The Presdient:
Thank you, John, for
the gracious introduction.
To Mike and Eric, thank you for
hosting me. Thank you to all of
you for receiving me.
It is wonderful to be here. I
want to also acknowledge Mark
Strand, president of the Congressional Institute.
To all the family
members who are here and
who have to put up
with us for an elective office
each and every day, thank you,
because I know that's tough.
(applause.)
I very much am appreciative of not only the
tone of your introduction, John,
but also the invitation that you
extended to me.
You know what they say, "Keep
your friends close, but visit
the Republican Caucus
every few months."
(laughter.)
Part of the reason I accepted
your invitation to come here was
because I wanted to speak
with all of you, and not just to
all of you. So I'm looking
forward to taking your questions
and having a real conversation
in a few moments. And I hope
that the conversation we begin
here doesn't end here; that
we can continue our dialogue
in the days ahead.
It's important to me
that we do so.
It's important to you, I think,
that we do so.
But most importantly, it's
important to the American
people that we do so.
I've said this before, but I'm a
big believer not just in the
value of a loyal opposition,
but in its necessity. Having
differences of opinion, having
a real debate about matters
for our country, it's absolutely
essential. It's only through the
process of disagreement
and debate that bad ideas get
tossed out and good ideas get
refined and made better.
And that kind of vigorous back
and forth -- that imperfect but
well-founded process, messy
as it often is -- is at the heart of our democracy.
That's what makes us the greatest nation in the world.
So, yes, I want you to
challenge my ideas,
and I guarantee you that
after reading this
I may challenge a few of yours.
(laughter.)
I want you to stand up for
your beliefs, and knowing this
caucus, I have no
doubt that you will.
I want us to have a constructive debate.
The only thing I don't want --
and here I am listening to the
American people,
and I think they don't
want either -- is for
Washington to continue
being so Washington-like.
I know folks, when we're in town
there, spend a lot of time
reading the polls and looking
at focus groups and interpreting
which party has the upper hand
in November and in 2012
and so on and so on and so on.
That's their obsession.
And I'm not a pundit. I'm just a
President, so take it for what
it's worth.
But I don't believe that the American people want us to
focus on our job security.
They want us to focus on their job security.
(applause.)
I don't think they
want more gridlock.
I don't think they
want more partisanship.
I don't think they want more
obstruction.
They didn't send us to
Washington to fight each other
in some sort of political
steel-cage match to see who comes out alive.
That's not what they want. They
sent us to Washington to work
together, to get things done,
and to solve the problems that
they're grappling with every
single day.
And I think your
constituents would want to
know that despite the fact it
doesn't get a lot of attention,
you and I have actually
worked together on a number of
occasions. There have been times
where we've acted in
a bipartisan fashion. And I want
to thank you and your Democratic
colleagues for reaching
across the aisle.
There has been, for example,
broad support for putting in
the troops necessary
in Afghanistan to deny al Qaeda
safe haven, to break the
Taliban's momentum, and to train
Afghan security forces.
There's been broad support
for disrupting, dismantling,
and defeating al Qaeda.
And I know that we're all
united in our admiration
of our troops.
(applause.)
So it may be useful for the international audience right now
to understand -- and
certainly for our enemies to
have no doubt -- whatever
divisions and differences may
exist in Washington, the United
States of America stands
as one to defend our country.
(applause.)
It's that same spirit of
bipartisanship that made
it possible for me
to sign a defense contracting
reform bill that was cosponsored
by Senator McCain and members of
Congress here today.
We've stood together on behalf
of our nation's veterans. Together we passed
the largest increase in the VA's
budget in more than 30 years and
supported essential veterans' health care reforms
to provide better access and
medical care for those who
serve in uniform.
Some of you also joined Democrats in supporting
a Credit Card Bill of Rights and
in extending unemployment
compensation to
Americans who are out of work.
Some of you joined us in
stopping tobacco companies from targeting
kids, expanding opportunities
for young people to serve our
country, and helping responsible
homeowners stay in their homes.
So we have a track record of working together.
It is possible.
But, as John, you mentioned, on
some very big things, we've seen
party-line
votes that, I'm just going to be
honest, were disappointing.
Let's start with our efforts
to jumpstart the economy
last winter, when we were
losing 700,000 jobs a month.
Our financial system teetered on the brink of collapse and
the threat of a second Great Depression loomed large.
I didn't understand then, and
I still don't understand, why
we got opposition in
this caucus for almost $300
billion in badly needed tax cuts
for the American people, or
COBRA coverage to help Americans
who've lost jobs in this
recession to keep the health
insurance that they desperately
needed, or opposition to putting
Americans to work laying
broadband and rebuilding roads
and bridges and breaking ground
on new construction projects.
There was an interesting headline in CNN today:
"Americans disapprove of
stimulus, but like
every policy in it."
And there was a poll that showed
that if you broke it down into
its component parts, 80 percent
approved of the tax cuts,
80 percent approved of the infrastructure,
80 percent approved of the
assistance to the unemployed.
Well, that's what the Recovery
Act was. And let's face it, some
of you have been at the
ribbon-cuttings for some of
these important projects in your
communities. Now, I understand
some of you had some philosophical differences
perhaps on the just the concept
of government spending, but, as I recall,
opposition was declared before
we had a chance to actually meet and exchange ideas.
And I saw that as
a missed opportunity.
Now, I am happy to report this
morning that we saw another sign
that our economy is moving
in the right direction.
The latest GDP numbers show that
our economy is growing by almost 6 percent --
that's the most since 2003.
To put that in perspective,
this time last year,
we weren't seeing positive job
growth; we were seeing the
economy shrink by
about 6 percent.
So you've seen a 12
percent reversal during
the course of this year.
This turnaround is the biggest
in nearly three decades -- and it didn't happen by accident.
It happened -- as economists,
conservative and liberal,
will attest -- because of some
of the steps that we took.
And by the way, you mentioned a
Web site out here, John -- if
you want to look at what's
going on, on the Recovery Act,
you can look on recovery.gov --
a Web site, by the way,
that was Eric Cantor's idea.
Now, here's the point. These are serious times,
and what's required by all of us
-- Democrats and Republicans --
is to do what's right for
our country, even if it's not
always what's best for our
politics.
I know it may be heresy to say
this, but there are things
more important
than good poll numbers.
And on this no one can accuse me of not living by my principles.
(laughter.)
A middle class that's back on
its feet, an economy that lifts
everybody up, an America that's
ascendant in the world
-- that's more important than
winning an election. Our future
shouldn't be shaped by
what's best for our politics;
our politics should be shaped by
what's best for our future.
But no matter what's happened in
the past, the important thing
for all of us is to
move forward together.
We have some issues right
in front of us on which I believe we should
agree, because as successful as
we've been in spurring new
economic growth, everybody
understands that job growth has been lagging.
Some of that's predictable.
Every economist will say jobs are a lagging indicator, but
that's no consolation
for the folks who are
out there suffering right now.
And since 7 million Americans
have lost their jobs in
this recession, we've got to
do everything we can to
accelerate it.
So, today, in line with what I
stated at the State of the
Union, I've proposed a new jobs
tax credit for small business.
And here's how it would work.
Employers would get a tax
credit of up to $5,000 for every
employee they add in 2010.
They'd get a tax break for
increases in wages, as well. So,
if you raise wages for employees
making under $100,000,
we'd refund part of your payroll
tax for every dollar you
increase those wages faster
than inflation.
It's a simple concept.
It's easy to understand.
It would cut taxes for more than 1 million small businesses.
So I hope you join me.
Let's get this done.
I want to eliminate the capital
gains tax for small business
investment, and take some
of the bailout money the Wall
Street banks have returned and
use it to help community
banks start lending to small
businesses again. So join me. I
am confident that we can do
this together for the American
people. And there's nothing in
that proposal that runs
contrary to the ideological
predispositions of this caucus.
The question is: What's going
to keep us from getting this
done? I've proposed a modest fee
on the nation's
largest banks and financial
institutions to fully recover
for taxpayers' money that they
provided to the financial sector
when it was teetering on the
brink of collapse.
And it's designed to discourage
them from taking reckless risks
in the future.
If you listen to the American
people, John, they'll tell you
they want their money back.
Let's do this together, Republicans and Democrats.
I propose that we close tax loopholes that
reward companies for shipping
American jobs overseas, and
instead give companies greater
incentive to create jobs
right here at home --
right here at home.
Surely, that's something that
we can do together, Republicans
and Democrats.
We know that we've got a
major fiscal challenge
in reining in deficits that have
been growing for a decade, and
threaten our future.
That's why I've proposed a
three-year freeze in
discretionary spending
other than what we need for national security.
That's something we should do
together that's consistent with
a lot of the talk both
in Democratic caucuses and Republican caucuses.
We can't blink when it's time to actually do the job.
At this point, we know that the budget surpluses
of the '90s occurred in part
because of the pay-as-you-go
law, which said that, well,
you should pay as you go and
live within our means, just like
families do every day.
Twenty-four of you voted for that, and I appreciate it.
And we were able to pass it
in the Senate yesterday.
But the idea of a bipartisan fiscal commission
to confront the deficits in the
long term died in the Senate the
other day.
So I'm going to establish such a commission by executive
order and I hope that you
participate, fully
and genuinely, in that effort,
because if we're going to
actually deal with our deficit
and debt, everybody here knows
that we're going to have to do
it together,
Republican and Democrat.
No single party is going to
make the tough choices involved on its own.
It's going to require all of us
doing what's right for the
American people.
And as I said in the State of
the Union speech, there's not
just a deficit of dollars in
Washington, there is a
deficit of trust.
So I hope you'll support my
proposal to make all
congressional
earmarks public before
they come to a vote.
And let's require
lobbyists who exercise such
influence to publicly disclose
all their contacts on behalf of
their clients, whether they are
contacts with my administration
or contacts with Congress.
Let's do the people's business
in the bright light of day, together, Republicans
and Democrats.
I know how bitter and
contentious the issue of health
insurance reform has become.
And I will eagerly look at the
ideas and better solutions on
the health care front.
If anyone here truly believes our health insurance system
is working well for people, I
respect your right to say so, but I just don't agree.
And neither would millions of
Americans with preexisting
conditions who can't get
coverage today or find out that
they lose their insurance just
as they're getting
seriously ill.
That's exactly when
you need insurance.
And for too many people,
they're not getting it.
I don't think a system is
working when small businesses
are gouged and 15,000 Americans
are losing coverage every single
day; when premiums have
doubled and out-of-pocket costs
have exploded and they're poised
to do so again.
I mean, to be fair, the status
quo is working for the insurance
industry, but it's not working
for the American people.
It's not working for our federal
budget. It needs to change.
This is a big problem, and all
of us are called on to solve it.
And that's why, from the start,
I sought out and supported ideas
from Republicans. I even talked
about an issue that has been
a holy grail for a lot of you,
which was tort reform, and said
that I'd be willing to work
together as part of a comprehensive package
to deal with it.
I just didn't get
a lot of nibbles.
Creating a high-risk pool for uninsured folks
with preexisting conditions,
that wasn't my idea, it was
Senator McCain's.
And I supported it, and it got incorporated into our approach.
Allowing insurance companies to sell coverage across state lines to add choice and competition
and bring down costs for businesses and consumers
-- that's an idea that some of
you I suspect included in this
better solutions; that's
an idea that was incorporated
into our package. And I support
it, provided that we do it hand
in hand with broader reforms
that protect benefits and
protect patients and protect
the American people.
A number of you have suggested creating pools
where self-employed and small businesses could
buy insurance.
That was a good idea.
I embraced it.
Some of you supported efforts to
provide insurance to children
and let kids remain
covered on their parents'
insurance until they're 25 or
26. I supported that.
That's part of our package.
I supported a number
of other ideas, from incentivizing wellness
to creating an affordable catastrophic insurance
option for young people that came from Republicans
like Mike Enzi and Olympia Snowe
in the Senate, and I'm sure from
some of you as well.
So when you say I ought to be
willing to accept Republican
ideas on health care, let's be
clear: I have. Bipartisanship --
not for its own sake but
to solve problems -- that's what
our constituents, the American
people, need from us right now.
All of us then have a choice to
make. We have to choose whether
we're going to be politicians
first or partners for progress;
whether we're going to put
success at the polls ahead of
the lasting success we can
achieve together for America.
Just think about it for a while.
We don't have to put it up for a
vote today. Let me close by
saying this. I was not elected
by Democrats or Republicans, but
by the American people. That's
especially true because the
fastest growing group of
Americans are independents. That
should tell us both something.
I'm ready and eager to work with anyone who is willing to proceed in a spirit of goodwill.
But understand, if we can't
break free from partisan
gridlock, if we can't move past
a politics of "no," if resistance supplants
constructive debate,
I still have to meet my responsibilities as President.
I've got to act for the greater
good - because that, too, is a commitment that I have made.
And that's -- that, too,
is what the American people sent me to Washington to do.
So I am optimistic.
I know many of you individually.
And the irony, I think, of our
political climate right now is
that, compared to other
countries, the differences
between the two
major parties on most issues is
not as big as it's represented.
But we've gotten caught up in
the political game in a way
that's just not healthy.
It's dividing our country in
ways that are preventing us from
meeting the challenges
of the 21st century.
I'm hopeful that the
conversation we have today can
help reverse that.
So thank you very much. Thank
you, John. (applause.)
Now I'd like to open
it up for questions.
Congressman Pence:
The President has agreed
to take questions and members
would be encouraged to raise
your hand while you
remain in your seat.
(laughter.)
The chair will take the prerogative to make
the first remarks.
Mr. President, welcome back to the House Republican
Conference.
Mr. President:
Thank you.
Congressman Pence:
[Off microphone.] We are
pleased to have you return.
(Inaudible) a year ago -- House
Republicans said then we
would make you two promises.
Number one, that most of the
people in this room and their
families would pray for you and
your beautiful family just about
every day for the
next four years.
And I want to assure you we're keeping that promise.
Mr. President:
I appreciate that.
Congressman Pence:
[off microphone] Number
two, our pledge to you, Mr.
President, was that door is
always open. And we hope the
(inaudible) of our invitation
that we (inaudible). Mr.
President, several of
us in this conference
yesterday on the way into
Baltimore stopped by the
Salvation Army homeless facility
here in Baltimore.
I met a little
boy, an African American boy, in
the 8th grade, named David
Carter, Jr. When he heard that I
would be seeing you today his
eyes lit up like I had
never seen. And I told him that
if he wrote you a letter I'd
give it to you, and I have.
But I had a conversation with
little David, Jr. and David, Sr.
His family has been struggling
with the economy. [On
microphone.] His dad
said words to me,
Mr. President, that I'll never
forget. About my age and he said
-- he said, Congressman,
it's not like it was when we
were coming up. He said, there's
just no jobs.
Now, last year about the time
you met with us, unemployment
was 7.5 percent in this country.
Your administration, and your
party in Congress, told us that
we'd have to borrow more than
$700 billion to pay for a
so-called stimulus bill. It was
a piecemeal list of projects
and boutique tax cuts, all of
which was -- we were told -- had
to be passed or unemployment
would go to 8 percent, as your
administration said. Well,
unemployment is 10 percent now,
as you well know, Mr. President;
here in Baltimore it's
considerably higher.
Now, Republicans offered a
stimulus bill at the same time.
It cost half as much as the
Democratic proposal in Congress,
and using your economic analyst
models, it would have
created twice the jobs at half
the cost. It essentially was
across-the-board tax relief,
Mr. President.
Now we know you've come to Baltimore today
and you've raised this tax
credit, which was last promoted
by President Jimmy Carter.
But the first question I would
pose to you, very respectfully,
Mr. President, is would you
be willing to consider embracing
-- in the name of little David
Carter, Jr. and his dad,
in the name of every struggling
family in this country -- the
kind of across-the-board
tax relief that Republicans have
advocated, that President
Kennedy advocated, that
President Reagan
advocated and that has
always been the means of
stimulating broad-based
economic growth?
The President:
Well, there was a lot packed into that question.
(laughter.)
First of all, let me say I
already promised that I'll be
writing back to that young man
and his family, and I appreciate
you passing on the letter.
Speaker:
Thank you.
The President:
But let's talk
about just the jobs
environment generally.
You're absolutely
right that when I was sworn in
the hope was that unemployment
would remain around 8 [percent],
or in the 8 percent range. That
was just based on the estimates
made by both conservative
and liberal economists, because
at that point not all the data
had trickled in.
We had lost 650,000 jobs in
December. I'm assuming you're
not faulting my policies for
that. We had lost, it turns out,
700,000 jobs in January, the
month I was sworn in.
I'm assuming it wasn't my
administration's policies that
accounted for that. We lost
another 650,000
jobs the subsequent month,
before any of my policies had
gone into effect.
So I'm assuming that wasn't
as a consequence of
our policies; that doesn't
reflect the failure of the
Recovery Act.
The point being that what
ended up happening was that the
job losses from this recession
proved to be much more severe --
in the first quarter of last
year going into the second
quarter of last year -- than
anybody anticipated. So I mean,
I think we can score political
points on the basis of the fact that we underestimated
how severe the job
losses were going to be.
But those job losses took place
before any stimulus, whether it
was the ones that you guys have proposed or the ones that we proposed,
could have ever taken
into effect.
Now, that's just
the fact, Mike, and
I don't think anybody would dispute that.
You could not find an economist
who would dispute that.
Now, at the same time, as I mentioned, most economists -- Republican and Democrat,
liberal and conservative
-- would say that had it
not been for the stimulus
package that we passed, things
would be much worse.
Now, they didn't fill a 7
million hole in the number of
people who were unemployed.
They probably account for
about 2 million, which
means we still have 5
million folks in
there that we've
still got to deal with. That's a
lot of people. The package that
we put together at the beginning
of the year, the truth is, should have reflected
-- and I believe reflected what
most of you would say are
common sense things.
This notion that this
was a radical package is
just not true.
A third of them were tax
cuts, and they weren't -- when
you say they were "boutique"
tax cuts, Mike, 95 percent of
working Americans got tax cuts,
small businesses got tax cuts,
large businesses got help
in terms of their
depreciation schedules.
I mean, it was a pretty
conventional list of tax cuts. A
third of it was stabilizing
state budgets.
There is not a single person in
here who, had it not been for
what was in the stimulus
package, wouldn't be going home
to more teachers laid off, more
firefighters laid off, more
cops laid off. A big chunk of it
was unemployment insurance and
COBRA, just making sure that
people had some floor beneath
them, and, by the way, making
sure that there was enough
money in their pockets that
businesses had some customers.
You take those two things out,
that accounts for the majority
of the stimulus package.
Are there people in this room
who think that was a bad idea? A
portion of it was dealing
with the AMT, the alternative
minimum tax -- not a proposal of
mine; that's not a consequence
of my policies that we have a
tax system where we keep on
putting off a potential tax hike
that is embedded in the budget
that we have to fix each year.
That cost about $70 billion.
And then the last portion of it
was infrastructure which, as I
said, a lot of you have gone to
appear at ribbon-cuttings for the same projects
that you voted against.
Now, I say all this not to
re-litigate the past, but it's
simply to state that the
component parts
of the Recovery Act are
consistent with what many of you
say are important things
to do -- rebuilding our infrastructure, tax
cuts for families and
businesses, and making
sure that we were providing
states and individuals some
support when the
roof was caving in.
And the notion that I would
somehow resist doing something
that cost half as much but
would produce twice as many jobs
-- why would I resist that?
I wouldn't. I mean, that's
my point, is that -- I am not an
ideologue. I'm not. It doesn't
make sense if somebody
could tell me you could
do this cheaper and get
increased results that
I wouldn't say, great.
The problem is, I couldn't
find credible economists
who would back up
the claims that you just made.
Now, we can -- here's what I know going forward, though.
I mean, we're talking --
we were talking about the past.
We can talk about
this going forward.
I have looked at every
idea out there in terms of
accelerating job growth to match
the economic growth that's
already taken place. The jobs
credit that I'm discussing right
now is one that a lot of people
think would be the most
cost-effective way for
encouraging people to
pick up their hiring.
There may be other ideas
that you guys have;
I am happy to look at them and
I'm happy to embrace them.
I suspect I will embrace
some of them.
Some of them I've
already embraced.
But the question I think
we're going to have
to ask ourselves is, as we move
forward, are we going to be
examining each of these issues
based on what's good for the
country, what the evidence tells
us, or are we going to
be trying to position ourselves
so that come November we're able
to say, "The other party,
it's their fault."
If we take the latter
approach then we're probably
not going to get much
agreement. If we take the
former, I suspect there's going
to be a lot of overlap.
All right?
Speaker:
Mr. President, will you consider
supporting across-the-board tax
relief, as President
Kennedy did?
The President:
Here's what I'm going to do,
Mike. What I'm going to do is
I'm going to take a look at what
you guys are proposing.
And the reason I say this,
before you say, "Okay," I think
is important to know -- what
you may consider
across-the-board tax cuts could
be, for example, greater
tax cuts for people who are
making a billion dollars.
I may not agree to a tax
cut for Warren Buffet.
You may be calling for an
across-the-board tax cut for the
banking industry right now.
I may not agree to that.
So I think that we've got to look at what
specific proposals you're
putting forward, and -- this is
the last point I'll make --
if you're calling for just
across-the-board tax cuts, and
then on the other hand saying
that we're somehow going to
balance our budget, I'm going to
want to take a look at your math
and see how that works, because
the issue of deficit and debt is
another area where
there has been a tendency for
some inconsistent statements.
How's that? All right?
Congressman Ryan:
Thank you. Mr. President, first off, thanks
for agreeing to accept our invitation here.
It is a real pleasure and honor to have you with us here today.
The President:
Good to see you. Is this your crew right here, by the way?
Congressman Ryan:
It is. This is my daughter Liza, my son Charlie and Sam, and
this is my wife Janna.
The President:
Hey, guys.
Congressman Ryan:
Say hi, everybody.
(laughter.)
I serve as a ranking
member of the budget
committee, so I'm going to
talk a little budget if you
don't mind.
The spending bills that
you've signed into
law, the domestic
discretionary spending has
been increased by 84 percent.
You now want to freeze
spending at this elevated
beginning next year.
This means that total
spending in your budget would
grow at 3/100ths of 1 percent
less than otherwise.
I would simply submit that we
could do more and start now.
You've also said that you want
to take a scalpel to the budget
and go through it line by line.
We want to give you
that scalpel.
I have a proposal with my home
state senator, Russ
Feingold, bipartisan proposal,
to create a constitutional
version of the line-item veto.
(applause.)
Problem is, we can't even get
a vote on the proposal.
So my question is, why not start
freezing spending now, and would
you support a line-item
veto in helping us get a
vote on it in the House?
The President:
Let me respond to
the two specific questions,
but I want to just push
back a little bit
on the underlying premise
about us increasing
spending by 84 percent.
Now, look, I talked to
Peter Orszag right
before I came here, because I
suspected I'd be hearing this --
I'd be hearing this argument.
The fact of the matter is, is
that most of the increases in
this year's budget, this
past year's budget, were not as
a consequence of policies that
we initiated but instead
were built in as a consequence
of the automatic stabilizers
that kick in because of
this enormous recession.
So the increase in the budget for this past year was actually
predicted before I was even
sworn into office and had initiated any policies.
Whoever was in there, Paul --
and I don't think you'll dispute
that -- whoever was in
there would have seen those same
increases because of, on the one
hand, huge drops in
revenue, but at the same
time people were hurting
and needed help.
And a lot of these things happened automatically.
Now, the reason that I'm not proposing the
discretionary freeze take into
effect this year -- we prepared
a budget for 2010, it's
now going forward -- is, again,
I am just listening to the
consensus among people who
know the economy best. And what
they will say is that if you
either increase taxes or
significantly lowered spending
when the economy remains
somewhat fragile, that that
would have a destimulative
effect and potentially you'd see
a lot of folks losing business,
more folks potentially
losing jobs.
That would be a mistake when the
economy has not fully taken off.
That's why I've proposed to do
it for the next fiscal year. So that's point number two.
With respect to the line-item veto, I actually
-- I think there's not a President out there
that wouldn't love to have it.
And I think that this is an area
where we can have a serious
conversation.
I know it is a
bipartisan proposal by
you and Russ Feingold.
I don't like being held
up with big bills that
have stuff in
them that are wasteful but I've
got to sign because it's a
defense authorization bill
and I've got to make sure that
our troops are getting the
funding that they need.
I will tell you, I would love
for Congress itself to show
discipline on both
sides of the aisle.
I think one thing
that you have to acknowledge,
Paul, because you study this
stuff and take it pretty
seriously, that the earmarks
problem is not unique to one
party and you end up
getting a lot of
pushback when you start going
after specific projects of
any one of you in your districts, because
wasteful spending is usually
spent somehow outside
of your district.
Have you noticed that? The spending in your district tends
to seem pretty sensible.
So I would love to see more restraint within
Congress. I'd like to work on
the earmarks reforms that I
mentioned in terms of putting
earmarks online, because I think
sunshine is the best
disinfectant.
But I am willing to have a
serious conversation on the
line-item veto issue.
Congressman Ryan:
I'd like to walk you through that, because
we have a version we
think is constitutional.
The President:
Let me take a look at it.
Congressman Ryan:
I would simply say that automatic stabilizer
spending is mandatory
spending.
The discretionary
spending, the bills
that Congress signs that
you sign into law, that has increased 84 percent.
The President:
We'll have a longer debate on the budget numbers, all right?
Congressman Pence:
Shelley Moore Capito,
West Virginia.
Congresswoman Mato:
Thank you, Mr. President, for
joining us here today.
As you said in the
State of the Union
address on Wednesday, jobs and
the economy are number one.
And I think everyone in this room, certainly I, agree with you on that.
I represent the
state of West Virginia.
We're resource-rich.
We have a lot of coal and
a lot of natural gas.
But our -- my miners and the folks who are working and
those who are unemployed are
very concerned about some of
your policies in these areas:
cap and trade, an aggressive
EPA, and the looming prospect of higher taxes.
In our minds, these are job-killing policies.
So I'm asking you if
you would be willing
to re-look at some of
these policies, with a high
unemployment and the unsure
economy that we have now, to assure West Virginians that you're listening.
The President:
Look, I listen all
the time, including to
your governor, who's somebody
who I enjoyed working with a lot
before the campaign and
now that I'm President. And I
know that West Virginia
struggles with unemployment, and
I know how important coal is to
West Virginia and a lot of the
natural resources there.
That's part of the reason why
I've said that we need a
comprehensive energy policy that
sets us up for a long-term
future. For example, nobody has
been a bigger promoter
of clean coal technology than I
am. Testament to that, I ended
up being in a whole bunch
of advertisements that you guys
saw all the time about investing
in ways for us to burn
coal more cleanly. I've said
that I'm a promoter of
nuclear energy,
something that I think over the
last three decades has been
subject to a lot of
partisan wrangling and ideological wrangling.
I don't think it makes
sense. I think that that has
to be part of our energy mix.
I've said that I am supportive
-- and I said this two nights
ago at the State of the Union --
that I am in favor of increased
production.
So if you look at the ideas that
this caucus has, again with
respect to energy, I'm for
a lot of what you said you are
for. The one thing that I've
also said, though,
and here we have a serious
disagreement and my hope is we
can work through these
disagreements -- there's
going to be an effort
on the Senate side to do so on a
bipartisan basis -- is
that we have to plan for the
future. And the future is that
clean energy -- cleaner
forms of energy are going to be
increasingly important, because
even if folks are still
skeptical in some cases about
climate change in our politics
and in Congress, the world is not skeptical about it.
If we're going to be
after some of these big
markets, they're
going to be looking to see, is
the United States the one that's
developing clean
coal technology?
Is the United States developing
our natural gas resources in the most effective way?
Is the United States the one
that is going to lead in
electric cars?
Because if we're not
leading, those
other countries are
going to be leading.
So what I want to do is work
with West Virginia to figure out
how we can seize that future.
But to do that, that means
there's going to have to
be some transition.
We can't operate the coal industry in the United
States as if we're still in the
1920s or the 1930s or the 1950s.
We've got to be thinking what
does that industry look like
in the next hundred years.
And it's going to
be different.
And that means there's going to be some transition.
And that's where I think a
well-thought-through policy of
incentivizing the
new while recognizing
that there's going to be a
transition process -- and we're
not just suddenly putting the
old out of business right away
-- that has to be something that
both Republicans and
Democrats should be able
to embrace.
Congressman Pence:
Jason Chaffetz, Utah.
Congressman Chaffetz:
Thank you, Mr. President.
It's truly an honor.
The President:
Great to be here.
Congressman Chaffetz
And I appreciate you being
here. I'm one of 22 House
freshmen. We didn't create
this mess, but we are here to
help clean it up. You talked a
lot about this deficit of trust.
There's some things that have
happened that I would appreciate
your perspective on,
because I can look you in the
eye and tell you we have not
been obstructionists.
Democrats have the House and Senate and the presidency.
And when you stood up before the
American people multiple times
and said you would broadcast the
health care debates
on C-SPAN, you didn't.
And I was disappointed, and I
think a lot of Americans were
disappointed.
You said you weren't going to
allow lobbyists in the
senior-most positions
within your administration,
and yet you did. I applauded you
when you said it -- and
disappointed when you didn't.
You said you'd go line by line
through the health care debate
-- or through the health
care bill. And there were six of
us, including Dr. Phil Roe, who
sent you a letter and said,
"We would like to take you up on
the offer; we'd like to come."
We never heard a letter,
we never got a call. We were
never involved in any of those
discussions.
And when you said in the House
of Representatives that you were
going to tackle earmarks --
in fact, you didn't want to have
any earmarks in any of your
bills -- I jumped up out of
my seat and applauded you.
But it didn't happen.
More importantly, I want to talk about moving forward, but if
we could address --
The President:
Well, how about --
Congressman Chaffetz:
-- I would certainly
appreciate it.
The President:
That was a long list, so --
(laughter) -- let me respond.
Look, the truth of the matter is
that if you look at the health
care process -- just over
the course of the year --
overwhelmingly the majority of
it actually was on C-SPAN,
because it was taking place
in congressional hearings
in which you guys were participating. I mean,
how many committees were there
that helped to shape this bill?
Countless hearings took place.
Now, I kicked it off, by the way, with a meeting
with many of you, including your
key leadership. What is true,
there's no doubt about it, is
that once it got through the
committee process and there were
now a series of meetings taking
place all over the Capitol
trying to figure out how to get
the thing together -- that
was a messy process. And I take
responsibility for not having
structured it in a way where
it was all taking place in one
place that could be filmed. How
to do that logistically
would not have been as easy as
it sounds, because you're
shuttling back and forth between
the House, the Senate,
different offices, et cetera,
different legislators.
But I think it's a
legitimate criticism.
So on that one, I take responsibility.
With respect to earmarks, we didn't have earmarks
in the Recovery Act.
We didn't get a lot of credit
for it, but there were no
earmarks in that.
I was confronted
at the beginning
of my term with an omnibus
package that did have a lot of
earmarks from Republicans and
Democrats, and a lot of
people in this chamber.
And the question was
whether I was going to
have a big budget fight, at a
time when I was still trying to
figure out whether or
not the financial system was
melting down and we had to make
a whole bunch of emergency
decisions about the economy. So
what I said was let's keep them
to a minimum, but I couldn't
excise them all.
Now, the challenge I guess I would have for
you as a freshman, is what are
you doing inside your caucus to
make sure that I'm not the
only guy who is responsible for
this stuff, so that we're
working together, because this
is going to be a process?
When we talk about earmarks, I think all of
us are willing to acknowledge
that some of them are perfectly
defensible, good projects;
it's just they haven't
gone through the regular
appropriations process in the full light of day.
So one place to start is to
make sure that they are at least
transparent, that everybody
knows what's there before we
move forward. In terms of
lobbyists, I can stand
here unequivocally
and say that there has not
been an administration who was
tougher on making
sure that lobbyists
weren't participating in
the administration than any
administration that's
come before us.
Now, what we did was, if there were lobbyists
who were on boards and commissions that were
carryovers and their term hadn't
been completed,
we didn't kick them off. We
simply said that moving forward
any time a new slot opens,
they're being replaced.
So we've actually been very consistent in
making sure that we are
eliminating the impact of
lobbyists, day in, day
out, on how this
administration operates. There
have been a handful of waivers
where somebody is highly
skilled -- for example, a doctor
who ran Tobacco-Free Kids
technically is a
registered lobbyist;
on the other end, has more
experience than anybody in
figuring out how kids don't get
hooked on cigarettes.
So there have been a couple of instances like
that, but generally we've been very consistent
on that front.
Congressman Pence:
Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee.
Congressman Blackburn:
Thank you, Mr. President,
and thank you for
acknowledging that we have
ideas on health care because,
indeed, we do have ideas, we
have plans, we have
over 50 bills, we have
lots of amendments that
would bring health
care ideas to the forefront. We
would -- we've got plans to
lower cost, to change purchasing
models, address medical
liability, insurance
accountability, chronic and
preexisting conditions,
and access to affordable care
for those with those conditions,
insurance portability, expanded
access -- but not doing it with
creating more government, more
bureaucracy, and more cost
for the American taxpayer.
And we look forward to
sharing those ideas
with you. We want to work with
you on health reform and making
certain that we do it in
an affordable, cost-effective
way that is going to reduce
bureaucracy, reduce government
interference, and reduce costs
to individuals and to taxpayers.
And if those good ideas
aren't making it to you, maybe
it's the House Democrat
leadership that is an impediment
instead of a conduit.
But we're concerned also
that there are some
lessons learned from public
option health care plans that
maybe are not being heeded.
And certainly in my state of
Tennessee, we were the test case
for public option health
care in 1994, and our Democrat
government has even cautioned
that maybe our experiences
there would provide some lessons
learned that should be heeded,
and would provide guidance
for us to go forward. And as you
said, what we should be doing is
tossing old ideas out,
bad ideas out, and moving
forward in refining good ideas.
And certainly we would
welcome that opportunity.
So my question
to you is, when will we look
forward to starting anew and
sitting down with you to put all
of these ideas on the
table, to look at these lessons
learned, to benefit from that
experience, and to produce
a product that is going to
reduce government interference,
reduce cost, and be fair to
the American taxpayer?
(applause.)
The President:
Actually, I've
gotten many of your ideas.
I've taken a look at them,
even before I was handed this.
Some of the ideas we have embraced in our package.
Some of them are
embraced with caveats.
So let me give you an example.
I think one of the proposals
that has been focused on by the
Republicans as a way to
reduce costs is allowing
insurance companies
to sell across state lines. We actually include
that as part of our approach.
But the caveat is, we've got
to do so with some
minimum standards,
because otherwise what happens
is that you could have insurance
companies circumvent
a whole bunch of state regulations about basic
benefits or what have you,
making sure that
a woman is able to get
mammograms as part of preventive
care, for example. Part of what
could happen is insurance
companies could go into states
and cherry-pick and just get
those who are healthiest and
leave behind those who are least
healthy, which would raise
everybody's premiums who weren't
healthy, right?
So it's not that many of these
ideas aren't workable, but
we have to refine them to make
sure that they don't just end up
worsening the situation
for folks rather than
making it better.
Now, what I said at the
State of the Union
is what I still believe: If you
can show me -- and if I get
confirmation from health
care experts, people who know
the system and how it works,
including doctors and nurses
-- ways of reducing people's
premiums; covering those who do
not have insurance; making it
more affordable for small
businesses; having insurance
reforms that ensure people have
insurance even when they've got
preexisting conditions, that
their coverage is not dropped
just because they're sick, that
young people right out of
college or as they're entering
in the workforce can still get
health insurance -- if those
component parts are things that
you care about and want to do,
I'm game. And I've got -- and
I've got a lot of these ideas.
The last thing I will say,
though -- let me say this about
health care and the health
care debate, because I think it
also bears on a whole lot of
other issues. If you look
at the package that we've
presented -- and there's some
stray cats and dogs that got
in there that we were
eliminating, we were in the
process of eliminating.
For example,
we said from the start that it
was going to be important for us
to be consistent in saying
to people if you can have your
-- if you want to keep the
health insurance you got, you
can keep it, that you're not
going to have anybody getting in
between you and your doctor
in your decision making.
And I think that some of
the provisions that got
snuck in might
have violated that pledge.
And so we were in the
process of scrubbing
this and making sure that it's
tight. But at its core, if you
look at the basic proposal
that we've put forward: it has
an exchange so that businesses
and the self-employed can
buy into a pool and can get
bargaining power the same way
big companies do; the insurance
reforms that I've already
discussed, making sure that
there's choice and competition
for those who don't have
health insurance.
The component parts of this
thing are pretty similar to what
Howard Baker, Bob Dole, and
Tom Daschle proposed at the
beginning of this
debate last year.
Now, you may not agree with Bob
Dole and Howard Baker, and,
certainly you don't agree
with Tom Daschle on much,
but that's not a radical bunch.
But if you were to listen
to the debate and, frankly,
how some of you went
after this bill,
you'd think that this thing
was some Bolshevik plot.
No, I mean, that's how you guys
- (applause) -- that's how you
guys presented it.
And so I'm thinking
to myself, well,
how is it that a plan that is
pretty centrist -- no, look,
I mean, I'm just saying,
I know you guys disagree,
but if you look at the
facts of this bill,
most independent observers would
say this is actually what many
Republicans -- is similar to
what many Republicans proposed
to Bill Clinton when he was
doing his debate on health care.
So all I'm saying is, we've got
to close the gap a little bit
between the rhetoric
and the reality.
I'm not suggesting that we're
going to agree on everything,
whether it's on health care
or energy or what have you,
but if the way these issues
are being presented by the
Republicans is that this is some
wild-eyed plot to impose huge
government in every
aspect of our lives,
what happens is you guys then
don't have a lot of room to
negotiate with me.
I mean, the fact of the matter
is, is that many of you,
if you voted with the
administration on something,
are politically vulnerable
in your own base,
in your own party.
You've given yourselves very
little room to work in a
bipartisan fashion because
what you've been telling your
constituents is, this guy is
doing all kinds of crazy stuff
that's going to destroy America.
And I would just say that we
have to think about tone.
It's not just on your side, by
the way -- it's on our side,
as well.
This is part of what's
happened in our politics,
where we demonize the other side
so much that when it comes to
actually getting things
done, it becomes tough to do.
Mike.
Congressman Pence:
Dr. Tom Price from Georgia,
and then we'll have one more
after that if your time permits,
Mr. President.
The President:
You know, I'm having fun.
(laughter.)
Congressman
Pence: Okay.
The President:
This is great.
(applause.)
Congressman Pence:
So are we.
Congressman Pence:
Mr. President, thank you.
I want to stick on the
general topic of health care,
but ask a very
specific question.
You have repeatedly said, most
recently at the State of the
Union, that Republicans have
offered no ideas
and no solutions.
In spite of the fact --
The President:
I don't think I said that.
What I said was, within the
context of health care -- I
remember that
speech pretty well,
it was only two days ago --
(laughter) -- I said I welcome
ideas that you might provide.
I didn't say that you
haven't provided ideas.
I said I welcome those
ideas that you'll provide.
Congressman Pence:
Mr. President, multiple times,
from your administration, there
have come statements that
Republicans have no
ideas and no solutions.
In spite of the fact that we've
offered, as demonstrated today,
positive solutions to all
of the challenges we face,
including energy and the
economy and health care,
specifically in the area of
health care -- this bill,
H.R.3400, that has more
co-sponsors than any health care
bill in the House, is a bill
that would provide health
coverage for all Americans;
would correct the significant
insurance challenges of
affordability and preexisting;
would solve the
lawsuit abuse issue,
which isn't addressed
significantly in the other
proposals that went through
the House and the Senate;
would write into law that
medical decisions are made
between patients and
families and doctors;
and does all of that without
raising taxes by a penny.
But my specific question
is, what should we tell our
constituents who know that
Republicans have offered
positive solutions to the
challenges that Americans face
and yet continue to hear out of
the administration that
we've offered nothing?
The President:
Tom, look, I have to say
that on the -- let's
just take the
health care debate.
And it's probably not
constructive for us to try to
debate a particular bill --
this isn't the venue to do it.
But if you say, "We can offer
coverage for all Americans,
and it won't cost a penny,"
that's just not true.
You can't structure a bill where
suddenly 30 million people have
coverage, and it costs nothing.
If -- Congressman Pence:
Mr. President,
can I -- and I understand that
we're not interested in debating
this bill, but what should we
tell our constituents who know
that we've offered these
solutions and yet hear from the
administration that we
have offered nothing.
The President:
Let me -- I'm using
this as a specific
example, so let me
answer your question.
You asked a question;
I want to answer it.
It's not enough if
you say, for example,
that we've offered a health care
plan and I look up -- this is
just under the section that
you've just provided me,
or the book that you just
provided me -- summary of GOP
health care reform bill: The
GOP plan will lower health care
premiums for American families
and small businesses,
addressing America's number-one
priority for health reform.
I mean, that's an idea
that we all embrace.
But specifically
it's got to work.
I mean, there's got to be a
mechanism in these plans that I
can go to an independent
health care expert and say,
is this something that
will actually work,
or is it boilerplate?
If I'm told, for example, that
the solution to dealing with
health care costs
is tort reform,
something that I've said I am
willing to work with you on,
but the CBO or other
experts say to me, at best,
this could reduce health care
costs relative to where they're
growing by a couple
of percentage points,
or save $5 billion a year,
that's what we can score it at,
and it will not bend the cost
curve long term or reduce
premiums significantly -- then
you can't make the claim that
that's the only thing
that we have to do.
If we're going to do multi-state
insurance so that people can go
across state lines, I've got to
be able to go to an independent
health care expert,
Republican or Democrat,
who can tell me that this won't
result in cherry-picking of the
healthiest going to some and the
least healthy being worse off.
So I am absolutely committed
to working with you on these
issues, but it can't just be
political assertions that aren't
substantiated when it comes to
the actual details of policy.
Because otherwise, we're going
to be selling the American
people a bill of goods.
I mean, the easiest thing for me
to do on the health care debate
would have been to tell people
that what you're going to get is
guaranteed health insurance,
lower your costs,
all the insurance reforms; we're
going to lower the costs of
Medicare and Medicaid and it
won't cost anybody anything.
That's great politics,
it's just not true.
So there's got to be some test
of realism in any of these
proposals, mine included.
I've got to hold
myself accountable,
and guaranteed the American
people will hold themselves --
will hold me accountable if what
I'm selling doesn't
actually deliver.
Congressman Pence:
Mr. President,
a point of clarification, what's
in the Better Solutions book are
all the legislative proposals
that were offered --
The President:
I understand that.
I've actually read your bills.
Congressman Price:
throughout 2009.
The President:
I understand.
Congressman Price:
And so, rest assured the
summary document you
received is backed up by
precisely the kind of detailed
legislation that Speaker Pelosi
and your administration have
been busy ignoring
for 12 months.
The President:
Well, Mike -- well, hold on, hold on a second.
No, no, no, no.
Hold on a second, guys.
(applause.) You know, Mike,
I've read your legislation.
I mean, I take a look at this
stuff -- and the good
ideas we take.
But here's -- here's the thing
-- here's the thing that I guess
all of us have to be mindful
of, it can't be all or nothing,
one way or the other.
And what I mean by that is this:
If we put together a stimulus
package in which a third of it
are tax cuts that normally you
guys would support, and support
for states and the unemployed,
and helping people stay on COBRA
that your governors certainly
would support --
Democrat or a Republican;
and then you've got
some infrastructure,
and maybe there's some things
in there that you don't like in
terms of infrastructure, or you
think the bill should have been
$500 billion instead of $700
billion or there's this
provision or that provision
that you don't like.
If there's uniform opposition
because the Republican caucus
doesn't get 100 percent or
80 percent of what you want,
then it's going to be
hard to get a deal done.
That's because that's
not how democracy works.
So my hope would be that we can
look at some of these component
parts of what we're doing and
maybe we break some of them up
on different policy issues.
So if the good congressman from
Utah has a particular issue on
lobbying reform that he
wants to work with us on,
we may not able to agree on
a comprehensive package on
everything but there may be some
component parts that
we can work on.
You may not support our
overall jobs package,
but if you look at the tax
credit that we're proposing for
small businesses right now, it
is consistent with a lot of what
you guys have said in the past.
And just the fact that it's my
administration that's proposing
it shouldn't prevent
you from supporting it.
That's my point.
Congressman Pence:
Thank you, Mr. President.
Peter Roskam from the
great state of Illinois.
The President:
Oh, Peter is an
old friend of mine.
Congressman Roskan:
Hey, Mr. President.
The President:
Peter and I have had
many debates.
Congressman Roskan:
Well, this won't be one.
Mr. President, I heard echoes
today of the state senator that
I served with in Springfield and
there was an attribute and a
characteristic that you had that
I think served you well there.
You took on some very
controversial subjects -- death penalty reform -- you and I --
The President:
Sure.
We worked on it together.
Congressman Roskan:
-- negotiated on.
You took on ethics reform.
You took on some big things.
One of the keys was you
rolled your sleeves up,
you worked with the other party,
and ultimately you were able to
make the deal.
Now, here's an observation.
Over the past year, in my view,
that attribute hasn't been in
full bloom.
And by that I mean, you've
gotten this subtext of House
Republicans that sincerely want
to come and be a part of this
national conversation
toward solutions,
but they've really been
stiff-armed by Speaker Pelosi.
Now, I know you're not in
charge of that chamber,
but there really is this dynamic
of, frankly, being shut out.
When John Boehner and Eric
Cantor presented last February
to you some substantive
job creation,
our stimulus alternative,
the attack machine began to
marginalize Eric -- and we can
all look at the articles -- as
"Mr. No," and there was this pretty dark story, ultimately,
that wasn't productive and
wasn't within this sort of
framework that you're
articulating today.
So here's the question.
Moving forward, I think all of
us want to hit the reset
button on 2009.
How do we move forward?
And on the job creation
piece in particular,
you mentioned Colombia,
you mentioned Panama,
you mentioned South Korea.
Are you willing to work
with us, for example,
to make sure those
FTAs get called,
that's no-cost job creation?
And ultimately, as you're
interacting with world leaders,
that's got to put more arrows in
your quiver, and that's a very,
very powerful tool for us.
But the obstacle is, frankly,
the politics within the
Democratic caucus?
The President::
Well, first of all,
Peter and I did work together
effectively on a
whole host of issues.
One of our former colleagues is
right now running for governor,
on the Republican
side, in Illinois.
In the Republican
primary, of course,
they're running ads of him
saying nice things about me.
Poor guy.
(laughter.) Although that's
one of the points that
I made earlier.
I mean, we've got to be careful
about what we say about each
other sometimes, because it
boxes us in in ways that makes
it difficult for us
to work together,
because our constituents
start believing us.
They don't know sometimes this
is just politics what you guys
-- or folks on my
side do sometimes.
So just a tone of civility
instead of slash and
burn would be helpful.
The problem we have sometimes is
a media that responds only to
slash-and-burn-style politics.
You don't get a lot of
credit if I say, "You know,
I think Paul Ryan is a pretty
sincere guy and has
a beautiful family."
Nobody is going to run
that in the newspapers.
Speaker: (Inaudible.)
(laughter.)
The President:
And by the way, in case he's going to get a Republican
challenge, I didn't mean it.
(laughter.) Don't
want to hurt you, man.
(laughter.) But
on the specifics,
I think both sides can take
some blame for a sour climate
on Capitol Hill.
What I can do maybe to help is
to try to bring Republican and
Democratic leadership together
on a more regular basis with me.
That's, I think, a
failure on my part,
is to try to foster better
communications even if
there's disagreement.
And I will try to see if we
can do more of that this year.
That's on the sort
of the general issue.
On the specific issue
of trade, you're right,
there are conflicts within and
fissures within the
Democratic Party.
I suspect there are probably
going to be some fissures within
the Republican Party, as well.
I mean, you know, if you went
to some of your constituencies,
they'd be pretty suspicious
about it, new trade agreements,
because the suspicion is
somehow they're all one way.
So part of what we've been
trying to do is to make sure
that we're getting the
enforcement side of this tight,
make sure that if we've got a
trade agreement with China or
other countries, that they are
abiding with it -- they're not
stealing our intellectual
property or making sure that
their non-tariff barriers are
lowered even as ours
are opened up.
And my hope is, is that we can
move forward with some of these
trade agreements having built
some confidence -- not just
among particular
constituency groups,
but among the American people
-- that trade is going to be
reciprocal; that it's not just
going to be a one-way street.
You are absolutely right
though, Peter, when you say,
for example, South Korea
is a great ally of ours.
I mean, when I visited there,
there is no country that is more
committed to friendship on
a whole range of fronts
than South Korea.
What is also true is that the
European Union is about to sign
a trade agreement
with South Korea,
which means right at the moment
when they start opening up their
markets, the Europeans might
get in there before we do.
So we've got to make sure that
we seize these opportunities.
I will be talking more
about trade this year.
It's going to have to be trade
that combines opening their
markets with an
enforcement mechanism,
as well as just
opening up our markets.
I think that's something that
all of us would agree on.
Let's see if we can execute it
over the next several years.
All right, is that it?
Congressman Pence: Jeb
Hensarling, Texas.
And that will be
it, Mr. President.
The President:
Jim [sic] is
going to wrap things up?
Congressman Pence:
Yes, sir.
The President:
All right.
Congressman Hensarling:
Jeb, Mr. President.
The President:
How are you?
Congressman Hensarling:
I'm doing well.
Mr. President, a year ago I had
an opportunity to speak to you
about the national debt.
And something that you and I
have in common is we both have
small children.
The President:
Absolutely.
Congressman Hensarling:
And I left that
conversation really
feeling your sincere commitment
to ensuring that our children,
our nation's children, do not
inherit an unconscionable debt.
We know that under current law,
that government -- the cost of
government is due to grow from
20 percent of our economy to 40
percent of our economy, right
about the time our children are
leaving college and
getting that first job.
Mr. President, shortly after
that conversation a year ago,
the Republicans proposed a
budget that ensured that
government did not grow beyond
the historical standard of 20
percent of GDP.
It was a budget that actually
froze immediately non-defense
discretionary spending.
It spent $5 trillion less than
ultimately what was enacted into
law, and unfortunately, I
believe that budget was ignored.
And since that
budget was ignored,
what were the old annual
deficits under Republicans have
now become the monthly
deficits under Democrats.
The national debt has
increased 30 percent.
Now, Mr. President, I know you
believe -- and I understand the
argument, and I respect the view
that the spending is necessary
due to the recession; many
of us believe, frankly,
it's part of the problem,
not part of the solution.
But I understand and
I respect your view.
But this is what I don't
understand, Mr. President.
After that discussion, your
administration proposed a budget
that would triple the national
debt over the next 10 years --
surely you don't believe 10
years from now we will still be
mired in this recession -- and
propose new entitlement spending
and move the cost of government
to almost 24.5 percent
of the economy.
Now, very soon, Mr. President,
you're due to submit
a new budget.
And my question is --
The President:
Jeb, I know there's a question in there somewhere,
because you're making a
whole bunch of assertions,
half of which I disagree with,
and I'm having to sit here
listening to them.
At some point I know you're
going to let me answer.
All right.
Congressman Hensarling:
That's the question.
You are soon to submit a
new budget, Mr. President.
Will that new budget,
like your old budget,
triple the national debt and
continue to take us down the
path of increasing the cost of
government to almost 25 percent
of our economy?
That's the question,
Mr. President.
The President:
Jeb, with all due respect,
I've just got to take this last
question as an example of how
it's very hard to have the kind
of bipartisan work that we're
going to do, because the whole
question was structured as a
talking point for
running a campaign.
Now, look, let's talk about
the budget once again,
because I'll go through
it with you line by line.
The fact of the matter is, is
that when we came into office,
the deficit was $1.3 trillion.
-- $1.3 [trillion.] So when you
say that suddenly I've got a
monthly budget that is higher
than the -- a monthly deficit
that's higher than the annual
deficit left by the Republicans,
that's factually just not true,
and you know it's not true.
And what is true is that we came
in already with a $1.3 trillion
deficit before I
had passed any law.
What is true is we came in with
$8 trillion worth of debt over
the next decade -- had nothing
to do with anything
that we had done.
It had to do with the fact that
in 2000 when there was a budget
surplus of $200 billion, you had
a Republican administration and
a Republican Congress, and we
had two tax cuts that
weren't paid for.
You had a prescription drug plan
-- the biggest entitlement plan,
by the way, in several decades
-- that was passed without it
being paid for.
You had two wars that were
done through supplementals.
And then you had $3 trillion
projected because of the lost
revenue of this recession.
That's $8 trillion.
Now, we increased it by a
trillion dollars because of the
spending that we had to
make on the stimulus.
I am happy to have any
independent fact-checker out
there take a look at your
presentation versus mine in
terms of the accuracy
of what I just said.
Now, going forward,
here's the deal.
I think, Paul, for example,
head of the budget committee,
has looked at the budget and
has made a serious proposal.
I've read it.
I can tell you what's in it.
And there are some ideas in
there that I would agree with,
but there are some ideas that
we should have a healthy debate
about because I don't
agree with them.
The major driver of our
long-term liabilities,
everybody here knows, is
Medicare and Medicaid and our
health care spending.
Nothing comes close.
Social Security we could
probably fix the same way Tip
O'Neill and Ronald Reagan sat
down together and they could
figure something out.
That is manageable.
Medicare and Medicaid --
massive problem down the road.
That's where -- that's going to
be what our children have to
worry about.
Now, Paul's approach -- and
I want to be careful not
simplifying this, because I know
you've got a lot of detail in
your plan -- but if I
understand it correctly,
would say we're going to provide
vouchers of some sort for
current Medicare recipients at
the current level --
Congressman Ryan:
No.
The President:
No?
Congressman Ryan:
People 55 and above --
The President:
Fifty-five and --
well, no, I understand.
I mean, there's a
grandfathering in,
but just for future
beneficiaries, right?
That's why I said I didn't want
to -- I want to make sure that
I'm not being unfair
to your proposal,
but I just want to point
out that I've read it.
And the basic idea would be that
at some point we hold Medicare
cost per recipient constant as
a way of making sure that that
doesn't go way out of whack,
and I'm sure there are some
details that --
Congressman Ryan:
We drew it as a
blend of inflation
and health inflation, the point
of our plan is -- because
Medicare, as you know, is a $38
trillion unfunded liability --
it has to be reform for younger
generations because it won't
exist because it's
going bankrupt.
And the premise of
our idea is, look,
why not give people the same
kind of health care plan we here
have in Congress?
That's the kind of reform
we're proposing for Medicare.
(applause.)
The President:
No, I understand.
Right, right.
Well, look, as I said before,
this is an entirely
legitimate proposal.
The problem is twofold: One
is that depending on how it's
structured, if recipients are
suddenly getting a plan that has
their reimbursement
rates going like this,
but health care costs are
still going up like that,
then over time the way we're
saving money is essentially by
capping what they're getting
relative to their costs.
Now, I just want to point out --
and this brings me to the second
problem -- when we made a very
modest proposal as part of our
package, our health
care reform package,
to eliminate the subsidies going
to insurance companies for
Medicare Advantage, we were
attacked across the board,
by many on your aisle,
for slashing Medicare.
You remember?
We're going to start cutting
benefits for seniors.
That was the story that was
perpetrated out there -- scared
the dickens out of
a lot of seniors.
No, no, but here's my point.
If the main question is going to
be what do we do about Medicare
costs, any proposal that
Paul makes will be painted,
factually, from the perspective
of those who disagree with it,
as cutting benefits
over the long term.
Paul, I don't think
you disagree with that,
that there is a political
vulnerability to doing anything
that tinkers with Medicare.
And that's probably the biggest
savings that are obtained
through Paul's plan.
And I raise that not because
we shouldn't have a series
discussion about it.
I raise that because we're not
going to be able to do anything
about any of these entitlements
if what we do is characterized,
whatever proposals are put out
there, as, well, you know,
that's -- the other party
is being irresponsible;
the other party is trying to
hurt our senior citizens;
that the other party
is doing X, Y, Z.
That's why I say if we're going
to frame these debates in ways
that allow us to solve them,
then we can't start off by
figuring out, A,
who's to blame; B,
how can we make the American
people afraid of the other side.
And unfortunately, that's how
our politics works right now.
And that's how a lot of
our discussion works.
That's how we start off --
every time somebody speaks in
Congress, the first
thing they do,
they stand up and all the
talking points -- I see Frank
Luntz up here
sitting in the front.
He's already polled it,
and he said, you know,
the way you're really going to
-- I've done a focus group and
the way we're going to really
box in Obama on this one or make
Pelosi look bad on that one
-- I know, I like Frank,
we've had conversations
between Frank and I.
But that's how we operate.
It's all tactics, and
it's not solving problems.
And so the question is, at what
point can we have a serious
conversation about Medicare
and its long-term liability,
or a serious question about --
a serious conversation about
Social Security, or a serious
conversation about budget and
debt in which we're not simply
trying to position
ourselves politically.
That's what I'm
committed to doing.
We won't agree all the
time in getting it done,
but I'm committed to doing it.
Congressman Ryan:
Take one more?
The President:
You know, I've already
gone over time.
But I'll be happy to take your
question, Congressman, offline.
You can give me a call.
All right, thank you, everybody.
God bless you.
God bless the United
States of America.
Thank you, everybody.
(applause.)
