you can retire at $30,000 a year. i have a document in my office that has new mexico retirees' salaries, this is from 10 years ago when i was in the state legislature and the highest paid worker in our retired system in new mexico is making about $5,600 a month that contrasts with about $3,000 a month, so he's making almost double in retirement what the average new mexican is making in a week. it causes this imbalance this cost that is doubling above what we can take in in revenue. so we -- so the discussion going on in wisconsin is the same discussion we should be having here on the floor of theous and it's the same discussion we should be having in every state capital because almost every state, i think 48 of the 50, are now running in deficit conditions because the cost of government, the cost of their employees, the cost of education has risen so dramatically and in the private sector, we're sitting out here

basically with flat wages, maybe the clining wages so our discussions nationwide have to be how do we cure the problem? if we began to get our tax policy and our regulatory policy in control, i think that the manufacturing jobs would come back. so it's not just that we don't want jobs, mcdonald's or where ever those would create service level jobs but we're interested in careers, not just jobs. we're interested in being title of the bill plan for your future and being able to plan for your own retirement. those are the careers that we're wanting to draw back and those come from the big manufacturing jobs which left in droves during the last 30 years or 40 years as we increased regulation and as we increased taxation. those jobs would come flooding back to us if we'd simply lower the taxes and you heard president obama said say that in the state of the union message, that we now have one of the two highest corporate tax rates in the world. a couple of days after his speech, japan actually lowered

that tax rate and leaving us at the top level. and so the president recognizes that we make ourselves uncompetitive with our tax rate and we should do something about it. he's exactly right. we should cut taxes. and yet when you bring that up on the floor of the house, you have one half of the body that grabs their chest and falls backward, pulling the flag across their face and saying, we can't do that because old glory might just wither away and the other side says, it's the only way to economic growth. if we're going to fix this imbalance of spending and revenue, we absolutely have to have growth and job creation should be the primary focus of this congress. but unless we focus on the taxes and on the regulation we cannot cure the job problem in the country. a few years ago ireland was looking at itself and saying, we're a smart country, we're a hardworking people, we're struggling under a bad economy quhafment can we do to make it

better? so they thought a lot about it, they had studies and they decided that they should lower their corporate tax rate. so they lowed their corporate tax rate, it was equal to ours at that point, about 36%, they lowered down to 12% and companies began to flock into ireland because the tax rate was changed from 36% down to 12%. that's what lowering the tax rate does, it draws the great jobs to you, the manufacturing jobs. in the intervening years, now ireland began to do what we did, they began to say, well, with all this money, we're awash in money, we're exceeding the outflows, they began to say, well, we're going to spend more, so they began to develop programsive give away and they began to raise taxes. my brother-in-law, he just got back from ireland, they dismantled their last plant in ireland that they had taken over when they were given the lower taxes because the higher tax rates now, they're now

evacuating out of ireland. so ireland is faced with this exact same problem and ireland is at the point of economic collapse along with greece, along with spain, along with other countries in europe because all of us have been living beyond our means. each country in the nation, in the world right now, is faced with its own set of problems that basically originate, that we're spending more than we're bringing in. we're spending more for government than what the private sector can make and we all face the same catastrophe that the soviet union faced, that their economy is simply going to implode. i for one do not want to be on the watch and not be saying something as we're going down the track and so i give this presentation everywhere we go. and the people who are saying, we absolutely have to have more government spending, i simply say, show me how it's going to work. the way we've been making this work is that we've been printing money. as we print money we take money away from you because printing

money makes the dollars in your pocket worth less and so as your money in your pocket is worth less, then the prices go up. so we're seeing gasoline prices now escalate to $4 and some people are saying, it's the evil oil company. well, the truth is that your dollar is worth less. if it were only oil going up, then you could say, yeah, the oil companies are taking more profit. but your vegetables are going up, your gold is going up, silver is going up, big metals are going up, and the oil field, in southeast new mexico, we use a lot of drill pipe and i got word last week when i was traveling around that the people who own drill pipes and sell it right now don't want to sell it. they would rather have their pipe than dollars because they see that we've printed this $2.6 trillion, they see their dollars worth less, they see the prices escalating so they simply have shut off selling a drill pipe. it's worth more than the cash than they can get for it. that's going to be another sign that our economy has really

begun to struggle under the inflation as we see shortages, shortages of vegetables, shortages of anything. now, the price of silver and gold have been escalating, the price of silver a week ago friday went up 10% on one day, then two or three days later it went up another 8% or 9%. it's not that we were using that much more silver, it's that people were saying, i would rather hold silver than those dollars and they've been flooding across from dollars to silver and you're seeing the price, you're seeing that people are choosing that this object of silver that maybe is very difficult to store, very difficult to handle, is actually more valuable to them than holding the cash in the bank. this is because we're living like that. so either we begin to discipline ourselves both nationally and as individuals, because we individually have been running up debt that is sort of the equivalent of this, either we begin to discipline or the

ultimate consequence is within 25 years we're going to see catastrophic economic situations arise for our families. i do not think that any of us want that. i think that the economic explanations of exactly why we're having the difficulties in our economy that we're having are very simple. they're very transparent. we're spending $3.5 trillion every year and we're bringing in $2.2 trillion, that number is actually going to escalate next year so that this deficit, instead of billion $1.3 trillion in the next year, according to the president's budget, is going to be $1.6 trillion. not $1.6 trillion at the end of the year will be added to the $15 trillion of debt so that at the end of the year we owe $16.5 trillion, the $202 trillion stays out here as obligations that are currently due because retirees are flooding into the market, the baby boomers are moving into retirement in record numbers now and that's going to

continue for another 15 years or 20 years. we have serious problems facing us, but the problems are fairly easy to solve if we simply lower the tax rates, especially if we lower them on job producers, and, secondly, if we get our regulations under control. not to no regulations but to simply find a balance that will allow us to protect the worker, protect the environment, protect the species while at the same time creating jobs. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. and i thank the members. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. pearce: mr. speaker, i would now move that the house do now ajirn -- adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it.

>> track the daily house senate timeliness, read transcripts, and find the full video archive. >> this weekend, on c-span2, hurricane carter spent 20 years

in prison. he will discuss that conviction and his activist work with one williams. also, scott brown on his troubled childhood. look for schedule information at booktv.org. get our schedules by e-mail. sign up for the booktv alert. this weekend on c-span3, live from the u.s. capitol, the 150th anniversary of abraham lincoln's first inaugural address, and we will go to s street to visit the home of woodrow and edith wilson, and an author will talk about dwight eisenhower and the buildup of the nuclear arsenal. it the complete schedule online at c-spanlorg/history.

>> erection now to it yesterday's ruling on protests at a military funerals. this is about 20 minutes. -- t of the supreme court. we have been talking about the case in this morning with our callers. one of the things that stuck out is that there was room in the supreme court decision -- or language in the supreme court decision that seemed to indicate that states could further regulate your activity. do you agree with that interpretation, and if so, do you have plans to prevent that are combat that? >> well, i think there is language that hypothetically

that -- they can. there is also language that indicates it has to be very narrow, not content-based and not impacting speech on public issues and they can no longer avail themselves of the argument that people going into a funeral are a captive audience comparable to a person in their home. since all of these laws are around the state having been based upon the claim there is a captive audience, the claim that this is a private event and therefore speech is on private matters, those laws are going to fail. in -- the missouri and nebraska laws are currently in front of the eighth circuit. in fact, i'd just finished briefing but nebraskas and get -- law last week. i know those of the audience they asserted and all of the audience they are asserting have been at -- rejected by the supreme court.

host: when you say you just finished briefing the nebraska law committee argued in front of their supreme court or you will be arguing in front of the supreme court? caller: the eighth -- guest: the eighth circuit -- probably not getting the two cases in the same time, here between april or may. host: when is your next year or protest plan, can you tell us? guest: i am sure it is within days. we have them every couple of days. host: could you remain on the line and little while and take some callers? guest: i would be happy. caller: the next call is from bellaire, california. republican. talking about the supreme court decision, and margie phelps, the lawyer who argued the case for the westboro baptist church is also with us. go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span, peter.

good morning, and i would like to start off by saying that i much appreciate c-span for everything that they do. they are a perfect forum as far as media privilege on the first. you guys are very unbiased. you listen to all opinions. you just had a person in criticizing the president of the united states on air. everything is done professionally and with respect and i appreciate c-span. what i do not appreciate is what is happening outside of these funerals. i think it is disgusting but it is their right. that is what this country is founded on, is for opinion and opportunity to express that opinion. and, peter, i have a question for you. you never really hear from

anchors -- what is your unbiased opinion? it's good you still will not hear from the anchor. margie phelps, is that anything about the case that tatum from bel-air, california, said? guest: he does not know what goes on outside of the funerals. what prompted us to start going hundreds of feet away is the fact that the funerals are used as the occasion for massive patriotic pep rallies. no one is disgusted about that. the politicians, the media, the military, the veterans, they all use the occasion of that funeral to stand outside and check and play music -- chant and play music. pimp for votes, viewers or

listeneers. veterans, and bring their complaints about how they were treated at the end of the vietnam war. revving the motorcycles. all kinds of commotion and politicizing. and because we said, well, now, they turn that into a massive public platforms and they say that god is blessed america -- we went to the public platform to say, yoo hoo, it is a curse to have the -- fruit of your nation coming back in little pieces. that is not a blessing from god. he does not really know what goes on outside of these funerals, and therefore it not in a position to be disgusted about. what he means is he is disgusted about our viewpoint. nobody wants us to say anywhere that soldiers are dying for your sins.

host: could you remind our viewers who were some of the folks or organizations that signed amicus briefs on behalf of your case? guest: won by a couple of dozen media organizations. one by a group of first amendment scholars, professors. there was one by the aclu, american liberty council -- that group out of -- jerry falwell started up. there were a few others that are just escaping me right now. host: front royal, virginia. sunday, independent line but talking about the supreme court decision yesterday about the approach testing and free speech. caller: thank you for taking my caller -- call.

they are not true baptists. i agree with the supreme court for letting them demonstrate, but they should be away from the funeral, they should not harass the people. i am thankful that the supreme court could show how stupid they are. guest: the only way the father knew we were present -- the only place the father saw the signs were on the tv. he could never see the pictures. he saw a bunch of other p icketers from other groups. but the record is clear and the supreme court said as much, the only time he saw the sign was on tv later. so, that would not satisfy you, sir, and that did not satisfy this man. again. what this is about is content.

and the hypocrisy of all of the rhetoric in this country. when we go around this world and pretend we are the great champions of liberty. while you try to squash like a bug in little church in the middle of the country. there is no place where we can say this dissenting view that would satisfy people. but if your first amendment does not protect the dissenting view that you all hate, it is not worth the paper it is written on and this is not a constitutional democracy in this nation. so, stop fighting back. host: margie phelps, what was your view about justice and leto's descends in this case? -- justice alito. guest: he just lost the battle. he did the same thing as the stevens case. he has unemotional, rhetorical reaction similar to your callers.

his job was to rise above that. he didn't. host: this e-mail from steve in the illinois, margie phelps. guest: if i had a penny for every time i have heard that. here is my answer. first of all, the lord god of eternity is keeping this church. the bill be betting any rent money on anyone in this church dying before christ returns -- don't be betting any rent money. if that were to happen, there had better be gridlock on all high rate -- highways and roads, into topeka, kansas. everybody in this country had better come to pick it outside

of that funeral. you have been promising its, and we would want and expect nothing less. host: this tweet -- >> caller with margie phelps from westboro baptist church -- host: next call from emporia, kansas. caller: good morning,. . i really did not have anything to say to margie phelps but i do believe that the supreme court got it right. i believe their views are abhorrence but i know for the rest of us, free-speech is really the foundation of our republic. i write in our local rag here occasionally and i run counter to the prevailing thought.

sometimes provocative, sometimes trying to be provocative. i got a response from somebody saying i am a vile person and that is what free-speech needs to be about. it needs to be protected. as for the people at westboro. they came here to emporia once, and i think people just make them irrelevant, if people did not just upset, they just went out about it and people did what folks normally do. the comfort their neighbors, the comfort those who are grieving, and so on, and so forth. that is the ethic that needs to prevail. host: the next call, taught from nevada, missouri -- todd. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a question for marjorie. i would like to know the difference between the kkk and the hate speech that they put out and have been restricted from demonstrating. guest: i got a question.

first of all, the kk is not restricted. there is a supreme court law on that group. as for the difference. there are many. number one, they are not scripture early ground and we are -- scripture-ground. their message is about human hate which is a sin, ours is about the perfect hatred of god and has nothing to do with any human hate. silicon prairie. we kindly warn our neighbor. no. 3 -- they like the power to that call themselves anonymous hide behind masks and she'd say because their cause is not knowable. it is not noble, righteous, or bible-based. we, on the other hand, are an open book to this nation. host: margie phelps. for lack of the better word --

can outsiders attend your church? guest: they do regularly. every sunday. this past weekend we had folks here from 5 different states visiting. some of whom have been coming four weeks. and we had a crew from a program comparable to our "60 minutes" from spain. host: what if an open a homosexual attended church? guest: they do and they have. anybody can come hear the preaching. nobody can be a member sitting at the table, taking the lord's supper unless they are walking orderly. and have made a profession of faith. it is very simple. that is baptist 101. if anybody really in this nation do what john the baptist preacher.

you cannot be a practicing homosexual and be a member of the church, nor can you be a practicing for decatur, nor can you be divorced and remarried -- practicing fornicator. that is the rb because this nation have over 2 million false profits calling themselves preachers and over 200,000 so- called houses of worship telling everybody, with the help of the media, that it is ok to be gay, you can change your sex partner more than you change your socks and you can be divorced and remarried and not just be in the pew, but be in the pulpit and that is why this nation is in business. host: do you see yourself back at the supreme court arguing another case? guest: well, if the lord

tarries, and he probably will not very much, but if he does, there is a good chance some of these laws will make their way up there. host: the next call -- if we can give you a few more minutes. pennsylvania. michael, a democrat. caller: i would like to thank c- span for taking my call. and i believe that the supreme court has gotten it right because if they had when the of the way, the people who are protesting out in wisconsin, the conservatives would have reason to stop them from protesting. so, i believe the supreme court has got it right. we live in america. god bless america. host: you see any similarities between what is going on in wisconsin and other state capitals and what the westboro baptist church does? guest: well, the only similarity is they are both protected activities. the major dissimilarity -- i

told the supreme court -- we do not do like some groups up in your grill picketing. that was the issue. you cannot be a captive audience without someone with a picket sign or some other form of advocating communication being up in your grill. no matter what your state of vulnerability may or not be. i had to send a note to -- a description of wisconsin and remind them that that is up in your grill picketing. we did not do that. we do not camp out in the state house. host: time for two more calls for our guest, margie phelps, from the westboro baptist church. topeka, kansas. caller: how are you this morning? host: good. caller: i have -- for as long as they have been around.

hello? host: we are listening. caller: there are a lot of things i did not agree -- as long as somebody wants to do whatever they want to do and leave me out of it and everybody else out of it, i don't really care. but i know one thing -- and i have lost friends of this thing -- one thing i will say. they pick it. i have been around them a lot. not to support their group, but just watching. i have never seen them carry a gun when they are picketing. . have never seen them violenct and i have seen a lot of people violent against them. they have been very peaceful. and i am so glad the supreme court -- because i was worried the supreme court would shut them down.

like in minnesota and other places -- the whole thing would be going down a tube. even though i did not agree with what they are saying, i always believe that they have a right as long as it is peaceful. host: go ahead, charlie, we got your point. guest: margie phelps. a couple of things. of course, he is right. we did not carry any kind of weapon and we never will. i noticed on yesterday's evening news that the father who brought this lawsuit told katie couric that now there was going to be blood in the streets and the supreme court was going to be the blame. so he has gone to be ostensible lover of his government to an anarchist. that is what happens when you are not on the right side.

with all the respect to the caller, and i appreciate his comments, but that notion of live and let live while the neighbor is sitting his way to hell is exactly what you are not supposed to do and exactly what the bible is talking about when it says love thy neighbor. and we get flung an hour phase 100 times a day, love thy neighbor. you love your neighbor by warning him not to sit in and go to. not live and let live. host: margie phelps -- hopefully you will make a law argument out of this question. what is the difference between a neighbor living his or her own life as he or she chooses and your right to do what you do? guest: i will make that a law argument because i already told you what the bible says about that. when you fulfill that bible admonition you did not do it by

going and piling up on the front porch -- that is not the bible way and the law does not want you doing that. that is what captive audience is all about. nor are we trying to convert to anybody. we did not hold any hearts in our hands. what we are doing is to going out to public right of ways, speaking to this nation, a nation of neighbors about their policies of sin. that, as the supreme court says, is quintessential public issue speech and when you go joint that debate, i do not care whether you are an official, a famous person, or an unknown person, when you join that debate, you do not get to control the dialogue by litigating one of you point out of existence. host: the last call from our

guest market phelps comes from denver, pennsylvania, john on our republican line. caller: good morning. host: you got to turn down that volume and go ahead and make the statement. caller: good morning. my name is john. i am a u.s. navy veteran. i ever present all veterans -- in a what, we have to stop giving these people so much attention, ok? and then they hide behind god and all of his laws. stop being phony, ok? i live my life. i did not hurt anybody, ok, and i can never going to hurt anybody. in a what? what a shame? host: if you could hold on for just a second. we will let john finish. caller: one minute, please. it is a shame our politicians to not have enough common sense that they cannot come up with a law that will prevent these idiot people from protesting

against people who died for the preservation of what they get to do to begin with. if it's kotite in the first amended to this argument. -- tie in the first amendment. caller: i understand freedom of speech is first amendment. i cannot come over here and say you are a horrible person and use all kinds of language and expect not have any consequence. that is what the westboro church -- they need to have consequences. and i prayed to god that god brings the wrath right down on them and hope some sick. in this country takes them out. thank you very much. guest: here is the question i will take. is what he just described what we experience on the streets every day out of the veterans who an allegedly fought for the right of free speech -- the answer is, no. what we experience out of the

veterans is filth coming out of their mouth. pure violence. more violent than any group you dealt with on the street and they are illiterate about the constitution that they claim to uphold. those suckers have less -- list of exceptions to the first and then it that would soak -- choke a horse. blooming, violent hypocrites this nation has for its heroes. he does not give a rat's back aside for the constitution. he has idols -- uniforms, dead bodies, and flags and he would kill any american who did not bowed down and worship those idols. host: of people want to learn what the westboro baptist church, is a website question of dhatesfags.com and

follow me on twitte >> vice president biden is meeting with congressional the village -- congressional leaders talking about congressional spending. the white house is proposing $6 billion in spending cuts as its opening bid in negotiations with republicans over how to keep the government operating for the rest of the fiscal year. that is in addition to the $4 billion already cut in a temporary spending measure that expires march 18. house republicans want to cut $61 billion from current spending. the house has finished legislative work for the week. today members voted to change the health care law, removing a

requirement that small businesses report payments to vendors of more than $600. the house is always live on c- span. eric cantor on the 1099 requirement. >> the american people want us in washington to spend less of their money so that we can create an environment so that jobs can be created. the american people want us to relieve small businesses the job engine of america of a crushing burden that is preventing a robust economic recovery and preventing jobs from coming back in this economy.

today, house republicans will take the lead in appealing one of the most foolish of the provisions that have come out of this administration, and that is the crushing 1099 requirement. just opened in the mailbox from the fifth congressional district of texas that i have the pleasure of representing, one of my constituents said adhering to the new regulations would increase this at a minimum five fall. -- fivefold. as a small business operating a small personal, it would be an onerous, time consuming task. from another constituent -- i also think that anytime you have extra laws for menial amounts of money, q have an expensive your

crist -- and expensive bureaucracy. where does it end up with as a nation, he cannot help the job seeker by punishing the job creator. house republicans want to empower small businesses to fill out more w-4's. we do not want to compel them to fill out more 1099's. we will take an important step by repealing this ridiculous provision. >> good morning. this is a congress about jobs and the economy. today we will take action to try to rid relieve the burden on small business. this is a provision that we have

great difficulty with as being an impediment to job creation. this is one provision that makes it more difficult for small businesses to create jobs. that is why we will repeal it today. >> good morning. this is one more day that the republican party fulfills their pledge to america. the plant we said we would repeal the 1009. we went out across listening, saying what holds them back/ you may know my story. i started my first small business at age 20. i did not have all the capital in the world. i took a lottery investment, refinanced the car i had, and it was not enough. i did not have enough to do the counter, so i did my own counter in the rush with my father.

i could not hire a cpa to do that, but that is what the government asks you to do. when we sit here and look at unemployment, when we know that small business creates 70% of on shekelobs, let's was holding them back. that is what we are doing today. more jobs, and america back on the right track. >> this is about removing the barriers of job creation. that is the theme of this congress, where the overwhelming amount of energy is going. the democrats made a mistake last congress. they decided to rush a bill through. they decided they would try kate hearings. they decided they would write a bill in the speaker's office,

because a draconian requirement was placed on small businesses. everybody seemed surprised when they saw it was in there, with a small business committee, who said it would have a small -- an adverse impact. it is directly related to job creation and it is about removing the barriers to job creation. it is time to repair the -- to repeal this onerous and requirement. >> good morning. i have been a self-employed farmer since 1988. this is one of the most ridiculous overreaches of government has ever seen. under this provision, when i would purchase one tractor tire,

the government would have me fill out 1099 per tire. this would add more complicated additional paper work carried i ran for congress to reduce red tape in our lives and i am proud i would cast my vote today to repeal the 1099 provision. >> i represent the your's 19th district. i represent 700,000 fellow americans, and i own my own small business. we have a gentleman in our district to has a company called new hampshire lumber. they have come on some hard times because of the collapse of the housing industry. he wrote me a letter. he said the 1099 rule would mean

for a disproportionate burden on my business. i do not need an additional and unnecessary expense for no apparent purpose. please repeal this provision now. he is one of hundreds of small businesses across the district and millions across the country who are desperate for relief. this is no way to treat the engine of prosperity. we will right a terrible wrong that was committed by the 111th congress. i urge all of our colleagues to vote for this bill and i urge president obama to sign it swiftly into law. thank you. >> morning. i am from the wisconsin eighth

district. i spent 35 years running my family caused commercial roofing business. this would cause us to take someone in our company, reassign them to do nothing more than to send the thousands of 1099's that we would have been required to report. it would have been a daily activity. we could not fill crane with diesel fuel. we would have to identify who owned the field station, with the i.t. number was, who to send the 1009 to, and it would add been a tremendous burden to our company. to hire somebody and remove them from getting an out of love and check and getting a key role check, i would have had to pay somebody to this -- to do this.

i think the leadership for bringing this bill to the floor. -- i think the leadership for bringing this bill to the floor. cowherd >> we are wanting to work to the senate to get this addressed as quickly as possible. we will have to see where the differences lie between the two bills, and hopefully we can get this to the president's desk as soon as possible. [unintelligible] i am not going to be attending the meeting. i believe peter pelosi will attend from the house. given the report i have read, it seems that harry reid and a vice

president will come forward with $40 billion worth of cost. that is not cut its. that is the status quo. that is the position that harry reid has taken all along. we need to trim the fat and do what most americans are doing, to find out how we can do more with less. [unintelligible] >> i cannot speak for my freshman class. i can speak for myself, and i can tell you that we came here and i came here with the idea that the level of spending going on in the government is destroying jobs. what i mentioned in my comments about removing someone from

getting an unplugged check, this is being caused by government spending. every dollar that comes out of the a business owner's pocket is one less dollar to create a job. where we end up on next year plus budget will be depended on cooperation from a lot of people. i know where i stand and with that i will pass it back to my colleagues. >> where do you stand? >> we need to get aggressive and realistic about cuts in this country. the reality is that we are trading the present -- or we want to keep the present and trading the future. this is about our children and grandchildren, and i would like to imagine a day where this country is debt free. >> the democrats would first

have to produce a cr. let's that the democrats produce a cr. thank you. thank you very much. >> we hear from nancy pelosi on negotiating with republicans on spending. >> get afternoon. i just completed a meeting with house democratic leadership to talk about how we go into the meeting this afternoon with the vice president of the indicted states and the house and senate leadership, democrats and republicans. for the last 24 hours we have been engaged in meetings with each other about with the administration, and it is clear that we know what the american people want. they want us to work together to

keep government open. they want us to do so in a way that continues the economic recovery, and that does not undermine education and the future for our children. we all have to work together. it is about finding common ground. we want to find the common ground on the high ground of the better future of arkla children. we have a history of working in a bipartisan way. when president bush was president, we work together to put a stimulus package which was largely to his liking even though there was a democratic house and senate. largely to the president's likely. he wanted tax cuts. we largely ended up with tax cuts and no in for structure. we were able to do a good job for the american people working together, cooperating with president bush. a year later talks when the

financial crisis descended upon us, we saw the administration come to this congress in september and tell us, the dismal state of this financial and economic situation in our country, that the chairman bernanke told us that night, that if we did not act immediately would not have an economy by monday. that was the third step. working with the administration, we talked and initiative that by and large have to be voted for by democrats in cooperation with a republican president. i say this because i hear all this talk about the polarization, but when it matters in terms of a recovery package, stimulus package, in 2007, and avoiding the financial crisis, a global recession, we work together with a very unpopular measure, a

predominantly democratic votes, overwhelmingly democratic votes, to support president bush in that regard. i would hope that the republicans in congress will work in the same corporate of way with president obama to keep government open. we have come a lamb -- a long way down this past. i will not fill in the the history of that. i will speak briefly about last december when we passed the continuing resolution, cutting $41 billion. the democratic initiative, cutting $41 billion from the president's budget, only one republican in the house of representatives voted for it. a majority of the republicans in the senate voted for it. one in the house, and so the spirit of cooperation seems to be better if there than it has been here in this regard. let's hope that a sense of

seriousness about what is at stake, cannot shut down a government, we cannot make these cuts that cannot undermine the education of our children, that jeopardize is the creation of jobs, that we in the middle class. there is a great deal at stake, and democrats stand together to work together to find common ground and higher ground so we can keep government open. [unintelligible] >> the focus of $61 billion from the current budget, obviously they wanted $100 billion off the president's request. from the budget we are operating under right now, is there a number that he and democratic leaders would compromise on?

>> you do not expect me to announce it right here? of course. the fact is that democrats stand ready to meet the republicans halfway on this. that would be fair. we have cut $41 billion from president obama's budget already on december 21, 2010. we have already gone down that path. $4 billion additionally was cut on the floor of the house two weeks ago. as with the forward, let's see what they put on the table. it is not only the amount of the cuts. it is what is being cut. if the cuts are about undermining education of our children, harming the creation of jobs, and also undermining economic recovery, i think we have to subject those cuts to some pretty harsh scrutiny. >> $30 billion? >> we did 41 billion, we did $40

billion. that is not the purpose of our coming together right now >> that is the number. >> what is the number? >> are those all non-starters? >> the number that you are talking about that is halfway is 100 both in dollars. $100 billion. >> what we're talking about here is actual spending, not based on a budget that never passed, never existed. this is based on current spending. where will democrats meet republicans, because they will cut $60 billion or over. >> let me and large the issue. what we have to do is get a fair shake for the american people. this is not about who can cut more without any scrutiny,

subject think these cuts to scrutiny, as to what they did. he may think you are cutting, but you may not be sitting, because you're cut may be very unwise. when it comes to education, nothing brings more to the treasury than investing in education. the cutting of education as republicans have proposed is a false economy in that respect. this is not just about numbers in terms of the amount of cuts. it is about what is cut. it is about a fair shake for the american people. again, many of the initiatives, whether it is that this will reform commission, cutting spending, be careful right now because you could harm the economic recovery. even people may disagree on the degree to which these cuts have harmed the recovery, but they all can see that it is going in

the wrong direction, whether it is chairman bernanke or others, it is going in the wrong direction. we have to not just have a contest about numbers or brick mansion about who wants to close the government down. i do not think any of us did. we have to be smart about how we go forward. >> mike simms and said that republicans are firm on that number, but he thinks they are willing if the democrats want to swap cuts to save programs that they think are important to come up with other things. do you think there is a way to approximate that number? >> i do not know -- i am not approximating or stipulating or any number. i think any number that may be that $41 billion, that we cut already, could be subjected to some substitution. what really creates jobs, grow as the economy, protects the

middle class, and does a way that is fiscally sound to reduce the deficit, let's put them on the table and see what they are. this is not theology. it is not ideology. it is making it add up to something that works for the american people. i we are i think at a place where, again, and democrats in the house and the majority in the house and senate have worked with president bush in difficult times for him. i would hope that the same level of cooperation would be given to president obama. i think that most people in the country do not want us to cut education so that our children suffer because of some brinkmanship in washington, d.c. they're concerned about the cuts. the health committee in terms of

parkinson's and other diseases who are seeing the impact on their appropriations, saying this is not the right thing to do at this time. let's do the right thing. we have worked together in a bipartisan way before. we can do it before. just a seriousness about what the cuts are and what the impact is, recognizing some of them will end up costing us money unless we are was about what this selection is. we will have more to say later as we have a meeting this afternoon perrin us this afternoon. >> vice president biden has finished a meeting on capitol hill about how to fund the federal government for the rest of fiscal 2011. in a statement he said they had a good meeting and of the conversation will continue. earlier, white house officials said they are proposing an additional $6 billion in federal spending cuts choose a vendor

30. that is on top of the $4 billion in cuts already in a two-week spending measure that the president signed yesterday. president obama today called on libyan leaders to step down from power. he made those remarks at a joint news conference with a mexican president. president obama said the leaders had come to an agreement on mexican trucks' ability to enter the united states. this is about 90 minutes. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states, accompanied by the president of mexico. >> please, everybody, they see. good afternoon.

i am delighted to welcome my friend and partner president calderon, back to the white house. i would like to discuss the meeting today and then address the situation in libya. the president was last here with first lady for a very productive state visit last spring. it is we have since worked together as global partners at the g-20 summons' then at the apac summit, and i appreciate president calderon being here today to deepen the corporation so essential to both of our countries. the relationship between the united states and mexico is not measured just in the partnership between two presidents. it is evident every day in the

strong bonds between our two societies. the thousands of people who work together at every level -- federal, state, and community levels -- to keep our citizens safe, to keep our economy is growing. the tens of thousands of students, teachers, researchers and exchanges between our schools and universities. the 1 million people across our shared border every day. tourists and business people sustaining one of the largest trading relationships in the world. and our families and friends, the many americans living in mexico and the tens of millions of mexican americans who make outstanding contributions to this country every single day. as i said, we are also global partners. we are advancing the global economic recovery, and i look forward to visiting mexico when president calderon hosts the g- 20 next year. together, we responded to this

quick in haiti and responded -- to the earthquake in haiti and work on securing nuclear materials. i appreciate his cooperation in the cancun conference including progress toward a green fund that he himself helped to get started and champion, which will help developing countries adapt to climate change. most recently, our governments have spoken out forcefully for the human rights of the libyan people. mexico played a leading role at the united nations in suspending libya from the human rights council. president calderon, this not only reflects our commitment to the shared values of freedom and justice and rule of law. it is also another example of mexico's global leadership. as you said in your address to our congress last year, mexico is standing tall and ready to take its rightful place in the world. it is this appreciation of the great bonds between americans

and mexicans and the values and responsibilities that allowed us to make progress once again today. we're working to expand the trade that creates jobs for our peoples. remember, mexico is the second- largest market for american exports. it supports some 1 million american jobs. and our exports to mexico are growing faster than they are with the rest of the world, so we are moving ahead with plans for a 21st century borders of people and goods can cross securely and efficiently. we are working to coordinate and streamline regulations and get rid of unnecessary trade barriers to make it easy to do business together. we are making new investments and clean energy partnerships including green buildings and smart grade technologies. based on negotiations so far, i'm hopeful we can conclude an agreement by the end of the year to develop new sources of energy in the gulf of mexico.

i'm especially pleased to announce that after nearly 20 years, we finally have found a clear path to resolving the dispute over trucking between our two countries. i thank president calderon and his team as well as secretary lahood and u.s. trade representative ron kirk for reaching this proposed agreement. i look forward to consulting with congress and moving forward in a way that strengthens safety across border trucking, lifts tariffs on billions of dollars of u.s. goods, expand our exports to mexico, and creates jobs on both sides of the border. we are also deepening our cooperation against the drug cartels that threaten both our peoples. as i said before, president calderon and the mexican people have shown extraordinary courage in the fight for their country. tens of thousands of mexicans, innocent citizens and dedicated security forces have lost their

lives. i have reaffirmed to president calderon in this cause, mexico has a full partner with the united states. because whether they live in texas or tijuana, our people have a right to be safe in their communities. so we are continuing to speed up the delivery of equipment and training that our mexican partners need to keep up this fight. as president calderon cracked down on money laundering in mexico, we are putting pressure on cartels and their finances here in the united states. we thank our mexican partners for their close cooperation following the murder of one of our immigration and customs agents, special agent jamie zapata. i reiterated that the united states accepts our responsibility for the drug violence. to combat the southbound flow of guns and money, we are screening all southbound rail cargo, seizing many more guns bound for mexico, and we are putting more

gun runners behind bars. as part of our new drug control strategy, we are focusing on reducing the demand for drugs through education, prevention, and treatment. we have also discussed immigration, an issue on which both countries have responsibilities. as i told president calderon, i remain deeply committed to fixing our broken immigration system with comprehensive reform that continues to secure our borders, and forces our laws, including against businesses that break the law, and requiring accountability from undocumented workers. we have to conduct this debate in a way that upholds our values as a nation of both laws and immigrants. so i'm easy duty eager to work with republicans and democrats to get this reform done, which is vital to the u.s. economy. finally, i look forward to receiving in size from the president as i prepare for my trip to latin america this month, which will be an opportunity to strengthen our

security cooperation throughout the nation. thank you for your partnership and for deepening the bonds between our countries, which only grow stronger each time that we need. before i turn it over to president calderon, i want to address the situation in libya. the united states and entire world continue to be out rage against -- by the appalling violence against the libyan people. united states is helping to lead an international effort to deter further violence, put in place unprecedented sanctions to hold the government accountable and supports the aspirations of libyan people. we are also responding quickly to the region humanitarian needs that are developing. tens of thousands of people from many different countries are fleeing libya, and weak demand tunisia and egypt for their response even as they go through their own political transitions.

i have approved the use of u.s. military aircraft to help move egyptians who have fled to the tunisian border to get back home to egypt. i have authorized usaid to charter additional civilian aircraft to help people from other countries find their way home. we're supporting the efforts of international organizations to help other people as well. i have also directed usaid to send humanitarian assistance teams to the libyan border so they can work with the united nations, ngo's and others inside the border to address the urgent needs of the libyan people. going forward, we will continue to send a clear message -- the violence must stop. muammar gaddafi has lost legitimacy to lead, and he must leave. those who perpetrate violence against the libyan people will be held accountable. the aspirations of the libyan people for freedom, democracy, and dignity must be met.

president calderon. >> gracias, presidente obama. [speaking spanish] >> it has been very satisfying for me to see that we agree on the basic principles of co- responsibility, and i thank you, mr. president, for your invitation to hold this working meeting here. our governments have progress substantially. in some aspects, we have

reached unprecedented cooperation, which has been translated into concrete examples, such as the opening of the three first new border crossings over the past 10 years. the ongoing meetings we have held and will continue to have in the future has been especially important so as to generate confidence. we know today that we continue to be personally involved so to insure that the objectives we trade are reached, and we have broached the following subjects today. first, internationally, we have reiterated that mexico and the united states are authentic strategic partners on the global

and regional agendas. we have achieved substantial progress in matters such as climate change, and now, we have made efforts to have -- to make the agreements reached operational, as well as to act on the next steps of the conference. both countries will also play an important role within the g-20, a mechanism mexico will be providing over next year and within which we have reached an important agreement for stability and recovery of the international economy. with this context, i would like to congratulate president obama for the visit he will be making to brazil, chile, and el salvador. greater dialogue between the united states and the latin nations will always be beneficial to the hemisphere, not just for latin american

countries, but also the united states. a specific case of central america. we have agreed to continue to work with the u.s. government so as to achieve a more determined cooperation in support of regional efforts to strengthen the rule of law and to spite transnational organized crime. in terms of the border, both president obama and i agree that we must turn this area into the land of opportunities and not of conflict. last year, we adopted a resolution on the 21st century border, which we won both for the united states and mexico. since then, the bilateral executive committee interested in the implementation has agreed to a plan of action, in addition to issuing a joint declaration to prevent border violence so as to enable us to avoid traffic events such as those we have seen on both sides of the

border. in terms of immigration, president obama has always invariably recognized the contributions of mexico to the economy and society of the united states by recognizing his clear and determined support to the adoption of a comprehensive regulatory reform in this country as well as his firm commitment to the human and civil rights of and in communities regardless of their foreign of origin. i express to him my concern for the proliferation of local initiatives against the interests of the rights of the immigrant communities. in terms of competitiveness, mexico has a regional perspective. the united states and mexico can and must make the most of the comparative advantages that make us unique as a region and that would enable us to turn north america, in its entirety, into

the most competitive region of the world. i'm convinced that together, we can achieve this. the north american free trade agreement was a great step forward for the commercial trade integration of the region. it generated hundreds of thousands -- even millions -- of jobs in the united states and in mexico, and we are ready to work, to deepen, and to make the most of this relationship. we must work efficiently to take advantage of the relative abundance of capital in the united states with the manpower available in mexico through investments in our country is -- in our countries, as well as access that is secure, quarterly, and legal of national workers from mexico into the u.s. market. our governments, something very

important to us, have today reached an agreement to solve the differences with respect to cross border cargo trucking that has existed for many years. as i have said, this has existed for a long time, despite the fact that we had -- that the integrated system for transportation existed and benefited both countries, strengthening our competitiveness and generated jobs that has existed since 1994, when we agreed on the nafta. in this sense, mexico will be phasing out the beauty reprisals after noncompliance of united states of the free-trade agreement of america -- of north america by the united states will be ending, and as a result of this, will be furthering the

realization of cargo transportation. the objective of my government has always been to reach a solution that is mutually acceptable. and fifth, in the chapter of security, both governments have taken on positions as co- responsible parties in the fight against transnational organized crime. the paradigm change in our relationship. today, we have reached increased levels of the exchange of information that are unheard of in the past, and i would like to thank president obama for the clarity with which he speaks, as well as the -- about the illegal traffic of weapons and money, and i know that together, we can achieve ever greater results. last year was the year where we had the greatest number of achievements in the capture of the number of criminals -- unprecedented number of criminals were caught, and this

is the result of the increase of the institutional capacity of our agencies as well as international cooperation in terms of information and intelligence. i also truly value be clear effort of the united states through transfer of equipment and training programs added to our efforts -- institutional efforts, and this, i am sure, will further our efforts tremendously, and i thank you for your support there, mr. president. i also am grateful for the clarity with which president obama has recognized the great sacrifices that the mexican society has had to make in view of organized crime in the fight for the security of mexico. thousands of military officers and members of the police force have died in mexico. they have fallen in the line of duty. to these deaths, we add the

death of agent jaime zapata from the immigration and customs agency of the united states, and that and might the deepest condolences to the people and government of new mexico in view of his death. i would like to tell you that the suspected perpetrator of this murder and his gang have been arrested, and we hope to bring them to justice. his death must urge us to continue to work together to ensure a prosperous and rigid prosperous and peaceful mission for our future. ladies and gentlemen, today, i would like to say that i thank hospitality of president obama, and i reiterate that my trust, confidence in the government and institutions of this country -- this country is a good friend to mexico, as is president obama.

this opportunity represents for me a chance to strongly renew our efforts and to redouble our efforts to accomplish the security that our people deserve. at the same time, i would like to congratulate president obama for the leadership he has shown in the problem of concern to all of us in north africa, heading up the irresponsible efforts of the people and government of the united states to quickly find solutions to this problem. mr. president, once again, thank you ever so much for your hospitality. the friendship that you have always shown mexico, the responsibility that your government, your administration has unprecedented lead taken on in the issues of common interest to us. our bilateral relationship does not only have a huge impact on

the lives of mexicans and americans, but today, it is taken on with increasing strength and clarity and coordination by both of our governments. once again, thank you for your personal commitment, the corporation, and co- responsibility of your government. we will continue to work together and harder to achieve the prosperity of both the mexican and u.s. peoples. thank you very much. >> thank you. one question each. >> thank you very much, mr. president. i have a question for both presidents, and in your case, i suppose it is a classic two-part of -- class a -- classic two- parter. on libya, i wanted to follow-up

on your comments. colonel gaddafi is vowing to fight until the end, and in the meantime, the people of the country are dying. i know you admonish the press corps, and the international community and united states had taken several steps, and you name many of those today, but i'm wondering, while this is happening, if you fear this is headed for a bloody stalemate. and more specifically, is a no- fly zone something you are actively considering, and can you talk about what you see as your broader doctrine for military intervention in a crisis like this? the other topic is something that is quite different but does matter to millions of americans. the national football league is on the brink of a complete shutdown as of tonight over a labor dispute. obviously, that is an economic issue for cities but something that a lot of people just care about. i'm wondering if it is something you would be willing to personally intervene on, and if not, why not. president calderon, i was wondering your thoughts on the

issue that has come up about potentially alarming u.s. agents in mexico. has come up in the u.s. the attorney general has raised it as at least something that should be considered. wondering if you will consider it. thank you both. >> let me deal with football first. you have got owners, most of whom are worth close to $1 billion. you have players making millions of dollars. my working assumption at a time when people are having to cut back, compromise, and worry about making the mortgage, you know, paying for their kid goes to college education is that the parties should be able to work it out without the president of the united states intervening. i'm a big football fan, but i also think that for an industry making $9 billion a year in revenue, they can figure out how to divide it up in a sensible

way and be true to their fans who are the ones who obviously allow for all the money they are making. so my expectation and hope is that they will resolve it without me intervening because, as it turns out, i have a lot of other stuff to do. [laughter] with respect to libya, you asked about my doctrine. my approach throughout the convulsions that have swept through the middle east is, first, no violence against citizens. two, we stand for freedom and democracy. in a situation in libya, what you have seen is first, violence against citizens, and the act -- active urging of violence

against all non-citizens by -- against unarmed citizens by gaddafi. you have seen with great clarity that he has lost legitimacy with his people. let me just be very unambiguous about this -- colonel gaddafi needs to step down from power and leave. that is good for his country. it is good for his people. it is the right thing to do. those around him have to understand that violence that they perpetrate against innocent civilians will be monitored and they will be held accountable for it. so to the extent that they are making calculations in their own minds -- about which way history

is moving, they should know that history is moving against colonel gaddafi. their support for him and their willingness to carry out orders that are direct violence against citizens is something that they will ultimately be held accountable for. with respect to our willingness to engage militarily, what i have instructed the department of defense as well as our state department and all those who are involved in international affairs to examine is a full range of options. i do not want us hamstrung. i want us to be making our decisions based on what will be best for the libyan people in consultation with the international community. and we are doing that not just here in the united states within our own agencies, but we are also doing it in consultation with nato.

we have already engineered the most rapid and forceful set of sanctions that have ever been applied internationally. we started unilaterally freezing $30 billion worth of assets, imposing severe sanctions against those in the libyan government who have been carrying out some of these crimes. as a consequence of that leadership, what we have seen is i think broadbased mobilization of around the international community. you are right that there is a danger of a stalemate that over time could be bloody. that is something that we are obviously considering. what i want to make sure of is that the united states has full capacity to act, potentially rapidly, if the situation deteriorated in such a way that you had a humanitarian crisis on

our hands or a situation in which defenseless civilians were finding themselves trapped and in great danger. i think it is very important for us to do this in consultation, though, with the international community. one of the extraordinary successes of egypt was the full ownership that the egyptian people felt for that transformation. that has served the egyptian people well. it serves u.s. interests well. we did not see anti-american sentiment arising out of that movement in egypt precisely because they felt that we have not tried to engineer or oppose a particular outcome. the same is happening in tunisia, and i think that the region will be watching carefully to make sure we are on the right side of history, but

also that we are doing so as a member of the world community and being willing to act on behalf of these values, but doing so in a way that takes all the various equities into account. just to put the final point on it, we are looking at every option that is out there in addition to the non-military actions that we have taken. i want to make sure that those full range of options are available to me. some of them may end of be a humanitarian. the biggest priority we have right now is you have got tens of thousands of people who are gathered at the border, and we have to make sure that they can get home. that is why we are using some of our military aircraft in addition to civilian aircraft to help on that front. there may be situations in which gaddafi is hunkered down in his

compound, but the economy -- food distribution systems in tripoli, for existence, start deteriorating, and we have a look at how to get food in there. so there are a range of options we are examining, and we will be making decisions based on what is best for the libyan people and how we can make sure we are minimizing the harm to innocent civilians during this process. throughout all this, we will continue to send a clear message that it is time for gaddafi to go. >> [inaudible] >> that is one of the options we will be looking at. >> first, in terms of libya, i recognize and applaud the efforts undertaken by president obama. as i said previously. to seek a solution in line with international law for this situation. mexico is absolutely clear that

it is not possible the civilians be massacred and not go punished. using weapons that are for the exclusive use of war. we must do everything we can to avoid or stop the massacre. mexico in the has presented a resolution within the framework of the united nations, and in this, libya has been sanctioned by the commission, and we are, of course, taking part in so far as we are able to in the search for solutions to these problems. i believe that today, it is to revalue the principles and the values of human rights anywhere in the world. the principles and values that we recognize and value. we have them in north america,

american society, and people, in terms of we condemn any act of violence against people where people are risking their lives in terms of the use of weapons. we condemn any act of violence against these people, and we believe that people must have the best conditions to guarantee their work, including their personal security. in this effort, i know that we have the support of different agencies of the government of the united states who have contributed enormously to the solution of the problems that we are facing together. under the principle of shared responsibility that we are consolidating. i must, nonetheless, clarify that there are very important legal restrictions in this matter in mexico, as is probably

the case in other countries and most likely the united states, with respect to the actions of foreign agents in mexican lands. the law does not allow agents of the united states or of any other country to take part in tasks involving justice enforcement in our territories. as a result, they cannot carry weapons or undertake operational tasks. their functions in line with our treaties are limited to the exchange of information and technical assistance to support mexican authorities in these tasks, so there is an important legal restriction that exists, but it is very clear for me as well that we must find a way of enhancing the level of protection of any and all agents acting within the framework of the law against crime and, of course, we are deeply analyzing alternatives for this. and in dialogue with the mexican congress, who is the party that

has the final word, the final say on this matter. finally, on the issue of fan, but mym not a wife is. i will ask her about it. i'm sure she is very concerned about the situation, but allow me to say that football is very important for many mexicans. >> with the exception of money. you can count on that. [laughter] >> i will say that the first lady of mexico seems quite excited to see mark sanchez their -- t here -- there. i do not know if that was a concern to you. >> you have already fled the: -- flipped the coin in a jets game.

>> [inaudible] >> mrs. zapata did. taking advantage of the moment and continuing the subject matter, i will not ask many questions, but i will be concrete. first, directly for president obama. the second amendment of the united states constitution allows american citizens to carry weapons, and this principle is defended. however, president calderon has said that this law could actually go against the u.s. agents, and this has happened. president obama, in mexico, we have the power of veto. i do not know how far you have the ability to veto that law

that has been approved, and if you have that responsibility, why don't you do so, sir? how long are we going to allow mexicans to be murdered, and not just mexicans, but now americans as well, with respect to the secretary of homeland security, she has sent a bill or spoken to congress with respect to the possibility of allowing u.s. agents to bear arms in our country. president calderon has already answered this to a certain extent, but he also says he will be searching for mechanisms. what types of mechanisms can be found so as to keep them safe? and the people who murdered is a pop up, who was the alleged

murderer -- the people who murdered zapata, the allegis murder has mentioned this. how far are you going to go, and there, you have my question. >> the second amendment in this country is part of our constitution. the president of the united states is bound by our constitution. so i believe in the second amendment. it does provide for americans the right to bear arms for their protection, for their safety, for hunting, for a wide range of uses. that does not mean that we cannot constrain gunrunners from shipping guns into mexico.

we believe that we can shape an enforcement strategy that slows the flow of guns into mexico while at the same time preserving our constitution. you asked whether i have veto power over a particular bill. i think that the challenge that we have right now is not a particular bill, but rather that we are trying to work our way through more effective enforcement mechanisms to prevent straw purchasers from buying caches of weapons, transporting them across the border. we have made progress on that front, given the authority and administrative power that we already possess. we have seen a significant increase in the number of

weapons that have been confiscated. we have put more and more people behind bars for the transfer of weapons across the border into mexico. we recognize that it is not enough and that we have to do more. part of that job is to enforce the laws that are already on the books more effectively. part of it may be to provide additional tools to law enforcement so that we can prevent the shipment of these weapons across the border, but i do want to emphasize, and i emphasize this privately with president calderon -- we are very mindful that the battle president calderon is fighting inside mexico is not just his battle. it is also hours. we have to take responsibility, just as he is taking responsibility, and that is true with respect to guns flowing from north to south. it is true about cash flowing

from north to south, so we have stepped up our enforcement and monitoring of cash transfers across the border that oftentimes finance these cartels, so we are putting more and more resources into this. one of the things that i think president calderon and i have discussed is how we can strengthen border security on both sides so that drugs flowing north or guns and cash flowing south, that we are able at all these points to intervene, interdict in a way that does not, on the other hand, slow the commerce and trade that is so important between our countries. it is a challenging task. we have a big border. we have a lot of people going back and forth. it is difficult economically, but it is something we have to work on. i just want to say to all the people in the mexican press that

i have nothing but admiration for president calderon in his willingness to take this on. the easy thing to do would be for him to ignore the corrosive, corrupting influence of these drug cartels within mexico. that would be the easy thing to do. he is taking the hard path, and he has shown great courage and great risk in doing so. the united states will support him in any way that we can in order to help him achieve his goals because his goals are our goals as well, and they should be the goals of the mexican people. the notion that you would want these drug cartels to become more and more powerful and have greater and greater influence in political life, the economic life, and the cultural life of your country i think is something that nobody would want. with respect to the army our agents, i think president

calderon was very clear. there are laws in place in mexico that say that our agents should not be armed. the relationship that we have is as president calderon described it. when it comes to our partnership, our cooperation in battling the drug cartels, our job is to help with information. it is to help with equipment. it is to help in coordination. we are in an advisory capacity. we do not carry out law- enforcement activities inside of mexico. what we can do is to make sure that our cooperation is strengthened and deepen and becomes more effective over time. we are constantly refining how we do that in a way that is respectful of mexico's sovereignty, and obviously, i'm concerned about our own agents who are down there.

i assure you that we will be examining all our procedures and protocols in terms of how our agents traveled throughout mexico, and we will be working in close contact with mexican law enforcement, who i'm sure will have important advice in terms of how we operate in that region. but this corporation has made great progress. we expected to continue to make more progress in the future. >> i would like to thank president obama for his wonderful support in terms of weapons. others have made similar efforts before his administration in terms of deterring the flow of weapons to mexico, but we know that it is hard to do in terms of homeland security, and the attorney general are making important efforts, and we know that even more weapons

traffickers and gun runners have been caught than ever before. there is a great deal that has been improved in terms of how to share information. how to trade the weapons. i also recognize, as i said, the efforts of knowing the large restrictions that president obama and his administration have had a political level. they are making great efforts internally so that through administrative methods, we can vouch for this matter. one of the things that i suggested during our conversation, and i think we still have to look at this very carefully, is if we can find a means of ceiling ports of entry along the border, as the president said, and as i said, through the use of non-interest of mechanisms for detection. we could assuredly have the safe and secure border that both nations want, that both peoples

want. we all want to have a state border. i believe it is possible, although it will require a huge technological and financial resources to achieve it, but i think it is a way of insuring security without affecting the second amendment rights of u.s. citizens and at the same time stop the flow of drugs, northbound, and moneys and dunce southbound. i would insist upon the legal restrictions that exist in mexico as in other countries with respect to the intervention and the bearing of arms by u.s. agents, but on this subject, i will have to speak to members of congress, particularly the senate, to explore different alternatives. we have to look at all alternatives in able to us by the constitution and the law. mechanisms of protection. special mechanisms of protection. clear limitation of the areas

where we can collaborate, for instance. the criminals themselves -- they tell us that they did not know that they were attacking u.s. agents in their attack. it is not that that is what they wanted to do. at any rate, this is still a very important warning sign to all of us, where we have to -- indicating that we have to be very careful about how we care for all of our agents, not just mexican, american -- all agents. we have to have a specific policy that is much more daring. i think that here, not just in terms of weapons or guns, we have to think in a much more open manner and seek much more creative solutions. it seems to me that we are experiencing extraordinary circumstances that call for

extraordinary actions by our governments. with respect to the extradition of this criminal, it is something that we have not really discussed. i do not know it president obama wanted to discuss this. we still have not finished our meetings yet. although we have to review what the law stipulates in terms of extradition for each case of it. i am in truth very convinced that these cases have to be brought to trial. there is the full political will that this individual be brought to justice with the and i the states and mexico. it the law allows it, in terms of extradition. it would depend of what the law stipulates in this sense.

of course, there's a political will to cooperate in this manner. >> i did not comment on the extradition issue. let me emphasize we have made a request for extradition. i think beyond that, it is probably not appropriate to comment, but we expect the full weight of the law to be brought against the perpetrator. thank you very much, everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> you canown ain at 8:00 p.m. eastern -- obama and ca lderon. >> i find the behavior of

professional sports owners to be unseemly in the sense that they want hundreds of millions of dollars from their communities, and yet, they do not really participate in the problems of those communities. >> this sunday, best-selling author and "washington post" sports columnist sally jenkins on the intersection of sports and the economy. >> over 1000 middle and high school students entered this year's student cam documentary series. c-span will announce the 75 wonders of the competition wednesday morning during our "washington journal" program and we will stream all the winning videos have s -- at studencam.org. >> tom davis told lawmakers today that the building for a new government accountability office report showing $100 million in wasteful spending westbrook -- rests with

congress. you can see his entire testimony tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern over on c-span2. here is part of the opening statement. >> today's hearing is the second time this committee has met in two weeks to consider the effects wasteful spending can have on the government, the economy, and the taxpayers. this week's gao report exposes serious government breakdowns in effective, efficient use of taxpayer dollars. by conservative estimates, the duplication and fragmentation highlighted the gao reports represent over $100 billion in annual losses. yet, there was great consternation and 90 hours of hard debate urging to propose just $60 million in cuts. the gao reports, unlike the cut,

is not about eliminating services. it is about standardizing, combining, and eliminating duplicative services that cost the american people money without serving an additional use, meaning if we cut the bureaucracy, if we cut so many of these programs that repeat, each of them having high paid and high-ranking individuals and i.t. groups and separate publishing and, if you will, advertising campaigns, we can eliminate costs without the american people suffering one loss of the essential services believed to be done by these programs. i'm sure in future times, we will have additional hearings on programs that should simply go away, whether it is one or 100 within government, but today, we are going to meet with three very talented and very educated individuals who are going to

help us understand what should be a win-win for the american people. we are not talking about cuts. we are talking about cuts in bureaucracy. cuts in their offer c save money while delivering a better product to the taxpayer. with that, i would like to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from florida for his comments. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the hearing today, and i look forward to hearing from our witnesses. something strikes me as odd, and that is, we have heard the president say over and over again that he is going to conduct an exhaustive line by line review of the federal budget and seek to eliminate government programs that are not performing. that is something we can all agree with. yet, we have seen no action on the president's word. then, we have a hearing today

where we invite the director of omb, which is a presidential appointee, and he refuses to show up. so is the president's serious about doing a line by line review? is the director of the omb trying to hide or duck the questions? i mean, it is outrageous that we find ourselves at a hearing where we have an opportunity to do something good for the american people, and that is cut spending and cut this budget, and get rid of waste. you talked about the duplication and $100 billion, and a director of omb and will not show up to give us an opportunity to ask questions and find out what we can do to cut this $100 billion, to find another $100 billion to cut, to try to bring this budget in line? i think it is outrageous that the director does not show up.

i think it shows a disregard to the legislative branch and the separation of powers. it says to me that the administration and the director of omb is more interested in talking a good game out in the public but does not really want to get to the hard work. so mr. chairman, i look forward to the panel, i look forward to your leadership, but i am extremely disappointed that the director did not show up. i'm not sure that this administration is serious about cutting spending if they cannot even sent the director. >> i thank the gentleman. reclaiming my time, i think the gentleman for his comments. i recognize the distinguished ranking member for his opening. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i thank you for calling this hearing today. i want to go immediately to what the congressman just said. i do not think the president is

hiding. i do not think the omb is hiding anything. the president in his state of the union made it clear that he is about the business of addressing these issues, and omb is currently in the process of conducting its own analysis of effective ways to streamline the government, improve services, and cut unnecessary costs. this task is critical to ensuring better " -- federal programs are working as efficiently as possible, and that is why i signed a letter with the chairman requesting ongoing updates as omb take on this monumental task. it is my understanding the letter will be going out as soon as we get the signature of two senators. but i want to make it clear, and i do believe that, again, one of the things about this chairman -- i know he likes to do things effectively and efficiently, so i would think that there will come a time when the omb will appear before us and will be in the best position to provide

some testimony that will be helpful. mr. chairman, it is certainly good to see all of our witnesses here today. to chairman davis, it is a pleasure to see you again. your name has been invoked quite favorably around here, so it is good to see you. mr. alexander, it is good to see you again. today, we will hear the result of a report issued by the government accountability office on duplicative programs and major opportunities to enhance federal revenue. first, a gao's report demonstrates that there are real opportunities to streamline federal programs, save taxpayer dollars, and deliver services more effectively and efficiently. gao identified at least 31 entities within the defense department that is supposed to address the urgent needs of war fightersg warao -- war fighters.

the gao raised concerns about the numbers and the roles of the entities and processes involved. solving these problems will take dedication, bipartisanship, but it will help both american troops and taxpayers. g.a.o.'s report also describes numerous areas where we can recover hundreds of billions of dollars in federal revenues. for example, the highlight that the united states is essentially giving away up to $53 billion to oil companies that are not paying royalties on certain leases to extract oil and gas on federal land. that is our money. a lot has been said about what taxpayers said during the last election. one of the things they said was they did not want to be cheated of their own money. congress passed legislation in 1995 to give oil companies so- called royalty relief. the goal of the legislation was to increase production by

exempting oil companies from paying royalties. the legislation was supposed to require companies to start paying royalties when they recoup their investment and began making a profit, but the legislation was fully drafted, and when oil companies challenged it in court, they successfully avoided paying any royalties at all. g.a.o. concluded that the problem could result in a $21 billion or $53 billion in lost revenue to the federal government. this windfall is going to an industry that is making staggering profits, despite the worst economic downturn since the great depression. mr. chairman, we need to do significant work on this, and you have. you have been a leader in this area. in 2009, you issued a report warning about what would happen if these companies want their lawsuit. you said any company that entered a similar lease between 1996 and 2000 could escape paying royalties. that is what you said.

you also said this -- the fifth circuit decision may force the federal government to reimburse companies will have already extended vaulted him as, depending upon the market price of oil and natural gas. the total cost of foregone royalties could total nearly $80 billion. mr. chairman, you warned about this problem, and i commend you. we have to fix it now. it will take a bipartisan effort. we just had a vote in the house where we had an opportunity to fix it, and we were not able to. so i think, as mr. davis has said many times, this is one where we can come together, democrats and republicans. it is a win-win situation. not a win just for republicans or democrats, but most importantly, it is a win for the american people. i just do not want to be sitting here 10 years from now saying the same thing. so i look forward to the hearing, mr. chairman, and i

thank you. with that, i yield back. >> i thank the ranking member, and all members will have 7 legislative days in which to submit their opening statements for the record. i now go to our distinguished panel, the honorable thomas m. davis iii. former chairman of this committee. as the ranking member said, he looks down on us every day. now, the director of federal government affairs, and the man who issued the subpoenas to the oil companies on my behalf in order to begin the process of doing the oversight on those flawed contracts that have cost the american people tens of billions of dollars. i want to thank you for that today publicly. the comptroller of the united states, appearing nothing for the second time as a confirmed comptroller, compared to the many times that you appeared before us basically -- graciously as the acting.

your work as a legislative branch employees, spanning both the executive and legislative branch, providing more than 3000 people, who give us the non- partisan reports and fact- finding that we absolutely reliable. and the president of the taxpayers reconnaissance and often contributor. welcome back. pursuant to the rules of the committee, everyone must be sworn in. a long standing tradition is

that you will have five minutes. there will be a green light for as long as you may talk freely. there will be a yellow light to warn you that your time is elapsing. i will be understanding for you to complete your sentence or paragraph once it turns red. that will allow for a healthy dialogue afterward. your opening statement. >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. i am doing so in my capacity as a former member of the house, specifically member of this committee. i want to thank you for putting together the outstanding reports that forms the basis of today's hearing. i hope we can engage omb before this is done, because we are in this together. real cause the problem, and again we all need to be there -- we all caused the problem, and i

think we all need to be there to solve that. they're doing something so there we need to hear about. during my tenure, i examined the the government could operate more efficiently focusing on governance issues. in this process, and the tactic is usually to cut off fingers or toes rather than go after the main problem. i still believe that is the case. sometimes a uncle sam does indeed have too many digits and surgery could be in order. where does the blame lie? as i noted, there is plenty of blame to go around. there are a lot of places to point the finger. let me start with congress. overlapping programs frequently exists because of the ways we legislate. jurisdiction trumps all.

well-to-do different members may believe there is a need for a given service -- while different members may believe there is a need for a given service, they will write the legislation to ensure it falls under an agency in that committee's purview. the same is true and the veterans administration, for the members of financial services, for housing and urban development. we find three different programs with the same goal, job training, under three different agencies. there'll funded differently, measured differently, at -- they are all funded differently, measured differently, administered differently. common sense says the should be brought to scale. we can blame the bureaucracy, but congress created the many headed monster through our jurisdictional prerogatives.

we need to implement government- wide solutions. that is often discussed, but while the executive branch has the ability to affect such efforts, again, the compartmentalization approach that congress takes often prevents the type of holistic action required. this is especially true of the appropriations process in which all of the subcommittee would have to agree to provide funding for an initiative. and finally, there are areas of unnecessary duplication at the state and local level. congress should examine the myriad reporting requirements of federal programs, human service programs, educational programs and transportation programs to see where we could make better use of consolidating systems. with existing technology, it seems unnecessary to have every state maintain its own reporting system in the same information is required from everybody. too many agencies have erected

stovepipes for the delivery of i.t. services, a personnel roles and internal protocols. the result is that information sharing is rare between government departments. information gets lost. analysis becomes destroyed. opera ability is tendered. -- operations' ability is hindered. unfortunately, the administration's in both parties allow the office of management and budget to simply become the office of budget. management review could yield much more long term savings. the key to success is focusing on how services are delivered, prepared, and how information is gathered and analyzed. organizations, mergers and

assimilations of redundant programs are not government skills tests. often there are time constraints. what can congress do to improve the situation? from a congressional standpoint, a complete restructuring is unlikely. a first step might be a cbo-type review. there are good, dedicated people working in government. upon examination, some of them are doing tasks they do not need to be doing performing under regulations that did not need to be written, filling out forms that did not need to be printed. i hope today is the start of a sustained effort to address these issues. i look forward to your questions and ask that my entire statement be put into the record. >> without objection, so ordered.

>> this entire hearing on the oversight of federal spending is on c-span-2 tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. president obama and mexican president calderón agreed to cooperate to combat drug violence. obama agreed to a preliminary agreement to allow mexican trucks on u.s. highways. you can see the full conference at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c- span. >> with a two-week extension in place, republican and democratic leaders continue working on a spending bill for the rest of the year. watch the debate so far. track the house and senate time lines. read transcripts of the recession, and find the full video archive of every member. over one belsen middle and high school students entered this

year's document -- 1000 middle and high school students entered this year's documentary competition. we will announce the winners wednesday morning during "washington journal." we will stream all of the videos that studentcam.org. >> the head of the environmental protection agency urged congress today not to cut her agency's budget. a bill passed by house republicans more than doubles the cuts proposed by the president. we will have the entire hearing tonight at 11:40 p.m. eastern. let's take a look of the opening statements and some of the testimony.

>> this is truly an historic time. the nation is at a crossroads. we're focused on getting the economy back on track and putting americans back to work. it is all about jobs. i reiterate, getting our economy back on track to create jobs and provide opportunity. with unemployment still hovering around 10% under this a ministration, this is unquestionably our top priority as a country, and our chief responsibility as legislators, policy makers, and administrators. chairman since and alluded to some of our concerns about your $9 billion budget, the third largest in history for the epa. we are borrowing $0.42 on every dollar we spend. we are borrowing $0.42 on every dollar of the $9 billion you're

asking for. that staggering figure is in and of itself disconcerting. i have to tell you, for the record, that i am not confident that the budget you are defending today or frankly, your agencies passions of the last two years, a line with our important goal of creating jobs and opportunity. in fact, i believe you have been a great hindrance. epa is headed in the wrong direction. with an aggressive and overzealous regulatory agenda that far exceeds the authority of this congress that you have been given. i think we have a responsibility to train yuen. -- to train you in. -- rein you in. we identified over 60 actions recently taken at epa that could

have negative impact on job creation, 60. i have to wonder if you are taking heed of the president's january 21st executive order to account for the cumulative costs of regulation, because epa is running absolutely roughshod over our country's small businesses. the very engines that propel our country's economy forward and provide most of the jobs. you have hit every sector of the economy, agriculture, manufacturing, construction, transportation, and the life blood of my region of the country, appalachian coal mining. wrongheaded greenhouse gas regulation, a so-called guidance on surface mining, the retroactive veto of a permit, reopening a long standing definition of fill material that

could have devastating effects on the mining sector nationwide, all represent, constitutionally dubious legislation by regulation. i think you have exceeded your authority by far. a number of these matters are being adjudicated by the courts even as we speak. we have corresponded, you hyundai, on a number of these topics, so you are wrote -- you and i, on a number of these topics, so that you are aware that i feel that your industry has taken aim at an industry that supplies 20,000 jobs in my state and supplies fuel to our nation at a low cost. our speaker in recent weeks has reiterated the need for adult

conversations about the fiscal challenges that confront the country. i hope that is what we can accomplish here today. an adult conversation. i thank the chairman. >> the ranking member of the full committee and former chairman of the subcommittee is also here today. i know this is a matter of great interest to him. do you have an opening statement? >> i do. thank you, mr. chairman. i congratulate you on becoming chairman. bing from the northwest, i know we will work hard together to get some positive things done. i want to welcome all of you. in fiscal year 2010, this committee provided you with the largest budget in epa history. your current budget request of $9 billion is a reduction by 13%. i am glad to see that you have

submitted a reasonable budget request that will allow essential environmental cleanup and monitoring. that is in stark contrast to the long term continuing resolution approved by the house two weeks ago, h r one. that bill cut epa by nearly 30%, and includes 22 environmental riders to defund epa and other government agency activities ranging from limiting greenhouse gases to reducing water pollution. those were done without any hearings. they were just put into this bill and they are all legislative language that have a negative, i think, impact. i am also pleased that the request includes language started by this committee that allows use of drinking water and clean water state revolving funds to loan forgiveness and other affordability tulips -- affordability tools.

i have concerns about this budget request, but not as many as i do but h.r.-one. my biggest concern is that we are shifting the problems today for bigger problems tomorrow. we talk about selling our children with debt. that concerns me greatly. but by cutting and terminal programs like drinking water and wastewater revolving funds, we are saddling future generations with deferred maintenance costs and a crumbling infrastructure that will cost more to fix van if we did it now. christie todd whitman, a republican governor of new jersey, when she was administrator of epa, said we have a $688 billion backlog on waste water treatment facilities. you know, a group of scientists looked at all of the things that happened in civilization and what had made the greatest difference in health to the world. it was waste-water treatment facilities, clean water.

think of africa and -- i think -- the united states -- i was on the staff appeared -- the staff up here when richard nixon was president of the united states when we passed the clean water act, the clean air act, the environmental protection act, the national environmental policy act. all of those things were passed bipartisan and signed by the republican president. and the country is better today because of environmental protection than a was 40 years ago. remember when we had these rivers on fire? think of how terrible those things were. and now we have turned this thing around. i think what you're doing on climate change is absolutely essential. some people are just turning their head away from scientific reality and saying, it is not going to happen. they are saying they care about their grandchildren's future.

if we do not deal with climate change. we do not deal with ocean acidification, the world is going to be a disaster is placed in 50-100 years. to say this does not exist is just preposterous. the best scientists in the world have said this phenomenon is going on. our committee held hearings. we asked, can you guess -- can you give us, the park service, the fish and wildlife service, all these agencies, can you tell us on the ground, can you see manifestations of global warming already? and they said yes, the fire seasons are longer. the oceans are rising. i mean, you know, we are having more drought, more bug infestation because of this. there are all kinds -- watch what is happening in the arctic. i mean i do not know how people do not understand the importance of these issues and addressing

these issues. i am not -- i am going to fight every step of the way if -- against efforts to weaken can take back the internal improvements we have made starting with richard nixon and the congress back in the 1960's and 1970's when people work on a bipartisan basis and cared about the internment. these writers have got to go. -- riders have got to go. do not be intimidated. you're doing your job and you have to do it under the law. the supreme court said u.s. do certain things. do not be intimidated. do your job. crosses. -- thank you. >> thank you. i appreciate that. again, thank you for being here administrator. we look forward to your proposed 2012 budget.

after those warm, welcoming remarks from all of us, the floor is yours. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning to you. thank you for inviting me to testify about president obama's fiscal year 2012 budget request for the internal protection agency. congress enacted the clean air act, the clean water act, and other buying -- other bedrock in terminal protection laws on a bipartisan basis. it did so to protect children from pollution that otherwise would make their lives shorter, less healthy and less prosperous. it did so to make the air and drinking water clean enough to attract employers. to end enable local governments to revitalize abandoned industrial slight -- to enable local governments to revitalize an abandoned industrial sites. it did so to protect the farm irrigation and makes up one-

third of america's freshwater reserves. and it did so to preserve the livelihood of fishermen and america's great waters such as the chesapeake pay and the gulf of mexico. >> do not forget the puget sound. >> it and the puget sound, and the great lakes. congress is epa the money that makes its enforcement and work possible. i am accountable for ensuring that we squeeze every drop of public health protection out of every dollar we are given. i support the tough cuts in the president proposed budget, but i am equally accountable for pointing out when cuts become detrimental to public health. without adequate funding, epa would be unable to implement or enforce the laws that protect americans' health, livelihoods' and pastimes. polluters would file legal restrictions on dumping contaminants into the air, river and drowned. toxicity underground would reach

drinking water supplies because work to contain them would stop. there would be no money to fix or replace broken rotor ruses piccata -- broken water treatment systems. if congress slashes epa's funding, concentrations of harmful pollutants would increase in the places where americans live, work on a good school, fish, hike and hunt. the result would be more asthma, more cancer, more premature deaths and more polluted water. needless to say, i fervently request and deeply appreciate continued bipartisan support in congress for funding the essential work that keeps american children and adults safe from uncontrolled amounts of harmful pollution being dumped into the water they drink and the air they breathe. president obama believes of our

federal government must spend less money. decrease in federal spending is no longer just a prudent choice. it is now an unavoidable necessity. accordingly, the president has proposed to cut epa's annual budget nearly 13%. back at goes beyond eliminating rhiannon say. -- eliminating redundancy. we have made difficult choices. however, we are still able to carry out our responsibility to protect and maintain the health of america's children and communities. i will not march through of the details, but i would like to provide a few of the examples of the difficult choices we have made. this request provides $2.5 billion, a decrease of $947 million for the clean water drinking water state revolving funds. taking into account repayments to the funds, epa, the states in

community water systems will build on past successes while working toward the fiscal year 2012 goal of ensuring that over 90% of the population served by community water systems receives drinking water that meets all applicable health standards. this budget requested an additional $6.4 million to conduct integrated pilot projects in several communities, including disadvantaged ones, to evaluate and reduce risks from toxic air pollution that regulatory enforcement and voluntary efforts address. in addition, $7.4 million will improve our monitoring of toxic air pollution. the budget contains $350 million for programs and projects strategically chosen to target the most significant terminal problems in the great lakes ecosystem. that represents a cut of $125 million from fiscal year 2020, which was the first year of the initiative. -- 2010, which was the first

year of initiative. the $16 million investment in enhancing chemical safety initiatives allows us to reduce chemical risks and provide the public with greater access to information on toxic chemicals. we will use the funds to implement chemical risk reduction that index children's health and disadvantaged, a low income and indigenous population. thank you. >> restore, greenhouse gases. you know, we have heard so much -- first of all, greenhouse gases. we have heard so much from so many people on how aggressive you have been on greenhouse gases. we have an old cold bair plant in -- coal-fired plant in alexandria that is redundant, and we can i get it closed down. some of us would like a little more aggressive action.

i know how deferentially want to be to the industry and you want to make sure everything is done right, but there is another point of view from the one that has been expressed, particularly on the floor of the house. during consideration of the cr, mr. poe from texas, who was the author of the amendment to stop green has gases regulation said, "this amendment will rein in epa and prohibit them from implementing these so-called capt. trade philosophy in states such as texas." others said the epa is trying to trade.nt capital-lette and so i want to ask you, do you intend to implement that in the future without congressional action? >> we have taken no steps to

establish a cap and trade program, and we do not intend to do so. >> so without congressional action, you will not be acting on non-. thank you. we heard also from mr. barton, the ranking member and the congress committee the carbon dioxide is not a pollutant in the definition of the clean air act, so epa has no authority to regulate the. is that true? >> that is untrue. hopper >> just so all the members of -- >> just so all the members are clear, what have you asked the industry, and have you seen plants going out of business as a result of your actions? >> actually, we've seen activity that would be encouraging. we have had about 100 applications that are now in

process. these are clean air act permit applications that are needed for either undertaking a new facility or a cigna the modification would raise the amount of grain as gases -- a significant modification that would raise the amount of greenhouse gases. most of party done their analysis for greenhouse gas admission -- most have already done their analysis for greenhouse gas emissions. >> on clean water, this dump truck of a bill known as h.r.-1, a dump truck, because you guys dump everything you can imagine weighing it down so much we have trouble getting it passed, of course, but it

updates guidance pertaining to the definition of water under the clean water act. there are two supreme court decisions, one in 2001 and one in 2006 that had created some confusion and uncertainty over the scope of the clean water act. but the prohibition in a jar-one is anti-real estate and anti--- in h.r.-1 is anti-real-estate and anti-business. we do support a process the would provide clarification for all sides and allow them to participate in the regulatory process. i asked you, how would the h r-onetion dumped onto ag impact this? >> i believe it would prevent epa from offering clarification

to permit writers to work for either epa or the core or authorize states under the clean act -- clean water act. the level of communication -- that level of confusion is having a real-world impact. in my belief, it will have an impact on water quality if not addressed. we are credited from making any clarification possible -- if we are prohibited from making any for verification possible -- any clarification possible, it will have an impact. >> that is what i was concerned about. we're trying to grow this economy, and people that have plans that have been worked out, a smart growth ideas in metropolitan areas, we're being told we cannot move until we get clarification on the clean water act. they are stopped because of h r- one. one last question with regard to

h.r.-one. this is section 1746. it would fund the government through the remainder of the fiscal year, but it would stop epa from limiting greenhouse gas emissions. but what is less clear is the impact of section 1746 on renewable fuel standards. so, i want to ask you, is the language included -- shall i use that expression once more? that dump truck of a bill known as h. r-one -- i mentioned on the floor that it had more poison pills ban rasputin's medicine cabinet. here we are burdened it with all this stuff and we got this language in hr1 that stops epa's renewable fuel standards for the remainder of the fiscal year.

how do you deal with that with the consequences of 17-46 in hr1? >> yes sir, i think we agree that the greenhouse gas prohibitions and the riders have an impact because they are greenhouse gas-based, case -- based on a life cycle analysis compared to conventional gasoline. that is one of the consequences, as well. >> ok, i just want to make a final, and to address -- we talked a lot about the great lakes restoration, and i happen to agree. we ought to be investing money because if has immediate economic impact and a deleterious one if we do not make that investment. for with regard of puget sound, that affects the water all the way down river, and the

chesapeake bay. on the chesapeake bay, we have had support on both sides of the aisle, but now we have this language that says you cannot use in the federal funds, even though we have had the ag apartment, the epa, any number of agencies, working in a collaborative manner to clean up the chesapeake bay. we have miles of dead sons from fertilizer as referenced that are killing the vegetation at the bottom of the water, and now have got this legislation that says you cannot use any federal funds to implement -- is the tool we are using to clean up the bay. if you have any further comments, that is fine. otherwise, i will let you go. i appreciate the opportunity to make these points, mr. chairman, and i trust that you would agree, we ought to get back to where regular appropriations

bill so we can deal with these difficult regulatory and legislative issues in inappropriate document and not in the dump truck of a bill known as hr1. >> i appreciate the comments, but funding limitations are prepared, because we are and appropriations committee. this is offered, i would also say you are incorrect. section 17-46 dealt with stationary sources of greenhouse gases. it had nothing to do with fuel standards. it would have left this untouched. whenever we put something in, somebody says every thing is going to fall. the energy star standard, we would not be able to do that anymore. that existed before there was any mention of greenhouse gases. all those comments are made, and people who do not like it throw

out a worst-case scenario. i am surprised the world and not fall apart the day that passed. many -- maybe some of the things that were set are not true. i am smart enough to understand the agency on almost anything it does overstates a benefit and understates the cost, and i am smart that to understand that businesses may be due not like it, and the reality is somewhere in the truth. the problem is having an honest discussion about the stock because of all the bulls led is thrown out, and that is the reality. >> mr. chairman, i would agree with you that you are a very smart guy, but you would agree -- i agree, i you also agree we should not be deciding these issues with 10 minutes of debate, for example, on this as a big day. it said all federal funds. that is the problem with legislating in that matter at 2:00 a.m. in the morning. >> to clarify that, you notice that on the greenhouse gases,

regulations, the petition that was put in there, we did it to the cr, because we did not want the epa and businesses spend a ton of money implementing a role that was being taken up by the authorizing committees. the thing i did not want to do is have this committee substitute this judgment for that authorizing committee. working with them, they said to the term of this cr is fine. let us work, and they're holding hearings. i do not what congress will decide. you may agree or disagree, but let's let the authorizing committees do their work, and sometimes there are things that have to be done on an appropriation bill. i tell you that there are a lot of statutes out there that are on authorize, expired, and what we do? we extend authorizations to the appropriation bill. if you want to stop doing that, we will close down the -- out the world, do a lot of other things that are unnecessary. >> who is a chattering -- who

is exaggerating? i think we have our real problem with all withriders were put on that cr. >> as i said, they were so devastating that there were no efforts made on your side to remove them. >> all of the testimony will be on c-span2 tonight at 11:40 eastern. right now, health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius the questions about the implication -- implementation of the health care law when she testified on capitol hill today. she addressed the commerce subcommittee on the budget request for two dozen top. you can see her testimony at trouble caught 45 eastern here on c-span. -- you can see her testimony at 12:45 eastern here on c-span.

>> you mentioned that nfib were plaintiffs when i thought they got such great small business tax credits. i would not expect that to be in opposition to this law. i am surprised to hear that. the other thing, you were governor of a state, and i would imagine that had been governing did you ever -- under your governorship, was a budget passed? did you pass budgets when you were a governor? >> yes, sir. >> where the chamber's held by democrats in the senate and house, or did you -- >> never. >> and e-zpass budgets? >> we did. >> and the last congress -- >> the house passed a budget.

>> and we have a democratic president. bmi yes, we do. >> and we did not pass a budget? >> i think the house passed a budget. >> the point is the democratic attack on me cr is because of their failure to pass budgets. they can position all the ony want. >> will the gentleman yield? the mother -- >> no, i will not. the last time you visited this committee was february 4, 2010. this bill was not even the law of the land. i became ranking member of the house subcommittee after that vote, and i asked the chairman

then, mr. waxman, 19 times to ask you to come visit us. you never came. why? why didn't you come after the law to help us understand the provisions and the implementation of this small who, congressman, i responded to the requests that i got. >> you are saying we never requested you to come back? >> yes, sir. >> so chairman waxman did not ask you back to help explain this back. >> will the gentleman yield? >> no, i will not. will you answer the question, madam secretary? >> congressman, i will go back.

>> will you said that the answer for the record in writing? bmi yes. >> thank you very much. the frustration, there are seven problems and concerns, we have not had a chance to talk to you. let's talk about a budget issue. in that the rate for, to the intent, hearing, i ask you a question. you admit it that the $500 billion medicare cuts, $500 billion in medicare cuts. is that correct? >> no sir, it is not correct. >> i would refer you to the transcript. >> the growth rate -- [unintelligible] >> yes or no. the president is support of the health reform legislation. is that yes? secretary sibelius, i said, yes,

sir. our problem in this whole debate on medicare cuts -- >> that does not include $500 billion -- there is an issue on the budget because your own actuary has said -- you cannot double count. they are attacking medicare on the cr when their bill, your law, at $500 billion in medicare. use the same money for what? state you are funding health care? your own actuary say is you cannot do both. my simple question, i have 26 seconds left, what is the $500 billion cuts for, preserving medicare or funding health care? which is it? >> sire, the affordable care act has 12 years in the medicare trust fund, and a $500 billion

represents a slowdown in the growth rate of medicare over 10 years from what was projected at 8% -- >> so is that medicare, or is it a fund for health care reform? which one? >> both. >> so you are double counting. i yield back my time. >> thank you madam secretary for being here. i want to start by reacting to some of the other comments that were made. it was doctor burgess who noted we switched sides, and it was because of this law referring to the affordable care act. i disagree. i think the last election was about jobs, jobs, jobs. but instead of focusing on jobs, the new majority has made it their first order of business to repeal the affordable care act.

that was one of the first of votes we took the session, which is already in my community providing lifesaving coverage to many who did not have that before and improving their access and affordability of their health care. instead of focusing on jobs, the new majority has attempted also to deny funding to continue implementing the affordable care, health care reform bill, we passed last session. instead of focusing on jobs, the new majority has offered house resolution 1, thatmoody's earlier this week said would lead to the loss of 700,000 jobs in the united states. instead of focusing on jobs, some of our new governors are presenting budgets and that it with policies that would cut medicaid and would fort at the

state level the implementation of the affordable care act. precisely what is happening in my home state of wisconsin, which used to have our reputation of being a leader in health care and preparation for the implementation of the affordable care act. i do not envy your job right now. working to implement these vital lifesaving, important reforms, when so many are working so hard to see that legislation thwarted, blocks place, etc. i want to focus back on house resolution 1, continuing resolution that passed in the house a couple weeks ago. i brought an amendment to the floor to restore funding to the community health centers. my amendment was fully paid for, but unfortunately the republicans barred me from offering that. h.r. 1 slashes over a billion

dollars to community health centers for the remaining seven months of this fiscal year. if this ultimately is passed and becomes law, i guess i would like to hear from you how you would go about implementing that. how does this impact the constituents that i represent who rely on the wonderful community health centers that provide services in my area i have heard that it will impact coverage to probably 11 million americans. it will result in job losses and closure of clinics. do you -- if he were forced implements such draconian cuts, how would you go about that? what would we see at the local level? did not congresswoman, i share your view that the community health center footprint is

incredibly important, both with the recovery act and the budget investments and affordable care act. the footprint will double over the period of the next five years, serving closer to 40 million people. we are already seeing that increase. there are 10 million additional people people served thanks to the investment, and they are in the most underserved areas, and with those health centers are providers, and often provide a host of community services. the effort now to deny care, fire, health care providers, who would lose their jobs, and restrict access in the most underserved rural and urban communities to affordable available health care will put additional burdens on already strapped city and state budgets. those folks will come through the doors of emergency rooms in

larger numbers. they will be sticker on the job. they will be unable to take care of their kids. there will be students who will not be doing well in schools because their health needs will not be attended to, and that has a serious impact on not only the help of this nation but also the certainl prosperity of the nation. >> you can see secretary later on c-stimony span. vice president biden was meeting with's leaders on capitol hill today. later, senate comments from the floor. then the joint press conference president obama and mexican president call barone --

calderon. heights. the amount of red ink democrats plan to rack up this year alone would exceed all of the debt run up by the federal government from its inception through 1984. the recklessness is the reason we've seen a national uprising against their policies. now, americans have demanded that we reverse this recklessness and restore balance. democrats have resisted at every turn. to conceal the extent of their spending plans, ty didn't even pass a budget last year. after a nationwide repudiation of their policies in november, they proposed a massive spending bill loaded with new spending that amounted to a slap in the face tthe voters. following the outrage, they tried to get a spending freeze past the public. they said, how about we just lock in place the out-of-control spending levels we set last year? to them, this entire debate

isn't about how to respond to the american people. it's about seeing what they can get away with. we will, republicans have taken a different approach. responding to our constituents, we've insisted the status quo simply won't cut it anymore. we've sinced on actually shrink the size of government. and yesterday we delivered by forcing the first actual cut in government spending in recent memory. while it was just a smallirst step, yesterday we showed it is actually possible to change the status quo in washington. not bad. what about the white house? the white house responded to all of this by announcing they want to have a meeting. we're happy to go to the meeting, but putting a meeting on the schedule doesn't change the fact that neither the white house nor a single democrat in congress has proposed a plan that would allow the government to remain open and that would respond to the voters by reining in spendg. all we get is talk.

the president made an audacious assertion yesterday after the two-week c.r. was passed. he said, he wants his advisors to come up with a plan that -- quot-- "makes sure we're living within our means." live within our means? let me remind you, mr. president, that the president's budget has us amassing a national debt of more than $20 trillion within the next five years. amassing a national debt of over $20 trillion within the next five years. we're projected to spend more than $1.6 trillion in year alo alone, more than we're taking in. that's a $1.6 trillion deficit this year. does this mean we can expect the president's budget director to present with us a piece of paper that outnes $1.6 trillion in cuts for the current fiscal year? if so, that's great news. if the president's measure of

success, he's he said, is a plan to make sure we actually live within our means, the way most people do, count on me showing up early for this meeting. unfortunately, i suspect the president is once again just saying something he thinks people want to hear. the fact is, if democrats had a plan of their own that would cut $1 in spending, i think we would have seen it by now. but we haven't. democrats have abdicated all responsibility for their own recklessness over the last two years. though they've left-- --they've left us to do something about it. we made a acct in the right direction yesterday. now we look forward to their plan. it's time for democrats to prevent -- present a serious plan of their own that addresses this crisis. it's time for democrats to take the concerns ofoesent to be he e in as if morning business. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. durbin: thank you. this morning the republican leader came to the floor, senator mcconnell, and made some pretty strong and sweeping statements about the state of the dicit and responsibility,

and i'd like to have a chance to respond. senator mcconnell said for two years now washington democrats have taken fiscal recklessness to new lights. the amount of red link democrats plan to exceed would exceed all the debt ran up by the federal vernment since its incepon through 1984. understand what the national debt of america was when president william jefferson clinton left office. we were running surpluses. we hadn't done that for decade. surpluses in the federal treasury. what did we do with all of this money? we put it in the social security trust fund, we bought more longevity and solvency for social security and ifou remember, the economy was never stronger. william jefferson clinton left office and at that moment in time, the national debt, the accumulated debt of america from george washington until he left

office, $5 billion. -- $5 trillion. remember that number. $5 trillion. fast-forward eight years after the end of president george w. bush, eight years later where were we? the national debt was now $12 trillion. fiscal recklessness by democrats? under president bush, the national debt more than doubled. and i stead of leaving a surplus for president obama, he said, welcome to an economy that is hemorrhage hemorrhaging hundreds of thousands of jobs lost every month and we anticipate next year's deficit, he told president obama, to be $1.2 trillion. that was what president bush handed to president obama. now, i don't mind a selective view of history. i guess we're all guilty of that to some extent. but to ignore the fiscal mess created that more than doubled

the natiol debt in eight years, to ignore that we waged two wars without paying for them, to ignore that we cut taxes in the midst of a war which is something no president inhe history of the united states has ever, ever done is to ignore reality. the reality is we are here today in the midst of this titanic struggle about whether we are going to continue to keep the federal government functioning. we are really being asked whether or not two weeks from now we want to have security at our airports. air traffic controllers, whether or not we want to have social security checks sent out, people actually sending the checks, answering questions at the internal revenue service, whether we want the securities and exchange commission still working on wall street two weeks from now. we cannot lump two weeks at a time forward without doing a

great disservice to the taxpayers of this country as we will as to the people, the men and women who work hard for our government every single day. now, what is the answer in the house of representatives? well, the house of reesentatives says, we nd to cut $100 billion in. they started at $60 obama, incidentally, then decided that wasn't enough for bragging rights. let's get up to $100 billion this year. you say, out of a budget of $3.7 trillion, how big is that? whoa! they didn't like at the budget of $3.7 trillion. they looked at one 14% slice of the pie. domestic discretionary speing. that's it. nothing to be taken out of the department of defense, nothing to be taken away in terms of tax breaks for the wealthiest corporations, the most successful corporations. nothing out of the oil and gas royalties and the like. nothing out of that. we'll take it all out of domestic discretionary. so what did they take away?

i'll tell you what they took away. i looked in my state last weefnlg i went up to wood stock, illinois, and we have an office open there with counsel lores who are bringing in unemployed people, sitting them down in front of computers with fax machines and copy machines and phones and counselors. they're preparing their resumes and trying to get back to work. they are people who want to work. and they need a helping hand. and this place has been successful. it places people in these jobs. what would happen tohat office der the house republin budget resolution? it would close its doors. more unemployed people, more unemployment checks. is that the answer to putting america's economy back on its feet? that how we're going to get 15 million americans back to work? how abo the house republicans' proposal to eliminate $850 a year in pell grants? senator leahy, you know what that's all about. these are kids from the poorest families in america, many of them for the first time in their family have a chance to graduate from college but they can't make

it. they don't have enough money. we give them a helping hand and the republicans take it away. what will it do? the president of augustana college in rock island, illinois, told me what it meant t. meant that 5% o, one out of every 20 students, would go home. that's what it means. to cut job training, to cut education. when we have 15 million people out of work, what are they thinking? not bad enough. i went to a medical school in my hometown of springfield, southern illinois university school of medicine -- we're so proud of it -- and met with the researchers. they get a few million dollars each year to do medic research in fields of cancer therapy, dealing with heart issues, dealing with the complaints of veterans who are returning. what do the house republicans do? they virtually close down the research for the remainder of the year. close down medical research. is that right? is that what we want in america? have you ever had a sick person

in your family and you went to the doctor and you said, doctor, is there anything, is there a drug, is there something experimental, clinical tri, is there anything? ha you ever asked that question? if you did, then you'd know that this cut bthe house republicans is mindless. to cut medical research at this moment in history? and then i went to the national laboratory, argonne national laboratory on monday. what do they do there? you know, a lot of people couldn't answer that question. well, i learned specifically. are you aware the chevy vt, this new breakthrough automobi automobile, all-electric automobile? where d that battery come from in this automobile? the argonne national laboratory. how about the latest pharmaceutical breakthroughs? virtually every one of them uses the advanced photon source at the argonne national laboratory. i met a flan eli lilly who was there experimenting with a new drug that can save lives at this laboratory. and how about computers?

where's the fastest computer in the world today? i wish it were in the united states. it's in china. china! we are now working on the next fastest computer so we don't lose that edge where. at the argonne national laboratory. so what would the house republican budget do to that laboratory? and most every other laboratory? is would eliminate one-third of the scientists and support staff working there and cut their research by 50% for the rest of the year. so what? so, if we don't move these pharmaceuticals forward to market stoor save lives -- sooner to save lives, if we don't compete with the chinese on this computer, in we don't deal with battery technologyo that we don't lose that negligent the world? what will it mean? lost jobs. the house republicans weren't thinking clearly. they were performing brain surgery with a hacksaw. and as a result, they've cut things that are essential for