memory, but i remember it. thank you very much for that introduction. for the great job you do. this is an independent small- business owner who is doing great, and doing great for us.

thank you, vicki. for all of you who live 10 or 20 miles from here in the seventh district, i hope you will in fact vote for pat who is here. pat, where are you? [applause] folks, i used to have to say this with my dad. can i take my coat off? thank you. folks, i have to start of rigid i think it is appropriate to start off on a slightly somber note. the brave -- this is not hyperbole -- the brave americans we tragically lost in libya remind us again of the incredible price that not only our military pays when they are

deployed, but the incredible price through afghanistan, iraq, the arab sprained that our diplomats have paid. it goes unnoticed. in the height of the war in iraq, there was almost as high of a percentage of diplomats and american aid workers killed as a percent as there were military or injured. ladies and gentlemen, there were 90,000 warriors as i speak in the mountains of afghanistan. with them and sometimes on their own, there are hundreds and hundreds of civilian aid workers and diplomats who i assure you, is not hyperbole, they are risking their lives. the only difference is they are not wearing a uniform. the cost to which they are

dedicated and gave their lives -- democracy, tolerance, a partnership. it stays an absolute shark -- absolute sharp contrast to the values held by those who callously took their lives who i think have no real values. we have always had as a americans and we will remain as americans steadfast and resolved and committed in the face of such horrific events. we will not be run off. we will redouble our work that those courageous americans have been doing to ensure a more tolerant, more secure world in the interest not only for the people of those countries but the interest and security of the united states of america. we owe them a lot. [applause]

folks, the task of a president to state the obvious is not only to defend our interests and the cause of freedom abroad, but also to build a nation here at home. a nation to which the entire world can look and aspire. whether we do that, how we do that, that is literally the choice we face in this election. how and whether we do that. folks, the country faces the starkest choice for president in my memory. the president and i have a fundamentally different vision than gov. romney and paul ryan.

they are good men. there are good men. they are good fathers, they are good husbands. but that is the place where the similarities and in terms of our views. the fact of the matter is, the differences among us, the four of us between the president and gov. romney, these differences matter a great deal to all of the assembled in this room at this university. they matter a great deal to our present and future security. they matter in terms of our economic growth. the matter in terms of america's social policy, whether we continue to progress or we go back to the 1960's. ladies and gentlemen, the matter. [applause] -- they matter.

they matter for all of you on this campus. they matter for the incredible generation you are a part of and you represent. for you are all about to become the future business leaders, the future political leaders, the future of this country. soon you will all be stepping out of this great university and taking your place in the leadership for this country. the question is, what will you inherit as you walk off the stage, those of you who are seniors? i want to tell you where we stand as straightforward and honest as we can and where our friends who are not willing to tell you where they stand, but the record is absolutely clear

on where they stand on all of these issues even though they are no longer talking about of the positions they have taken. all of you and i know how the education of your generation and how well you are educated and those who follow you, how that is literally the fundamental key -- the keys down to whether or not we maintain our security and whether or not our physical security as well as whether or not we remain the dominant economic power in the 21st century. an expert is anyone from out of town with a briefcase where i come from. i did not have a briefcase with me today. here i was taught -- here it --

here i was speaking at a conference with my counterparts, our allies from a round world. i was asked a simple question. what is the single most important objective? what is the single most important job that americans must complete a in order to maintain its dominance physically as well as economic ascendancy in the world? what is it? the answer i gave my be a surprise. the president and i shared this view together. we have to be the single best educated nation in the world. [cheers and applause] that is not hyperbole. we must be the best educated nation in the world.

[cheers and applause] notwithstanding all the criticism we receive from our friends on the right about the recovery act and how much we invest in education, first of all the president and i, neither one of us would be standing where we are today if it were not for a help we received in scholarships and loans to get our education. [applause] that is why the president and i have said by the year 2020, we are determined that we will once again have the highest percentage of college graduates of any nation in the world. [cheers and applause] that is why we have worked so hard to see to it that every

qualified man and woman, every qualified boy and girl in america should have access to college regardless of what neighborhood they come from. it is an america's interests. for we know what you know. six out of every 10 jobs in the next 10 years will require a degree or a certificate beyond high school. we must be prepared. that is why we provided a $6,000 tax credit to your parents and you to defer the cost of your college education. that is why we have increased the money for a pell grant, which in one fell swoop increase the number of students and college from working-class families from $6 million to $9 million because of progress.

i personally know from my own experience, i personally know from the experience of my children, i know that the average student graduated from this university and universities across wisconsin and america, you will get your diploma and a bill for $25,000 as he walked across the stage. that is why we have worked so hard to pass the plan that says, you will not have to pay more than 10% of that loan back -- excuse me, more than 10% of the disposable income you have to pay back your lungs. -- pay back your loans. to give the summer room. that is why we have invested in

a way that every education professional nose. the way to deal in with that achievement gap is to start students off with early education to make sure that is why we have insisted on higher standards for students and teachers and administrators in our elementary and secondary schools. that is why america will have the highest percentage of graduates from college of any nation in the world by 2020. [applause] if you notice, and gov. romney and congressman ryan hardly talk about education at all. listen to what they say. they hardly mention education at all except in a negative

context. that is only -- that is almost the only time you hear them talking about it. they tell you that they still value education. my dad used to have an expression. he would say, and joey -- he would say, do not tell me what you value. show me your budget. i will tell you what you value. show me your budget. [applause] let's take a look. let's take a look at how much they value education. by the way, i am not making up any of these numbers. they have put their policies down in the right thing and it through the congressional leadership of congressman ryan, they have passed already through the house of representatives, fortunately stopped by a

democratic senate, they have already passed what i am about to tell you. the addition of congressman ryan to the mitt romney ticket gave flesh to the promises that were never articulated fully by the governor. they knocked 200,000 kids off of early education. they eliminate the $2,500 tax credit your parents rely on. they cut $1,000 from 9 million pell grant students taking the god knows how many of them out of college. they want to once again go back to reimbursing the bank's -- this is real. they want to reimburse $60 billion over the next 10 years. they want to go back and have

the banks be in charge of negotiating and processing your lunch costing the government $60 billion in payment to the banks over the next 10 years. banks are not bad guys, but we do not need them for you all to get a loan. we take the $60 billion for federal loans. they talk so much about the national debt and how they are so concerned we are going to leave your generation with this incredible debt. they have a debt clock running behind the republican convention. they talk about per-capita how much it will mean to each of you in your teams and 20's. a few of you older. they talk about it with such great urgency. they talk about the need to act

now. the need to get it under control. they imply a that we are not concerned at all. nothing could be further from the truth. at the outset, president obama has pledged to reduce the long- term debt. the vast majority i might add was run up after clinton balanced the budget, and how they piled on th. we put forward a $4 trillion deficit reduction package, already passed $1 trillion of it. but you heard about the super committees they were going to set up to do all of this. you have not heard from them, not once have they told you that they have rejected every effort

that romney, ryan, the republican congress have rejected every effort of not only hours, but the so-called simpson bowles, all of the serious commissions put forward. every one of them slightly different. it all came back with a balanced approach on how to reduce the long-term debt. they all had one provision. it was balanced. there were significant cuts in spending the, and some additional raise in revenue. every single one of the proposals put forward, including the commission of simpson bowles --