is where we get our fiscal house in order. why do we want to do that? again, it is not just numbers on a page and making things add up to zero to get a balanced budget, but with a debt that size, paying the interest on the debt, servicing that debt, every single dollar that services that debt is a dollar that can't be used for education, can't be used for healthcare, can't be used for transportation or energy. that can't be used for national security. it is literally at a point where it is approaching choking off the actual vitality of our great country. so that is the reason. it is not just numbers on a page. it is making certain that we provide for a greater amount of opportunity for all americans. you all know now that we find ourselves in a situation where we as a nation are spending about $3.6 trillion a year. and $3.6 trillion a year in

its entirety. $2.6 trillion is medicare, medicaid, social security and interest on the debt. interest on the debt by the way is scheduled to approach $1 trillion within a ten-year period of time, within the budget window. all of that money we can't use for something else. so $3.6 is the big number and $2.6 is what we spent for the debt and right around a trillion for everything else. so when you think about the federal government and you think about roads and energy and education and national defense and all of the kinds of things legislative branch and commerce, everything else except for medicare, medicaid and social security and interest on the debt, you are all a bright audience and you know we've had

deficits of greater than a trillion for the laxt six years which means you can do away with the entire government with the exception of medicare, medicaid and social security. and if you get rid of everything, in those four years we wouldn't even balance the budget. so that is the magnitude of the challenge before us. so when you hear folks say, you don't need to worry about social security or medicare or medicaid they are doing just fine, not a problem. that is not only irresponsible it is deceitful. they are just not telling you the truth. so we can continue as a nation to stick our head in the stand but we can't save and strengthen the programs that are vital for so many of our fellow citizens.

that is at the same time on the revenue side, the money coming into the federal government, as you know, is at the highest absolute rate. more money collected in the last quarter from the american people than ever. so if you have that kind of debt and growing debt and those kinds of deficits and you have those kind of revenue numbers, increasing numbers coming into the federal government, the problem isn't revenue, the problem is spending and you all know this so very, very well. the three ways to solve the problem, all right. raise taxes. it is our favorite way to do that from our friends on the other side of the aisle. or you can decrease spending and to be honest with you, the house has done a pretty doggone good side, on the discretionary side, the nonautomatic side. those numbers have been coming down in real numbers, minimally, but coming down each of the last four years. but where the problem and the spending is is the spending,

medicare, medicaid and social security. so you can raise taxes, decrease economic and hope to grow the network. an we hope to put in place and lay out the vision for how we would grow our economy in a very positive way, expand success for the american people. how are we going to do that? we are intent on building on the success we've had already at the budget committee over the last four years. as tim mentioned, the budgets that have been laid out have demonstrated how you get the balance and demonstrated the remarkable things that can be done, if you think creatively and have faith in the american people and have faith in the -- the free market system that has made us the greatest nation in the history of the world and we'll build on that success. we will lay out a budget this year. the budget has to be done by the end of the march. we'll lay out a budget this year that will come to balance within the window. within a ten-year period of time.

i hope it is shorter than that and i'm excited with the ten or 11 new people on the budget committee and we're going to challenge them to come up with ideas to get to balance in a shorter period of time. second, one of the things we can do at the budget committee, and that is to normalize the debate about controversial issues. as tim mentioned, four years ago no one would have given us a prayer to lay out a solution to save and strengthen and secure medicare and sustain the onslaught from the other side. and everybody said no, you can't do that. and we worked and worked and convinced our friends and colleagues and moved forward with a positive solution, so positive that the romney-ryan

on that proposal won the senior vote. we need to find those areas, we need to normalize the debate about how you resolve the remarkable challenges that we have. we believe that it is important to save and strengthen medicare, medicaid and social security. and the other side believes they are alright with going broke because every one of the programs is going broke. every single one. social security/disability runs out of money next year. this isn't in 2080, this is next year. the urgency is huge. so we believe it is important to put in place the programs an the policies, the positive solutions to save and strengthen and secure medicare, medicaid and social security. and i can't wait to have the new members on the budget committee sink their teeth to the wonderful issues that are so

important to solve if we're going to get our fiscal house in order to create an economy that will thrive and grow. third, i think that we have on conservative side, we have either ignored or put on the back burner or lost the whole principal of federalism when it comes to federal government spending and federal government policy and budgeting. it is one of the areas that i hope to normalize again, the debate from the federal budget committee. federalism isn't just having the states and the counties doing what they should as opposed to -- what they ought to be doing as opposed to the federal government, it is a principal that puts into place solutions that allow greater amount of choices and solutions for every

single american. that is what federalism does. and that is what we're going to -- we're going to work hard on trying to identify the ours where we ought to be able to move forward in a big, big way. and fourth, regulatory reform. the burden, the incredible burden of the regulatory oppression that has come out of this town, on steroids for the last six years, has to be stressed. we talk about how the corporate tax rate should be decreased. and individuals pay taxes and corporations collect the taxes. and we collect about $300 billion a year in corporate taxes. the burden for americans, large and small businesses and americans across this country is at least five times that. at least five times that. annually. the amount of money that goes into complying with all of this federal regulatory scheme is over $1.5 trillion a year.

again, those are monies that -- well we all believe in regulation. ought to be appropriate, right-sized, accountable regulation. not just because somebody in this town has a grand idea of how somebody ought to do something. as a practitioner, i will tell you there are practitioners that think they can take care of patients and they don't. and they should not be able to write the regulations to dictate to practitioners and other individuals who they know nothing about what that kind of practice or what that kind of endeavor is. so we believe that the budget committee is the place to begin to get more of a handle on the regulatory oppression going on. and i believe you've heard of reconciliation and it is an important tool of congress to be

used but it is not a silver bullet. it doesn't solve all problems. it is absolutely important and comes through the budget committee. we'll provide reconciliation directives that we hope the senate will agree upon. the reason it is important is because then it can come -- when it is agreed upon, it can come back to the floor of house and in an expedited section and it doesn't take a super majority. all sorts of reconciliations have been used for good things and bad. reconciliation in some variety was used for obama care and the tax reductions for the previous decade, 2001, and 2003. and the balanced budget act of the late 1990's when we got to a balanced budget. but as i say, it is a powerful tool but not a silver bullet but a important tool. and finally at the budget

committee, we believe budget process reform is absolutely imperative. we are in a budget process written 40 years ago by folks who wanted the default in this town to be -- to continue to spend and spend and spend more and more. so i look at budget process reform in two areas. one short-term, we got off to a pretty doggone good rules with the macro scoring we put in place and i'll talk about that in a second and there are other short-term things, baseline issues we might be able to do. and in the long-term, but not in this congress, because i don't believe the president has any interest in reforming budget process, but in long-term i think it is important that we re write the 1974 budget act and write it in a way that's much more accountable and makes it that the government's role in

terms of spending is a default to spend less not a default to spending more. so i look forward to working with folks on the committee to make certain we move in that direction. that is a longer-term prospect. let me touch on some specific issues an then i'm happy to address any questions. macro economic analysis or scoring, i call it accurate and realistic scoring, the congressional budget office is i believe, imprisoned by rules that make it so they can't get to the right answer. over the past two months, i've been spending a lot of time on the telephone with economists from around the country. bright minds, men and women who have spent their lives in the economic arena and ask them what they think they ought to be done

and one of the questions i tried to get the answers from each and every one of them was on macro economic scoring. and almost to a person, they were wholeheartedly supportive of this and some had great descriptions of what that means. one of them we can either do what we are doing now, which is incorrect or do what we ought to do is be unprecisely incorrect. and when we sent something to the budget office and we don't allow for the human aspect, we change policy in this town because we think it will affect something and we send it to the congressional budget office and say don't assume it will change anything. in fact, you can't assume it will change anything. so that number is zero. as other economists said, we know it is not zero. it may be somewhere between 1-7, but we know it is not zero, so

why would we say it is zero? doesn't make any sense at all. so in the rule we passed last week in the house, we're dipping our toe in the water. this is not changing the sun and the earth as it relates to scoring at congressional budget office. what we said if a policy would result in a change -- that was greater than .25% of gross domestic product, that is about $40 billion. three bills in the last congress would have come under that provision. then you ought to be able to look at what the effects may be use those in our process from a scoring standpoint. this is a small step in the right direction. second big issue that is coming up quickly is the sustainable growth rate, the sgr, the doc fix. it expires on march 31st. it is time to fix this. this has been broken since it was instituted but clearly broken for the last 12-13 years. every single year congress runs around trying to figure out how to find the money to cover the hole, to cover the patch to make

it so we don't push more and more physicians out of the practice of caring for medicare patients. this is not to add for something -- something to add to a zero page. but the practices that see seniors, has limited the numbers they see. not because they don't want to take care of them, but because the numbers don't add up because the federal government is imposing the restrictions. one out of eight physicians in a practice that would normally care for seniors said we are not seeing any more. not seeing any more seniors. again, not because they've forgotten how to practice the medicine, and i'm hopeful we can

fix this by the end of this quarter. and third is the debt season coming due on march 15th. but with the extraordinary measures that are able to be taken, it probably runs into june july, august time frame. i think it is important that we appreciate that the debt ceiling provides focus on this issue but the problem isn't the debt ceiling. the problem is the debt. the problem is the debt. and that is why we need to get our arms around this debt and our arms around the policies and procedures we need to put in place to put us on a path to balance and pay off that debt. again, a great opportunity. a great opportunity to focus on the budget committee and we will be front and center on that. and finally in terms of an issue, i would be remiss if i didn't mention obama care or healthcare. obama care is not only harming

health care in this country but it is harming our economy. it is doing in ways big and small. not just for medical practices or physicians and hospitals trying to care for patients but for businesses, small and large who of their own volition want to provide health coverage for their employees and found it difficult. wanting to hire more folks and have a cap on the number of individuals they can hire so they don't come under the forces and the regulations and the rules of obama care. that is not a system that works for people. it may work for government. it may even work for insurance companies but it doesn't work for people or for patients. so i'm excited about the opportunity to continue to put forward patient-centered positive solutions and i hope we're able to use our budget to put forward some of those programs as well. great, great opportunity is going to come, i believe, in june when the supreme court will rule on king v. burwell. this is the case coming before the court. they'll hear the arguments in march and rule likely the last week of june and probably the

last day of their rulings. and this is the one that said if the law itself, the bill as passed and the law put into place did not provide for subsidies to be able to be utilized to provide health coverage for those who get their coverage through a federal exchange, it is very clear -- the law is very clear. and this law -- if this position, if the supreme court agrees with what we believe to be the letter of the law, then this unravels obama care pretty doggone quickly. that is a good thing. but it is not a good thing to not have any replacement or solution ready and available for congress to act upon. and so we need to be ready willing and able to move forward with making sure we stick to the principles of healthcare accessible and coverage and choices, not destroy those

those principles. if we do that, i think we'll have a great opportunity for the president to support positive reform when it comes to health care. so exciting and challenging time. let me thank you for your interest today and thank heritage action for the wonderful advocacy on behalf of the american people. thank you so much. god bless. [ applause ] >> thank you very much congressman price. we have about 12 minutes where the congressman can take some questions and we have questions online, we've got a lot of folks watching online and we have press and we have attendees here so we'll try to cycle through the various questions. first question. right here. >> there are a lot of things that can be done to save budget costs through management reforms and the bureaucracy and related to your discussion about dynamic scoring, have you thought about doing anything on the cost side.

you can't legislate management savings and it is estimated $50 billion in potential cost savings by squeezing out redundancy and streamlining the government's back office without touching a dollar of program remission, have you thought about looking at those kind of savings and considering a way to get around the bird rule in the future? >> getting around the bird rule is i think going to be a real challenge without the comprehensive reform of the budget act. i view that as a long-term solution. i haven't met anybody on the senate side appearing to be willing to tackle that and because it is statutory, it would take -- i think that is better done in the re-write of the 1974 act. if you look at other items and in terms of where we can find savings, the gao and heritage and all others point to significant savings that could be identified and utilized and

it is the energy and enthusiasm or excitement of the ten or 11 members or our budget committee that we will rely on to help push those kind of solutions. so absolutely. we have to be more creative. we have to be more inventive in how we're solving the challenges on behalf of the american people from a budgetary standpoint. the challenges get more difficult every year. and the president who refuses to act on these kinds of things makes it difficult for us to get our fiscal house in order. but we're up to the task. and i know the american people are interesting in making certain that we fulfill that task. >> right here. yes. >> mr. chairman, just to follow up on your comments on obama care, are you suggesting then that you are going to have an

alternative ready to go, if you will, once the supreme court rules and if so, can you give us a little preview of what you have in mind? >> boy, i sure hope so. but i've hoped so for the last four or five years. as i mentioned, the principles of healthcare that the vast majority of the american people, regardless of your ideological standing or position, the vast majority of people support principles that say we ought to have a system that provides for greater afraid -- affordability for health care, greater accessibility, greater quality of care and more choices for the american people. almost everybody believes in that. the problem that we have right now is what the president has put in place with this law is something that violates every single one of those principles. so affordability is going down. costs haven't come down by $2500 a family, they have gone up at least that on average per family. accessibility has gone down. you've heard of the narrowing of networks.

physicians -- patients aren't able to find abscessability with physicians. quality is decreasing. talk to my former colleagues they will tell you that the quality of health care in this country is being diminished because of the law and choices are clearly limited. if you step back and say we want to put in place a policy that would adhere to those principles, what does it look like? it looks like something we need to make sure it's affordable. we need to expand to make sure they gain coverage in all sorts of ways. those individuals in the small group market truly threatened by increasing cost and pre-existing illness exclusion that has existed, those folks need to be able to access a risk pool insurance risk pool large enough to spread the risk so their costs come down, don't go up. i think we need to say to folks any health care policy you purchase approved by your state insurance commissioner or state insurance department. anyone they deem to be appropriate coverage you should have access to.

we ought not to dictate from washington what you can buy, through your pocket book. quality matters need to be determined in the field of medicine not bureaucrats in washington, d.c. choices need to be expansive for patients. so if you step back and accept those principles as principle for the american people, you pretty much have a clear path to what the policies would be. >> right here. >> dr. price, should you win on obama care, the administration would have at least two responses, one to congress change the law.

that will be up to you. they will also go to the state and say lots of people are losing subsidies, please set up the exchange and we can start the subsidy money flowing again. what would be your advice to the states, 35 or 40 states pressured by the obama administration? should they ask for complete freedom on medicaid spending? what should they ask for? they can't say set up and not negotiate. >> the mental to the states is there's a better way. there's a way that respects your constituents and citizens of your state to make certain we follow principles so dear to americans with health care. medicaid, we believe state flexibility is an absolute vital component. in my state of georgia, there are about 1.8 million on medicaid. 1.2 million of those folks are healthy moms and kids for whom health care costs are miniscule compared to the system. we don't allow the state of georgia, as a federal government, don't allow the state of georgia to come up with a more realistic way to cover all the medicaid population,

thereby saving money for sickest of the sick. huge flexibility is important. indiana is doing great things as it relates to medicaid. we ought to be able to have the states be laboratory of ideas when it comes to health care coverage for medicaid population. so the message is -- there's a better way. and we believe we are going to be able to get to that point. i think the president is actually going to be open to a better way. we're not interested in just having the states turn around and say we'll set up the exchange when we're encumbered by rules and regulations from washington, d.c. nothing will change from the day before the decision is given if given in favor to the day after as it relates to the states and the decision they made two or three years ago when they said no, it didn't make sense to set up an exchange. it doesn't. it doesn't have a financial standpoint and from who makes decisions and who has choices to make decisions.

>> right here. >> thank you. congratulations on your new position, doctor. >> thank you. >> you said you want to bring down the debt. you said $2.6 trillion of the $3.6 trillion budget is in medicaid, medicare, social security and interest. you also said you want to save strengthen and secure these three programs, these entitlement programs. >> yes. >> so my question would be where are you looking to find the savings? are personal retirement accounts on the table for social security? vouchers to buy insurance and medicaid? where will you cut if the goal is to save and strengthen and secure those programs that are costing? >> that's where the good news lies.

these programs, medicare medicaid and social security all of them are destined to go bankrupt on their current course with the current policies. and again as i mentioned apparently our friends on the other side want them to do so because they haven't proposed anything to save any programs. the good news is you can strengthen, save and secure them and save money at the same time. the model that we have proposed for saving and strengthening and securing medicare actually covers more individuals, saves money for the individual and saves money for the federal government at the same time you respect the principles providing greater choices and higher quality of care for seniors. why would you turn your back on that? it astounds me our friends on the left say i see that would make more sense. you spend less, higher quality care and greater choices for the american people. we don't want to do that. we want to make sure we continue to control the system. medicaid, state flexibility, huge state flexibility actually saves money. a more predictable line item for the federal government, a more predictable for state government, provides better choices for patients, higher

quality of care, greater access to care. we as a federal government says, oh, no, let's don't do that. this is lunacy. in the areas of social security, it has, indeed, been the third rail as tim mentioned. i'm hopeful what the budget will do is normalize discussion and debate about social security. this is a program right now on its current course will not be able to provide 75% or 80% of benefits individuals have paid into in a relatively short period of time. that's not a responsible position to say oh, you don't need to do anything to it. so all the kinds of things you know about, whether it's means tested, increasing the age of eligibility, the kind of choices, providing much greater choices for individuals to have voluntarily, select the kind of matter they believe they should be able to invest their working dollars as they go through their

lifetime. all those things ought to be on the table and discussed. again, that's why i'm so excited by the new members on the committee because they have great enthusiasm and energy on this issue. >> they have great enthusiasm about this one issue. >> last question here. right in the back. >> is mitt romney the kind of partner you would want to have for budgeting in the oval office or is there somebody you would rather be working with? >> anybody i've heard that is thinking about running on the republican side is a better partner than the one we have now in the oval office. what i'm hopeful we're able to do at the budget committee is to lay out that vision and have it be so exciting and so positive and so productive that whoever is able to succeed through the gauntlet of the nomination

process on the republican side looks to the budget committee and looks to the house and says those are the kind of policies that i support and we'll take to the american people. >> thank you, congressman. >> thank you all so much, take care, god bless you. [applause] >> ok, thank you, congressman price. great stuff. now i'd like to introduce two panelists. we're going to have a conversation about all the things we just heard and what we might be able to expect in 2015 budget-wise. romineia with budgetary affairs at the heritage foundation and jason ficener is a senior research fellow at the mercades center. we'll have a 30-minute conversation here thank you. i've asked both jason and romina

to give brief opening remarks and then we'll open it up for questions. rominea, could you begin? >> thank you for the introduction, tim. thank you all for being here today. i want to focus my remarks on how the new congress can control government spending and reduce waste and so i'm so pleased to follow representative price with those remarks. the first thing that the house and senate have an opportunity to do now is to agree on a budget resolution. and that budget resolution needs address growing spending and debt at its root. the current half a trillion dollar deficit of this year has been hailed as a great improvement but to the extent that it is an improvement, it is a very fleeting one indeed because before the end of the decade, the deficit is projected to exceed trillion dollar levels again so in order to rein in

this growing deficit, it's important that we understand what's driving it and then we can control it. so what's driving this growth in spending and the debt? 85% of the projected growth in spending over the next decade is driven by healthcare and retirement entitlements and interest on the debt so that's where reforms need to target. to balance budget before the end of the decade, we saw in the last house budget, it takes more than $5 trillion in cuts and that is assuming you start cutting right away. if you decide to cut in future years and not address spending next year, it takes bigger cuts to get to that balance point but the sooner lawmakers can start cutting, the better. and where exactly should they start in the repealing obamacare has to be their first priority simply because 44% of the growth

in entitlement spending is driven by the healthcare law. so if we are to rein in growing spending and debt, obamacare is where we need to start. this needs to be combined with reforms to medicare, medicaid and social security. during the process lawmakers should be guided by focusing benefits on those individuals with the greatest need and delivering those benefits in a more efficient manner. as we'll hear from my colleague jason ficener, improper payments are a big issue and healthcare entitlements are where some of the highest improper payment rates are in the federal government. now, beyond that there's also still too much waste duplication and overlap in the federal budget. sequestration has helped to overcome some of that but the sequester itself is very small and is a very blunt instrument so we need other reforms that really get at reducing overlap

and duplication and rooting out waste, fraud and abuse. and one recommendation is to adopt a waste commission that operates similar to brack. what that commission would do, it would have to be bipartisan and be guided by objective criteria and go through the federal budget through the domestic budget by agency, by program, and identify those areas also guided by work from the government accountability office, identify those areas where we can reduce waste, cut duplication and make government work better and more efficiently for taxpayers. so that's another reform that i think would help to root out big spending. while we're talking about sequestration, it was intended to be a mechanism that forces lawmakers to agree to important budget reforms that actually address our spending and debt

crisis. unfortunately, that mechanism failed but the sequester will return next year so we have another opportunity to have this debate. to honor the original intent of the budget control act and what the sequester was intended to do, we need to focus on our -- what's our core national proprietary which is national defense. national defense has been underfunded in the base budget and lawmakers have been evading the budget caps using the war account to fund things that should be part of the base budget. so recognizing that, recognizing that we need to fully fund our defense needs and cut spending in those areas where it's growing the fastest and cutting those things where the government shouldn't be engaged in in first place, namely priorities that are purely private or should be done on a state and local level. those are the kind of guidelines that should guide the budget committee and should guide lawmakers this year and the

following year. >> thank you romina. jason? >> thank you. i want to start by saying i was really heartened with chairman price's talk. for a lot of us who have been -- i always joked i'm on the 22nd year of my five-year plan in d.c. i would come in in undergrad three years work and going to colorado. but i have been here longer and oftentimes we hear members say one thing, do another. sometimes they misspeak, don't understand the issues. congressman price went through a laundry list of things he wants to change that have been on our list for a long time and it's heartening to hear him lay them out and be honest about it and the challenges in front of us. a gentleman said you can't get budget changes for management changes which is very important but we have to look at these because they are important issues. one is improperly payments. these are not just fraud

fairway fraud, waste and abuse but what happens when you give the wrong check to the wrong person or the wrong amount. it could be doctors overbilling underbilling people ineligible for a program but continue to get benefits. take medicare, fee for service last year we had $36 billion in improper payments in medicare. that's 10% of the program's costs. take something that seems to be popular amongst democrats and republicans, the earned income tax credit. a 25% improper payment rate. that's $14 billion 25% of the program costs. these are things we look at again, trying to cut down on improper payments. better management of the program, not just fraud, but waste and abuse, can save us money. whether it goes into the baseline or not, should be things we look at and encourage agencies to do better. similarly, congressman price did talk about how the 1974 budget act imprisons some of these

actions we see going on not just in the administration but also in congress and one thing hurt is year-end spending, a u.s. it or lose it phenomenon. if the agencies don't spend their money, they lose it. it all goes to the treasury. we see this kick at the end of the budget year in september for agencies to spend more and more money on things they may not need so they can go to congress and say, guess what, we spent all the money, give us more next year. i did research a few months ago because there's moreidate on online and we pull it down, just contracts, what agencies are doing with contracts, and if you think about a year cycle, if you smooth out your contracts, you spend a little more than 8% per month. you may want to do a little less at the beginning but for example, the department of state had 38% of spending on contracts in the last month of the fiscal year. seems high, doesn't it? you had h.h.s., healthcare, 29% in september of the last fiscal

year. some agencies do fine. treasury does 9.9%. d.o.e. does 6%. some smooth it out but we're seeing what i would call seemingly wasteful spending at the end of the year. looking at how agencies are spending year-end money and giving incentives to curtail that. this goes into the idea of the baseline. how you can balance the budget by cutting in 2011 when senator connie mack was around we looked at what he wanted to call the one penny plan which we called the 1% solution, could you cut spending by 1% per year and if so, could you balance the budget. we started doing the research. you didn't necessarily have to cut spending. you just had to control the growth of spending to balance the budget in a 10-year window. when we did this in 2011, the government could run 2% per year and get 8% of revenues in g.d.p. and balance the budget in a 10-year window. this is a funny time because of

the baselines and congressman price alluded to talking about baselines. baselines assume a certain amount of increase every year so assume for a minute that a program is assumed to get 3% spending more next year and congress decides to only give it 1% spending. the democrats would say you just cut spending. you didn't cut spending. you're still spending more next year than this year but you're slowing the growth of spending. so we need to look at where to control growth of spending and reduce it and the second is where can we make realistic cuts that says you're spending x this year we want less than x next year and prioritize. how baselines are interpreted by the media and by those who don't want to see spending curtailed and that's problematic. rominea and congressman price pointed to areas to focus our attention.

the debt ceiling debate and controls for the murray ryan plan will cease to exist and expire. the disability insurance trust fund will be insolvent in 2016 and the budget process in general so there are issues we need to focus on what should our spending priorities be and focus on what are cuts what are slowing of the growth, what's quote/unquote useful spending. we're not saying all spending is bad but the three major entitlements are growing rapidly and when congressman price talks about trying to save the programs secure them, and make sure they're around even with savings, the savings don't have to be cuts from zero, cuts from last year. really need to slow the growth of spending. if we can slow the growth of those programs we'll go a long way towards balancing those programs fiscal obligations and balancing our financial position in the u.s. government. >> thank you. let's open it up for questions.

you got -- guys got to have some. right here. >> thank you and for your presentation and i agree. but i think when we start talking about what actually has to be done in social security reform, medicare medicaid, there are some concern about turning these programs into welfare programs, mean testing them. there's concern to increase retirement age and while i agree with you that we can find places to cut budget, we can look for the waste in this city. i, like you, have been here longer than i thought, as well. so we're looking forward to those opportunities but to ignore the obvious that these three programs are driving this city's growth, i would like to just hear a little bit more detail about are personal retirement accounts on the table, will there be discussion and energy toward getting that

in social security and number two, on medicaid questions. it sounds nice to say we'll block it to the states and hopefully they'll get this work done. snrt any discussion about changing the program from this city to include vouchers for the poor to buy insurance similar to what federal employees already have. how much energy is going into new ideas? >> that's a great question. we're not members of congress so i can't tell you what they're thinking but we testify on capitol hill and speak to members and their staff so we'll tag team a little bit but on the social security side, i think we also need to be very careful when we talk about increasing the retirement age because when we say increasing the retirement age, the left says, that's a benefit cut. social security, when it first started, the retirement age to get full benefits was 65. the average age people live to was 65 or 66 so you have benefits for a year if you live that long.

now the average age to live on benefits is 78 going into 80's so in some ways we've had an artificial benefit increase by not tying the retirement age to longevity so we need to go back, have a neutral idea of what social security meant. now we're basically trying to fund 30 years of retirement on 40 years of work. the program's not sustainable like that. we talk about raising the retirement age it's talk about a neutral position where people are incentived to work. some can't, they work in hard blue collar jobs and might need to retire at 62 63. we need to incentivize focus to work longer but provide a benefit for those who can't work past 62, 63, 64 or 65. it's the incentive part.

you got to personal accounts. i don't know whether they're back on the table or not but social security disincentivized people from saving originally and we need to look back at social security being part of something of the three legged stool for retirement. part was social security, part was employer provided pensions and the third was personal savings. social security crowds out personal savings. on medicaid, we're economists and focus on incentives or sometimes government programs we call perverse incentives. medicaid basically there's an old joke that says if you've seen one medicaid program, you've seen one medicaid program. you have 50 states state-run programs with federal matching dollars. the way the federal government gives money and incentivizes states to do all sorts of weird games to allocate money, part of that is block grants. we need to look at block grants

and also vouchers because you want consumers having a stake in where their healthcare dollars go and that's not the current system now. >> when it comes to discussions private retirement savings, i think it's so important that people control more of their retirement decisions and that comes with control of their retirement dollars. social security's original purpose was to protect against destitution in old age. the program is very different today and it actually leaves many seniors with benefit levels that are too low where they are in addition to social security benefit relying on other welfare programs. so one proposal that i think is not receiving enough attention is to look at instituting a flat benefit that targets somewhere around the federal poverty level so that those individuals who have worked 35 years do live at a level where it's sustainable, but that also means targeting benefits on those who need them the most about -- there are many

millionaires who receive social security today. the question is does that make sense? do they really need that benefit? is it affordable for us to keep giving social security benefits to millionaires so i think means testing is also a provision that deserves more attention but still keeping in mind that social security is only one part of the retirement safety net. it's not supposed to fund a comfortable, generous retirement. that is what private retirement savings are for and there are certainly ways and i know try to see interest also on capitol hill to eliminate some of the regulatory barriers keeping especially small employers from offering retirement plans to their workers. if you're looking at who has access to a retirement plan today and who doesn't, those workers who don't, they tend to work for smaller employers and they are the ones who need those plans the most because they're less likely to go out and open

an ira on their own so proposals like auto enrollment ira's can do a lot to help more workers save for their retirement and be in control of retirement decisions. >> one thing to add, it's a good point, the technical term for social security for retirement is actually the old age survivors insurance trust fund so you're trying to insure against old age and widows or widowers. it was never meant to be a long-term 20-year retirement program which is what it turned into. >> we have a question in the front row. >> 40 years ago i worked in the government in a very, very minor way and they were doing that same type thing. at the end of the year they were given so much in their budget for the year. they would come up with programs, they would take trips they would spend the money some way and say they had to have that amount and ask for more. i assume that hasn't changed in

40 years. i don't know if it's ever been addressed and the other program is do all these programs need to be cut, we need to save on everything, what of the idea -- i can't remember if it was the penny plan -- whatever, you cut back 5% every year, every organization makes its cuts. what has happened with that? >> it doesn't get enough attention about what i would call excessive or unusual year end spending and the incentive is to spend it, as you know. there have been very very small pilot programs. the department of justice had one for their i.t. department that said if you don't spend all your money, you can roll it over and spend it the next year. senator coburn was interested in these programs to find examples of a pilot program to give agencies short hold on to some of that money and have g.a.o.

monitor and report on it so we can get to best practices and see what worked, what didn't, and try to expand it to the federal government. with the penny plan, one of the problems with sequester, which is an across-the-board cut. budgeting means setting priorities and making tough decisions. a cost cut of 1% is not setting priorities. it's it's a blunt instrument. or do something through reconciliation. seck silliation sets directives, they're targets. you get this amount of money, we can say you have to cut 1%. that's the target. you figure out where it goes and set priorities. until we do that, it's a blunt instrument. we have to basically set the target and let those who have the understanding of the programs and the administration figure out where it has to go. if you look back to defense spending, there were various times where departments

secretaries of defense, who have raised the budget for d.o.d. were unliked because they had a pet project where they wanted it to go to. where those who told the generals you can decide where it gets cut from were more successful and more liked so we can take that approach to the budget. >> if you look at where sequester has cut, what agencies have done to the extend they have had flexibility they have cut some of the conference spending traveling to nice locations to go to conferences but on on the other hand, it's affected defense. we need to look at the size and scope of government and that means eliminating programs. programs we know that don't work. programs that are outside the proper scope of the federal government and that's where it gets tough because that's where you really have that special interest pressure, the people whose paychecks get paid by those programs, the people who benefit from them. they don't necessarily care as much if they're an efficient use

of taxpayer dollars because they benefit from it directly. for lasting cuts, reducing the size and scope of government is critical. i think a brax commission can do that. not a silver bullet but a good place to get started. >> yes sir. >> why don't we use outside these internal reviews and inspection, the inspector general of any department. that's internal. we don't want internal. we want external examination. there are plenty of consulting firms, think tanks. we can get independent people who know what they're doing and who know math and they can report what's going on here and they don't have, let's say they're immune to political

pressure. we got to get reality and we are not going to get it from internal personnel. they all have some pressure and they all respond to that. let's get around them and get the people that will tell us the truth. >> so the brack commission is intended to be a bipartisan in objective, independent of government but i do think that the g.a.o. and the inspector generals are actually doing a very good job identifying areas for improvement identifying areas for managerial improvement. the program is that those improvements rarely get made and to the extent that congressional action is necessary to make some of these changes, there's so much else to do there's very little glory in eliminating a program, especially if people face layoffs, there's even less glory in that. to some extent it's not that we don't know where to cut, that we don't know which programs work

and which ones don't. we do have some good government reports that help guide those decisions but it's that front recognizing the problem, the next step is missing. where's the action to actually get rid of some of these programs? >> i think that's exactly right it comes in the action. what popped in my mind, ronald reagan's famous quote about politics and foreign relation which is is trust but verify and that seems to work for a lot of issues in life but when it comes to government spending, you can have internal i.v.'s they do a good job. they're independent but there should be verification spot checking where g.a.o. or outdoor outdoor -- outside consultant group is asked to pick a few study them and report back to congress. we know where a lot of waste and abuse is coming from. the problem is the action and trying to solve them and that's

one thing where i think a 1% solution works as you're setting the framework and saying it's a lock. you got to figure out how to do it and now we have the benchmark and it's not i can't do it here, i can't do it here. i don't care where you do it, you got 1%, figure out how to find it. like a brack commission that could work. you set a hard framework someone has to figure out how to do it. >> i think congressional oversight is so hard to do these days because the federal government has grown so big. there are over 2,200 federal domestic assistance programs. it's very difficult to do proper oversight when government is too big to do it. >> there's also -- this goes back to congressman price talking about looking at the 1974 budget act. right now we budget every year. congress budgets and they're supposed to do oversight. the budget takes up so much time every year, where's the time for oversight. we might do a two-year budget process where budget's set after

the election and oversight is during an election year to look at reports and talk about where spending's going. >> if only they used it for that. >> right here? >> i think he had a question. >> thanks for your remarks. one of the comments congressman price made, he said the budget is not just numbers but it's a vision and i guess i could take up that mantle for a second. how much of our cause could be hurt by focusing too much on the numbers and what we need to balance the budget rather than the problem that we should reduce spending because government spends inefficiently and these resources would be better spent in the private sector? do either of you think sometimes we miss the forest through the trees by focusing on budgeting matters and not on spending at its core? >> i think you got to do both. too often there's a singular track and someone says let's

focus on balancing the budget and that's the primary focus. you're missing the forest through the trees, where do you want to cut, where do you want to slow growth? talking about just the programs itself, just the overall picture, again, that deficits and debt do matter -- congressman price mentioned we have $18 trillion in debt. that's over 100% of our gross domestic product. everyone here in this country worked for a year and didn't spend any of it, paid it all in taxes, we could barely pay off the debt. with each increasing deficit we're adding to the debt. no one's talking about paying down the debt yet. we're talking about, at most, balancing the budget, which means no more additional debt. at some point we have to pay it off. the u.k. is paying off debt from 200 years ago. they're trying to figure out how to pay off the debt from 1812. they're still rolling it over. what has to happen, you have to have a real discussion about the drivers of our fiscal position,

both the deficit and debt being interest and how to reform those programs. not just reduce the size of government but to spend what we do spend wisely. you talk to the american people about wanting to cut government. they want to cut government but the they want the dollars we do spend to be spent wisely so we need a holistic conversation about balancing the budget and the budget process. >> the budget is often the starting point where the policies originate, the budget committee and that's why a lot of rhetoric is around that and there are numbers associated with it but i think when it comes to vision, fundamentally we have a vision where individuals have more control over their own lives and they're less dependent on government and in healthcare that means controlling their own healthcare dollars and introducing more genuine market competition to control costs rather than the government deciding what treatments and tests get covered and which don't. those are things that should be

between doctors on retirement, too, these are the biggest programs driving growth and spending. and i think when we do reforms, we don't only make fiscal conditions better and help to control the debt and reduce the debt over time but we're giving people more control over their own lives, greater ability to spend their own health care and their own retirement dollars and make those decisions as to when to retire and how long to work through to be instead of being -- instead of beingnudgedg nudged and oftentimes pushed strongly by government to make a certain decision because of the way the rules of the game are written. give individuals more control. they will be better off. we'll have more market competition and it will make us

better fiscally and hopefully stave off taxs in the future and reduce growth and make everyone worse off. >> keep in mind, the budget when it comes to priorities, it literally is an institution or persons statement what they think is the priority. it's where campaign rhetoric meets reality. this is on paper. this is what we said we're going to do, committed to doing, this is how we'll find it. this is it. this is the blueprint. you've got to lay out your vision in the budget. because that's where you're specifying these are our priorities. no more campaign rhetoric, this is reality. let's go for it. >> i appreciate the question because it's exactly what we're trying to do over two days. our theme here of opportunity for all and favoritism to none fits very well into this. there's an inverse relationship between how big the federal government gets and people's personal freedom. we are making the argument here as an organization that big government breeds favoritism and reads that it reads -- it breeds

cronyism. when there's all this money at the trough, that's when you get that deal making that happens. we want to pair that back for people's individual freedom, for their opportunity of so putting that in that context, putting these reforms in that context i think is important because yeah, i think the subtext of your question is we can be a little like too focused on fred -- spreadsheets and too into our numbers. i think that's right. you've got to know the numbers got to get it right. got to balance, do all those things. but got to tell people why. i think that's important. i think we have time for one more question. write your. the right here -- right here. >> your interest in the idea of a waste commission, something like that. would you comment on the political prospects for something like that happening? are there model bills out there, potential sponsors? who do you think -- is there bipartisan sponsorship for something like that? what more can you tell us? >> i think there is interest but momentum is slowly building. there's one bill in the house right now by representative doc collins that would go through

the process two appropriations bills at a time. there were bills in the past. and i know there's more interest. and representative kevin mccarthy, he did mention to "politico" he wanted to present to new congress. i'm hopeful if not optimistic if not this year next year there will be more movement on that. >> jeff sessions was pushing this idea. and we're working now with the new team over there in budget to see if the senator will take it up, too. it's out there. it's percolating. >> ok. let's got thank you to the panelists. [applause] we appreciate everyone being here again. let's take about a 25-minute break. we have senator cruz coming up. congressman, jim jordan, many others. so we have a full afternoon. feel free to take 25 minutes or so. if you need to run out of the building, there's plenty of sandwich shops around here to grab something to eat.

otherwise make yourself at home on this floor and we'll start back up in 25 minutes. [inaudible conversation] >> the heritage foundation is policies summit republican members.

moreover will year from likely that you will hear from likely -- moral they will hear from likely and rand paul. >> senate minority leader mitch mcconnell and richard spoke on the senate floor last week. here is what they said. before proceeding to my remarks i would like to say a word about what's been happening in paris. we've seen some remarkable displace of support -- displays of support for the french people. we've seen defiant recommitments to the ideals of free expression and the french people should know that the u.s. senate stands in solidarity with them, as they work to recover from such awful terrorist atafntle attacks. they should also be assured that we are prepared to cooperate i the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: mr. president later today members of the senate family will have an

opportunity to -- two opportunities to express our solidarity with the people of france in their hour of grief in a short while the senate will consider a resolution condemning the series of terrorist attacks that have shaken france, starting with the attack on the offices of the satirical newspaper sahara lee hebdo and leading with an tac on a grocery market in pairs. our condolences to the families and victims of the people of france. it also expresses our deep commitment to the universal right of freedom of expression, a freedom for which the writers and artists of sahara lee hebdo gave their lives. later this afternoon senators and their staffs will have an opportunity to sign a condolence

book. the book will be outside the senate foreign relations committee room on the first floor of the capitol. in memory of the victims we'll welcome the french ambassador to the united states, ambassador gerrard areaux. if the terrorists who committed the attack meant to frighten freedom-loving people in frons and around the world they have failed utterly. yesterday 4 million people marched in demonstrations in cities across the nation of france. 1.5 million people marched in paris alone. authorities said it was the largest gathering in paris since the end of world war ii and the largest demonstration in the history of the nation of frangs. -- of france. they marched to declare their solidarity with the victims of the sahara lee hebdo massacre and the supermarket massacres and to democrat demonstrate their

unity. the marchers included many religious faiths and nonbelievers. the president of france led the marchings joined by the israeli prime minister binyamin netanyahu, the palestinian authority president mahmoud abbas and america's ambassador to france and our assistant secretary of state. marchers were also held -- marches were also held in other cities around the world. tens of thousands of people showed their solidarity with the victims of the terrorist afaction in france. in chicago hundreds of people turned out in the cold yesterday to rally at daily plaza. one of the organizers of the chicago rally was a young woman named eve zuckerman who has lived in chicago for about four years. she said the spasm of violence that has shaken france is not simply an attack on france.

in her words "what it real lay means is that anyone who is for freedom and for tolerance is also under attack." in our own country in the days after 9/11, our grief was made bearable by the countless acts of courage and kindness and solidarity we witnessed mongt the corn carnage. so it is in france today. one story concerns a young man who worked at the kosher supermarket in paris that was attacked on friday. the young man risked his life to hide seven jewish customers in the freezer in the supermarket's basement. he then risked his life again to slip out of the basement and tell the police there were people hidden out-stairs. this young man described the layout of the supermarket and the location of the hostages, crucial details that enabled the police to save so many lives and end the standoff. this young man has been hailed

as a here reby citizens of france and by israeli president netanyahu. one more thing: he is a muslim immigrant born in mali. martin luther king jr. told us, we're bound together in a single garment of destiny. the millions of people in france and around the world who marched yesterday and freedom-loving people throughout the world understand this. together in our unity and resolve, we will overcome this latest assault on our shared values. mr. president, over the weekend as i mentioned as millions of people were marching on the streets of france and around the world to demonstrate the world's unity in the aftermath of the horrible terrorist attack in france the president announced that he would hold a summit at the white house next month to discuss what can be >>

what ted cruz talks about the gop agenda. topics include more security and immigration. from the heritage summit, this is an hour. [applause] >> i do not think i will say anything else. it has been great, we a lot of coverage with good ideas and discussion. there is no one i would rather reproduce than ted cruz introduce than ted cruz -- introduced than ted cruz. there are few more people to come up with good solutions to every corrosion personal fortitude to push the ideas through the and to have the

courage and personal fortitude to post the ideas through. for all of the cronies, ted cruz has been willing to stand up and say no. i said that things seem to be going well and he says it is like the god polyol the building and every floor, he says so far, so good. [laughter] the coming. -- green is coming what ted cruz is on his way out. and that is what i hear around the country, more than anything else are you thank you for fighting the -- i hear thank you for fighting ted cruz has done that as much as anyone i have known and i am proud to know him. come share your thoughts.

[applause] >> thank you very much. thank you for having me here. afternoon cold and good afternoon on this cold wintry day in washington. these are extraordinary times remarkable times. just last week, working in the hallway, i ran into a janitor carrying a screwdriver coming to change the sign on harry reid's dorr. [applause] was all great change there is

foreshadowing. you could get the foreshadowing in the november election in august, september, october. one of the first signs is democratic senators were nice to us. -- suddenly the democratic senators were next to us. it looking ahead and what a nice time at i -- did would be looking at and say, what a nice titlee that is. it is important to understand what the election signified. it was not an embrace of republicans. the election was not in embrace -- an embrace of one party.

the election was the voters wrongly repudiating the past that roundl -- wrongly repudiating the path we are on -- roundly repudiating the your own. we won't leadership that-- want leadership. we have an incredible opportunity, and i want to say thank you to harry jackson for hosting the event. the court focused is -- core focus is, you have the majority, what are you going to do with it? there are some people in this town will intone in gravelly

voices we need to get things done. hardly enough to the people say -- oddly enough, the people stated that, it does not matter what the things are. there are voices that say if you stand for anything significant but has a risk -- that has elect will risk. the said that republicans should not stand and fight because you have a majority. ok, we have a majority. mark my words, there are voices that are saying you should not stand and fight because you have 60. -- not have 60.

you have 67 votes. -- do not have 67 votes. if you get elected promising to do nothing, when you were in office, he will do nothing -- you will do nothing. i will suggest a different way to go on and when elections -- win your actions. ronald reagan said the republican party is not a fraternal order. it is a movement unified around a shared set of ideals. liberty, the constitution. and it matters only in so far as we are serving up and defending standing up and defending those

values. what i would encourage my friends and colleagues is something very simple. let's stand up and lead. you would -- let's lead with a positive agenda that says that you had a referendum and you rejected the obama agenda. there is a better way. that is our opportunity. i will tell you, for all of the republicans intoning "we must get things done." if we simply someone to business as usual and keep growing -- settle into business as usual and keep the leviathan and shrinking individual liberty, we

will demoralize the millions of men and women that came out in november gave republicans the biggest majority since the 20's. not only will we not win elections, we will get walloped and deserve to get walloped./ what i wonder what i would are my colleagues to do is simple. a lot of us have kids. everyone was has told our kids, tell the truth and do what you said you would do. that is the advice i would give every one of our colleagues. it is striking in the senate. two years ago, i will during the republican freshman in mitch mcconnell's office -- remember joining the republican freshmen in mitch mcconnell's office.

there were three of us. it was lonely. enough for a demogame of spades. this year, 12 republican freshman. a dozen. nearly a quarter. what i have encouraged every freshman is that each of you that has fought to want an election, if you stand up -- win and election, if you stand up and say let's do what we said we would do, that would have a transformational effect on the united states senate. each and every senator in january answers questions the exact same way would have answered those questions in october before the election, that will have a transformative effect. in my view, republican should

take the opportunity to lead with a bold agenda that focuses on jobs, liberty, and security. and let me talk about specific agenda items that we should take all and that's that -- up and pass. i ladies out before the election -- laid these out before the election. and review after the election is that we should -- my view is that after the election we should do that. step one is opportunities. it means finally passing the keystone pipeline. but listen, jobs are a lot more than keystone. keystone matters, it is an example of partisan politics

hoping would -- trumping common sense. but we needed jobs agenda broader than that. we have seen incredible growth in the energy sector or in the last couple of years. i produced the american energy renaissance act, legislation to remove federal barriers creating millions of jobs in the private sector in the energy sector. and not just in energy, low-cost energy is bringing manufacturing dropped back, reading steel jobs back, bringing the kind of jobs that built the dignity of the middle class in america. we need to pass legislation making it clearly federal government has no authority to regulate fracking.

that these things are perfectly poised to make determinations and there are no need for events to stick their nose and. bash the feds -- the feds to stick their nose in. we need to remove the ban on oil and open up land to exploration and development. president obama loves to ride about the -- barrag about the energy exploration without noting that were fully all of it has happened on private land. the federal government has been an impediment. number two we need to do everything humanly possible to repeal obamacare. [applause] you know, five years ago, when

obamacare was being debated reasonable minds could differ over whether this could work. today, seeing the devastation seeing the train wreck seeing the millions of americans lost their jobs, forced into part-time work, losing health care and doctors, today the only reasonable prudent outcome is toward knowledge this thing is not working -- to acknowledge this thing is not working and we need to review it and start over. what does that mean with president obama in the white house? first of all, congress should use every procedural tool available including reconciliation to repeal larger

with 51 votes in the senate -- obamacare with 51 votes in the senate. the president is very likely to veto that. we will not have the votes to override the veto. what we need to do is systematically begin seeing up legislation after legislation addressing the most horrible consequences of obamacare providing real relief to the millions of people were hurting. we need to introduce legislation saying that if you like your insurance plan, you can keep your plan. the president repeatedly looked into the tv cameras and made that promise over and over again. we need to codify it for the 6 million people who had plans canceled because of obamacare. we need to address the pain the federal government has caused to

them. i would know that with democrats in an interesting position. there are lots of senate democrats who say they like obamacare in the abstract but there are individual problems. ok, let's talk about the problems. one after the other after the other, beside, as a senate democrat -- you decide, as a senate democrat, if you are in favor of people losing health plans. you beside if you're in favor of the federal government really a insurance companies. -- bailing out insurance companies. one after the other, we need to pass these. one of two things will happen. one, the democrats blocked us and filibuster in the senate and

the president vetoes, or two they pass it along. if the latter, we provide meaningful relief, and if the former, there is absolute clarity as to where the parties stand and what we stand for. but we need to honor those commitments. number three we need to finally secure the border and stop the president's unconstitutional amnesty. [applause] is amazing. right now, the white house is castigating republicans. how dare you focus on securing the border literally at the same time we are seeing terrorists try to murder free people across the globe. the very same day centcom has

been hacked by isis the white house press secretary is topo busy saying don't do what we secure the border and protect americans -- anything to secure the border and protect americans. this is common sense. one of the fun things about washington is listening to send it democrats -- senate democrats living tuesday's far from the border explained to us who live on the border how wonderfully secure the border really is. i have a modest suggestion. perhaps we should move the white house to the rio grande valley. [laughter] after all there can't be more people climbing the white house fence that there are onow. [laughter]

when you go down to the valley, and advances we have a 2000 mile border what you hear from people who live there, from law enforcement and elected officials from republicans and democrats is to secure the border and protect security. it is a basic commonsense issue. when it comes to amnesty anyone concerned about rule of law separation of powers, anyone that believes in the constitution should be deeply dismayed. by the president's decree that he will simply ignore federal law. when he unilaterally tried to grant amnesty to millions of voters, i said voters. what is interesting about the approach on this is it seems like it is always political.

before the election, president obama said this election will be a referendum on my policy. everyone of my policies will be on the ballot. president obama waspresident obama was right. words that have not been said often at the heritage foundation. you better believe if the senate democrats have been reelected and they had grown a majority the president would have said the people have spoken and they have embraced -- embraced my agenda. instead he said the people who did not vote have spoken. nevermind those pesky people who showed up to express their views. let me say something about both obamacare and amnesty. we brought michael j fox in a

delorean and we went back in time to october 2014 you would see republican candidates all over the country saying, if you elect us, if you give us a republican majority, what will we do echo we will fight tooth and nail to repeal obamacare. number two, if you elect us and give us a republican majority, we are going to stop president obama's illegal unconstitutional, amnesty. just two months ago yet now when the topics, you hear crickets chirping. it isn't complicated.

we need to do what we said we would do. number four, we need to hold government accountable and rain in activism. -- rein in activism. we need to provide real meaningful oversight of the obama administration, of the abuse of power, of the all assists, of the regulatory abuse. i am looking forward to what i hope will be a republican chairman conducting serious inquiry into the abuse of power in the million people hurting because of it. i am looking forward to seeing the senate do you. for six years, harry reid has been barack obama's most

important senator. i look forward to seeing serious inquiries into the trampling of religious liberties that have occurred. i am looking forward to seeing, finally some real scrutiny to prevent judicial activists to be put on the bench will impose their own radical agenda. including settling the judicial activism we have seen in recent months with the courts striking down the marriage laws in 33 states. the constitution makes clear that marriage is a question for the state, not a question for a bunch of unelected federal judges who may disagree with the democratic views of the people who live in the united states of america. number five, time to stop the culture of corruption.

i have said a lot of times that the biggest divide we had in this country is not between republicans and democrats, it is not between the establishment and the tea party less our friends in the media like to write about. i am hopeful that we will see bold leadership from republicans this year and next but i have to say, the lame-duck was aptly named. it was not encouraging to see the cromnibus, a giant pile of corporate welfare being the first thing republicans rushed past. wouldn't it be nice to see our

elected officials respond with the same diligence to the taxpayers that they respond to the promises made to lobbyists on k street. this town is fundamentally corrupt. all parties come together and say let's reauthorize the ink -- bank? why? it helps a bunch of corporations, forget the little guys. the big guys give us checks. one of the many reasons we need to pass a term limits amendment to the united states constitution. serving in congress should not be a lifetime job. what should be lifetime is a ban on members of congress becoming lobbyists and coming back after serving.

we need to pass fundamental tax reform, making our tax code simpler, flatter and terror. the sink -- fairer. the single most important thing we should abolish the irs. the voices of washington will say, tsk tsk that is inconsistent with getting things done. you know, i will note, some years ago steve forbes did a remarkable job starting the foundation for a flat tax. a simple flat tax that is fair, that every american can fill out his or her taxes on a postcard. the last two years have fundamentally changed the dynamics of this debate.

as we have seen, the weaponization of the irs, as we have seen the obama administration using the irs in a partisan manner to punish political enemies, in my view there is a powerful populist dissent. to take the 100,000 employees at the irs, to padlock the building and to put all 110,000 on our southern border. now, i said that somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but you have to think if you are coming illegally into this country and had traveled hundreds of thousands of miles, if you swam across the rio grande a and the

first thing you saw was 110,000 irs agents, you would turn around and go home. it may well be the case. that we won't succeed in polishing the irs. and adopting a flat tax with barack obama in the white house. we may have to wait two years for a republican president to lead that fight. what we can do is one after the other tee up simplification of the tax code. it makes the burden easier. reduce the burdens in the power of washington. it weakens the course of power in washington.

number seven, we need to audit the federal reserve. one of the most corrosive things we have seen in the last six years has been an easy money policy qe one, qe two and qe infinity. i am reminded of john edwards's speech to america. john edwards, in this respect is right. another sentence rarely set. if you go to wall street, if you go to those with wealth and power lock the corridors of power in the obama administration, the conventional

view, easy money is great. the conventional view is, we are not seeing significant inflation. i will tell you, if you go talk to working men, if you talk to an hispanic laborer, like my father when he came to this country, if you talk to a single mom waiting tables at a diner they have seen the price of milk go up, the price of chicken go up the price of ground beef go up. they have seen until recently the price of gasoline go up. they had seen the price of electricity go up, their health insurance, they were promised a $2500 cut and they had seen it

rise over $3000 per family. they have also seen median wages stagnate for some two decades. if you are a single mom trying to pay the bills and the cost of everything you are spending goes up and up and the one thing that doesn't move is your paycheck every two weeks, you are feeling the consequence of washington's easy money policy. we need stable consistent, strong monetary policy. number eight. it is long past time for us to pass a strong, balanced budget amendment. take it up, vote on it and pass it. what we are doing to our kids and grandkids, in my view is

fundamentally irresponsible. this is not a particularly conservative view. this is basic common sense, get out of this godforsaken town. go to anywhere in america and talk to real life people. it doesn't matter what party and lay out some basic crystals, live within your means. don't bankrupt our kids and grandkids, follow the constitution. there is nearing a room in this country outside of washington dc where the entire room would not agree with us. only in washington when you say

we should stop piling debt higher and higher on our kids that the statement is viewed as radical. extreme. it is only the views of the vast majority of americans, a sick common sense. when barack obama became president six years ago, our national debt was over $10 trillion. today it is $18 trillion. larger than the size of the entire economy, once and for all all republicans who campaigned saying we will stop bankrupting our kids and grandkids. let's follow through and do that. the best way to do that is to put in strong protections to prevent congress from digging this hole deeper and deeper.

number nine, we need to repeal common core. we need to get the federal government out of the business of dictating educational standards. that will be the nsa interested in what we are saying. [laughter] education is far too he important to be governed by unelected bureaucrats in washington. it should be at the state level or even better the local level. we need to embrace and champion school choice for every child in america. every child has the right to access a quality education

regardless of race, ethnicity religion and socioeconomic status. in my view, school choice is the civil rights issue of the 21st century. i have to say, the differences on this issue are stark. new york's mayor, bill de blas io, try to go to the schools and throw african-american kids out of the schools that were performing in harlem. it is a sad thing to see a politician trying to please the union bosses instead of protecting kids who want a hope and a ray of opportunity for the future. the sad thing is to see the department of justice coming against young african-american and hispanic kids saying we are going to try to shut down your opportunity to get access to a

better education. coming up on martin luther king day. i can think of nothing that would be a greater legacy for dr. king then for us to embrace across parties, across race and across lines that we are united in saying every kid has a right to a quality education regardless of they are. finally, we have to deal seriously with the twin threat of isis and a nuclear iran. these are dangerous times. this past week, we have been stunned to see radical islamic terrorists. murdering innocents in paris.

our hearts we. -- weep for the journalists wrongly murdered, for the police officers targeted and murdered, for the jewish customers at a grocery store murdered because of who they are. this is part and parcel of a longer pattern across the globe. in recent months we are seen radical islamic terrorists attacking in sydney, canada and in israel hamas terrorists coming in with butcher knives and murdering israeli american rabbis in synagogues as they prayed. we have seen isis beheading

journalists, we have seen the taliban murdering schoolchildren in pakistan. we have seen boca haran kidnapping little girls and murdering housings. -- thousands. these are not isolated incidents, these are not challenges for law enforcement. this is a concerted radical dangerous attack that seeks to undermine the very basis of free civilization. look who they are targeting. children, journalists, police officers. they don't discriminate between americans israelis, parisians

-- they target the west. you cannot win a war against radical islamic terrorists with an administration that is unwilling to utter the words radical islamic terrorism. these were not a bunch of ticked off presbyterians. we will not effectively combat what we are until we acknowledge what we're facing. i will note that just recently, president in egypt gave a courageous and important speech. for a muslim leader, he stood up and urged peaceful muslims to stand up against this corruption of their faith.

urging people to murder in the name of faith. that starts to lay out. we need allies who will take this on. i have to say, it is hard to enlist the support of allies when america ceases being a good ally. how sad in the streets of paris as 40 world leaders walked down the street absent was the united states of america. where was the president? where was the vice president? where was the secretary of state? where was the attorney general been there moments before but chose to get on a plane and fly back home? all of us remember september 11

2001. i was living here in washington dc. my wife was working in the white house. i remember her having to plug her shoes and walk barefoot across memorial bridge because she could not get to her car. i remember the putrid stink in the air of the smoldering pentagon. i will say, in the immediate aftermath of september 11, nations across the world came and stood with america. a nation of france did with america. it was sad and unfortunate that we have not seen that same leadership from this administration. i would note that the lack of seriousness and purpose, that lack of resolve is profoundly

dangerous. it is dangerous because it encourages radical islamic terrorists to redouble their efforts and it is dangerous because nations like iran see that weakness. the single greatest threat to our national security is iran acquiring nuclear weapons capabilities and this administration seems bound and determined to go down the rule -- road of a foolhardy deal. the deputy national security advisor described that an iran nuclear deal would be the obamacare of the second term. those are his words. that is a comforting commitment. one of the things that i hope we see from this new majority in

congress is meaningful oversight and leadership to restore america's leadership. i hope we see congress hold this administration accountable and do everything we can so we stand with our friends and allies and demonstrate the resolve necessary to stand up to those who oppose serious threats to this country, to those who would seek to murder innocent americans. that is what we need from a republican majority, bold, positive leadership on jobs liberty and security. we need to demonstrate that we believe the words we said on the campaign trail. we need to demonstrate that will actually fight for the men and women of america and not simply

for the growing power of washington dc. that's what the conference was about. i want to say to each of you thank you for urging this majority to our the mandate we have been given. god bless you. [applause] [laughter] thank you very -- >> thank you very much senator cruz, he has time for a few questions but before you move on when to do a priest -- brief housekeeping update. representative jordan will be here soon so we will have representative jordan, and he will give a speech about conservative action in the next congress. after him we will have our

freshmen members of congress on the panel. as awesome as senator cruz is, please also stick around and don't follow him out the door because you will learn a lot about the things you hear in 2015 2017, because of the actions on the house floor. questions? >> thank you so much for everything. you talked about teeing up legislation to break down obamacare and these things to push something forward, one of our real concerns as a citizen is the leadership that is going to do it. i do not have confidence in our leadership in the representatives or senate, will we have leadership that will put their mind to it just as a business trying to reach a goal. do we have senators in congress? >> it is a great question but

what i can tell you is i hope so. a lot of people across this country naturally distrust politicians. i think that is a very healthy cents. -- sense. i think it is easy for those who have been in washington and longtime to focus on priorities other than the priorities of the american people. when we were campaigning obamacare and stopping amnesty were one and two out of the lips of virtually every republican candidate. the voters acted decisively in that direction. what i would encourage our leadership to do is follow through on. -- that.

leadership doesn't care what i or any other member of congress says, the best way to get leadership to follow through is for you, the men and women in this room, the people who elected us to make clear that we expect elected officials to follow through. one of the things i've heard, 27 million texans, i threatened to do is the whole all of us accountable, including me, to hold us accountable for the promises we make. that is the way to maximize the likelihood that the majority carries through on the promises made, i don't know if we will put you have my word i will do everything possible to encourage that we do that. yes sir? >> i am with the pakistani

spectators. my question is, since their killing more muslims than anybody else, this seems to be a fight between iran and saudi arabia, is it better to leave them alone to kill each other rather than make other enemies and how realistic is it to abolish isil? >> there is a lot of stuff in there, let's take it one at a time, i agree with you that when it comes to iraq and isis, the notion that america would go in there and demand reconciliation and consensus between the sunni and the shiites, who as you know have been they grizzly dissing -- have been vigorously

disagreeing since 63780. it is the height of ignorance and hubris. we are not going to do that and it is not our job to bring about peace and tranquility across the globe. it is our job to protect the national security interest of the united states and our allies. where it becomes a discrete issue for us is twofold. with regard to isis, they have declared their intention to murder americans and with the land they have seized the size of indiana, with the ability to capture billions in oil revenue, they are qualitatively dangerous. with regards to iran, if iran were to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities, in my view the danger is qualitatively different. the risks are unacceptably high,

that an iranian regime with nuclear weapons would use those weapons and the best case scenario is it sets off a nuclear arms race throughout the middle east as arab countries rush to acquire developed to helen's iran and that affects the entire world. i don't think we should do with the obama administration suggest their objective is reached his to produce -- which is to produce political harmony and cause those who battled to lay down their arms and sing by a -- sing kumbaya but i do think we need results. is it realistic to abolish the irs? it may not be with president obama in the white house. it is hard to imagine a scenario