-- events or amusement parks. he coordinates all of this. he makes sure that it is lined up. the only is it good for the employer in terms of feeling good, he has increased their productivity. the other employees are excited. it has been a morale boost. people look forward to coming to work when he is them because of the motivation he gives to other the police who may not have the same developmental disability that he has. we heard for a number of the speakers here today and heard yesterday that it adds tremendous value to the company. it is not just about doing good. it is about doing well. , what curious to know does your office or state government need to do to begin to identify those employers who

have certain needs that can be filled by people with disabilities? as that process like -- what is that process like? >> we learned a lot of useful information. for us, it is going beyond just focusing on people with disabilities to try to get into what all of us are focused on, workforce development. we are over and over again from employers that there are jobs available, but there are skills gaps, and to the extent that we can plug in people with disabilities who may have expertise, either full-time or part-time, it is a benefit not just helping people with disabilities. it would be a benefit to our employers. >> you have your head up -- hand up? >> i would like to say that all

of you are employers, and some of the biggest employers in your states. it is really important to have a team of your senior people that are being held accountable. the rest and work going on for many years -- the rest and work going on for many years -- there has been work going on for many years, getting information on what they are actually doing and whether the numbers are moving up or not. looking at what you are doing with the department of rehabilitation, it is like 80% federal, 20% state. some states are not meeting that match. holding people accountable, it is a program that is focused on working with the public and private sector. it is something to look at, because otherwise dolorou dollae

not coming into the state. the promise program is focusing on work readiness for individuals who are in high school and ar is currently out. i would encourage you to look at that, too. at the end of the day, all of you who are sitting at this table are doing it not just because it is an initiative of governor marcos, but if you are committed to diversity, it is a part of adversity. making this a nonpartisan issue where we can see increasing numbers of disabled people being maintained, advancing, and recruited in the public and private sector, i think we will produce all of the results that you have all discussed. disability is no longer an edge issue, but one that we discussed when we look at race and gender and age.

>> anybody else want to weigh in on the points that judy just made? i would like to hear again from john mcgovern and neil christopher. what is stopping this from happening? what are the pressure points that we should be focused on this morning? what is holding it back? professor van horn, or june, or neil -- >> i think it is our job is employers to share our success stories, get in front of any organization that we can. be it local groups, pta's --it is a compelling and interesting story. pta's work -- young people coming into the workforce. any opportunity you have as employers to tell your success

stories, doesn't always work -- always work?-- does it no. front of job to be as fron as many people as we can, be it through the internet or public speaking, to go and mentor someone who is thinking about hiring and sitting on the fence. i have used the ark, and i have a 100% success rate. %- arc, and i have a 100s success rate. one of the concerns is, how much does it cost? less than $500. less than $500 well worth spent. the track record of my employees with disabilities bears this

out. they are always at their quotas. they are always the best attendees at her organizations. they are always happy to be work, always leading the rest of us by their enthusiasm. >> the arc is in all 50 states, right? okay, governor herbert? >> i think a lot of it is there is a question in some minds, can they do the work? that is a stigma out there that needs to be changed. we find more and more how capable these folks are. with a little training and accommodations, they can be even better and more productive than those we would consider nondisabled. in utah, we have a faith-based organization called desert industries sponsored by the church of jesus christ of latter day saints. they have been involved in this for many years.

used products, and things. it has a lot of labor. it is designed to be a training ground for people that need help and work, and for people with disabilities, it teaches them how to work and they convince themselves that, i can work. i can do the job. it reinforces their self estimations of their capabilities, and it also shows to the private sector world out there that folks are doing the work. they have been doing the work successfully. through a two-year training. -- period of working with these people, it teaches people that they can do it, and it teaches other people they could do it also. >> has been said by many of the governors at the best way to address this question is to help employers find qualifying

workers, which is what all governors want to do. if that person has a disability, to make sure that does not become a barrier to that person getting a competitive job. the idea that people who are disabled cannot work is a myth. there are many qualified people. i am optimistic, because i see not just the company today, but many of the largest retail companies in united states, whether walmart, cvs, lowe's, sears, toys "r" us -- they are going out and recruiting people disabilities and wanting to hire them because they know it is a successful business practice. isre state governor's role to make sure that whatever services are necessary, to have that person to get a full or part-time job, are provided. when the employer is seeking a qualified worker, that disabled workers are also a priority on the list of people that are

qualified to work. i am optimistic that there is momentum here, not just because of this meeting that because of what i see going on in the private sector. a change of attitude, a greater sensitivity, and a better understanding of the business case, because it really is an opportunity for them to have productive workers and to make money, which is what they are about. >> just to be able to take a look at people's disabilities that we bring in as employees -- the work with products and services. in the areas of the atms, -- a a's, it becomes demonstration that it is not just a discussion, but demonstrating to that population that yes, we understand your needs.

there was an employee that came and asked for that as an accommodation, and took a step forward. there is a large deaf population in my community, can we do this as a channel to reach out to them to make the type of business and the type of how i work reach out to them? et's go f let's go for it. success stories all around. >> it is great to end on a note of realistic optimism. because this conversation, i think we have all all learned something from the personal stories we have heard and he experiences the governors have had -- the experience is the governors have had. i want to thank all of. professor van horn, mr. christopher. i will throw it back to governor markel. >> i think governor nixon had something he wanted to -- >> we talked yesterday about medicaid and waivers.

we were able to work through and get what we called partnership for hope. it is technically a medicaid waiver for work training, work hardening. if there are other governors who would like to see that, i at least know where the tussles are through the bureaucracy. it has provided 2500 families -- we focused on disabilities beyond the age of 18, because of the challenge you have heard there is a lot of socialization around, training there. what we're seeing in missouri that that those were falling off and heading into much arc or lives without -- darker lives without opportunity. we put together a waiver that included local, state, and federal and worked her way through the process -- our way through the process. we will have 3500 folks who have

been on a waiting list for all sorts of services. job hardening, physical rehabilitation services. some of them have been on waiting lists for up to 5, 7, 8, 9 years. we have been able to get those down. it is our hope that within 20 months we will have the waiting list down to nothing. it has been an incredible program for me. one of the first people in it was a young fellow, when he graduated from high school he was able to walk all the way around the track. his whole high school class of plotted for him as he made the quarter-mile. -- applauded for him as he made the quarter-mile. that fellow was one of the first guys in this program. he now has a job working in theater. there are countless stories. there are ways to make it

through existing programs. there are ways to get that development is ability -- disability waiting list down. amount. a acap at "x" families involved in the process asked for fewer -- accessed far fewer services. we communicated that if you only need -- take what you need -- we have exceeded every target as far as the number of people service by explaining to the families that only access exactly what you need. when you could do is help others that are in line behind you. we originally thought we would get 1000. we are now in a situation where we will vastly exceed 3500 families and move the waiting list down to zero. we called partnership for hope.

-- call it partnership for hope. you are preventing folks from having to go into institutions later in life. we have a lot of stuff on that, if people want to know to bang on the right fe'dsd's doors and force them to do stuff. >> judy, thank you for moderating this panel. i want to thank governor markel for all of his work for bringing an issue to life that many times is not discussed as much as it should be across our nation. we have heard some great examples of how we can help our very special americans, special families across the nation. we want to thank the companies who create great partnerships. we have great partnerships and programs in oklahoma, have made some great success and upping those with disabilities be able

to find a great quality of life and work -- helping those with disabilities be able to find a great quality of life and work. one of the things that came to mind is that in our state, we have a very low unemployment rate. we have a challenge between employers needing employees, also employees looking for jobs. having to match the two of them together. we established a website through the department of commerce called okmatch.com, and it takes skill sets of employees and puts the employers into the system itself that need skill sets. one of the areas of has come to my mind thinking about this is, we need to integrate those who have disabilities with those skill sets into this job match program so we can better hook up our employers with those who are looking for skill sets and

employees and match them. thank you for some great information and how we can better integrate our special oklahomans. i want to add one last thing. listening to governor duke are's your -- dugar's story, story about your parents is absolutely remarkable. a true american story of true grit, hard work, never giving up, persevering. your parents greatest accomplishment has been producing a son who is a ceo and taking care of a whole state. [applause]>> i certainly agree with that. thank you very much. you help us elevate the conversation today. i so much appreciate you taking the time. to all of the panelists, i am very grateful to you.

a great job, very insightful. i want to thank the other governors who participated as well. it was really interesting. the n.g.a. staff has done a phenomenal job on this project. we still have a few months to go. i want to thank my secretary of health and social services who was sitting back here. a lifelong advocate for people with disabilities. she is our cabinet secretary. i want to take an opportunity for a moment to remind everybody about the governor's institutes that are coming up in may. one will be in pittsburgh thomas hosted by governor corbett. -- it's pirg, hosted by governor corbett. -- in pittsburgh, hosted by governor corbett.

i think we talked about a bunch of things we can do here. governor herbert was talking about the can't-do, and the expectations we set. -- can-do, and expectations we set. for our young people, instead of getting them prepared to sign up for benefits when it are 17, get them accustomed to the fact that when they turn 17, 18 they're going to be able to work. they're going to be able to continue education, in some cases. governor brandt said -- branstad mentioned the work being done by governor harkin. i want to thank his staff member who has been extraordinary helpful for us. i want to point out wrong person

and pete sessions from texas -- congressman pete sessions from texas. we have an incredible opportunity here. i think we have an incredible opportunity to move the needle. i think that governor dugaard --that story, your story, will move people in a way that a lot of policy books never could. i am hopeful that the governors who were are here today will share that with our other governors. i'm hopeful that when you combine that story and the emotion behind it, the real emotion behind it, and you combine it with a very practical kinds of things that we can do -- that is the holy grail. i think that is what is going to come out of these governors institutes. i encourage people to attend. i know it is a commitment of time. in this case, a day or a day and a half of your time with this

really practical information and conversation is going to have the potential of positively and profoundly impacting hundreds of thousands of people across this country. i really appreciate everyone spending so much time on it today. that concludes our special session. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright nationalcable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed bynational captioning institute]

[indistinct conversations]

>> c-span will be back this afternoon at 2:30 eastern time for a discussion about education. next, "newsmakers" with bob goodlatte. he is the new chair of the house judiciary committee. >> we are pleased to welcome the new chairman of the house judiciary committee, congressman bob goodlatte. thank you for being with us today. >> good to be with you and your viewers. led me introduce our reporters. >> thanks for agreeing to do this. on friday, you and your

colleagues on the house to sherry committee republican colleagues adjusted to the obama administration that they are not doing a good job enforcing current gun laws. during the peak that the bush administration, there were 11,000 prosecutions of people who are illegally attempting to purchase a firearm. at its peak in the obama administration, there have been 7700 such prosecutions. your argument being that until the obama administration more effectively enforce current gun laws, there may be should not be any new gun laws. i'm curious what your measure of success would be for the justice department once they reach that point. is there a threshold you would like to see them reached before new gun legislation is considered? >> we are not saying that we are not going to be looking at new gun laws.

the national instant check system is up for reauthorization at the end of this year. this is a perfect time to look at ways we can improve on the background check system and do more to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and people with serious mental illness. at the same time, protecting the second amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. when the president comes to the congress for the state of the union address in a very emotional setting, calls for a vote and repeats that over and over again, and his administration has the poorest record in more than a decade in enforcing gun laws -- including the people who rely on the forms that they fill out for the instant check system. the system only works with accurate information. there is a lot of work to be done to get the states to put more information into the database, particularly about people with mental illnesses. when you have instances covered

where false information is put on the form, 4500 are referred for further investigation and you only have 62 cases where out of 76,000 the government took prosecutorial action, that is an abysmal record, one the administration should focus on. we do want to look at ways to improve the law, both in terms of the instant check system, the background, and in terms of the illegal sale of forearm firearm. that is something included in a larger statistic, brought down from 11,000 to 7000. there are laws on the books right now that prohibit the illegal sale of firearms to people who should not be buying them, people who should not be selling them. they're just not being enforced as well as they could be.

>> if i'm hearing you correctly , you are saying that the house judiciary committee perhaps the broader house will consider gun legislation this year. once the senate moves, or in tandem with them, or what? >> when we feel that we have the right information to proceed carried we are obviously interested in what the senate does, but we are hard at work on this issue right now, studying information available and recognizing that because we need to have a reauthorization of this law, by the end of this year, we have every reason to want to look at how well it is working and what ways we can improve it with regard to background checks. >> when you talk about the lax enforcement, the justice department might suggest that they need more money and manpower to more effectively investigate and prosecute these cases. would you be willing to put up more money if they requested it?

>> we would first like to see more efficient use of the money that is made available right now. when we have annual deficits in excess of one dollars trillion -- $1 trillion -- there are lists of attorneys who have shown great evidence of willingness to prosecute these types of crimes, and others who have not. the united states district court for the northern district of all annoyed, where chicago is located, where they have one of the highest if not the highest murder rates in the country, also has one of the lowest rates of prosecution of gun crimes. it is very disconcerting that you have this kind of inconsistency. i do not think it is all a factor of money, although we are always paying attention to whether law enforcement has the resources they need.

they could be more effective and save more lives if this administration were dedicated to making enforcement of our existing gun laws and keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and those with serious mental illness. >> one of the biggest aspects of any gun bill that would be proposed is the so-called gun show loophole, the fact that right now folks who buy guns at gun shows to not the same criminal background check -- do not require the same criminal background check -- >> let me interrupt you. that is not correct. any licensed gun dealer that sells a gun at a gun show is required to do a background check, just as they would if you bought it at their store or some other location. the law does not have a gun show loophole. the law has an exception for individuals who sell firearms. if they do not sell firearms that meet the tests of the government to be a licensed dealer, they do not have to do the background check.

we will look at ways to improve that system, without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens. there is not a loophole that when you go to a gun show, you do not buy -- you do not get a background check when you buy a gun. the overwhelming majority of guns showed at guns -- sold at gun shows, background checks are done. >> for the folks for whom that is not done, that is going to be a consideration. folks want all folks who are going to buy a gun at these shows to undergo a personal background check. last month, a poll was released that showed that 92% of virginians support closing that loophole. what do you think should be done there? >> we are certainly going to look to make sure that the background check system works better, and that will include whether the people who sell firearms, more than just an individual transaction between

someone and their family member or their neighbor, are properly participating in the system when you have a licensing system where dealers are expected to go through this. in terms of the efficacy of having a background check for every single gun transaction that takes place, i do not think he can be done unless you have a national firearms registration, -- that can be done unless you have a national firearms registration. the only way to check to see that the transaction took place would be if you had a national registry in the first place. i do not think there is support for a national firearms registration program, where the government knows who owns every gun in the country. >> switching over to another topic, immigration. one of the biggest sticking points here, one of the biggest hurdles you guys will have to

get over is this pathway to .itizenship or the president has made it clear that he believes 11 million illegal immigrants in this country should be able to get citizenship. you made very clear that you're not fully supportive of this idea. i'm curious if you see a bill like this getting through your committee, given your stance on this. >> i think if you listen to the members of the gang of eight in the senate, they're very careful to call it a special pathway to citizenship. they're not in favor of providing that, and neither am i. between deportation and the easy granting of citizenship, there is a long spectrum of opportunities to look at to see what we can do to bring the 10, 11 million or more people in this country unlawfully out of

the shadows, to have a legal status that then if they are in that legal status, may result, as it does for everybody else who wants to emigrate, with some opportunity. whether they marry a united states citizen, they get a job offer. there are lots of things you can you're goingying - to legalize you and give you a green card, then you will be able to get citizenship. that did not result in solving this problem. it resulted in the expansion of a problem with illegal immigration. coupled with figuring out what kind of legal status we could provide to people, you have also the issue of dealing with how you wish her the american public that if we were to go down this path, -- i sure the american public that if we were to go down this -- assure the

american public that if we were to go down this path, we would not have a massive illegal immigration. i believe, and i think most people believe that you should not give people who enter the country unlawfully a leg up over the millions of people who are on waiting lists and seeking to legally adjust their status as immigrants in united states. >> to be clear, in the senate and white house proposals they say the vast majority of the folks who are in the country illegally right now would have to get in the back of a line and wait for their turn to apply for a green card. there are special carve outs made for who were brought here when they were children, for people who are in the high-tech fields, things like that. when looking at this question of a pathway to citizenship, there is been a lot of polling recently looking at this. pugh research center had a poll

saying that 72% of americans support granting a pathway to citizenship in some form. how do you respond when you see those numbers? >> we are certainly going to look at the work that has been done by the group in the senate working on this. we have a group in the house working on the issue as well. we are very hard work holding hearings on these issues. the most important thing for the president to do is not to try to push legislation on the congress, but rather to step back and let the congress do its work. after members of the house have the benefit of the information gathered from hearings, from the briefings we are doing -- most members of congress do not deal with immigration law - a regular basis -- with regard to the republican conference, we are conducting briefing sessions for all of the members of the house and their staff on the republican side.

i hope and suspect the democrats will do something similar on their side, so they can conduct listening sessions with their constituents and determine what they think would be the appropriate way to address this very, very complex issue that has many, many components. we are very much open to the idea of trying to do a broad- based immigration bill. if we cannot find that common ground on, how do you prevent 1986 from happening again issue, and what do you do with the status of 10 or 11 people who are not here lawfully today, we still have a broken immigration system that needs fixing and we ought to apply ourselves to those areas where we can find that kind of common, bipartisan ground that it will take to pass immigration reform. we are committed, and working very hard on trying to come wish that. >> congressman, i do not track immigration as closely as allen. i am more focused on the gun issue. i'm intrigued by this.

i hear you when republicans talk about border security a lot. what is your definition of a safe border -- and republicans talk about border security a lot. what is your definition of a safe border? >> it is a border that admits as few people as possible who are not lawfully allowed to cross that border. 35% to 40% of the people who are not lawfully in united states united states entered lawfully on student visas, visitors visas, and then overstayed those visas. they are not a border issue. they are an issue with regards to the interior of the country, programs like e-verify, ones that immigration service was supposed to have implemented 15 or more years ago to track their whereabouts and to know whether they departed the country, is something that is also going to have to be looked at. there were a lot of promises

made about how this would work in 1986, and they were not met with regard to preventing the problem from recurring. it has reoccurred three or four times the number of people who are unlawfully in the country compared to what we don't was back then. >> -- we were dealing with back then. >> people who swim across the rio grande -- >> given the numbers involved, nobody would be able to say that there are people who cannot make it across the border. we have got to to have a system where the public believes the border is secure, not just from the standpoint of illegal immigration, but all the other things that are attended to that. people who enter the country illegally are often bringing with them drugs or other things.

they're obviously criminal issues related to this. a secure border is a broader issue. a part of that has got to be assuring the public that there is no easy access into the united states. by simply entering the country illegally. >> another piece of this is the fact that your party came onto this much more enthusiastically after november's election. some republicans say they are very concerned about the possibility that one of your colleagues or some other republican in the country somewhere that holds political office at a lot of sway starts to talk about this issue in a way that uses words and phrases that might potentially turn off either democrats who are looking to work with you, or the nation's growing hispanic population, and spoil any chance of republicans ever gaining back their support. have you heard any of that from your leadership? have you and your colleagues been advised to watch your words on this? have you advised your

colleagues to be wary of the terms and phrases you are using? >> i counsel everyone that i talk to about this issue, to remember that we are a nation of laws. it is very important that we enforce our laws, including our laws related to illegal immigration. we are also a nation of immigrants. there is not an individual in united states was watching this program to cannot go back a few generations or several generations and find somebody in there family who came to the united states to better their lives. is important we recognize as we work on this problem, that we're dealing with individual people and a collective problem. both of those things should characterize not only will we say about the issue, but how we legislate about the issue as well -- what we say about the issue, but how we legislate about the issue as well. >> you laid out the idea that

at one extreme, you have a pathway to citizenship. on the other, a path to deportation. whatever the reasonable middle ground is, people fear that you would be creating a permanent willclass, people who weren' never be able to attain those rights afforded to the rest of us. >> no one is talking about creating a bar to citizenship. we have 20 million or more people who enter this country every year on various types of temporary visas, and no one says, now that they are here in a temporary visa, naturally they have a right to permanent residence or ultimately citizenship. we have many people who have entered the country lawfully, and have petitioned or whose beneficiaries have petitioned, filed by family members or employers, that the legal immigration system allows.

they are on long waiting lists to obtain a green card, once they are a permanent resident -- if they are married to a citizen after three years they can apply. if they're not married to you as citizen, after five years they can apply -- a us citizen, after five years they can apply. we are not talking about changing that right. if somebody is allowed to come out of the shadows, have a legal status here, to work and do the other things they would like to do other than having a permanent residency -- i would point out that the other proposals i have seen from some of the senators and others do not give that permanent resident status to people easily. different ones require some of you to go back to your home country and come back again, waving the current three year and 10 year bars that exist in current law that would make it impossible to do that. it seems to me that if somebody

marries a united states citizen, gets a job offer after they have this legal status, they can find a pathway of their own for permanent residence and maybe ultimately citizenship. to create a special pathway for citizens for someone who is violating the law and in the country illegally, that would give them a different priority, a different status than people who are going through the usual processes, which seem to me to be something that would be very much closely discussed and debated as a part of this immigration process. >> just to be clear, sir, it sounds like you are trying to make sure there is not the special ways to get in, jump ahead of the line. if the people who are currently in line to get their residency, if they are processed, are you then open to allowing the 11 million who are here illegally to getting an online -- in that line? >> i am open to working on

finding a way where we can find a legal status for these people. i am thoroughly knowledgeable that we are not going to be able to write this bill on this program, or any other media outlet. while it would be great to know ahead of time what is going to happen, the most important thing is that we focus on gathering the information through the multitude of hearings we are going to have, listen to our constituents, listen to the other members of congress and try to craft legislation that is to the bottom of this. if we are going to talk about how this is going to transpire, i would pick the outcome will be the same as in 2007. they did not follow regular order. the whole thing blew up at the end, when people found out what was being done, how much it was going to cost. they decided it was not fair and was not equitable and was not going to assure them that the same type of problem would not recur again in the future. it seems to me it is better to focus on gathering the information, trying to work

together to find the common ground on enforcement and the common ground on what to do with the people who are unlawfully present in united states -- then we can talk about the merits of that particular plan, rather than speculate about what plans might gather consensus and which ones might not. >> we hope the entire bill writing process is open to cameras and those of us who cover this so that we can keep tabs on how it goes. >> i am for that. i am for open disclosure, and i hope people will tune in when the judiciary committee takes up immigration reform legislation, which i would predict that we will do later this year. >> before we let you go, you're going to be focused on guns and violence and immigration on the years to come. we have heard mostly from this

past week about the different things agencies are doing to cut back if necessary because of sequestration. but lawmakers are going to have to cut back on their budgets. i'm curious if you sat down and sorted out what cuts you yourself would have to make, and would you be open to giving back some of your salary to help cover these funds? >> all the time i have been in congress, i have donated a portion of my salary. it now totals $100,000 -- to charity in my district. we are open to doing the right thing with regard to what happens in the congress. i have been meeting with both my committee staff and my personal staff to talk about how the impact of sequestration will affect our budget and making certain. the house of representatives

has on at least two occasions in the past year passed legislation that spreads the impact of these cuts across the entire spectrum of the federal government, including the two thirds of our budget largely untouched is mandatory spending programs. we are waiting for the senate to do the same thing so we can sit down and negotiate our differences. as yet, we have seen nothing from them on this issue that would help us avoid the impact of across-the-board spending cuts. it is very important that we not back away from the level of cuts that have been agreed to hear. there are not even overall cuts. it is a reduction in the rate of increase in government spending over the next 10 years. with trillion dollar deficits each year, we cannot afford to back away from the spending reductions that we have agreed to. >> we heard about potential layoffs. would that include a furloughing or laying off your own employees? >> we have been taking this into

account with our hiring, both on the committee and in my congressional office. i hope to be able to avoid that. any government agency that has been listening to what is going on for the past year and a half since this issue came up, i would hope has also taken that into account in their hiring practices so that they can mitigate the effect and maybe not have filled all the positions they were entitled to fill under a larger budget, if they are facing a reduction right now. i do not have the faith that all of them have done that. i have. i know many members of the house of been watching that very carefully. >> thanks, mr. chairman. please come back and join us on this program as these important pieces of legislation work their way through our committee. >> thank you. >> before we get to the issues, there was an emphasis on regular order in congress. this is washington speak.

two translated for our viewers, it sounds when there's talk about the need for regular order, they're tired of special commission is looking into legislation and they want congress to be back in the driver seat. >> that is what is going on. there is a lot of consternation among committee chairs, including the congressman, who are concerned they have not been able to wield power that they they are afforded by leading these committees. we have seen it in the senate. it looks like we're going to see it in the house as well when it comes to gun control and immigration. we will see whether any of that happens when it comes to the fiscal debate. the return to regular order is actually news in washington, even though it should be regular. there is been so little of it in recent years. >> what did you hear there about the immigration beat?

both parties seem to want a bill. >> for the last couple of years, whenever they talk but immigration, the house judiciary committee -- about immigration, the house to shoot her a committee --the house judiciary committee. chairman goodlatte, to hear him at least allow for some opening, for if it is a certain way, he is not opposed to it. i think that is different from what we have seen in the past. >> he emphasized he wants to find a way for legal status for people who are already in this country. >> exactly. there is a lot of things being thrown around. there is a white house proposal. a loft prospective immigrant visa that would allow them to

work and live here, but they would not have the rights of citizens. eight years later, they can apply for residency, eventually citizenship. they have talked about this provision or a status as well in the senate during goodlatte's first committee. it looks like there is going to be some component of that for some period of time. the question will be how long they have to stay in that status. >> this is one of the instances where regular order came up. don't push the congress, allow it to work its bill. how do you see the white house? the president has been campaigning on this issue. do you sue them waiting for the legislative process -- see them waiting for the legislative process? >> they have been saying that for several weeks now.

they want the senate to go forward with their bipartisan plan. the president has met with senate democrats and the other day called senate republicans to talk about their proposal and encourage them to push that forward. i think the president and the white house have. -- have been very emphatic that they want this process to get moving. by next year, we are talking elections. it gets harder to do. he wants them to go forward. if they take their time, he has made clear that he pushed this thing forward. >> let me turn to guns. you said the chairman's letter to the justice department has not seen enough prosecution of existing laws. what we heard from him today is that us attorneys have more interest in gun issues than others, and you would like more uniform attention to this issue. where are the levers of power that he might have to encourage

more attention? >> he could certainly call hearings and go attorney by attorney perhaps take a look at that. what he is getting at is a growing republican talking point and concerned. it is one they are bringing up, that they want to draft these changes to federal policy when it comes to guns, but the current federal policy has not been properly enforced. republicans especially in the house certainly made an issue about the serious scandal involving the atf. there was concerned about the guns slipping into mexico or some american cities. i could see conceivably at least on the house side, hearings to reveal what the justice department has or has not done in recent years and score some assurances that they will try to up those prosecutions.

>> all of the discussion with the chairman was on gun ownership regulation. what about high-capacity magazines? >> that is a big unknown. this is a big week in the senate where they will start to decide which of these proposals that have been fro put forth wil receive a vote. there is one that would limit the size of ammunition clips. it is unclear whether that will get a vote in committee or whether he will have to bring that to the senate under regular order. national polling suggests that americans are behind it. we will wait and have to see if there is enough: the senate. >> -- pull in the senate. >> thank you, gentlemen. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> later today, more from the national governors association winter meeting, looking at education and how states can support teachers and school leaders. dan malloy believed the discussion with iowa governor terry branstad. our live coverage continues at 2:30 p.m. your on c-span -- here on c-span. both chambers of congress return on monday. the housing gavels back in at 2:00 p.m. eastern for legislative business. at six o'clock 30 -- 6:30, votes. at 5:00 p.m., the senate will debate the nomination of robert bacharach for the 10th circuit court and vote on his confirmation at 5:30. a confirmation vote for former nebraska senator chuck hagel for

.efense secretary great >> it is pretty accurate that they do not play by the rules in most cases. they bend the rules to fit their circumstance. americans and all westerners tend to be more legalistic. we want things on a contract. once we see things are written in a contract, we think that is the be-all and end-all. the chinese will sign any contract or agree to any trade agreement, and the minute the ink is dry they will figure out a way to interpret it to get around its requirements. >> where does that come from? >> it is a relentless drive to get ahead. it is what has built the place over the last 30 years. to get better, to improve. they see some of the constructors we put on them in regards to trade, agreements. -- constructors we put them in

with regards to trade, agreements. >> former "washington post" correspondent, insights from around the world. tonight at eight o'clock on c- span's q&a. >> next, president obama urging congress to take action to avoid the automatic budget cuts. he warns that the cuts would affect national security and government services. the president was joined by law enforcement officers and first responders at the white house. this is about 15 minutes. [applause] [applause] >> thank you. good morning, everybody.

welcome to the white house. as i said in my state of the union address, our top priority should be doing everything we can to grow the economy and create good jobs. that is our top priority and it drives every decision we make and it has to drive the decisions that congress and everybody in washington makes over the next several years. that is why it is so troubling that 10 days from now congress might allow a series of automatic, severe budget cuts to take place that will do the exact opposite. it will not help the economy.

it will not create jobs. it will visit hardship on a lot of people. here is what is at stake. over the last few years, both parties have worked together to reduce our deficit i more than $2.5 trillion. more than two thirds of that was through some really tough spending cuts. the rest of it was through raising taxes, tax rates on the wealthiest 1% of americans. together, when you take the spending cuts and increased tax rates on the top 1%, it puts us halfway to the goal of four dollars trillion -- $4 trillion in deficit reduction. congress also passed a law in 2011 saying that if both parties cannot agree agree on a plan to achieve that goal, about

one trillion dollars of additional, arbitrary budget cuts would take effect this year. and the design was to make them so unattractive and unappealing that democrats and republicans would actually get together and find a good compromise of sensible cuts as well as closing tax loopholes and so forth. so, this was all designed to say we cannot do these bad cuts, let's do something smarter. that was the point of this so- called sequestration. unfortunately, congress did not compromise. they had to come together -- have not come together to do their job and we have these brutal cuts boys to happen next -- poised to happen next friday. if this meet: -- meat cleaver approach takes place, it will this a rate investments in education and medical research, and it will not consider whether we are cutting a bloated program that has outlived its usefulness, or a vital service that americans depend on every single day. it does not make those decisions.

emergency responders, like the ones that are here today, their ability to help will be degraded. border patrol agents will see their hours reduced. fbi agents will be furloughed. federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go. air traffic controllers and airport security will see cutbacks, which means more delays in airports across the country. thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off. tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find childcare for their kids. hundreds of thousands of americans will lose access to primary care and preventive care like flu vaccinations and cancer

screenings. already, the threat of these cuts has forced the navy to delay and at craft carrier that was supposed to deploy today persian gulf. as military leaders have made clear, changes like this, not well thought through, not phased and properly, affect our ability to respond to threats in unstable parts of the world. these cuts are not smart, not fair, will hurt our economy and add hundreds of thousands of americans to unemployment rolls. this is not an abstraction. people will lose their jobs. the unemployment rate might take up again. that is why democrats, the publicans, business leaders and he can't -- republicans, business leaders and economists have already said that these cuts are a bad idea. they are not good for our economy. they are not how we should run

our government. here is the thing, they do not have to happen. there is a smarter way to reduce deficits without harming our economy, congress has to act in order for that to happen. now, for two years i have offered a balanced approach to deficit reduction that would prevent these harmful cuts. i outlined it again last week at the state of the union. i am willing to cut more spending that we do not need. get rid of programs that are not working. i have laid out specific reforms to entitlement programs

that could achieve the same amount of health care savings by the beginning of the next decade as the reforms proposed by the bipartisan simpson-bowles commission. i am willing to save hundreds of billions of dollars by enacting comprehensive tax reform that gets rid of tax loopholes and deductions for the well-off and well-connected without raising taxes. i believe -- tax rates. i believe such a balanced approach that combines tax reform with additional spending to form done in a smart, thoughtful way is the best job to finish the job of deficit reduction and avoid these cuts once and for all that could hurt our economy, slow our recovery and put people out of work. most americans agree with me. now, the house and the senate are working on budgets that i hope reflect this approach. if they can not get such budget agreement done by next friday,

the day these harmful cuts begin to take effect, then, at minimum, congress should pass a smaller package that would prevent the harmful cuts, not to kick the can down the road come a but to give them time to work on a plan that finishes the job of deficit reduction in a sensible way. the cretin in the house and the senate have proposed such a plan, a balanced plan that pairs spending cuts with tax reform, and closes loopholes to make sure billionaires cannot pay a lower tax rate than their secretary. i know republicans have proposed plans as well, but so far they ask nothing of the wealthiest americans or biggest corporations, so the burden is on first responders, seniors, or middle-class families. they doubled down, in fact, on the heart -- harsh, harmful cuts that i outlined.

so far what they have expressed is a preference where they would rather have these cuts go into effect then close a single tax loophole for the wealthiest americans -- not one. that is not balanced. that is like democrats saying we have to call -- close deficits without any spending cuts. that is not the position democrats or i have taken. it is wrong to ask the middle class to bear the full burden of deficit reduction and that is why i will not sign a plan that harms the middle class. so, now republicans in congress face the choice -- are they willing to compromise to protect vital investment in education, healthcare, national security and all the jobs that depend on them, or would they rather put hundreds of thousands of jobs and our economy at risk to

protect a few tax loopholes that benefit the largest corporations and wealthiest americans. that is the choice. do you want to see first responders lose their jobs to protect special interest tax loopholes? are you willing to have teachers laid off were kids not have access to -- or kids not have access to headstart, or deeper cuts in student loan programs just to protect a special interest tax loophole that the vast majority of americans do not benefit from? that is the choice. that is the question. this is not an abstraction. there are people's lives at stake, communities that will be impacted in a negative way, and

a lot of times this squabbling in washington seems abstract, and in the abject people like the idea -- there must be spending we could cut, waste out there. there absolutely is, but this is not the right way to do it. my door is open. i put tough cuts and reforms on the table. i am willing to work with anybody to get this job done. none of us will get 100% of what we want, but nobody should want the cuts to go through because the last thing our families can afford right now is paying imposed unnecessarily by ideological rigidity here in washington. the american people have worked too hard, too long, rebuilding from one crisis to seek elected officials cause another one, and it seems like every three months there is a manufactured

crisis. we have more work to do than chu -- than to just try to dig ourselves out of self-inflicted wounds. while a plan to reduce our deficit has to be part of the agenda, but deficit reduction alone is not an economic plan. we learned in the 1990 costs when bill clinton was president that nothing shrieks of deficit faster than a growing economy that creates good, middle-class jobs. that should be the focus, they can america a magnet for good jobs and equipping our people with the skills required to fill those jobs and that their hard work leads to a decent living. those are the things we should push ourselves to think about every day. that is what the american people expect. that is what i will work on every single day to help deliver. i need everybody who is watching today to understand we have a few days. congress could do the right

thing. we could avert just one more washington-manufactured pop him that slows our recovery -- manufactured problem that slows our recovery and that would do right by first responders, america's middle class, and what i will be working and fighting for over the next few weeks and years. thank you very much, everybody. thank you for your service. [applause] [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] next come the house democrats hear about the impact of

sequestration spending cuts on employees. they heard from marion blakey. this is about 1.5 hours. >> this is called a sequester. hearings about a federal employee in baltimore who works processing social security retirement disability claims who will be furloughed or let go. it is also about the person awaiting to hear the outcome of the claim, whether he or she is in hawaii or taxes. it is hearings about a child in a head start center in tampa or tennessee or san jose who may not have the ability to go to that center in the weeks and

months ahead because of what we call the sequester. this hearing is also about a soldier or sailor or marine who was on duty in afghanistan or some other dangerous place in the world who may not get the support that he or she so richly needs from the department of defense and the services that place them in the position of peril. eight days from now a tremor will hit the american economy that is on welcome and unnecessary. it is an across the board cut in spending that will cost us 750,000 american jobs. there are some estimates that that is to conservative. it may cost us any more jobs within the act.

even by the most conservative estimate, at 750,000 americans who work in universities, hospitals, a child-care centers, schools, will find themselves and their country at risk. this does not need to happen. led by my friend and colleague mr. van hollen we put forward a constructive common-sense alternative to avoid these 750,000 layoffs. it involves closing tax loopholes and they can take advantage of and stopping- subsidies. it makes sense. but it does not make sense is that the american economy's it

eight days away from the press of this and the congress is not here. members of congress are in their districts working too seriously -- working judiciously. our pleasure it frigid our job is to represent the people who represent us here this is an artificial and necessary self inflicted crisis that should end today. they do not believe that every person should necessarily have to vote for our plan. we do believe that every member of the house has an obligation to vote for something. if your position is there is a better way to stop the

sequester, let's debate on its. it is the position we laid out let's vote on that. there are many responsible solutions. it is absolutely indefensible not to try to solve the problem at all. that is where we sit today. we are going to hear from a panel of distinguished people on various aspects of how this sequester will adversely affect the american people. an economist who will paint the big picture for us of what it looks like. a leading voice for one of the most progressive industries who will talk about the damage that awaits. a person trusted with the stewardship of our nation that will talk about what this may mean to perce students and families. a leader in public help.

we are very privileged to hear today -- to be here today. i'm going to introduce our for witnesses. we are going to have mr. van hollen go into detail about the alternative we believe will solve this problem. then we will have dialogue among the members here. our first witness here is the professor fuller. he joined this in 1990 for.

he served as director of the ph.d. program from july 1998 to june of 2000 and 2002 he was named the share of faculty chair. he is an accomplished macro economist. he graduated from rutgers university. we're going to welcome him in a few minutes. merriam likely has been in a standing service for a long time. i first met her as the administrator. she is always incredibly helpful to us. this is the most authoritative

and influential voice of the aerospace and defense industry. it represents more than 150 leading manufacturers along with a supplier base of nearly 200 associate members. it is the largest membership in the 94 history that reflex upon the leadership. she regulated the nation's airways as well as operated the world's largest air traffic control system. managing 44,000 employees. she has continue that service. we welcome her here today. mcgann has the most important job of anyone in this job today. she is a teacher. she is a match -- a board certified teacher.

quite an achievement. she spends her days working as a fifth grade teacher at the shop elementary school in tampa, florida. as a teacher and entrepreneur heard testimony well certainly reveal someone his students are not simply on her seating chart. am she served under gov. gregg lauer. prior to working she served for 20 years as the administrator of the try county health district.

we look forward to your testimony. i ask you to push the button on your microphone so you can be heard. >> thank you for inviting me. we see that the rest of the country is understanding the consequences. what you have done has really helped bring this to the rampage. i thought i would review some of the impact. we can argue about the numbers. we are talking about jobs and income and economic growth. we have a very fragile economy. we are 44 months into the

economy. region into the recovery. the economy is still in to sequestration pickering here we are moving toward the first quarter of 2013 and the economy is dead in the water. if sequestration goes forward it may sound of big. about half of these are contractors and businesses that are suppliers, and vendors that support the supply chain of services and products to government agencies.

half of these are jobs tied to the defense department. this is not just about defense. it is in every agency bay provides. we are talking over $100 billion in labor income. we undermine the revenue stream .ea we give back about 2/3 projected gdp growth. rather than growing at $300 million to $300 million this year, we are going to give up more than $200 billion.

on this for some time. we talk about the jobs on main street. these are not just contractor jobs. hundreds of thousands have their jobs at stake. 45% of all of these jobs are retailers. they are people that do not know they are tied to the government any way except federal contractors spend their earnings there. a larger amount in private payrolls that one not be spent.

it will not generate money for schools and police. local governments understand this already. this is about the worst time in the business cycle that you could pick to go forward with sequestration. it is not good public policy. there is some consensus that less spending is in order. the impacts are a evident. retail sales are going to follow. they will not continue to be robot.

from, housing sales have pulled back some. this is going to go up more. this is not smart. the citizens of this country should not be subjected to this kind of public policy. i incurred due to do what you can to bring you together to use some intelligence and push this back, resolve it in a balance way. >> she represents the company's.

ies. >> we represent over 380, over a hundred employees of the current -- 100 million employees. i am very proud to be here as a ceo. make no mistake. the nation will be severely impacted it goes forward. you heard the numbers. they are enormous. our work force is a group of dedicated folks making good middle-class wages. this is the group that will be impacted. it is indicative that our largest union stands shoulder to shoulder with us in opposing

these cuts. they have been a partner every step of the way. that summarize the defense impacts. the impact on the department of against is dangerous but to our national security and to our economic help. defense will bear 50% of the sequestered even though it accounts for 20% of federal spending. this is in addition to the $487 that was mandated by the budget control act. special provisions military personnel must come from other parts of the budget. it asked us to go back in two prior years so contracts that

had been under negotiation may be under -- the moment of going through. every member of the joint chiefs of staff has testified that this will cause chaos. civilian agencies will be very hard hit. just a couple of examples. the faa insurers be smooth and safe flow. the agency will have to implement rolling furloughs to everyone that works very hard. customs and border controls, a huge lines at security. people traveling with their families and on business. napolitano said itic

would make a four or five hour wait at the international airports and even the average security screen. millions.hameleon and the local airports. all of those get hit very hard. i cannot have said it better. they call this by far the devastating budget cuts in four years. let me mention one thing i know is important. space programs lose 20,000 jobs.

this will hit the program's very hard. think about the next community that gets hit. the sequester will cause a very permanent harm to our national security and security. i know the hour is late. they have the ability to set sequester a site. thank you. >> very often this is unavoidable. it is completely artificial. welcome. we're happy to have you with us. >> welcome. i am the 2010 florida teacher of

the year. i am a certified teacher but most importantly i get to call myself a fifth grade teacher. i teach at a title one school. we have about 600 students with '90s term on free and reduced lunch. language arts class is. es. let's dive into what it means to be a student at a high need school. i speak for my 36 students. of my 36, they work within the support of teachers. they have disorders to schizophrenia. i have students who are patient is damage to of to every event dressed in their best for the dreamsand theidreams for their .

i had to students would arrest records. one was a live in program for it trouble you. i have for since i know that are homeless. the five girls to receive extra support because there are girls of low self-esteem. i too young ladies to receive intense counseling at school, one because she is a two-year old rape victim's, one because she is a 10 year old -- 10 year old rape victime i students to go to bed every because of the violence in their neighborhood. they look to school as their place to call home, to go home country on the weekends and 0422 solid meals a day at school. -- look forward to two acela

mills a day at school. at soon to want to achieve something amazing and life. our schools working to make this happen. our students are making great gains with their academics and shining in and out of the classroom. our students are moving toward greatness. how did this happen? why is our schools successful despite these challenges? how do we help the students? we use tied to one funding to buy them with a lower student/teacher ratio. with additional teachers, these support help lift our kids to their full potential while helping me and other teachers make sure we're meeting the needs of each and every child. we have social support sell our students can narrow and in focus on academics.

the work with our children in small groups. headstart is vital to our success. we battled the success every time of every day. this is one of our primary weapons. it is crucial. keeping class sizes manageable so teachers can provide individual attention and support. for my students this is like changing. i would like to tell you about one of my students. i just share his story. there are hundreds like him at my school. mr. is about a little boy named daniel purity started the school year with low self-esteem read my story is about a little boy named daniel. he started the school year with low self-esteem.

he wrote beautiful poetry. most of it was about wrestling but he made some poetic. he stumbles up to me. he had a shy way of walking. he was reaching out his hand. he said i have something for you. he is a child who is homeless. his mom works at denny's. he spends most afternoons at denny's was mama's waiting tables. i felt that taking it from him so i told him to keep what ever it is. he reaches out his fist in there and is, was a rock. it looks like this ordinary rock. then he said the thing that stopped me in his tracks. he said it is like school. school is my rock. from the mouth of this child. that is when i realize the importance of education and

teachers. the truth hit me like a ton of bricks. the school is the rock in this child's life, the one place he knows he can count on. no matter what instabilities they have, there's one thing they can depend on. that is cool. he helped me realize we're not there as teachers to only help our kids pass a test. this is important. it is not my main goal as an educator. we are there to be the rocks for our children and the stable forces in their lives. we are there to help them see education. in my school district where my 36 students sit today, up 142 schools stand to lose $3 million

in title one funding. we'll be getting $2 million less for special education. the equivalent of shifting the entire cost from the federal government to the county. we have 25,000 in my county that will be cut. the impact of the harshest on the students and title one schools like the one i teach in. student like mine are the reason why the elementary and secondary education act was passed in the first place. the goal is to ensure that all children have a fair and it begins opportunity to obtain a high-quality education. students like mine are the reason this was passed in the first place. in the name of daniel and my students, i urge you in the strongest possible terms to stop the sequester.

think what it will mean to them. what do i tell my students tamara? omorrow? >> your students are very forces some of your drive has chosen to be a teacher. we hope the answer you can give them tomorrow is that their elected officials are doing their job by voting on a plan to end the sequester and preserve the educational resources. we're working to give them that answer. >> thank you. i serve as the secretary of health for washington state for the past 15 years. my age job is so that her kids

do not get child diseases. i have a story i will share. our mission is simple. the department of health works to improve the people of washington state. that is what public health the. we need to make sure we have a response to outbreaks, food healthy choices.choice we are disease detectives. this is an enterprise. the role is significant. emergencies do not recognize

state boundaries or even international borders. how are we funded? are agencies rely on a mix of state general funds. the average agency receives funding, 45% are the discretionary dollars we are talking about. in my state it is 53% of our agency's budget and it supports our public health work. the kind of reductions we may be facing are $22 million in public health services and protections in a state less than seven million people. hasington's state economy been hit hard and we are still in a recession. we're facing a $2 billion shortfall in our budget that we will be preparing and that is in addition to $10 billion

already reduced over the last six years. state funding for important public programs will be further targeted. in the last six years, we've been impacted by a 38% state are reduction that includes $5 million in family planning services not going on. our state tobacco fund was eliminated. these are dollars that make a difference. this is really about people. as you will see from this one story of our whooping cough outbreak last year in my state, the system is federal, state, local all working together. it takes funds from all sources and sequestration threats to be able to face the challenges. we had the highest rate in the country of whooping cough. we had an epidemic that was 4,800 cases of whooping cough. we had five babies die and many more hospitalized. thousands of families are impacted by the whooping cough

bug. we're busy with what most people think is a disease of the past. this came after the budget reductions at both state and local levels. we have fewer public health nurses and staff to amount to the response. but respond we did. h.h.s. assistance secretary helped us build an electronic disease reporting system. it is used for emergencies like our whooping cough epidemic was. it is important for us to know what is going on across the state and across the country. these programs will be impacted by sequestration and it is going to impact our ability to respond to public health emergencies, whether it is the fungal meningitis outbreak that you looked into last year or the whooping cough. these funds were used to mobile after the terrible destruction of one of missouri's critical hospital after the tornado, for

example. we use grants to support our local epidemiologist. they identify and track diseases. they check out the unknown white powder that shows up when you don't know what it is. we're the ones keeping the communities informed. funds for the immunization programs were made to make the whooping cough vaccine available to people with no insurance. medicare does not cover whooping cough. these immunization funds are core to the programs. our funds would be reduced if sequestration does impact next

week. more than 4,fewer children will be immunized against whooping cough, polio and other diseases. our health funds will be reduced and we had to use those to inform pregnant moms. in conclusion, public health has taken its fair share of budget cuts even before federal sequestration. but again, this is about the negative health outcome. >> the adult that does not get vaccinated. the furlough days that keep a laboratory detecting disease outbreaks to stop it before it spreads. these are very real every day occurrences public health is at a breaking point unless we

support our public health in a more sustained way. our ability to respond quickly and competently will evaporated. getting our federal deficit under control is important. but so is protecting the health safety of everyone in the united states. it is a tough job you have before you over the next few days and weeks to find a politically viable solution to the sequestration. but to put simply, federal sequestration is bad for the public's health. additional cuts in discretionary health programs would put the health, safety, and security of all americans at risk. thank you for this opportunity.

>> thank you. i thank each of our witnesses for their exceptional preparation and compelling testimony. a days from now, unless the speaker districts us to vote we won't be able to deal with epidemics as we can. children in mrs. allen's classroom will lose their ability to speak the language and learn what they need in school. more importantly, they will begin to lose trust and faith. the million workers that mrs. blakey's association represents, too many of them will find themselves not being able to shop on main street or buy a car or house or refrigerator. as professor fuller told us, the most conservative estimate, 750,000 lost jobs and it could

be higher depending on how one calculates that. 2/3 evaporate because of this totally avoidable decision. constituents say you guys are good at describing the problem and telling us how much you care about the problem, but what are you willing to do about it? here's what we're eager to do. we want the speaker to return the house to washington. we want him to put on the floor our plan, which would avoid these 750,000 layoffs. let the house work its will. if people want to amend it or oppose it that is their screr right. it is not their -- discretionary right. chris van hollen is going to explain the substance of our

alternative proposal to avoid this. he's going to have questions then we're going to turn to mr. cummings for questions as well. >> thank you for organizing this hearing on a very important issue. thank all of you for your powerful testimony, spelling out in great detail what the consequences are of allowing this so-called sequester to take place in eight days would be. it is important that the american people understand the consequences that you spoken about and as mr. andrews pointed it the alternatives that are in front of us. so they will be able to decide if the alternatives we proposed

are better for the country than the massive job losses that we heard about and the terrible consequences for kids, workers in the aerospace and other industries and for the american public at large. that's why we have spelled out an alternative. when i say we, i'm referring to the democrats in the house also the democrats in the senate. we would like to see our republican colleagues spell out an alternative. since the new congress began, they have not put forward one proposal to oppose -- to prevent the across the board sequester. we have asked repeatedly for a vote on an alternative that would avoid it. let's spell out the details on that alternative so people can decide which is better. what we're proposing to avoid these cuts that we just heard

about. we're proposing that we get the same amount of deficit reduction as the sequester. this year, from march 1 to the end of the calendar year that is $120 billion. instead of doing it in across the board way, instead of doing it all at once, so you're taking $120 billion out of the economy over a 10-month period, we would accomplish that over a longer period of time. again, the same net deficit reduction for our country but without the indiscriminate it in cuts, where you don't get priorities. but doing it in a way that you target cuts over time and closing tax loopholes. what do we propose? we get a chunk of the savings known as district payments. these are payments that go to bigging ary businesses where they are making a lot of money or not.

replacing that with a smarter safety net. by doing that, you save $29 billion. this is something that has actually been identified by republicans and democrats alike as something that we could and should do. we also say that we don't need to keep in place the tax breaks that disproportionately benefit the wealthy. one thing we've heard is there is a lot of these tax breaks in the tax code that disproportionately benefit very wealthy people. guess what, they raul still there. we propose to do as a start to say to people who earn more than $2 million a year, you will at least pay a 30% effective tax.

you're not going to be able to take advantage of those special interest breaks and preferences that you could in the past. it is known as the buffet rule, warren buffet pointed out that he paid a lower tax rate than the secretary that worked for him. we would do that. we would also take up a proposal that former president george bush suggested, which is to eliminate tax breaks for big oil companies, who are making plenty of money, which is their right. it is not their right for taxpayers to be giving them a big tax giveaway. we would end that tax break in the code for them. if you take that combination of targeted cuts and those revenues

over the next window of the budget, you can achieve that same amount of deficit reduction without losing somewhere between 750,000 jobs or higher without the massive layoffs in the aerospace industry, without hurting our children's future, and without the terrible consequences to public health. let alone to disruption in the transportation industry as air traffic controlers are laid off. let alone the disruption that will be caused in the food supply when food safety inspectors are laid off and all the other consequences. that is an alternative. we think that is a far better alternative than the loss of hundreds of thousands of american jobs over a million potentially, and all the other disruptions that would take place. i should say, that the senate democrats have laid out a similar plan. their plan would also find

savings in the district programs. their plan would call for targeted cuts in defense beginning in the year 2015 in much lower amounts than would be called for in the sequester. we would embrace their alternative as well. so you have the democratic house alternative, the democratic senate alternative but we have nod -- not heard a alternative from the republicans. houseyou may not like what we proposed but at least let us have a vote. but the house of representatives, come back here and let us have a vote.

if you want to vote no, that's your right. but the american people deserve a vote on this very important question. so let me just close with an

economic question to you dr. fuller. there is some confusion out there in the public minds that this is a choice between these massive arbitrary deep cuts and trying to reduce our long term deficit. we laid out an alternative that can achieve the same reduction. can you talk about achieving the an economic question to you dr. fuller. there is some confusion out there in the public minds that this is a choice between these massive arbitrary deep cuts and trying to reduce our long term deficit. we laid out an alternative that can achieve the same reduction. can you talk about achieving the deficit reduction in the way we do, without as you said the across the board nature orhow cd

we welcome his questions. >> i want to thank my colleagues for being here and i want to thank my witnesses. doctor, let me start with you. sometimes i try to put myself in the place of the regular citizen, who sits here and watches this. the have got to be scratching their heads. based upon what you just said -- basically, you are saying that we are digging ourselves a deeper ditch. is that right?

i mean, with this sequestration if it goes forward? >> this is a whole, worst in a ditch. >> worse than the ditch. when you started your testimony in beginning and said what about jobs, income, and economic growth. in the joint economic committee from my colleagues on the other side, they talk about certainty. how important certainty is. and then i look at what is going on here with regards to this possible sequestration, tell us how important certainty is to business and growth. what impact would this have on the certainty? >> excellent point.

i wish that i had addressed this directly. uncertainty is a four-letter word in economics. investors will not risk capital if they do not have the sense of the have the opportunity to get their money back without reasonable return on that. consumers will not spend unless they have an idea that they are likely to be better off this year than last year. they're going to hunker down, which is what they've been doing for the last five years. increased savings are good, frugal spending is good, but they will not go and buy a house, a car. they will not upgrade their clothing or furniture. they will not do -- they may not invest in higher education. we have seen applications pulling back because people do

not think that investing in higher education is going to prepare them for something better. we've seen applications for universities already beginning don't think investing in higher education is going to prepare if they didn't. it seems to me, i've used this metaphor, i will take a minute, i think it really says something. it says if we're trying to to lose 30 pounds and there's a couple ways too this you can go on a starvation diet, just drink water for 30 days. you will be sicker than whatever, and you will r likely to gain it ail back. or you can do it in a healthy way, you could be a new person. go an a starvation diet, go cold turkey. destroy what it is that, in fact, is necessary to make this economy great. we're poised to come out of this ugly downturn that has

struggled and struggled to gain traction. the forecast for 2014, 2015 provide some optimism that we're going to get beyond this and we're going to be a lean operating economy, competitive in the world, unless we destroy the opportunity to get there. 2013 is the crit year. i can't -- critical year. i can't imagine but strategically put money into this system and have it poised for further expansion. >> let me go a step further. i was listening to some of my colleagues on one of the morning shows. they said well, we'll go and we'll have sequestration for a little while and everybody will wake up and then some way we'll bring it together and make it

happen. and sometimes i get this impression that folks don't realize the full impact that -- they think that maybe people are exaggerating. i'm just wondering -- let's say for example, we go into sequestration for a month, two months. how does that impact all of what you have been talking about? how do you see that panning out? let's say then we shift to a plan, like my colleague mr. van hollen talked about. because i think -- i've heard him say this and i'm curious and it is almost as if, there's a game being played. folks are not seeing the true significance of what is happening. >> how long can you hold your breath? we can't afford two months.

there are and mrs. blakey can talk to this better than i can. but there are companies out there hanging on. every week we hear about 370,000 layoffs. today, this morning, they went up by 10,000. they are not as bad as they used to be but companies are still struggling. you pull a contract, you threaten not to renew a contract, you can't get financing, you can't borrow money to grow your compensate or sustain it. or this -- company or sustain it. we have 4.5 million unemployed workers. they quit, they're not coming back. we can't afford to waste

resources like this. this is like running around the daytona 500 with a yellow flag. how long can you do that before you run out of gas? we need the green flag. the federal government can get out of the way a bit, probably. it is not essential in everything it does. we can find out what isn't essential but cutting everything back 10% or % or whatever the number is, is not a way to do it in a selective, creative fashion. so i don't think the economy can recover in 2013 if you shut it down in effect for two months. because it's been shut down in a way ever since november. people have held back because of the threat of the fiscal cliff, they have been careful about investments, they are not hiring. we're running, at best, at half speed. the economy is, at best, at half speed.

>> you know, mrs. allen, as you talked i felt a little bit emotional because i came up in a school like that. i realize that if it were not for those kinds of programs that you're talking about, i would not be sitting here today. my mother and father only had second grade education. we needed people like you to help us get to where we had to go. i tell people, a child is only in the first grade for one year. they learn to read by the end of the third grade. then they read to learn. if they don't learn to read, then in many instances they are stuck. am i right? for the rest of their life, not until they are 24 but until they are 95. when you see this -- i guess what gets me and i live in the inner city of baltimore and i see the kids that you talk

about every day. i live with them. they just want to be somebody. they want to dream, they want to get there, they want to be the pilot. they want to be the teacher. and when you talk about that rock, i get it. so, you know, if you -- i can't think of any other word but collateral damage. what happens to a lot of people -- that's why i'm glad you came here to put a face on this. these are people. these are their lives. you know, this struggle -- they are just trying to make it. they are not trying to take anything away from the government, they are just expecting the government to do what the government is supposed to do.

and they want to become taxpayers. i guess, i just want to thank you for putting a face on that. because i think we sometimes forget that. the president has a term i wish i invented it. he talks about an empathy deficit. i wonder about our empathy. i know hi time has run out. -- my time has run out. >> thank you for that. when i'm hearing about the sequester from an economic level or global level, i bring that down to the 36 faces in my classroom. thinking about how their lives would be different if we take away their headstart programs for their siblings so they start kindergarten not recognizing

their names. when we talk away their math coaches and their social support and i shutter an what impact that can have on their future. bringing it back away from the human level and looking at it from the global perspective, economic recovery we begins in our classroom. this is our future work force. we need to think not only about the faces sitting in our classroom, but their impact 20 years down the road. not only do they deserve a great education but they deserve a wonderful future for them and their families. >> thank you. >> i know he brings unique perspective to the problems of the sequestration and we'll hear his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank our pam, you've given very compelling testimony to put a face on the what the cuts will mean for the country. i think it is important for us to remember why we're here.

how did we get to this point? a lot of it has to do with the fact that, certainly in the house, the republican majority, essentially made a declaration after the fiscal cliff deal, that revenue was no longer going to be part of the conversation. it is over, it is done with. so everything we have to do now to address the deficit we're going to do exclusively through cuts. the president has been very clear, chris van hollen has been clear, our caucus is clear. from here on out if you're going to do anything to address the deficit you have to approach it in a balanced fashion. balanced means that revenue continues to be part of the

conversation. this is what coppingman van hollen has out -- congressman van hollen has put forward and what also has been put forward on the senate side. you can't with a straight face say to a headstart youngster, or to a special needs student that we're not going to look at revenue anymore. when you have a situation of the oil and gas industry that continues to get bills of dollars in subsidies, taxpayer money. what you're doing there is you're making a choice. on the one side, you have an industry that in 2011 made $137 billion in profits.

that's more than the total value of the sequestration over a year's period. $137 billion. on one side of the equation. what we like to see is let's eliminate these subsidies because they don't need them anymore. on the other side, you have a poshte cut of 70,000 children from the headstart program. i think our constituents are adamant that we need to take more than a millisecond to figure out where to find the money. i think frankly a lot of those constituencies are prepared to step up but we can't get a vote in the house of representatives. we can't get a vote on this important question in a sensible way, in a common sense way.

i think that's why the public, as congressman cummings said, is kind of scratching their head. as difficult as this many of these issues are and the complexities of them are, at another level this is not rocket science. we can find revenues and approach this in a balanced way. by the way, when you talk to these independent commissions and bipartisan in additions on the details we may agree or disagree with some of the recommendations, but they always start from the premises to solve this problem you have to have a balanced approach, you need revenue along with savings. i appreciate you being here because you present that stark choice between where we can find revenues in a reasonable way and then the human consequence of not making that

kind of decision. i want to ask, you secretary and you mrs. allen, just speak to, sort of what it means to have to catch up when these kinds of services get suspended in each of your different arenas. because the other part of this and dr. fuller touched on it a little bit, we end up increasing the cost of society over time. so talk a little bit about what does it mean in the public health context if services are suspended to catch up with the situation that has been created. you mrs. allen in the education context, give us a sense of that as well. >> thank you for that question.

i've been in public health for 34 years. what has happened to the state's economy and the local government level in the last five years means that we already seen some of this in washington state. the public health nurses that used to be -- when we got hit with the whooping cough epidemic we had a county that had the highest number of cases and they went from having seven public health nurses to having two. families wanted to know who is going to investigate our case. we don't want our kids to get the disease from someone else. schools were calling us and the capacity wasn't there. as a result, bugs will spread. we're behind on those kinds of things. when we look at the program that helps women and children, more than 16,000 moms, pregnant women and children are not going to get the special nutritional

programs. which means you will get kids not as healthy that enter the classroom. results in pregnancy can be impaired. our family planning are already reduced and we know that many of unintentional pregnancy are a result of that those things that you prevent from happening and i will use the tobacco program as an example. we cut down the number of kids that use tobacco in half. we are stalled across the country and in many states, we're seeing a number of kids using tobacco products, already hooked by the time they are in 12th grade and become life-long smokers. the cost is already showing up in higher costs from pulmonary diseases and heart diseases. it takes a while to prevent that new future illness. our in impacts, we're living longer and we're hitting the medicare ages and medicare goes

up because of the cost of diseases. prevention pays off but if you're not investing costs do go up and people are harmed. >> i'm going to piggyback on what you said about the concept of investment. i'm scratching my head when i think about how we're contemplating cutting money in education instead of investing in education. thinking about the indications and the human collateral that will be impacted by the decision or lack of a decision. what is going to happen to my students when they lose these services? when they lose the educational

services that they have a right to? what is going to happen when they try to continually try to catch up and close the achievement gap because they don't have headstart or these other services that provide for the students and families. what would happen to my students when they reach the point of frustration because they are always trying to play catch-up, where are they going to end up? the sequester to me is nonsensical. are we going to think about taking money from our 10-year- olds who are in tampa or from, you know, corporations or others getting lease large tax breaks. i urge you to focus on the faces of our students who will be impacted by the decision or lack of a decision. >> thank you. some of the apologist for the sequester point to the fact that it allegedly exempts pay to

our troops and other expenditures and other departments of defense. from your perspective who represents companies that provide the department of defense with tools for vital national security. what is your comment on the argument that that this does not impact the troops at all? how do you feel about that? >> the fact of the matter is, all volunteer army are counting on the fact that they will have the technology, they will have the training, that operation and maintenance for the systems they rely on is going to be there. that is exactly where the sequester hits and hits very hard. you have to remember that one of the things that we want to

ensure in this country, is our troops never go into conflict withal level playing field. the technology that the aerospace supplies ensures that the united states does, at this point, have a critical advantage. but it won't be there and the training will not be there, the ongoing support. remember, a lot of this is supplied by small businesses. as you have said, main street. this is not something coming from large corporate entity. this comes from very skilled workers. but believe me that technology is going to have to be there to the backs of our troops. >> i also want to ask you about another point i hear which is, well,, you can ease into it. if it only lasts a few days, a few weeks, or a few months, it is not that bad. from the subcontractors that

supply the major firms. walk me through the process that one of those subcontractors is going through. let's say they decide to take on five or 10 new employees. how does the sequester affect that thought process? >> if you're a small company, and so many of ours are, you're back on your heels. you're in a defensive crouch because you don't know what the uncertainty of the sequester involves. what you can invest in, you don't even know whether or not you should go forward with the kind of training that is required, again, in specialized industries, where people really do have skills that have to be kept on the cutting-edge. -m of the smaller companies are family owned. they don't have the debt of capital, they don't have the access to credit, banks look at this situation and say wait a minute this is too uncertain

for us to be able to go out on the edge and make loans. this all goes to things like, for example, one of our members was going to invest in a new factory. this was going to add 200 jobs. they had to put it on hold. it probably isn't going happen on a permanent basis because that company says we're going to swing away from defense technology, but it will not involve the national security support that this company had provided. it also will not involve the general public. these are tough decisions that small companies had to make right now. >> i thank you. here in lies the distinct between the conservative estimate of 750,000 and as professor fuller tells us larger estimates.

whether or not you assume that ripple effect in, the numbers of the conservative estimate would only count the furloughs and the layoffs and the pause in production. it would not cause what she just told us about the 200 jobs that don't get added because of the chaotic situation we've created for us. i want to thank the witnesses. before we conclude or physical you have any concluding comments i would welcome that. >> thank you. i want to thank all the witnesses here. as the clock ticks down over the next eight days it becomes increasingly urgent to get the word out about the choices we face and what the consequences are going to be. anybody who heard your testimony today would have to conclude that it was totally irresponsible and reckless to allow this sequester to take place in eight days. sequester is some washington word, but in plain english sequester equals massive job losses. it will have massive disruption

in investments for our kids, for our national security, for our public health, and other things that help our economy grow and allow us to keep our competitive edge. i just want to thank all of you for being here. hopefully, between now and eight days from now enough people will come to their senses and look for an alternative. at the very least, allow us to have a vote on the alternative we have presented in the house and the alternative that has been presented in the senate, so the american people can judge for themselves whether their members of congress are making the right decision. >> thank you, chris. >> i will be brief. professor fuller, social security administration is in my district and they told us that the backlog on disability claims could increase by 140,000 claims.

he warned that applicants will have to wait a month longer for disability hearings. he warned that each day employees are furloughed it will prevent the agency from holding 3,000 hearings and completing 20,000 retirement claims. you know, we have one life to live. this is it. and as i listen to all the testimony, it hit me that, you know, one of the things that we in the congress ought to be doing is trying to help people live the best life they can. whatever that is. if it is the student that needs special help, help him. we can't do everything but we can help him so he can become a taxpayer, that little boy daniel with the rock i would love to see him 10 years from now. help your folks to have some certainty. when i was listening to you and

i was thinking about a smaller version of something you were saying. there's a company that is going to close in my district. it's a small company and i was talking to a fellow who has a cleaners right near by. he said i was going to add two employees but no the company is gone i'm going to have to layoff, you know, layoff an employee or two. i was thinking how, professor fuller, it does turn a ditch

into a hole and then into a crater. it just keeps going. it is like -- it is like it keeps whipping and whipping. it is like you have a drill and the dirt keeps flying and the next thing you have is this crater. it has a multiplying affect, doesn't it? it also goes back to what i said, quality of life. again, we want to thank you for putting a face on this. i'm hoping that, you know, some folks will wake up and do the kind of things that my

colleagues have talked about and mr. van hollen has worked so hard for so long to bring sense to this. if they don't take the senate -- but at least give us a vote. >> i would like to thank our witnesses for their extraordinary preparation and the contribution they made on this urgent problem. we thank you for your time and your travels. leader pelosi and our members have heard voices from around the country that have given life and meaning and put faces on these very sobering numbers of job loss. whether it is a 375,000 or two million jobs. we've heard in our district from the contractors and

subcontractors who are paralyzed from adding people or letting people go. mrs. allen, we've talked to the teachers and administrators, the parents, and the students who are paralyzed about what the sequester means to their lives and their struggle to get better. we've heard from our pediatricians and our nurses and our health administrators about their concern about meeting the rising health care concerns of the community. what you have done is pull together those voices into a coherent voice that, i think our speaker needs to listen to. the gavel of the house of the representatives for the speaker is not meant to be a weapon of obstruction.

it is meant to be a tool of progress. wielding that gavel at n the right way at this moment, would let come to the house floor mr. van hollen's proposal and any others that could rationally and fairly solve this problem and let the majority work its will. we believe passionately that mr. van hollen's approach is the intelligent way. what we do not understand is inaction. what we can't understand is paralysis. so we implore friends on the other side of the aisle. let the majority work its will. let the house do its job. let the country avoid this impending economic harm which is entirely self-inflicted, entirely unwise, and entirely unwise. we thank you for your time and your participation this afternoon. we stand adjourned. >> agriculture secretary talks

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> tomorrow, rick snyder talks about national issues, including immigration, gun violence for the rest of the year. then we will spend the morning talking about the across-the- board spending cuts known as sequestration. first, which programs are affected? followed by a look at sequestration and the defense department. and then homeland security. "washington journal," live it 7:00 a.m. eastern, on c-span. >> both chambers of commerce returned -- chambers of congress

return on monday. at 6:30 a vote to we designate the drive and swipe research center as the neil armstrong research center. the senate gavels in at 2:00, reading the washington farewell address. the senate will debate the nomination of robert bacharach and vote on his confirmation at 5:30. also, the confirmation vote for chuck fatal for defense secretary and the automatic spending cuts known as secant -- sequestration. later today, more from the national governors' association winter meeting. looking at education. connecticut governor dan lloyd will lead the session with terry branstad. coverage continues at 2:30 p.m.

eastern on c-span. >> at age 25, she was one of the wealthiest with those in the colonies. during the revolution she was considered an enemy by the british, who threatened to take her hostage. later she would become our nation's first first lady at age 57. meet martha washington, monday night in the first of our new weekly series, "first lady's." we will visit some of the places that influence to life, including colonial williamsburg, mount vernon, and philadelphia. become part of the conversation with your phone calls, twitter messages, and photos, live, monday night, on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> next, burstein bowls and alan simpson -- erskine bowles and

alan simpson talked about sequestration, the offer a new, long-term debt and deficit reduction program. they are currently the co- founders of the fix the debt movement and served on the committee for fiscal responsibility and reform. this is 40 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, mike allen. [applause] >> thank you for coming out. welcome to all of you in live stream land. glad to have you here for the simpson bulowles breakfast. we would like to thank the bank of america for their continued partnership in these conversations. it is an important forum for the

issues that matter most in washington. these are great conversations here. i have the questions appear. someone has already said good morning and a low. i would like to welcome senators simpson -- senator simpson and mr. baowles. [applause] >> that is it. >> what is on your tie? [laughter] >> [inaudible] by the people, for the people.

how could you [indiscernible] medicaid [indiscernible] [many voices at once] [indiscernible] [man repeating indiscernible phrase] >> could you pick up where the speaker and the president left off?

one, this is getting a lot more expensive and will cost about $9 trillion. >> [indiscernible] >> we are having a conversation. >> [indiscernible] corporations to pay their fair tax share. some cuts do not heal. stop cutting jobs. pay your fair taxes. [indiscernible] >> if you look at the plan we are putting forward -- >> sir, i am sorry. [indiscernible] >> address the point. >> of the fair share of taxes.

[indiscernible] >> excuse me. >> sir? sir? >> [indiscernible] we need jobs now. [indiscernible] >> let me address his point. if you look at what we are putting forward, we called for deploying the tax code and simplifying it in an aggressive manner, raising additional revenue to reduce the deficit. if you look at where the tax expenditures are paid their generally paid by people in the upper income bracket. >> that is absolutely not true. we have major corporations who are -- you are a part of that.

$2 trillion over the last 10 years. >> we need good jobs. we need good jobs. [indiscernible] >> [multiple voices speaking at once] [indiscernible] >> the second point that i would make is that when you look at what we do with social security, payments -- >> [indiscernible] >> 01% per year annual bomb up. that is when most private retirement plans run out. we are trying to be sensitive to this, the second principle of the plan is we do not want to do anything that hurts the disadvantaged, so there are no cuts in food stamps or unemployment. we do raise the minimum payments from social security.

>> you make it clear that neither side is doing enough. that the approaches so far have been band-aids. >> this is designed to be something that can be enacted. what needs to happen? you know how to work the levers. how do occur -- how do you create an environment for something big? >> for us, we felt that at the end of last year it was a disappointment like no other that i have ever experienced. we felt like that was the magic moment, a time when we had the best chance to do something serious about fiscal reform and responsibility. we felt it was a real lost opportunity. as we look back on it, it has become clearer and clearer to us that if we were going to get a

bipartisan deal, we will have to push both sides to get out of their comfort zone and make the kind of compromises that we need to make to get something done. >> it was pointed out this morning in "the wall street journal" that this is the fourth swing you have taken at this. when is the tipping point? when will people really feel it. >> boehner, a pugnacious man from alabama [laughter] let me tell you, if anyone can understand of what we are trying to do, if anyone can understand

the sequester, boy, it will just be total destruction. those are the two engines driving us into eternity. that is the cost of health care. it does not matter what you call it, call it a negative or positive, it cannot possibly work. it is on automatic pilot and it will suck up all of the discretionary budget in the u.s.. if anyone cannot understand why we are trying to do with social security to make it solvent, they are just lost in the swamps. they are trustees of the system. wonderful americans, a democrat and republican alike are saying that if you do not do something to restore the solvency of the system, $900 billion in negative cash flow right now, you will waddle to the window in the

year 2031 and get a check for 25% less, you have got to have rock forebrains not to figure that out. if you are 81, figure this out. when i was 15 years old i put $5 in social security making sweet rolls and i have never eaten another one in my life. i put in when i was in the army. you do not now. i practiced law for 18 years and i never put in $874 per year. no one my age ever did. that went to $2,000.3000 dollars self-employed. when we were messing with this the last time they found out the guy that retired get everything back in the first five years of the benefit. there were 16 people paying into

this when i was a freshman and today there are three people paying into the system with one taking out. do you have that? 16 people paying in? whenever you put in today, i get it tomorrow. the retirement age was 65 because life expectancy was 63. now life expectancy is 78.1. in three years it will be 80. wakeup. guilt and racism, all the crap that goes with it, use your brains for god's sake. >> the point of no return, when do we no longer kick the can? >> no one knows when the tipping point will come. the one thing is that you will know it when it hits. >> could be two years. could be 200 years.

>> what we do know is that there is the great old saying about the economy, it never moves as fast as you think it will, but once it does it acts quicker than you thought possible. today we are a horse in the glue factory. the fed is out there keeping interest rates really low. $230 billion per year in interest. in its own right that is more than we spend of the department of commerce, education, energy, homeland interior. if interest rates were at the same level that they were in the 1990's or the first decade of this century, we would be spending over $600 million per year on interest. that is money that we cannot spend to educate our kids or build our infrastructure or do high value added research where we can at -- create the next big thing here and not somewhere

else. >> the tipping point, and i had not answer that question, beautifully done. it says tipping point. dick durbin kept asking this question. where is the tipping point? i cannot tell you where it is. but the money guys, he is one of the nice money guys, but the tipping point comes when the people who have loaned us the money -- i mean, we'll $16.40 trillion dollars -- $16.40 chilean. the tipping point is when the people who have loaned us the money, and maybe you and your folks came into it, the other half is public. the tipping point comes when the people who have no money -- one of our presidential aspirants in

my party said to forget the debt. that would be a great idea except for the guy that loan to the money. anyways, we see that you are addicted to debt. you have proven that. you're also a people with a dysfunctional government. they proved that again when we went to sequester. at that point they will say that you do not have to have a brain here, we want more money for our money. at that point interest rates will go up and the guy that gets screwed the most is the little guy. the little guy. the middle class that everyone babbles about everyone about is the side that is going to get hammered. the money guys will always take care of themselves. what an irony to listen to the distortion, the motion, the stuff that goes on, we just keep plowing ahead.

it irritates the aarp and grover norquist in equal measure. it makes your life worthwhile. we are going to be savage. anything that we do, we will be savage. >> when was the last time the spoke to president obama? >> certainly we check with him after they have their conversation. personally i talked with joe biden on the phone. i've known him for 40 years. a great pal. we do not always agree, but he is a good man and i love him. personally, a year-and-a-half for some things, pushing to talk to the president. erskine has that ability and he checks with me. >> the last time you spoke to the president? >> since the election -- before

the election. i have spoken to to members at -- team members of the white house. >> it is remarkable. >> having worked in the white house, these guys have a lot on their plate. they have got plenty to do. >> if joe biden were president, would we have had a grand bargain? >> who knows. if bill clinton had been president, would we have gotten a grand bargain? both sides will have to move out of their comfort zone for a grand bargain. >> let's talk about those sides. let me start with what you are asking democrats to do. $600 billion in deficit reduction from health savings. the last best offer from the white house was $400 million. >> they do need to do quite a bit more. slowing down the rate of growth

for health care, close to the rate of growth of the economy. yes, we do. >> how do you convince them -- they will argue that they have been aggressive. >> we have to convince democrats that they have to do more on health care than they have been willing to do today. we have to convince republicans that they need to be willing to do more on revenue than i have already done. >> you say that there needs to be more revenue from tax reform. >> he say that that will not get the job done? >> if we do not do something on the revenue side, it puts too much pressure on the rest of the operating statement. the operations of the country. we have to make cuts that are too big.

we have to make big cuts in those areas invested in to be competitive in this global economy. yes, we are recommending $2.40 trillion as step one of what we are recommending. one-quarter of it should come from health care cuts, the other remainder should come from cuts in other mandatory spending, discretionary spending, interest on the debt. >> putting aside what is doable, what is the most important change the needs to be made? >> stabilizing the debt and keeping it on a downward path. >> what specific mechanical changes need to be made? >> and lot of things, not just one thing. we need to be more cautious with appropriate protections for low- income beneficiaries.

we need to have means testing. we need to get serious about the population aging. we need tort reforms. we need savings in how we pay to the drug manufacturers. we need to pay for quality rather than quantity. those are all really important. >> and you have to take care of the guy who could buy this building. this is serious business. anyone who believes that this health care system could work with these statistics, that you will take care of the pre- existing condition of a 3-year- old who might live to be 60? one person in the united states weighs more than the other two? that is a statistic. you have diabetes, and endemic. people turning 65. if we do not pay attention to this aging issue, nothing will work.

my sons are lawyers. they say -- what happened to you? you have got to do something with providers and doctors. let's get serious. the last time we did this to doctors was in the law. we did it and they said we could not do that and they did the dog fix. all of these things have to be done and this baby is on automatic pilot. it is extraordinary that people will say that you cannot touch medicare and you cannot -- you do not have to do a tax increase to gain the ire of grover norquist and his white robe battalions. and you go into the tax code and you say -- guess what? you want a stimulus? everyone says -- what the hell do you think a deficit of $1

trillion is? if that is not a stimulus, i missed the boat. that is what a stimulus is. we did $1 trillion over the last four years. so, we say -- going to the tax code and start ripping around in it. that would irritate everyone in the u.s.. there are 180 of those and they take care of everyone. 180 tax expenditures in the tax code, nothing but spending by at -- any other name. loopholes and deductions. guess what? 20% of the american people use 80% of them. only 20% of the american people use 80% of them. only 27% of the american people itemize their tax return, which pays -- means that three- quarters of the american people have never heard of them. so, who is using it?

me? you? the media? anyone who has got a little buck is using those babies and they suck $1 million out of the treasury just like that every year. >> given what you're saying about the constituency, do you think that tax reform this year is possible? >> i think that backs and dave are working. they are trying to do something. but the heat is on. i mean, you know, tax reform -- mortgage interest deductions, earned income tax credits, blue cross, blue shield, play the game. 180 of those babies out there, they are solidly in the grasp of someone who is going to go to their congressperson this trip around where they have maxed out on every primary and they will

come to it this year and say that we have never asked you for a thing. we are here to say -- to not let this happen. that is worth something this year. >> there is a headline that says employers are sized up to avoid insurance staff under obama care. it speaks to employers who are calculating when it makes more sense to pay a fine. that will shift a huge cost to the exchange. are you worried about that? >> i am worried about the cost of health care. as we travel around the country and speak to various business people, they are all worried about the increased costs and are all shifting some people to

less than 35 hours. taking steps so that they do not have to cover people. .

>> so he knows what to do and if he doesn't get a handle on entitlements and the solvency of social security he will have a failed presidency. if he wants to have a legacy, whatever that is that drives him, that is fine with me. he will have a failed presidency, see deals honestly with the entitlements programs without cutting the poor and the wretched and all of the rest. the scorecard in years to come will be he failed. i do not think he wants that at all. he is too smart. >> the president is going to have to make these really tough cuts. i think he's going back to take

the actions to make social security sustainably solvent. he is going to have to make a tough decisions. republicans in the house are also going back to make a tough decision -- we have to reform the tax. . we will have to use a small percentage of that money to reduce the deficit. >> who is the one person in the white house who is most authentically committed to making these steps worked? >> i think the one person in the white house is ostensibly committed -- who is ostensibly committed to making the choices is the president. i believe he is willing to make these cuts in the entitlement programs that we have to make. that does not mean i do not want to continue to push him aside of his comfort zone.

we are going to have to push him if we are going to get a deal with republicans. in the end we are going to have to push the republicans in order to get a tax reform that allows us to reduce the deficit. >> you have been in the west wing, how do you push a president? >> the way i have done it is stay open with him, not agree but tell him exactly what you think and why. this is a smart guy. i think he will understand it and make the right decisions at the end of the day. >> we could turn joe biden loose on him. he came to the senate when joe was a senior member and joe took him under his wing. he listens to joe as he would a senior colleague. he is the rapid in the hat to do something. that is the role of joe will have.

>> what are you referring to? >> joe has his ear. they say if you are going to do something to this, clean out the room and get rid of the political guys. let's do some policy now. let's do something for america. the political guys have paul plea gone home now. they were there for a purpose. get reelected and then we will work out the details later. just maybe they will sit down and do policy for the best interests of the country without the howling and shrieking of the coyotes using emotion, fear, and racism to beat your brains in. >> how optimistic are you that will occur this year? >> i would hope so. especially young people like you. >> do you believe this will happen this year?

>> i do not know when it will happen. if he cannot cut the mustard with solvency of social security under honest appraisals of the trusties and he cannot get a handle on an automatic pilot rate of health care he will have a failed presidency. >> we are talking about the sequester which most people believe will happen on march 1. it is automatic cuts. mr. you refer to them as "stupid." >> they are stupid. they are in maine. there is no business in the country that makes cuts across the board. second, they are cutting areas where we need to invest in

education, and for structure -- infrastructure, research. that is stupid. >> it sounds like you think when the sequester texan -- kicks in, that may be a window to do something big. tell us what is going to happen march 1 when the sequester cuts kick in and why you think that might be a chance to do something. >> when you guys have a chance to wait in line three hours to get through security in reagan airport, you are going to be kissed. -- you are going to be pissed. you can use a lot of stories like that. they are pointed come back to congress and say we are sick of this. let us do something smart, let us put partisanship aside and move together to fix this debt. >> senator simpson, many people have seen "gangnam style."

a little "harlem shake" for us? >> these young people. you have to admirer them. i heard "stop instagramming your breakfast." i said, "what the hell is that?" "stop watching gangnam style." we made more hits with young people. they are a great group. the canned kicks back.

>> will you do it again? >> not if money continues to irritate me. >> i am really with it now has a 68-year-old guy. i am old, bald, i have nine grandchildren. you have to stay as kurt as you can. when we first got into this deal we thought we were doing it for our grandkids. the more we look at the numbers and the more we look at countries, we are not doing it for grandkids or even our kids. we are doing it for us. we are doing it for the country. we have got to put our fiscal house in order. we cannot be the first generation to leave the country worse off than we found it.

>> its more expensive by the day because we get more into the baby boom's. this problem is getting much more expensive to fix. in 2010 it was four trillion dollars. how fast is it going to get? >> there's of the more powerful than compound interest. a lot of smart people have said that. we are spending 200 and $50 billion -- $250 billion. it will be long before we spend one trillion dollars a year on this. that is one trillion dollars cannot spend in this country to educate our kids.

places like asia -- a trillion dollars will be spent over there to educate their kids, to build their infrastructure, to do the high value resources. the jobs of the future are there, not here. that is crazy. that is what we have to stop. that is why we need to do something now. >> my penultimate question for you is did you read "the price of politics?">> yes. >> it to participate? >> what was it like to be interviewed? >> you have to be alert. [laughter] every time he came to my office i was alert. we would have lunch and he never

misquoted me at all. i don't agree with him in all respects, but he has an amazing journalistic human. >> mr. bowles, you participated? >> i do not remember talking to him but i may have. it is not my favorite thing to do. >> how close do you think we were to a grand bargain? >> it was realistic. both sides were really prepared to make a move. if you look at the end of last year, they were prepared to do more revenue than was in the deal. they agreed to do more health care cuts than certainly have

been done to date. they agreed to do other mandatory cuts. they agreed to do cuts in defense and non-defense beyond what is in the budget control act and they agreed to change cpi. that would have been of very positive step forward. >> we have to quit focusing on the next 10 years and focus on the out years. that is why we need structural change. that is why we need to make social security system in -- social security sustainably solvent. >> we felt compelled to do this.

if these guys were this close back in december then we will pick up from their and try to move it along. that is what this is. it is "do something." >> my last question is something, if not president obama then who? >> my experience in negotiating the balanced budget agreement in 1996 during the president's first terms is now is the opportune time. we need to quit complaining and push these guys to make a compromise that they have to make in order to get something real done. >> as he said, he spent hours

and days in his work. he was the last person to balance the budget in the united states by working with new gingrich. he is that kind of savvy person. i admire him deeply. he is a tremendous man. he is the best of the best. if he can get us there and it won't get there. they do not care about who is president. they care about their money and if anybody can not figure that out, they have rocks for brains. >> the markets will -- tell us what will happen and when to the

market's. >> what is the word you used? the word when they want their money and they are out there -- it is not panic. that tipping point, i do not know what it is but i do know that the longer that we stumble -- to even talk with each other, to visit with each other, to sit down as i used to with ted kennedy -- that is how i was so successful. i did not come to the king or leader. i came to legislate. we have seen as open up again and it will open up again when markets call the shots and inflation kicks in and interest rates go up and people of

america say who did this on whose watch? you were here and you didn't do a lick. that will be the beginning of the solution. >> we think the bank of america for making coverage possible. we thank you all came out early for this and we thank senator simpson, mr. bowles, co-founders of fix the debt. thank you very much. [applause] >> we will be taken shortly to the national governors' association winter meeting where they will discuss supporting teachers and school leaders. before that here in south dakota and gov. dennis to guard, talking about his experience growing up. >> i was invited last october to participate in the round table. that was a great experience for

me. gov. mark california i must say i am impressed and i appreciate your bringing this as your initiative. it is much more than i thought it would be. i am really impressed with the practical suggestions i gleaned in october and emplaning again today and yesterday. thank you for doing this. i am embarrassed to say that i haven't done a lot as governor in this area. i want to do more. i am embarrassed to say because i have some connection with that, i was asked to relate a story i related last october. i grew up in eastern south dakota near the minnesota border. if your dog runs away you could see him for several days. [laughter] it is all corn. it has been farm country for

over a century. my grandparents came from denmark in 19 03. they were teenagers and got married in iowa. it bought a small farm in south dakota where my father was born three years later, right in the farmhouse. dad was born deaf. i had a laugh where the nurse tried to take his temperature with one of the year canal thermometers and of course that had no your canals so she was very frustrated. dad had no hearing at all. he was one of four children. two children were profoundly deaf like him and two were normal hearing.

that would tell me how they got up in the morning and they were still using oil when he was younger. they would get up and when it was still dark my grandfather would go out and milk the cows. my uncle howard would onerous the horses and get them ready for the field work. dad would feed the cattle and hogs and then they would come back in for breakfast. that was the beginning of their farm days. dad talked about how in those days they went to the dell rapids, which was 10 miles away. they would harness the horses up to the leg and go to town. on the way home, about 10 miles involving corners and turns, they could go to sleep because the horses knew the way home. that was life back on the farm in those days. when they were school age, dad

and his sister went to the south dakota school falls i25 miles away. they will live at the dorm there, come home on some weekends. in those days technology was very limited. there were very few services. my mother was born in iowa. she was born severely deaf. she had some hearing. only if he spoke very loudly and she was looking right at you and could get lip cues or if she had her hearing aid on and was looking right at you. she had severe hearing loss. they met in their late 30s and settle down on our family farm.

both my parents taught me the value of hard work and saw their pride in self-sufficiency. when i was growing up we had to milk cows. for me it was up every morning at 5:00 to milk the cows with dad and then back at it every evening after school. the farm wasn't big enough to make up going with just that quarter section that we had so my dad always had an off-farm job, too. there was a cabinetmaking shop where my dad was a cabinet maker. my dad cannot find work. i was very little but i remember how my parents argued in sign language.

they argue about unemployment. that did not want to accept unemployment. mom was worried about food on the table. ultimately my dad found a job as a janitor in sioux falls. he ended up demonstrating that same kind of loyalty to the employer where he worked for another 10 years. my mom also worked there as a janitor for 10 years. he was tried to make farm payments at the time so he formed during the day and worked as a janitor at night. i do not know how he kept it up but he did. both my parents knew the meaning of hard work. when i was growing up technology began offering a few products to help the deaf. a microphone was hung in the crib when i was an infant. when i would cry it would buzz a light -- a switch actuated and a light flashed in the bedrooms of

my parents would know i was crying or if i was -- if i was crying or if my two sisters were crying. they really needed to help themselves. that is true of a lot of citizens with disabilities. i believe people with disabilities often develop higher levels of the termination and accomplishment because they have to. with the support of their friends i think those with disabilities can dream just as we all do. whether one has disabilities or not we are all challenged to remember that everyone is a product of their own aspirations. if we aspire hire we will achieve higher. it does not matter if we have a fiscal year or not. some people look at people with disabilities and say he can, or she can. the focus on the disability. more important for all of us,

whether we have a disability or not, is what is inside. people with disabilities are no different than those without disabilities. in the most important way we have our own will. when my parents were first married and my mother became pregnant a year later some people, even in our own family, wondered how they could raise children. how will children learn anything. how will they learn to talk? they were focusing on the disability. they didn't realize how determined my parents were. they did not know how hard they were willing to work. my sisters and i were high achievers because our parents instilled the right values. my sisters were at the top of their classes and were successful in their careers.

my father helped linda and i will be built our home. we bought the little farm house for my parents when we got married. we moved in with them and then we built our own home with our own hands across the yard. i would have never done that if my father had not said, "you can do this." we hired someone to dig the basement and pour the foundation. after that we did everything. we framed it, she's dead, we install windows, wired it, plunkett. i would not have been encouraged to try that if my dad said we could not -- if my dad did not said we could do this. my sister and i were the interpreters for my dad when outsiders came to the farm. if he had an appointment with the doctor i would go and interpret. i needed to get on the phone to call first. that would go to the doctor's

office and more often than not they would have to communicate by riding on a piece of paper back and forth. dad would watch the pictures of the conversations were accessible to him on television. if he wanted to contact one of his friends i would have to call the neighbors of the neighbor could walk over to the deaf friend's house, see if he was home. or dad would just take the chance and go 25 miles to find his friend not at home. i could dial of video relay service and reach a relay operator and the operator would call my dad's internet protocol address and a light would flash of the top of the television and that would pick up the remote. he would push the button on the remote and instead of watching the evening news he would be

looking at a video interpreter. i am in the phone -- on the phone in my car. changes did not happen overnight. he could not watch television in his underwear anymore. [laughter] the point i am making is that technology has provided many new tools to workers with disabilities. whether they are do you really services or electric chairs, a lot of technology has made the world more accessible to citizens with disabilities. citizens with disabilities.